Nothing about the war in Ukrain?

[Dr. Medulla]

Well, I don't agree with what has been said so far. It is an objective fact that, starting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO has maintained an aggressive and not defensive attitude. This is demonstrated by the numerous illegal military interventions carried out by this military organization. Illegal because they were carried out without any UN authorization and therefore illegal according to International Law. Exactly as the Russians do today in Ukraine, NATO, or even just some of its members, broke the rules of the international community in 1999 against Serbia, in 2001 against Afghanistan, in 2003 against Iraq, in 2011 against Libya...
For a reading of today's events in Ukraine that is as intellectually honest as possible, I believe we cannot fail to take into consideration the data I have just cited, in addition to the incomprehensible unilateral withdrawals of the United States from the most important military treaties signed at the time with the Soviet Union: I am referring in particular to the ABM treaty of 1972.
History is not an a la carte menu in a restaurant where I choose only what best suits my taste. History is made up of a succession of events and we must make an effort to read them in their entirety.
If you want to try to understand why Putin exists in power in Russia today, you need to study what happened in the 90s in Russia.
If we want to try to understand the origins of the conflict in Ukraine, we need to start again at least from the 2007 Munich Security Conference and the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.
Of course, then there is always the reading given by the means of consensus production, proposed by the intelligence agencies that report to the United States military apparatus, which says that Putin has gone mad, is seriously ill, is dying, is dead and that what we see is only a double.

Ukraine can't/couldnt join NATO.

ETA: sorry, I hate coy one line responses to things I wrote, especially when I put in a lot of effort. So I won't do the same to you. What I mean is, without disputing anything in particular about your post, if Putin was animated primarily by concern about NATO, why did he invade a country that can't join NATO?

I’m Sorry but i think it’s too simplistic reading. If NATO has repeatedly failed to respect the UN Statute and International Law, I believe it does not have much problem changing one of its internal rules.

Okay, NATO has extremely self-interested reasons that seem self evident (you don't typically let in countries that can't secure their own borders into mutual security pacts, among other reasons) to allow in countries with unresolved border disputes that any individual member would seek to preserve.

If NATO is/was willing to change their rules to allow Ukraine into the treaty in order to attack Russia, why didn't they just do that two years ago?

Moreover, it's silly speculation to say, oh, well, the other side *might* change their rules so I have to take drastic action against that hypothetical situation. That's the mindset of 2A loons who start paramilitary organizations because, well, the Democrats could just suspend the 2A and confiscate all guns. Is it possible? Sure, I guess it's theoretically in the realm of possibility (I'm being really generous here). But it's not even close to being in the realm of probability, certainly not enough to justify going domestic terrorist. Imagining your enemy doing all kinds of terrible things to you is as seductive as it is dumb a reason for doing terrible things yourself. It's a convenient way of absolving yourself of all your misdeeds.

[Stefano1972]

Well, I don't agree with what has been said so far. It is an objective fact that, starting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO has maintained an aggressive and not defensive attitude. This is demonstrated by the numerous illegal military interventions carried out by this military organization. Illegal because they were carried out without any UN authorization and therefore illegal according to International Law. Exactly as the Russians do today in Ukraine, NATO, or even just some of its members, broke the rules of the international community in 1999 against Serbia, in 2001 against Afghanistan, in 2003 against Iraq, in 2011 against Libya...
For a reading of today's events in Ukraine that is as intellectually honest as possible, I believe we cannot fail to take into consideration the data I have just cited, in addition to the incomprehensible unilateral withdrawals of the United States from the most important military treaties signed at the time with the Soviet Union: I am referring in particular to the ABM treaty of 1972.
History is not an a la carte menu in a restaurant where I choose only what best suits my taste. History is made up of a succession of events and we must make an effort to read them in their entirety.
If you want to try to understand why Putin exists in power in Russia today, you need to study what happened in the 90s in Russia.
If we want to try to understand the origins of the conflict in Ukraine, we need to start again at least from the 2007 Munich Security Conference and the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.
Of course, then there is always the reading given by the means of consensus production, proposed by the intelligence agencies that report to the United States military apparatus, which says that Putin has gone mad, is seriously ill, is dying, is dead and that what we see is only a double.

Ukraine can't/couldnt join NATO.

ETA: sorry, I hate coy one line responses to things I wrote, especially when I put in a lot of effort. So I won't do the same to you. What I mean is, without disputing anything in particular about your post, if Putin was animated primarily by concern about NATO, why did he invade a country that can't join NATO?

I’m Sorry but i think it’s too simplistic reading. If NATO has repeatedly failed to respect the UN Statute and International Law, I believe it does not have much problem changing one of its internal rules.

Okay, NATO has extremely self-interested reasons that seem self evident (you don't typically let in countries that can't secure their own borders into mutual security pacts, among other reasons) to not allow in countries with unresolved border disputes that any individual member would seek to preserve.

If NATO is/was willing to change their rules to allow Ukraine into the treaty in order to attack Russia, why didn't they just do that two years ago?

NATO was present in Ukraine before
February 24, 2022, as witnessed by the numerous military exercises conducted by NATO in Ukraine.
The government currently in power in Kiev had the constitution amended by including an amendment for entry into NATO.
Where did you read that NATO wanted to bring Ukraine into the alliance so they could attack Russia? I believe a more prolonged proxy war would have been enough for NATO, just like the one we are unfortunately continuing to see.
I have heard it said several times, even with some satisfaction, by Blinken, Biden, Nuland... that the dollars they send to Ukraine largely return to the United States for the purchase of weapons, missiles and other instruments of death.
It seems enough clear to me that this war is a colossal affair for the United States.

[Flex]

NATO was present in Ukraine before
February 24, 2022, as witnessed by the numerous military exercises conducted by NATO in Ukraine.
The government currently in power in Kiev had the constitution amended by including an amendment for entry into NATO.
Where did you read that NATO wanted to bring Ukraine into the alliance so they could attack Russia? I believe a more prolonged proxy war would have been enough for NATO, just like the one we are unfortunately continuing to see.
I have heard it said several times, even with some satisfaction, by Blinken, Biden, Nuland... that the dollars they send to Ukraine largely return to the United States for the purchase of weapons, missiles and other instruments of death.
It seems enough clear to me that this war is a colossal affair for the United States.

I'm actually not even sure we're in that much disagreement about a lot of this - and I apologize that my read is going to seem a little uncharitable here - but this to me sounds like you're saying that the prospect of Ukrainian entry into NATO didn't matter that much after all? That, if anything, the United States prefers this state of affairs - as you say, Ukraine outside of NATO and a proxy war that is actually good for the U.S. economy. That would be off the table with Ukrainian entry into NATO.

My original point was a narrow one: that Putin's invasion of Ukraine - an invasion ostensibly about preventing NATO expansion along Russia's border - was essentially a trade for one country (Ukraine) that was unlikely to be admitted in the foreseeable future for two other, wealthier countries admission into the alliance. I'm surprised that people who oppose NATO think this is a good or sensible tradeoff. I'd like to see NATO's influence wane in the world (at least, I think I would, I'm less sure now than I was pre-invasion) and to me it seems like a bad deal for seeing NATO get less powerful or influential.

Also, I keep meaning to start a thread here more broadly about international relations and how we may imagine alternatives to the status quo. One frustration I have - in Ukraine/Russia discussion particularly - is that there's a lot of (often justified) criticism of U.S. and NATO actions and the general policies and actions of the capitalist/liberal democratic western bloc. All fair enough. But we're usually pretty short on discussion of alternatives. or, maybe more accurately, the folks who usually offer up alternatives basically are offering a vision looking backwards into the era of multipolarity as the best we can do. Ten or twenty years ago I had more hope for more atrophy of centralized power and diffusion of self-governance back to a more anarchistic model. But I don't see that vision really shared much anymore and I'm not sure that's really the way we're headed as a self-organzing species. Anyways, I have some preferences for how I think life should be ordered but I don't really have any specific vision in mind, I'd be curious if there's a good discussion to be had. You'd be someone I'd be interested in discussing this sort of thing with, I think it's a friendlier type of discussion to have, anyways.

I'll try to get a thread started with a few more of my thoughts to get things going soon. I keep trying to do it in the evenings but I get too tired by the time work is done and the kiddo is down. This gets me a little of the way to a start at least, I just need more time than sneaking a post or two in during the work day can really allow.

[Stefano1972]

NATO was present in Ukraine before
February 24, 2022, as witnessed by the numerous military exercises conducted by NATO in Ukraine.
The government currently in power in Kiev had the constitution amended by including an amendment for entry into NATO.
Where did you read that NATO wanted to bring Ukraine into the alliance so they could attack Russia? I believe a more prolonged proxy war would have been enough for NATO, just like the one we are unfortunately continuing to see.
I have heard it said several times, even with some satisfaction, by Blinken, Biden, Nuland... that the dollars they send to Ukraine largely return to the United States for the purchase of weapons, missiles and other instruments of death.
It seems enough clear to me that this war is a colossal affair for the United States.

I'm actually not even sure we're in that much disagreement about a lot of this - and I apologize that my read is going to seem a little uncharitable here - but this to me sounds like you're saying that the prospect of Ukrainian entry into NATO didn't matter that much after all? That, if anything, the United States prefers this state of affairs - as you say, Ukraine outside of NATO and a proxy war that is actually good for the U.S. economy. That would be off the table with Ukrainian entry into NATO.

My original point was a narrow one: that Putin's invasion of Ukraine - an invasion ostensibly about preventing NATO expansion along Russia's border - was essentially a trade for one country (Ukraine) that was unlikely to be admitted in the foreseeable future for two other, wealthier countries admission into the alliance. I'm surprised that people who oppose NATO think this is a good or sensible tradeoff. I'd like to see NATO's influence wane in the world (at least, I think I would, I'm less sure now than I was pre-invasion) and to me it seems like a bad deal for seeing NATO get less powerful or influential.

Also, I keep meaning to start a thread here more broadly about international relations and how we may imagine alternatives to the status quo. One frustration I have - in Ukraine/Russia discussion particularly - is that there's a lot of (often justified) criticism of U.S. and NATO actions and the general policies and actions of the capitalist/liberal democratic western bloc. All fair enough. But we're usually pretty short on discussion of alternatives. or, maybe more accurately, the folks who usually offer up alternatives basically are offering a vision looking backwards into the era of multipolarity as the best we can do. Ten or twenty years ago I had more hope for more atrophy of centralized power and diffusion of self-governance back to a more anarchistic model. But I don't see that vision really shared much anymore and I'm not sure that's really the way we're headed as a self-organzing species. Anyways, I have some preferences for how I think life should be ordered but I don't really have any specific vision in mind, I'd be curious if there's a good discussion to be had. You'd be someone I'd be interested in discussing this sort of thing with, I think it's a friendlier type of discussion to have, anyways.

I'll try to get a thread started with a few more of my thoughts to get things going soon. I keep trying to do it in the evenings but I get too tired by the time work is done and the kiddo is down. This gets me a little of the way to a start at least, I just need more time than sneaking a post or two in during the work day can really allow.

Among the causes of the Ukrainian conflict, let's not forget the situation that was created in Luhansk and Donetsk, immediately after the "change of government" in 2014. According to Poroshenko, the Minsk agreements (which were reached after the Ukrainian defeat in Debaltsevo in the Donetsk oblast) were just a pretext to buy time and be able to rearm. This statement by the former Ukrainian president was never denied.
Regarding how to maintain international relations, I find this point very important given the gravity of the moment we are experiencing. First of all, I would like everyone to comply with the Charter of the UN and International Law in the future.
History shows us that breaking those rules subsequently only resulted in greater damage and zero benefits for the populations involved. The disaster created by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan is there to demonstrate this, as well as having been a dangerous precedent that the Russians wanted to imitate.