Many of us are binge reading history in all directions. But yeah the authority-flooding is exhausting. I mostly mentioned him to balance my comment. I have no idea which is true or not here.
What he states is historically true, and if you oversimplify it you might come to the conclusion that Russia simply had to invade Ukraine. But that's bullshit, nothing good ever came of it. The dumb part is that the West financed this war, not that they caused it.
What can I say.. in this era we keep watching back to find who did what.. and international relationships history is a dumpster of vague talks, mild backstabbing, potential manipulations.. and kilotons of paranoia. I can never find any clarity in this.
I kinda agree that the putin logic is far fetched..
Even Putin agrees, he's been wandering from one pretext to another hoping that something will stick. Let's see if any 'Ukranian' planes bomb Belarus or there is some ridiculously farfetched dirty bomb plot that will allow yet one more country to not only be bullied to accept Russian troops (though I don't think Lukashenko needed much bullying) but to actually incur casualties for what isn't their war at all. Obviously, when Putin draws in other countries it is fine, but when Ukraine asks for help that's cause for WWIII.
No, it's just that he happens to allow you and others to do what you like about it: trumpet all over that 'the West' caused Russia's invasion into Ukraine. When in fact if you follow that line of thought it was Hitlers mom who caused World War II.
The only person responsible for the invasion into Ukraine is Putin, it was entirely optional, no matter who predicted that it would happen.
Also: there is a substantial number of HN accounts in recent times whose only purpose seems to be to plant Russian talking points and I wonder if those are mostly by useful idiots or by hostile parties, so be careful whose water you carry.
I'm sure you will find a way to tie each and every man, woman and child murdered by Russian soldiers to 'the West' but it isn't very believable, even if you have to find the need to quote a professor (your appeal to authority was noted).
It doesn't take much imagination to think what the US would do if China began to make a "special pact" with Mexico. The US would very aggressively put that to an end, one way or another. This is essentially the same. Of course if we continue to coax the expansion of NATO (ie the international arm of the US military) onto the Russian border it will cause problems. Why would we ever pretend otherwise?
Perhaps some historical context would help? Going back 25 years there has been universal acknowledgement that the further expansion of NATO to Russian borders was guaranteed to trigger conflict and potentially WWIII - https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o...
No, we should blame mothers milk. Every dictator that was ever born drank it, therefore mothers milk is responsible for the invasion of Ukraine.
Again, can you please stop with the dumb propaganda pieces trying to West-Wash the Russian invasion into Ukraine? It is beyond boring. If it is your goal to drive people away from HN by rehashing the same inane arguments over and over again that is of course your freedom but since you, as a new entrant are not gaining anything and we lose something it would seem that this is a non-zero sum game where in the end we're looking at a net loss.
The only party responsible for the invasion of Ukraine is one V. Putin and by extension the Russian state. Attempts to drag the past in by the ears or otherwise are counterproductive. If anything NATO should have accepted Ukraine because we already know the result of not accepting them. See also several treaties that Russia just decided to wipe its arse with.
If you don't think the expansion of NATO, the US-backed Ukrainian coup/revolution/othercutename[1] or the US essentially handpicking the post-coup leadership in Ukraine[2] have anything at all to do with why Russia has decided to invade Ukraine, what do you think is the reason?
