The West, USA and Ukraine are also responsible for Russia's behaviour

I made a lengthy reply to another post but I might start another thread with my reply and see what people think:

To me the most fascinating aspect of the Putin interview was his accounts of his interactions with western leaders, particularly US Presidents.

Taking them at face value I think that Putin misinterpreted on two accounts. From memory in the interview it was something along the lines of a chummy conversation with the President who suggested some things might be possible (Russia joining NATO not becoming an opposing force) and then shot them down later after 'consultation'.

I see this as normal practice in western political culture - you don't want to be impolite and direct - or give false promises. Putin seemed be very direct, simply asking, 'can we join?'. I think it's a cultural difference that he does not understand.

I also think that Putin did not understand the extent to which western leaders have a suspicion of dictators. I think in the end they simply didn't like him nor trust him. Gorbachev and Yeltsin had a better rapport with the west. Putin came across and still comes across as a sleazy KGB bureau type. And we know he's a murderer.

And lastly, while we're at it, I think that these rebuffs as well as the rebuffs from the Ukraine are a very significant factor in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Repeated humiliation over decades resulted in anger and a revenge ( Ukraine Invasion) that, hinted by Putin, was planned from as early as 2014.

The invasion is on him and on Russia but I think it represents to some extent the consequence of treating bullies like they are bullies. It is a kind of a vicious cycle. Where the bully wants to mix with the civies but they simply don't like that company and the bully is (diplomatically) rebuffed and, incapable of thinking in a civilized way [due to in this case a culture amongst leaders of Russia of ruthless, murderoue viciousness], becomes more of a bully, more forceful.

In Ukraine in particular this resulted in my opinion and this is the purpose of the thread in a toxic mix of Russian resentment, western croachment, american rebuff, and I'm sorry to say and I will stand by this, just as I did at the time - poor behavior and poor judgment from Ukraine thumbing their nose at Russia (prior to the war starting). It reminds me little bit of the political prisoner leaving the jail, turning around and thumbing their nose at the warden before they have left the grounds.


It is impossible to say if any alteration of behaviour on the part of the west or the Ukraine would have had a different outcome. We will never know but I think there should be lessons for all parties concerned - not just a lesson in moral superiority to the Russians. I actually doubt that Ukraine will take back Donbass, but even if they do, a stripped and beaten back Russia is not a good the outcome for anyone. It simply worsens the tensions in that area. Think: middle east.

Thoughts?

 

I got the impression from the interview that Putin (and previous Russian leaders) failed to recognize that personal promises with US leaders are meaningless, subject to being overruled or ignored either by congress or by the next administration. One could argue that such promises are often made by US leaders knowing that there is no objective way to enforce them in the long term... but regardless, if its not written in a constitutionally compliant and lawfully binding contract, then it might as well have not happened.

But then again, Putin doesnt strike me as to be so ignorant to not actually understand this. I think its more of an excuse.

 

HIS FOREIGN POLICY IS AS CONFUSED AS HE IS: FYI, Biden Doesn’t Really Want Ukraine to Win Either.


This one smells good.

 

A well thought out post.

On the issue of US Presidents yielding to input, I think that's true. That's why they have advisors in the first place. In fact I think it's rare when a President goes against all advice and just does what he wants anyway. Of course we may not know all of the occasions when that happens, but it was reported that the Joint Chiefs were opposed to the total withdrawal from Afghanistan but Biden stuck to his guns and did it anyway, including closing Bagram before everyone was out. That may have been his last decision.

You would think Trump...but he listened to his advisors; to a fault. After a disastrous 2017 meeting at the Pentagon, he wanted to pull out of Afghanistan then, but Kelly talked him out of it, using the my-dead-son card. He also wanted to fully declassify the JFK files and amnesty Assange and was talked out of it by Pompeo. Who knows how many decisions have been steered that way?

 

The West, USA and Ukraine are also responsible for Russia's behaviour.

Don't forget Paraguay and Mianmar.

 

Very good analysis. I hope we learn more than just how to call each other names like “pootin lover” and “warmonger”.

I think you and I talked about this a little when it kicked off. I was wrong. I thought then Russia would win quickly. I failed to learn from Russian history…they are winning like all the times they won in the past. With a lot of casualties over a long period expending a lot of materiel. It looks like Putin will get what he really wanted and the west will have the satisfaction of retaining the majority of Ukraine as a consolation prize.

 

Apologies, but you have caveated your entire position on taking Putin's words in an interview with effing Tucker at face value!?

No, you've gone beyond that and well into Neville Chamberlain territory with this opinion and argument as you've presented it in the OP, imo.

Peace be with you, but Putin is imo beyond redemption and well beyond having any mitigating circumstances caused by misunderstood "Western" diplomatic norms....

 

Still, it's the longest Putin interview by a western journalist since whenever... And what did he talk about straight away?

Surely there's a hint of what the game is about. We've noticed that Putin doesn't like being laughed at or challenged by individuals in Russia. Hard to see why that wouldn't extend to another country.

Agree it's speculation, but here's another speculation - what do you think would happen if Taiwan had been as belligerent and vocal in its language about China the way Ukraine was about Russia? Never mind behaviour. Simply attitude and sneer. I'm betting China would have barrelled across that straight a long time ago. Even with a relatively polite Taiwan they may well invade anyway, just like Russia may have invaded regardless, but still these are factors worth considering.

 

Bribed Joe's reckless federal agencies are far more dangerous to America than Russia is.

Here We Go Again: US, China to Collaborate on Making Bird Flu More Infectious.



Bribed Joe and the overfunded Mid-Wits are not just dangerous to Americans, but to the world. Putin is thug and a killer, but our idiot federal agencies are far more dangerous to everyone.

 

Russia is not a danger to the US.

The USSR under Joe Stalin might have been at one time,
but the Russian Federation is not the USSR or Joe Stalin
or Lenin

 

The thread is about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

 

Then why are NATO countries neighbouring Ukrain and Russia upping their military?

 

Because they are required to spend at least 2% of GDP on weapons.

The point of these endless wars is to sell weapons, the war
is needed as a reason countries can give their populations
for spending money on weapons.

 

Yes. And Bribed Joe is trying to sell the American People on the idea that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is so dangers to America that we need to give him another near $100B for the Ukrainians that gave Bribed Joe's crime family $Millions in bribes, when actually Bribed Joe's corrupt Federal Agencies are far more dangerous to our freedoms than Putin is.

Russia has driven Ukraine out of Avdiivka:

"the front line has shifted substantially, setting the stage for the war’s next grueling chapter as Ukrainian forces retrench and Russian troops reform for future assaults."'

'More crucially, there's no fallback line for the exhausted and retreating Ukrainian army in the area of Avdiivka:
In the retreat from Avdiivka, these problems are exacerbated by the flat and unforgiving terrain outside the city. Without dominant hills, larger rivers or extensive fortifications of the kind it built around Avdiivka over the better part of a decade, Ukraine will probably have to cede more ground to hold back Russian units.'

"They don’t have a well-established secondary line to pull back to. Much depends on whether Russian forces can keep pushing or if they run out of momentum."

'As Western politicians and pundits continue to desperately struggle putting a positive spin on the proxy war in Ukraine in hopes of attracting more urgent defense funding and weapons for Kiev, their arguments will increasingly shift in acknowledgement of the new battlefield reality. In short, they will have no choice.'

https://archive.ph/1I6Sq#selection-895.2-955.44

 

US policy is largely guided by the bureaucrats who stay put as politicians come and go. They can seize opportunities when they come and slow-walk/obstruct changes that are inconsistent with the long-term plans of the bureaucratic regimes otherwise. It is why the State Department has to come out and clean up the mess every time Biden opens his mouth on Taiwan. The US has a one-china policy and they are not going to let Biden change that. They "clarify" whenever Biden goes out acting like Taiwan isn't part of China already.

 

Is it similar to how Miley 'clarified' when China was getting concerned about what Trump might do.

 

That wasn't clarification, that was treason, but it's a topic that's been well covered in other threads.

 

Most military spending by western nations is NOT on weapons.

 

They are all over 2%, Poland almost 4%. Think about it some more.

 

Nope, Putin is literally a Bond villain, it's all his fault.

 

Was he always? Seems to have gotten worse over the years.

 

I have very close to zero interest in empathizing with Vlad's rule over Russia.

 

Sometimes things really are as straightforward as they seem. Russia doesn't believe that the smaller nations on its periphery - especially those that were formerly part of its empire - have any right to exist independent of Russian control.

Russia and Russians believe they have the right to determine the fates and futures of those peoples & nations, including the right to punish them should they decide to act independently. Centuries of behaviour and no end of rhetoric supports this.

Western nations can choose to accept this or they can choose to accept that those nations have a right to the future they choose rather than what Russia chooses for them. In Europe those nations have OVERWHELMINGLY chosen to align with the more democratic & propserous West over the corrupt, authoritarian & relatively impoverished Russian sphere.

To construct any of this as 'provocation' by the West is at best profoundly contemptuous of the wishes of those nations & people & at worst straight out Russian propaganda.

Note: This isn't aimed at the OP, but the Russian apologists & propagandists who seem to flourish on this board.

 

...

 

Same here. Fancy that.

Good to understand the enemy though, huh?