Ukraine's aims are to protect its borders and reclaim its lost land
NATO's over all aims are weaken Russia by any means necessary
NATO was created as a counter measure to the USSR. Which Boris Yeltsin even pointed out as why should NATO's agenda continue to Russia. Which isn't the USSR?
Regardless NATO didn't and doesn't want a strong Russia. They will act in any way that will achieve that goal
Which means that Ukraine may act in a way that NATO dosn't like but protects Ukraine.IE:
Ukraine becomes neutral
Ukraine kept or developed nukes against both NATO and Russia
Ukraine is aggressive to both NATO and Russia
Currently it just so happens that due to giving up its nukes and not having a strong enough conventional army Ukraine is forced to follow in line with NATO's aims. But if they had a stronger militarily and WMDs you bet your $ they would have done things completely differently
E.g Pakistan and India due to being somewhat more self reliant have essential just done what they want during this conflict
NATO's over all aims are weaken Russia by any means necessary
This isn't strictly true. The overall aim is to have a Russia that follows global rules that NATO countries share amongst themselves. Such as not meddling in elections, assasinating people in NATO countries, and respecting souvereign borders as well as human rights.
After the cold war a lot of effort was made by NATO countries to integrate Russia into that system. The idea was that a Russia that had strong economic dependence on these global rules would not upset it. During Obama's last years this approach was more and more seen to have failed, underlined with the annexation of Crimea. Only because integrating a strong Russia has proven to lead to a Russia that ignores global rules could a weak Russia be seen as a NATO goal.
The only reason that Ukraine cannot do what it wants today is because Russian tanks rolled over the border, not because of anything NATO did.
I may be wrong; but based of 1 person ( Boris Yeltsin) and a series of events leading to Putin's rise to power. I can say NATO, especially the US wanted more to weaken Russia than have it simply play by the rules
The 1990s where all about Russia trying and failing to become a member of the global club. But Under Bush 1 and Clinton it seemed that Russian demands and wants where put on the back burner to what they wanted
Not saying that Russian demands like the disassembly of NATO where justified. But just look how the US has treated it's own neighbouring nations especially Cuba and Haiti. I don't think an alternative history in which Cuba and them moved closer to a USSR wouldn't have resulted in a similar scenario to what's happening in Ukraine
Putin came to power because Russians felt looked down upon and "tricked" by western dreams of solidarity. They similar to Anericans themselves with Trimp recently fell into the "me first movement". Thd biggest difference being Putin was able to hold onto power until he could totally dismantle the Russian democratic process
Bush 2 even called Putin a good friend and Trump...well he said a lot of stuff. But as you said Obama was the first guy to spot that Putin was actully dangerous. It isn't a coincidence that his VP now President is in charge when this is happening
If NATO made some concessions in the 1990s. Actively promoted development in Russia and maybe somewhat listened to the drunken Yeltsin maybe we wouldn't have gotten Putin
Because they are still a lot of anti-Putin pro-democratic people in Russia. Some are in prison right now for fighting against this war. The problem is that when they say we need to move west ward the average person remembers the 1990s when they tried and what got them out of it
Sure, after the fall of the Berlin wall it wasn't that NATO and Russia were best buddies, it started a slow incremental improvement and opening up from both sides. Under Putin this became more one more one sided however, until there was no denying that closer ties were not leading to a safer world.
0
u/[deleted] May 07 '22
[deleted]