Finland sacrificing its neutrality to try and join NATO was a phenomenally idiotic move.

  • Vostronix@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    But Putin isn’t interested to find a diplomatic solution, he have his own plans. He will maybe interested in a diplomatic solution if he got more under pressure .But from the past he learned he can do what he want no buddy try stop him. So someone have show his limits like a little child have to learn it. How you can make politic with a guy you can’t trust ? You need some security. Everybody want to find diplomatic solution but you say now to the Ukraines hey common what is wrong with you just find a diplomatic solution with super power there not interested in diplomatic solution and there just reaped and killed you wife and children. Now is time to show unity and strength and i hope Russia is than interested in a diplomatic solution. My way was i tried to inform people on Russia Social Networks that the west are not Nazi peoples. But was also very scary to see if you now playing video games like Insurgency what also a lot of Russia people, there using now west people as a insult.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      This is a false statement. Putin has tried to find a diplomatic solution for over 8 years. The west refused to do diplomacy during this whole time. NATO has expanded for the past 30 years despite promises not to move east. NATO has continuously destroyed countries and continued to surround Russia. Countless western experts warned that this will ultimately lead to a conflict. Politics isn’t about trust. It’s about understanding your interests and the interests of others. It’s about recognizing red lines, and creating conditions where conflict can be avoided.

      Russia never threatened Ukraine until the west ran a coup there, and put in a regime there with ambitions to absorb it into NATO. Finland and Sweden have never been threatened by Russia, until they expressed ambitions to join NATO. It’s as if NATO expansion has been the key destabilizing factor here all along as everyone who has a modicum of understanding of the subject has been saying.

      The escalation created the current crisis and now you’re claiming that the solution is more escalation. You’re absolutely insane and people like you will be the end of us all.

      • Ninmi@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I believe they threw their president out because he stopped the EU progress they had made and had nothing to do with NATO. NATO came formally in to the picture in 2019 once the threat from Russia had mounted.

              • liwott@nerdica.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                US officials, unhappy with the scuttled EU deal, saw a similar chance in the Maidan protests.

                ,

                It’s an overstatement to say, as some critics have charged, that Washington orchestrated the Maidan uprising. But there’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited it for their own ends.

                Your source states very clearly that the US did not orchestrate the Maidan protests, and that its involvement was due to the aborted EU-deal.

                Nothing in there about the Maidan government wanting to join NATO, aside from one reference to Putin’s paranoia about it :

                After Putin moved to secure the Crimean naval base from NATO control

                Indeed, the article referenced in this sentence says:

                “Our decision on Crimea was partly due to … considerations that if we do nothing, then at some point, guided by the same principles, NATO will drag Ukraine in and they will say: ‘It doesn’t have anything to do with you.’”

                So, according to your source, Crimea was not annexed in reaction to Ukraine giving up its neutrality, but in prevision of it.