Link to Old topic : https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=92094408&f=119&o=50000

2004 - NATO Expansion

The geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe was fundamentally reshaped by NATO's largest-ever enlargement, which incorporated seven Eastern European countries, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This move placed the alliance directly on Russia's borders. At the same time, NATO's Istanbul Summit invited Ukraine into an "Intensified Dialogue." Despite this significant westward shift of its strategic buffer zone, Russia's initial response was notably tame, a period of relative acquiescence that would soon end.

2008 - The Summit

The 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest proved to be a critical turning point. Overriding objections from key European powers Germany and France, the alliance issued a definitive declaration that Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO." Russia immediately and forcefully condemned this as a "direct threat," framing it as a profound Western betrayal. This declaration established the central, irreconcilable point of geopolitical contention that would define the next 14 years, cementing Russia's view of NATO expansion as an existential challenge.

2014 - Euromaidan and the Unfolding Crisis

The year began with the Euromaidan protests, which culminated in the ousting of President Yanukovych. This event is characterized by realists as a U.S.-backed coup, a view supported not only by the leaked phone call of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland discussing who to install into Ukraine's new leadership but also by the documented role of USAID. As an arm of U.S. foreign policy, USAID had for years prior provided funding and organizational training to Ukrainian civil society groups and pro-democracy activists, which were instrumental in the protest movement. In response, eastern Ukrainian regions and Crimea refused to recognize the new government's legitimacy, demanding Yanukovych's reinstatement and new elections. The West's immediate recognition of the new government in Kyiv became the immediate driver of conflict. This sparked an eight-year civil war in Donbas, marked by brutal warfare and the use of cluster munitions by both sides, resulting in an estimated 14,000 deaths prior to 2022. The chaos provided the conditions for Russia's annexation of Crimea and its direct military intervention in Donbas.

The trajectory of the conflict was accurately forecast by prominent voices. In a seminal 2015 lecture, University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer outlined The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis, arguing that the West's policy of pulling Ukraine into its orbit was the primary cause of the conflict and a direct path to a larger war. This prediction was echoed from within Ukraine in 2019, when then-advisor to the Ukrainian peace negotiations, Alexey Arestovych, publicly predicted a full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war would occur within 3-5 years, citing Ukraine's deepening military alignment with NATO as the certain trigger.

In the years that followed, the conflict became entrenched. From 2014 to 2021, the U.S. and NATO systematically trained and equipped the Ukrainian military, while Ukraine amended its constitution in 2019 to formally seek NATO membership. Large-scale joint military exercises, such as the annual Rapid Trident drills, became a regular feature, further solidifying the military partnership. In the months leading up to the 2022 invasion, fighting along the line of contact in Donbas intensified significantly, with a sharp increase in cease-fire violations and artillery duels, creating a highly volatile pre-war atmosphere.

2022 - The Invasion

The diplomatic landscape shifted fundamentally with the departure of German Chancellor Angela Merkel in December 2021. Her policy of Wandel durch Handel ("change through trade"), which relied on economic engagement to moderate Russia's behavior, had been a cornerstone of European strategy. With Merkel gone, Europe's independent voice weakened, and the United States took the undisputed driving seat of the Western response.

This shift was decisive. From this perspective, the U.S. strategy constituted a deliberate trap. President Biden's public assurance that he would not deploy U.S. troops to defend Ukraine was interpreted by Moscow as a green light to invade. The U.S. calculation appears to have been to provoke a Russian invasion, anticipating that the subsequent unified Western response—massive sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy and a proxy war fought by Ukrainian forces—would achieve long-sought strategic goals: fatally weakening Russian power and effecting regime change in Moscow.

Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. The initial assault on Kyiv failed, and during March, promising peace talks were underway in Istanbul. Those talks ultimately collapsed shortly after UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson visited Kyiv, reportedly advising Ukraine against negotiations. The U.S. and its allies then pursued their dual strategy of massive military aid and severe sanctions. This strategy failed in its maximalist aim; Russia adapted its economy and deepened non-Western ties, and the regime did not fall. Furthermore, the conflict triggered a historic expansion of NATO with the accessions of Finland and Sweden. Western military aid to Ukraine systematically escalated to include tanks, F-16s, and finally, long-range ATACMS missiles authorized for use inside Russian territory, cementing the conflict as a sustained geopolitical standoff. To this day, the west continues to seek regime change in Russia, by way of seeking to topple the Russian Economy.

Great recap…can’t believe we’re on a second thread. What will finish first? This thread or the war?

I'll try to add some of the key videos over the next few days.

John Mearsheimer - 2015 - The causes and consequences of the Ukraine Crisis (The Realist View)

there is a lot I would add.

First of 1994 Russia set a first step for joining NATO. Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program in 1994. However Russia did not take the pathway of a democratic system after Jelzin as Putin established a dictatorship and runs a quasi parlament. Also used a puppet as president for "hiding" the obvious. Now he is a lifelong prolonged president which conflicts with Russian constitution. In 2008 Putin did officially asked if he could join NATO. however the question never was a serious question, as Putin did know he would have to democratize Russia first, which is not what he wanted to push for. It was a political question which weakened the political opponents of Putin as they lost because of negative perspective of tieing up with the west support.

You also need to differ. Just because it is stated that a state will become a member for NATO, it is totally open when the state will really become a member (hello North Macedonia, it took 21 years)

"23: NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia." - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

if you read this that the state will become members of NATO, you sorry have no clue of the language used in diplomacy

for comparison: "2: Today, we have decided to invite Albania and Croatia to begin accession talks to join our Alliance. We congratulate these countries on this historic achievement, earned through years of hard work and a demonstrated commitment to our common security and NATO’s shared values. The accession of these new members will strengthen security for all in the Euro-Atlantic area, and bring us closer to our goal of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace." - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

I will highlight the differences for you. Russia did use that as an excuse for attakcing Georgia in 2008/09. Both countries had been far away from joining, as both countries had a serious corruption problem. Russia has not been threaten but it feels threaten as it would have to shift heir political system if they want to be more in NATO than a partner.

However Russia did fight along with NATO see Permanent Joint Council (1997) and 2002 Russia-NATO Council until 2014 and the eradication with 2022.

NATO and Russia shared a mission in Bosnia even before they formed any council. In 1999 the NATO bombing of Yugoslawia was politizied by the political enemies of Jelzin, mainly helping an uprising ex KGB spy Putin. However the NATO-Russian peacekeeping force was seen even by Putin as a success.

Putin never tried serious to join NATO. "On equal terms" means for him that one side is NATO the other side is Russia. Also he stated that Russia will be expending the territory (in the year of 2000 as Chechnia was the current fighting place) https://www.upi.com/Archives/2000/03/05/Putin-Russia-would-join-NATO-if-treated-as-an-equal/3113952232400/

regarding USAid this comes due Ukraine being in the MAP of NATO. Also it got funds by the EU. The Euromaidan wasnt just lead by a few activists and social groups, it was an uprise of the majority of Ukraines citiciens. Next to joining NATO Ukraine was also in several EU develop programms, as it also was trying to join the EU.

the Ukraine war was allready forcasted back in 2008/9 when people recognized that Putin stated already in 2000 that Russia will go for further territory. In 2009 it attacked Georgia. And Russia always used the gas pipeline of Ukraine politicaly during the winter time. Shutting down the gas if the leadership of Ukraine went to far pro West/EU. Also the world has seen how Belarus had become a "Sputnik", russian satelite again.

"entrenched" you describe a very natural behavior of a state who is under attack but also a partner of NATO and in an active MAP. If this would not have happened we would not talk about Ukraine right now.

Merkel could not have stopped Putin, also Trump could not. Russias political elite thought that western democracies are weakened by COVID 19 in the way, that politicians would fear to raise issues which could lead to a change of goverment. Putin and his elite thought that democracy is now on their weakest spot and could be easily controlled. However they miscalculated this. The people had been very much ready to suffer financially. The support of Ukraine was high all over the citiziens of the EU who mainly suffered from cutting Russian oil and gas. Putin did lose several prominet figures of the right like Wilders, Meloni even LePen in France, in Poland Donald Tusk did throw out Mateusz Morawiecki from PiS which secured with Hungary in person of Victor Orban a kind of deadlock against anything the EU decides against Russia. Orban now recently even tries to shift his position on Russia (Trumps shift matters here).

And no the strategy of sanctions did not fail (giving the point of doubt here: maybe you mean the strategy of Russia than I would agree). Russia is crumbling right now. The economy of Russia shifted fully to a war time economy. Right now they are trapped as Russia can not stop the war, else it is bankrupt. And even the war time economy is doing shit.. the interest rate is skyrocking. Right now they are at 17%. The people in the US wine if it is 4% or higher. It climbed from 7.5% to 21%. Russia needs to push this below 9% before the next half year. Russia wasnt even able to pay North Korea for the soldiers and also China is demanding payments. India and China both said to buy Russian gas but Russia can not deliver due Ukrainian attacks on oil infrastructure and not having access to technical support for running the pipelines at full speed of the given capacities, they are down on like 1/3 of it but need to met the promised demand on 2/3 up to 3/4 of the capacities.

taking that in consideration, Russia will not have an eternity for letting this conflict run with intensity.



conflicting views are always natural. No one can have all the knowledge, and no one can have the same knowledge as another person, we are wired different and we studied different things even if it is just a tiny small different piece the outcome can be the opposite. All people here have a different level of knowledge and backgrounds. Also we might have different values, which bias the outcome we present.

the war. it takes longer for people to give up a certain opinion than to realize that you can not benefit anymore from a war.

Oh no, not again.

NellielTuOdelschwanck i see your post but the first few posts that i post in this new thread will be background and context. As already noted, there are differing views and by now we know the different views.

Here is the Western, Nato view of the conflict:

Alexander Stubb - Understanding the War in Ukraine (the Western View)



This post was edited by ferdia on Oct 5 2025 12:25am

Many analysts argue that a **wealthy, stable Western world is seen as a political risk to Russia’s current system of power**. Not because Russia fears a direct military threat from rich countries, but because of the **contrast in living standards, freedoms, and opportunities**.

Here are the main points:

### 1. **Fear of comparison**

* When ordinary Russians see how people live in Europe or the U.S.—higher wages, better healthcare, functioning rule of law—it highlights how much they are missing.
* This contrast undermines the Kremlin’s narrative that the West is “decadent, collapsing, and hostile.”
* A wealthy, attractive West could encourage demands for reform or even revolt in Russia.

### 2. **Information control**

* The Russian government spends huge effort on **controlling media and restricting independent information**, precisely to reduce these comparisons.
* Western prosperity is often framed as fake, corrupt, or unsustainable in Russian state media.

### 3. **Geopolitical narrative**

* Putin often positions Russia as an alternative model to the West, rooted in “traditional values” and sovereignty.
* But this narrative works better if the West looks weak, divided, or poor. If the West looks strong and rich, the Kremlin’s message loses credibility.

### 4. **Historical parallels**

* In the late Soviet era, exposure to Western consumer goods, music, and lifestyles played a real role in undermining Soviet legitimacy.
* Many Russian elites today are aware of this history and try to prevent it from repeating.

Russia attacked Ukraine not just because of NATO or borders, but also because it couldn’t allow Ukraine to succeed as a democratic, independent state. Doing so would both inspire Russians to demand more at home and embolden other regions or neighbors to break free.

If Ukraine, a fellow Slavic and historically close nation, became a prosperous democracy integrated with the EU, Russians might start asking:
“Why can’t we have that too?”

That would directly threaten the Kremlin’s authoritarian system, which relies on the idea that Russia’s path is the only viable one.

here is the famous 2019 interview

Alexey Arestovych - 2019 - Predicted Russian - Ukrainian war in 2019

President Trump wants peace.
Putin's Russia isn't doing good, due to sanctions, war spending and Ukraine striking back.
Because of above, I see a potential for peace.
We just need Putin to realize that he won't win.
It can happen anytime. We are on a good path to peace.