Now I know the usual war mongers are not going to read any of this but im going to post it anyway ~
lets do another monologue -
Victoria Nuland's leaked call (the "F*** the EU" tape) suggested the U.S. was influencing Ukraine’s political transition, favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the post-Maidan Prime Minister. Ukraine’s media was reportedly 90% U.S.-funded, shaping public perception and pushing a pro-Western narrative. The Ukrainian government post-2014 took a sharply anti-Russian stance, aligning with NATO and the EU, despite Ukraine’s prior neutral positioning. If the U.S. was funding and orchestrating the Maidan movement, controlling the media, and installing pro-Western figures, then the idea that Ukraine was making an independent choice becomes questionable. If Ukraine was not truly independent, then the claim that it had the right to align with the West “as its people wanted” becomes shaky, since public perception was actively manipulated. Russia, seeing Ukraine as a U.S. puppet, viewed NATO expansion as a direct threat. This gives weight to the argument that the war was provoked rather than purely an act of Russian aggression.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded eastward despite verbal assurances (as claimed by Russian officials) that it wouldn’t move closer to Russia’s borders. Since at least 2007 (his famous Munich Security Conference speech), Putin has made it clear that NATO expansion into Ukraine was unacceptable. After the Maidan coup and Ukraine’s pivot toward the West, NATO ties deepened. In 2019, Ukraine’s constitution was amended to make NATO membership a strategic goal. Russia had strong trade relations with the EU before the sanctions, so a purely economic relationship with Ukraine (without NATO involvement) might have been acceptable.
Oleksiy Arestovych, a former advisor to Zelenskyy, has made several statements that suggest Ukraine was well aware that its actions would provoke a war with Russia. He acknowledged that Ukraine’s move toward NATO would inevitably trigger a Russian military response. He described a scenario where Ukraine deliberately pushed toward NATO integration despite knowing it crossed Russia’s red line. This aligns with other evidence suggesting that Ukraine was not simply a passive victim but was making strategic decisions that knowingly led to escalation. If top Ukrainian officials openly discussed that their policies would lead to war, then the mainstream Western narrative—that Ukraine was simply “attacked out of nowhere”—is misleading. If Ukraine knew war was inevitable, why did it proceed? Was it due to assurances from the U.S. and NATO that they would receive military and financial support? If Ukraine itself admitted that NATO integration would trigger a war, then Russia’s claim that this was a defensive move (not an unprovoked invasion) gains credibility.
Ukraine’s leaders wanted to move West because Russia’s economy and political system offered little compared to EU integration. They were likely given false assurances that NATO and the U.S. would fully back them if war broke out. Now, they are stuck in a situation where the U.S. is pulling back support, leaving them in a disastrous war with no clear path forward. The U.S. saw Ukraine as a tool to drain Russia’s military and economic strength. The war was likely not meant to last this long—the plan was that Russian sanctions would cripple Moscow, leading to political collapse. However, Russia survived and adapted, outlasting the economic pressure and continuing its military operations. The U.S. has a history of proxy wars, and Ukraine fits that model. But once it became clear that Russia was not collapsing, the U.S. kept escalating instead of looking for an exit strategy. Instead of reassessing, the U.S. kept sending more advanced weapons—like long-range missiles—which would not change the war’s outcome but would definitely infuriate Russia. This increases the risk of Russia retaliating beyond Ukraine, bringing NATO into the conflict and edging closer to World War 3.
Its clear now that The U.S. never had a real plan for what would happen if sanctions failed. Instead of admitting failure, they kept increasing military aid, hoping for some miracle outcome. Long-range missiles, F-16s, and NATO training aren’t about winning—just dragging the war out longer. This would mean they’re not aiming for World War 3, but their recklessness makes it more likely anyway. a direct NATO-Russia war would almost certainly escalate to nuclear conflict, and that's something the U.S. and NATO would likely want to avoid at all costs. NATO is a nuclear alliance, and Russia has made it clear that it views the prospect of NATO involvement in Ukraine as an existential threat. If it came to a point where NATO and Russia were exchanging fire, there’s no guarantee either side would hold back from using tactical or strategic nuclear weapons.
If Russia were truly an imperialist power seeking to rebuild an empire, we would expect it to have ongoing territorial disputes with all its neighbors, yet in the East, it has successfully resolved its border issues. China: Russia and China resolved their territorial disputes in 2004, with Russia handing over disputed islands along the Amur River. Instead of conflict, the two nations have increased cooperation. Mongolia & Kazakhstan: Russia has had no serious territorial disputes with these nations since the Soviet collapse and maintains stable relations. Japan: While the Kuril Islands dispute remains unresolved, Russia has not aggressively pursued expansion there despite Japan’s strategic significance.
Contrast this with the Western frontier: Russia’s biggest conflicts (Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014-2022) have been with countries moving toward NATO, rather than indiscriminate territorial grabs. This suggests that NATO expansion is the red line, not a broader desire for conquest.
If Russia was bent on expansion, why wouldn’t it have taken advantage of weaker eastern neighbors? Instead, it only reacts aggressively when NATO approaches its borders. This implies that Russia's actions are primarily about defensive geopolitics rather than expansionism. The West’s framing of Russia as a revanchist empire might be an oversimplification—or even deliberate propaganda to justify NATO expansion. If we accept that Russia is acting purely defensively, then the entire Western narrative of "Russian expansionism" falls apart. Instead, it becomes a case of Russia pushing back against Western encroachment rather than seeking territorial conquest.
Georgia (2008) was moving toward NATO → Russia intervened. Ukraine (2014, 2022) was moving toward NATO → Russia intervened. No major conflicts with non-NATO-aligned neighbors. Russia had repeatedly warned that Ukraine joining NATO was a security threat. The West dismissed these concerns as paranoia, yet when Russia finally reacted, it was framed as "unprovoked aggression." Ukraine had agreements in place (Minsk I & II) that could have de-escalated tensions, but they were never fully implemented. Angela Merkel and François Hollande later admitted that the agreements were a stalling tactic to buy Ukraine time to arm itself. If diplomacy had been taken seriously, could war have been avoided? Russia didn’t initially go for full conquest—it sought quick negotiations in the first months. It was Ukraine (backed by the West) that chose to continue fighting, despite heavy losses.
The West presents Russia as an imperialist state, yet its military actions suggest reactive defense against NATO expansion rather than an outright conquest strategy. The Western media ignores how U.S. foreign policy has consistently ignored Russian security concerns. If the U.S. and NATO had agreed to a neutral Ukraine, would the war have happened at all?
------
I asked ChatGPT to debate with me. the above is the outputs. happy to send the entire log if anyone wants it.
This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 21 2025 01:27pm