"It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them."[0]
And that's coming from a man who said a few minutes earlier:
"There is one of the factor here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward. ... It is not a legally binding, but it was, you might say, a geopolitical deal."[1]
But later on it was a repeating speaking point that it's not Russia's business if NATO decides to expand.
And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014? [2]
[0] https://youtu.be/ZHm_7T7QNl8?si=3j_teBKN1sFVOGSL&t=925
Has Russia ever refrained from offending the West when it suited their interests?
> And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014? [2]
It takes some really stupid arrogance to say shit like this when Ukraine literally had Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion. If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first place.
Of course. Like abstaining in a UN SC vote, allowing NATO bomb Libya.
>Russian stooge as a president at the time, installed via fossil fuel extortion
Nope, Yanukovich was elected by Ukrainian people.[0] Previous pro-Western president received only 6% of votes in the first round.
>If Russia wanted truly neutral Ukraine, they should've backed the fuck off in the first place.
Enlighten me, how backing off when the US supports pro-Western coup in the Ukraine would've resulted in "truly neutral Ukraine"? And please mind your language
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...
The generosity!
> Nope, Yanukovich was elected by Ukrainian people.[0]
Tell me more of those exciting stories. From your link:
>> After all ballots were counted, the Ukrainian Central Election Commission declared that Yanukovych won the election with 48.95% of the vote compared with 45.47% for Tymoshenko.
> Previous pro-Western president received only 6% of votes in the first round.
After the guy was poisoned, disfigured beyond repair all while fighting smear campaigns calling him beekeeper.
You should've linked [0] when you talk about Yushchenko, comrade.
> Enlighten me, how backing off when the US supports pro-Western coup in the Ukraine would've resulted in "truly neutral Ukraine"? And please mind your language
Quid pro quo, it's a really tough principle for Russian to understand, because they're only used to extortion.
> And please mind your language
Your attempt at patronizing is as pathetic as Russian military takeover of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%932006_Russia%E2%80...
(I’ll also note that it seems very weird to use a pinky promise that the US made with a country that no longer exists as some kind of “gotcha.” You presumably don’t factor the Austro-Hungarian empire’s commitments into your geopolitics.)
Russia is legal successor to the USSR.
Somehow the West hadn't written off the debts of "a country that no longer exists" and Russia paid out all of them.
Shall we make concessions to Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany too?
1. Which Gorbachev himself said never happened
2. Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO. After 2022 Sweden and Finland ran to NATO.
> it's not Russia's business if NATO decides to expand.
Countries bordering Russia literally run to NATO the moment they have a choice. I wonder why. It couldn't be Russia who's to blame, could it?
> And should I mention the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014?
Just like Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan? Aurely this calls for immediate invasion and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool.
>Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO.
Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.
And your statement is false, before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining NATO and after 2014 the percentage grew but was very far from "almost everyone"
>It couldn't be Russia who's to blame, could it?
That's typical response. Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't?
>Just like Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan
Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
[0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
I wonder where it came from [0][1].
> That's typical response. Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't?
World superpower (according to Russians themselves) has security concerns about checks notes Ukraine, Baltics, Georgia, Poland, Finland. Seems about right, judging by how war in Ukraine goes.
> Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
My fucking eyes, lmao.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#...
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%932006_Russia%E2%80...
> and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine
Assuming that's true, and it's a big if, let's turn this around: Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to?
> Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia.
Beneath itself like, checks notes, making its industry completely dependent on Russian energy exports and pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea and attacked east of Ukraine. If Europe had a backbone and considered Russia *beneath* them, it would completely kill any trade with it.
It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity.
> Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to?
The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly.
> pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea
Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-agains...
And as history showed, they did the right choice. Or war in Ukraine would be war in Ukraine + Baltics + Romania.
> The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly.
So US is messing with Ukraine, which Russia doesn't like, therefore Russia attacks Ukraine, because it can't compete using its whip with the Wests cookie. Logic checks out.
> Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.
So pretty much ignored Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. The only sanctions Russia understands is boots on the ground and rockets (now drones) attacking their military and refineries.
Edit: I’ll also note that arrogance usually means something closer to “discounting the consequences of your actions,” which is not evidenced here.
So literally Russia invading Ukraine.
And they repeatedly rejected Ukraine and are still doing it? What's your point?