No.. Just a distraction. From the question " who are we"?

Of course it doesn't. It's just ugly Realpolitik from both sides. However only Russia gets scorned for it whereas the US get praised as the innocent saviour, that's my point.

Mine too, thing is we all live under the American narrative.
Most here on the forum are well travelled and see other sides. Billy Bob Cletus from Hurt Buttes, middle of nowhere doesn’t have this luxury.

Correction: NATO will only fight for something else than its own members if this involves what it perceives as patsies, and in the service of empire building. And yet it has abandoned one of these wars humiliatingly this year and predictably, left smoldering messes of the other two.
https://www.e-ir.info/2019/02/06/to-what-extent-was-the-nato-intervention-in-libya-a-humanitarian-intervention/

NATO will hopefully fight for its members and nothing else from now on. Some interventions were a big mistake in the sense that nobody should have helped those countries to solve their ethnical conflicts other than themselves. They were too close to the West otherwise nobody would have cared, I think. Balkans is a political term which doesn't have such a long history as some may think. I will look into quoting some historians if I have the time. It was easier to justify their interventions under the anti-"Balkan" propaganda, which persists in these days too.

The Balkans was a pot on the boil, Tito kept a tight lid on a buch of tribes that did not want to live together, what was a surprise to me that it took so long to blow after Tito´s death.

From that follows that Russia and Ukraine should be left to themselves, let them battle it out. And that the annexation of the Krim is to be accepted, likewise Luhansk and Donezk Oblasts with their ~50% Russians if Putin decides so.

The people living in the Donbas region are being offered Russian passports and it would seem that most are taking them.
I think any armed conflict could be avoided if "The West" without the Amis would guarantee Russian sovereignty over the Donbas. That and a halt to Nato expansion. Why the Americans should take a back seat? America has shown it´s self to be untrustworthy in regards to treaties and promises, remember back in the eighties and early nineties when the US and Russia were almost allies. Then the US started backing seperatists in Georgia and Chechnia. The yanks simply could not stop meddling and poking. If I were in Putin´s chair I would not trust Washington further than I could throw it.

__________________
Back in Bavaria, god´s own belly button.

This NATO expansion narrative is a total fairy tale. That is what RT and all the bots have achieved - now we in the West believe that Russia feels rightfully threatened??? You don't seriously believe that NATO would take a new member that is already partly occupied by a third party, and would immediateöy be able to trigger Article 5???

Georgia is a sovereign country since 9 April 1991.
It does not have separatists, it has loyal citizens who want to keep it as a sovereign country.
Enough of this Russian misinformation!

Russia has claimed the U.S. government provided direct material support and/or intelligence to armed groups operating in Chechnya but no evidence has been produced.

Russia is also untrustworthy. Russian has breached its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum in violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The former Soviet Republics welcome NATO because they are afraid of being taken over by Russia again.

Putin's claim of "missiles on our doorstep" is also a fairy tale as both the US and Russia have enough intercontinental ballistic missiles to wipe out the world without stationing missiles in Europe, although hopefully for us the rumours of Russian missiles rusting in their silos are true.

This and some other stuff clearly shows that you are on a Russian side and not unbiased. Just don’t pretend you are trying to be objective. You should have also mentioned “referendum” in Crimea...

This and some other stuff clearly shows that you are on a NATO side and not unbiased. Just don’t pretend you are trying to be objective. You should have also mentioned “referendum” in Kosovo...

I’m not discussing Kosovo. Kosovo couldn’t and shouldn’t be an alibi for Russian actions in Ukraine.

But nevermind, most Russians don’t get it.

Ah really? So convenient.

Neither is Putin discussing Crimea. Crimea shouldn't be an alibi for NATO actions in Kosovo. But never mind, most Americans don't get it.

Assuming that's true, why would Ukrainians do that?

See the language table by ethnicity, based on Ukrainia's 2001 census. It claims that 5.5mln ethnic Ukrainians in Ukraine have Russian as their main language. What kind of scenario would make that plausible in anyone's native home country?

Using Switzerland as an analogy: What would make a native Swiss German speaker consider a different language as their main one if not the move to a region with a different dominant language? And thereby the move to an area dominated by a different ethnicity?
The way I understand it Putin is deadset against additional borders with Nato and EU countries. Even more so if it entails a 10fold increase or even more of the entire Nato border.

It might be enough if Ukraine became neutral.
As opposed to US misinformation? Keep in mind that the truth is any war's first victim.
Exactly, also.

Is this the grownup version of " I am rubber and you are glue"?

How would that work "Crimea shouldn't be an alibi for NATO actions in Kosovo."

Timescale is all wrong? NATO action in Kosovo was in 1999, Russia Crimea invasion was in 2014?

You are totally right. Putin is 15 years late.

(p.s. better late than never...).

Blah blah blah males aggressiveness blah blah blah angry males.



Why not give ethnic minorities all the rights they are entitled to, like, you know:

- the right to to affirm and be proud of your ethnic identity
- the right to be thought in your mother tongue
- the right to use your mother tongue in the justice system

etc. etc. etc.