Kinda. There’s a really good chance he only invaded Ukraine because a Yes Man told him it would only take a few days and the west wouldn’t get involved. >
I don’t think there’s any good reason for two countries to go to war. It’s weird you would say wanting land is a justification.
Russia’s stated reason was and is for a security buffer against NATO. It’s not justified but I don’t understand why you’re pretending it’s not the reason.
NATO wasn’t in Ukraine, Ukraine had pledged not to join NATO as part of their disarmament, and the attack on Ukraine encouraged more countries to join NATO.
If “a buffer against NATO” was the actual goal, that existed in post-Maidan Ukraine already, and the invasion directly counteracts that goal.
Also their stated reason was denazification of Ukraine, which is pretty much just rejected by the international community as an unreasonable CB.
There were several goals stated. It’s clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence
that denazification was meant for domestic politics.
The Minsk accords were never implemented and Merkel bragged about it being a small tactic to arm the Ukrainians.
I suppose we’ll see who ends up writing the history books to see which of us is right.
World leaders wont arrest each other because they don’t want to set a precedent.
Isn’t that happening with Putin now?
Kinda. There’s a really good chance he only invaded Ukraine because a Yes Man told him it would only take a few days and the west wouldn’t get involved. >
Oh I’m fairly certain that’s what happened.
This is the entire point of declaring (even informally) a reasonable Cassus Belli
Russia does not have a reasonable reason to go to war with Ukraine that is not “we want that land”
I don’t think there’s any good reason for two countries to go to war. It’s weird you would say wanting land is a justification. Russia’s stated reason was and is for a security buffer against NATO. It’s not justified but I don’t understand why you’re pretending it’s not the reason.
NATO wasn’t in Ukraine, Ukraine had pledged not to join NATO as part of their disarmament, and the attack on Ukraine encouraged more countries to join NATO.
If “a buffer against NATO” was the actual goal, that existed in post-Maidan Ukraine already, and the invasion directly counteracts that goal.
Also their stated reason was denazification of Ukraine, which is pretty much just rejected by the international community as an unreasonable CB.
There were several goals stated. It’s clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that denazification was meant for domestic politics. The Minsk accords were never implemented and Merkel bragged about it being a small tactic to arm the Ukrainians. I suppose we’ll see who ends up writing the history books to see which of us is right.
The US and EU will write the history books, regardless of who wins the war.
Effectively, those two are the world, despite being a minority population. That’s just the way the geopolitical cookie crumbles.