1. The Baltics joined NATO when Russia was still in disarray and aren't as important strategically. Russia tried to join NATO itself after that but was rebuffed.
2. This was primarily for domestic consumption and the West picked it up in February/March together with the notion that Putin had gone mad. Hardly anyone talks about either of these theories any longer.
> Russia tried to join NATO itself after that but was rebuffed.
Yes but it's not that simple. First, do you trust Russia in NATO? Given the nefarious things Russia has done over the last 30 years, you can't trust this on the face of it. It would be a very Russian thing to do. By accounts that I've read (open to other readings here) Russia wanted to join in a privileged position as well, versus as "just another country" and wanted to be fast-tracked and so forth.
> The Baltics joined NATO when Russia was still in disarray and aren't as important strategically.
I don't find any sympathy with the disarray argument. That just says "these countries joined NATO when Russia couldn't do anything about it". Your point about strategic importance, though, is well taken. Ukraine is strategically important for many reasons. Some/one of which is that it can undermine Russia's stranglehold on European gas imports.
> This was primarily for domestic consumption and the West picked it up in February/March together with the notion that Putin had gone mad. Hardly anyone talks about either of these theories any longer.
Agreed. I think the simple case is simply that Putin believe(s)(d) that he had enough negotiating power against NATO countries to be able to stop them from inflicting serious damage on Russia after invading Ukraine, and also that because Ukraine (in Putin's words) isn't a state, the fiction would simply collapse once Russia arrived. We don't do a great job and assume that our incentives are the same as someone else's. In this case Putin couldn't give a crap less about dead people and economic destruction. He cares about The Historical Unity of Russians and Ukraine. Perhaps at a much higher cost than we are willing to endure.
- An Orange Revolution happens in Canada in 2014, backed by KGB neocon equivalents of Nuland/Graham.
- A Russia friendly regime is installed in Canada in 2014.
- Canada has regions with large U.S. populations.
- Canada keeps pushing for Warsaw Pact membership.
- At a security conference in Munich in 2022, Canada's Russia friendly prime minister mentions that he could acquire nuclear weapons.
Would you say that the U.S. would likely invade according to the Monroe doctrine? Or would you say that Canada has the right of agency?
None of this is excusing Russia, but disregarding these issues leads to escalation. I'm astonished that the NATO hardliners apparently think that their policies have been a success (they are of course a success if the goal was a proxy war that tests the strength of Russia's military in the first place).
You over-simplify things quite a bit. Just because people in given country want freedom and not have as rulers constant puppets of russia doesn't mean they became US lapdogs. Its russia's fault that they globally represent oppression, corruption, incompetence, war crimes and now even genocide of their closest neighbors. Nobody normal would want to align with that voluntarily, only other bullies and murderers (which is exactly whats happening if you look at ie UN voting re Ukraine).
Don't forget that Ukraine during ruling of all those russian puppets became country so desperately poor that even such a place like russia was rich by comparison. I don't find it strange at all that people just wanted to get rid of this constant negative drag on their very existence.
In this analogy the US also agreed to protect Canada’s security for denuclearization, which they would have done (I.e. defanged threat).
Russia ignoring the Budapest memorandum will be the most damning long term consequence since it teaches everyone that you will be attacked if you denuclearize.
These kinds of comments are a waste of time, some people are simply only capable of seeing their side as the good guys, and/or everything that happens as mono-causal.
Why do these analogies always leave out the part where the US commits genocide time and time again against Canada so that Canada sees such pacts as the only way to survive against renewed US calls for genocide in Canada?
2. This was primarily for domestic consumption and the West picked it up in February/March together with the notion that Putin had gone mad. Hardly anyone talks about either of these theories any longer.