I don’t understand why NATO membership is still being discussed as if it was a real world possibility. This is literally the root cause of the war, and now that Russia is very clearly winning the war, there is zero chance they will agree to anything of the sort. The only options available are neutral Ukraine or no Ukraine at all. It’s clear that the ghouls of the west would rather see the latter scenario and fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
If neutrality would have worked, Ukraine would still have the Crimean peninsula.
Oh jeez, I wonder what Russian actions in Crimea could’ve possibly been a response to. 🤔
Rumer would contend that Russia’s actions in Crimea were driven by core strategic interests, not merely a response to Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation. He has noted that Russia felt “betrayed” by Western support for regime change in Kyiv and acted to protect its vital interests, which it saw as threatened by Ukraine’s potential alignment with the West. Even if Ukraine had declared neutrality, Russia would likely have pursued annexation to secure its Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol and assert dominance over what it considers its historical sphere of influence. Neutrality would not have addressed Russia’s perception of vulnerability or its ambition to reshape the regional order.
Rumer has highlighted that NATO enlargement, while not explicitly intended to threaten Russia, created a dynamic of hedging against Russian resurgence. Russia was never integrated into European security structures like Germany was after World War II, leading to a sense of exclusion and mistrust. He argues that the West lacked a coherent strategy for Russia after the Cold War, relying on hope rather than a realistic framework for engagement. Thus, Crimea’s annexation was a culmination of long-standing grievances, not a reaction to short-term provocations.
The author’s analysis suggests that Russia views Ukraine as a critical buffer zone and a symbol of its great-power status. He notes that the competition between the EU and Russia over Ukraine’s economic alignment became a zero-sum game, with Russia willing to use force to prevent Ukraine’s Western integration. Even neutrality would likely have been insufficient unless it explicitly guaranteed Russia’s dominance, which would contradict Ukrainian sovereignty and popular aspirations.
If Ukraine can get invaded by countries for a strategic interest, then neutrality isn’t a viable option for defense for Ukraine. You could even argue that Finlandization isn’t even a viable option any more for Ukraine since given that accepting being in Russia’s sphere of influence doesn’t provide some diminished form of territorial sovereignty.
And Russia may feel threatened by Western encroachment into areas controlled by the former Soviet Union, but those peoples no longer under Soviet/Russian control appear to taking major steps as sovereign entities to resist Russian reestablishment of its former sphere of influence. If anything, increased Russian belligerence has caused formerly neutral countries to reject neutrality as neutrality no longer protects countries from being invaded due to strategic interest.
those peoples no longer under Soviet/Russian control appear to taking major steps as sovereign entities to resist Russian reestablishment of its former sphere
I hate this spheres of interest argument for exactly this reason: it logically follows that Eastern European, central Asian and Caucasian countries neither have nor deserve any sort of say in their future. If you’re not a world power, you’re not allowed to resist imperial expansion (yes, that’s what they’re doing). As an Eastern European, I refuse that denial of our autonomy out of hand.
Seems to ignore the reason why Putin wants a non-NATO neighbor, namely so he can invade and control it.
Why does Putin want to control the 4 oblasts, specifically?
Because he won’t be able to controls the entirety of Ukraine.
This has been the same objective from the outset of the war. Why the 4 oblasts? Are we just erasing the seperatists there that Kiev has been at war with and shelling for the last decade?
“Separatists” just means Russians that wear unmarked uniforms. The Russians had the GRU there from the beginning. It wasn’t an organic movement.
Yes, the Russians were there, for centuries. They are majority ethnically Russian, they speak Russian, and are culturally Russian. The Donbass region was added to Ukrainian jurisdiction in 1922, but to this day they are ethnically Russian. When the Euromaidan coup happened and the far-right Banderites took power, the Donbass region seceded.
“Ethnically Russian” is a racist dogwhistle. Like 30% of the us population is ethnically German. Should Germany now invade?
The US is a settler-colony, that’s an entirely different situation. The Donbass region is historically a group occupied by ethnic Russians, Russian is the dominant language, and it has been this way for centuries. Even a basic Wikipedia article makes this clear. Whether or not the Donbass region is historically occupied by ethnic Russians isn’t what’s in question, what’s important is that the post-Euromaidan government is a group of nationalist Banderites that have been suppressing ethnic Russians, including erasure of the Russian language.
This is why it’s important to recognize that the seperatists have very good reasons to want to leave Ukraine. Those that are against their ability to join Russia through annexation must make the argument that they not be allowed to secede even from a government that has been shelling and slaughtering them.
5 Ukrainian oblasts, two regions of Georgia, one of Moldova, and the US presidency.
The US really is the land of tinfoil. If you’re a dem or a republican, you have to pick your set of convoluted conspiranoid theories, what the fuck is even the point of evidence.
No, lol. Russia does not have control of the US presidency.
According to Russia, who just recently claimed not to have manipulated the outcome of the 2016 election in Trump’s favour.
Looking at your other posts and recognizing your name, it seems you’re someone who takes Russia’s word for everything even on their patently absurd statements.
No, lol. I don’t fall for BlueAnon nonesense. I take Russia’s word when it comes to things backed up by material evidence, and doubt them otherwise. I’m a communist, I hold views common among communists.
Rumer would argue that reducing Putin’s actions to mere desire for invasion and control oversimplifies Russia’s strategic calculus. Instead, he would frame it as:
- A cycle of action and reaction, because Russian aggression is often a response to perceived threats, but it reinforces the very insecurity it seeks to avoid.
- A call for nuanced policy, as the West must deter Russian aggression while addressing legitimate security concerns through diplomacy and arms control.
He would argue that Putin’s insistence on non-NATO neighbors is driven by deep-seated strategic culture and historical trauma, but it cannot justify violating sovereignty. A sustainable solution would require balancing deterrence with engagement to break the cycle of conflict
He (or you) ascribes alot of nuance and careful consideration to someone who has demonstrated nothing but malice and avarice. Putin clearly cares nothing for both the people of Ukraine and his own people. Why are we trying so hard to be understanding to a murderous dictator?
Jesus Christ, liberals really do get their politics from children’s media.
Maybe from superhero movies or videogames
Invading Ukraine has created economic and military challenges for Russia. If only Putin supported the invasion, and everyone else in Russia opposed it, Putin wouldn’t be the President of Russia now. So, we must try to understand who in Russia supports this action. The military / security services are an obvious answer - they would see the risk of a NATO expansion up to the Russian border as a danger that must be avoided at all costs.
NATO was already at the border in 2004 (Baltics) and initially Putin had no problem with it. In 2007 he was suddenly spooked.
There are many issues with your comment.
“Putin had no problems in 2004” is incorrect. Russia’s reaction to the expansion of NATO in 2004 was immediate, harsh, and contained threats of specific counter-measures.
“In 2007, he suddenly got scared” is an incorrect interpretation. The Munich Speech of 2007 was not a sudden reaction of fear, but a thoughtful, ideological and strategic statement by a strengthened Russia. It marked the transition to a tougher and more independent foreign policy course based on rejection of American hegemony and an insistence on taking into account Russian security interests.
The rhetorical escalation was not the result of a sudden emotion, but the result of the accumulation of systemic contradictions, the unwillingness of the West to take into account Moscow’s concerns and the strengthening of Russia, which was ready to challenge the status quo that did not suit it.
Short answer: This isn’t about Putin, Zelensky, or Trump. It’s about millions of human lives. To honor that, we must seek a deep understanding of the history and context at play. Without that earnest effort, we should simply be silent.
Long answer: Eugene Rumer would likely emphasize that his task as an analyst is not to justify Putin’s actions, but to understand their causes and consequences. In his commentaries, he often stresses the need to soberly assess the motives and calculations of the Kremlin, even if they seem irrational or immoral. For example, in the context of the Kerch Strait incident, Rumer noted that the cancellation of the Trump-Putin meeting was a tactical move, not a fundamental change in course. This approach allows for forecasting Russia’s further actions, which is necessary for developing effective policy.
When the schoolyard bully is on top of you, punching you in the face, it feels inappropriate to contemplate his bad childhood.
Your comment represents an emotional analogy rather than an analytical assessment. While such a metaphor may reflect someone’s subjective feelings, it is unsuitable for analyzing a complex geopolitical situation.
Russia is not a “schoolyard bully,” but a sovereign state with a centuries-old history, complex political processes, and a multifaceted foreign policy. Its actions on the international stage are based on specific national interests, security considerations, and historical context.
Oversimplified analogies that reduce complex international relations to schoolyard conflicts do not contribute to constructive dialogue or an understanding of real geopolitical dynamics.
Your very long comment reveals that you understand the analogy but would rather complain about it than address it. Russia invaded Ukraine and is killing it’s people, correct? Digging deep into the geopolitical history to find some kind of reason is very much like apologizing for this murderer. It’s not an academic pursuit or a fun problem to study, it’s “I’ve got tanks and disposable people, I’m taking your land”.
Are we supposed to just erase that Kiev was shelling and slaughtering the seperatists in the Donbass region for a decade prior? And that these same people specifically requested Russia comes in and help? It’s incredibly important to analyze situations and why they happen, because they tell you what options we realistically have when it comes to trying to find the best outcome. It seems you’ve taken the opposite approach, turning a blind eye to everything that built up towards this in a Marvel-style hope that the “good guys” will beat the “bad guys” and everyone will live happily every after.
Your comment is a prime example of the clash between two paradigms in understanding international relations:
-
The Liberal-Idealist Paradigm, where conflicts arise from the violation of universal norms and rights. The solution is to isolate the aggressor, punish it, and support the victim. Morality and law are the main guiding principles. The comment is written from this perspective.
-
The Realist Paradigm, from Classical Geopolitics, where international relations are an anarchic environment where states rationally (though sometimes erroneously) pursue their national interests based on security, power, and influence. From this viewpoint, moral assessments are useless for analysis; one must study the balance of power, geography, interests, and perceived threats.
You made a morally powerful but analytically poor statement. It accurately reflects the emotional mood of a significant part of the international community and serves as an important reminder of the human dimension of the conflict. However, as a tool for understanding what is happening and forecasting future events, it is useless and even harmful, as it calls for the abandonment of critical analysis in favor of pure moralizing. The task of a geopolitical expert is to synthesize both approaches: to be fully aware of the monstrous nature of events, while also coldly and rationally analyzing the mechanisms driving them.
-
