Great Power contentions

[spmetla]

Calling Yanukovich a Russian puppet is pushing it. He was a democratically elected president of Ukraine. His approval numbers were abysmal around 2014, but so were pretty much all of Ukrainian politicians, due to widespread corruption. His predecessor, Yuschenko, a western darling, was polling in the single digits before Yanukovich was elected. It was a trend. A highly inefficient and corrupt government institutions tend to have that effect. And every time a new face is elected, people are initially overjoyed that it is finally turning around, and they end up leaving the office with abysmal rating.

And he remained in power until he pulled the Ukraine off the path of joining in the EU leading to the Euromaiden revolution.

Zelensky didn't have overwhelming support either until it was clear he was willing to stay in Kiev and not flee to the West. Had he fled as offered by the US, who knows how long Ukraine would have had the political will to continue resisting.

In regards to neutral status, Finland's example suggest it is quite possible, even if they were at war twice in recent years before that agreement was signed. USSR forced them to lease several naval bases after WW2 for 50 years. After the agreement was signed in 1955 or 56, can't remember, in which Finland agreed to neutrality, USSR cancelled the lease, returned all naval bases to Finland, demilitarized the border and there was a generally very prosperous relationship. Finland was free to pursue economic ties with both the West and USSR and develop in peace. It lasted over 70 years, and is currently still going on. I assume it will still go on unless Finland joins NATO.

Neutrality is fine with me but not a disarmed neutrality.

I know people in the West tend to see NATO almost purely in a positive light, but for the rest of the world, it is not so. Objectively, NATO countries have started most wars, invaded most countries, meddled the most in other countries affairs, both overtly and covertly, fostered and encouraged civil wars, propped up dictators and autocrats etc... since WW2, by a very large margin.

If you put the window back to:from WW2 to present I think the Warsaw pact actually has a worse history in regards to interfering and propping up every revolution in the third world. Not to mention when France left NATO in the 60s they weren't invaded, the US just closed it's bases there. Not like the USSR invading Hungary or Czechoslovakia to keep them in the Warsaw Pact. Propping up and funding a communist revolution movement in almost every African and South American country certainly wasn't the kindest, nor was the US supporting the cruel dictatorships that tried to fight those communist revolutions.
If the window is post USSR, then yes, NATO countries have been involved in more wars and interventions but not necessarily as NATO. I know the intervention in Yugoslavia/Serbia is a touchy subject, the next 'NATO' war was the reaction to 9/11 which involved fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Libya was the only real 'adventurism' of NATO.

I think it's important to separate NATO and the US though because US foreign policy is not equal to NATO. There's no shortage of flawed US interventions but that doesn't equal NATO. Same with France and the UK, their intervention in former colonies does not equal NATO. That's why the Falkland War did not get NATO support behind the UK just some intel support from the US an France pausing their exocet missile sales to Argentina.

Bottom line though, NATO is not a direct threat to Russia as nuclear deterrence will prevent any direct NATO aggression. Russia demanding to keep a sphere of nation's that don't necessarily want to be vulnerable to Russian bullying isn't exactly fair either.

It's not like NATO is posturing itself right now to march on Kaliningrad and hit the Russians while they're tied down in Ukraine. No one is advocating retaking Crimea to punish the Russians. NATO and the EU are instead helping the Ukraine to the best degree possible short of direct intervention fight off unwarranted Russian aggression. The troops sent to the east of the alliance is because those countries very understandably fear Russia trying to reclaim its old empire.

Imagine Austria demanding South Tirol from Italy and an annexation of Slovenia, it'd be ludicrous. Pulling up old maps of when country X controlled countries Y and Z doesn't justify invasion. This is why the efforts to support Ukraine are so important in keeping any future deals with Taiwan to remain in the peaceful realm. If the PRC ever undertakes reforms that make Taiwan want to join them again cool, the PRC invading to rule something they've never ruled and only the last dynasty of China conquered is not acceptable.