just curious how many of the following issues are ever discussed in Western media outlets?
A lot since half of what you've quoted below is from Western commentators.
* NATO's continual expansion eastwards towards Russia despite assurances provided to Russia that NATO would not expand further and countless Western commentators noting that it could lead to war and disaster... NATO went so far as to announce in early 2008 that NATO would continue expansion to include Georgia and Ukraine... and interestingly, there has been conflict in both subsequently with Russia... was the West far-sighted? was it a self-fulfilling prophecy? a deliberate Western provocation with Ukraine and Georgia martyred?
and for people thinking NATO expansion is just a Russian talking point -
John Mearsheimer's video --> "Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?"
Steve Cohen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9jULgC42o
Vladimir Pozner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjjGWPvzse0
Malcolm Fraser (former Australian Prime Minister)
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/malcolm-frasers-foreign-policy-wisdom
Pat Buchanan
https://buchanan.org/blog/where-does-nato-enlargement-end-158977
Jeffrey Sachs
https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...rainian-neutrality-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2022-02
“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” - Bill Burns (former US Ambassador to Russia)
https://theconversation.com/ukraine...to-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999
In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.”
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion
So u know that Russia joined the NATO PNP program in the 90's, which is a precursor to NATO membership. Then they stopped. Why? Western view, Putin didn't want to 'wait in line' and had to many anti-western military figures against it. The eastern view is NATO encroachment on Russia. Which is a completely stupid argument, why would u worry about NATO being nearby when you are a member of NATO. Debunked.
* the Euromaidan protests, the toppling of the democratically elected Yanukovych government in Ukraine in February 2014 and Western involvement in said coup
Dude ran in 2010 on an agenda of neutrality. he then spent the next 4 years imprisoning opposition leaders, blanketing free speech and letting Russia build military bases on Ukrainian property. He also dangled the carrot of EU integration for years, then took it away with not what the population wanted. he apparently was on a public servant wage but his house had a private zoo and 18 hole golf course. Dude apparently squirelled millions out of Ukraine. I'd protest too after all of that.
* the West's rebuffing Russian offers to join NATO or setting up another such security organisation -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnGiVPAZ0CQ&t=51s
See above.
* Ukraine not abiding by the Minsk Accords
Version 1 or 2? Go to V1. Clause 9 of the accords. Goes both ways.
* the continued conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk after 2015 at the cost of thousands of lives of Russian speaking Ukrainians
At who's hands. Vast swathes of Ukraine speak Russian first. Doesn't suggest that these Ukrainians were killed by anyone. Its a disputed territory.
* Zelensky threatening to re-arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons --> “Either we are part of an alliance like NATO and also make our contribution to strengthen this Europe, or we have only one option; to rearm ourselves” - Andriy Melnyk, Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany... and the Russian response --> "Today, the dangers that Zelensky's regime pose for neighboring countries and international security in general have increased substantially after the authorities set up in Kyiv have embarked upon dangerous games related to plans to acquire their own nuclear weapons" - Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister
And guess what - u have been invaded twice by a nuclear armed country. What a stupid argument.
* incursions into Crimean waters and airspace last year by a British destroyer and American warplanes and drones
Which doesn't belong to Russia. It was stolen. Ask the rightful owners (Ukraine) what their thoughts are.
* the Ukrainian Government announcing in March 2021 its intent to re-take Crimea --> “The signal is clear: we don’t just call on the world to help us return Crimea, Ukraine makes its own dedicated and systemic efforts under President Zelensky’s leadership.” - Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba... and the Russian response was by mobilizing many thousands of troops near the two nation’s borders in response to Ukraine’s provocations, with a senior Russian official claiming that military action in re-taking Crimea “would be the beginning of the end of Ukraine.”
https://theowp.org/ukraine-declares-all-options-possible-even-war-to-retake-crimea-from-russia/
See above bro.
* the dangerous precedents set by the West internationally by their unilateral wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc. which Putin and Lavrov have often parroted to justify their subsequent actions in Georgia and now Ukraine --> and just as a reminder, the Chilcot Inquiry in the UK found that Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to British interests in 2003, the intelligence evidence was presented with an unwarranted certainty, diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted, the UK and US had undermined the authority of the UN Security Council, the legal basis for the war was far from satisfactory, and the war which cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives was unnecessary
Yep. The west hasn't always been a good corporate citizen. Afghanistan? What was the USSR's excuse then? Yugoslavia was a basket case on all side and needed a circuit breaker. 25 years on - what NATO did has shown it settled things down. Iraq - yep - fair point.
* public officials in the UK and US openly advocating for the assassination of Vladimir Putin similar no doubt to what happened to Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi who was sodomised with a bayonet on camera before being killed after first being attacked by NATO aircraft
Hussein was killed by Iraqis and Gaddafi by Libyans. Your point?
* public officials in the West calling for regime change in Russia - with the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons - and we have seen what successes the likes of Libya (where the world has witnessed slave markets), Syria (which led to the migrant crisis in Europe), Afghanistan (with the Taliban back in charge but the US freezing Afghan assets to fully exacerbate the crisis for ordinary Afghans), Iraq (a failed state) etc. have proven to be
Americans called for Bush to fck off after they found out what occurred in Iraq. Thats free speech - rightly or wrongly.
* the Ukrainians blocking a strategic canal which provides water to Crimea and in effect, threatening to dehydrate their fellow Ukrainians to death
Why not - its been invaded.
* American foreign policy dating back to the early 1990's (ie. the Wolfowitz Doctrine) confirming the West's intent to keep Russia down following the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War and not letting Russia rise up again --> "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."
Which the draft was leaked and then rewritten because it was stupid. Your point?
* far right and neo-Nazi influences in Ukraine's politics and military... even the US passed a resolution in 2015 to block American military funding for Ukraine from being used to provide training or weaponry to the Azov battalion, with one congressman calling it a "neo-Nazi paramilitary militia" --> and the Ukrainian response was to incorporate the Azov Battalion into the Ukrainian military with Western commentators noting that "Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world's only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces" -
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/
No they didn't. They were expected to but in the end the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act funded them. Better research buddy.
* the bumbling Biden Administration pushing Russia and China together by foolishly claiming in June 2021 that: "Russia is in a very, very difficult spot right now. They are being squeezed by China. They want desperately to remain a major power" --> and the response was China and Russia affirming a “friendship” with “no limits”
Throw away comment heading to a plane in response to why Russia would want to 'improve relations'. Given Russia interference in US elections - the US took this with the cynicism it deserved. But what does this have to with why Russia is in Ukraine? U gunna argue that the US doesn't like Russia so they invaded Ukraine? Russia should have thought of that b4 installing puppets in the US presidency.
* aggressive American policy in the Western Hemisphere to protect their interests and security (see the Monroe Doctrine, Cuban Missile Crisis, the proposed Soviet submarine base on Cienfuegos) but dismissing out of hand as irrational Russia's security concerns regarding Ukraine - a country on their very border
But if Russia had followed through with joining NATO - this isn't an issue. Unless you're saying Russia sat on butthurt since the Cuban crisis. Ok - great argument that.
www.realitytitbit.com