Isn't it possible that NATO, with its anti-Russian policies, would have pushed another conflict if Ukraine weren't so strategically perfect? The U.S. has consistently pushed anti-Kremlin insurrections in the Slavic countries (the Maidan, the Georgian conflict) Any dramatic change in the world order will shake economic strategies and confidence. Russia is working toward a new, equitable multinational relationship with its allies, as Western countries are no longer trustworthy or willing to co-exist. It is hard here in the States, as food, gas and rents are skyrocketing. Political policies are not popular and crime is surging. People simply want peace - but governments power. Hopefully both can win when negotiations are successful. Thank you for your submission.
No. NATO hasn't been pushing for any conflict and NATO didn't push for this conflict. The conflict happened because Putin chose to invade Ukraine. He wasn't forced into it, he wasn't pressed into it. he wasn't pushing into it. This is on Putin, not NATO.
Why was the Donbass relentlessly shelled since 2014? Why were the Minsk Accords, certified through the United Nations, broken and ignored? Why has NATO recruited more countries despite Ronald Reagan's solemn promise and agreement for non-proliferation. I am not certain you are completely aware of Eastern European history.
The Donbass wasn't 'relentlessly shelled', don't exagerate, both sides were occasionally shelling each other. And that was nothing to do with NATO anyway. I would also like to know why Russia broke the Minsk Accords and Ronald Reagan never made any 'solemn promise' about not expanding NATO.
Maybe you should stop trying to whitewash Russian aggression and violence.
NATO has been present in Ukraine since the Maidan. There are myriad documentaries on these troops, with Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton promising funds and training. (These are U.S. produced films) Russia did not break the Accords. Mr. Zelensky simply ignored them and accepted funding from NATO countries to shore up arms and bunkers. If Canada was shelling the U.S., or Mexico illegally invading our country (which happens daily) The U.S. would respond. Ukraine tried to be a country after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, unable to exist without Western donations, it will be decimated and return to Russia, its historical place.. Remember Serbia, Syria, Iraq and many others. They were also destroyed due to illegal wars.
All three countries were illegally entered by NATO forces. Kosovo's existence is only acknowldeged by NATO -- the UN and majority countries deny the right to be there. May I see your source material? Your research appears to be missing significant information.
Isn't it possible that NATO, with its anti-Russian policies, would have pushed another conflict if Ukraine weren't so strategically perfect? The U.S. has consistently pushed anti-Kremlin insurrections in the Slavic countries (the Maidan, the Georgian conflict) Any dramatic change in the world order will shake economic strategies and confidence. Russia is working toward a new, equitable multinational relationship with its allies, as Western countries are no longer trustworthy or willing to co-exist. It is hard here in the States, as food, gas and rents are skyrocketing. Political policies are not popular and crime is surging. People simply want peace - but governments power. Hopefully both can win when negotiations are successful. Thank you for your submission.
No. NATO hasn't been pushing for any conflict and NATO didn't push for this conflict. The conflict happened because Putin chose to invade Ukraine. He wasn't forced into it, he wasn't pressed into it. he wasn't pushing into it. This is on Putin, not NATO.
Why was the Donbass relentlessly shelled since 2014? Why were the Minsk Accords, certified through the United Nations, broken and ignored? Why has NATO recruited more countries despite Ronald Reagan's solemn promise and agreement for non-proliferation. I am not certain you are completely aware of Eastern European history.
The Donbass wasn't 'relentlessly shelled', don't exagerate, both sides were occasionally shelling each other. And that was nothing to do with NATO anyway. I would also like to know why Russia broke the Minsk Accords and Ronald Reagan never made any 'solemn promise' about not expanding NATO.
Maybe you should stop trying to whitewash Russian aggression and violence.
NATO has been present in Ukraine since the Maidan. There are myriad documentaries on these troops, with Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton promising funds and training. (These are U.S. produced films) Russia did not break the Accords. Mr. Zelensky simply ignored them and accepted funding from NATO countries to shore up arms and bunkers. If Canada was shelling the U.S., or Mexico illegally invading our country (which happens daily) The U.S. would respond. Ukraine tried to be a country after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, unable to exist without Western donations, it will be decimated and return to Russia, its historical place.. Remember Serbia, Syria, Iraq and many others. They were also destroyed due to illegal wars.
NATO has not been present in Ukraine. Russia did break the accords. And please do explain what exactly Serbia, Syria and Iraq have to do with Ukraine?
All three countries were illegally entered by NATO forces. Kosovo's existence is only acknowldeged by NATO -- the UN and majority countries deny the right to be there. May I see your source material? Your research appears to be missing significant information.