The buffer states argument is dead. Russia killed it. Europe now has to logistically support Ukraine, pivot it's energy market and disrupt its economy because Russia just showed the world it views buffer states as consumable components for future Russia.
>It's better strategy to have buffer states adjacent to major powers
I am not a strategist so why is this? And why for example wouldn't Russia tried to sign an alliance with this countries where they promise to respect each other territories and not participate in aggressive actions against each other. Isn't this a good enough buffer? it won't work if you don't want to renounce at teritory claims though
So I am biased since I am from Romania, but IMo is clear Russia wants the natural resources and the strategical position from the Black Sea not to defend itself from the small easter European countries but just from pure greed, like in a cmputer game you rush to grab the natural resources to prevent the others to use them and grow, after you grow you invade and destroy their shit until they surrender. Defensive alliances would make sense if you want to protect yourself and this is what the eastern european countries want from NATO.
Neither are Bangla speaking Indians or Muslim Indians, but nonetheless this sort of thing is an extremely common basis for regional conflict that has nothing to do with anyone else.
Be cautious not to fall for propaganda. From both sides.
I've read conflicting statements about how Russian speaking Ukrainians are treated in Ukraine but it's also not obvious to me why it should be so much worse in Donbass versus the rest of Ukraine.
Just because there is a different language doesn't mean that there is automatically a cultural divide.
There are many countries that have similar conditions, minorities outside theyr borders, historical claims but when we entered EU and NATO we all had to make peace with our neighbors and give up or old grudges, I hope the young Russian generation would prefer to enter EU then reviewing some old empire.
The notion that entering the EU is some magic thing that will make those go away is incredibly naive. I think more likely is the EU ceasing to existing within the next 50 years as the US continues its withdrawal from the world.
There are many factors that make it so the new generations are more connected and emphasize better. EU membership makes it possible for students to study in different places and learn more, from my experience younger generations are less racist/xenophobic/nationalistic. It will take time to fix the issue but it things improve and with less Russian propaganda and dirty money in our politics it will improve even faster.
If some great of English people think they’re different enough from some other group of English people to want to be a separate country, that’s a regional conflict that doesn’t warrant the involvement of anyone else. Same as Ireland separating from Britain or Bangladesh separating from Pakistan or India/Pakistan border disputes.
We did go to war with Mexico and took a bunch of their land. And if our military power wasn’t so overwhelmingly superior we absolutely would have border conflicts with Mexico.
That ship sailed in 2008 with the Bucharest conference. The membership process was stalled and unstalled but it's been underway for a while now. The NATO incursion in Libya leading to Gadaffi getting a rusty bayonet up his backside in 2011 seems to be the point where Putin viewed further expansion as red line though.
Zelensky has spent the last two years begging them to hurry the membership application up.
But NATO does require that there are no outstanding territorial disputes. So Russian occupation of part of Georgia is a tactic. Furthermore, to say that this NATO "requirement" was papered over when Greece and Turkey were admitted would be an understatement.
Is it really a formal requirement? I’ve only heard of Cyprus as an example, but this Cyprus is a flawed example, because NATO accession vote has to be unanimous, and Turkey is likely to veto it.
Also if that was the case, then Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were dead as soon as Russia took Crimea, making this entire ordeal completely pointless.
It wouldn’t be renouncing claims, it would be de jure ceding territory (that is internationally recognised as part of Ukraine) to Russia, and there’s no way that would be okay.
I was Ukraine, if I got NATO I would drop Crimea like its nothing. Crimea was always practically controlled by Russia anyway. And its by far the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
See no reason why Russia should not be forced to withdraw completely - leaving Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk.
It's Ukraine time to retake their lands from the occupier.
