LogFAQs > #962051068

KodyKeir posted...

The West actually made significant commitments to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression in exchange for their drawdown of Soviet era armaments, which they did expecting us to be there, which we haven't.

You also forgot that the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of the Donetsk came at a time when Moscow Mitch had decided the senate would say no to anything and everything Barry was asking for, leaving Vlad free to make plays across the board (Syria for example)

Yeah, I edited to "NATO-level" commitments, but you beat me to it. Commitments were made, but they were made the fate of Ukraine was already sealed by Crimea...which was my earlier point. Once we didn't act (i.e. send in troops) to defend Crimea this outcome was more or less inevitable. McConnell shares some blame there, maybe. but - frankly - the calculus was the same then as it was today: the US and NATO simply weren't/aren't going to start WW3 over Ukraine and Putin is willing to call that bluff. This result has always been inevitable if Russia chose to focus on 'spheres of influence'.

Bigger picture: NATO should have faded away after the end of the Cold War. It probably would have if NATO didn't expand into eastern europe, and it definitely would have if Russia chosen to integrate with the West rather than return to antagonism. (Mostly Russia's fault, although the expansion was a questionably timed strategic decision) But here we are. If Russia is going to focus on NATO and attack non-NATO countries, then we are darn well going to keep NATO strong and oppose them, and Russia is going to know exactly where the line is (the NATO "border") for better or worse.