Not sure what part of premeditated action confuses you here. The paper describes how and why the war was provoked, and the benefits the strategic US expected to see from it.
Furthermore, the idea that NATO threatens Russia doesn’t even come from Russia. Plenty of western experts have been saying this for many decades, as anybody who’s not an utter ignoramus would know. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
The report was published in 2019, after Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014. It discusses escalation risks; it does not say Russia was entitled to invade then, nor in 2022, nor does it transfer responsibility for Putin’s decisions to NATO. Try reading the dates as well as the adjectives.
Yes, the plan was published before the events happened. That’s how plans work, you make them before you execute them.
Meanwhile, The Hill article explains how easy it is to manipulate people of low intellect using propaganda:
I rarely agree with President Trump, but his latest controversial statements about Ukraine are mostly true. They seem preposterous only because western audiences have been fed a steady diet of disinformation about Ukraine for more than a decade. It is time to set the record straight on three key points that illuminate why Ukrainians and former President Joe Biden — not merely Russian President Vladimir Putin — bear significant responsibility for the outbreak and perpetuation of war in Ukraine.
I understand why you’re so upset though. After all, you undoubtedly support the regime in Ukraine because of your shared values.
I bet Andrii Biletskyi, commander of Ukraine’s Third Army Corps who just got awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine, a presidential decree is your role model.
The key figures in the Azov Battalion are its commander, Andriy Biletsky, and his deputy, Ihor Mosiychuk.
Andriy Biletsky is also the leader of a Ukrainian organisation called the Social National Assembly. Its aims are stated in one of their online publications:
“to prepare Ukraine for further expansion and to struggle for the liberation of the entire White Race from the domination of the internationalist speculative capital”
“to punish severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that lead to the extinction of the white man”
A RAND report discussing hypothetical ways to pressure Russia is not evidence that the U.S. secretly planned and initiated Russia’s invasion. An opinion article by one strategist in 2021 is not a declaration of NATO policy. Chomsky, Kennan, Matlock, and a 1997 open letter can all argue that NATO expansion was strategically unwise without establishing that Ukraine forfeited its sovereignty or that Putin was compelled to invade.
You’re also confusing “this policy might provoke a reaction” with “the reaction was caused by the policy and is therefore justified.” Those are not the same sentence, no matter how much links you attach to them.
Ukraine forfeited sovereignty all the way back in 2014 when the democratically elected government was overthrown by the west to install the current fascist regime you support. Also, you’re the only one talking about any justifying. I’m simply pointing out the basic facts of the situation and that the war was provoked. Talking about justifications is a moral argument which I’m not making. But if you had any morals at all you obviously wouldn’t align with literal fascists.
Not sure what part of premeditated action confuses you here. The paper describes how and why the war was provoked, and the benefits the strategic US expected to see from it.
And of course, the RAND paper isn’t the only document. Here’s an article from August 2021 advocating inflicting a military defeat on Russia in Ukraine to subjugate it and draw it away from China. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/strategy-avoiding-two-front-war-192137
Furthermore, the idea that NATO threatens Russia doesn’t even come from Russia. Plenty of western experts have been saying this for many decades, as anybody who’s not an utter ignoramus would know. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
And even mainstream western media such as The Hill now openly admits the facts https://thehill.com/opinion/5198022-ukraine-conflict-disinformation
All of this is well documented and well known. Only a person of deep and profound ignorance would attempt to argue otherwise.
The report was published in 2019, after Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014. It discusses escalation risks; it does not say Russia was entitled to invade then, nor in 2022, nor does it transfer responsibility for Putin’s decisions to NATO. Try reading the dates as well as the adjectives.
Yes, the plan was published before the events happened. That’s how plans work, you make them before you execute them.
Meanwhile, The Hill article explains how easy it is to manipulate people of low intellect using propaganda:
I understand why you’re so upset though. After all, you undoubtedly support the regime in Ukraine because of your shared values.
I bet Andrii Biletskyi, commander of Ukraine’s Third Army Corps who just got awarded the title of Hero of Ukraine, a presidential decree is your role model.
A RAND report discussing hypothetical ways to pressure Russia is not evidence that the U.S. secretly planned and initiated Russia’s invasion. An opinion article by one strategist in 2021 is not a declaration of NATO policy. Chomsky, Kennan, Matlock, and a 1997 open letter can all argue that NATO expansion was strategically unwise without establishing that Ukraine forfeited its sovereignty or that Putin was compelled to invade.
You’re also confusing “this policy might provoke a reaction” with “the reaction was caused by the policy and is therefore justified.” Those are not the same sentence, no matter how much links you attach to them.
Ukraine forfeited sovereignty all the way back in 2014 when the democratically elected government was overthrown by the west to install the current fascist regime you support. Also, you’re the only one talking about any justifying. I’m simply pointing out the basic facts of the situation and that the war was provoked. Talking about justifications is a moral argument which I’m not making. But if you had any morals at all you obviously wouldn’t align with literal fascists.
There it is. Glad we found the position you’re working from.
Yeah, the position of having facts on my side.