For years, many of us argued that key policymakers were fully aware of the risks associated with expanding NATO closer to Russia’s borders. Now, newly disclosed documents appear to provide additional evidence supporting that view. I walk through the records, the historical timeline, the warnings issued by British officials in the 1990s, and the decisions that followed. The details are remarkable, and they’re not getting much attention.
Risking would be more accurate. So, I think the question is: why risk it? Russia is the villain in this conflict, absolutely, but we did things that we knew might antagonize that villain. So, why did we do those things? What did we hope to accomplish?
Maybe we wanted Russia to invade, thinking it would ultimately weaken Russia. And there seems to be some validity to that strategy. I think in many important ways Russia is weaker today than they were before the war. But do those ends justify the means? It cost a lot of innocent lives. But maybe there was no other way. Personally I think war should be avoided if at all possible. Some might argue that this was necessary, and maybe they’re right but I definitely think it’s a matter of legitimate debate.
But if Ukraine wishes to be more aligned with Europe than Russia, that is a reasonable choice for them to make.
We were also doing quite a bit of trade with Russia too, it was their choice to fuck relations with the war. Not that it stopped all trade either.c
And if Ukraine knew the risks and decided it was a risk worth taking for the prospect of a better future for them, I totally get that.
I do think a lot of good could come out of this, in the end. I think it’s already pushed Europe to be more proactive about their own defense. I hope it continues to push Europe to see the Eastern part of the continent as worthy of protection and inclusion.