#Poland analyst Daniel Szeligowski once again setting things straight about #Ukraine and #Russia after 2014:

In early 2014, Ukraine was a neutral country, with a pro-Russian president, and with 70% of Ukraine’s population against NATO membership. Yet Russia bluntly violated Ukraine’s neutrality and annexed Crimea, then launched a covert invasion of Ukraine in the east. Petro Poroshenko won the presidential election in 2014 having promised a settlement with Russia, keeping a special status of the Russian language in Ukraine. He was initially sceptical regarding NATO accession, underlined Ukraine must rely on its own strength to provide security. Did Putin meet Poroshenko halfway? Not at all. The regular Russian army entered the Ukrainian territory in mid-2014 to fight the Ukrainian troops, which led to the Minsk-1 agreement signed in September 2014. Few weeks later, Ukraine’s parliament adopted a law that would guarantee the then Russia-controlled part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions additional economic, financial and cultural powers. How did Putin react? Russia staged sham local elections in the occupied Donbas, and then sent the regular army again to Ukraine in early 2015, which led to the Minsk-2 agreement signed in February 2015. Zelensky was even more sceptical regarding NATO accession. Asked about NATO, he once famously said he never pays anyone a visit if he has not been invited. He won the presidential election promising to compromise with Russia - to stop shooting, sit down with Putin and talk. Did Putin meet Zelensky halfway? Not at all. He actually raised the stakes by issuing the Russian passports on the occupied territories of Ukraine even before Zelensky assumed the office, putting him in a difficult political position since the start. Zelensky was ready to drop Ukraine’s NATO bid in an exchange for the Russian troops withdrawing from Ukraine. The talks were held already before 2022. What did Putin do? He launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In the first weeks of the invasion, Zelensky was yet again ready to drop Ukraine’s NATO bid. But he wanted to obtain international security guarantees. What did Putin do? He demanded that Russia must be consulted before any aid would be given to Ukraine in the event of aggression. To sum up, Ukraine has consistently tried to reach a deal with Russia over the last decade, and was open to giving up on its NATO bid in exchange for the withdrawal of the Russian troops from Ukraine. Russia never reciprocated, never showed a good will, kept raising the stakes. Both Poroshenko and Zelensky were initially sceptical regarding Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Both wanted to get a deal with Putin. And Putin himself pushed both of them to seek NATO membership out of no other viable alternatives. Up till now, Putin has shown absolutely no willingness to compromise with Ukraine. His war aims remain maximalist - subjugating Ukraine and changing its regime. He seeks Ukraine’s partition, and will turn what is left of Ukraine into Russian protectorate. Russia’s imperial self-conception is that of Russian elites at large, and not just Vladimir Putin. The Russian leadership simply cannot reconcile with the existence of a sovereign Ukrainian statehood. Therefore any sustainable Ukrainian-Russian compromise is currently not possible unless the Russian cost-benefit calculus changes. Only credible risk to the stability of the Russian regime would impact this calculus. The easiest way goes through defeating Russia in Ukraine.

Original: @dszeligowski https://x.com/dszeligowski/status/1809358387458556318

Daniel Szeligowski (@dszeligowski) on X

In early 2014, Ukraine was a neutral country, with a pro-Russian president, and with 70% of Ukraine's population against NATO membership. Yet Russia bluntly violated Ukraine's neutrality and annexed Crimea, then launched a covert invasion of Ukraine in the east

X (formerly Twitter)

@kravietz @dszeligowski @briankrebs

this is misinfo afaik. there's a lot to rebut but do you dispute the Nuland phone call?

@wjmaggos

No, what did Nuland say exactly and what is wrong with that? But, more importantly, which parts of what Szeligowski wrote are not true?

@dszeligowski @briankrebs

@kravietz @dszeligowski @briankrebs

the call is evidence that the US was secretly manipulating this from the start. the positions were filled exactly as she proposed. I believe the Ukrainian people want to be independent but both sides didn't want it to remain that way, and as Obama said, Russia's location will always give it more reason to be concerned that Ukraine side with them than the US does. the post above is a biased narrative of a story where both sides are at fault.

@wjmaggos

the call is evidence that the US was secretly manipulating

The call doesn’t demonstrate anything except for the fact that US diplomats on the ground were discussing what is better for them, which is - surprise! - what diplomats do.

And people who mention Nuland’s call never mention the fact that Russian diplomats were “manipulating this” not only secretly but quite openly, with Russian FSB (!) delegation openly visiting Kyiv during the protests and advising Yanukovych how to best suppress it. And that Russia has been funnelling billions of dollars into pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian parties and movements in Ukraine. And more than that, Russian president’s administration was literally coordinating and funding violence in Ukraine as the protests unrolled:

https://khpg.org/en/1551054011

Russia’s location will always give it more reason to be concerned that Ukraine

Guess what? Ukraine’s position will always give it more reason to be concerned about it security in the presence of a aggressive and threatening neighbour that Russia is. And that’s the point of what Szeligowski wrote - if #Russia did not invade #Ukraine in 2014 in the first place, Ukraine would never ever consider #NATO membership.

biased narrative of a story where both sides are at fault

Fully agree, this “both sides” narrative is biased - it’s Russia who invaded Ukraine, not the other way around.

@dszeligowski @briankrebs