>Remember, the year before invasion all what Russian diplomacy wanted - it is to give guaranties that Ukraine won't join NATO?
"The year before the invasion" - 2013, right? That's the year you're referring to? The year in which he got a 30 year lease on Sevastopol, thereby keeping Ukraine out of NATO for decades? Because Yanukovich was still in power, and doing everything to appease him?
Why is it that the medal Shoigu got for the Crimea takeover commemorates a date a week prior to Maidan, and two weeks prior to the "official" start of the invasion? Why is it that despite the "diplomacy" they never even attempted to abide by the Minsk agreements (and if you feel like disputing this, refresh yourself on article 10 and the timeline of events at Donetsk Airport)?
Do you or do you not agree that "the invasion" started in 2014, not in 2022.
This is relevant. You said "before the invasion, all Putin wanted was diplomatic agreements to not join NATO". But that's obviously not true, was it? Because before 2022, he had already annexed Crimea. Before 2022, he had already been delivering massive supplies of weapons and "separatist volunteers" to Donetsk and Luhansk. Before 2022, he had already published "On the Historical Unity of Russia and Ukraine". Before 2022, there was already zero chance of Ukraine being accepted into NATO.
Those are not mere diplomatic tools, that is active aggression and denying their right to exist as a nation at an ideological level. How do you negotiate with "you are Russians, your identity is fake, your language is fake, your land is Russian, prepare to be absorbed".
Watch the recent Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin.
There is a literally 2 hours long historical lecture from Putin, explaining in great detail why (to his opinion) Ukraine doesn't and shouldn't exist as a sovereign state and "in fact" never was, since the beginning of the history, LMAO. This is what really concerns him, if you listen. In his reality, Ukraine is a Russian province, not an independent state.
He goes as far as justifying Hitler's attack on Poland ("they made him to attack by not voluntarily giving away their territory, it was Poland's fault") — sic. You see where he goes?
So it seems that NATO didn't bother him very much, it is just a red herring or "diplomatic speak" to express his true concerns. The real issue is Ukraine's sovereignty / independence. Joining NATO is just an act of that sovereignty, that couldn't be tolerated.
>> He goes as far as justifying Hitler's attack on Poland
And why wouldn't he. We should not forget that it was russians and nazi's that started the world war 2[0][1]. It's just that the rusians got lucky, and Germany bore all the guilt.
Since then, russians of course have been actively trying to rewrite history.
My grandfather fought russia and later its ideology in battles across the world. I did forget for a while, but his words now shine brightly in front of me: NEVER trust a russian.
Rewriting history is pretty much real — there is a head of Ministry of Culture in Russia that openly states that "our history books for students should serve the national interests" (and he is a co-author of those books), implying that the truth can be manipulated to indoctrinate young people.
> NEVER trust a russian
P.S. I am myself Russian — not saying you should trust me... (just kidding). Its just not every Russian out there likes what Russia does.
