AlexL

Root causes When the Kremlin talks about ‘root causes’, it is not seeking peace. It is demanding Ukraine’s capitulation in a poorly veiled diplomatic disguise. As peace discussions around Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine took place in Istanbul and US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by telephone, a familiar phrase has kept resurfacing in pro-Kremlin rhetoric: the mysterious need to address ‘root causes’. This seemingly reasonable diplomatic language conceals a far more sinister agenda, one that has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with Ukraine's subjugation. Deciphering the Kremlin's ‘root causes’ rhetoric When Moscow repeatedly insists that peace negotiations must address ‘root causes’, it is actually deploying coded language for a predetermined set of maximalist demands. We frequently see multiple examples of this manipulation tactic, with claims that ‘Russia wants to solve the root causes of the Ukrainian conflict’ while ‘the West wants to sabotage peace.’ The Kremlin purposefully designs these narratives to create a false impression that Russia is the reasonable party seeking resolution, while hiding its actual objectives. In reality, as we have covered before, Moscow's definition of ‘root causes’ invariably includes demands for Ukraine to surrender its sovereignty, accept territorial losses, and submit to Kremlin control. Perhaps most cynically, this rhetoric attempts to position Russia as the victim (see also here and here) rather than the aggressor. By blaming NATO expansion, alleged ‘Nazism’ in Ukraine, or Western ‘provocations’, the Kremlin tries to rewrite history and erase its fundamental responsibility: launching an unprovoked full-scale invasion of a sovereign neighbouring country. Strategic aims behind the ‘root causes’ playbook The Kremlin’s ‘root causes’ narrative serves multiple strategic aims in its manipulation game. First, it creates confusion about who bears real responsibility for the ongoing war. By muddying the waters about the war’s origins, the Kremlin hopes international audiences will forget that Russia had already violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity back in 2014 before it unilaterally launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Second, it establishes impossible preconditions for peace. When Russia speaks of addressing ‘root causes’, it is actually demanding Ukraine's capitulation disguised as diplomacy. The Kremlin effectively says: ‘We shall have peace when you accept our imperial dominance over your country.’ Let’s be clear. That it not a condition for peace. It is a deliberate obstacle on the path to peace. Third, it buys time. As Russia continues to face battlefield challenges, this narrative provides diplomatic cover while its military regroups, recruits, and prepares for renewed offensives. The real root cause – Kremlin imperialism Despite Moscow's attempts to obfuscate reality with its narrative, the true root cause of this conflict is straightforward: the Kremlin's refusal to accept Ukraine's existence as a sovereign nation with the right to determine its own future. For Putin and his regime, Ukraine’s democracy, its aspirations for EU and NATO membership, and its cultural independence represent an existential threat to the authoritarian model they have constructed. Ukraine's success would demonstrate to Russians that a different, more democratic future is also possible for them, a prospect the Kremlin finds intolerable. In Putin's infamous 5,000-word essay published just months before the invasion, he explicitly denied Ukraine's legitimacy as an independent nation. The war is not about NATO, alleged ‘Nazis’, or any other make-believe pretext; it is about implementing Russia’s imperial vision. Recognising this fundamental reality is crucial to understanding how and why the Kremlin manipulates the information space in the context of any peace negotiations. Any framework that accepts the Kremlin’s deceptive ‘root causes’ premise is not a pathway to peace, but a blueprint for Ukraine's dismemberment and subjugation. A true and just peace requires accountability, not the legitimisation of aggression through diplomatic wordplay. We see through the Kremlin's manipulation tactics, even when they come dressed in the poisoned language of a Kremlin-defined peace. Don’t be deceived. https://mailchi.mp/euvsdisinfo/dr362-6229097?e=f10f51a6bd

... Russophobia... 😁

This is because @whYNOTdoesn't support Israel by virtue of a general principle.

I am sure he is one of the many Putin's useful idiots. Not the only one on this Objectivism forum...☹️

My turn?? You didn't answer my question. "Not relevant any more" is not an answer. I will continue waiting for my turn.

Just answer the question. [...] From your quote of my comment is missing the essential part: "Does your change of the subject mean that, for you, the alleged NATO promise is now off the table?" So, please answer. Don't try to dodge the question or change the subject on me.

My contention was about the alleged "NATO promise not to expand “one inch eastward” after the Cold War." The question you are now asking is about something else. Does your change of the subject mean that, for you, the alleged NATO promise is now off the table? BTW, we have already addressed this exact topic several times, most recently here, but you evaded it every time. And you continue doing it.

Gorbachev, along with many other involved people, flatly denied this - as documented in the Disinformation Review article I quoted. Here is the link to Gorbachev's interview transcript. Translation of the relevant part - on request, or use Google Translate.

A facade of innocence is convincing for those gullible, also called "useful idiots" when they actively participate in the dissemination of lies, as @whYNOTdoes. His artfully selected excerpt from the JoD article is his latest accomplishment. In fact, the article (dated April 2022 !) is a detailed account of the NATO - Russia interaction and comes with the following summary: By 2000s it became obvious that Russia is not on the path of protecting individual rights and the rule of law. West's giving up the idea of admitting Putin's Russia in NATO was a great deal of luck...

You are the one who started the broadcast vs podcast discussion, despite it being about nonessentials.

Sorry, I meant podcaster Therefore, here is my corrected comment: The responsibility is shared between the podcaster and the listener.

The responsibility is shared between the broadcaster and the listener.

(Disinformation Review, 24 April 2025, https://mailchi.mp/euvsdisinfo/dr361-6228934?e=f10f51a6bd) The myth that won’t die: blaming NATO for Russia’s war In the murky landscape of disinformation, few narratives have proven as stubbornly persistent as the claim that NATO expansion provoked Russia into invading Ukraine. This myth, recycled and rebranded by Kremlin apologists, shifts blame for Russia’s aggression onto the West – ignoring history and facts. It’s time to call this narrative what it is: a convenient distortion designed to justify an unjustifiable war. Myth 1: “Russia was provoked. NATO broke a promise” One of the most common myths in pro-Kremlin rhetoric is that NATO promised not to expand “one inch eastward” after the Cold War. But there is no evidence of any formal [or even oral/A.L.] agreement to that effect. Multiple Western leaders and declassified documents confirm that while there were discussions about NATO’s position in Germany during reunification, no binding or global commitment was made to freeze the alliance’s borders indefinitely. And here’s a crucial point: if Russia truly wanted such a guarantee, it knows full well how international diplomacy works. It would have pushed for a treaty, a formal accord, or at the very least, a publicly documented commitment. But that never happened – because no such promise was ever officially made nor sought. Even Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at that time, confirmed there was no agreement or promise to not enlarge NATO. In diplomacy, if there’s no treaty, no signed agreement, and no public declaration, then there is no binding promise. Russia understands this. It’s not ignorance – it’s deliberate revisionism by Putin. More importantly, sovereign nations in Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO – not because NATO sought to encircle Russia, but because these countries had endured decades of Soviet occupation and invasions, and were determined never to return to that subjugation. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania – these were not pawns being played by Washington. They were democracies making strategic choices for their security. To suggest otherwise is to deny them agency and ignore their history and sovereignty. Myth 2: “Ukraine was about to join NATO. Russia had no choice” Despite repeated claims, Ukraine was not on the verge of joining NATO in early 2022. While Ukraine had long expressed interest in membership, there was no formal invitation, no fast-track process. The idea that NATO membership for Ukraine was imminent is more fiction than fact. It was a distant possibility, not a current policy. Russia’s ultimatum in December 2021 for a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO was never a genuine diplomatic offer – it was a pretext. Demanding that NATO not only bar Ukraine forever but also roll back its presence from all countries that joined after 1997, erasing decades of sovereign decisions by Eastern European states, was not a negotiation – it was an impossible demand. Putin knew NATO could never accept it without abandoning its core principles and the security of its members. The ultimatum was meant to be rejected. It was a setup, not a diplomatic effort (as we've outlined here). And perhaps the clearest evidence that NATO wasn’t the real reason for the invasion? Putin’s own words. In his February 2022 speech just before the invasion, he hardly focused on NATO at all. Instead, he questioned Ukraine’s very right to exist as an independent state – claiming it was “created by Lenin” and should be part of Russia. That rhetoric points not to defensive concerns, but to imperial ambition. If Russia truly feared Ukraine joining NATO, launching a full-scale invasion is perhaps the most effective way to guarantee closer Western alignment and support. The war did not stop NATO from getting closer to Ukraine – it accelerated that process. That’s not fear, that’s a gamble rooted in different ambitions. Myth 3: “Russia feared NATO on its border” The idea that Russia invaded Ukraine out of fear of NATO is contradicted by its own actions. If Moscow truly saw NATO as an immediate threat, believing NATO was planning to use Ukraine as a launch pad for a war against Russia, it would likely have calculated a more cautious approach, particularly given NATO's military power. In fact, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 demonstrates the opposite: a calculated confidence that NATO would not intervene directly, and that NATO was not seeking a war with Russia. And that calculation was correct. NATO, despite its military power, repeatedly emphasised that it would not send troops into Ukraine or engage Russian forces directly. Putin knew this – and he gambled accordingly. If the Kremlin genuinely feared NATO, it would not have provoked a scenario that could bring NATO’s attention and weaponry even closer. But it did – because the real motivation wasn’t fear of NATO. It was a desire to reassert control over Ukraine and prevent its general westward ambitions. Myth 4: “There was a coup in Ukraine in 2014, led by the West” This tired trope tries to erase the will of the Ukrainian people, who took to the streets in 2013–2014 demanding accountability, reform, and an end to corrupt Russian-backed leadership. The Revolution of Dignity was not orchestrated by the CIA or NATO, it was sparked by President Yanukovych’s abrupt rejection of a popular free trade and association agreement with the EU and his violent crackdown on protesters. The Kremlin frames this democratic uprising as a Western-led coup because it cannot acknowledge that its neighbours might choose a different path – one that doesn’t revolve around Moscow. For authoritarian regimes, the power of free people is always the enemy. What the myth ignores To truly understand this war, look not at NATO’s decisions, but at Vladimir Putin’s own words. In his infamous July 2021 essay and February 2022 speech, Putin dismissed Ukrainian sovereignty and framed the country as a historical part of Russia. His motivations aren’t defensive – they’re imperial. The invasion was about reasserting control over a former Soviet republic, crushing a thriving democracy on Russia’s border, and signalling to other post-Soviet states that turning westward comes with consequences. Putin doesn’t fear NATO. He fears democracy. He fears that Russia’s democratic neighbours, previously occupied by Moscow, would prove Russians could live freely without oligarchs and authoritarianism too. That’s the real threat to the Kremlin’s power. NATO is the excuse, not the cause Blaming NATO for Russia’s war is a narrative of convenience, not credibility. It absolves the aggressor, ignores the agency of smaller nations, and flips the script on decades of post-Cold War history. It’s a myth that serves only one master: the Kremlin. Don’t be deceived. Ukraine did not “provoke” Russia any more than a burglar is provoked by a house installing a lock. This war is not about broken promises or misunderstood red lines. It’s about power, control, and the refusal to let others live freely outside of Moscow’s grasp. The sooner we bury this myth, the sooner we can focus on holding the right party accountable – and standing up for the truth. https://mailchi.mp/euvsdisinfo/dr361-6228934?e=f10f51a6bd

In what way?

He won't disappear just like that, he has to be pushed out. But unfortunately this forum is not moderated.