@elbanditoroso ” I think that the real problem was that no one – not, Ukraine, not EU, and not the US, took into account how Russia would react.”
I’m almost certain that the policy to support the coup in Kiev and then diplomatically and financially back the anti-Russian government there was well calculated, and and a range of possible Russian responses and reactions were investigated and analysed. Russia will be doing the very same.
It would be very frightening to think that such geopolitical manoeuvres are done on a whim with no analysis at all. Maybe that was the case under the Bush administration—it would explain a lot.
Expanding NATO has next to nothing to do with Ukraine’s national interests. It has everything to do with US arms sales to NATO members. The Russian annexation of Crimea made NATO members “nervous”, so they could conveniently increase military spending as a response. This call just happened to be led by the Estonian President whom Obama recently visited. Also notice how the Estonian President repeats the narrative of Russia as “unpredictable and aggressive”.
And the fuss over the Crimea was likely more about the oil and gas in its maritime territory. An estimated $300 billion worth of energy assets gone to Russia overnight, and agreements with Exxon, Shell, and others to explore and extract fuel resources from the Black Sea scuppered.
Considering the strategic importance of Crimea, and the mineral wealth of its maritime zone—do you think the Russian response was “unpredictable”?
The protests in eastern Ukraine were probably spontaneous at first, and the subsequent armed rebellion doubtlessly supported materially from the Russian territory, if not directly by Putin’s goverment. This wasn’t unpredictable either, and Kiev could have avoided it but chose to listen to their new US paymasters instead.
But whatever. It’s all a great pretext for increasing military spending.