Did the USA play a significantly negative role in events leading to Ukraine invasion?

Deffo

Nobody is defending anything. This war is as f***** up as any war and needs to stop.

Just the hypocrisy and the ignorance is nauseating. Thats all.

The Ukrainians seem to be defending.

You'd have to be more specific about the hypocrisy and ignorance. Because its seems intentional.

Russia military dwarfs the Ukraine both in size and technology in every metric.

It should have over run the entire country in about a fortnight.

If there's some tactical or strategic advantage in the current glacial pace of this war of attrition and economic cost, please share.

So why are they in another country again? Just asking questions.

Ok then.

We have deliberately ignored and rebuffed all of Russia's continued offers of partnership and cooperation since the late nineties early naughties. We have expanded NATO eastwards in several stages against all assurances after the fall of the iron curtain. We have played conman tricks to claim we didnt do this like the infamous 'do you have that in writing' or claiming we don't have e permanent NATO troops there (no we're 'rotating them every 6 months). Stupid conman tricks. Russia has warned us but stayed put but declared their red lines - their border countries. We have played a very active role in Maidan and all events after. We have not leaned on to Ukraine to implement Minsk II to pacify the Russian minority regions. We have been prepping the Ukraine towards NATO memberships or at the very least we have strongly encouraged them. We have supported them financially and we have supplied military 'advisors'. Only last autumn a massive NATO manoeuvre was staged in the Ukraine and also in the Black Sea. We have tested out continually how far we can push Russia.

Personally I think the NATO manoeuvre in the Ukraine was when the decision was made. When Selensky was allowed to speak in Munich and made noises for Ukraine rearmament with nuclear weapons the point of no return was reached. This and all the other stuff that came before lead Russia to believe (rightly IMO) that the West cannot be trusted and we have ill intentions.

Now we're screaming 'murder' and our great media tells us that Putin 'has gone mad' and is likely to invade other countries in the morning and that the Ukraine is innocent and we are innocent too of course. Putin has just gone mad and who knows what he's going to do next.

The whole thing is long term geo-strategic gamesmanship. We have pushed Russia to a point where no good options were left to them. Only bad ones and worse ones. Russia felt this war was the least bad one. Rightly or wrongly but definitely an ugly one.

This war cannot be won by the Ukraine. It can only be made uglier and uglier and we're willing to let them do just that in fact we're egging them on. We're willing to support this fight with weapons to the last Ukrainian man it appears. The Ukraine is a chess piece and a pawn at that.

All that stuff your hear in our glorious independent media (NOT) is just as much propaganda as what you will read and hear on TASS. We're rife with hypocrisy and talk about international law and Russia slaughtering civilians when that is the last thing they want to do I'm certain. Thats before we get into the wars started by 'us' and about which nobody seems to give a sh1t like for example Iraq. International law my arse. Russia aren't the first ones to start one of those in Europe even. Yugoslavia.

This war is horrible and the ordinary people are paying for it as usual. But this is what I mean with hypocrisy.

Anyone saying 'we' are not a significant player in this is either deliberately ignorant or hasn't a clue IMO.

Problem with that is US military strength (which is the core of NATO) has been decline in Europe since the collapse of the USSR.

Whereas Putin has done the opposite.

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/russias-military-spending-frequently-asked-questions

The threat you are suggesting that Putin was responding to was actually in decline. That trend only reversed in response to Putins actions not the other way around. In fact he has caused a seismic change in military spending in Europe with his recent wars.

Even in Ireland Putins aggression has caused an upsurge in attention in our defence spending and policies. Something that had also been in decline for decades until Putin came along.

Rather than strengthening Russia's position, his actions have done the exact opposite.

Another thread with no conspiracy in it.

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Winston Churchill

You don't have to any ulterior motive or inner knowledge to know that its a bad idea to get involved with Putin. His track record speaks for itself.

The alternative is the US has a fantastic intelligence service. We know that isn't true. Look how much they've got wrong over the years. If they thought that there was a threat to Europe they wouldn't have been pulling out of it until very recently.

What he needed was some sort of economic and defense pact.

keep them out of Nato, neutral perhaps, and some sort of preferential transport corridor and economic agreement.

Instead he's done a land grab, because he doesn't like sharing. Especially power.

Well I agree with Dohnjoe your questions are not neutral they are leading. I thought his replies were quite matter of fact in response.

Europe tends to supply a lot of its own weapons, rather than going elsewhere like to the US. But they will go to the US if there a good reason to. But its the exception in general. This shouldn't have to be spelled out. This is as old as the hills.

Lot of countries in Europe opposed the pipeline deals when they were first proposed. The US were also part of this, long before the current crisis. However all their worst fears have been realized. "Told you so" doesn't quite express how much of a error this was. But a win for Russia at the time. Now blown apart forever. Since Germany resisted all this pressure right until 22 February 2022, you'd have to say the only thing that changed at that point was Putin actions. So that has to have been the catalyst for change.

Inflation? Who knows. There's been nothing to really drive it till now.

How much will USA make on an armed conflict. Same as its always done. Again as Europe supplies a lot of its own weapons, except where it has no choice. So a lot of this funding will actually flow into Europe not the US. Which is why they do this. Again old news.

The US would want a democracy in Ukraine not a war. They want money not war. War is a net cost to the US. Especially with Trump. The reason they pulled out of other conflicts was economic as much as strategic.

Putin's, Military expansion and posturing, wasn't of huge concern as Russia military is shadow of its former might. The US was focused on the East. Especially its Navy. Putin actions in the last decade though have caused Europe to slowly refocus on defense spending in the last decade. F35 was one of the more high profile stories in that. But his actions in the last few months, has opened the flood gates in funding now. Even here in Ireland.

Am pointing out the obvious agenda here. You constantly state you know little about this conflict but note how each your questions are always loaded to implicate one country in particular

To address them and explain what you are doing:

1. EU gets it's weapons from a variety of sources, e.g. German made AT weapons, Swedish AT weapons, British NLAWs. With this "question" in a roundabout way you are trying to suggest the US has a vested interest in the conflict because US companies will make money from arms sales to e.g. the EU. Arms companies benefit in conflicts, it doesn't mean they are the cause of the conflict or that the country benefits as a whole from it (often much larger companies and industries and by extension economies suffer during war)
2. Which administration, Obama, Trump, Biden? The US isn't a "person", it's a bunch of administrations. I know that Obama and Biden (and many EU administrations) weren't keen on the reliance of EU on Russian gas/oil after Putin's annexation of Crimea. Merkel took a gamble and stuck with it thinking Putin wouldn't drastically escalate, Germany got it wrong, and now have had to abandon it (costing the Germans a large amount). You are only asking this question to hint the US pushed the decision not the Germans.
3. Oil prices and inflation are based on many things. You are asking this because you want to suggest that "the US" wants war more than it cares about inflation/price of oil.
4. Again this repeated trope that "the USA" is making money from war to suggest a motive.
5. You summarise by arriving at the narrative you started with, all dressed up as "I'm just asking questions".

When people genuinely don't know about a situation and want to know more, they don't come to conspiracy forums. It's very clear you've already decided that the US has had some part in manufacturing or causing this war, and that's fine, that's your opinion. But your approach is all wrong.