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

I genuinely am not coming at this from a perspective of knowledge, more curiosity. My own view is that at best , the west failed to manage Russia (Putin) in a way that might of avoided the conflict. Putin is who is he is, I think the old “stay closer to your enemies” mantra might of been a wiser tact.

But thanks for posting that link. I was reading through it there:

Russia is not a great power. It is obviously a declining power, objectively so.

Yes, but isn’t the problem that even as a declining power they still have those Nukes in their back pocket. A homeless person with a rocket launcher can make big threats and still do more damage then the average joe. I would of thought it wiser to try to manage the homes less guy with more caution regardless of how little he actually has, he probably thinks he’s the dogs bollox, if you keep letting him wave his weapon he might believe his own hype !

Given this, it is not NATO’s responsibility to protect Russian state security interests. It is Russia’s responsibility to give wide berth to NATO, recognizing—as every realist should—that the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must.

This immediately starts to take a “get out of NATOs way” stance. That on its own suggests Conflict or intimidation or threat on NATOs part. In short , NATOs stance was that Russia should stay in its box and put up with whatever NATO was going to do Because Russia is small. This doesn’t sound like a reasonably diplomatic way of going about your business or even trying to manage Russia , it’s basically saying to Russia “STFU, we will do whatever we want!”

Objectively, no one wants to invade or destroy Russia, there are not and have never been plans for a NATO conquest of Russia.

I can’t answer that but I was more under the impression of that Putin was more concerned with missiles and American troops can taut be stationed all along Russias border. One can’t really have a more progressive consideration without asking what people think USA would do if China made alliances with Canada and Mexico where they could put in troops etc.

If you think Russia isn’t a superpower, so we can’t compare them to USA , why does that mater? North Korea isn’t a super power and they keep passively threatening their neighbours. But even at that, it’s an authoritarian stance that Russia is somehow not allowed to feel this way because they don’t have the means to throw their weight around. I honestly don’t get this logic, if the smallest country in the world feels threatened, the will take whatever actions they feel they need to do.

Do we take the stance that pretty much anything the US does is kind of ok because they are better then the alternatives? Do we excuse the big boys going around the world bullying everybody into submission and ignoring smaller autocracies/dictators because we are on their side? Is there no chance Some of USAs policy’s may lead to these sort of conflicts and if so why are they exempt from analysis?

My perspective in all instances is usually “what’s the second side to a story being told”. I do it when people are telling me an event, I default to “I wonder what the other person would say”. Prob cause I’ve grown up with people who in later years did I realise were quite deluded and usually tell stories where they are the innocent parties in events that unfold. They are always in conflict with people and it’s always other peoples fault! Sorry, I digress.

I suppose I always think trying to understand both sides is the best way of managing a situation.

In the immediate short run, Ukrainians will pay the prices for Russia’s strategic errors, but in the long run, Russia will bear the consequences. It has demonstrated clearly the limits of its force projection capabilities, and united NATO and the EU and a bunch of other hard-hearted neutral states at the same time.

That may be the case but making a strategic error does not really mitigate the reasons why the decision was made in the first place.

I suppose I think if you have a person who has loads of Nukes you manage them as best you can. That’s not necessarily appeasing them but one thing you shouldn’t do is create alliances (gas etc) where you rely on them to the point they think they have you.

From a very basic viewpoint it looks like Putin has been saying for years how he felt about expansion towards Russia and hinting at what he might do. It just looks like nobody took him seriously and everybody was happy to do business and make alliances with him , rather then investigate if he’d ever go through with threats.

Seeing Johnson , in Londongrad , talk so vehemently against Russia was weird. It seems so hypocritical, would be like the church saying now “priests abusing children is so wrong” and totally changing how they handled it as if they have always prioritised children's welfare over the reputation institution.

None of this is apologetic to Putin , justifies what he’s done or makes Ukraine responsible in any way for his aggression. I just think the west could of done more to avoid this. I think if you have a person like Putin you try to learn what makes him tick, understand him, what motivates him and how to usher him towards conservative decisions. The responsibility falls to the responsible people when you have a person like Putin and when you see a poor country like Ukraine getting destroyed , a fair question is “was enough done to help avoid this?”

I think the west was happy to do business with him and ignore the other stuff while he was remaining in his box (Georgia/crimea aside) and for that it’s a great shame.

As a supporter of a team from the premier league , I see the same hypocrisy , where they will do business with dirty money and turn a blind eye to where it came from, because it’s profitable and it suits them. The crimes are being comitted far away and people in England aren’t being affected by it so where’s the harm?

Just one more insight into my thinking, I had to do what’s called a searching and moral inventory of oneself many years ago. It’s where you have to look at your role in a situation, your reactions and see if perhaps there are personal hidden motives you failed to grasp (rather then blame everybody else). We can all delude ourselves at times, particularly in an incident that’s annoyed us. But I take this stance in a lot of things now, not in a conspiratorial way, more inquisitive.

I single the US out because they are the super power of the world. What they do or don’t do matters more then anybody else. Not to coin a corny phrase but with great power comes great responsibility.

By their actions and treatment of others , they set the rules of the game. If another country (or leader of that country)has delusions of grandeur and thinks it’s a big dog, you can’t turnaround and say “you can’t do that, only USA do that” and expect things to de-escalate.

I did not see Mearsheimer explain how the US is 100% to blame for the war. But he did raise interesting points for and I think a more pertinent question would be what portion of the blame is on their doorstep of the USA.