The Russo-Ukrainian war lasted for 10 days, and netizens divided into two factions that supported and condemned Russia, and quarreled with all their might. Recently, when I talked to my classmates who went to college with me about the Russo-Ukrainian War, I was stunned by the fact that his views were one-sided, fierce, and hysterical about the events; I couldn't believe that I had been studying in the same room and being gentle and elegant! Originally, the pluralism of cognition is normal, and the conflict of views is normal; but what I can't understand is that the human mind cannot even recognize the basic logic and inner essence of things, and how terrible this pale and crazy degeneration is!
Condemning and insulting Russia's views, one is that "aggression against sovereign states" is anti-humanity; the other is that "sovereign states have the right to decide what organizations they join." I can't discuss right and wrong with them from these giddy literals, "governing a big country is like cooking a small fresh", in fact, the country's current politics are often like a child you slap me, I also slap you, or the hands are not necessarily "bad students", beaten is not necessarily the appearance of being commissioned, there are things behind the table that cannot be lifted, there is no tall and shiny "theory" and the "mystery" of chewing words, you have done it all hours, haven't you? So why does Russia "beat people"? And so fierce?
As you know, NATO was established on April 4, 1949, a total of 12 countries, the old United States picked the beams, and the Cold War was mainly to deal with the former Soviet Union. In August 1989, the former Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated into more than a dozen independent countries; in July 1991, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved; first, in order to obtain Western "assistance", Russia turned to the West on one side, shrinking its power from Eastern Europe, and a "power vacuum" appeared in Eastern Europe, and Eastern European countries were interested in joining NATO due to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and the disappearance of their sense of security; secondly, Russia, the successor of the former Soviet Union, had a huge state scale, a strong military industry, and rich resource reserves, making it have the ability to become a regional power again In order to minimize Russia's influence in Eastern Europe and curb the re-emergence of Russia, the successor of the former Soviet Union, NATO under the control of the United States has tried to attract Eastern European countries to join NATO as much as possible in order to expand the achievements of the Cold War victory and encroach on Russia's traditional strategic space.
In 1992, NATO approved the "principle of operations" - allowing NATO troops to leave the territory of member states to participate in "other" peacekeeping operations; at the end of the year, NATO intervened militarily in the Yugoslav crisis; in September 1996, NATO published the "Study on the Eastward Expansion Plan"; in July 1997, the NATO Madrid Summit decided to admit Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to NATO. In July 1999, the US-led NATO bombed Yugoslavia, Russia was completely squeezed out of the original Circle of Influence in Eastern Europe, and NATO began to produce contradictions in regional influence due to geopolitical competition; on November 21, 2002, NATO's Prague summit decided to expand eastward for the second time: to admit Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria to join NATO; at this point, NATO has expanded from 19 member states to 26, and NATO's military forces have been deployed to Russia's doorstep! Since then, NATO has carried out five "eastward expansions", in the process, Russia in 2003, 2008 repeatedly asked to join NATO to obtain security guarantees, but western countries refused. NATO's eastward expansion has brought about tremendous changes in the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, especially the accession of the three Baltic countries to NATO has completely lost the strategic buffer zone of Russia's northwestern border in front of NATO; in southern Russia, Romania, Bulgania, and Turkey have formed an encirclement of Russia's Black Sea; more importantly, NATO can arbitrarily deploy troops and military equipment on the territory of these countries. Infiltrating the CIS countries (such as Kazakhstan, etc.) has seriously threatened the politics and security of Russia as a traditional interest area - the "CIS", subjectively forming the purpose of NATO controlling this region, disintegrating the "CIS", isolating Russia, and restricting its development; in recent years, the NATO NATO Council has held that the eastward expansion of the alliance's center of gravity to the east will help change the territory of Europe, and the purpose of NATO's eastward expansion is clearly revealed.
In the 30 years from 1991 to the present, to the 10 years from 2001, whether it is Kuchma or Yanukovych, the two countries can get along with each other, and Russia has never made debt and territorial claims to Ukraine; in 2004, Ukraine under the support of the West occurred the "Orange Revolution", after which the West actively intervened in Ukraine's domestic politics; in 2013, pro-Russian President Yanukovych decided to terminate the "free trade agreement" with the West. Annoyed by Western countries and pro-Western forces and ousted from power, since 2014, Ukraine has experienced yushchenko, Tymoshenko, Yanukovych, Poroshenko and other changes one after another, Ukraine has become a political "stage" for the United States and Russia to compete for influence. Since the fall of the pro-Russian government in 2004, Ukraine has become increasingly "westward" with the "aid" of the United States and the West, but it has also become increasingly impoverished. Today, it is no longer possible for Russia to integrate into the West for security, as it did in 1990, and there is nothing it can do in the face of NATO's five eastward expansions. Poland, Romania and other countries are still far from Russia's geographical location, but Ukraine's accession to NATO and other countries to join NATO is absolutely different, it is related to Russia's strategic survival - the buffer zone between Russia and NATO is only Ukraine and North Russia, Ukraine is 500 kilometers away from Moscow, in today's military mechanization, the United States, NATO and Russia all know what this means for Russia; and Ukraine's accession to NATO will be in the CIS countries, Central Asia, There will be a chain reaction in the Caucasus, when Russia will be doomed to the Dominoes of Theorino! Therefore, Ukraine's accession to NATO is an unacceptable "life and death card" for Russia, and Ukraine's neutrality between NATO and Russia is Russia's only security guarantee and strategic interest that must not be abandoned.
From the "honeymoon" period with the West to the West's refusal of Russia's request to join NATO; from the United States and NATO's "commitment" to Russia not to expand eastward to NATO's gradual eastward expansion to its doorstep; from the 10 years of friendly coexistence with Ukraine to this "brother" of the same ethnic group, an important trading partner, and the only country with strategic depth to NATO, it has gradually drifted away from itself. Although international politics is about the law of the jungle and the law of the jungle, Ukraine has not thought about it: Just like its neighbors, some things can be done, but things that harm neighbors cannot be done; although it is a "sovereign country," it does not care about the security of other "sovereign countries", knowing the purpose of the United States and NATO, knowing that Russia is highly vigilant about NATO, and strongly reacting to security, but it is determined to join NATO, and the result is bound to be to lure wolves into the house and play for the tiger. Is it a threat first and a provocation first? Is being beaten an inevitable consequence?
There is no unprovoked love, and there is no unprovoked hate! What is behind the matter is the real thing. In international politics, those rights that only have "sovereignty" but undermine the "sovereignty" of others do not exist! The "sovereignty" of being safe for oneself but not giving security to others also does not exist. When have you ever seen the United States and the West talk about "sovereignty" to other countries when they are defending their own interests? Panama? Yugoslavia? Iraq? Syria? So, don't say that Ulanq has any "sovereignty" of its own, ask the teacher who has been shouting "sovereignty" all day long, the United States, when its security is threatened, has it given "sovereignty" to others?
Therefore, the "sovereignty" you are clamoring for is not real sovereignty, but a pale, naïve "concept" that even you do not know.