Shahryar khan, is this site mostly English readers? I do see persian posts and was not sure if we have non English iranian visitors. so if I may, I post this for Persian readers to see the whole picture. Everyone in the world should be aware what evil West and America are up to and what their intent is. It will take China to come to Putin’s rescue, but then again China has so much dependency on US and global financial. 

ناتو تلاش داشت تا اوکراین را به عنوان عضو جدید خود معرفی کرده و با برقراری پایگاه نظامی در کی‌یف خود را یک گام دیگر به مسکو نزدیک کند. قابل پیش‌بینی بود که روسیه به عنوان بازیگر اصلی این شطرنج به هر کنش تهدیدآمیزی واکنش نشان می‌دهد.

باید به یاد داشت که در دهه ۹۰ میلادی امریکا به روسیه تعهد داده بود تا ناتو از مرز آلمان به سمت شرق پیشروی نکند. اما امریکا در طول همه این سال‌ها ۱۴ کشور را به عضویت ناتو افزود و هر روز خود را بیشتر به مسکو نزدیک کرد و اوکراین که قرار بود یکی دیگر از اعضای جدید ناتو در همسایگی روسیه باشد این بار با واکنش دولت روسیه روبه روشد.

شاید بهتر باشد برای رسیدن به یک تحلیل بی طرف و علمی دلیل این رخداد را در صحبت‌های جان مرشایمر استاد شناخته شده و امریکایی روابط بین‌الملل هم جست‌وجو کرد.

وی با اعتقاد به اینکه بحران اوکراین حاصل خطای غرب است می‌گوید: «غرب باید بی طرفی اوکراین را حفظ می‌کرد و آن کشور را به عنوان منطقه‌ای حائل بین خود با روسیه به رسمیت می‌شناخت و امکان می‌داد اوکراینی‌ها ضمن انتخاب خود، توان مصالحه و سازش با روسیه را حفظ کنند. اما جهان غرب به آنها القا می‌کرد که شما سرانجام در ما ادغام خواهید شد و روس‌ها سرانجام شکست خواهند خورد.»

این اندیشمند امریکایی در ادامه می‌گوید: ما با این القائات، آنها را به سوی عدم مصالحه با روسیه و اتخاذ سیاست‌های تند هدایت کردیم و سرانجام موجب تحریک روسیه و بحران حاضر  شدیم.

مرشایمر رفتار غرب در اوکراین را به آن تشبیه می‌کند که اگر چین در کنار سرمایه گذاری در کانادا، به تحریک این کشور به تقابل با امریکا روی آورد؛ امریکا چگونه برخورد خواهد کرد؟

i guess Keefer there were 3 options and the corresponding reactions: 

a. NATO accept Ukraine to be a member: Putin attacks Ukraine; but now he has to fight NATO; but now NATO has the obligation to protect Ukraine and get in a war with Russia. Reality is neither Putin nor NATO want this.

b. Current situation, West keeps neglecting Putin’s demand and tell him Ukraine can and will become a NATO member (just at a threatening talk level): Putin becomes proactive and invades Ukraine, not worried about NATO. (Current situation)

C. Diplomacy. US and EU to make sure there is no war, they postpone the idea of Ukraine / NATO: Everyone goes home, no conflict, no war, life as usual. 

C, would have been the easiest path.  A, was the all scale war. Why did west chose B (invasion by Putin and no involvement of NATO.  That is the big picture. 

Keefer absolutely. Now you see the big picture.  West and US could have easily avoided this. All they had to do was to stick to what they agreed with soviet which was No NATO membership of old Soviet republics. So yes at the time of fall of Berlin Wall and Germany reunification the U.S. government made a pledge to Soviet leaders not to expand the alliance’s eastern borders.  

So the question is why US and Europe who could have easily put this story to bed as you mentioned chose the extreme path. I mean the option of full scale war versus agreement of no NATO expansion.  And the latter would not have put anyone in disadvantage. The West instead chose to dare Putin, played hardball and left no choice for Putin but to invade. Why?  Why did West do this? Why does the West want Russia to invade and start a war? It was indeed an evil act by the west the way Chomsky describes it. 

On the lack of US or NATO help to Ukraine, the question is not really US hegemony.  What is bothering me is that NATO and US claiming that technically the NATO protocol or doctrine does not allow protecting a non NATO country like Ukraine.  So the question becomes how did that rule change? Kosovo nor Bosnia were not part of NATO, yet NATO got involved and saved Kosovo and Bosnia.  

ریاست افتخاری رییس جمهور روسیه بر فدراسیون جودو در اعتراض به حمله این کشوربه اوکراین، به حالت تعلیق درآمد.

In 2014, when the Republic of Crimea was re-unified with the Russian Federation, the US invoked "self-defenses" to justify its imposition of economic sanctions against Russia. In other words, the re-unification/annexation [whatever you wish to call it] threatened the "national security" of the United States, a territory located 9,500 kilometers from the 'event', not to mention the natural protection of the Atlantic Ocean. Such claims are absurd.

The US and its primarily European military instrument - NATO - easily could have avoided the present conflict by agreeing that NATO would not invite Ukraine as a NATO member and would discuss some 'buffer zone' between Russia's exposed western border and the 28 NATO States in Europe. Given the presence of US military bases in Germany and Italy, and the potential deployment to Poland, the compromise would not have been hard to swallow.

The act of refusal is the cause of the conflict."