Russia has made it clear that Ukrainian membership in the EU would be a red line (that's what drove the Maidan), as are a number of domestic policies it is pursuing. There was no recent movement for Ukrainian membership in NATO, which means it is a poor explanation for this war.
Even if NATO had declared Ukraine would never join, that would not have stopped this war. This was also driven by Ukraine's political orientation and Russia losing influence. Putin even said that Ukraine would present a threat even if it didn't join NATO. 2/
Again, you can track comments from Putin and senior Russian officials over the past two years to see how the rhetoric shifted, largely in response to policies Zelensky pursued. Putin devoted an entire security council meeting to Ukraine in May after Viktor Medvedchuk's arrest. 3/
It is important to note that this is a problem of Moscow's making. By removing the three most pro-Russia voting regions in Ukraine in 2014, Moscow forever altered Ukraine's political orientation and there wasn't much support for joining NATO before then. 5/
Earlier NATO expansion did play a role because it made Ukraine's political orientation more important to Russia. A hostile Ukraine meant that nearly all of Russia's western border is with non-friendly countries. But the risk of Ukraine joining NATO was not the proximate cause. 6/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Very poor tactics displayed by this Russian armored force so close to Kyiv. They're well within range of Ukrainian artillery in Kyiv, they're on an obvious avenue of approach, and they still decided to bunch up like this, leaving them more vulnerable to indirect fire.
Looks like the cargo section for an Iskander-M 9M723 ballistic missile carrying cluster munitions. Compare to the 3rd photo from Karabakh. caliber.az/post/srocno-ar…