Is this a conspiracy theory or is there something in it?

[Friendproblem123]

Someone I know who has form for conspiracy theories just sent me this (in response to me posting sympathy to Zelenskyy after the row yesterday.

can anyone in the know please shed any light on whether this is true please?

x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1895751157651251687

Thanks for proving my point. You've just demonstrated how people stupidly lap up what their media says instead of taking the time to read and research and make an attempt at intelligent analysis.

So easy to dismiss everyone who disagrees with the propaganda in the Western press as a Russian Bot or a Russian asset isn't it.
By the way, I am not on anyone's side here. I am against war, unnecessary death and destruction.

No one is denying his stature, but his position on Ukraine has been widely criticised by other economists. He has also appeared multiple times on Russian state-funded tv calling for Ukraine to drop its ‘ maximalist demands’ (ie cede territory to Russia). 340 economists signed this open letter:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230806172854/news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230806172854/news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/

He’s also at the least conspiracy-theory adjacent on the origins of Covid.

Thanks @Crichel. I've seen that letter before but don't agree with most of it.
It was obvious to me from the beginning that this war would be terrible for Ukraine and that it was being used and sacrificed by other parties. If Ukraine had never discussed entering NATO and agreed to remain neutral, the war would very likely never have started. Three years later, they are now in a far, far weaker position, with hundreds of thousands dead and so much destroyed. We clearly have a president in the White House with a completely different view of geopolitics. It therefore seems obvious to me that Ukraine will have to make compromises, very likely cede land to Russia and agree to never enter NATO (assuming that even continues to exist in current form) at least. I'm not commenting on whether it's fair or not, simply what is likely to happen in order to bring an end to the war.

It is true that Russia was the aggressor but what happened before that is less clear.

The US did push the envelope of the Nato boundary by encouraging Ukraine to believe Nato membership was possible, this was a mistake and they should have clearly stated to Russia that Ukraine would remain neautral, this was a mistake.

If you look at Nato expansion over the last 60 years, it's obvious that Russia would definitely feel worried about Nato's march Eastwards. (I'm not excusing Russian aggression, just looking at what Putin's interpretation of events would be).

.Nato expansion over last 60 years

Oh my goodness the irony!! 😂😂
Russia’s actions in Ukraine, specifically the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and support for separatists in Donbas, predate serious NATO membership discussions for Ukraine. This suggests a broader intent to keep Ukraine within Russia’s sphere of influence, regardless of the NATO situation.
Putin has always viewed Ukraine as an inseparable part of Russian history and culture, citing the concept of a "greater Russian world". Neutrality would not have addressed this deeper ideological drive to prevent Ukraine from aligning with the West economically, politically, or culturally. Ukraine is a sovereign country who are allowed autonomy.
Russia’s official justification included Putins desire for "denazification" ( despite Zelensky being Jewish) and protecting Russian-speaking populations.
Russia has also intervened in neighbouring states that were not pursuing NATO membership, such as Georgia in 2008 and has a long history of aggression towards its neighbours.
Russia borders 6 NATO countries.
Russia brutally invaded sovereign Ukraine. Raping, torturing and killing children

This isn't just about Ukraine.
Here's Jeffrey Sachs to explain the history to you. Hope that helps!

https://www.opindia.com/news-updates/professor-jeffrey-sachs-explains-us-nato-role-russia-ukraine-war/

The US has been causing problems with their foreign policy, breaking agreements and meddling in many other countries's affairs for decades. Trump has clearly decided that the world of geopolitics is changing, for better or worse.

You seem very determined to absolve Russia of the responsibility. I certainly don’t need educating by a Kremlin mouthpiece.
Declassified records and Gorbachev’s statements, such as in a 2014 Russia Beyond interview, clarify that NATO’s 1990s assurances—like “not one inch eastward”—concerned Germany’s reunification, not a blanket restriction on NATO expansion,
Sachs echoes the Kremilin line that that NATO, via U.S. proxy actions, meddled by pulling Ukraine into its orbit, with Putin framing Euromaidan as a Western conspiracy. Yanukovych was obviously Russia’s preferred figure in Ukraine, but Euromaiden was a genuine uprising brought about by Ukrainian outrage over his corruption and his pivot away from an EU deal. Ukraine did not and does not want to be controlled by Russia, this is not because of American interference as Sachs/Russia would frame it but Ukraines genuine desire to be free from Russian dominance. Hope that helps!
.

No but it helps

Please help me (and sorry for derailing). I usually listen to a particular news radio station on my way to drop off and pick up, but my husband changed channels and for a day I listened to a man with a deep/very deep voice discussing politics with callers and it was interesting. It was in the morning but it must be a long programme because it was on for most of the morning. I managed to lose it. Do you know who I’m talking about?

It's really not just the Kremlin questioning the wisdom of NATO expansion - advisors within the USA policy apparatus have done the same, there have often been op ed pieces in the mainstream press - not now the country is so embroiled in Ukraine, but certainly in the past.

As for the assurances to Russia - well, that's the million dollar question isn't it. At the time of the initial assurances the soviet union hadn't collapsed and Ukraine wasn't independent. They occured in the context of the reunification of Germany, which was issue enough for the Soviets.

However there is record of assurance continuing to the time of the Minsk Agreement - was that intended to be wider? Also, Bush himself seemed to think there was a long term aspect to the assurances that he started, in internal communications and never to the Soviets, dialling back from. For some, all of that is irrelevant as the USA shouldn't be held to an old promise which events have overtaken. For others, the key reason events have overtaken the original entente is due to broken promises.

Anyway it has been a point of contention between NATO and Russia for decades and it's doubtful it's going to be ironed out by posters on Mumsnet, sadly.

It was obvious to me from the beginning that this war would be terrible for Ukraine and that it was being used and sacrificed by other parties.

I agree with this. I really want there to be a full investigation of who said what and when.

Zelenskyy, while corrupt, is an intelligent man. Why did he think he could win this? I keep thinking about the beginning of the full invasion, when he was demanding a no-fly zone from NATO. Now this could never, ever happen. Why did he say it? Was it rhetoric? Or expectation?

SnoozingFox · 01/03/2025 14:42

Seriously. You don't even have to click on the link to see that any post from username "BGatesisaPsycho" is going to be ridiculous”

👆

What SnoozingFox said.

Oh FFS Ukraine was invaded! Constantly framing your argument within a Russian perspective (offhandedly describing Zelensky corrupt but no mention of Putin etc etc) it’s clear to see your allegiance lies with Russia, I’m out!

HauntedBungalow · Today 12:04
It was obvious to me from the beginning that this war would be terrible for Ukraine and that it was being used and sacrificed by other parties.
I agree with this. I really want there to be a full investigation of who said what and when.
Zelenskyy, while corrupt, is an intelligent man. Why did he think he could win this? I keep thinking about the beginning of the full invasion, when he was demanding a no-fly zone from NATO. Now this could never, ever happen. Why did he say it? Was it rhetoric? Or expectation

It was realistic expectation. When Ukraine agreed to relinquish its nuclear deterrent, NATO agreed to have its back and defend it against invasion.

Ukraine has been very badly let down.

(which you know but choose to ignore)

The pro-Putin comments on here are by turns depressing and comical.

The pretexts given by Russia for the invasion of Ukraine are all transparent nonsense. It’s a land grab. That’s all.

What’s really got Putin riled up is that his ‘mighty’ armed forces have been shown to be mostly useless. Ten days to take Ukraine, supposedly, and Russia’s still trying three years later.

The fundamental problem with "seeing it from Russia's side" is that time and again the peoples of Eastern Europe have shown that they would much rather align with West and experience the greater freedom and prosperity that generally comes with that, than be stuck in the Russian "sphere of influence" and be ruled over by a corrupt autocrat and his merry band of oligarchs.

The only way to consider the Russian perspective reasonable is to implicitly accept Putin's worldview in which the will of the people of Ukraine (or the Baltics or Belarus) counts for nothing and it's all a great game between the superpowers to see who can control the most territory.

@MrsSkylerWhite a no-fly zone was not a realistic expectation. A no-fly zone would mean NATO would shoot down russian aircraft, putting it at war with Russia. NATO doesn't want to be at war directly with Russia. You and I also, don't want NATO to be at war directly with Russia. Think about the implications.

@Rummly agree that the invasion was about securing land. Why it happened, is what we need to look at.

Ofc Putin is corrupt, his administration murders people, he runs the Kremlin like a tsar and all the rest of it, but that doesn't explain why he invaded in the first place, or why he escalated. Imperial posturing notwithstanding, he can't realistically think he could go further than Ukraine - in fact as we have seen he is unable to take even Ukraine itself - so all this chat from him about "taking back" the soviet union is nonsense re his motivation.

@NotDavidTennant examining russian motivation is not the same as agreeing with what Russia does.

…agree that the invasion was about securing land. Why it happened, is what we need to look at.

The reason for a land grab is because it was a land grab. Other than the occupation and exploitation of Ukrainian soil and sea there’s no other ‘why it happened’. All the ‘reasons’ given by Russia or its apologists are a pack of lies.

Anyone who can’t see that this isn’t black and white has no real understanding of history, both Russian/Soviet and in general.

Did the USA encourage the Eastern expansion of NATO knowing full well that it might at some point provoke a Russian response? A lot of people would have had to have been very stupid otherwise. They would also have had to have learnt nothing from the Cuban missile crisis or any other time when one powerful nation state had got too close to another throughout history. They also don’t seem to have read much about the last 300 years of Russian history either.

Did the Eastern expansion of NATO contribute to Russia’s decision to annexe Crimea and interfere in the Donbas, before their full scale invasion? Again yes but, and this the only real arguable point - was it the major factor or just a minor one?

Does any of that justify Russia in their invasion of Ukraine? Of course not. But it does go some way to explaining it.

Anyone who can't see this isn't black and white also is ignoring human nature in general. People do not act in a vacuum. World leaders, in particular, do not act in a vacuum, or on a mad whim. They do not start wars, endangering their country, their personal wealth and security, for no reason.

I know it's satisfying to say oh Putin, he's crazy, he's a madman, and he just does this stuff. And if you don't care much about why the war is happening, you can tell yourself this, and not have to think further. But then why are you talking about it?

This is hilarious. It's always seems to be the case that people who don't know what they are talking turn to ad hominem remarks instead of debating intelligently. I'm not a Kremlin mouth piece and it says more about you than me that you choose this phrase and just debases what you say.

Funny that you suggest that there was no agreement over the 'not one inch eastwards'. Here's another video you may find helpful. American ambassador Jack Matlock and Kissinger discussing this situation in 1994. Matlock states clearly that there was an agreement. Please note, this is an American saying this, not a Russian: .
Stop making things up to fit your view that this is 100% Russia's fault when the reality is that this is far more complicated.

I'm not on the Russian side nor on the American side but do find a lot of Western media comments, including on here, to be both ignorant and naive.

Relieved to see far more intelligent comments from @HauntedBungalow and @OnlyDespairRemains

@Rummly have a look at the American video I just posted if you think that you can wipe the slate of history clear by saying 'it's all a pack of lies'.
The US knew exactly what they were doing. They want access to Ukraine's natural resources. They clearly totally underestimated Russia. The sanctions, etc have just served to impoverish Europeans (supposedly US allies) even further. Whether you or anyone else likes it, Trump has decided to do things differently. He obviously has his own motives, no doubt not particularly pleasant ones, but the fact is that he is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Europe needs to wise up and quickly!

Wow such frothing anger. Actually, I was referring to Sachs as the Kremlin mouthpiece, you know, the video you patronisingly sent to “educate me” (who is widely acknowledged to be a Kremlin mouthpiece.

NATO threatens Russia like a lock threatens a thief.
Anyone saying that NATO expansion provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine is parroting Kremlin lies. NATO is a defensive alliance that individual countries voluntarily apply to join… to protect themselves from being invaded. Countries join NATO by choice, not by occupation. Ukraine was unarmed and wanted security, especially after the invasion of Georgia in 2008, where russia terrorised and massacred Georgians. NATO’s only "hostile" if you’re the one attacking a member state, since Article 5 (the collective defense clause) has only been invoked once, after 9/11.
Each nation has the sovereign right to choose its alliances, and they’re not the ones massing troops or annexing neighbors.
Russia didn’t attack because of NATO, 6 NATO countries border Russia, did they invade them? Russia invaded because Ukraine was vulnerable without NATO protection and because it views Ukraine autonomy as worthless and has always viewed Ukraine as belonging to it. Here’s a picture to show you the countries that Russia have invaded over the years. Hope this helps!

If she believes it you will never convince her otherwise so don't bother trying. Just turn the conversation every time it comes up. 'That's interesting, now I must show you our holiday snaps, we had a fabulous time....'