And that "protecting itself" involved invading Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 AFTER their requests to join NATO were rejected by NATO?
Let's put it clearly - there was no CIA sponsored revolution. The majority of Ukrainians did not want to be part of the Rusyski Mir (the Kremlin world) - not all, but the majority.
Putin did not "make attempts for 8 years to produce a peaceful solution" - he kept a frozen conflict. Can you name ONE "attempt for a peaceful solution"?
Don’t Let Russia Fool You About the Minsk Agreements
CEPA
Kurt Volker
December 16, 2021
https://cepa.org/dont-let-russia-fool-you-about-the-minsk-agreements/
[Excerpt:]
1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first “Minsk Protocol” was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements.
2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator — and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called “separatists,” who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed.
3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine.
4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. It has regular military officers as well as intelligence operatives and unmarked “little green men” woven into the military forces in Eastern Ukraine. The LPR and DPR forces are by any definition “illegal armed groups,” that have not been disbanded. The ceasefire has barely been respected by the Russian side for more than a few days at a time.
5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna — understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff — that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. Because Russia is a member of the OSCE, and the SMM wants to preserve what little access it has to the occupied territories, the mission is guarded in what it says about ceasefire violations and restrictions on its freedom of movement. Privately, however, they acknowledge that some 80% of such violations and restrictions come from the Russian-controlled side of the border, and those that occur on the Ukrainian side are largely for safety reasons (e.g., avoiding mined approaches to bridges.)
6. Ukraine has implemented as much of Minsk as can reasonably be done while Russia still occupies its territory. The agreements require political measures on Ukraine’s side, including a special status for the region, an amnesty for those who committed crimes as part of the conflict, local elections, and some form of decentralization under the Ukrainian constitution. But the form of these measures is not specified, and Ukraine has already passed legislation addressing every point. It has passed – and extended with renewals – legislation on special status and amnesty, and already has legislation on the books governing local elections. It has passed constitutional amendments. The Minsk Agreements do not require Ukraine to grant autonomy to Donbas, or to become a federalized state. It is Russia’s unique interpretation that the measures passed by Ukraine are somehow insufficient, even though the agreements do not specify what details should be included, and Ukraine has already complied with what is actually specified to the degree it can.
What is lacking in Ukraine’s passage of these political measures is not the legislation per se, but implementation — which Russia itself prevents by continuing to occupy the territory. For example, international legal norms would never recognize the results of elections held under conditions of occupation, yet that is exactly what Russia seeks by demanding local elections before it relinquishes control. Moreover, the elections would not be for positions in the illegitimate LPR and DPR “governments” established under Russian occupation, but for the legitimate city councils, mayors, and oblast administrations that exist under Ukrainian law. Who would vote in such elections? Ukrainian law says all displaced citizens should vote. But would Russian occupation authorities allow this? These are matters for resolution under international supervision – not for Russia to dictate terms.
No, Putin's request was to Clinton in his administration. so that would have been in 1999, because that is when Putin came to power in Russia after Yeltsin had stepped down. So, it was long before 2008.
In 2008 the President of Georgia had asked Putin to come in & help quell a rebellion that had broken out. To my knowledge they are still there.
Your major problem is that you slurp up the propaganda & never question what you are being told.
The following is from Jacques Baud of the Swiss strategic intelligence who was with NATO in 2014. I present this instead of going through it all yet one more time:
The military situation in Ukraine, as seen by an ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence
I have little faith that you will actually read, & I doubt without reservation that you will accept it as well.
The following is Col. Richard Black speaking on various military engagements:
Col. Richard Black: U.S. Leading World to Nuclear War
You probably will not watch this either, and if you do will dismiss it because you have been successfully brainwashed to believe what the world press tells you, while ignoring anything that deviates from that narrative.
Just for the record, I am a proud American, but there have been too many presidents that have been working to destroy this nation to create a One World Government. The only two presidents in my lifetime that were not intent in destroying this nation were Ronald Reagan, & Donald John Trump. I was fooled by both daddy & son Bush presidencies because they were Republicans. I am no longer a Republican enthusiast. Instead I want to capture the Republican arty just like the communists captured the Democrat Party.