Yes, the isolationist era that followed World War One clearly calmed the rest of the world, so that the various "expansionist" regimes felt less threatened and just let their neighbors be.
History rhymes with itself.
History rhymes with itself.
That's exactly why 'expansionist' regimes were ready to start some next war, being eager "to get some extra land" as a result of said war.
The current war is different: this is the war that started not out of appetite towards foreign lands, but, basically, out of primal fear, the fear concerning safety. The West was failing at self-reflection and was completely oblivious about their own actions being treated as crossing a real red line for Russia's safety.
You may scare a wandering bear away, but driving it into a corner is both stupid and fatal.
1. Crimea, Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporozhskaya Oblast are now parts of Russia.
2. NATO still thinks those are parts of Ukraine.
3. Some of NATO countries are now in talks about sending their troops to Ukraine.
Not factually, nor legally.
Instead you decided to use it as an opportunity to claim that the Russian-occupied territories should be internationally recognized. You're funny.
russia also annexed and occupied Crimea, and at the same time destroyed or stole the entirely of Ukraine’s Black Sea fleet. They moved their own nuclear weapons to CSTO partner state (and vassal) Belarus, pushing them closer to NATO borders.
no matter what justifications russia claims, their actions are what matter, they have no desire for any form of modern diplomacy. Do you remember how long they pretended Wagner mercenaries weren’t directly funded and supplied by the state?
If Ukraine had said “fuck no” from day one, “we’re keeping our stuff, we don’t trust any of you long term at that level”, it would be in interesting world we live in.
This narrative that NATO provoked Russia into this is non sequitur. A gaslight of grandeur.