7 ms·

I don’t think we can poopoo it that easily. The expansion of NATO is one of Russia’s biggest grievances against the West. Russia is in an historically vulnerabl

by geowwy 9y ago

I don’t think we can poopoo it that easily. The expansion of NATO is one of Russia’s biggest grievances against the West. Russia is in an historically vulnerable position right now which is a large part of the reason why they’re behaving so aggressively and recklessly.

Spooky23 9y ago
Russia is always a schitzoid State because it’s not European and not Asian. It’s both and neither. IMO, for all of the screwed up nature of the country, Russia is so big that it and it’s sphere of influence is always a threat to its neighbors. If you are not an ethnic Russian, happen to live between the economic powerhouse of Western Europe and Russia, you probably want to affiliate with the strong economy of the West vs being a sort of vassal to Russia.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  I'd say the problem is that it's too European - it held onto Medieval Europe's system of serfdom and highly centralized power far too long; the agricultural riches and later oil riches in Russia made modernization less interesting. One big revolution is no substitute for ten thousand small ones. In size (population and moreso economy) it's now not that far ahead of Germany and has China and India as neighbors/near neighbors. I'd say it is adopting the psychology of the tough small guy.
tomash 9y ago
You don't live in a country bordering Russia, do you? Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. Russia's western neighbors flock to NATO for a reason. Basically Russia is the bully of the neighborhood, using violence whenever it doesn't get whatever it wants.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  So was Sweden at the time... I think your understanding of History is flawed at best.
  - maaark 9y ago
    Appeal to hypocrisy. Also, haven't seen Sweden invade anyone recently.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      No it's not appeal to hypocrisy, Russias actions are pretty much defined by it's geography it's effectively a land locked country without warm water ports surrounded by local and global super powers.
  - Svip 9y ago
    Sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars. I don't recall Russia perusing any similar foreign policy during the same period.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      And before that? Gustaf the II? The 30 year war?
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Hasn't Russia been all too keen to flex its might when it comes to Natural Gas too? As most of the nations in Eastern and Central Europe rely on Natural Gas coming from Russia for heat & some power. The soft power Russia has seems to be growing, never mind the wars they are all too happy to fight without acknowledging that a war is being waged.
  - Tade0 9y ago
    It has, but fortunately since the oil price slump they haven't really been in a position to do this, because they need the revenue to keep their operations going. Meanwhile Europe is diversifying its sources of fuels, so it seems that they will lose any ability to do that eventually.
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    Gas exports have been frequently used as leverage against transit countries, but not against destination countries. It wouldn't per se surprise me that it's just about cutting the middleman out (cf. nordstream).
  - v_lisivka 9y ago
    You are right. War in Ukraine was started to kick out Shell out of natural gas field near to Sloviansk, which was able to fulfill needs of Ukraine and Europe, so Sloviansk was first target for Russian "insurgents". AFAIK, the same reason holds for Syria: to stop Qatar attempt to reach Europe.
- kbart 9y ago
  Exactly. I do live in a country bordering Russia and we have been occupied by it twice during the last two hundred years. NATO is seen as the only way to keep our independence. Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    > Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU. Semi-seriously: Ukraine at least had a treaty securing its borders by the US, UK, and Russia. If the US and UK aren't willing to act on that treaty, what makes one think they'd act on a NATO Article V invocation by them if they were NATO members?
    - kbart 9y ago
      Because not invoking NATO Article V would immediately render the whole alliance useless (as this article is the whole point of NATO) and I'm sure no member of it would risk that. Russia pulling a similar trick as in Ukraine on any NATO member without serious consequences would be an achievement comparable to the victory of the Cold War.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      Attacking that commitment is likely a big part of why we have the political situation that we have in the US today.
  - prebrov 9y ago
    In the 150 years before WW II ended there has hardly been 20 years of peace in Europe in one stretch. Domestic European squabble developed into bloodiest conflicts the world had seen, more than once, never mind whole continents in submission and despair up until the 50s. Yet it is Russia that poses perpetual imminent threat. Very unfortunately for territories bordering Russia, they are a, indeed, a buffer zone and get mowed down and/or change hands every time shit hits the fan. Equally so, in fact, by Russia and by the Western (“Proper”) Europe.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  > Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century Two world wars happened since at least 20th century. Napoleonic before that. Countries go to wars. Since forever. Aggressively and recklessly. Doesn't make agreements less important. A poor agreement is better than a good war, isn't it?
  - DubiousPusher 9y ago
    I'm not sure. I think poor agreements lead to more wars.
- cat199 9y ago
  > Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. and historically, everyone surrounding russia has been trying to limit, constrain, or invade it (eastern crusades, crimean war, western sponsorship of lenin, etc).. what is your point?
BjoernKW 9y ago
How so? NATO expanding to Poland and the Baltic countries is more of a perceived threat to Russia and its own colonial aspirations rather than an actual military threat. In my opinion losing economic influence is what Russia should really be worried about. With Poland and the Baltic countries becoming part of the EU they not only gradually lost influence on these markets but the potential access to the larger European market those provided as well. These issues certainly can't be seen separately. On a global scale economic prosperity often is connected to strategic power. However, it might be beneficial to Russia (not necessarily Russian politicians, though) to, instead of considering these questions in terms of national grievances, proactively seek more trade deals and economic cooperation. In the 1990s even Russia becoming part of the EU wasn't that far out.
- skeletal88 9y ago
  Russia lost it's economic importance here before we even joined the EU, and it's lost even more of it's importance as a trading partner, because Russia tried to use trade as a weapon. They have repeatedly randomly banned imports of products (mostly food) from Estonia and other countries for made up reasons, then removed the restrictions to repeat that again in some years. Then after a statue was moved they basically stopped all oil exports through Estonian ports, the excuse being an emergency repair that lasted ages on a railroad next to their border with Estonia. Because of this most people avoid doing business with Russia, because it's just so random. You build relations, start selling something to them and then their state randomly bans the imports of the thing you've been exporting. There's too much risk. If they were a reliable trading partner then everyone would be happier, and they'd have more soft power.
  - cat199 9y ago
    > trade as a weapon the west doesn't use access to capital as a weapon?
    - v_lisivka 9y ago
      Yep, but reasons are clear and not random.
DubiousPusher 9y ago
You're right. I came out a little strong. It complicates matters and gives the Russian government a stronger point of grievance, not without some legitimacy. I simultaneously don't think it's quite the Machiavellian dagger in back some are making it out to be.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
A historically vulnerable position? Vulnerable to what? To an invasion by NATO? There's two ways you can answer that question. The first is, no, it's not vulnerable, because there are exactly zero NATO members who have any interest whatsoever in invading Russia. That is simply not going to happen. The second answer is to remember history. Napoleon invaded and captured Moscow. Hitler invaded and made it to just outside Moscow. Both of them started from further west than NATO could start. So, yes, from the perspective of history, Russia has less of a geographic buffer than it had in the past. But I think Putin isn't really afraid of a NATO invasion. What he's really afraid of is a color revolution. He therefore is building grievances against the West, not because he fears NATO, but because he fears real democracy. (Yes, I know, the democracy in the west has problems, and is less "real" than it should be. It's still miles ahead of what's happening in Russia, though. And Putin wants the situation in Russia to stay as it is.)
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  The simultaneous weakening of both Russia's military position and it's economic position make it far harder for Putin's cabal to persuade the masses that they are terrific managers who are making Russia great again. Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    > Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course. Well, it may be to our advantage to not back him too tightly into a corner. Or at least it may be very much to our disadvantage to corner him too tightly...
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      Right - just not nec in the interest of the Russian people. A tough one.
- myaso 9y ago
  Having Nato boundaries inch closer makes Moscow & St Petersburg vulnerable to a first strike from a short range ballistic missle without warning -- this could happen faster than anyone can react with like 10 min lead time. All joining Nato does for eastern European countries is ensure their citizens can go on adventures overseas with Americans and come back in a casket and secondly it plasters a big ass target on top of them for a nuke -- I guess they are too stupid to realize that the Americans and British would prefer to have them die over their own citizens. Nobody cares about a conventional invasion dude, the prospect of eastern Nato states invading Russia is laughable, there are easier ways to commit suicide. Lol "real democracy"? Like the "real democracy" that plunged the Middle East into absolute chaos? Or failed to contain the spread Islamic extremism across Africa? Or stop Saudi funded Madrassas popping up in every Muslim country? Your entire democracy developed because North America is isolated geographically from immediately hostile nations, and with no real threats and having grown pampered and fat it is only natural to intervene in the affairs of others. Given the American competence in Iraq/Vietnam/Syria why aren't you suspecting that the export of "democracy" doesn't work yet? A color revolution through some proxy freedom institute isn't really desired anywhere given past outcomes -- let's assume the Arab Spring is an extension of that too, I'm sure the money comes from the same source. Take a look at the countries that share a border with Russia and the implications of having an imbecile in power there -- Europe being pumped full of refugees via Erdogan's Turkey is a nice preview for you. Western European style democracy might not be desired or even feasible in Russia.

by geowwy 9y ago

Spooky23 9y ago

Russia is always a schitzoid State because it’s not European and not Asian. It’s both and neither. IMO, for all of the screwed up nature of the country, Russia is so big that it and it’s sphere of influence is always a threat to its neighbors. If you are not an ethnic Russian, happen to live between the economic powerhouse of Western Europe and Russia, you probably want to affiliate with the strong economy of the West vs being a sort of vassal to Russia.

Nomentatus 9y ago
I'd say the problem is that it's too European - it held onto Medieval Europe's system of serfdom and highly centralized power far too long; the agricultural riches and later oil riches in Russia made modernization less interesting. One big revolution is no substitute for ten thousand small ones. In size (population and moreso economy) it's now not that far ahead of Germany and has China and India as neighbors/near neighbors. I'd say it is adopting the psychology of the tough small guy.

tomash 9y ago

You don't live in a country bordering Russia, do you? Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. Russia's western neighbors flock to NATO for a reason. Basically Russia is the bully of the neighborhood, using violence whenever it doesn't get whatever it wants.

dogma1138 9y ago
So was Sweden at the time... I think your understanding of History is flawed at best.
- maaark 9y ago
  Appeal to hypocrisy. Also, haven't seen Sweden invade anyone recently.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    No it's not appeal to hypocrisy, Russias actions are pretty much defined by it's geography it's effectively a land locked country without warm water ports surrounded by local and global super powers.
- Svip 9y ago
  Sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars. I don't recall Russia perusing any similar foreign policy during the same period.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    And before that? Gustaf the II? The 30 year war?
StudentStuff 9y ago
Hasn't Russia been all too keen to flex its might when it comes to Natural Gas too? As most of the nations in Eastern and Central Europe rely on Natural Gas coming from Russia for heat & some power. The soft power Russia has seems to be growing, never mind the wars they are all too happy to fight without acknowledging that a war is being waged.
- Tade0 9y ago
  It has, but fortunately since the oil price slump they haven't really been in a position to do this, because they need the revenue to keep their operations going. Meanwhile Europe is diversifying its sources of fuels, so it seems that they will lose any ability to do that eventually.
- blattimwind 9y ago
  Gas exports have been frequently used as leverage against transit countries, but not against destination countries. It wouldn't per se surprise me that it's just about cutting the middleman out (cf. nordstream).
- v_lisivka 9y ago
  You are right. War in Ukraine was started to kick out Shell out of natural gas field near to Sloviansk, which was able to fulfill needs of Ukraine and Europe, so Sloviansk was first target for Russian "insurgents". AFAIK, the same reason holds for Syria: to stop Qatar attempt to reach Europe.
kbart 9y ago
Exactly. I do live in a country bordering Russia and we have been occupied by it twice during the last two hundred years. NATO is seen as the only way to keep our independence. Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > Look and Georgia and Ukraine know -- both these countries started in a similar position as we after the breakup of USSR, the key difference was that they haven't joined NATO and/or EU. Semi-seriously: Ukraine at least had a treaty securing its borders by the US, UK, and Russia. If the US and UK aren't willing to act on that treaty, what makes one think they'd act on a NATO Article V invocation by them if they were NATO members?
  - kbart 9y ago
    Because not invoking NATO Article V would immediately render the whole alliance useless (as this article is the whole point of NATO) and I'm sure no member of it would risk that. Russia pulling a similar trick as in Ukraine on any NATO member without serious consequences would be an achievement comparable to the victory of the Cold War.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Attacking that commitment is likely a big part of why we have the political situation that we have in the US today.
- prebrov 9y ago
  In the 150 years before WW II ended there has hardly been 20 years of peace in Europe in one stretch. Domestic European squabble developed into bloodiest conflicts the world had seen, more than once, never mind whole continents in submission and despair up until the 50s. Yet it is Russia that poses perpetual imminent threat. Very unfortunately for territories bordering Russia, they are a, indeed, a buffer zone and get mowed down and/or change hands every time shit hits the fan. Equally so, in fact, by Russia and by the Western (“Proper”) Europe.
thriftwy 9y ago
> Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century Two world wars happened since at least 20th century. Napoleonic before that. Countries go to wars. Since forever. Aggressively and recklessly. Doesn't make agreements less important. A poor agreement is better than a good war, isn't it?
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  I'm not sure. I think poor agreements lead to more wars.
cat199 9y ago
> Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. and historically, everyone surrounding russia has been trying to limit, constrain, or invade it (eastern crusades, crimean war, western sponsorship of lenin, etc).. what is your point?

BjoernKW 9y ago

How so? NATO expanding to Poland and the Baltic countries is more of a perceived threat to Russia and its own colonial aspirations rather than an actual military threat. In my opinion losing economic influence is what Russia should really be worried about. With Poland and the Baltic countries becoming part of the EU they not only gradually lost influence on these markets but the potential access to the larger European market those provided as well. These issues certainly can't be seen separately. On a global scale economic prosperity often is connected to strategic power. However, it might be beneficial to Russia (not necessarily Russian politicians, though) to, instead of considering these questions in terms of national grievances, proactively seek more trade deals and economic cooperation. In the 1990s even Russia becoming part of the EU wasn't that far out.

skeletal88 9y ago
Russia lost it's economic importance here before we even joined the EU, and it's lost even more of it's importance as a trading partner, because Russia tried to use trade as a weapon. They have repeatedly randomly banned imports of products (mostly food) from Estonia and other countries for made up reasons, then removed the restrictions to repeat that again in some years. Then after a statue was moved they basically stopped all oil exports through Estonian ports, the excuse being an emergency repair that lasted ages on a railroad next to their border with Estonia. Because of this most people avoid doing business with Russia, because it's just so random. You build relations, start selling something to them and then their state randomly bans the imports of the thing you've been exporting. There's too much risk. If they were a reliable trading partner then everyone would be happier, and they'd have more soft power.
- cat199 9y ago
  > trade as a weapon the west doesn't use access to capital as a weapon?
  - v_lisivka 9y ago
    Yep, but reasons are clear and not random.

DubiousPusher 9y ago

You're right. I came out a little strong. It complicates matters and gives the Russian government a stronger point of grievance, not without some legitimacy. I simultaneously don't think it's quite the Machiavellian dagger in back some are making it out to be.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

A historically vulnerable position? Vulnerable to what? To an invasion by NATO? There's two ways you can answer that question. The first is, no, it's not vulnerable, because there are exactly zero NATO members who have any interest whatsoever in invading Russia. That is simply not going to happen. The second answer is to remember history. Napoleon invaded and captured Moscow. Hitler invaded and made it to just outside Moscow. Both of them started from further west than NATO could start. So, yes, from the perspective of history, Russia has less of a geographic buffer than it had in the past. But I think Putin isn't really afraid of a NATO invasion. What he's really afraid of is a color revolution. He therefore is building grievances against the West, not because he fears NATO, but because he fears real democracy. (Yes, I know, the democracy in the west has problems, and is less "real" than it should be. It's still miles ahead of what's happening in Russia, though. And Putin wants the situation in Russia to stay as it is.)

Nomentatus 9y ago
The simultaneous weakening of both Russia's military position and it's economic position make it far harder for Putin's cabal to persuade the masses that they are terrific managers who are making Russia great again. Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course. Well, it may be to our advantage to not back him too tightly into a corner. Or at least it may be very much to our disadvantage to corner him too tightly...
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Right - just not nec in the interest of the Russian people. A tough one.
myaso 9y ago
Having Nato boundaries inch closer makes Moscow & St Petersburg vulnerable to a first strike from a short range ballistic missle without warning -- this could happen faster than anyone can react with like 10 min lead time. All joining Nato does for eastern European countries is ensure their citizens can go on adventures overseas with Americans and come back in a casket and secondly it plasters a big ass target on top of them for a nuke -- I guess they are too stupid to realize that the Americans and British would prefer to have them die over their own citizens. Nobody cares about a conventional invasion dude, the prospect of eastern Nato states invading Russia is laughable, there are easier ways to commit suicide. Lol "real democracy"? Like the "real democracy" that plunged the Middle East into absolute chaos? Or failed to contain the spread Islamic extremism across Africa? Or stop Saudi funded Madrassas popping up in every Muslim country? Your entire democracy developed because North America is isolated geographically from immediately hostile nations, and with no real threats and having grown pampered and fat it is only natural to intervene in the affairs of others. Given the American competence in Iraq/Vietnam/Syria why aren't you suspecting that the export of "democracy" doesn't work yet? A color revolution through some proxy freedom institute isn't really desired anywhere given past outcomes -- let's assume the Arab Spring is an extension of that too, I'm sure the money comes from the same source. Take a look at the countries that share a border with Russia and the implications of having an imbecile in power there -- Europe being pumped full of refugees via Erdogan's Turkey is a nice preview for you. Western European style democracy might not be desired or even feasible in Russia.