6 ms·

> they're an expansionist power That's somewhat debatable, if you mean 'expansionist' like Russia would like to rebuild the USSR or a new Russian Empire. What

> they're an expansionist power That's somewhat debatable, if you mean 'expansionist' like Russia would like to rebuild the USSR or a new Russian Empire. What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West and friendly rulers and states on its borders, much like any state with Russia's military history would be interested in doing. Combined Russian/Soviet casualties in WW1 and WW2 were on the order of ~60mm people out ~160mm total. Both NATO and the EU have progressively expanded towards the former Soviet bloc since the fall of the USSR. From the West's perspective, this is bringing liberal multiparty democracy and stability to an unstable Eastern Europe. But from Russia's perspective, why should it fully trust the West that was so recently its enemy, and when the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism in the 90s failed so spectacularly (Russia's GDP fell by a full 50% and life expectancy dropped by years [2]). Not trying to shill or defend Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine here, but if you just look at the map of a formerly hostile alliance moving steadily eastward and you were Russia, would you really just throw up your hands and say 'yes, that is how the world should be' and tacitly accept it? [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vilnius_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vilnius_Gr... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sequence7 8y ago
> But from Russia's perspective, why should it fully trust the West that was so recently its enemy, and when the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism in the 90s failed so spectacularly (Russia's GDP fell by a full 50% and life expectancy dropped by years You say this is because of the failure of liberal democracy and capitalism but your citation says it was most likely caused by: "rising poverty rates, unemployment, financial insecurity, and corruption" Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries. > Not trying to shill or defend Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine here, but if you just look at the map of a formerly hostile alliance moving steadily eastward and you were Russia, would you really just throw up your hands and say 'yes, that is how the world should be' and tacitly accept it? Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.
- konart 8y ago
  >Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia. The cause and the effect. 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa. From Russia's perspective it was not wise from NATO to accept those wise countries, expecially considering NATO had an aggrement with Russia on this part. >Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries. Usually you have to deal with both internal and external issues at the same time.
  - sequence7 8y ago
    >> Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia. > The cause and the effect. 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa. From Russia's perspective it was not wise from NATO to accept those wise countries, expecially considering NATO had an aggrement with Russia on this part. The argument that Russia is just defending itself against hostile expansion rather falls down when you count the number of countries that are members of NATO who have been the victim of Russian expansion (0) compared to the number that are not a member of NATO who have been the victim of aggression (more than 0). That rather implies that being a NATO member protects you from Russian invasion and explains the desire, for every country that can, to join NATO. >> Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries. >Usually you have to deal with both internal and external issues at the same time. Perhaps but Russia does not appear to be dealing with the internal issues which is my point.
    - konart 8y ago
      >The argument that Russia is just defending itself against hostile expansion rather falls down when you count the number of countries that are members of NATO who have been the victim of Russian expansion (0) compared to the number that are not a member of NATO who have been the victim of aggression (more than 0). That rather implies that being a NATO member protects you from Russian invasion and explains the desire, for every country that can, to join NATO. I see no contradiction here. Yes, Russia won't attack a NATO member and yes Russia will attack non-NATO member if Russia thinks this is an appropriate action. What countries did Russia attacked before NATO decided to go back on their word and started their expasion? Offence is the best defence. >Perhaps but Russia does not appear to be dealing with the internal issues which is my point. Corruption is high, yes, unemployment is pretty low. Some issues are being addressed better than the others surely. Things like corruption which is almost part of culture and inactivity of locals will take a long time to change.
mr_overalls 8y ago
> the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism Oh, you mean when the oligarchs/mob bosses robbed the country blind and seized all power? Yeah, that's totally the fault of the West, or some abstract notion of capitalism or democracy.
codedokode 8y ago
> What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West It is just an excuse. If the country wants to invade another country, they will always find a good excuse. This is not only about Russia - take any recent war US took part in or any other war. Nobody wants to look evil. Regarding NATO expansion, of course it serves the interests of USA but it can be also good for other countries. For example, the presence of NATO troops in Baltic countries helps them to stay independent and avoid repeating the situation that has happened in 1939 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_state...
- c-smile 8y ago
  You had NATO that suddenly lost its grounds when USSR collapsed. Just to keep it afloat you would need to invent new "enemy" for it. When remnants of USSR were in ruins Middle East was wildfired, that stopped people thinking "NATO, against whom?". After that China was assigned as an imminent threat. That passed too. And now Russia. Any idea what will be the next excuse?
  - codedokode 8y ago
    Of course Russia is still a threat and NATO (while serving primarily American interests) helps to protect Eastern Europe countries from Russia. We should not forget that in 1939 USSR invaded into Finland, Baltic countries, Poland if I remember correctly. In 1968 they invaded Chekoslovakia. With NATO those countries probably feel safer. Ukraine didn't have NATO bases - and lost its territory. This is a reminder for other countries.
    - c-smile 8y ago
      You missed cause and consequence. Unprovoked expansion of NATO happened first. After years of warnings. Ukraine was in the line. That non-democratic coup was a step to NATO and inspired/supported by NATO members. And after that Crimean people expressed that they don't like that by voting out of it.
gandhium 8y ago
> That's somewhat debatable, if you mean 'expansionist' like Russia would like to rebuild the USSR or a new Russian Empire. It's not debatable, Putin said in the recent press-conference that "they're lost Ukraine and other Soviet republics", effectively claiming other countries as "runaway" parts of Russia. And as for NATO "expansion" - Russians can blame themselves for attacking Baltic states in 90s or messing things up in Moldova, trying to be a 'peacekeepers' there.
recon517 8y ago
> What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West and friendly rulers and states on its borders, much like any state with Russia's military history would be interested in doing. Combined Russian/Soviet casualties in WW1 and WW2 were on the order of ~60mm people out ~160mm total. Actually, Soviet Union started WW2 together with Nazi Germany by signing Molotov–Ribbentrop pact [1] and annexing Estonia [2], Finland [3], Latvia [2], Lithuania [2], Poland [4] and Romania [5]. Quite a nice buffer zone there. So now Russia (legal successor to the USSR) is considered a victim of WW2 and is afraid of invasion from the very same countries it has annexed by force before? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_state... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabi...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sequence7 8y ago

> But from Russia's perspective, why should it fully trust the West that was so recently its enemy, and when the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism in the 90s failed so spectacularly (Russia's GDP fell by a full 50% and life expectancy dropped by years You say this is because of the failure of liberal democracy and capitalism but your citation says it was most likely caused by: "rising poverty rates, unemployment, financial insecurity, and corruption" Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries. > Not trying to shill or defend Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine here, but if you just look at the map of a formerly hostile alliance moving steadily eastward and you were Russia, would you really just throw up your hands and say 'yes, that is how the world should be' and tacitly accept it? Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.

konart 8y ago
>Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia. The cause and the effect. 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa. From Russia's perspective it was not wise from NATO to accept those wise countries, expecially considering NATO had an aggrement with Russia on this part. >Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries. Usually you have to deal with both internal and external issues at the same time.
- sequence7 8y ago
  >> Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia. > The cause and the effect. 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa. From Russia's perspective it was not wise from NATO to accept those wise countries, expecially considering NATO had an aggrement with Russia on this part. The argument that Russia is just defending itself against hostile expansion rather falls down when you count the number of countries that are members of NATO who have been the victim of Russian expansion (0) compared to the number that are not a member of NATO who have been the victim of aggression (more than 0). That rather implies that being a NATO member protects you from Russian invasion and explains the desire, for every country that can, to join NATO. >> Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of invading and trying to destabilise other countries. >Usually you have to deal with both internal and external issues at the same time. Perhaps but Russia does not appear to be dealing with the internal issues which is my point.
  - konart 8y ago
    >The argument that Russia is just defending itself against hostile expansion rather falls down when you count the number of countries that are members of NATO who have been the victim of Russian expansion (0) compared to the number that are not a member of NATO who have been the victim of aggression (more than 0). That rather implies that being a NATO member protects you from Russian invasion and explains the desire, for every country that can, to join NATO. I see no contradiction here. Yes, Russia won't attack a NATO member and yes Russia will attack non-NATO member if Russia thinks this is an appropriate action. What countries did Russia attacked before NATO decided to go back on their word and started their expasion? Offence is the best defence. >Perhaps but Russia does not appear to be dealing with the internal issues which is my point. Corruption is high, yes, unemployment is pretty low. Some issues are being addressed better than the others surely. Things like corruption which is almost part of culture and inactivity of locals will take a long time to change.

mr_overalls 8y ago

> the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and capitalism Oh, you mean when the oligarchs/mob bosses robbed the country blind and seized all power? Yeah, that's totally the fault of the West, or some abstract notion of capitalism or democracy.

codedokode 8y ago

> What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West It is just an excuse. If the country wants to invade another country, they will always find a good excuse. This is not only about Russia - take any recent war US took part in or any other war. Nobody wants to look evil. Regarding NATO expansion, of course it serves the interests of USA but it can be also good for other countries. For example, the presence of NATO troops in Baltic countries helps them to stay independent and avoid repeating the situation that has happened in 1939 [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_state...

c-smile 8y ago
You had NATO that suddenly lost its grounds when USSR collapsed. Just to keep it afloat you would need to invent new "enemy" for it. When remnants of USSR were in ruins Middle East was wildfired, that stopped people thinking "NATO, against whom?". After that China was assigned as an imminent threat. That passed too. And now Russia. Any idea what will be the next excuse?
- codedokode 8y ago
  Of course Russia is still a threat and NATO (while serving primarily American interests) helps to protect Eastern Europe countries from Russia. We should not forget that in 1939 USSR invaded into Finland, Baltic countries, Poland if I remember correctly. In 1968 they invaded Chekoslovakia. With NATO those countries probably feel safer. Ukraine didn't have NATO bases - and lost its territory. This is a reminder for other countries.
  - c-smile 8y ago
    You missed cause and consequence. Unprovoked expansion of NATO happened first. After years of warnings. Ukraine was in the line. That non-democratic coup was a step to NATO and inspired/supported by NATO members. And after that Crimean people expressed that they don't like that by voting out of it.

gandhium 8y ago

> That's somewhat debatable, if you mean 'expansionist' like Russia would like to rebuild the USSR or a new Russian Empire. It's not debatable, Putin said in the recent press-conference that "they're lost Ukraine and other Soviet republics", effectively claiming other countries as "runaway" parts of Russia. And as for NATO "expansion" - Russians can blame themselves for attacking Baltic states in 90s or messing things up in Moldova, trying to be a 'peacekeepers' there.

recon517 8y ago

> What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between it and the West and friendly rulers and states on its borders, much like any state with Russia's military history would be interested in doing. Combined Russian/Soviet casualties in WW1 and WW2 were on the order of ~60mm people out ~160mm total. Actually, Soviet Union started WW2 together with Nazi Germany by signing Molotov–Ribbentrop pact [1] and annexing Estonia [2], Finland [3], Latvia [2], Lithuania [2], Poland [4] and Romania [5]. Quite a nice buffer zone there. So now Russia (legal successor to the USSR) is considered a victim of WW2 and is afraid of invasion from the very same countries it has annexed by force before? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_state... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabi...