5 ms·

> 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 cap

> 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.
- adventured 8y ago
  > 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa Russia never stopped being hostile. They were hostile long before the existence of NATO. Nothing about their behavior has fundamentally changed. Much like China with Tibet, Taiwan or Hong Kong, they believe that they have a right to the conquest and control of numerous free countries on their borders. Any excuse will do to justify the annexations, whether cultural great nation beliefs, or NATO, or inventing conflicts & slights, or pretending that they have to protect 'ethnic Russians.'
erw1 8y ago
What do poverty rates or liberal democracy have to do with NATO expansion? Russians will be sensitive to what happens in their frontier regardless of who sits in the Kremlin, or which party dominates the Duma. They don't want to see an alien military alliance straddle their borderlands. That's the story. That's the WHOLE story. And it won't change even if Putin drops dead today, and Navalny is elected president tomorrow.
- sequence7 8y ago
  I was addressing two separate points, the effect of liberal democracy on Russia and the NATO expansion being treated as a threat. I probably should have made that more clear.
- gandhium 8y ago
  > They don't want to see an alien military alliance straddle their borderlands. And all countries that bordered Russia don't want to see Russian military straddle their borderlands. So... the obvious solution - counterbalance.
  - erw1 8y ago
    The obvious solution seems to have backfired.
    - gandhium 8y ago
      Why? So far Russia invaded only neighbors which weren't in NATO, so apparently joining NATO was (and still is) right way to protect your country from Russian aggression.
      - erw1 8y ago
        I suppose that means Ukraine and Georgia should try to join NATO. Then Russians won't invade them anymore.
sbmthakur 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. Considering that St. Petersburg is now well within NATO's artillery range, I don't see how NATO is not hostile from Russia's perspective.
- sequence7 8y ago
  St Petersburg is well within NATO artillery range from Finland is your argument that Russia should annex Finland or that Finland shoud not be a member of NATO?
  - c-smile 8y ago
    Finland is not a NATO member. For that very reason and due to old agreement with USSR.
    - sequence7 8y ago
      You are very right, I apologise for being very wrong. I would delete my comment but I think it's best to leave it.
  - codedokode 8y ago
    USSR already did this in 1939: annexed a part of Finland [1] to move the border further from the city. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
  - sbmthakur 8y ago
    No. I meant the Baltics. "Well within" was a wrong phrase. Apologies for that. Finland has nothing to do it. My point was that it's not that difficult for Russians to consider NATO a hostile force even if the West calls it a defensive force. NATO already outguns Russia on many parameters. If there is a full-scale war and China supports NATO, then it's pretty much game for 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.
adventured 8y ago
> 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion (among other things), not vice versa Russia never stopped being hostile. They were hostile long before the existence of NATO. Nothing about their behavior has fundamentally changed. Much like China with Tibet, Taiwan or Hong Kong, they believe that they have a right to the conquest and control of numerous free countries on their borders. Any excuse will do to justify the annexations, whether cultural great nation beliefs, or NATO, or inventing conflicts & slights, or pretending that they have to protect 'ethnic Russians.'

erw1 8y ago

What do poverty rates or liberal democracy have to do with NATO expansion? Russians will be sensitive to what happens in their frontier regardless of who sits in the Kremlin, or which party dominates the Duma. They don't want to see an alien military alliance straddle their borderlands. That's the story. That's the WHOLE story. And it won't change even if Putin drops dead today, and Navalny is elected president tomorrow.

sequence7 8y ago
I was addressing two separate points, the effect of liberal democracy on Russia and the NATO expansion being treated as a threat. I probably should have made that more clear.
gandhium 8y ago
> They don't want to see an alien military alliance straddle their borderlands. And all countries that bordered Russia don't want to see Russian military straddle their borderlands. So... the obvious solution - counterbalance.
- erw1 8y ago
  The obvious solution seems to have backfired.
  - gandhium 8y ago
    Why? So far Russia invaded only neighbors which weren't in NATO, so apparently joining NATO was (and still is) right way to protect your country from Russian aggression.
    - erw1 8y ago
      I suppose that means Ukraine and Georgia should try to join NATO. Then Russians won't invade them anymore.

sbmthakur 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. Considering that St. Petersburg is now well within NATO's artillery range, I don't see how NATO is not hostile from Russia's perspective.

sequence7 8y ago
St Petersburg is well within NATO artillery range from Finland is your argument that Russia should annex Finland or that Finland shoud not be a member of NATO?
- c-smile 8y ago
  Finland is not a NATO member. For that very reason and due to old agreement with USSR.
  - sequence7 8y ago
    You are very right, I apologise for being very wrong. I would delete my comment but I think it's best to leave it.
- codedokode 8y ago
  USSR already did this in 1939: annexed a part of Finland [1] to move the border further from the city. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
- sbmthakur 8y ago
  No. I meant the Baltics. "Well within" was a wrong phrase. Apologies for that. Finland has nothing to do it. My point was that it's not that difficult for Russians to consider NATO a hostile force even if the West calls it a defensive force. NATO already outguns Russia on many parameters. If there is a full-scale war and China supports NATO, then it's pretty much game for Russia.