5 ms·

The picture of Russia and NATO pushing against each other on the Eastern Europe is too simple. It denies the sense agency for the countries in the region. The s

by lykahb 5y ago

The picture of Russia and NATO pushing against each other on the Eastern Europe is too simple. It denies the sense agency for the countries in the region. The smaller countries have a long history and aspirations for independence. Why do so many countries choose to partner with NATO? I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries?

rsj_hn 5y ago
> I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries? A large number. But then again not nearly as many as the Ottoman Empire, which enslaved 10 million Europeans and brutally occupied a large chunk of Europe. Yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-Turkish sentiment or anti-islamic sentiment in order to build military bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Greece, which were all under occupation for centuries. And then we have Germany, with its own history of killing and brutality that makes its neighbors -- Poland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, etc -- weary of German influence and yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-German sentiment in these nations for its own power politics. We could go on, with rivalries between different nations and ethnic groups throughout the region and hurt feelings of past oppression. So yes, the anti-Russian sentiment is real and has a real basis in history, but encouraging and benefiting from these historical animosities is still considered a hostile act.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  What are the odds that Turkey invades Bulgaria tomorrow? What are the odds that Germany invades France tomorrow? What are the odds that Russia invades Ukraine tomorrow? That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    All of the above are zero
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Given the last 10 years, one of those is not zero.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    Crimea had been run by Russia in one form or another since the 1700s, and it's ridiculously important to them as a port. Their reaction to losing it was arguably a defensive reaction rather than an offensive reaction, if you're taking the perspective that Crimea is part of the Russian empire.
    - randomopining 5y ago
      "Part of the Russian Empire" - so every country gets to attach themselves to an ethnic nation state of the past, and then lay claim to all past holdings. If they don't have it now they need to "regain it" or as the CCP says "commence the great rejuvenation"... How this won't lead to endless conflict is not understandble to me.
      - refenestrator 5y ago
        Conflict with whom is the question. The US Constitution is younger than the Russian claims on Crimea and we're going to try and tell them about it? In between sponsoring coups in Latin America and the Middle East whenever we feel it's in our interest?
  - throw737858 5y ago
    》Turkey invades Bulgaria tomorrow Have you seen news recently? It is happening every few months. Bulgaria had to call army to secure and enforce borders. There were new barriers installed, Turkey used bulldozers to demolish them.
  - gdy 5y ago
    "That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior." You are turning this upside down. You are presenting Russia's reaction to NATO expansion as the reason for NATO expansion. It's a circular logic. George Kennan, the architect of the containment policy, has predicted such rhetoric in 1998. ''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. … I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. … It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong. THIS IS JUST WRONG. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-n...
    - agent008t 5y ago
      That is not the whole story. Domestically in Russia, there is a sense of humiliation about losing the cold war and about the 90s. Going from a superpower to a destitute nation, being made to feel sorry for its own history. The rhetoric of rebuilding its sphere of influence, role in international affairs, regaining its 'colonies' as much as possible is very profitable domestically. As such, it is natural that such former satellite states would wish to protect themselves, i.e. by joining NATO and closer integrating with the EU. In other words, it seems likely that Russia's foreign policy would be very similar even without NATO expansion. One could argue it would be less aggressive because they would not feel a need to hurry, or more aggressive because they would feel less resistance to their actions. But the general policy trends would likely be very similar.
      - gdy 5y ago
        "Domestically in Russia, there is a sense of humiliation about losing the cold war and about the 90s." Perhaps to some extent. The reason for that is that the US took advantage of Russia's weakness in the 90s[0]. There was a lot of admiration for the US in Russia[1], 80% view it positively. Eltsin and Putin were talking about Russia joining NATO[2][3] and a free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok [4]. People in Russia thought they shook of communism, adopted democracy and market economy and were joining happy European family. They were told they don't belong -- most importantly excluded from the common security system. That didn't go too well in a country that remembers that the USSR 50 years before lost 26 million people in an invasion from the West. "The rhetoric of rebuilding its sphere of influence, role in international affairs, regaining its 'colonies' as much as possible is very profitable domestically." Where did you get that idea? People in Russia want the government to spend money on improving life standards. "it seems likely that Russia's foreign policy would be very similar even without NATO expansion" There is no reason to think so. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the-united-states-has-treated-russia-like-a-loser-since-the-cold-war/2014/03/14/b0868882-aa06-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the... [1] https://www.ridl.io/en/russians-changing-attitudes-to-the-usa/ https://www.ridl.io/en/russians-changing-attitudes-to-the-us... [2] https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20-story.html https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20-story.html [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantray... [4] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-v...
- wassenaar10 5y ago
  It's not really just "historical animosity" if the Russian Federation is invading and occupying neighboring sovereign states as we speak.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Occupying, anyway. If they are invading anybody as we speak, I haven't heard about it yet...
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I would argue this has more to do with the infancy of America as a country. It's arguably only been a true world-aware power since WWII. So the US only knows how to exploit anti USSR sentiment because that's the only sentiment it has institutional knowledge of. Europe however has multiple millenia of various institutional knowledge and history. It is fascinating to me how the generations transfer, but these strong institutional and cultural memories continue in such seemingly vivid fashion.

by lykahb 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

> I will answer with a question: how many people has Russia killed or enslaved in the Eastern Europe over the past centuries? A large number. But then again not nearly as many as the Ottoman Empire, which enslaved 10 million Europeans and brutally occupied a large chunk of Europe. Yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-Turkish sentiment or anti-islamic sentiment in order to build military bases in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Greece, which were all under occupation for centuries. And then we have Germany, with its own history of killing and brutality that makes its neighbors -- Poland, Czech Republic, France, Belgium, etc -- weary of German influence and yet the U.S. does not exploit anti-German sentiment in these nations for its own power politics. We could go on, with rivalries between different nations and ethnic groups throughout the region and hurt feelings of past oppression. So yes, the anti-Russian sentiment is real and has a real basis in history, but encouraging and benefiting from these historical animosities is still considered a hostile act.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
What are the odds that Turkey invades Bulgaria tomorrow? What are the odds that Germany invades France tomorrow? What are the odds that Russia invades Ukraine tomorrow? That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  All of the above are zero
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Given the last 10 years, one of those is not zero.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  Crimea had been run by Russia in one form or another since the 1700s, and it's ridiculously important to them as a port. Their reaction to losing it was arguably a defensive reaction rather than an offensive reaction, if you're taking the perspective that Crimea is part of the Russian empire.
  - randomopining 5y ago
    "Part of the Russian Empire" - so every country gets to attach themselves to an ethnic nation state of the past, and then lay claim to all past holdings. If they don't have it now they need to "regain it" or as the CCP says "commence the great rejuvenation"... How this won't lead to endless conflict is not understandble to me.
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      Conflict with whom is the question. The US Constitution is younger than the Russian claims on Crimea and we're going to try and tell them about it? In between sponsoring coups in Latin America and the Middle East whenever we feel it's in our interest?
- throw737858 5y ago
  》Turkey invades Bulgaria tomorrow Have you seen news recently? It is happening every few months. Bulgaria had to call army to secure and enforce borders. There were new barriers installed, Turkey used bulldozers to demolish them.
- gdy 5y ago
  "That's why people are concerned about Russia. It's not historical animosity. It's current behavior." You are turning this upside down. You are presenting Russia's reaction to NATO expansion as the reason for NATO expansion. It's a circular logic. George Kennan, the architect of the containment policy, has predicted such rhetoric in 1998. ''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. … I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. … It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong. THIS IS JUST WRONG. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-n...
  - agent008t 5y ago
    That is not the whole story. Domestically in Russia, there is a sense of humiliation about losing the cold war and about the 90s. Going from a superpower to a destitute nation, being made to feel sorry for its own history. The rhetoric of rebuilding its sphere of influence, role in international affairs, regaining its 'colonies' as much as possible is very profitable domestically. As such, it is natural that such former satellite states would wish to protect themselves, i.e. by joining NATO and closer integrating with the EU. In other words, it seems likely that Russia's foreign policy would be very similar even without NATO expansion. One could argue it would be less aggressive because they would not feel a need to hurry, or more aggressive because they would feel less resistance to their actions. But the general policy trends would likely be very similar.
    - gdy 5y ago
      "Domestically in Russia, there is a sense of humiliation about losing the cold war and about the 90s." Perhaps to some extent. The reason for that is that the US took advantage of Russia's weakness in the 90s[0]. There was a lot of admiration for the US in Russia[1], 80% view it positively. Eltsin and Putin were talking about Russia joining NATO[2][3] and a free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok [4]. People in Russia thought they shook of communism, adopted democracy and market economy and were joining happy European family. They were told they don't belong -- most importantly excluded from the common security system. That didn't go too well in a country that remembers that the USSR 50 years before lost 26 million people in an invasion from the West. "The rhetoric of rebuilding its sphere of influence, role in international affairs, regaining its 'colonies' as much as possible is very profitable domestically." Where did you get that idea? People in Russia want the government to spend money on improving life standards. "it seems likely that Russia's foreign policy would be very similar even without NATO expansion" There is no reason to think so. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the-united-states-has-treated-russia-like-a-loser-since-the-cold-war/2014/03/14/b0868882-aa06-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the... [1] https://www.ridl.io/en/russians-changing-attitudes-to-the-usa/ https://www.ridl.io/en/russians-changing-attitudes-to-the-us... [2] https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20-story.html https://www.latimes.com/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20-story.html [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantray... [4] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-v...
wassenaar10 5y ago
It's not really just "historical animosity" if the Russian Federation is invading and occupying neighboring sovereign states as we speak.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Occupying, anyway. If they are invading anybody as we speak, I haven't heard about it yet...
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I would argue this has more to do with the infancy of America as a country. It's arguably only been a true world-aware power since WWII. So the US only knows how to exploit anti USSR sentiment because that's the only sentiment it has institutional knowledge of. Europe however has multiple millenia of various institutional knowledge and history. It is fascinating to me how the generations transfer, but these strong institutional and cultural memories continue in such seemingly vivid fashion.