4 ms·

> Just look at the extension of NATO, an organization explicitly considering Russia an enemy, to the East of East Germany, despite assurances from Bush to Groba

> Just look at the extension of NATO, an organization explicitly considering Russia an enemy, to the East of East Germany, despite assurances from Bush to Grobachev that it would never do so. The assurances concerned non-sovereign territories of a totalitarian state. Now that these states are newly sovereign and post-Soviet (and likely still politically hostile to the idea of going back to the way things were), they are free to do whatever they choose to do. It's their right.

tsimionescu 5y ago
No, the assurances were very explicit: NATO will not seek to expand one inch to the East. While countries are free to associate, there are obvious diplomatic costs to joining a hostile military alliance (and NATO is still explicitly hostile to Russia). The fact that Russia has a single blunt instrument that it chooses to wield in these situations is as much the fault of Russia as it is the fault of people seeking to bring hostile military bases on their borders. And again, I am fully aware of how noxious Russia is to the countries that it controls, either today or in the past. Russian influence is autocratic, corruption focused, socially conservative, and insists on Russian interests in the region before the interests of the local populace. I am under no illusions about Russia as some benevolent victim, and not trying to make any propaganda about that. But that doesn't mean we should ascribe their actions to pure malice either, as much propaganda is wont to do; nor that we should feel that much better about being under the influence of their rivals - Empires are never good, and it's always much better to be self-determined, even if at various points various empires have been better or worse in certain regions.
- caskstrength 5y ago
  > While countries are free to associate, there are obvious diplomatic costs to joining a hostile military alliance (and NATO is still explicitly hostile to Russia). The fact that Russia has a single blunt instrument that it chooses to wield in these situations is as much the fault of Russia as it is the fault of people seeking to bring hostile military bases on their borders. You keep repeating that Russian propaganda line and simultaneously claim that your are not trying to "make any propaganda about that". I repeat my question from another message: Were there any NATO bases being build in Ukraine (or Georgia, as another example) at the time of Russian military incursion? > But that doesn't mean we should ascribe their actions to pure malice either Who is doing that? Yes, it is obviously nice to have a buffer from "hostile NATO states", but there are multiple other considerations why Russia would like to control its neighbors (economical, political, ideological, etc.).
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > Were there any NATO bases being build in Ukraine (or Georgia, as another example) at the time of Russian military incursion? No. Ukraine had just started talks with NATO about the possibility of joining. Not sure why this is relevant, I was already calling this a pre-emptive move from Russia, not a reactive one. Georgia is a different case, as they had not been attempting to join NATO as far as I know. Russia is imperialistic, and like every empire, they do not take kindly to supposed vassals tryin to assert their independence for the sake of their people. > Who is doing that? Yes, it is obviously nice to have a buffer from "hostile NATO states", but there are multiple other considerations why Russia would like to control its neighbors (economical, political, ideological, etc.). I should have presented a stronger alternative, you are right that 'pure malice' was a straw man. The better point would be that, while Russia's imperialistic, controlling tendencies need to be stopped by the international community (as is true for any other imperialistic tendencies, such as the US or China's), bringing hostile military alliances to Russia's borders is not a stake way of achieving this goal. NATO expansion at Russia's border is too big a peril for Russia to ignore, and is bound to provoke a reaction. Other diplomatic means of protecting Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova etc. are much more likely to cause a stable peace in the region, and assuage tensions.

tsimionescu 5y ago

No, the assurances were very explicit: NATO will not seek to expand one inch to the East. While countries are free to associate, there are obvious diplomatic costs to joining a hostile military alliance (and NATO is still explicitly hostile to Russia). The fact that Russia has a single blunt instrument that it chooses to wield in these situations is as much the fault of Russia as it is the fault of people seeking to bring hostile military bases on their borders. And again, I am fully aware of how noxious Russia is to the countries that it controls, either today or in the past. Russian influence is autocratic, corruption focused, socially conservative, and insists on Russian interests in the region before the interests of the local populace. I am under no illusions about Russia as some benevolent victim, and not trying to make any propaganda about that. But that doesn't mean we should ascribe their actions to pure malice either, as much propaganda is wont to do; nor that we should feel that much better about being under the influence of their rivals - Empires are never good, and it's always much better to be self-determined, even if at various points various empires have been better or worse in certain regions.

caskstrength 5y ago
> While countries are free to associate, there are obvious diplomatic costs to joining a hostile military alliance (and NATO is still explicitly hostile to Russia). The fact that Russia has a single blunt instrument that it chooses to wield in these situations is as much the fault of Russia as it is the fault of people seeking to bring hostile military bases on their borders. You keep repeating that Russian propaganda line and simultaneously claim that your are not trying to "make any propaganda about that". I repeat my question from another message: Were there any NATO bases being build in Ukraine (or Georgia, as another example) at the time of Russian military incursion? > But that doesn't mean we should ascribe their actions to pure malice either Who is doing that? Yes, it is obviously nice to have a buffer from "hostile NATO states", but there are multiple other considerations why Russia would like to control its neighbors (economical, political, ideological, etc.).
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > Were there any NATO bases being build in Ukraine (or Georgia, as another example) at the time of Russian military incursion? No. Ukraine had just started talks with NATO about the possibility of joining. Not sure why this is relevant, I was already calling this a pre-emptive move from Russia, not a reactive one. Georgia is a different case, as they had not been attempting to join NATO as far as I know. Russia is imperialistic, and like every empire, they do not take kindly to supposed vassals tryin to assert their independence for the sake of their people. > Who is doing that? Yes, it is obviously nice to have a buffer from "hostile NATO states", but there are multiple other considerations why Russia would like to control its neighbors (economical, political, ideological, etc.). I should have presented a stronger alternative, you are right that 'pure malice' was a straw man. The better point would be that, while Russia's imperialistic, controlling tendencies need to be stopped by the international community (as is true for any other imperialistic tendencies, such as the US or China's), bringing hostile military alliances to Russia's borders is not a stake way of achieving this goal. NATO expansion at Russia's border is too big a peril for Russia to ignore, and is bound to provoke a reaction. Other diplomatic means of protecting Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova etc. are much more likely to cause a stable peace in the region, and assuage tensions.