9 ms·

It's funny when the aggressor is "negotiating" to attack or not. The biggest bully in the region feeling "threatened" by its neighbours seeking any possible way

• labster 5y ago
  Crazy idea of the day: why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia? Then if either side attacks the other, all the other members are obligated to defend against the aggressor. Entangling alliances are like abstraction. The only thing that solves it is more of it.
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia? NATO is a mutual defence pact. Russia is the most militarily aggressive country in Europe. Agreeing to defend the bully when their chickens come home to roost is a tough sell.
    • nivenkos 5y ago
      Most of them are internal conflicts though. It's not such a crazy idea really, but I'd rather we just abolished NATO entirely. I'm no fan of Russia, but I don't want to go to war just because they shoot down a Turkish fighter plane in Syria, etc.
      • labster 5y ago
        That’s not how NATO works. It’s a defense pact not a suicide pact. In any military action outside their territory, other countries are not obligated to help. Admittedly casus belli are often a bit of a stretch, but so far NATO has never joined an aggressive war. Various countries chose to join the American Crusade in Iraq but the war in Afghanistan was certainly started in defense. NATO has ensured 70 years of peace in Western Europe. There hasn’t been a period this peaceful since the Pax Romana, which still had plenty of wars. Why mess up a good thing? Less people die in wars now. And while the value in trade and infrastructure compared to land is certainly a part of ensuring the peace, that was also true for the decades preceding the Great War. The modern international order is simply more peaceful.
  • tguvot 5y ago
    it was floated up 30 years ago https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/31/russia-associate-membership-nato-malcolm-rifkind-chequers-boris-yeltsin https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/31/russia-assoc...
  • ch_123 5y ago
    The USSR attempted to join NATO in the 1950s: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantraynor https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/17/russia.iantray... https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-the-ussr-join-nato-march-1954 https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/molotovs-proposal-t...
    • andreygrehov 5y ago
      Putin also wanted to join NATO in 2000-2001, but it didn't work out.
  • spaced-out 5y ago
    >Then if either side attacks the other, all the other members are obligated to defend against the aggressor. The reason Ukraine hasn't been allowed to join NATO already is because the rest of the alliance isn't willing to make that promise (that they'll go to war with Russia to protect Ukraine).
    • avmich 5y ago
      Russia's recent demonstrations, like Admiral Kuznetsov's problems, leaving Armenia faced with Turkey and Azerbaijan, weak drone program shows that in reality Russian military isn't that strong against serious opponent. Even more importantly, a serious military operations will undermine the power within the country. It's doubtful Russia would go to fight Ukraine even now (it would be rather disastrous), but even more doubtful if Ukraine would join NATO. Ukraine has its own internal problems for now.
      • nullifidian 5y ago
        A situation that could be considered disastrous, i.e. poverty that would result from the western sanctions/isolation, the strife against the occupied Ukrainian nationalists, against internal dissent/opposition is beneficial to the silovik class -- more people to crush/imprison/destroy, more space to advance their careers, more power to wield, and it's them who Putin relies on to keep himself in power, not the populace at large. (The effectiveness of such approach has been demonstrated by the Lukashenko regime) For Putin it's also much easier to keep his power till his death in a locked down curfewed country, with all the possible freedoms taken away due to the great war with the eternal enemy that's going on. Think of North Korea. So I would say it's much more probable than 'doubtful' considering that the key players are likely going to gain, if their plans go smoothly that is.
        • avmich 5y ago
          The problem for Putin here is that as long as economy continues to deteriorate, it's harder and harder to pay those siloviks (police, national guard, army etc.) to remain in power - he has to have good reasons for why they can't just replace them. Putin can't really recreate the Stalin's level of closeness - too hard. Getting money from natural resources - which admittedly requires much less people - can be iffy if the West will put sanctions (and also world moves away from fossil fuels). Unfortunately it's still possible that Putin will cling to power for a rather long time.
  • georgeecollins 5y ago
    The problem is that at that point the USA, Canada, France, Italy would be obligated to defend Russia if it was attacked by sending in its forces. This is already the problem we face in the Baltic States. In theory you can say you will go to war if Estonia is attacked. But if you are Italy or Canada how popular is a war in Estonia going to be if your citizens are dying? There would be a lot of pressure to pull out. Once the guarantee of NATO becomes a maybe then you start having a lot of incentives for the members to make their own agreements that they can depend on. Then you would be back to regional alliances and from there rivalries. Germany's security agreement partners may not agree with Turkey's security agreement partners about what to do in Syria. Part of what made NATO work was the common interest and values of the members. As you spread it you loose that cohesion.
    • reducesuffering 5y ago
      > But if you are Italy or Canada how popular is a war in Estonia going to be if your citizens are dying? This is why all the baltic states have multi-country forces in them. Literally small Canadian and Italian forces are in those states, so if there is ever an invasion, those troops will the first casualties that will win the hearts and minds of the rest of NATO countries to defend because of the losses of their own countrymen.
  • koheripbal 5y ago
    Because then nothing protects members from Russia. If two NATO members go to war, there is no clear side to take. Also, Russia does not want to join. They want the USSR back
    • remarkEon 5y ago
      >They want the USSR back No, they don't, and I don't understand why people (Americans in particular?) seem to think this. Is it just nostalgia for the first Cold War?
      • avmich 5y ago
        Yes, there is clear and really big difference between autocratic ideas and the wishes of the population. Unfortunately Russians are weak to keep autocracy off their backs, so they have to suffer from it.
        • nullifidian 5y ago
          >Russians are weak to keep autocracy off their backs And that weakness comes from the complete lack of the political culture needed for a functional democracy. The elite of the Russian empire that had a prototypical form of that culture had been eradicated by the communists, and about 10 years of relative lack of authoritarianism in the 90s and early 2000s wasn't nearly enough to form even a semblance of such culture. An ordinary Russian doesn't know what separation of powers is for, how freedom of speech/expression protects their interests, that it's their taxes that Putin spends, not government's money, the norms of civil debate, the individualist thinking etc etc.
      • ed_balls 5y ago
        Putin wants to recreate influence in ex USSR. He stated that in 2002. He tried with soft power, but failed, hence 2008 Georgia 2014 military action in Ukraine. In his recent easy he claimed Ukrainians and Russians are the same nation
    • lr1970 5y ago
      > If two NATO members go to war, there is no clear side to take. In fact there was such a historical precedent. Turkey and Greece, both NATO members, fought a war in Northern Cyprus in 1974 [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus
• JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Like a government-level "Why are you hitting yourself?" Putin has been a steady hand over Russia, but it's been at the cost of standards of living [1]. That's threatening neighboring regimes, which are only standing thanks to Moscow's support. Putin isn't dumb. He sees the writing on the wall. The bet is likely that the wave of nationalism that would accompany a war will outweigh its massive costs, directly and indirectly, for long enough for Putin and his cronies to ride out the decade. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-17/russian-real-incomes-fall-to-the-lowest-in-a-decade-chart https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-17/russian-r...
  • kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    He needs a crisis to enact emergency powers and cancel the two term limit. Otherwise he has to burn six years as PM.
• baal80spam 5y ago
  It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. Remember that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea "to save Russian citizens".
  • bumby 5y ago
    >It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. I mean, isn't this also the tactic used in the late 1800s in the western U.S. to give a reason to pacify Native Americans? Promote U.S. citizens into frontier homesteads and then use the military to protect them/annex land?
    • kaczordon 5y ago
      Not sure why’re your bringing the U.S. into this right now to bash it. If anything increased U.S. military presence in Poland is sorely needed.
      • yongjik 5y ago
        I don't think GP is trying to bash the US: they're just pointing out it's "the oldest trick in the book." Obviously that doesn't mean it's OK that Russia is doing it.
        • bumby 5y ago
          Correct, I was merely underscoring the historic use of the tactic and not "bashing" any country
      • remarkEon 5y ago
        >If anything increased U.S. military presence in Poland is sorely needed. Why? What purpose does this serve?
    • ellyagg 5y ago
      Sure, so if you're a big fan of one you'll be a big fan of the other.
    • 5y ago
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• bsedlm 5y ago
  from the Russian point of view, offering NATO membership to Ukraine is an act of agression and they've been wrecking Ukraine for this ever since.
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > from the Russian point of view, offering NATO membership to Ukraine is an act of agression and they've been wrecking Ukraine for this ever since One, Ukraine hasn't been invited to join NATO. Two, even if NATO had never entertained the idea, I'm sure Putin would pitch the existence of hats and teacups as clear evidence of Western aggression against Russia.
    • Ygg2 5y ago
      Ok. But reverse positions. Mexico and Canada join Russian federation and Russia start building bases there. And this is despite Russia promising not to do that. I can't imagine USA acting in cool and peaceful manner when sword of Damocles hangs near them.
      • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Mexico and Canada join Russian federation and Russia start building bases there. And this is despite Russia promising not to do that. NATO members are not annexed by America. Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and has had no realistic path to membership for some time. And a good way to get American bases in Ukraine is to threaten to invade it.
        • Ygg2 5y ago
          From Russian POV there isn't much of a difference. You basically see your enemy build installation just outside of your backyard. Sure analogy, ain't perfect, and it's too late to edit. But say they join Russian led pact and Russian build basses there. I'm pretty sure America would throw as big hissy fit as Russia did. > And a good way to get American bases in Ukraine is to threaten to invade it. It's a great deterrent as well. NATO members have a policy, attack one, you attack us all, yes. But they also prohibit members that have problematic borders with non-NATO powers. Adding a member like Ukraine means essentially getting ready for (nuclear) war with Russia. And NATO is, and probably won't be ready. Seeing list of NATO's recent "victories" seems like a compilation of US greatest fails (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). So Russia is calling NATO/US bluff.
• georgeecollins 5y ago
  I agree that Russia is the bully in this case, but there is historical precedent for the bully to be the country that feels threatened. Before WW2 some Germans thought the that Germany would have to ally itself-- and become a client state-- to either the USSR or western powers in order to maintain its security. Going to war was insane, but the concern that Germany would become more of a client state than an independent power was not insane with historical hindsight. A Russian strategist might feel threatened because down the line Russia may have depend on its security from either China or a European alliance. In either case it could have less independence and influence in the world. It sounds insane to risk the disaster of war because your country may lose influence or small amounts of autonomy. But if you think about things like Brexit or some economically undermining policies of MAGA, it seems possible that people -- even in a democracy-- attach more psychic weight to the idea of their nation and its greatness than they do to changes in material prosperity. Also, the pain of bad economic choices (war being an extreme on that spectrum) may not be felt as much by top leaders as the pain of a loss of prestige, which could cost them their jobs or even lives.
  • Kilonzus 5y ago
    Just wanted to chip in; great explanation. Often as a citizen of one country vs another it is tough to understand the logic behind some decisions but this actually made sense to me. Still think the costs of war is high but the logic behind entertaining such an idea is a little clearer.
  • avmich 5y ago
    > but there is historical precedent for the bully to be the country that feels threatened. Not really. Napoleon invasion was a rather silly directed move for a battle, not a war - too much weight on one individual. Great Patriotic War was fought after failure to prevent Hitler from amassing power and nurturing plans to conquer Europe (by Russians) - USSR needn't to repeat Daladier and Chamberlain mistakes, but Stalin had other plans. And since WWII there weren't aggressions against USSR/RF. > the concern that Germany would become more of a client state than an independent power was not insane with historical hindsight And after badly failing at war, Germany now is a leading European nation, one of the world leaders. Surely Russia should be relieved regarding falling to client state? > A Russian strategist might feel threatened because down the line Russia may have depend on its security from either China or a European alliance. That's a bad strategist, especially if he seeks possibilities only in realm of realpolitik and dismisses long-term trends both in Russia and worldwide. > But if you think about things like Brexit or some economically undermining policies of MAGA, it seems possible that people -- even in a democracy-- attach more psychic weight to the idea of their nation and its greatness than they do to changes in material prosperity. It sounds insane to compare the Brexit or the MAGA disaster to a war in Europe. If people attach more psychic weight - which in Russia they don't - what explanations of the position the Russian powers did to deal with that? How the Great Britain deals with the idea of their nation and its greatness? How come Russian decision makers avoid straightforward approaches which helped so many others in recent and not so recent past - like in Eastern Europe or among the Asian-Pacific nations? Not wanting to understand the consequences of autocracy does hurt badly - maybe not directly to the autocrat, but to the people for sure.
• d0mine 5y ago
  Brilliant comment if you talking about the country that sends troops around the world to protect itself.
• temp12192021 5y ago
  > It's funny when the aggressor is "negotiating" to attack or not. "funny", but standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology