4 ms·

> As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an

> As a befuddled onlooker myself, I am surprised that the movements of the Russian military inside its territory must be interpreted by the outside world as an escalation. I understand the nervousness of Ukraine, but not of the US. If Russia invades, then by all means, the West can destroy it economically; but until it does, what is the point of all this saber-rattling? To bring Russian military movements in spotlight. Otherwise they will manufacture some pretext (stage a provocation or just claim they are defending me (Russian-speaking person) from raging Ukrainian nazis) and will muddy the water with misinformation campaigns. German and French governments will happily accept Russian reasoning because they don't really care about Ukraine and just want their cheap gas to flow. Current media attention makes it much harder for European leaders to just hold some post factum Normandy-format-or-whatever "peace" talks (giving Russia more and more Ukrainian territory in the process) without some level of condemnation from their electorate. > Just as I don't understand the point of NATO's eastwards expansion, which, in turn, makes the Russians nervous. If the European countries are worried by the military buildup along Russia's western border, surely it must be easy to empathise with the Russian worry about Nato including more Eastern European countries and being able to deploy missiles there, which can be used both defensively and offensively and which puts Moscow within 5-minute reach, or something like that. This is the narrative that Russia is pushing, but it makes no sense if you think about it for a second. NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago (they had 7 years to do that even after the last war), if it just wanted to deploy missiles here. It seems like NATO goal is to not accept Ukraine (and Georgia) for as long as possible without stating this straight up (in order not to discourage peoples of these countries from pro-Western course, I guess). In fact, joining NATO was very unpopular in Ukraine until Putin's actions changed that.

azangru 5y ago
> This is the narrative that Russia is pushing, but it makes no sense if you think about it for a second. I have two questions about this, and I am asking honestly, because I don't understand any of this shit. One, if NATO had no intention of accepting Ukraine and Georgia, why wouldn't it (or whichever countries are responsible) commit to this as Russia wants it to. That would defang Russia's false narrative about NATO expansion. And the other, if you are offering an argument from a counterfactual (NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago, as you say), why didn't Russia, if it intended to devour Ukraine, do so seven years ago when Ukraine was at its weakest? Arguably, both Ukraine has become a tougher nut to crack since then, and the international community has agreed on how best to punish Russia if this happens again.
- caskstrength 5y ago
  > One, if NATO had no intention of accepting Ukraine and Georgia, why wouldn't it (or whichever countries are responsible) commit to this as Russia wants it to. Why would they and what would Russia give them in return? Just allowing Russia to effectively obtain veto-power over NATO membership by threatening non-NATO state would be political defeat for the West, not to mention that existing NATO member countries from Eastern Europe would be opposed to this for obvious reasons. > That would defang Russia's false narrative about NATO expansion. This narrative is only needed to confuse Western electorates (there are some "But Russians just afraid of NATO aggressive posture and only want to feel secure!" people even in this discussion). After isolating Ukraine it would be easy for Russia to leverage the resentment that Ukrainian people would undoubtedly feel after being rejected by West like that in order to further destabilize Ukraine by using it is propaganda talking-point ("We were telling you that West have been using you all along!") and by sponsoring pro-Russian politicians which have hard time getting to power in current political climate. If that fails they can always use old-good "protecting Russian-speaking people" narrative to justify invasion. > And the other, if you are offering an argument from a counterfactual (NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago, as you say), why didn't Russia, if it intended to devour Ukraine, do so seven years ago when Ukraine was at its weakest? Arguably, both Ukraine has become a tougher nut to crack since then, and the international community has agreed on how best to punish Russia if this happens again. I don't think that real full-blown occupation is their goal (more like a last resort). They just need to destabilize Ukraine (both politically and economically) by staging a quick campaign that results annexation (de jure or de facto) of more territories. If in the process they get land corridor to Crimea, then it would be a double win.
  - azangru 5y ago
    But then I am confused. You say that Russia's narrative about NATO doesn't make sense; but at the same time you seem to agree that both Ukraine, in the post-2014 world, would like to join to gain the military protection of the alliance; and that the alliance leaves the door open for Ukraine and Georgia. As long as that's the case, how can you say that Russia's story is false and just invented to sidetrack the trusting Westerners? I also don't fully understand the point about the destabilization either. Does Russia destabilize all its neighbors, and why would it prefer an unstable neighbor to a stable one?

azangru 5y ago

> This is the narrative that Russia is pushing, but it makes no sense if you think about it for a second. I have two questions about this, and I am asking honestly, because I don't understand any of this shit. One, if NATO had no intention of accepting Ukraine and Georgia, why wouldn't it (or whichever countries are responsible) commit to this as Russia wants it to. That would defang Russia's false narrative about NATO expansion. And the other, if you are offering an argument from a counterfactual (NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago, as you say), why didn't Russia, if it intended to devour Ukraine, do so seven years ago when Ukraine was at its weakest? Arguably, both Ukraine has become a tougher nut to crack since then, and the international community has agreed on how best to punish Russia if this happens again.

caskstrength 5y ago
> One, if NATO had no intention of accepting Ukraine and Georgia, why wouldn't it (or whichever countries are responsible) commit to this as Russia wants it to. Why would they and what would Russia give them in return? Just allowing Russia to effectively obtain veto-power over NATO membership by threatening non-NATO state would be political defeat for the West, not to mention that existing NATO member countries from Eastern Europe would be opposed to this for obvious reasons. > That would defang Russia's false narrative about NATO expansion. This narrative is only needed to confuse Western electorates (there are some "But Russians just afraid of NATO aggressive posture and only want to feel secure!" people even in this discussion). After isolating Ukraine it would be easy for Russia to leverage the resentment that Ukrainian people would undoubtedly feel after being rejected by West like that in order to further destabilize Ukraine by using it is propaganda talking-point ("We were telling you that West have been using you all along!") and by sponsoring pro-Russian politicians which have hard time getting to power in current political climate. If that fails they can always use old-good "protecting Russian-speaking people" narrative to justify invasion. > And the other, if you are offering an argument from a counterfactual (NATO could have accepted Ukraine long ago, as you say), why didn't Russia, if it intended to devour Ukraine, do so seven years ago when Ukraine was at its weakest? Arguably, both Ukraine has become a tougher nut to crack since then, and the international community has agreed on how best to punish Russia if this happens again. I don't think that real full-blown occupation is their goal (more like a last resort). They just need to destabilize Ukraine (both politically and economically) by staging a quick campaign that results annexation (de jure or de facto) of more territories. If in the process they get land corridor to Crimea, then it would be a double win.
- azangru 5y ago
  But then I am confused. You say that Russia's narrative about NATO doesn't make sense; but at the same time you seem to agree that both Ukraine, in the post-2014 world, would like to join to gain the military protection of the alliance; and that the alliance leaves the door open for Ukraine and Georgia. As long as that's the case, how can you say that Russia's story is false and just invented to sidetrack the trusting Westerners? I also don't fully understand the point about the destabilization either. Does Russia destabilize all its neighbors, and why would it prefer an unstable neighbor to a stable one?