2 ms·

> 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.

> 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?
- caskstrength 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; I don't see a contradiction here: Yes, Ukraine and Georgia would very much like to join and no, NATO doesn't want to admit them. In fact, NATO has been denying their requests for membership since at least 2008 when Ukraine applied. > 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? Don't you think "leaves the door open for the future" is quite different from imminent danger of missile deployment? It is clear that NATO won't admit countries with territories occupied by Russia (they had 14 years to do that with Georgia and 7 years with Ukraine), so feigning being threatened by that is just a pretext. Also, look at the map and ask yourself why NATO don't just deploy those missiles in Latvia. > 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? Are you really asking in good faith? Obviously, Russia prefers stable pro-Russian autocratic neighbors and are willing to destabilize any governments that don't conform to that definition until more fitting government can be established.

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?

caskstrength 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; I don't see a contradiction here: Yes, Ukraine and Georgia would very much like to join and no, NATO doesn't want to admit them. In fact, NATO has been denying their requests for membership since at least 2008 when Ukraine applied. > 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? Don't you think "leaves the door open for the future" is quite different from imminent danger of missile deployment? It is clear that NATO won't admit countries with territories occupied by Russia (they had 14 years to do that with Georgia and 7 years with Ukraine), so feigning being threatened by that is just a pretext. Also, look at the map and ask yourself why NATO don't just deploy those missiles in Latvia. > 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? Are you really asking in good faith? Obviously, Russia prefers stable pro-Russian autocratic neighbors and are willing to destabilize any governments that don't conform to that definition until more fitting government can be established.