6 ms·

what is the NATO problem

by cdelsolar 5y ago

labster 5y ago
NATO is too effective at ensuring peace in Europe, thus preventing Russia from becoming a great power again.
- chii 5y ago
  so the bottom line is that russia (or more correctly, putin) is unable to accept that their state cannot and would not be allowed by the west to become a superpower. I think the inevitable result is war. I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, and prevented this, but instead, the optimism that an autocratic state would not do so is the true reality. But of course, it doesn't have good optics at the time to do this. I guess the future will tell if this war escalates.
  - rectang 5y ago
    > I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, That wouldn't have been feasible given military realities (nukes, the total impossibility of invading and occupying Russia), and even if it had been what would it have achieved? The age of imperialism is over. The west has won allies by respecting the right of their populations to self-determination. (And when it hasn't respected self-determination, it has often lost ground.)
    - hef19898 5y ago
      The West (I live in a Western country by the way) did not respect self determination of people when it didn't suit the Wests interests. Not before WW1 (when there was no West), not between WW1 and WW2 (Austria wanted to join Germany and wasn't allowed to, the whole former Russian Empire as engulfed in a civil war over that very question, not to mention the colonial empires) or after WW2 (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab Spring, Syria,...). The war that is on the horizon is not about the "good" vs. the "evil". It is about one revisionist, power hungry leader going toe-to-toe with another power-hungry block over territorial dominance. And about those people just wanting to live in peace caught in the middle.
      - rectang 5y ago
        You're thinking of all the times the West waged war, while I was thinking of the times that it didn't. First in my mind were the countries joining NATO after the end of the Cold War: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Albania. Those countries became allies, not through force, but because we were able to devise a mutually beneficial relationship.
        hef19898 5y ago
        Personally, I'd attribute that more to the European Union. But yes, NATO certainly helped. Only shows that there are no simple answers. I only want to point out that NATO, and the EU for that matter, despite all the good the did in Europe are by no means the "good" benefactors in other countries. Also, just because I think some of Russia's actions are understandable, I don't think they are even remotely justified or acceptable. Same goes for the war on terror, the EUs handling of refugees, basically all NATO interventions with the possible exception of Yugoslavia (not the Kosovo) when they tried, and kind of failed, to prevent genocide.
  - labster 5y ago
    In what way did the West not decisively defeat the soviets? Communism died, the Warsaw Pact disbanded, and several former Russian client states joined NATO. The current crisis is a revanchist attempt to revert that defeat. Cold war is much more likely than hot war, I’d expect.
    - chii 5y ago
      > In what way did the West not decisively defeat the soviets? The way imperial japan died, replaced by a semi-client state. I would say they're more prosperous today because of it!
mc32 5y ago
The NATO "problem" wasn't the continued existence of NATO after the collapse of the USSR, but rather the expansion into traditional USSR/Russian areas of influence (Slavic areas). That's what they resent. Of course, given economic realities, many of those areas would prefer to have better ties with the West than the kleptocratic alternative, but that's neither here nor there.
- int_19h 5y ago
  Not just Slavic. The entirety of ex-USSR (a good half of which wasn't Slavic), plus countries in Eastern Europe such as Romania.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Sure, but two things. No one is contesting their Central Asia client states that's in their pocket --we're not trying to expand NATO there... and two they have a special affinity to Slavic peoples due to culture. (they treat them like an "ex-" with a certain amount of jealousy.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      Central Asia, no (although China is actively making inroads there). But there's still Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to consider. These aren't Slavic, but they are of interest to both NATO and Russia. Well, Armenia is pretty firmly aligned with Russia for historical reasons and some semblance of security against Azerbaijan and Turkey. But the other two are already Western-oriented, and Georgia has applied for NATO membership in the past. As far as Slavic affinity, it's a bit more complicated. For example, Bulgarians are Slavic, and Eastern Orthodox even, but being on the wrong side of WW1 and then WW2 vis a vis Russia/USSR overrides that. OTOH with Ukrainians, many Russians outright deny that they even are a separate nation or ethnicity, and claim that it's just a sub-branch of Russians who speak a dialect of Russian. From that perspective, occupying Ukraine is described as "re-unifying" Russia. (Source: am Russian)
- hef19898 5y ago
  I wouldn't make it about ethnicity. Making it about former Soviet republics and members of the Warsaw pact is the problem, from Russia's point of view. A problem that, in hindsight maybe, is so obvious and so guaranteed to come (Russia complained about NATOs eastern expansion for decades) that it seems surprising that NATO doesn't seem to have an answer. Hell, when Russia annexed the Krim and tried to annex parts of Georgia one would think NATO would have gotten a clear wake up call.
konart 5y ago
Russia considers NATO's presence at its borders a national threat. On one hand - NATO protects its members from our possible aggression, on the other hand Russia sees NATO's assets (lets say AA systems) as means to degrade country's capabilities to respond in case of attack from the West (no matter how are the chances of such an attack).
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  So basically NATO limits Russia’s ability to attack other countries, and that’s a problem?
  - konart 5y ago
    To counter attack in case of possible attack from the West.
    - avmich 5y ago
      What Putin actually considers casus belli isn't important for the moment - it could be anything, reasoned or not. Can we, here, present arguments that the desire of Russia to be able to attack neighbor countries should be honored? Do we extend MAD doctrine to non-nuclear matters - that is, everybody should refrain from defense, as defense reduces their neighbors' abilities to fight back in case those neighbors are attacked? Is it reasonable - for the moment - to think that countries, improving their defenses, actually offend neighbors?
    - Valakas_ 5y ago
      Russia is a like an abusive man with PTSD - always expecting an attack that doesn't come and victimizing himself while abusing others. Has Russia perhaps thought for a moment why are countries making an alliance to defend against Russia? Why aren't countries in NATO worried about being attacked by other countries in NATO? Because *all the countries there don't want war*. NATO is not to attack Russia, but to defend against it. The idea of protecting against counter attack from the West is like saying "I can't leave my house to protect against the possibility of a meteorite against my head."
jltsiren 5y ago
The root problem is that Russia is afraid. Russian grand strategy is defensive. Their primary threat is a large-scale invasion. It happened once in the 19th century and at least twice in the 20th century. Maybe three times if you count Russian Civil War. To counter the threat of a potential invasion, Russia tries to maintain a buffer zone of friends, puppets, and occupied territories. This is a continuous process, as politics change. Today's friends may be tomorrow's enemies, revolutions may overthrow puppets, and the costs of military occupation may prove too high. Russia fights wars and organizes coups to maintain the buffer zone. The rights of their neighbors don't matter to them when national security is at stake. Russia fears NATO, because NATO has the capability to project power. They fear that NATO could be the next invader. The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of. If there is going to be a change, it must come from inside. Russia must stop being afraid and become a member of the international community connected by trade. There was a chance of that in the 80s and 90s, but the chance was lost. Another chance may come after Putin, or the next leader and the next regime could be more of the same.
- konart 5y ago
  This, thank you
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  This post is strictly personal. I feel like when Dmitry Medvedev was leader of Russia (during the "Putin swap period") that tensions were much lower. Privately: I am such a big fan of him. He is such a geek! I sincerely wonder when Medvedev and (Sergey) Lavrov think about the Crimea and Ukraine situation. When I look long term, I cannot wonder how Russia will ever leave Crimea. Does that mean that Russia is the next Iran with "forever" sanctions? I cannot see another story, unless Putin leaves and the next leader is more centrist, like Medvedev.
- avmich 5y ago
  > The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of. The change is not in politics - for decades post-Soviet Russia wasn't worrying about NATO. Actually, no - even the point that Russia is afraid isn't correct - it's Putin who's afraid. NATO problem doesn't really exists.

what is the NATO problem

labster 5y ago

NATO is too effective at ensuring peace in Europe, thus preventing Russia from becoming a great power again.

chii 5y ago
so the bottom line is that russia (or more correctly, putin) is unable to accept that their state cannot and would not be allowed by the west to become a superpower. I think the inevitable result is war. I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, and prevented this, but instead, the optimism that an autocratic state would not do so is the true reality. But of course, it doesn't have good optics at the time to do this. I guess the future will tell if this war escalates.
- rectang 5y ago
  > I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, That wouldn't have been feasible given military realities (nukes, the total impossibility of invading and occupying Russia), and even if it had been what would it have achieved? The age of imperialism is over. The west has won allies by respecting the right of their populations to self-determination. (And when it hasn't respected self-determination, it has often lost ground.)
  - hef19898 5y ago
    The West (I live in a Western country by the way) did not respect self determination of people when it didn't suit the Wests interests. Not before WW1 (when there was no West), not between WW1 and WW2 (Austria wanted to join Germany and wasn't allowed to, the whole former Russian Empire as engulfed in a civil war over that very question, not to mention the colonial empires) or after WW2 (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab Spring, Syria,...). The war that is on the horizon is not about the "good" vs. the "evil". It is about one revisionist, power hungry leader going toe-to-toe with another power-hungry block over territorial dominance. And about those people just wanting to live in peace caught in the middle.
    - rectang 5y ago
      You're thinking of all the times the West waged war, while I was thinking of the times that it didn't. First in my mind were the countries joining NATO after the end of the Cold War: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Albania. Those countries became allies, not through force, but because we were able to devise a mutually beneficial relationship.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Personally, I'd attribute that more to the European Union. But yes, NATO certainly helped. Only shows that there are no simple answers. I only want to point out that NATO, and the EU for that matter, despite all the good the did in Europe are by no means the "good" benefactors in other countries. Also, just because I think some of Russia's actions are understandable, I don't think they are even remotely justified or acceptable. Same goes for the war on terror, the EUs handling of refugees, basically all NATO interventions with the possible exception of Yugoslavia (not the Kosovo) when they tried, and kind of failed, to prevent genocide.
- labster 5y ago
  In what way did the West not decisively defeat the soviets? Communism died, the Warsaw Pact disbanded, and several former Russian client states joined NATO. The current crisis is a revanchist attempt to revert that defeat. Cold war is much more likely than hot war, I’d expect.
  - chii 5y ago
    > In what way did the West not decisively defeat the soviets? The way imperial japan died, replaced by a semi-client state. I would say they're more prosperous today because of it!

mc32 5y ago

The NATO "problem" wasn't the continued existence of NATO after the collapse of the USSR, but rather the expansion into traditional USSR/Russian areas of influence (Slavic areas). That's what they resent. Of course, given economic realities, many of those areas would prefer to have better ties with the West than the kleptocratic alternative, but that's neither here nor there.

int_19h 5y ago
Not just Slavic. The entirety of ex-USSR (a good half of which wasn't Slavic), plus countries in Eastern Europe such as Romania.
- mc32 5y ago
  Sure, but two things. No one is contesting their Central Asia client states that's in their pocket --we're not trying to expand NATO there... and two they have a special affinity to Slavic peoples due to culture. (they treat them like an "ex-" with a certain amount of jealousy.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    Central Asia, no (although China is actively making inroads there). But there's still Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to consider. These aren't Slavic, but they are of interest to both NATO and Russia. Well, Armenia is pretty firmly aligned with Russia for historical reasons and some semblance of security against Azerbaijan and Turkey. But the other two are already Western-oriented, and Georgia has applied for NATO membership in the past. As far as Slavic affinity, it's a bit more complicated. For example, Bulgarians are Slavic, and Eastern Orthodox even, but being on the wrong side of WW1 and then WW2 vis a vis Russia/USSR overrides that. OTOH with Ukrainians, many Russians outright deny that they even are a separate nation or ethnicity, and claim that it's just a sub-branch of Russians who speak a dialect of Russian. From that perspective, occupying Ukraine is described as "re-unifying" Russia. (Source: am Russian)
hef19898 5y ago
I wouldn't make it about ethnicity. Making it about former Soviet republics and members of the Warsaw pact is the problem, from Russia's point of view. A problem that, in hindsight maybe, is so obvious and so guaranteed to come (Russia complained about NATOs eastern expansion for decades) that it seems surprising that NATO doesn't seem to have an answer. Hell, when Russia annexed the Krim and tried to annex parts of Georgia one would think NATO would have gotten a clear wake up call.

konart 5y ago

Russia considers NATO's presence at its borders a national threat. On one hand - NATO protects its members from our possible aggression, on the other hand Russia sees NATO's assets (lets say AA systems) as means to degrade country's capabilities to respond in case of attack from the West (no matter how are the chances of such an attack).

throwaway894345 5y ago
So basically NATO limits Russia’s ability to attack other countries, and that’s a problem?
- konart 5y ago
  To counter attack in case of possible attack from the West.
  - avmich 5y ago
    What Putin actually considers casus belli isn't important for the moment - it could be anything, reasoned or not. Can we, here, present arguments that the desire of Russia to be able to attack neighbor countries should be honored? Do we extend MAD doctrine to non-nuclear matters - that is, everybody should refrain from defense, as defense reduces their neighbors' abilities to fight back in case those neighbors are attacked? Is it reasonable - for the moment - to think that countries, improving their defenses, actually offend neighbors?
  - Valakas_ 5y ago
    Russia is a like an abusive man with PTSD - always expecting an attack that doesn't come and victimizing himself while abusing others. Has Russia perhaps thought for a moment why are countries making an alliance to defend against Russia? Why aren't countries in NATO worried about being attacked by other countries in NATO? Because *all the countries there don't want war*. NATO is not to attack Russia, but to defend against it. The idea of protecting against counter attack from the West is like saying "I can't leave my house to protect against the possibility of a meteorite against my head."

jltsiren 5y ago

The root problem is that Russia is afraid. Russian grand strategy is defensive. Their primary threat is a large-scale invasion. It happened once in the 19th century and at least twice in the 20th century. Maybe three times if you count Russian Civil War. To counter the threat of a potential invasion, Russia tries to maintain a buffer zone of friends, puppets, and occupied territories. This is a continuous process, as politics change. Today's friends may be tomorrow's enemies, revolutions may overthrow puppets, and the costs of military occupation may prove too high. Russia fights wars and organizes coups to maintain the buffer zone. The rights of their neighbors don't matter to them when national security is at stake. Russia fears NATO, because NATO has the capability to project power. They fear that NATO could be the next invader. The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of. If there is going to be a change, it must come from inside. Russia must stop being afraid and become a member of the international community connected by trade. There was a chance of that in the 80s and 90s, but the chance was lost. Another chance may come after Putin, or the next leader and the next regime could be more of the same.

konart 5y ago
This, thank you
throwaway2037 5y ago
This post is strictly personal. I feel like when Dmitry Medvedev was leader of Russia (during the "Putin swap period") that tensions were much lower. Privately: I am such a big fan of him. He is such a geek! I sincerely wonder when Medvedev and (Sergey) Lavrov think about the Crimea and Ukraine situation. When I look long term, I cannot wonder how Russia will ever leave Crimea. Does that mean that Russia is the next Iran with "forever" sanctions? I cannot see another story, unless Putin leaves and the next leader is more centrist, like Medvedev.
avmich 5y ago
> The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of. The change is not in politics - for decades post-Soviet Russia wasn't worrying about NATO. Actually, no - even the point that Russia is afraid isn't correct - it's Putin who's afraid. NATO problem doesn't really exists.