3 ms·

I would agree with you a week ago and I would have been so wrong. West has tried dialogue so many times, postponing sanctions to the point of absurdity. And wh

by EEBio 5y ago

I would agree with you a week ago and I would have been so wrong. West has tried dialogue so many times, postponing sanctions to the point of absurdity. And what did it get us? Putin invading Ukraine. Putin relied on the risk-averse West, pretending to want a dialogue and withdrawing forces, while he sent even more to the Ukraine's borders. No, there is war in Ukraine not because West didn't want a dialogue, but because West wanted a dialogue too much. A dialogue with a bully in power, is however, often pointless.

inkyoto 5y ago
Which attempts of the dialogue are you referring to, specifically? Examples of such a dialogue would include NATO and Putin officials discussing new NATO memberships, future roadmaps to the regional stability and/or compromises. I don't have a recollection of such talks talking place in my living memory of the last 10 years, but I am also not a walking historical archive, either. If you could point to concrete instances of such talks, that would be great.
- EEBio 5y ago
  > Which attempts of the dialogue are you referring to, specifically? For example Macron's, Biden's or Scholz's talks to Putin prior to the invasion (and also after). > Examples of such a dialogue would include NATO and Putin officials discussing new NATO memberships, future roadmaps to the regional stability and/or compromises. You realise that Russian Federation is not a member of NATO and therefore has no say in any NATO memberships? The guarantees Putin was demanding were never at the table. NATO knew that, Putin knew that, everyone who knows how NATO works knew that. Apparently only you did not get the memo.
  - inkyoto 5y ago
    No, I am asking about attempts of earlier talks. Last minute attempts were not going to succeed, yet they were worth trying. > You realise that Russian Federation is not a member of NATO and therefore has no say in any NATO memberships? So why did the US have to have a say when Cuba allowed the Soviets to suddenly stick their missiles on the Cuban territory? Was the US demand somehow more special from Russian demands? For the historical record, the USSR asked for the NATO membership in 1948, indicated its interest again to join in 1989 and the last time we heard about Russia and NATO discussing such a potential possibility as late as 2009. West rejected all such ideas and since then there have been no executive level talks discussing further options, to the best of my knowledge. Once the Russia membership in NATO was ruled out as an option, the rhetoric of non-expansion has kicked in. Regional peace in Europe has been a complex, an intertwined and a nuanced subject that has historically involved every single party in the direct and indirect proximity of the potential area of conflict and even included royal intermarriages across the continent in mediaeval times to foster alliances – if I have to go that far. > Apparently only you did not get the memo. Personal attacks such as this one, aggressive rhetoric and the rattling of the genticles is what has got Europe into the mess we are facing today in the first place. People unwilling to listen to each other, every party being assertive only about their own rightness and not arriving at something workable is the root cause of it.
    - will4274 5y ago
      There are requirements for joining NATO. From https://www.rferl.org/a/1099020.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1099020.html . > The first chapter -- political and economic issues -- requires candidates to have stable democratic systems, pursue the peaceful settlement of territorial and ethnic disputes, have good relations with their neighbors, show commitment to the rule of law and human rights, establish democratic and civilian control of their armed forces, and have a market economy. Does this sound like a set of requirements Russia/Putin is willing to meet? If countries want to join the democratic defense alliance, and they aren't democracies... So what? NATO isn't an alliance of violent dictators. It was USA's insight after WW2 that alliances needed to be held together by more than territorial interest - they need to be held together by values.

by EEBio 5y ago

inkyoto 5y ago

Which attempts of the dialogue are you referring to, specifically? Examples of such a dialogue would include NATO and Putin officials discussing new NATO memberships, future roadmaps to the regional stability and/or compromises. I don't have a recollection of such talks talking place in my living memory of the last 10 years, but I am also not a walking historical archive, either. If you could point to concrete instances of such talks, that would be great.

EEBio 5y ago
> Which attempts of the dialogue are you referring to, specifically? For example Macron's, Biden's or Scholz's talks to Putin prior to the invasion (and also after). > Examples of such a dialogue would include NATO and Putin officials discussing new NATO memberships, future roadmaps to the regional stability and/or compromises. You realise that Russian Federation is not a member of NATO and therefore has no say in any NATO memberships? The guarantees Putin was demanding were never at the table. NATO knew that, Putin knew that, everyone who knows how NATO works knew that. Apparently only you did not get the memo.
- inkyoto 5y ago
  No, I am asking about attempts of earlier talks. Last minute attempts were not going to succeed, yet they were worth trying. > You realise that Russian Federation is not a member of NATO and therefore has no say in any NATO memberships? So why did the US have to have a say when Cuba allowed the Soviets to suddenly stick their missiles on the Cuban territory? Was the US demand somehow more special from Russian demands? For the historical record, the USSR asked for the NATO membership in 1948, indicated its interest again to join in 1989 and the last time we heard about Russia and NATO discussing such a potential possibility as late as 2009. West rejected all such ideas and since then there have been no executive level talks discussing further options, to the best of my knowledge. Once the Russia membership in NATO was ruled out as an option, the rhetoric of non-expansion has kicked in. Regional peace in Europe has been a complex, an intertwined and a nuanced subject that has historically involved every single party in the direct and indirect proximity of the potential area of conflict and even included royal intermarriages across the continent in mediaeval times to foster alliances – if I have to go that far. > Apparently only you did not get the memo. Personal attacks such as this one, aggressive rhetoric and the rattling of the genticles is what has got Europe into the mess we are facing today in the first place. People unwilling to listen to each other, every party being assertive only about their own rightness and not arriving at something workable is the root cause of it.
  - will4274 5y ago
    There are requirements for joining NATO. From https://www.rferl.org/a/1099020.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1099020.html . > The first chapter -- political and economic issues -- requires candidates to have stable democratic systems, pursue the peaceful settlement of territorial and ethnic disputes, have good relations with their neighbors, show commitment to the rule of law and human rights, establish democratic and civilian control of their armed forces, and have a market economy. Does this sound like a set of requirements Russia/Putin is willing to meet? If countries want to join the democratic defense alliance, and they aren't democracies... So what? NATO isn't an alliance of violent dictators. It was USA's insight after WW2 that alliances needed to be held together by more than territorial interest - they need to be held together by values.