5 ms·

You do realize that only thing EU and US have done about Russia escalating situations all over the place (Crimea, North Caucasus, Georgia, South Ossetia, Chechn

You do realize that only thing EU and US have done about Russia escalating situations all over the place (Crimea, North Caucasus, Georgia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, Dagestan etc) is talk, talk, talk. Has it helped? Nope. Russia seems to be immune to talking.

teekert 5y ago
We talked, but what concessions did we make?
- ysamjo 5y ago
  From the list of Putin's demands, what should the West has conceded on??
  - necovek 5y ago
    Not necessarily Putin's demands, but there's talk of Russia asking to join NATO way-back-when: not sure if those are trustworthy, but I am pretty confident Russia would have no fear of NATO if it was not sent off, and was instead part of it. Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too.
    - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
      Yeah. I've seen a decent article recently (it's in Russian though) about Russia/NATO talks in the 90s. The felling from 'our' side seems to go like this: we tried to get into NATO or at least prevent them from moving close to our borders, but the NATO paper pushers were afraid of losing their jobs and knocked up a threat when there were none. https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo Edit: actually, I think the google translate version is plenty readable. https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/02/02/n... This is of the main guys who did the talking in the 90s, so you might want to have a gander at it.
    - roca 5y ago
      "Russia has no fear of NATO" => "Putin takes Baltic states".
      - necovek 5y ago
        Well, Russia being part of NATO and what the consequences are... I guess we'll never know. What would happen if NATO seriously offered to take both Ukraine and Russia as members TODAY?
        rmind 5y ago
        NATO would have become a dysfunctional organization. It is not about the Russian fear of NATO. Russian political system cannot get over its loss of an empire, despite us living in the XXI century. It's entirely different root of the problem..
        roca 5y ago
        Eastern and Western Europe would have been crazy to gamble everything on the hope that admitting Russia to NATO somehow neutralizes Russia, not NATO.
        indymike 5y ago
        NATO exists because of Russia/USSR's bad behavior.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Not necessarily Putin's demands, but there's talk of Russia asking to join NATO way-back-when Putin wanted to skip the readiness steps applied to aspiring members and just be jumped in. Readiness is quite important, because NATO doesn't work by voting but consensus/unanimity. > but I am pretty confident Russia would have no fear of NATO if it was not sent off They weren't sent off, they were admitted to the Partnership for Peace (the onboarding path for membership) before Putin even came into office, and never formally pursued anything farther, Putin specifically indicating that he found applying the accession process used for aspiring members to Russia rather than a direct invitation for full membership improper. > Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too. Would it? How? Would it stopped Putin from escalating attacks from those areas and then claiming that attacks on them, combined with the historical “fact” that Ukraine was an unjustly created entity ripped from Russian territory, justified the invasion of the rest? How does that work?
    - ysamjo 5y ago
      > recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too. So what you're saying is that these states in question don't deserve the right to self-sovereignity. The people in the independent states wanted in NATO and not the other way around.
- dash2 5y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that the problem with Western policy towards Russia is that we didn’t appease Putin enough? That is, to say the least, a weird take.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    I mean, it's exactly the take of the Russian government and it's various Western propaganda repeaters, so it's rather common.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Common, sure, but that doesn't make the "take" itself any less weird. The only weird thing is that so many Westerners thoughtlessly regurgitate it.
- wnkrshm 5y ago
  From the start, if we think in realpolitical terms, we let him effectively keep Crimea and Donbas/Luhansk without giving the Ukraine material support to take them back, out of the fear of pouring fuel into the fire. Putin had demands that were de facto impossible to fulfill, they read as if the US/European governments had power over e.g. the desires of the inhabitants of the Baltic states. They all wanted into the EU/NATO after the Cold War for reasons that aren't hard to empathize with. In a security-political sense, making concessions that impact your weakest allies is a surefire way to destabilize your own alliance. Also, why do we have to make concessions in terms of Ukraine and guaranteeing that Ukraine won't join EU/NATO? Putin should have been talking to Ukraine about that and giving concessions to Ukraine in exchange for staving off any alliance memberships - but it's now clear why he didn't.
- jonathanstrange 5y ago
  You mean concessions like giving up security guarantees for all Eastern European NATO countries and completely giving up any support for the sovereignty of Ukraine, allowing Russia to dictate to Ukraine which alliances they can choose? Because these were literally Russia's ridiculous "demands".
ysamjo 5y ago
I would add that the unspecifity of the threat was what kept Putin going. Consider what would have happened if "The West" handed Putin a detailed list of the sanctions that are in effect now A WEEK AGO. Lower costs and lower risks. That's why far-sighted politics are so important.
- intended 5y ago
  Putin had already been setting up the Russian economy in a way so as to minimize the impact of sanctions.
- watwut 5y ago
  > Consider what would have happened if "The West" handed Putin a detailed list of the sanctions that are in effect now A WEEK AGO. Putin would say that is why he attacked Ukraine. His cheerleads would then blame Biden, claiming Putin had no choice.
  - ysamjo 5y ago
    Doesn't make sense to me. It's a simple If-This-Then-That logic. The sanctions only take place once he invades. If there's no invasion of course there are no sanctions.
    - helge9210 5y ago
      Consider that he has own logic of: if they present us with possible sanctions, it's considered aggression, so we attack, else they are weak, so we attack.
- roca 5y ago
  He wouldn't have believed the list. Just like a lot of Europeans didn't believe he would invade Ukraine.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  This is a good point but: (1) what happened was considered unthinkable by many, (2) the wold has changed which allowed those sanctions and (3) the idea was not to 'rock the boat' and saying if you do this we will do that could have allowed for the Russian side to plan better playing into their hands and might have encouraged them to start a war. So this is easy to say now, but I don't think there would have been any takers for this three weeks ago when for instance Germany was still firmly in the mistaken mindset that all of this is so unlikely that they don't need to prepare for it at all.

teekert 5y ago

We talked, but what concessions did we make?

ysamjo 5y ago
From the list of Putin's demands, what should the West has conceded on??
- necovek 5y ago
  Not necessarily Putin's demands, but there's talk of Russia asking to join NATO way-back-when: not sure if those are trustworthy, but I am pretty confident Russia would have no fear of NATO if it was not sent off, and was instead part of it. Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    Yeah. I've seen a decent article recently (it's in Russian though) about Russia/NATO talks in the 90s. The felling from 'our' side seems to go like this: we tried to get into NATO or at least prevent them from moving close to our borders, but the NATO paper pushers were afraid of losing their jobs and knocked up a threat when there were none. https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo Edit: actually, I think the google translate version is plenty readable. https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/02/02/natokatstvo?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://novayagazeta-ru.translate.goog/articles/2022/02/02/n... This is of the main guys who did the talking in the 90s, so you might want to have a gander at it.
  - roca 5y ago
    "Russia has no fear of NATO" => "Putin takes Baltic states".
    - necovek 5y ago
      Well, Russia being part of NATO and what the consequences are... I guess we'll never know. What would happen if NATO seriously offered to take both Ukraine and Russia as members TODAY?
      - rmind 5y ago
        NATO would have become a dysfunctional organization. It is not about the Russian fear of NATO. Russian political system cannot get over its loss of an empire, despite us living in the XXI century. It's entirely different root of the problem..
      - roca 5y ago
        Eastern and Western Europe would have been crazy to gamble everything on the hope that admitting Russia to NATO somehow neutralizes Russia, not NATO.
      - indymike 5y ago
        NATO exists because of Russia/USSR's bad behavior.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Not necessarily Putin's demands, but there's talk of Russia asking to join NATO way-back-when Putin wanted to skip the readiness steps applied to aspiring members and just be jumped in. Readiness is quite important, because NATO doesn't work by voting but consensus/unanimity. > but I am pretty confident Russia would have no fear of NATO if it was not sent off They weren't sent off, they were admitted to the Partnership for Peace (the onboarding path for membership) before Putin even came into office, and never formally pursued anything farther, Putin specifically indicating that he found applying the accession process used for aspiring members to Russia rather than a direct invitation for full membership improper. > Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too. Would it? How? Would it stopped Putin from escalating attacks from those areas and then claiming that attacks on them, combined with the historical “fact” that Ukraine was an unjustly created entity ripped from Russian territory, justified the invasion of the rest? How does that work?
  - ysamjo 5y ago
    > recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too. So what you're saying is that these states in question don't deserve the right to self-sovereignity. The people in the independent states wanted in NATO and not the other way around.
dash2 5y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that the problem with Western policy towards Russia is that we didn’t appease Putin enough? That is, to say the least, a weird take.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  I mean, it's exactly the take of the Russian government and it's various Western propaganda repeaters, so it's rather common.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Common, sure, but that doesn't make the "take" itself any less weird. The only weird thing is that so many Westerners thoughtlessly regurgitate it.
wnkrshm 5y ago
From the start, if we think in realpolitical terms, we let him effectively keep Crimea and Donbas/Luhansk without giving the Ukraine material support to take them back, out of the fear of pouring fuel into the fire. Putin had demands that were de facto impossible to fulfill, they read as if the US/European governments had power over e.g. the desires of the inhabitants of the Baltic states. They all wanted into the EU/NATO after the Cold War for reasons that aren't hard to empathize with. In a security-political sense, making concessions that impact your weakest allies is a surefire way to destabilize your own alliance. Also, why do we have to make concessions in terms of Ukraine and guaranteeing that Ukraine won't join EU/NATO? Putin should have been talking to Ukraine about that and giving concessions to Ukraine in exchange for staving off any alliance memberships - but it's now clear why he didn't.
jonathanstrange 5y ago
You mean concessions like giving up security guarantees for all Eastern European NATO countries and completely giving up any support for the sovereignty of Ukraine, allowing Russia to dictate to Ukraine which alliances they can choose? Because these were literally Russia's ridiculous "demands".

ysamjo 5y ago

I would add that the unspecifity of the threat was what kept Putin going. Consider what would have happened if "The West" handed Putin a detailed list of the sanctions that are in effect now A WEEK AGO. Lower costs and lower risks. That's why far-sighted politics are so important.

intended 5y ago
Putin had already been setting up the Russian economy in a way so as to minimize the impact of sanctions.
watwut 5y ago
> Consider what would have happened if "The West" handed Putin a detailed list of the sanctions that are in effect now A WEEK AGO. Putin would say that is why he attacked Ukraine. His cheerleads would then blame Biden, claiming Putin had no choice.
- ysamjo 5y ago
  Doesn't make sense to me. It's a simple If-This-Then-That logic. The sanctions only take place once he invades. If there's no invasion of course there are no sanctions.
  - helge9210 5y ago
    Consider that he has own logic of: if they present us with possible sanctions, it's considered aggression, so we attack, else they are weak, so we attack.
roca 5y ago
He wouldn't have believed the list. Just like a lot of Europeans didn't believe he would invade Ukraine.
jacquesm 5y ago
This is a good point but: (1) what happened was considered unthinkable by many, (2) the wold has changed which allowed those sanctions and (3) the idea was not to 'rock the boat' and saying if you do this we will do that could have allowed for the Russian side to plan better playing into their hands and might have encouraged them to start a war. So this is easy to say now, but I don't think there would have been any takers for this three weeks ago when for instance Germany was still firmly in the mistaken mindset that all of this is so unlikely that they don't need to prepare for it at all.