4 ms·
It doesn't seem to me that this is a very solid argument. First off, it's essentially just cherry picking people over history who have made the argument against
by Traster 5y ago
It doesn't seem to me that this is a very solid argument. First off, it's essentially just cherry picking people over history who have made the argument against expanding NATO. Whilst there were people making the argument against expanding Nato and some of them are respectable, it's far from some consensus among everyone who knows the topic. Even the people this thread claims oppose the expansion of Nato aren't wholy clear on it - Clinton's defence secretary was opposed to the timing not the principle for example.
Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO. There's just no merit to the claim that Nato was a proximate cause of the invasion. Notably it is however, a pretext that Russia used in the build up to the invasion, so what you have here is essentially people pushing a Russian propaganda line.
Finally, it's important to consider the counter-factual. If Nato hadn't expanded maybe the US would have more cordial relations with Russia, but it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia. Given a situation where Nato is far from Ukraine and the US is disinterested in the region it seems far more likely that Ukraine would be run over by Russia at the first opportunity. Maybe you can argue that the result of that would've been less likely to lead to Nuclear war, but it's hardly a great principled stance to decide to appease Russia, and at that point you have to ask yourself which countries in Europe are you willing to defend as sovereign nations? Or is the answer none?
- Ambolia 5y ago"KYIV, Dec 9 (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Kyiv's bid to join the NATO military alliance was in its own hands, Zelenskiy's chief of staff said after the two leaders spoke on Thursday." [1] [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zel...
- Traster 5y agoYes, in response to Russia building up an invasion force Biden re-affirmed the stance that Nato has had for over a decade. What changed wasn't Ukraine going into Nato, what changed was Russia deciding to invade Ukraine. It's a pretty basic principle that you can't let Russia dictate Ukraine's foreign policy.
- consumer451 5y agoAppeasement of the Kremlin is exactly how we got in this mess. I am truly disgusted by some of the positions taken on this issue in the West, like the one in OP. The world will remember.
- unethical_ban 5y ago>First off, it's essentially just cherry picking people over history who have made the argument against expanding NATO So what? That's what hindsight is. The title is accurate. >Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO. Perhaps Russia saw the right timing of geopolitical forces to do something (invade Ukraine to prevent NATO ascention) now despite it not being imminent. Winter, Nord Stream 2, war-weary Americans, etc. >it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia Isn't that the argument of some in the linked thread you criticize? John Mearsheimer says "Make Ukraine neutral, make it strong and independent". The argument of these people isn't that Ukraine should have become a puppet state of Russia, but that there was a reality where NATO didn't expand and these eastern states would have grown anyway. In other words, to your point, they do seem to think Russia would have been less aggressive about the reunification of Ukraine if they didn't see it as "cheating" on it with the West. --- Now, that was mostly devil's advocate. I am no expert on NATO or eastern Europe. Invading a peaceful country because you don't like who they talk to isn't ethical. Thousands are already dead, hundreds of billions of dollars in economic costs worldwide, and a new threat of armed conflict seemingly as a self-fulfilling prophecy by the Russian hardliner-in-chief.
- Traster 5y agoI agree with you about the timing, but I’m just not convinced it has anything to do with NATO. Russia absolutely has created a point of maximum pressure with gas, with the US standing in the world, with Nordstream 2. But I don’t believe it would have behaved differently if NATO were smaller. It’s simply a matter of them building for war for decades. I also don’t think you can make the argument that the better response was to make neutral. It’s not up to external people to make Ukraine neutral. It’s up to Ukraine to decide how they want to align themselves. I’m not surprised they decided against aligning with the country that keeps on invading them.