5 ms·

You must see global leaders as a weighted average of their policies, and then place them on a spectrum. As an example, Hitler is more evil than Putin; enough so

by eezurr 5y ago

You must see global leaders as a weighted average of their policies, and then place them on a spectrum. As an example, Hitler is more evil than Putin; enough so that there's a large, visible gap between the two. >he doesn't deserve special credit for Russia's relative success. You'll need a source for that one. But here's why I think you're wrong [1]. Note that Putin came to power in 1999/2000 as an authoritarian leader. This means he's making more policy decisions for Russia than the US President does for the US. On an economic level, Putin has done a great job. You can see each dip correlates with each time the US interfered in their backyard. [1] What the US does not want is a strong Russia. [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-capita https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/RUS/russia/gdp-per-cap... > Russia apologists always suggest that Putin has to be a belligerent because his neighbours are joining NATO, but they never seem to ask whether Putin's neighbours have to join NATO because of Putin's belligerence I'm not a Putin apologist (I changed Russia to Putin because he's a dictator). All I do is try to look at the situation rationally. Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Ukraine is also an interesting country because the eastern half predominantly speak Russian. > It seems rich to me so suggest that countries such as Latvia and Estonia should have to remain in Russia's orbit just because Russia feels threatened Those countries were introduced much closer to after the fall of the USSR, and they are tiny. So Russia let it go. >Even in the worst case scenario in which a hostile NATO is on Russia's doorstep what is Putin afraid of? That NATO will invade? This is ridiculous. This is about empire. How would you feel if Russia constructed a bunch of missile silos pointed at us (USA) in Mexico, Cuba, and Canada? >The US did not invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion We did, even though they were not our soldiers. And we would have put our own troops on their soil if the Cuban Missile Crisis escalated.

djur 5y ago
Russia could make peace with NATO at any time. They can withdraw from disputed territories and commit to a reduction in armaments. We don't need to have missiles pointed at each other. Europe and the US would be more than happy to have Russia as a peaceful trade partner.
realityking 5y ago
> Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. I think you’re falling for for Russian propaganda here. While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members.[1] Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO.[2] In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019[3]. A change made after 5 years of war in Donbas with Russian support, as well as the annexation of Crimera. What did happen in 2014 was the Maidan revolution[4] as well the signing of the EU-Ukraine association agreement.[5] I’d argue, what Putin if afraid of is not NATO at his borders (though it plays well with some of his audience), but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. And to be clear, Ukraine today (even before the invasion) is far away from all 4. But it’d be a formidable threat to Putin’s autocratic and kleptocratic government. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html 2: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html 3: https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shchodo-kursu-na-vstup-v-yes-i-nato-nabuv-chynnosti https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shc... 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity 5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukrai...
- eezurr 5y ago
  I'm curious, do you think John Mearsheimer is spewing Russian Propaganda? [1] He's been studying international politics for over 50 years. I'm asking because I want to know if my sources are provably biased. >While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members I don't think that counters anything I said. US is pushing for Ukrainian/Georgian membership, as you say. When that was put on the table, both countries began working towards achieving that membership. Considering US funds 70% of NATO, it's not implausible to think that the US will have their way in the long run. (Rational speculation) >Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO. > In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019 Which president? The one that was elected after the coup? Or the previous one who was pro-Russia? Mearsheimer discusses that history in his lecture I linked in my main comment. I haven't read into this but it seems likely that total national policy shifts take time. You're talking about one month to 5 years after the revolution. You have to remember half the country is either Russian descent or speaks Russian. It seems like a necessary guarantee to maintain peace with Russia. > but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. Russia does not want that either. Over the last decade or two, Russia has been building new gas pipelines that circumvent Ukraine for this very reason. Ukraine collects a tax on all the gas that passes through their boarders. Also notable is the recent oil/natural gas reserves discovered in their territory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

by eezurr 5y ago

djur 5y ago

Russia could make peace with NATO at any time. They can withdraw from disputed territories and commit to a reduction in armaments. We don't need to have missiles pointed at each other. Europe and the US would be more than happy to have Russia as a peaceful trade partner.

realityking 5y ago

> Putin has gone on public record stating he does not want NATO in his backyard. And yet the US/NATO keeps pushing the boundaries eastward. Russia invaded Georgia _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. Russia invaded Ukraine (twice) _because_ we dangled membership over their heads. I think you’re falling for for Russian propaganda here. While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members.[1] Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO.[2] In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019[3]. A change made after 5 years of war in Donbas with Russian support, as well as the annexation of Crimera. What did happen in 2014 was the Maidan revolution[4] as well the signing of the EU-Ukraine association agreement.[5] I’d argue, what Putin if afraid of is not NATO at his borders (though it plays well with some of his audience), but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. And to be clear, Ukraine today (even before the invasion) is far away from all 4. But it’d be a formidable threat to Putin’s autocratic and kleptocratic government. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html 2: http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/198372.html 3: https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shchodo-kursu-na-vstup-v-yes-i-nato-nabuv-chynnosti https://eu-ua.org/novyny/zakon-pro-zminy-do-konstytuciyi-shc... 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity 5: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine_Association_Agreement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukrai...

eezurr 5y ago
I'm curious, do you think John Mearsheimer is spewing Russian Propaganda? [1] He's been studying international politics for over 50 years. I'm asking because I want to know if my sources are provably biased. >While there was a push from the US government for Ukraine to join NATO back in 2008, it was rebuffed by the major European members I don't think that counters anything I said. US is pushing for Ukrainian/Georgian membership, as you say. When that was put on the table, both countries began working towards achieving that membership. Considering US funds 70% of NATO, it's not implausible to think that the US will have their way in the long run. (Rational speculation) >Even in March 2014, a month after Russia began taking over Crimera, Ukraine had no intention of joining NATO. > In fact, their constitution prohibited it until 2019 Which president? The one that was elected after the coup? Or the previous one who was pro-Russia? Mearsheimer discusses that history in his lecture I linked in my main comment. I haven't read into this but it seems likely that total national policy shifts take time. You're talking about one month to 5 years after the revolution. You have to remember half the country is either Russian descent or speaks Russian. It seems like a necessary guarantee to maintain peace with Russia. > but a stable, democratic, and economically prosperous Ukraine that might even be an EU member. Russia does not want that either. Over the last decade or two, Russia has been building new gas pipelines that circumvent Ukraine for this very reason. Ukraine collects a tax on all the gas that passes through their boarders. Also notable is the recent oil/natural gas reserves discovered in their territory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer