3 ms·

Putin sees NATO as an existential threat, vastly more significant than any economic threat. From this premise, he is operating ruthelessly rationally, not "craz

Putin sees NATO as an existential threat, vastly more significant than any economic threat. From this premise, he is operating ruthelessly rationally, not "crazy". The western narrative of "crazy putin" is in part just a delusional misunderstanding (Germany), an in part a strategy of getting western domestic buy in for beating up Russia (UK/USA). The West (USA & UK primarily) want russia bogged down in Ukraine as much as possible, and are using this opportunity to goad russia into a regieme-destabalisng move -- i suspect it's hoped that when putin levels Kyiv, they'll be a coup. This delusional domestic propaganda about ukrainian resistance is playing right into the strategic hands of, largely, the UK. It's a dangerous game for Europe to play, and it's a luxury the USA can't afford -- which needs russia to contain china. The UK here is hoping europeans will come to depend on it more explicitly for security, germany arming itself here is an unexpected turn of events. The USA is still not focused on china enough to see what a silly nightmare this is going to be.

jacquesm 5y ago
This really is getting old and has been debunked over and over again.
smcl 5y ago
> Putin sees NATO as an existential threat That would make him crazy though, or at least extremely deluded. I don't think any NATO member had (or has!) any intention of entering into conflict with Russia - otherwise we would've seen an escalation back in 2014. I think you are giving him too much credit and are taking his words at face value. I think he probably sees NATO or the EU as contributing to the shrinking Russian of influence. This is definitely true, but it doesn't in any rational world justify military action and certainly isn't an existential threat to either Russia or Putin. Hence the popular "crazy Putin" narrative ... because it really kind of is.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Ukraine isn't in NATO and has no claim to NATO support. And yet, NATO is basically using the country to conduct a proxy war. From the Russian POV, everything here has been confirmed. NATO is an existential threat to russia. Imagine if the USA invaded cuba and russia sent massive arms/etc. to cuba, and destabalized the US economy. What would the USA think about Russia? That, exactly, it is very much the threat "it was always believed to be".
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    That's just plain ridiculous. The economic sanctions are in direct response to the invasion of a sovereign country. You can't use them as justification for this very same invasion. And the arms shipments are not by NATO directly, though of course many countries here are also members of NATO. And those shipment only started when Russia started to threaten Ukraine, invaded the Krim and finally invaded the whole country.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Why did they decide to do all that?
    - romwell 5y ago
      Sadly, the person you're asking the question to seems to be either arguing in bad faith, or has internalized circular logic, and won't be able to see the point you're making Thank you for highlighting it for everyone else reading the thread!
  - smcl 5y ago
    So you're telling me that Putin ordered the invasion of Russia because NATO represented an existential threat to Russia. And this existential threat to Russia is demonstrated by an inflow of arms to Ukraine as a direct result of the invasion? Meaning that he could accurately predict the future reaction to his invasion, and used it as a justification for the invasion? We don't have to cheerlead a NATO or EU military response (and I'm certainly not for that), make stupid "Ghost of Kyiv" memes or display the sort of bloodlust that some in the media have ... but this is a really weird position you're taking. One mistake I think many are making is mapping this to different invasions/wars in the past - Germany/Poland, USSR/Agfhanistan, USA/Afghanistan etc - and assigning roles then picking sides accordingly. I do not think it is that simple and by the same token I do not know what the right course of action should be. But I know that "Putin is justified and acting rationally" is one of the wrongest takes of this war.
    - 5y ago
- dirtyid 5y ago
  The rationale and justification for UKR/RU war has been so obvious that strategic thinkers from Kennan to Kissinger to Mearsheimer and host of other relevant experts like Clinton defense secretary Perry or US ambassador to USSR Matlock has been warning about it for years. Some decades. RU/UKR is about immediate short/medium/long term interests executed before RU leverage in terms of demographics and economics is projected decline for generations. NATO friendly UKR was positioned to replace RU as gas station of EU post reserve discovery while relegating west RU (the heart) to geographic vulnerability forever. Even if you think Putin has lost his marbles now, it's important to remember he's come to the same calculations as other western thinkers 10/20 years ago. He won Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Syria and improved RU position each time. UKR might have been a stretch goal, but also always on the chopping block if NATO/UKR upset balance of power enough to undermine RU interests. More so when NATO became an offensive alliance for US interests after Kosovo. In absence of guaranteeing RU security interests via treaty, which RU asked for, NATO/EU simply cannot be trusted medium long term. His assessment and actions is about as geopolitically coherent as it gets. Execution might be shit, the entire venture might even be an existential gamble, but it's fundamentally rational.
- random_upvoter 5y ago
  In the 19th century Russia was invaded by Napoleon, most of Moscow was burnt to the ground on that occasion. In the 20th century Nazi Germany invaded Russia with an obvious program to exterminate the Slavic people. Forty million Russians died on that occasion. You have to understand how such events embed in the collective consciousness of a people. For Russia, the danger comes from the west and it's real. It's all very easy for us to say "Oh but we are really peaceful and enlightened now". Except that we have been expanding NATO to the west, essentially breaking a promise we made to Russia when Germany was reunited. Nothing of this justifies the brutal invasion of Ukraine right now, but the whole story is a little bit more complicated than "muh Russia evil".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - smcl 5y ago
    Who said “muh Russia evil”? You’re infantilising Putin as a lil smol bean who’s feeling really scared, and reaching back in time for supporting evidence and finding conflicts that happened with totally different contexts and ignoring or hand-waving away anything that might contradict this. I think this is a mistake. Here’s what I think is going on, we have had a number of controversial recent wars where US and British (and various allies) were categorically, undeniably in the wrong. There was a media frenzy during those conflicts which was used to manipulate popular opinion in favour of these conflicts, so many of us are now mistrustful of when we get a sense this sort of thing is happening. There is now a popular push for US and allies to be more involved in an ongoing conflict which is getting a lot of attention in the media. It is instinctive and natural to assume we are being manipulated once more and to not want to get caught up in it. We probably are to some extent, so it is right to be mistrustful and take some things with a pinch of salt. But many people are overcorrecting - saying that not just should we not start WW3 (which is a sensible position), but that this is actually mostly our fault (which is a stretch). And starting with that belief people have had to work back to find something to support it. With the tit-for-tat nature of geopolitics mixed with our continents extensive history of horrific warfare you can probably paint any of the former great powers as the source of all evil in many modern conflicts today if you want to (in some cases you’d be right too). In this case I think you’re wrong though. In one respect the situation is complex in that there’s no clear path out of it. But it’s also very simple in that there is one very very clear aggressor who has initiated a bloody conflict on flimsy grounds (in fact his stated goal was “denazifying” Ukraine which none of you guys have mentioned) and I think anyone being proudly contrarian about it is going to feel a bit silly about it when the dust settles.

jacquesm 5y ago

This really is getting old and has been debunked over and over again.

smcl 5y ago

> Putin sees NATO as an existential threat That would make him crazy though, or at least extremely deluded. I don't think any NATO member had (or has!) any intention of entering into conflict with Russia - otherwise we would've seen an escalation back in 2014. I think you are giving him too much credit and are taking his words at face value. I think he probably sees NATO or the EU as contributing to the shrinking Russian of influence. This is definitely true, but it doesn't in any rational world justify military action and certainly isn't an existential threat to either Russia or Putin. Hence the popular "crazy Putin" narrative ... because it really kind of is.

mjburgess 5y ago
NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Ukraine isn't in NATO and has no claim to NATO support. And yet, NATO is basically using the country to conduct a proxy war. From the Russian POV, everything here has been confirmed. NATO is an existential threat to russia. Imagine if the USA invaded cuba and russia sent massive arms/etc. to cuba, and destabalized the US economy. What would the USA think about Russia? That, exactly, it is very much the threat "it was always believed to be".
- fabian2k 5y ago
  That's just plain ridiculous. The economic sanctions are in direct response to the invasion of a sovereign country. You can't use them as justification for this very same invasion. And the arms shipments are not by NATO directly, though of course many countries here are also members of NATO. And those shipment only started when Russia started to threaten Ukraine, invaded the Krim and finally invaded the whole country.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Why did they decide to do all that?
  - romwell 5y ago
    Sadly, the person you're asking the question to seems to be either arguing in bad faith, or has internalized circular logic, and won't be able to see the point you're making Thank you for highlighting it for everyone else reading the thread!
- smcl 5y ago
  So you're telling me that Putin ordered the invasion of Russia because NATO represented an existential threat to Russia. And this existential threat to Russia is demonstrated by an inflow of arms to Ukraine as a direct result of the invasion? Meaning that he could accurately predict the future reaction to his invasion, and used it as a justification for the invasion? We don't have to cheerlead a NATO or EU military response (and I'm certainly not for that), make stupid "Ghost of Kyiv" memes or display the sort of bloodlust that some in the media have ... but this is a really weird position you're taking. One mistake I think many are making is mapping this to different invasions/wars in the past - Germany/Poland, USSR/Agfhanistan, USA/Afghanistan etc - and assigning roles then picking sides accordingly. I do not think it is that simple and by the same token I do not know what the right course of action should be. But I know that "Putin is justified and acting rationally" is one of the wrongest takes of this war.
  - 5y ago
dirtyid 5y ago
The rationale and justification for UKR/RU war has been so obvious that strategic thinkers from Kennan to Kissinger to Mearsheimer and host of other relevant experts like Clinton defense secretary Perry or US ambassador to USSR Matlock has been warning about it for years. Some decades. RU/UKR is about immediate short/medium/long term interests executed before RU leverage in terms of demographics and economics is projected decline for generations. NATO friendly UKR was positioned to replace RU as gas station of EU post reserve discovery while relegating west RU (the heart) to geographic vulnerability forever. Even if you think Putin has lost his marbles now, it's important to remember he's come to the same calculations as other western thinkers 10/20 years ago. He won Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Syria and improved RU position each time. UKR might have been a stretch goal, but also always on the chopping block if NATO/UKR upset balance of power enough to undermine RU interests. More so when NATO became an offensive alliance for US interests after Kosovo. In absence of guaranteeing RU security interests via treaty, which RU asked for, NATO/EU simply cannot be trusted medium long term. His assessment and actions is about as geopolitically coherent as it gets. Execution might be shit, the entire venture might even be an existential gamble, but it's fundamentally rational.
random_upvoter 5y ago
In the 19th century Russia was invaded by Napoleon, most of Moscow was burnt to the ground on that occasion. In the 20th century Nazi Germany invaded Russia with an obvious program to exterminate the Slavic people. Forty million Russians died on that occasion. You have to understand how such events embed in the collective consciousness of a people. For Russia, the danger comes from the west and it's real. It's all very easy for us to say "Oh but we are really peaceful and enlightened now". Except that we have been expanding NATO to the west, essentially breaking a promise we made to Russia when Germany was reunited. Nothing of this justifies the brutal invasion of Ukraine right now, but the whole story is a little bit more complicated than "muh Russia evil".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- smcl 5y ago
  Who said “muh Russia evil”? You’re infantilising Putin as a lil smol bean who’s feeling really scared, and reaching back in time for supporting evidence and finding conflicts that happened with totally different contexts and ignoring or hand-waving away anything that might contradict this. I think this is a mistake. Here’s what I think is going on, we have had a number of controversial recent wars where US and British (and various allies) were categorically, undeniably in the wrong. There was a media frenzy during those conflicts which was used to manipulate popular opinion in favour of these conflicts, so many of us are now mistrustful of when we get a sense this sort of thing is happening. There is now a popular push for US and allies to be more involved in an ongoing conflict which is getting a lot of attention in the media. It is instinctive and natural to assume we are being manipulated once more and to not want to get caught up in it. We probably are to some extent, so it is right to be mistrustful and take some things with a pinch of salt. But many people are overcorrecting - saying that not just should we not start WW3 (which is a sensible position), but that this is actually mostly our fault (which is a stretch). And starting with that belief people have had to work back to find something to support it. With the tit-for-tat nature of geopolitics mixed with our continents extensive history of horrific warfare you can probably paint any of the former great powers as the source of all evil in many modern conflicts today if you want to (in some cases you’d be right too). In this case I think you’re wrong though. In one respect the situation is complex in that there’s no clear path out of it. But it’s also very simple in that there is one very very clear aggressor who has initiated a bloody conflict on flimsy grounds (in fact his stated goal was “denazifying” Ukraine which none of you guys have mentioned) and I think anyone being proudly contrarian about it is going to feel a bit silly about it when the dust settles.