4 ms·

NATO expansion is definitely one of the primary viewpoints. There are convincing rebuttals against those viewpoints as well though. Geopolitics is messy and

NATO expansion is definitely one of the primary viewpoints. There are convincing rebuttals against those viewpoints as well though. Geopolitics is messy and chaotic. There probably were mustache twirling strategists hellbent on pursuing an anti-ussr agenda despite the USSR no longer existing. I've never heard anyone argue they are the architects of NATO's expansion. I'm curious. European and african commentators I've been checking have very much emphasized that the states themselves decided to join NATO, that they weren't solicited or coerced by NATO itself. Considering lukashenko implied Moldova is next, it doesn't seem like they were unreasonable to try to pursue NATO as a means of assuring continued sovereignty. I think for most of the general public, the beginning was last week. Put to people working in state departments all around the world, off the record and unpublished, I wonder what their answers would be. I feel like it changes a lot depending on how you feel about hegemony. Edit: If north and south Korea were about to unify, but China invaded to reconstitute a north Korean buffer state, where was the beginning and what could have been done? Should the south have refused the north because it didn't want to be seen as expanding? Should the north have? China definitely wouldn't be invaded by a unified Korea, maybe they would argue that how they are positioned in international trade justifies it. I'm trying to think of parallels and this is what I've come up with.

danbruc 5y ago
Nobody forced anyone to join NATO, at least as far as I can tell. The problem is Putin does not trust NATO, he does not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance that will do nothing unless you poke it, he perceives NATO as an ever expanding organization that accumulates power and influence for the west and the USA in particular. And while the west argues that sovereign countries can decide on their own whether or not they want to join NATO, Putin made it very clear that he considers this unacceptable. The most similar situation is in my opinion the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR could argue that Cuba is free to decide whether or not they want nuclear missiles stationed in their country, the USA argues that it is an unacceptable security thread to have those missiles so close to their border. What would have happened of the USSR had not backed down? Would the USA have tolerated the missiles or would the USA have attacked Cuba or at least the launch sites? What would the USA do today, say if China agreed with Mexico to place military assets in Mexico?
- todorus 5y ago
  The US stationed missiles in Turkey and as a response the USSR stationed missiles in Cuba. The crisis ended when the USSR publicly deconstructed their sites and the US agreed to do the same to theirs privately. This all because Kennedy needed to save face and have the USSR be the agressor. So if NATO would decide to invade Belarus right now, then it might be similar to the Cuban missile crisis. Until then, it is just a gross oversimplification of a conflict that is the result of complex relations between countries.
  - monetus 5y ago
    tangent: I don't know if you have ever seen Noam Chomsky discuss Kennedy's decisions at that point, but I think it is the only topic I've ever seen him visibly furious over.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      This [1] is probably not the talk you have seen, at least I would not describe Chomsky as furious in that clip. But I was not aware - maybe I once knew and forgot - that removing the missiles from Turkey was not really a concession but planned anyway because they were obsolete. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcUUgYQASfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcUUgYQASfI
  - danbruc 5y ago
    I am not sure if you understood my analogy, let me try to be more explicit. The USSR tried to put nuclear missiles next to US borders, the USA did not like this. Ukraine wants to become a NATO member, Putin views this as NATO - maybe as a proxy for the USA - eventually putting military assets - potentially nuclear missiles or whatever he is most concerned about - next to Russian borders, Putin does not like this. In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the actions of the USSR were only a response but still not tolerated. You could maybe find an equivalent, something that Russia did first and that then caused Ukraine to seek a NATO membership, but I don't think this is important for the analogy. The equivalent of Russia backing down and not stationing missiles in Cuba for Cuba's protection would be Ukraine not joining NATO. But I have to admit that I don't get your analogy either, would you mind elaborating?

danbruc 5y ago

Nobody forced anyone to join NATO, at least as far as I can tell. The problem is Putin does not trust NATO, he does not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance that will do nothing unless you poke it, he perceives NATO as an ever expanding organization that accumulates power and influence for the west and the USA in particular. And while the west argues that sovereign countries can decide on their own whether or not they want to join NATO, Putin made it very clear that he considers this unacceptable. The most similar situation is in my opinion the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR could argue that Cuba is free to decide whether or not they want nuclear missiles stationed in their country, the USA argues that it is an unacceptable security thread to have those missiles so close to their border. What would have happened of the USSR had not backed down? Would the USA have tolerated the missiles or would the USA have attacked Cuba or at least the launch sites? What would the USA do today, say if China agreed with Mexico to place military assets in Mexico?

todorus 5y ago
The US stationed missiles in Turkey and as a response the USSR stationed missiles in Cuba. The crisis ended when the USSR publicly deconstructed their sites and the US agreed to do the same to theirs privately. This all because Kennedy needed to save face and have the USSR be the agressor. So if NATO would decide to invade Belarus right now, then it might be similar to the Cuban missile crisis. Until then, it is just a gross oversimplification of a conflict that is the result of complex relations between countries.
- monetus 5y ago
  tangent: I don't know if you have ever seen Noam Chomsky discuss Kennedy's decisions at that point, but I think it is the only topic I've ever seen him visibly furious over.
  - danbruc 5y ago
    This [1] is probably not the talk you have seen, at least I would not describe Chomsky as furious in that clip. But I was not aware - maybe I once knew and forgot - that removing the missiles from Turkey was not really a concession but planned anyway because they were obsolete. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcUUgYQASfI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcUUgYQASfI
- danbruc 5y ago
  I am not sure if you understood my analogy, let me try to be more explicit. The USSR tried to put nuclear missiles next to US borders, the USA did not like this. Ukraine wants to become a NATO member, Putin views this as NATO - maybe as a proxy for the USA - eventually putting military assets - potentially nuclear missiles or whatever he is most concerned about - next to Russian borders, Putin does not like this. In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the actions of the USSR were only a response but still not tolerated. You could maybe find an equivalent, something that Russia did first and that then caused Ukraine to seek a NATO membership, but I don't think this is important for the analogy. The equivalent of Russia backing down and not stationing missiles in Cuba for Cuba's protection would be Ukraine not joining NATO. But I have to admit that I don't get your analogy either, would you mind elaborating?