4 ms·

The whole NATO justification is a Russian red herring. 1) NATO is defensive treaty. 1a) Per the terms of the NATO treaty, it would not do a "first strike" att

by gvb 5y ago

The whole NATO justification is a Russian red herring. 1) NATO is defensive treaty. 1a) Per the terms of the NATO treaty, it would not do a "first strike" attack on Russia. Given the difficulty of getting all the NATO countries to do anything, this is a pretty good bet that NATO would not violate its charter. Putin gambled NATO would not do anything and, in fact, NATO has not done anything to date. Note that, while the member countries have contributed a lot of money and military equipment to Ukraine, that was done "on their own initiative" and not on behalf of NATO. 1b) There are other NATO countries that have shared borders with Russia. If Russia is truly afraid of having a shared border with NATO countries, why is Ukraine such a problem that Russia needs to invade them while the NATO countries that already have shared borders are not a bigger problem? As you mentioned, why is Ukraine such a problem but Finland is not? (A: Putin figured Ukraine was a pushover and knew Finland would not be - no NATO in that equation.) 1c) If Russia's invasion of Ukraine succeeded, they would have (another) shared border with NATO, exactly what they claim they don't want. OK, OK, a puppet state would have a shared border, but whatever. 2) Given NATO is a defensive treaty, if NATO had allowed Ukraine to join (Ukraine wanted to), NATO would be "on the hook" to defend Ukraine and would be fighting WWIII right now. Corollary to 2) NATO is very happy to have Ukraine as a buffer between it and Russia. While NATO said "OK, but some time in the future" when Ukraine asked to join NATO, you can bet "some time" never comes. Ukraine brings a huge risk of the huge destruction and the huge expense of a full blown WWIII to NATO. Nobody in NATO was going to say "yeah, that's a good idea" to that anytime soon.

jaynetics 5y ago
Putin does have a long-standing obsession with NATO, though. Even in his otherwise very festive speech to the German parliament in 2002, which he held in German and in which he proposed a close alliance between Europe and Russia, he could not help himself and included some out-of-place, acerbic remarks about NATO. In his subsequent speeches, this complaint only began to take more and more space. I agree that Ukraine's NATO membership is of little strategic relevance, but it does seem as if Putin was stuck in some imaginary rivalry, maybe never getting over his KGB indoctrination, or maybe battling some kind of inferiority complex?

by gvb 5y ago

jaynetics 5y ago

Putin does have a long-standing obsession with NATO, though. Even in his otherwise very festive speech to the German parliament in 2002, which he held in German and in which he proposed a close alliance between Europe and Russia, he could not help himself and included some out-of-place, acerbic remarks about NATO. In his subsequent speeches, this complaint only began to take more and more space. I agree that Ukraine's NATO membership is of little strategic relevance, but it does seem as if Putin was stuck in some imaginary rivalry, maybe never getting over his KGB indoctrination, or maybe battling some kind of inferiority complex?