5 ms·

Pushing NATO expansion in Ukraine and arming them with hi-tech weaponry.

actinium226 5y ago
What did Biden/Scholz do on this front? I did see earlier that Merkel had opposed Ukraine in NATO, but I'm not familiar with Scholz's policy on it, or Biden's.
ericmay 5y ago
Ukraine wasn’t armed with hi-tech weaponry until Russia started invading in 2014 and then continued being a bad actor which culminated in January/February 2022 delivery of said weapons at the last second. NATO expansion is a convenient excuse but fails for two reasons: 1. Baltics are closer to Moscow than Ukraine and right on the border. 2. It is widely acknowledged that the primary driver for Putin is not NATO expansion but actually historical “reasons” he has drummed up. His “histories” are titled things like “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, not “On the Historical Animosity of Russia and NATO” for a reason.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  this! Yeah, this argument about the NATO threat is repeated ad nauseam because it superficially sounds like a reasonable justification: "they just had to defend themselves". But even if that was true, Otto von Bismarck said it well: "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death". Imagine an alternate universe where Ukraine joins EU and NATO and now russia faces a NATO "wall" on the west. In this alternate universe where Russia didn't initiate an aggression, the public opinion of most european countries is not particularly interested in military spending. Compare that with this universe; the city I live in in Italy is going to build a new military base and while some people will certainly complain, the backlash won't come close to a pre-war scenario. Now even the population feel it that the rules have changed. Effectively Putin has armed Europe to their teeth. What a perfect 4D chess move to protect Russian safety. And seriously, I yet have to understand what is the threat that "NATO" would pose to Russia. What should they be worried about? Are they afraid that one morning NATO will invade Russia? What for? This part of the scenario is so embarrassingly hand-wavy, seemingly imbued only of reverberance of a distant past. Or is it that Russia be afraid of Western values infecting Russia? In that case, what difference does it make how many neighbouring countries are NATO members? You can just decide to make your laws and your policies and live your life according to your chosen lifestyle (if your citizens so wish) Or is it perhaps that Russia used to be a super power and now it isn't anymore. The greatness past now must live again. Let's reclaim our destiny and all this bullshit. This not how civilised nations should be run. This is barbaric and should stop and sadly the only reason humanity has to put up with it is the nuclear arsenal.
  - danaris 5y ago
    > Are they afraid that one morning NATO will invade Russia? From everything I've heard thus far, Putin is afraid that NATO will prevent him from reconstituting the USSR under him.
    - saiya-jin 5y ago
      Well USSR is as dead as russian soldier somewhere in muddy Ukraine. There were good reasons why it broke down, and those reasons are still present. Its plain simple - nobody sane, moral and free wants to be in pact with russia. Who remains are dictators, bullies and murderers. Thank god Trump didn't succeed in effectively disbanding Nato. Imagine what Europe would look like now if that happened (as Bolton mentioned in cca 2018).
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Which we know, but apparently Putin doesn't. I think in one of his writings or a public speaking engagement he said "They're (Ukrainians) Russian even if they don't know it".
        danaris 5y ago
        I read an article recently—which I'm afraid I can't find anymore—that posited that part of what's going on is that Putin, and some of the rest of Russia, has a rather surprisingly expansive view of what it means to be "Russian", combined with the belief that if one is, by that definition, Russian, it is good and right to be part of Mother Russia. It also pointed out that by extension, this means that anyone in Ukraine who does not believe that they are Russian (and thus does not want to be part of Russia) is either effectively insane, or some kind of seditious traitor (I don't remember the exact way that logic went in the article at this point). I don't know to what extent what it described is true (my guess is "somewhat, but not necessarily absolutely"), but it does seem to help explain some of what's going on.
        ericmay 5y ago
- rgmarker 5y ago
  1. The Baltics joined NATO when Russia was still in disarray and aren't as important strategically. Russia tried to join NATO itself after that but was rebuffed. 2. This was primarily for domestic consumption and the West picked it up in February/March together with the notion that Putin had gone mad. Hardly anyone talks about either of these theories any longer.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > Russia tried to join NATO itself after that but was rebuffed. Yes but it's not that simple. First, do you trust Russia in NATO? Given the nefarious things Russia has done over the last 30 years, you can't trust this on the face of it. It would be a very Russian thing to do. By accounts that I've read (open to other readings here) Russia wanted to join in a privileged position as well, versus as "just another country" and wanted to be fast-tracked and so forth. > The Baltics joined NATO when Russia was still in disarray and aren't as important strategically. I don't find any sympathy with the disarray argument. That just says "these countries joined NATO when Russia couldn't do anything about it". Your point about strategic importance, though, is well taken. Ukraine is strategically important for many reasons. Some/one of which is that it can undermine Russia's stranglehold on European gas imports. > This was primarily for domestic consumption and the West picked it up in February/March together with the notion that Putin had gone mad. Hardly anyone talks about either of these theories any longer. Agreed. I think the simple case is simply that Putin believe(s)(d) that he had enough negotiating power against NATO countries to be able to stop them from inflicting serious damage on Russia after invading Ukraine, and also that because Ukraine (in Putin's words) isn't a state, the fiction would simply collapse once Russia arrived. We don't do a great job and assume that our incentives are the same as someone else's. In this case Putin couldn't give a crap less about dead people and economic destruction. He cares about The Historical Unity of Russians and Ukraine. Perhaps at a much higher cost than we are willing to endure.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  From a purely geographical perspective, Ukraine is far more strategically important than the Baltics, due to its access to key rivers that flow into Belarus and Russia and due to its Black Sea coastline. I am sure if the U.S. tried to place missile systems in the Baltics it would trigger a Cuban missile-crisis like situation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
martimarkov 5y ago
I think you forget that Ukraine has the right of agency and has the right to choose to join a defensive union. I'm also finding it hard to get any concrete examples of offensive actions by NATO. So far every single one seems to be okay with Russia (given they didn't veto it in the UN security council).
- rgmarker 5y ago
  Suppose the following reversed situation: - There is still a Warsaw Pact. - An Orange Revolution happens in Canada in 2014, backed by KGB neocon equivalents of Nuland/Graham. - A Russia friendly regime is installed in Canada in 2014. - Canada has regions with large U.S. populations. - Canada keeps pushing for Warsaw Pact membership. - At a security conference in Munich in 2022, Canada's Russia friendly prime minister mentions that he could acquire nuclear weapons. Would you say that the U.S. would likely invade according to the Monroe doctrine? Or would you say that Canada has the right of agency? None of this is excusing Russia, but disregarding these issues leads to escalation. I'm astonished that the NATO hardliners apparently think that their policies have been a success (they are of course a success if the goal was a proxy war that tests the strength of Russia's military in the first place).
  - depr 5y ago
    These kinds of comments are a waste of time, some people are simply only capable of seeing their side as the good guys, and/or everything that happens as mono-causal.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    In this analogy the US also agreed to protect Canada’s security for denuclearization, which they would have done (I.e. defanged threat). Russia ignoring the Budapest memorandum will be the most damning long term consequence since it teaches everyone that you will be attacked if you denuclearize.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    You over-simplify things quite a bit. Just because people in given country want freedom and not have as rulers constant puppets of russia doesn't mean they became US lapdogs. Its russia's fault that they globally represent oppression, corruption, incompetence, war crimes and now even genocide of their closest neighbors. Nobody normal would want to align with that voluntarily, only other bullies and murderers (which is exactly whats happening if you look at ie UN voting re Ukraine). Don't forget that Ukraine during ruling of all those russian puppets became country so desperately poor that even such a place like russia was rich by comparison. I don't find it strange at all that people just wanted to get rid of this constant negative drag on their very existence.

What did Biden/Scholz do on this front? I did see earlier that Merkel had opposed Ukraine in NATO, but I'm not familiar with Scholz's policy on it, or Biden's.

ericmay 5y ago

Ukraine wasn’t armed with hi-tech weaponry until Russia started invading in 2014 and then continued being a bad actor which culminated in January/February 2022 delivery of said weapons at the last second. NATO expansion is a convenient excuse but fails for two reasons: 1. Baltics are closer to Moscow than Ukraine and right on the border. 2. It is widely acknowledged that the primary driver for Putin is not NATO expansion but actually historical “reasons” he has drummed up. His “histories” are titled things like “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, not “On the Historical Animosity of Russia and NATO” for a reason.

ithkuil 5y ago
this! Yeah, this argument about the NATO threat is repeated ad nauseam because it superficially sounds like a reasonable justification: "they just had to defend themselves". But even if that was true, Otto von Bismarck said it well: "Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death". Imagine an alternate universe where Ukraine joins EU and NATO and now russia faces a NATO "wall" on the west. In this alternate universe where Russia didn't initiate an aggression, the public opinion of most european countries is not particularly interested in military spending. Compare that with this universe; the city I live in in Italy is going to build a new military base and while some people will certainly complain, the backlash won't come close to a pre-war scenario. Now even the population feel it that the rules have changed. Effectively Putin has armed Europe to their teeth. What a perfect 4D chess move to protect Russian safety. And seriously, I yet have to understand what is the threat that "NATO" would pose to Russia. What should they be worried about? Are they afraid that one morning NATO will invade Russia? What for? This part of the scenario is so embarrassingly hand-wavy, seemingly imbued only of reverberance of a distant past. Or is it that Russia be afraid of Western values infecting Russia? In that case, what difference does it make how many neighbouring countries are NATO members? You can just decide to make your laws and your policies and live your life according to your chosen lifestyle (if your citizens so wish) Or is it perhaps that Russia used to be a super power and now it isn't anymore. The greatness past now must live again. Let's reclaim our destiny and all this bullshit. This not how civilised nations should be run. This is barbaric and should stop and sadly the only reason humanity has to put up with it is the nuclear arsenal.
- danaris 5y ago
  > Are they afraid that one morning NATO will invade Russia? From everything I've heard thus far, Putin is afraid that NATO will prevent him from reconstituting the USSR under him.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    Well USSR is as dead as russian soldier somewhere in muddy Ukraine. There were good reasons why it broke down, and those reasons are still present. Its plain simple - nobody sane, moral and free wants to be in pact with russia. Who remains are dictators, bullies and murderers. Thank god Trump didn't succeed in effectively disbanding Nato. Imagine what Europe would look like now if that happened (as Bolton mentioned in cca 2018).
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Which we know, but apparently Putin doesn't. I think in one of his writings or a public speaking engagement he said "They're (Ukrainians) Russian even if they don't know it".
      - danaris 5y ago
        I read an article recently—which I'm afraid I can't find anymore—that posited that part of what's going on is that Putin, and some of the rest of Russia, has a rather surprisingly expansive view of what it means to be "Russian", combined with the belief that if one is, by that definition, Russian, it is good and right to be part of Mother Russia. It also pointed out that by extension, this means that anyone in Ukraine who does not believe that they are Russian (and thus does not want to be part of Russia) is either effectively insane, or some kind of seditious traitor (I don't remember the exact way that logic went in the article at this point). I don't know to what extent what it described is true (my guess is "somewhat, but not necessarily absolutely"), but it does seem to help explain some of what's going on.
        ericmay 5y ago
rgmarker 5y ago
1. The Baltics joined NATO when Russia was still in disarray and aren't as important strategically. Russia tried to join NATO itself after that but was rebuffed. 2. This was primarily for domestic consumption and the West picked it up in February/March together with the notion that Putin had gone mad. Hardly anyone talks about either of these theories any longer.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > Russia tried to join NATO itself after that but was rebuffed. Yes but it's not that simple. First, do you trust Russia in NATO? Given the nefarious things Russia has done over the last 30 years, you can't trust this on the face of it. It would be a very Russian thing to do. By accounts that I've read (open to other readings here) Russia wanted to join in a privileged position as well, versus as "just another country" and wanted to be fast-tracked and so forth. > The Baltics joined NATO when Russia was still in disarray and aren't as important strategically. I don't find any sympathy with the disarray argument. That just says "these countries joined NATO when Russia couldn't do anything about it". Your point about strategic importance, though, is well taken. Ukraine is strategically important for many reasons. Some/one of which is that it can undermine Russia's stranglehold on European gas imports. > This was primarily for domestic consumption and the West picked it up in February/March together with the notion that Putin had gone mad. Hardly anyone talks about either of these theories any longer. Agreed. I think the simple case is simply that Putin believe(s)(d) that he had enough negotiating power against NATO countries to be able to stop them from inflicting serious damage on Russia after invading Ukraine, and also that because Ukraine (in Putin's words) isn't a state, the fiction would simply collapse once Russia arrived. We don't do a great job and assume that our incentives are the same as someone else's. In this case Putin couldn't give a crap less about dead people and economic destruction. He cares about The Historical Unity of Russians and Ukraine. Perhaps at a much higher cost than we are willing to endure.
chrisco255 5y ago
From a purely geographical perspective, Ukraine is far more strategically important than the Baltics, due to its access to key rivers that flow into Belarus and Russia and due to its Black Sea coastline. I am sure if the U.S. tried to place missile systems in the Baltics it would trigger a Cuban missile-crisis like situation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

martimarkov 5y ago

I think you forget that Ukraine has the right of agency and has the right to choose to join a defensive union. I'm also finding it hard to get any concrete examples of offensive actions by NATO. So far every single one seems to be okay with Russia (given they didn't veto it in the UN security council).

rgmarker 5y ago
Suppose the following reversed situation: - There is still a Warsaw Pact. - An Orange Revolution happens in Canada in 2014, backed by KGB neocon equivalents of Nuland/Graham. - A Russia friendly regime is installed in Canada in 2014. - Canada has regions with large U.S. populations. - Canada keeps pushing for Warsaw Pact membership. - At a security conference in Munich in 2022, Canada's Russia friendly prime minister mentions that he could acquire nuclear weapons. Would you say that the U.S. would likely invade according to the Monroe doctrine? Or would you say that Canada has the right of agency? None of this is excusing Russia, but disregarding these issues leads to escalation. I'm astonished that the NATO hardliners apparently think that their policies have been a success (they are of course a success if the goal was a proxy war that tests the strength of Russia's military in the first place).
- depr 5y ago
  These kinds of comments are a waste of time, some people are simply only capable of seeing their side as the good guys, and/or everything that happens as mono-causal.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  In this analogy the US also agreed to protect Canada’s security for denuclearization, which they would have done (I.e. defanged threat). Russia ignoring the Budapest memorandum will be the most damning long term consequence since it teaches everyone that you will be attacked if you denuclearize.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  You over-simplify things quite a bit. Just because people in given country want freedom and not have as rulers constant puppets of russia doesn't mean they became US lapdogs. Its russia's fault that they globally represent oppression, corruption, incompetence, war crimes and now even genocide of their closest neighbors. Nobody normal would want to align with that voluntarily, only other bullies and murderers (which is exactly whats happening if you look at ie UN voting re Ukraine). Don't forget that Ukraine during ruling of all those russian puppets became country so desperately poor that even such a place like russia was rich by comparison. I don't find it strange at all that people just wanted to get rid of this constant negative drag on their very existence.