4 ms·

> NATO-Russia conflict Can you explain your framing?

by chinathrow 5y ago

throwaway4good 5y ago
I believe that is what it looks like from a Russian perspective.
- WJW 5y ago
  To be fair, without the several billion USD in free high-tech weapons from the Western countries (mostly though not exclusively NATO members) Ukraine would probably have lost the war by now. It's an open secret that NATO has been passing on intelligence from AWACS and spy satellites to the Ukrainian forces as well. There might be no NATO troops on the ground but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is purely Ukraine vs Russia.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > without the several billion USD in free high-tech weapons from the Western countries (mostly though not exclusively NATO members) Ukraine would probably have lost the war by now And without the navy Russia annexed [1], or it’s Soviet military kit, much of which was designed and built in Ukraine, Russia wouldn’t have much of a start. Ukraine repelled Putin’s forces on its own in the early days of the war, when Western intelligence was predicting another Kabul. That it later attracted sympathy is further testament to its diplomatic strength (and the Kremlin’s isolation). [1] https://tass.com/russia/724901 https://tass.com/russia/724901
    - somenameforme 5y ago
      Out of curiosity, where did you read that? I assumed Wiki had been trolled, but even they add the rather important follow up you seem to be unaware of [1]. Just quoting Wiki as it is accurate on this note (you can also search anywhere to confirm): "On 8 April 2014 an agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine to return Ukrainian Navy materials to Ukraine proper. The greater portion of the Ukrainian naval ships and vessels were then returned to Ukraine but Russia suspended this process after Ukraine did not renew its unilaterally declared ceasefire on 1 July 2014 in the conflict in the Donbas." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Russian_annexation_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Russian_annexa...
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    It's still only Ukraine vs Russia, even if Ukraine is using weapons acquired from elsewhere and getting intelligence information from other countries. That's a pretty basic idea in international politics, having been developed over decades of similar proxy wars. Same reason the US didn't consider itself at war with the USSR in Korea or Vietnam.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - CapricornNoble 5y ago
      >>>getting intelligence information from other countries. Don't underestimate the massive value (and massive expense, for NATO) associated with providing that intelligence. Ukraine is basically playing Starcraft with a "disable fog of war" cheatcode activated.
      - _djo_ 5y ago
        While that sort of assistance is undoubtedly useful, it doesn't rise to the level of military action that justifies retaliatory strikes. It's also something that has established precedent in the proxy conflicts I mentioned before, with the USSR and US both in turn providing strategic and in some cases tactical intelligence to the other side. As long as the aircraft gathering the intelligence aren't flying inside the battle zone.
  - tl 5y ago
    Russian military spending: $66 billion Ukrainian military spending: $5.4 billion I have serious doubts the outside world dumped more than $5 billion on Ukraine's side. Russian made a serious error in how much territory they tried to hold as opposed to the re-positioning / fighting over Donbas that's happening now. If the US ($801 billion) tried to conquer Canada ($26 billion), I would expect a similarly poor outcome based on Canada's size. If the US tried to annex specific oil rich areas under the guise of "protecting" oil pipelines, it's be reprehensible, but so was Crimea.
    - WJW 5y ago
      The total spending does not say as much as you'd think, since a large percentage of the Russian military budget goes to the Strategic Nuke forces (which are not very useful for the war in Ukraine) and another sizable chunk goes to the navy (most of which is not even present in the Black sea atm). There are also sizable inland forces for "maintaining political stability" that take up money from the budget but can't be deployed abroad. This means a large portion of Russian military spending can't be used in the current war. OTOH, almost every Ukrainian military asset they have was acquired with an eventual defense against Russia in mind so they have a much better rate of available fighting power per dollar spent.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > I have serious doubts the outside world dumped more than $5 billion on Ukraine's side. They did send about $5 billion worth of equipment. It is probably a factor why Russia isn't currently sieging Kiev. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-mil...
    - somenameforme 5y ago
      In the US alone the most recent spending bill allocated another $13.6 billion to Ukraine. [1] I've no idea what the worldwide total is, to say nothing of how much is coming from unreported black budget operations, but Ukraine is getting vastly more than $5 billion, they're getting it in less than 2 months, and they're able to dedicate 100% of it to this war. [1] - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/politics/biden-ukraine-aid-omnibus/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/politics/biden-ukraine-ai...
- pmyteh 5y ago
  It's totally a NATO proxy war. We're doing everything we can short of sending in our own troops with the intent of defending Ukraine and weakening Russia. It's also totally a Russian war of aggression. The two are not in any way incompatible.
danbruc 5y ago
Not OP, but there are - to a first approximation - two explanations for the Russian aggression. The more popular one in the West is that Putin is nostalgic about past Soviet powers and wants to restore those. The other and rather unpopular explanation is that Putin is afraid of NATO and wants a buffer between Russia and NATO members, hence Ukraine moving towards a NATO membership is considered a threat, diplomatic solutions were not reached - I am not going to assign blame here - so war it is. This is of course a much less popular opinion because it might imply that NATO actions might have contributed to the escalation, but all things considered I also think that this is the more probable explanation or at least the dominant contributing factor. This in turn makes Ukraine the victim of a conflict between Russia and NATO.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  If Putin is afraid of NATO, then why did he create the scenario where Sweden and Finland are now joining NATO? Do you think he's stupid? Why would he be afraid of a NATO offense on Russia when NATO won't do defense to protect an invasion against Ukraine?
  - danbruc 5y ago
    The early 1960s, the United States are afraid of Soviet influence spreading from Cuba. They support the Bay of Pigs Invasion [1] in hope to get rid of the pro-Soviet government but this fails. So the CIA starts Operation Mongoose [2] hoping to achieve the goal with terrorist attacks, assassinations, sabotage, and so on. In order to deter the United States from further interference, Cuba asks the Soviet Union to station missiles in Cuba which results in the Cuban Missile Crisis [3] bringing the world closer to nuclear war than ever before or since. What were they thinking? Were they stupid? Why would they risk worsening the situation by messing with Cuba? And while we are at it, why do the United States have any say in whether or not the Soviet Union stations missiles in Cuba? Cuba is a sovereign state, if they want Soviet missiles, they should be allowed to have them, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
speeder 5y ago
Note: I am from Brazil, and live nowhere near Russia. That said... I believe Russia see the invasion on Ukraine as a necessity to block Ukraine from joining NATO. A lot of people thinking Russia wants to just conquer Ukraine risk a massive escalation. Ukraine did a lot of things that pissed Russia off after it started to get closer ties to USA... Among them: 1. Ban on Russian Language 2. Threatening to close Sevastapol base (before Russia claimed Crimea back) 3. Accepting Azov battalion as part of the official army. 4. Allowing army members use SS symbols on their uniform (to be more specific, Galizen) and so on. But the most important one was: Adding in the constitution that they will join NATO, and accepting billions in military aid from USA (yes, USA was pumping a ton of weapons in Ukraine BEFORE the war, USA itself said so!) Ukraine joining NATO is a risk Russia can't take, yes NATO is defensive but Russia has beef with NATO members already, if Ukraine joins NATO for example it becomes way riskier for Russia to defend Armenia as ally if Turkey attacks them for example, and there is the fact NATO members been actually on the offensive a couple times now, and the whole NATO bombed the shit out of Serbia officially in the past (Russia was helping Serbia in that conflict) So why I said this risk massive escalation? Well, if you understand your enemy wrong you will make wrong decisions. Russia doesn't want to conquer Ukraine, they want to keep NATO away from that border, and there are two ways of doing that: 1. Convince Ukraine to not join NATO (what they are trying to do now). 2. Just bomb Ukraine until there is nothing left to join NATO in first place. A lot of people are thinking Russia won't try the second option because they want to conquer Ukraine, they are wrong about this, Russia knows very well they don't have right now the capability to conquer Ukraine, the only rational decision to go about this is try a "diplomatic" victory, and if that fails, then the real "War" comes (I suspect this is why Russia don't call this a war yet), where Russia will finally use all their equipment, including a large amount of strategic bombers and intermediate range missiles to utterly destroy everything in Ukraine, this way they don't have to bother with occupation and will still win regardless of how much NATO weapons are inside Ukraine (in fact the more NATO fills Ukraine with weapons, the bigger target it becomes for indiscriminate destruction, when else Russia will have opportunity to wipe out all the equipment of enemies like that?) EDIT: I hope all downvotes aren't because people are believing I am wrong in claiming Russia WILL flatten Ukraine if they feel the need to do so and support more war...
- 5y ago

> NATO-Russia conflict Can you explain your framing?

throwaway4good 5y ago

I believe that is what it looks like from a Russian perspective.

WJW 5y ago
To be fair, without the several billion USD in free high-tech weapons from the Western countries (mostly though not exclusively NATO members) Ukraine would probably have lost the war by now. It's an open secret that NATO has been passing on intelligence from AWACS and spy satellites to the Ukrainian forces as well. There might be no NATO troops on the ground but it's a bit of a stretch to say that it is purely Ukraine vs Russia.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > without the several billion USD in free high-tech weapons from the Western countries (mostly though not exclusively NATO members) Ukraine would probably have lost the war by now And without the navy Russia annexed [1], or it’s Soviet military kit, much of which was designed and built in Ukraine, Russia wouldn’t have much of a start. Ukraine repelled Putin’s forces on its own in the early days of the war, when Western intelligence was predicting another Kabul. That it later attracted sympathy is further testament to its diplomatic strength (and the Kremlin’s isolation). [1] https://tass.com/russia/724901 https://tass.com/russia/724901
  - somenameforme 5y ago
    Out of curiosity, where did you read that? I assumed Wiki had been trolled, but even they add the rather important follow up you seem to be unaware of [1]. Just quoting Wiki as it is accurate on this note (you can also search anywhere to confirm): "On 8 April 2014 an agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine to return Ukrainian Navy materials to Ukraine proper. The greater portion of the Ukrainian naval ships and vessels were then returned to Ukraine but Russia suspended this process after Ukraine did not renew its unilaterally declared ceasefire on 1 July 2014 in the conflict in the Donbas." [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Russian_annexation_of_Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_Fleet#Russian_annexa...
- _djo_ 5y ago
  It's still only Ukraine vs Russia, even if Ukraine is using weapons acquired from elsewhere and getting intelligence information from other countries. That's a pretty basic idea in international politics, having been developed over decades of similar proxy wars. Same reason the US didn't consider itself at war with the USSR in Korea or Vietnam.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>getting intelligence information from other countries. Don't underestimate the massive value (and massive expense, for NATO) associated with providing that intelligence. Ukraine is basically playing Starcraft with a "disable fog of war" cheatcode activated.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      While that sort of assistance is undoubtedly useful, it doesn't rise to the level of military action that justifies retaliatory strikes. It's also something that has established precedent in the proxy conflicts I mentioned before, with the USSR and US both in turn providing strategic and in some cases tactical intelligence to the other side. As long as the aircraft gathering the intelligence aren't flying inside the battle zone.
- tl 5y ago
  Russian military spending: $66 billion Ukrainian military spending: $5.4 billion I have serious doubts the outside world dumped more than $5 billion on Ukraine's side. Russian made a serious error in how much territory they tried to hold as opposed to the re-positioning / fighting over Donbas that's happening now. If the US ($801 billion) tried to conquer Canada ($26 billion), I would expect a similarly poor outcome based on Canada's size. If the US tried to annex specific oil rich areas under the guise of "protecting" oil pipelines, it's be reprehensible, but so was Crimea.
  - WJW 5y ago
    The total spending does not say as much as you'd think, since a large percentage of the Russian military budget goes to the Strategic Nuke forces (which are not very useful for the war in Ukraine) and another sizable chunk goes to the navy (most of which is not even present in the Black sea atm). There are also sizable inland forces for "maintaining political stability" that take up money from the budget but can't be deployed abroad. This means a large portion of Russian military spending can't be used in the current war. OTOH, almost every Ukrainian military asset they have was acquired with an eventual defense against Russia in mind so they have a much better rate of available fighting power per dollar spent.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > I have serious doubts the outside world dumped more than $5 billion on Ukraine's side. They did send about $5 billion worth of equipment. It is probably a factor why Russia isn't currently sieging Kiev. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-military-aid-00019104 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/ukraine-weapons-mil...
  - somenameforme 5y ago
    In the US alone the most recent spending bill allocated another $13.6 billion to Ukraine. [1] I've no idea what the worldwide total is, to say nothing of how much is coming from unreported black budget operations, but Ukraine is getting vastly more than $5 billion, they're getting it in less than 2 months, and they're able to dedicate 100% of it to this war. [1] - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/politics/biden-ukraine-aid-omnibus/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/politics/biden-ukraine-ai...
pmyteh 5y ago
It's totally a NATO proxy war. We're doing everything we can short of sending in our own troops with the intent of defending Ukraine and weakening Russia. It's also totally a Russian war of aggression. The two are not in any way incompatible.

danbruc 5y ago

Not OP, but there are - to a first approximation - two explanations for the Russian aggression. The more popular one in the West is that Putin is nostalgic about past Soviet powers and wants to restore those. The other and rather unpopular explanation is that Putin is afraid of NATO and wants a buffer between Russia and NATO members, hence Ukraine moving towards a NATO membership is considered a threat, diplomatic solutions were not reached - I am not going to assign blame here - so war it is. This is of course a much less popular opinion because it might imply that NATO actions might have contributed to the escalation, but all things considered I also think that this is the more probable explanation or at least the dominant contributing factor. This in turn makes Ukraine the victim of a conflict between Russia and NATO.

reducesuffering 5y ago
If Putin is afraid of NATO, then why did he create the scenario where Sweden and Finland are now joining NATO? Do you think he's stupid? Why would he be afraid of a NATO offense on Russia when NATO won't do defense to protect an invasion against Ukraine?
- danbruc 5y ago
  The early 1960s, the United States are afraid of Soviet influence spreading from Cuba. They support the Bay of Pigs Invasion [1] in hope to get rid of the pro-Soviet government but this fails. So the CIA starts Operation Mongoose [2] hoping to achieve the goal with terrorist attacks, assassinations, sabotage, and so on. In order to deter the United States from further interference, Cuba asks the Soviet Union to station missiles in Cuba which results in the Cuban Missile Crisis [3] bringing the world closer to nuclear war than ever before or since. What were they thinking? Were they stupid? Why would they risk worsening the situation by messing with Cuba? And while we are at it, why do the United States have any say in whether or not the Soviet Union stations missiles in Cuba? Cuba is a sovereign state, if they want Soviet missiles, they should be allowed to have them, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

speeder 5y ago

Note: I am from Brazil, and live nowhere near Russia. That said... I believe Russia see the invasion on Ukraine as a necessity to block Ukraine from joining NATO. A lot of people thinking Russia wants to just conquer Ukraine risk a massive escalation. Ukraine did a lot of things that pissed Russia off after it started to get closer ties to USA... Among them: 1. Ban on Russian Language 2. Threatening to close Sevastapol base (before Russia claimed Crimea back) 3. Accepting Azov battalion as part of the official army. 4. Allowing army members use SS symbols on their uniform (to be more specific, Galizen) and so on. But the most important one was: Adding in the constitution that they will join NATO, and accepting billions in military aid from USA (yes, USA was pumping a ton of weapons in Ukraine BEFORE the war, USA itself said so!) Ukraine joining NATO is a risk Russia can't take, yes NATO is defensive but Russia has beef with NATO members already, if Ukraine joins NATO for example it becomes way riskier for Russia to defend Armenia as ally if Turkey attacks them for example, and there is the fact NATO members been actually on the offensive a couple times now, and the whole NATO bombed the shit out of Serbia officially in the past (Russia was helping Serbia in that conflict) So why I said this risk massive escalation? Well, if you understand your enemy wrong you will make wrong decisions. Russia doesn't want to conquer Ukraine, they want to keep NATO away from that border, and there are two ways of doing that: 1. Convince Ukraine to not join NATO (what they are trying to do now). 2. Just bomb Ukraine until there is nothing left to join NATO in first place. A lot of people are thinking Russia won't try the second option because they want to conquer Ukraine, they are wrong about this, Russia knows very well they don't have right now the capability to conquer Ukraine, the only rational decision to go about this is try a "diplomatic" victory, and if that fails, then the real "War" comes (I suspect this is why Russia don't call this a war yet), where Russia will finally use all their equipment, including a large amount of strategic bombers and intermediate range missiles to utterly destroy everything in Ukraine, this way they don't have to bother with occupation and will still win regardless of how much NATO weapons are inside Ukraine (in fact the more NATO fills Ukraine with weapons, the bigger target it becomes for indiscriminate destruction, when else Russia will have opportunity to wipe out all the equipment of enemies like that?) EDIT: I hope all downvotes aren't because people are believing I am wrong in claiming Russia WILL flatten Ukraine if they feel the need to do so and support more war...

5y ago