6 ms·

> Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense? Some of Russia’s individual politicians and news outlets no doubt have genuine nationalisti

> Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense? Some of Russia’s individual politicians and news outlets no doubt have genuine nationalistic motivations surrounding Ukraine, but it is not clear to me that these are the predominant motives for spending Russian lives and risking Russian security by engaging their forces in an armed conflict. The rhetoric and actions you cite is probably believed and condoned by an increasingly nonzero percentage of the population, but I’m personally not convinced these are much more than pretexts useful to the state in providing political cover to what is ultimately a sovereign chess move (prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, demotivate it and others from future attempts). Russia benefited massively by their previous USSR-era relationship with the surrounding baltic states, and Putin, a former USSR man, has said [1] that the breakup of the warsaw pact was one of Russia’s greatest geopolitical tragedies. I believe his greatest defensive focus is on re-establishing a buffer zone between it and western powers, and likely it’s longer term goals include acquisition of warm water ports and influence over the oil trade. This does, of course, not justify any of Russia’s actions on a moral basis. I expect many Russian officials will be tried and convicted of war crimes. It merely provides a basis by which european leaders/armchair presidents (me) can ground Russia’s actions and plot countermoves. > Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border. Not even a year ago Russia implied a military consequence if Finland was to join NATO [2]. A few months after this statement was given Russia invaded Ukraine, though this ironically emboldened Finlanders into being majority in favor of joining NATO. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Against/dp/0812982223/ref=nodl_?dplnkId=db45cb40-2ed9-4c25-a782-79b583d2da12 https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Ag... (can’t find a source for the exact quote, but cited in chapter 2). [2]: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-inclusion-of-finland-sweden-440093 https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-incl...

Sporktacular 4y ago
You starmanning an entire invasion force makes my point perfectly.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- malwrar 4y ago
  About people justifying/supporting his actions to defend their own interests? I don't think it really matters, unless you're realistically expecting Russia's population to revolt.
ROTMetro 4y ago
Your response in no way explains why you choose only NATO expansion as a cause (and thus pushing the blame on the west) but ignore Russia's many comments that they are protecting ethnic Russian speakers (which does not make NATO the ones ultimately responsible for forcing Russia to take action) and denazifying the country. Why is that? Are we not to take Putin at his word but instead your tea reading skills? Why does your simplification take all responsibility for a war waged without a specific NATO triggering action by a non-NATO leader and place it on NATO? Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time. Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war. BTW Russia no longer keeps up the pretense that what occured in the eastern occupied territories was spontaneous, but admits in obituaries online that soldiers killed in the current conflict are being 'honored' for their service in the '2014 Ukraine' operation and '2014 Maiden' operation. What prompted that Russian sponsored uprising? Ukraine coming closer to the EU, then at the last minute having their corrupt politicians trying to switch to a Russian economic block, nothing to with NATO. Also, autonomy for Russian speakers. So 2014 actual Russian military involvement in taking control of 10% of Ukraine? Not in response to NATO but to Russia losing their Ukrainian puppet leader. Verbally stated current reasons, only partially related to NATO. Just as much stemming from a desire to continue the 2014 actual conflict (in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands) which was not related to NATO. You also ignore Russian aggression in Transistria (A war, that Russia supported, that Russia sent troops to maintain post conflict) where again NATO was not raised as the issue, but ethnic Russians = Russian interest. Russia calls Ukraine Little Russia. Russia says Ukraine is not a real country, does not have a real culture. Russia says anywhere Russians live is Russia. But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it. Your argument is nothing but whitewashing an authoritarian rulers decision to go to war. If you enjoy Putin quotes here's a good one... "Don't believe those who try to frighten you with Russia and who scream that other regions will follow after Crimea," said Putin on Tuesday, going some way to allaying those fears. "We do not want a partition of Ukraine. We do not need this." The Guardian March 18 2014. Notice this was after the 2008 NATO application from Ukraine. Putin does not say 'Unless Ukraine continues down a path towards NATO alignment'.

Sporktacular 4y ago

You starmanning an entire invasion force makes my point perfectly.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
malwrar 4y ago
About people justifying/supporting his actions to defend their own interests? I don't think it really matters, unless you're realistically expecting Russia's population to revolt.

ROTMetro 4y ago

Your response in no way explains why you choose only NATO expansion as a cause (and thus pushing the blame on the west) but ignore Russia's many comments that they are protecting ethnic Russian speakers (which does not make NATO the ones ultimately responsible for forcing Russia to take action) and denazifying the country. Why is that? Are we not to take Putin at his word but instead your tea reading skills? Why does your simplification take all responsibility for a war waged without a specific NATO triggering action by a non-NATO leader and place it on NATO? Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time. Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war. BTW Russia no longer keeps up the pretense that what occured in the eastern occupied territories was spontaneous, but admits in obituaries online that soldiers killed in the current conflict are being 'honored' for their service in the '2014 Ukraine' operation and '2014 Maiden' operation. What prompted that Russian sponsored uprising? Ukraine coming closer to the EU, then at the last minute having their corrupt politicians trying to switch to a Russian economic block, nothing to with NATO. Also, autonomy for Russian speakers. So 2014 actual Russian military involvement in taking control of 10% of Ukraine? Not in response to NATO but to Russia losing their Ukrainian puppet leader. Verbally stated current reasons, only partially related to NATO. Just as much stemming from a desire to continue the 2014 actual conflict (in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands) which was not related to NATO. You also ignore Russian aggression in Transistria (A war, that Russia supported, that Russia sent troops to maintain post conflict) where again NATO was not raised as the issue, but ethnic Russians = Russian interest. Russia calls Ukraine Little Russia. Russia says Ukraine is not a real country, does not have a real culture. Russia says anywhere Russians live is Russia. But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it. Your argument is nothing but whitewashing an authoritarian rulers decision to go to war. If you enjoy Putin quotes here's a good one... "Don't believe those who try to frighten you with Russia and who scream that other regions will follow after Crimea," said Putin on Tuesday, going some way to allaying those fears. "We do not want a partition of Ukraine. We do not need this." The Guardian March 18 2014. Notice this was after the 2008 NATO application from Ukraine. Putin does not say 'Unless Ukraine continues down a path towards NATO alignment'.