3 ms·

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 t

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'.

atmosx 4y ago
> 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. Henry A. Kissinger is pushing the same narrative. Would you call HAK poorly informed on the matter?
- mcguire 4y ago
  I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor of "Great Power" theory, which at its basis denies smaller, weaker countries in the "area of influence" of a great power any kind of autonomy. Mearsheimer has spent much of his career developing and extolling great power politics and, well, Henry Kissinger is Henry Kissinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy). One notes that Russia is a great power only because of its nuclear arsenal; that is, in fact, what separates the great powers from weak countries that have any independence only at the pleasure of the nearest great power. That should concern you if you are fan of nuclear non-proliferation, by the way.
  - atmosx 4y ago
    > I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor [...] I would take Kissinger's view on the topic seriously, same way I'd take Knuth's opinion on typesetting seriously - to make analogy. The fact that I might agree or not should not cloud my judgement or yours. Calling Kissinger biased is smokescreen: everybody is biased.
    - mcguire 4y ago
      I do take Kissinger and Mearsheimer's views seriously, and I did not call Kissinger or Mearsheimer "biased". Instead, I attempted to address my understanding of the reasoning behind their statements (Mearsheimer certainly; I believe the same to be true of Kissinger). That reasoning led to many of the successes and not a few of the failures during the Cold War; it is worth taking seriously. I disagree with the Great Power reasoning mostly because it is explicitly amoral and moral standing is important (at least from a morale viewpoint :-) if nothing else). That's completely unimportant. On the other hand, all of the honest-to-gosh International Relations people I've heard from (at least those under 70) also disagree with it, for a variety of reasons, and I take that seriously too. I further believe your last sentence is a gratuitous misreading of what I wrote.

atmosx 4y ago

> 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. Henry A. Kissinger is pushing the same narrative. Would you call HAK poorly informed on the matter?

mcguire 4y ago
I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor of "Great Power" theory, which at its basis denies smaller, weaker countries in the "area of influence" of a great power any kind of autonomy. Mearsheimer has spent much of his career developing and extolling great power politics and, well, Henry Kissinger is Henry Kissinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy). One notes that Russia is a great power only because of its nuclear arsenal; that is, in fact, what separates the great powers from weak countries that have any independence only at the pleasure of the nearest great power. That should concern you if you are fan of nuclear non-proliferation, by the way.
- atmosx 4y ago
  > I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor [...] I would take Kissinger's view on the topic seriously, same way I'd take Knuth's opinion on typesetting seriously - to make analogy. The fact that I might agree or not should not cloud my judgement or yours. Calling Kissinger biased is smokescreen: everybody is biased.
  - mcguire 4y ago
    I do take Kissinger and Mearsheimer's views seriously, and I did not call Kissinger or Mearsheimer "biased". Instead, I attempted to address my understanding of the reasoning behind their statements (Mearsheimer certainly; I believe the same to be true of Kissinger). That reasoning led to many of the successes and not a few of the failures during the Cold War; it is worth taking seriously. I disagree with the Great Power reasoning mostly because it is explicitly amoral and moral standing is important (at least from a morale viewpoint :-) if nothing else). That's completely unimportant. On the other hand, all of the honest-to-gosh International Relations people I've heard from (at least those under 70) also disagree with it, for a variety of reasons, and I take that seriously too. I further believe your last sentence is a gratuitous misreading of what I wrote.