7 ms·

"Western Europe just learned a painful lesson that you can't trust Russia. " Russia learnt that it cannot trust West when NATO started expanding into Eastern E

by gdy 4y ago

"Western Europe just learned a painful lesson that you can't trust Russia. " Russia learnt that it cannot trust West when NATO started expanding into Eastern Europe and ex-USSR not too long after Warsaw pact and the USSR dissolved. Quite strange to say that West 'trusted' Russia after it betrayed Russia.

wil421 4y ago
Oh sure, I wonder why Eastern Europe wants to join NATO. Hmmm, I wonder why countries who were on the fence about joining NATO have suddenly fast tracked applications in 2022?
- gdy 4y ago
  You are justifying an action by the reaction to it. It's like saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified by the Ukrainian drones and rockets attacking Russian cities [0] and villages near Ukrainian border. [0] https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/16230 https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/16230
  - stoltzmann 4y ago
    Russia has been invading it's neighbors for centuries. Eastern Europeans do remember that. Joining NATO is not only about the conflict today, it's due to pretty much all generations in the area suffering due to their aggressive neighbor further to the east.
    - blub 4y ago
      Nearly every country in Europe has been invading its neighbors for centuries, that’s what normal looks like in Europe. In fact some countries liked invasions so much, that they invaded countries all over the world. Joining NATO is not at all only up to the countries which apply. The US is more or less the game maker, with big countries like Germany, France, the UK etc. also having an important voice. It’s not unexpected that the former Warsaw Pact countries would want to join. It is surprising to see the US being so short-sighted to allow these expansions considering that several of its own diplomats and foreign policy experts were warning against it.
      - stoltzmann 4y ago
        And that's why countries have to consider all of their neighbors when deciding on their foreign policy. There was a lot of bad blood for example against Germany, but since we have a very good economic partnership with them, there is no reason for being overly prepared for war with them. They haven't done anything to consider them hostile. Russia has consistently been a bad neighbor that keeps on threatening or playing weird tricks against other countries. They have invaded multiple neighbors in the last 100 years, where the rest of Europe has become more peaceful. There is a clear danger to peace in Europe, and that's why countries want to join NATO. Why do you think that letting Eastern European countries join NATO is misguided? So far, it has been the number one reason that Russia hasn't invaded any other countries in the region.
        blub 4y ago
        Now you’ve scaled back from hundreds of years to a just as arbitrary 100 years. I assume you’ve led with Germany to address the very obvious WW2, when Germany turned the entire continent into a bloodbath. Ok, let’s skip that one :-) There were the Cod Wars, which were mostly boat ramming affairs, if it weren’t for the fact that Iceland threatened to leave NATO, expel US forces and broke diplomatic relations with the UK at some point. There was the Turkish Cypriot conflict, which continues to smolder until the present day. Quite a few civil wars and uprisings. Then the big Yugoslav war, where a defensive alliance oddly decided to go on the offensive. The next big war was the current one in Ukraine. Rather quiet given Europe’s bloody past. But if we look outside Europe, we see that the warfare just moved to other places. Falklands, Iraq twice, Syria, Libya. Not to mention the French and British colonial empires. Core NATO are no slouches at invading and making war. So what’s the point in trying to make Russia seem irredeemable? We measure with very different standards what we do vs. what they do. Makes it easier to justify militarization, spending enormous amounts on weapons, reducing civil liberties, etc if you have an evil enemy. Edit: forgot to answer your question about expansion. Because the likely outcome of not expanding would have been Belarus, Georgia or Ukraine in the 00’s, not invasions and war. This is not some far-fetched theory, Russian and ex-USSR leaders were repeatedly advocating for it and US and German/French politicians were obviously aware of it and in agreement. Post Bush the 1st the US changed its policy and went on a NATO expansion quest.
    - gdy 4y ago
      And which neighbor hasn't invaded Russia? Russia remembers that too. In the 1990s there was a perfect chance to turn the page, but it was squandered by the West.
      - stoltzmann 4y ago
        I agree, Russia should form or join an already existing defensive alliance to protect itself against what it considers to be aggressive neighbors. That sounds reasonable to me, just like the neighboring countries doing likewise - joining a pact to defend against Russia.
        vel0city 4y ago
        This exists, its called the Организация Договора о коллективной безопасности or Collective Security Treaty Organization. Its member states include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. It used to include Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...
        type0 4y ago
        That organization is functionally defunct
  - wil421 4y ago
    Russia has been a prison of people’s for some time. I’m all for countries like Finland wanting to be neutral but Russia’s actions and out right threats of war really force their hands. There’s a reason Belarus is the only real ally in the region.
    - gdy 4y ago
      Is Spain the prison of Catalonians?
- pydry 4y ago
  Russia used to be more on the fence about NATO too when it acted defensively - before Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The war crimes committed during the NATO Libyan intervention - with a deliberate emphasis on regime change and creating a failed state - sparked the same fear in Russia that the Ukraine invasion sparked in Finland. Russia already went through a period of internal collapse and being ruled by an American puppet, too, so the feeling that "they could make it happen again" is pretty visceral.
  - blub 4y ago
    Afaik the NATO mission in Yugoslavia and Libya were the two big ones. Both misused NATO and were not defensive in nature.
    - asdajksah2123 4y ago
      And none of them were targeted against Russia. For the obvious reason that NATO countries are largely rich, peaceful, and doing pretty ok and are not gonna waste their time and energy attacking a nation with f'ing nuclear weapons.
      - pydry 4y ago
        Oh it was. If you thought it was coincidence that they were both Russian allies you'd be utterly wrong. You're right that NATO definitely isnt interested in committing to a full scale ground invasion of Russia. Similarly the British were never interested in committing to a full scale invasion of India. Therefore they were... never a threat?
modo_mario 4y ago
Verbal face to face agreements that go against the explicit wish of the countries involved which you give no agency? Should a finger be pointed at the agreement regarding Ukraine giving up the USSR nukes?
- gdy 4y ago
  "which you give no agency" It takes two to tango. Those countries didn't promise anything to Russia, but the West did. "Should a finger be pointed" Yes, please. But be sure to read the memorandum to the end, where you will find the Annex describing West's and Russia's commitment to the common inclusive security system for all Europe. The NATO expansion that followed is nothing like that.
- blub 4y ago
  Such agreements are based on trust and if that’s gone both parties stand to lose a lot. The kind of global challenges we will meet can only be tackled by having the US, Russia, China, India, the EU work together. Pointing out that it was a verbal agreement is correct, but is missing the bigger point. This is not just a technical gotcha, the future of humanity is at stake. Those countries which wanted to join have agency, but they don’t decide if they are accepted or not. The US does, with a few other big players. The rest rubber stamp what was decided by the big boys. Finally, both the US and Russia had an interest in those nukes not staying in Ukraine. In fact the Ukrainians changed their mind at the last moment, but they were more or less forced/bribed to take the agreement.
  - soco 4y ago
    Turkey apparently didn't get this rubber-stamping message, and used their vote for own gains. To me this still looks pretty much like a state deciding for themselves.
    - blub 4y ago
      Turkey are an important member of NATO and they know it. They’re also hosting US nuclear missiles.
iSnow 4y ago
Russia has no say over Eastern Europ and ex-USSR countries. If they want to join NATO, there is nothing Russia can do. Justifying a war based on this is just very wrong.
- gdy 4y ago
  Just like Cuba wanted to host Soviet missiles in 1962. Oddly, the US didn't think 'there is nothing we can do' and was about to start WW3 over it.
  - iSnow 4y ago
    So, uhm, which country in central/eastern Europe hosts NATO nuclear missiles again? That's just whataboutism.
    - js8 4y ago
      According to https://icanw.org https://icanw.org, Germany and Turkey currently host U.S. nuclear weapons.
    - gdy 4y ago
      And Russia isn't about to sink American ships. Yet. Here is NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg talking about moving American nukes to Eastern Europe. [0] "The alternative to NATO nuclear sharing is different kinds of bilateral arrangements and also the risk of having, you know, nuclear weapons also . . . so, of course, Germany can, of course, decide whether there will be nuclear weapons in your country, but the alternative is that we easily end up with nuclear weapons in other countries in Europe, also to the east of Germany." And please don't use the word 'whataboutism' unless you want to say "I have double standards." [0] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_188772.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_188772.htm
  - phicoh 4y ago
    That's obviously where Russia went wrong. The US made stupid mistakes when it comes to Cuba, but with the Soviet missiles they made it stick. In contrast, Russia thought that could take over a country while Europe and the US would sit still. Then when that didn't happen, Russia didn't figure out that something was going wrong. So they got a complete economic boycott and they are letting Ukraine destroy most of the Russian army. Soon Russia will be a country with no economy to speak of and no army.
arcbyte 4y ago
There was a real hope Russia would join NATO at one point. That it has devolved back into the primary threat was never a foregone or even straightforward conclusion.
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  It's very unclear if Russia being in NATO would change anything in its imperialistic tendencies. Wouldn't it be, after all, the best chance to destroy NATO from within?
alexvoda 4y ago
Quit repeating this crap. There was no agreement for NATO to not expand eastward and even Gorbachev stated there was no such agreement. You are just repeating the bullshit spread by Pozner and Mearsheimer. It is still bullshit propaganda no matter how many people repeat it. I fell for it too, at the start of the war, and then I tried to combat it each time I came across it.
- dnh44 4y ago
  Mearsheimer is way more of an authority on the subject than you are, so if you're going to dismiss his claim as bullshit while claiming you're trying to combat the claim you could at least provide a link. Also even if Mearsheimer is wrong in that claim it doesn't make it propaganda. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-... >the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement. More regarding Mearsheimer in case anyone is interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://political-science.uchicago.edu/directory/john-mearsheimer https://political-science.uchicago.edu/directory/john-mearsh... https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-...
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    There is a distinction between an explanation and a justification. There are many ways to explain why some thing happened or might happen. They can not be used to justify said action. I believe Mearsheimer and Pozner, for reasons, confound one for the other. Saying that Russia could not help not to attack, that it is the rational choice for Russia, is like saying that advertisers can not help themselves tracking users, it is the rational choice to track users. Again, explanation is not justification. Explanations are not excuses. That is why I call it bullshit propaganda: He is justifying the war. War is not just. War is never just. War is death and tragedy, even if you can write entire books explaining how it happened and why every party had legitimate interest. RealPolitik, the realist school of thought, evolutionary psychology, etc. only ever provide explanations. And often they may be good explanations. They are useful when trying to understand events or people or groups of people and when trying to predict behavior or create models. But to derive justification from those explanations means that you ascribe to the belief that determinism (lack of free will) absolves you of responsibility. It does not. Whether you have free will or not you still have to make choices and still bear the responsibility of those choices. If you believe you have free will you are directly responsible and must assume responsibility for any consequence coming your way. If you believe you do not have free will, than any consequence is simply the system correcting itself. There is no escape from making choices. But what do I known? So since you are claiming he has more authority I will counter with someone of equal or greater authority, Alexander Stubb, past Prime Minister, Minister Of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland and Director and Professor of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlB-pRqdyBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlB-pRqdyBg

by gdy 4y ago

wil421 4y ago

Oh sure, I wonder why Eastern Europe wants to join NATO. Hmmm, I wonder why countries who were on the fence about joining NATO have suddenly fast tracked applications in 2022?

gdy 4y ago
You are justifying an action by the reaction to it. It's like saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified by the Ukrainian drones and rockets attacking Russian cities [0] and villages near Ukrainian border. [0] https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/16230 https://t.me/zhest_belgorod/16230
- stoltzmann 4y ago
  Russia has been invading it's neighbors for centuries. Eastern Europeans do remember that. Joining NATO is not only about the conflict today, it's due to pretty much all generations in the area suffering due to their aggressive neighbor further to the east.
  - blub 4y ago
    Nearly every country in Europe has been invading its neighbors for centuries, that’s what normal looks like in Europe. In fact some countries liked invasions so much, that they invaded countries all over the world. Joining NATO is not at all only up to the countries which apply. The US is more or less the game maker, with big countries like Germany, France, the UK etc. also having an important voice. It’s not unexpected that the former Warsaw Pact countries would want to join. It is surprising to see the US being so short-sighted to allow these expansions considering that several of its own diplomats and foreign policy experts were warning against it.
    - stoltzmann 4y ago
      And that's why countries have to consider all of their neighbors when deciding on their foreign policy. There was a lot of bad blood for example against Germany, but since we have a very good economic partnership with them, there is no reason for being overly prepared for war with them. They haven't done anything to consider them hostile. Russia has consistently been a bad neighbor that keeps on threatening or playing weird tricks against other countries. They have invaded multiple neighbors in the last 100 years, where the rest of Europe has become more peaceful. There is a clear danger to peace in Europe, and that's why countries want to join NATO. Why do you think that letting Eastern European countries join NATO is misguided? So far, it has been the number one reason that Russia hasn't invaded any other countries in the region.
      - blub 4y ago
        Now you’ve scaled back from hundreds of years to a just as arbitrary 100 years. I assume you’ve led with Germany to address the very obvious WW2, when Germany turned the entire continent into a bloodbath. Ok, let’s skip that one :-) There were the Cod Wars, which were mostly boat ramming affairs, if it weren’t for the fact that Iceland threatened to leave NATO, expel US forces and broke diplomatic relations with the UK at some point. There was the Turkish Cypriot conflict, which continues to smolder until the present day. Quite a few civil wars and uprisings. Then the big Yugoslav war, where a defensive alliance oddly decided to go on the offensive. The next big war was the current one in Ukraine. Rather quiet given Europe’s bloody past. But if we look outside Europe, we see that the warfare just moved to other places. Falklands, Iraq twice, Syria, Libya. Not to mention the French and British colonial empires. Core NATO are no slouches at invading and making war. So what’s the point in trying to make Russia seem irredeemable? We measure with very different standards what we do vs. what they do. Makes it easier to justify militarization, spending enormous amounts on weapons, reducing civil liberties, etc if you have an evil enemy. Edit: forgot to answer your question about expansion. Because the likely outcome of not expanding would have been Belarus, Georgia or Ukraine in the 00’s, not invasions and war. This is not some far-fetched theory, Russian and ex-USSR leaders were repeatedly advocating for it and US and German/French politicians were obviously aware of it and in agreement. Post Bush the 1st the US changed its policy and went on a NATO expansion quest.
  - gdy 4y ago
    And which neighbor hasn't invaded Russia? Russia remembers that too. In the 1990s there was a perfect chance to turn the page, but it was squandered by the West.
    - stoltzmann 4y ago
      I agree, Russia should form or join an already existing defensive alliance to protect itself against what it considers to be aggressive neighbors. That sounds reasonable to me, just like the neighboring countries doing likewise - joining a pact to defend against Russia.
      - vel0city 4y ago
        This exists, its called the Организация Договора о коллективной безопасности or Collective Security Treaty Organization. Its member states include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. It used to include Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...
        type0 4y ago
        That organization is functionally defunct
- wil421 4y ago
  Russia has been a prison of people’s for some time. I’m all for countries like Finland wanting to be neutral but Russia’s actions and out right threats of war really force their hands. There’s a reason Belarus is the only real ally in the region.
  - gdy 4y ago
    Is Spain the prison of Catalonians?
pydry 4y ago
Russia used to be more on the fence about NATO too when it acted defensively - before Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The war crimes committed during the NATO Libyan intervention - with a deliberate emphasis on regime change and creating a failed state - sparked the same fear in Russia that the Ukraine invasion sparked in Finland. Russia already went through a period of internal collapse and being ruled by an American puppet, too, so the feeling that "they could make it happen again" is pretty visceral.
- blub 4y ago
  Afaik the NATO mission in Yugoslavia and Libya were the two big ones. Both misused NATO and were not defensive in nature.
  - asdajksah2123 4y ago
    And none of them were targeted against Russia. For the obvious reason that NATO countries are largely rich, peaceful, and doing pretty ok and are not gonna waste their time and energy attacking a nation with f'ing nuclear weapons.
    - pydry 4y ago
      Oh it was. If you thought it was coincidence that they were both Russian allies you'd be utterly wrong. You're right that NATO definitely isnt interested in committing to a full scale ground invasion of Russia. Similarly the British were never interested in committing to a full scale invasion of India. Therefore they were... never a threat?

modo_mario 4y ago

Verbal face to face agreements that go against the explicit wish of the countries involved which you give no agency? Should a finger be pointed at the agreement regarding Ukraine giving up the USSR nukes?

gdy 4y ago
"which you give no agency" It takes two to tango. Those countries didn't promise anything to Russia, but the West did. "Should a finger be pointed" Yes, please. But be sure to read the memorandum to the end, where you will find the Annex describing West's and Russia's commitment to the common inclusive security system for all Europe. The NATO expansion that followed is nothing like that.
blub 4y ago
Such agreements are based on trust and if that’s gone both parties stand to lose a lot. The kind of global challenges we will meet can only be tackled by having the US, Russia, China, India, the EU work together. Pointing out that it was a verbal agreement is correct, but is missing the bigger point. This is not just a technical gotcha, the future of humanity is at stake. Those countries which wanted to join have agency, but they don’t decide if they are accepted or not. The US does, with a few other big players. The rest rubber stamp what was decided by the big boys. Finally, both the US and Russia had an interest in those nukes not staying in Ukraine. In fact the Ukrainians changed their mind at the last moment, but they were more or less forced/bribed to take the agreement.
- soco 4y ago
  Turkey apparently didn't get this rubber-stamping message, and used their vote for own gains. To me this still looks pretty much like a state deciding for themselves.
  - blub 4y ago
    Turkey are an important member of NATO and they know it. They’re also hosting US nuclear missiles.

iSnow 4y ago

Russia has no say over Eastern Europ and ex-USSR countries. If they want to join NATO, there is nothing Russia can do. Justifying a war based on this is just very wrong.

gdy 4y ago
Just like Cuba wanted to host Soviet missiles in 1962. Oddly, the US didn't think 'there is nothing we can do' and was about to start WW3 over it.
- iSnow 4y ago
  So, uhm, which country in central/eastern Europe hosts NATO nuclear missiles again? That's just whataboutism.
  - js8 4y ago
    According to https://icanw.org https://icanw.org, Germany and Turkey currently host U.S. nuclear weapons.
  - gdy 4y ago
    And Russia isn't about to sink American ships. Yet. Here is NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg talking about moving American nukes to Eastern Europe. [0] "The alternative to NATO nuclear sharing is different kinds of bilateral arrangements and also the risk of having, you know, nuclear weapons also . . . so, of course, Germany can, of course, decide whether there will be nuclear weapons in your country, but the alternative is that we easily end up with nuclear weapons in other countries in Europe, also to the east of Germany." And please don't use the word 'whataboutism' unless you want to say "I have double standards." [0] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_188772.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_188772.htm
- phicoh 4y ago
  That's obviously where Russia went wrong. The US made stupid mistakes when it comes to Cuba, but with the Soviet missiles they made it stick. In contrast, Russia thought that could take over a country while Europe and the US would sit still. Then when that didn't happen, Russia didn't figure out that something was going wrong. So they got a complete economic boycott and they are letting Ukraine destroy most of the Russian army. Soon Russia will be a country with no economy to speak of and no army.

arcbyte 4y ago

There was a real hope Russia would join NATO at one point. That it has devolved back into the primary threat was never a foregone or even straightforward conclusion.

The_Colonel 4y ago
It's very unclear if Russia being in NATO would change anything in its imperialistic tendencies. Wouldn't it be, after all, the best chance to destroy NATO from within?

alexvoda 4y ago

Quit repeating this crap. There was no agreement for NATO to not expand eastward and even Gorbachev stated there was no such agreement. You are just repeating the bullshit spread by Pozner and Mearsheimer. It is still bullshit propaganda no matter how many people repeat it. I fell for it too, at the start of the war, and then I tried to combat it each time I came across it.

dnh44 4y ago
Mearsheimer is way more of an authority on the subject than you are, so if you're going to dismiss his claim as bullshit while claiming you're trying to combat the claim you could at least provide a link. Also even if Mearsheimer is wrong in that claim it doesn't make it propaganda. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-... >the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement. More regarding Mearsheimer in case anyone is interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://political-science.uchicago.edu/directory/john-mearsheimer https://political-science.uchicago.edu/directory/john-mearsh... https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-...
- alexvoda 4y ago
  There is a distinction between an explanation and a justification. There are many ways to explain why some thing happened or might happen. They can not be used to justify said action. I believe Mearsheimer and Pozner, for reasons, confound one for the other. Saying that Russia could not help not to attack, that it is the rational choice for Russia, is like saying that advertisers can not help themselves tracking users, it is the rational choice to track users. Again, explanation is not justification. Explanations are not excuses. That is why I call it bullshit propaganda: He is justifying the war. War is not just. War is never just. War is death and tragedy, even if you can write entire books explaining how it happened and why every party had legitimate interest. RealPolitik, the realist school of thought, evolutionary psychology, etc. only ever provide explanations. And often they may be good explanations. They are useful when trying to understand events or people or groups of people and when trying to predict behavior or create models. But to derive justification from those explanations means that you ascribe to the belief that determinism (lack of free will) absolves you of responsibility. It does not. Whether you have free will or not you still have to make choices and still bear the responsibility of those choices. If you believe you have free will you are directly responsible and must assume responsibility for any consequence coming your way. If you believe you do not have free will, than any consequence is simply the system correcting itself. There is no escape from making choices. But what do I known? So since you are claiming he has more authority I will counter with someone of equal or greater authority, Alexander Stubb, past Prime Minister, Minister Of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland and Director and Professor of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlB-pRqdyBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlB-pRqdyBg