3 ms·

>The mistake is claiming that the path it ended up choosing, it chose because of something the West did or didn't do. This isn't a mistake either. Putin was op

by pydry 4y ago

>The mistake is claiming that the path it ended up choosing, it chose because of something the West did or didn't do. This isn't a mistake either. Putin was open towards pursuing a deeper partnership with the west in the early 2000s. He asked to join NATO (as equals) and rather than leaping on the opportunity NATO told him to join the back of the queue. In subsequent years we launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq and "upgraded" a UN resolution from protecting civilians to planting a bayonet in Khafaffi's rectum. It was a little hard not to view us as a dangerous and unpredictable threat, and a little hard not to take what happened to Khadaffi personally. This was all made worse by the actions of the National Endowment for "Democracy" who essentially prosecute a more effective mirror image of the type of election meddling Putin attempted in America, albeit along Russia's border (& once in Kaliningrad in the 90s). This has continued unabated since the 90s - fomenting and fostering ethnic/cultural divisions everywhere it can along Russia's exposed borders that mirror the one we see in America today.

int_19h 4y ago
I wasn't talking about Putin's choices, but rather about the choices of people that led to Putin gaining power. But also - Putin always fancied himself the restorer of imperial glory, so joining NATO was never seriously on the table without also asserting claim to all the "lost lands".
- pydry 4y ago
  >Putin always fancied himself the restorer of imperial glory This is certainly how western media has tried to depict him. Our media is more a reflection of our own imperial neuroses than it is a window into his subconscious though. Occam's razor suggests that when he asked to join NATO it was because he wanted to be a member.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    As it happens, I'm Russian, and at the time when all this was happening, I lived in Russia, so my perspective is very much not based on "how Western media tried to depict him".
yourapostasy 4y ago
> He asked to join NATO (as equals) and rather than leaping on the opportunity NATO told him to join the back of the queue. It is a little more nuanced than that [1]. "Join the back of the queue" is an uncharitable way to express "treated equally to all potential partner nations". There is no queue to apply to NATO other than logistical limitations. Putin sought deferential treatment to affirm Russia's greatness and assuage the wounded national pride. He didn't get it, and the ensuing delay for a diplomatic solution soured into suspicions that opened divisions that deepened into today's chasm. There was a very intriguing article [2] now behind a paywall that described Eastern European intelligence agencies warning their Western counterparts for decades that rapprochement with Russia shall always founder upon a deep, dark cruelty within Russian national character until that stain is removed by Russians. I don't know if that is true as I've never seen that first-hand in the Russians I've befriended in the West (perhaps I fell victim to the same Western naivete the article describes of the West) but if so, then perhaps joining NATO back then was needed to gradually draw out that poison. Personally with the layman's perspective upon international affairs I have, I didn't see the harm in the symbolic gesture of inviting Russia to join NATO in a diplomatic manner that didn't slight the nations already underway in their application process. There must have been some pretty compelling inside baseball to have switched Clinton from a "sure, why not" off the cuff response to no follow up, though. History would certainly have taken an interesting twist if a Jerry Pournelle'sh "Quad-Dominium" emerged with a CN, EU, RU, and US unipolar alliance. [1] https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561 https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-n... [2] https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120084966 https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120084966
- pydry 4y ago
  >Join the back of the queue" is an uncharitable way to express "treated equally to all potential partner nations" Member nations in NATO are not equal. Never have been never will be. In not so many words, it meant that Russia would have to join the transnational gang as a foot soldier (Estonia) rather than a capo (UK) let alone a boss (US). Were peace with Russia a primary goal we would have started negotiations rather than rebuffing. It never was. America would have liked to bring Russia into NATO but as a client state or a group of balkanized client states, not as a partner. >Eastern European intelligence agencies warning their Western counterparts for decades that rapprochement with Russia shall always founder upon a deep, dark cruelty within Russian national character until that stain is removed by Russians. I don't know if that is true There is similar German commentary on the character of minority groups in their country from 1939.

by pydry 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

I wasn't talking about Putin's choices, but rather about the choices of people that led to Putin gaining power. But also - Putin always fancied himself the restorer of imperial glory, so joining NATO was never seriously on the table without also asserting claim to all the "lost lands".

pydry 4y ago
>Putin always fancied himself the restorer of imperial glory This is certainly how western media has tried to depict him. Our media is more a reflection of our own imperial neuroses than it is a window into his subconscious though. Occam's razor suggests that when he asked to join NATO it was because he wanted to be a member.
- int_19h 4y ago
  As it happens, I'm Russian, and at the time when all this was happening, I lived in Russia, so my perspective is very much not based on "how Western media tried to depict him".

yourapostasy 4y ago

> He asked to join NATO (as equals) and rather than leaping on the opportunity NATO told him to join the back of the queue. It is a little more nuanced than that [1]. "Join the back of the queue" is an uncharitable way to express "treated equally to all potential partner nations". There is no queue to apply to NATO other than logistical limitations. Putin sought deferential treatment to affirm Russia's greatness and assuage the wounded national pride. He didn't get it, and the ensuing delay for a diplomatic solution soured into suspicions that opened divisions that deepened into today's chasm. There was a very intriguing article [2] now behind a paywall that described Eastern European intelligence agencies warning their Western counterparts for decades that rapprochement with Russia shall always founder upon a deep, dark cruelty within Russian national character until that stain is removed by Russians. I don't know if that is true as I've never seen that first-hand in the Russians I've befriended in the West (perhaps I fell victim to the same Western naivete the article describes of the West) but if so, then perhaps joining NATO back then was needed to gradually draw out that poison. Personally with the layman's perspective upon international affairs I have, I didn't see the harm in the symbolic gesture of inviting Russia to join NATO in a diplomatic manner that didn't slight the nations already underway in their application process. There must have been some pretty compelling inside baseball to have switched Clinton from a "sure, why not" off the cuff response to no follow up, though. History would certainly have taken an interesting twist if a Jerry Pournelle'sh "Quad-Dominium" emerged with a CN, EU, RU, and US unipolar alliance. [1] https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-nato-but-why-didn-t-they-do-it-55561 https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/russia-could-have-joined-n... [2] https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120084966 https://ekspress.delfi.ee/artikkel/120084966

pydry 4y ago
>Join the back of the queue" is an uncharitable way to express "treated equally to all potential partner nations" Member nations in NATO are not equal. Never have been never will be. In not so many words, it meant that Russia would have to join the transnational gang as a foot soldier (Estonia) rather than a capo (UK) let alone a boss (US). Were peace with Russia a primary goal we would have started negotiations rather than rebuffing. It never was. America would have liked to bring Russia into NATO but as a client state or a group of balkanized client states, not as a partner. >Eastern European intelligence agencies warning their Western counterparts for decades that rapprochement with Russia shall always founder upon a deep, dark cruelty within Russian national character until that stain is removed by Russians. I don't know if that is true There is similar German commentary on the character of minority groups in their country from 1939.