4 ms·

„Historians disagree on what exactly?“ Nato expansion beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend reading kappeler. He knows the russian language a

„Historians disagree on what exactly?“ Nato expansion beeing the root cause of russian aggression. I recommend reading kappeler. He knows the russian language and history very well (what does nearsheimer know?), translated Putins essay and had no illusions about his intentions. We need to take those people serious who have been right with their predictions, not those who have failed and keep repeating the same talking point ad naseam.

hutzlibu 3y ago
I will read Kappeler then. But I think I was clear that I have no illusions about Putin. He probably still dreams of a eurasian empire led by him. And he respects only raw power. I still think, it could have gone all very different. For example by sanctioning the russian people in charge and not the whole russian population after 2014. Or not getting involved in Maidan. Or by not invading Iraq, setting a often cited precedent. Putin allmost literally saying: "If the US can just ignore international law and invade a country, so can I"
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  Which national origins of these historians were you referring to?
  - HellDunkel 3y ago
    I wanted to make sure to have native russians on the list too, not just american or european. You will have a very hard time finding historians with international publications blaming nato like nearsheimer.
- HellDunkel 3y ago
  Well, we don't know if it would have been possible to change the course of history for the better- right? Might have been even worse- consider 1994. A great deal of effort has been made to respect russian interests, handover of nukes in 1994, no to Nato in 2008, eyes closed on chechnya and georgia, little consequences in 2014... The reasoning was always to respect the russian sphere of influence. But as you say, Putin respects only raw power. "Showing respect" does not equal "raw power". So what we are seeing is less "geopolitics in action" but history in the making, unless you are not willing to give "the people of Ukraine" any voice in this. Now, this is where Kappeler could be helpful. I encourage you reading what he has to say about "maidan involvement".

hutzlibu 3y ago

I will read Kappeler then. But I think I was clear that I have no illusions about Putin. He probably still dreams of a eurasian empire led by him. And he respects only raw power. I still think, it could have gone all very different. For example by sanctioning the russian people in charge and not the whole russian population after 2014. Or not getting involved in Maidan. Or by not invading Iraq, setting a often cited precedent. Putin allmost literally saying: "If the US can just ignore international law and invade a country, so can I"

selimthegrim 3y ago
Which national origins of these historians were you referring to?
- HellDunkel 3y ago
  I wanted to make sure to have native russians on the list too, not just american or european. You will have a very hard time finding historians with international publications blaming nato like nearsheimer.
HellDunkel 3y ago
Well, we don't know if it would have been possible to change the course of history for the better- right? Might have been even worse- consider 1994. A great deal of effort has been made to respect russian interests, handover of nukes in 1994, no to Nato in 2008, eyes closed on chechnya and georgia, little consequences in 2014... The reasoning was always to respect the russian sphere of influence. But as you say, Putin respects only raw power. "Showing respect" does not equal "raw power". So what we are seeing is less "geopolitics in action" but history in the making, unless you are not willing to give "the people of Ukraine" any voice in this. Now, this is where Kappeler could be helpful. I encourage you reading what he has to say about "maidan involvement".