4 ms·

Within Russia the Russian state and media is very open about this war being about conquering all of Ukraine. It is only Russia's external propaganda targeted at

by 0xDEF 3y ago

Within Russia the Russian state and media is very open about this war being about conquering all of Ukraine. It is only Russia's external propaganda targeted at Westerners that bring up the lies about NATO and "liberating Eastern Ukraine from Nazi Kiev".

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
American analysts and diplomats have been saying for decades (both in public and in confidential cables) that Russia viewed Ukrainian NATO membership as the reddest of all red lines. Russia's original plan was to take Kiev in 3 days and install a pliant government that would rule out NATO membership. Russia probably would also have annexed Donetsk and Luhansk (which were already under the control of pro-Russian rebels, backed by Russia), or at least have forced the Ukrainian government to grant them autonomy. However, after the initial plan of a quick war failed, Putin had to show something for the war, and annexed the occupied territories (beyond Donetsk and Luhansk). There's no real doubt that possible Ukrainian NATO membership (and short of that, its ever closer de facto integration with NATO) were primary motivating factors for the Russian decision to invade.
- 0xDEF 3y ago
  >There's no real doubt that possible Ukrainian NATO membership (and short of that, its ever closer de facto integration with NATO) were primary motivating factors for the Russian decision to invade. That is a lie. Russia's primary motivation is irredentism. They have been saying Ukraine is a fake nation that should not exist since before 2014. >American analysts and diplomats have been saying for decades (both in public and in confidential cables) that Russia viewed Ukrainian NATO membership as the reddest of all red lines This is a narrative being pushed by pro-Russian propagandists. Ukraine was not on the trajectory of becoming a NATO country. Most Ukrainians didn't want to join NATO before Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > This is a narrative being pushed by pro-Russian propagandists. Is William Burns, former American ambassador in Moscow and now CIA director under Biden, a pro-Russian propagandist? When he was serving as ambassador in Moscow (in 2008), he wrote back to Washington that Russia deeply feared NATO expansion, and that it might even directly intervene in Ukraine over the issue.[0] Burns is far from the only person to hold these views. My reading is that these views were actually very common views among Russia experts in the US. You can't just call all these people Russian propagandists or liars. 0. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
    - Aqueous 3y ago
      Of course Russia doesn’t want NATO expansion! It makes us (NATO. Yes, "us.") stronger and them weaker. It is manifestly opposed to their stated interests of encroaching on territories they wrongly view as theirs. That's precisely why NATO needs to expand. So, naturally, we shouldn’t ever do what our adversary wants us to not do, right? I would have loved to see the consequences if this kind of attitude had ultimately prevailed in WW2. Was the allied fortification of Britain a provocation too? If it was, was it not a necessary one?
      - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        Godwin's law has just kicked in.
        Aqueous 3y ago
        And that is a gigantic cop-out that indicates you can't defend your position. Surely there must be a corollary to Godwin's law for the inablity to defend yourself to comparisons with WW2 when it's the best example available?
        DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        WW2 is a terrible comparison here. You haven't given any good reason why we should view present-day Russia as analogous to Nazi Germany. Until you convincingly make that argument (and I'm frankly not interested, because the comparison is absurd on its face), there's no reason to consider your conclusions.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > There's no real doubt that possible Ukrainian NATO membership (and short of that, its ever closer de facto integration with NATO) were primary motivating factors for the Russian decision to invade. Interesting if this is the case that NATO makes no appearance in the now deleted Russian victory article. You can read the article for yourself here https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20.... Instead of talking about NATO it talks about Russia answering the "Ukraine question" and finally reuniting all "Russian" people together. The article reads a lot more like a country conquering another then someone celebrating victory over defeating a country joining a military alliance.

by 0xDEF 3y ago

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

American analysts and diplomats have been saying for decades (both in public and in confidential cables) that Russia viewed Ukrainian NATO membership as the reddest of all red lines. Russia's original plan was to take Kiev in 3 days and install a pliant government that would rule out NATO membership. Russia probably would also have annexed Donetsk and Luhansk (which were already under the control of pro-Russian rebels, backed by Russia), or at least have forced the Ukrainian government to grant them autonomy. However, after the initial plan of a quick war failed, Putin had to show something for the war, and annexed the occupied territories (beyond Donetsk and Luhansk). There's no real doubt that possible Ukrainian NATO membership (and short of that, its ever closer de facto integration with NATO) were primary motivating factors for the Russian decision to invade.

0xDEF 3y ago
>There's no real doubt that possible Ukrainian NATO membership (and short of that, its ever closer de facto integration with NATO) were primary motivating factors for the Russian decision to invade. That is a lie. Russia's primary motivation is irredentism. They have been saying Ukraine is a fake nation that should not exist since before 2014. >American analysts and diplomats have been saying for decades (both in public and in confidential cables) that Russia viewed Ukrainian NATO membership as the reddest of all red lines This is a narrative being pushed by pro-Russian propagandists. Ukraine was not on the trajectory of becoming a NATO country. Most Ukrainians didn't want to join NATO before Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > This is a narrative being pushed by pro-Russian propagandists. Is William Burns, former American ambassador in Moscow and now CIA director under Biden, a pro-Russian propagandist? When he was serving as ambassador in Moscow (in 2008), he wrote back to Washington that Russia deeply feared NATO expansion, and that it might even directly intervene in Ukraine over the issue.[0] Burns is far from the only person to hold these views. My reading is that these views were actually very common views among Russia experts in the US. You can't just call all these people Russian propagandists or liars. 0. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
  - Aqueous 3y ago
    Of course Russia doesn’t want NATO expansion! It makes us (NATO. Yes, "us.") stronger and them weaker. It is manifestly opposed to their stated interests of encroaching on territories they wrongly view as theirs. That's precisely why NATO needs to expand. So, naturally, we shouldn’t ever do what our adversary wants us to not do, right? I would have loved to see the consequences if this kind of attitude had ultimately prevailed in WW2. Was the allied fortification of Britain a provocation too? If it was, was it not a necessary one?
    - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
      Godwin's law has just kicked in.
      - Aqueous 3y ago
        And that is a gigantic cop-out that indicates you can't defend your position. Surely there must be a corollary to Godwin's law for the inablity to defend yourself to comparisons with WW2 when it's the best example available?
        DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        WW2 is a terrible comparison here. You haven't given any good reason why we should view present-day Russia as analogous to Nazi Germany. Until you convincingly make that argument (and I'm frankly not interested, because the comparison is absurd on its face), there's no reason to consider your conclusions.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> There's no real doubt that possible Ukrainian NATO membership (and short of that, its ever closer de facto integration with NATO) were primary motivating factors for the Russian decision to invade. Interesting if this is the case that NATO makes no appearance in the now deleted Russian victory article. You can read the article for yourself here https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20.... Instead of talking about NATO it talks about Russia answering the "Ukraine question" and finally reuniting all "Russian" people together. The article reads a lot more like a country conquering another then someone celebrating victory over defeating a country joining a military alliance.