3 ms·

That was is not about any of Russia's legitimate concerns. It is about scratching Russia's imperial itch. Moreover, it pushed Ukraine further into the arms of t

That was is not about any of Russia's legitimate concerns. It is about scratching Russia's imperial itch. Moreover, it pushed Ukraine further into the arms of the West, Finland straight into NATO and Sweden second in line. Just a follow-up of the 2014 invasion.

edgyquant 3y ago
Don’t be ridiculous, you can disagree with the war and still understand nations have competing interests and Ukraine being in NATO comes at the expense of Russian interest.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  I can understand interest, sure. But this wasn't it. First of all, it's not really clear to me how this is against Russia's deep interest. This gets bandied around a lot, but frankly Russia is already so close to NATO borders elsewhere (Norway, Baltics, Poland if you count Kaliningrad, and of course the Bering straight), and it barely matters with ICBMs around. A conventional war between Russia and NATO, where proximity matters, is totally implausible. I get that Russia would rather have an ally next door than a NATO country, but that it's a threat justifying neutralization is BS to me. Second, Russian losses in this war are enormous. I can't see how Russia thought this war would make it a safer place. They are delving deep into the reserves for a full scale war (like, with NATO), which now they won't have. Finally, this is off the back of a lot of esoteric Kremlin propaganda about how Ukraine has only ever been a part of "Greater Russia".
- mindslight 3y ago
  That's exactly what the parent was acknowledging. Using the abstract term "Russian interest" is just a way of sidestepping that these interests include imperial conquest.
Banyonite 3y ago
William Burns, the current Director of the CIA and former ambassador to Russia, would disagree with you. "In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” " https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Given the subject matter and year, this was almost certainly in the context of Russia's lobbying against giving Ukraine and Georgia NATO MAPs in 2008, a lobbying effort which (perhaps in part due to Burns’ advice in the letter) was successful—NATO acceded to Russia's demands in the hopes that so doing would, as Russia claimed, promote peace and stability in the region. Russia then immediately invaded Georgia, which may go some way to explaining why some NATO leaders became quite disinclined to grant Russia the same kind of Chamberlainian accommodation thereafter.
  - Banyonite 3y ago
    I'm not well-versed in this area, but from what I've been reading, it doesn't look as if NATO simply acceded to Russia's demands- From the NYT in November of 2008: "At a NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania, in April, the United States failed to persuade NATO to offer the usual application process, known as a membership action plan, to Ukraine and Georgia. Instead, NATO leaders agreed that one day each country would join, without committing to a timetable." (Edit: I haven't been able to find much to relate the failure to convince to an accession to Russian demands.) I get what you're saying about being disinclined to accommodate after Russia's adventure in South Ossetia / Georgia in August of that year; the Nov 2008 article focused on the US push for NATO membership: "The United States has started an unexpected diplomatic initiative in Europe, urging NATO allies to offer Georgia and Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements, NATO diplomats said." I need to take the time to find more unbiased information on the conflicts of the region over the past 15-20 years. It's complicated, with a lot of issues in play that seem to go back at least a century. My knee-jerk, scratching-the-surface opinion is that while I believe Russia is ruled by oligarchical mobsters headed by Putin, I can understand, if not sympathize with, their reaction as Western powers have established footholds in bordering countries. Honest question, for I don't know the answer: If NATO had dissolved 30 some-odd years ago, and the US had fallen from a world to regional power (albeit with nuclear weapons), and then the Warsaw pact had established bases in Canada and Mexico, would outcomes be more or less stable?
    - 3y ago

edgyquant 3y ago

Don’t be ridiculous, you can disagree with the war and still understand nations have competing interests and Ukraine being in NATO comes at the expense of Russian interest.

rich_sasha 3y ago
I can understand interest, sure. But this wasn't it. First of all, it's not really clear to me how this is against Russia's deep interest. This gets bandied around a lot, but frankly Russia is already so close to NATO borders elsewhere (Norway, Baltics, Poland if you count Kaliningrad, and of course the Bering straight), and it barely matters with ICBMs around. A conventional war between Russia and NATO, where proximity matters, is totally implausible. I get that Russia would rather have an ally next door than a NATO country, but that it's a threat justifying neutralization is BS to me. Second, Russian losses in this war are enormous. I can't see how Russia thought this war would make it a safer place. They are delving deep into the reserves for a full scale war (like, with NATO), which now they won't have. Finally, this is off the back of a lot of esoteric Kremlin propaganda about how Ukraine has only ever been a part of "Greater Russia".
mindslight 3y ago
That's exactly what the parent was acknowledging. Using the abstract term "Russian interest" is just a way of sidestepping that these interests include imperial conquest.

Banyonite 3y ago

William Burns, the current Director of the CIA and former ambassador to Russia, would disagree with you. "In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” " https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...

dragonwriter 3y ago
Given the subject matter and year, this was almost certainly in the context of Russia's lobbying against giving Ukraine and Georgia NATO MAPs in 2008, a lobbying effort which (perhaps in part due to Burns’ advice in the letter) was successful—NATO acceded to Russia's demands in the hopes that so doing would, as Russia claimed, promote peace and stability in the region. Russia then immediately invaded Georgia, which may go some way to explaining why some NATO leaders became quite disinclined to grant Russia the same kind of Chamberlainian accommodation thereafter.
- Banyonite 3y ago
  I'm not well-versed in this area, but from what I've been reading, it doesn't look as if NATO simply acceded to Russia's demands- From the NYT in November of 2008: "At a NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania, in April, the United States failed to persuade NATO to offer the usual application process, known as a membership action plan, to Ukraine and Georgia. Instead, NATO leaders agreed that one day each country would join, without committing to a timetable." (Edit: I haven't been able to find much to relate the failure to convince to an accession to Russian demands.) I get what you're saying about being disinclined to accommodate after Russia's adventure in South Ossetia / Georgia in August of that year; the Nov 2008 article focused on the US push for NATO membership: "The United States has started an unexpected diplomatic initiative in Europe, urging NATO allies to offer Georgia and Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements, NATO diplomats said." I need to take the time to find more unbiased information on the conflicts of the region over the past 15-20 years. It's complicated, with a lot of issues in play that seem to go back at least a century. My knee-jerk, scratching-the-surface opinion is that while I believe Russia is ruled by oligarchical mobsters headed by Putin, I can understand, if not sympathize with, their reaction as Western powers have established footholds in bordering countries. Honest question, for I don't know the answer: If NATO had dissolved 30 some-odd years ago, and the US had fallen from a world to regional power (albeit with nuclear weapons), and then the Warsaw pact had established bases in Canada and Mexico, would outcomes be more or less stable?
  - 3y ago