6 ms·

> To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told

by mopsi 3y ago

> To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO. But instead of solidifying peace, bowing in to Russian demands only encouraged Russia to go further. They invaded Georgia the same year, and parts of Ukraine six years later, and attempted a full take-over of Ukraine in 2022, sparking the largest war in Europe since Hitler. What lesson does it teach?

ultimafan 3y ago
>Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO. But that's not really true and omits some crucial details. We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. [0] This came from top NATO and US political leadership- I believe even used by presidential candidates then in their campaigns. Calling open taunting a sign of respect doesn't fly and the invasions of both Georgia and Ukraine didn't happen until after we repeatedly goaded the Russians and implanted the idea in their head that they either act now, or regret it later when those countries join up after we spent years building them up. Would Russia have invaded them regardless? Hard to try to mindread alternate history but odds are good that they would have. But we did have a hand in the provocation of what definitely did happen and is happening now and in their eyes that might be seen as an act of hostility. I suppose if there's any lesson to be taken from that is that trouble was stirred up instead of an attempt at a more diplomatic approach (or even something aggressive and decisive, putting our foot down and doing something about it back then), we gave Ukraine a false sense of confidence, told them we'd back them, and now are refusing to take on more responsibility for it because we aren't the ones facing the bloodshed, our support is a pittance and win or lose our day to day lives will be much the same. [0] https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html
- mopsi 3y ago
  > We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. In your opinion, how common it is in diplomatic forms of communication to send informal positive signals while avoiding any meaningful official steps when an action is deemed undesirable?
  - ultimafan 3y ago
    When you know your enemies have plans that are openly at ends with yours, when the heads of their alliance say this will come to pass, when their political elites campaign on the promise that they will push this cause along, when your rival countries make investments in this future, do you believe the words coming out of their mouths? Or chalk it all up to informal positive signals? Words aren't empty and a big part of diplomacy is choosing the right ones. Even in the slightest smidge of an off-chance that this was just placation, they chose to phrase it in a way that still comes off as a threat- act now, because if you don't WE will. I don't think it's a fair argument to claim that it meant nothing and we didn't really want those countries in NATO. We made a compromise then to not let them in to try to appease Russia, then immediately flubbed it by antagonizing them with a looming perceived threat over their head in the future. Had we played things more diplomatically things could have panned out differently. >Turkey applied for EU in 1987 and negotiations are currently about 6% done. Would you expect Turkey to become a member of the EU in foreseeable future? There's no set time for how long it can take a country to join NATO and requirements can be bent or overlooked if expediency is required. There's multiple countries that have joined in timespans of <5 years.
    - mopsi 3y ago
      > When you know your enemies have plans that are openly at ends with yours In what way are the EU and NATO enemies of Russia? Both organizations stipulate the goal of ensuring peace in Europe and have a good track record at that. Is peace, stability and prosperity in Europe at odds with Russian plans?
      - 3y ago
s1artibartfast 3y ago
That obviously depends on your objectives and world view. In my opinion, it teaches that the NATO should have stayed out of the region in the first place, and the US specifically should be carefully about upsetting regional power balances. >Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO This is not very accurate IMO. There were significant NATO policy decisions immediately preceding the 2014 invasion with respect to Ukraine. Further decisions were taken immediately proceeding the 2022 build up and subsequent invasion. The first was in 2008 when NATO decided Ukraine could start the NATO membership process. This came to a head at the start of 2014 when Euromaidan revolution lead to a change of government. Feb 2014, Russisa takes Crimea In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programs and Trust Funds. In 2018, Ukraine was officially given NATO aspiring member status. 2021 NATO reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member. 2021 Russa Masses on the Ukrainian boarder and makes the same threat of invasion it has made for 10 years if it doesn't get US assurance that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO. US still refuses 2022 Russia invades. This whole war was telegraphed a decade ago and nobody involved was willing to compromise. I think personally that it would have been better if the parties involved could come to a solution based in self-determination and demilitarization.
- brnt 3y ago
  What the Kremlin says and what is actually means and does are so fundamentally divorced that it would be endearing that you think you can take them at their word if it wasn't so painful because even the slightest bit of study on the subject would tell you how dangerously foolish that is. The Kremlin has telepraphed exactly one thing, since forever: they'll try to get away with blatant bluff, force, oppression and otherwise until the day Muscovy is no more. The only rational thing would be to bite the bullet now, while it is at its smallest in years, and take the Kremlin out. Just end it, and forcibly put something sane in its place. The good news is that this snake doesn't have much more than a head, and that disintegration is a given.
  - 3y ago

by mopsi 3y ago

ultimafan 3y ago

>Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO. But that's not really true and omits some crucial details. We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. [0] This came from top NATO and US political leadership- I believe even used by presidential candidates then in their campaigns. Calling open taunting a sign of respect doesn't fly and the invasions of both Georgia and Ukraine didn't happen until after we repeatedly goaded the Russians and implanted the idea in their head that they either act now, or regret it later when those countries join up after we spent years building them up. Would Russia have invaded them regardless? Hard to try to mindread alternate history but odds are good that they would have. But we did have a hand in the provocation of what definitely did happen and is happening now and in their eyes that might be seen as an act of hostility. I suppose if there's any lesson to be taken from that is that trouble was stirred up instead of an attempt at a more diplomatic approach (or even something aggressive and decisive, putting our foot down and doing something about it back then), we gave Ukraine a false sense of confidence, told them we'd back them, and now are refusing to take on more responsibility for it because we aren't the ones facing the bloodshed, our support is a pittance and win or lose our day to day lives will be much the same. [0] https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html

mopsi 3y ago
> We didn't offer them ascension plans but we did repeatedly flaunt the promise that eventually both countries would be full fledged NATO members. In your opinion, how common it is in diplomatic forms of communication to send informal positive signals while avoiding any meaningful official steps when an action is deemed undesirable?
- ultimafan 3y ago
  When you know your enemies have plans that are openly at ends with yours, when the heads of their alliance say this will come to pass, when their political elites campaign on the promise that they will push this cause along, when your rival countries make investments in this future, do you believe the words coming out of their mouths? Or chalk it all up to informal positive signals? Words aren't empty and a big part of diplomacy is choosing the right ones. Even in the slightest smidge of an off-chance that this was just placation, they chose to phrase it in a way that still comes off as a threat- act now, because if you don't WE will. I don't think it's a fair argument to claim that it meant nothing and we didn't really want those countries in NATO. We made a compromise then to not let them in to try to appease Russia, then immediately flubbed it by antagonizing them with a looming perceived threat over their head in the future. Had we played things more diplomatically things could have panned out differently. >Turkey applied for EU in 1987 and negotiations are currently about 6% done. Would you expect Turkey to become a member of the EU in foreseeable future? There's no set time for how long it can take a country to join NATO and requirements can be bent or overlooked if expediency is required. There's multiple countries that have joined in timespans of <5 years.
  - mopsi 3y ago
    > When you know your enemies have plans that are openly at ends with yours In what way are the EU and NATO enemies of Russia? Both organizations stipulate the goal of ensuring peace in Europe and have a good track record at that. Is peace, stability and prosperity in Europe at odds with Russian plans?
    - 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

That obviously depends on your objectives and world view. In my opinion, it teaches that the NATO should have stayed out of the region in the first place, and the US specifically should be carefully about upsetting regional power balances. >Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO This is not very accurate IMO. There were significant NATO policy decisions immediately preceding the 2014 invasion with respect to Ukraine. Further decisions were taken immediately proceeding the 2022 build up and subsequent invasion. The first was in 2008 when NATO decided Ukraine could start the NATO membership process. This came to a head at the start of 2014 when Euromaidan revolution lead to a change of government. Feb 2014, Russisa takes Crimea In 2016, Ukraine was granted a NATO Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programs and Trust Funds. In 2018, Ukraine was officially given NATO aspiring member status. 2021 NATO reaffirmed that Ukraine will become a member. 2021 Russa Masses on the Ukrainian boarder and makes the same threat of invasion it has made for 10 years if it doesn't get US assurance that Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO. US still refuses 2022 Russia invades. This whole war was telegraphed a decade ago and nobody involved was willing to compromise. I think personally that it would have been better if the parties involved could come to a solution based in self-determination and demilitarization.

brnt 3y ago
What the Kremlin says and what is actually means and does are so fundamentally divorced that it would be endearing that you think you can take them at their word if it wasn't so painful because even the slightest bit of study on the subject would tell you how dangerously foolish that is. The Kremlin has telepraphed exactly one thing, since forever: they'll try to get away with blatant bluff, force, oppression and otherwise until the day Muscovy is no more. The only rational thing would be to bite the bullet now, while it is at its smallest in years, and take the Kremlin out. Just end it, and forcibly put something sane in its place. The good news is that this snake doesn't have much more than a head, and that disintegration is a given.
- 3y ago