3 ms·

>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

>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?
    - ultimafan 3y ago
      I think it's not a hot take in the slightest to say that NATO and Russia consider each other enemies. I certainly don't think anyone would be calling them friends, or close allies. They clash often politically and their goals rarely seem to align. And now they've pitched their support in a war by proxy to help defend Ukraine from Russian invasion. You don't think that Russia views NATO as an enemy?
      - mopsi 3y ago
        > You don't think that Russia views NATO as an enemy? I guess it depends on who you ask. I recently read the memoirs of the man who was the Russian minister of foreign affairs 1990-1996. He certainly did not view NATO as an enemy. Already in 1992, he foresaw that all of Europe would eventually join the EU and NATO, because their core values would sooner or later lead to accepting new democracies as they matured. He expected that Russia would join those organizations too, but before that could happen, his fraction unfortunately lost the domestic political struggle to the old guard who wanted to maintain Russia as their personal fortress, and turned domestic anti-western brainwashing up to 11 before anyone in the west even lifted a finger at them. He concluded despite some diplomatic mistakes that were made, the west was on the right side of history by working with new democracies and has been successful in ensuring peace and prosperity through cooperation with their new partners. Russia, which returned to Soviet-era antagonism, failed. He hopes that one day, Russian people will be able to follow other European nations in finding their national interest in democratic reforms and cooperation with western institutions. He wrote the book a little before the full-scale invasion. The war has made him less poetic and more direct. He does not think very highly of people who buy the Russian narrative about NATO threat. He now calls them "chumps" and "useful idiots" who help to cement the little fortress where Putin and his KGB buddies can freely loot Russian people with impunity. And now, unfortunately, the insatiable greed has spilled over to Ukraine too.

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?
  - ultimafan 3y ago
    I think it's not a hot take in the slightest to say that NATO and Russia consider each other enemies. I certainly don't think anyone would be calling them friends, or close allies. They clash often politically and their goals rarely seem to align. And now they've pitched their support in a war by proxy to help defend Ukraine from Russian invasion. You don't think that Russia views NATO as an enemy?
    - mopsi 3y ago
      > You don't think that Russia views NATO as an enemy? I guess it depends on who you ask. I recently read the memoirs of the man who was the Russian minister of foreign affairs 1990-1996. He certainly did not view NATO as an enemy. Already in 1992, he foresaw that all of Europe would eventually join the EU and NATO, because their core values would sooner or later lead to accepting new democracies as they matured. He expected that Russia would join those organizations too, but before that could happen, his fraction unfortunately lost the domestic political struggle to the old guard who wanted to maintain Russia as their personal fortress, and turned domestic anti-western brainwashing up to 11 before anyone in the west even lifted a finger at them. He concluded despite some diplomatic mistakes that were made, the west was on the right side of history by working with new democracies and has been successful in ensuring peace and prosperity through cooperation with their new partners. Russia, which returned to Soviet-era antagonism, failed. He hopes that one day, Russian people will be able to follow other European nations in finding their national interest in democratic reforms and cooperation with western institutions. He wrote the book a little before the full-scale invasion. The war has made him less poetic and more direct. He does not think very highly of people who buy the Russian narrative about NATO threat. He now calls them "chumps" and "useful idiots" who help to cement the little fortress where Putin and his KGB buddies can freely loot Russian people with impunity. And now, unfortunately, the insatiable greed has spilled over to Ukraine too.