4 ms·

> It's hard not to be sympathetic to Russia's perspective that the US arming Ukraine and promoting NATO expansion violates the spirit of the Budapest memorandum

by mopsi 2y ago

> It's hard not to be sympathetic to Russia's perspective that the US arming Ukraine and promoting NATO expansion violates the spirit of the Budapest memorandum and also the informal assurances that were apparently given to Russia by the US. 1. Nobody was providing military aid to Ukraine before Russia invaded, and even then it was initially of non-lethal nature. 2. NATO expansion was an initiative of countries in Central and Eastern Europe, against heavy skepticism by existing NATO members (including the US) -- and not something that the US "promoted". The initiative was in large part a reaction to the Russian war in Chechnya, and overall Russian hostility towards its European neighbors. Whatever glimmer of hope there was in early 1990s for different kind of relations, seeing Russian atrocities in Chechnya squashed them overnight. 3. If by "apparent" assurances you mean the conspiracy theory that someone promised Russians that NATO would not accept new members in Europe, then this has been refuted by USSR's top leaders - Gorbachev himself, his foreign minister, defense minister, and others. It's total nonsense. > Of course now in 2024 Ukrainians support the war, but if one were to ask them in 1994 if they would want what they now have in 2024 or would it be OK to continue to be neutral, they would undeniably prefer neutrality and peace. "Neutral option" is how they arrived in the present day. Ukraine was too slow to follow other CEE countries in joining EU and NATO, and wasn't covered by mutual defense guarantees by the time Russians invaded. Ukraine remaining out of strong alliances made the invasion less risky for Russians. That was a mistake. Sweden and Finland -- the last two neutral countries near Russia -- immediately learned from that mistake and joined NATO.

resters 2y ago
Chechnya was hugely important to Russia geopolitically and so it should not have been a surprise that it would not want to let Chechnya become independent. Russia already had a mix of rivals both for political Islamist reasons and oil/gas pipeline dominance reasons. Not surprisingly, those groups/nations supported the Chechen cause as tehy stood to benefit handsomely. As usual the US did a lot of finger shaking and humanitarian atrocity shaming. From Russia's perspective, the Chechen wars were significant attacks on its security and economy. Zooming out, an independent Chechnya would have made post-Soviet Russia much, much weaker. So I think it's reasonable to attribute Russia's suppression of the Chechen rebellions to be motivated by the same desire to protect its territory that has motivated its war with US-backed Ukraine. It seems that the only way to say it's unreasonable is to claim that Putin is himself mentally unwell and motivated by mental illness (a common claim in the US, sadly) or that Russia itself does not deserve to establish its own geopolitical "red lines" for when it will act militarily to protect its interests/territory.
- mopsi 2y ago
  No, it's not about Chechen independence per se. It's about the methods Russia used there - grainy smuggled VHS tapes showing extreme savagery against civilians on a massive scale. At least fifth of the entire population went through concentration camps. This is simply not the way a modern country treats people, even in war. Combined with the rhetoric about Russia deserving to rule over other nations (which you too demonstrate so clearly), it doesn't take much for people in Eastern Europe to put 1+1 together and run for whatever military alliance they can find. I completely reject the notion that Russia has some inherent right to invade European countries and kill and enslave at their will. If Russia was worried about national security as apologists claim, it would support EU and NATO memberships for its European neighbors - instead of desperately sabotaging such aspirations like in Ukraine. These organizations have produced the most peaceful, stable, reliable and predictable neighbors.
  - resters 2y ago
    I'm not making excuses for Russia's treatment of civilians at all. However the US killed a lot of Japanese civilians during WW2 and is considered "civilized" by some today. I think the geopolitical view offers a lens through which to see Russia's actions as reasonable (if still excessive, even horrible). What is not clear from your comment is what you think should be done now? Has Russia lost its "legitimacy"? How can the situation in Ukraine be resolved adequately? Is US as the referee the only hope? George Friedman has written that Russia is one of the natural landmass formations that tends to be a center of power because of the geography of the region. Should it try not to be? What alternatives exist?
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > I think the geopolitical view offers a lens through which to see Russia's actions as reasonable (if still excessive, even horrible). No, they are not reasonable at all. They are the result of total concentration of power into the hands of a single person, allowing their irrational prejudices and paranoias shape the actions of millions of people. History has seen this time and time again, notably with Hitler and his sick obsession with Jews. Why did Hitler murder millions of Jews? What's the reasonable argument? Is there any at all? Or was it just plain hatred, utterly banal in its simplicity? > What is not clear from your comment is what you think should be done now? Has Russia lost its "legitimacy"? How can the situation in Ukraine be resolved adequately? Is US as the referee the only hope? Total military defeat. Russians need to see Putin, Shoigu and Gerasimov sentenced and imprisoned like Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic; Ukrainian flag flying over Sevastopol; and their press openly discussing the truth. After that, they need constant international pressure, for decades, until they develop into a modern society. The mistake of Europe and the US in the 1990s was not "encircling" and "humiliating" and "not respecting" Russia, but the opposite - Russia was left on its own, and nothing was done as it gradually grew into a poisonous tree. Where the EU and US were more active, set demands and expected progress - like in Central and Eastern Europe - countries developed into free, prosperous, stable and good places to live. Russia as it is in 2024 has passed the point of no return. MPs like Gurulyov are saying on television that everyone except a few million retirees must be exterminated in Ukraine, and no-one in the TV studio even dares to say a word to oppose it. Proclaiming how many millions of people must be killed has become socially acceptable, while arguing for human rights and basic decency is met with contempt, hostility and ridicule, and punished with prison sentences. What will make people like these stop, if not a total demoralizing defeat and expulsion to the outskirts of the society?

by mopsi 2y ago

resters 2y ago

Chechnya was hugely important to Russia geopolitically and so it should not have been a surprise that it would not want to let Chechnya become independent. Russia already had a mix of rivals both for political Islamist reasons and oil/gas pipeline dominance reasons. Not surprisingly, those groups/nations supported the Chechen cause as tehy stood to benefit handsomely. As usual the US did a lot of finger shaking and humanitarian atrocity shaming. From Russia's perspective, the Chechen wars were significant attacks on its security and economy. Zooming out, an independent Chechnya would have made post-Soviet Russia much, much weaker. So I think it's reasonable to attribute Russia's suppression of the Chechen rebellions to be motivated by the same desire to protect its territory that has motivated its war with US-backed Ukraine. It seems that the only way to say it's unreasonable is to claim that Putin is himself mentally unwell and motivated by mental illness (a common claim in the US, sadly) or that Russia itself does not deserve to establish its own geopolitical "red lines" for when it will act militarily to protect its interests/territory.

mopsi 2y ago
No, it's not about Chechen independence per se. It's about the methods Russia used there - grainy smuggled VHS tapes showing extreme savagery against civilians on a massive scale. At least fifth of the entire population went through concentration camps. This is simply not the way a modern country treats people, even in war. Combined with the rhetoric about Russia deserving to rule over other nations (which you too demonstrate so clearly), it doesn't take much for people in Eastern Europe to put 1+1 together and run for whatever military alliance they can find. I completely reject the notion that Russia has some inherent right to invade European countries and kill and enslave at their will. If Russia was worried about national security as apologists claim, it would support EU and NATO memberships for its European neighbors - instead of desperately sabotaging such aspirations like in Ukraine. These organizations have produced the most peaceful, stable, reliable and predictable neighbors.
- resters 2y ago
  I'm not making excuses for Russia's treatment of civilians at all. However the US killed a lot of Japanese civilians during WW2 and is considered "civilized" by some today. I think the geopolitical view offers a lens through which to see Russia's actions as reasonable (if still excessive, even horrible). What is not clear from your comment is what you think should be done now? Has Russia lost its "legitimacy"? How can the situation in Ukraine be resolved adequately? Is US as the referee the only hope? George Friedman has written that Russia is one of the natural landmass formations that tends to be a center of power because of the geography of the region. Should it try not to be? What alternatives exist?
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > I think the geopolitical view offers a lens through which to see Russia's actions as reasonable (if still excessive, even horrible). No, they are not reasonable at all. They are the result of total concentration of power into the hands of a single person, allowing their irrational prejudices and paranoias shape the actions of millions of people. History has seen this time and time again, notably with Hitler and his sick obsession with Jews. Why did Hitler murder millions of Jews? What's the reasonable argument? Is there any at all? Or was it just plain hatred, utterly banal in its simplicity? > What is not clear from your comment is what you think should be done now? Has Russia lost its "legitimacy"? How can the situation in Ukraine be resolved adequately? Is US as the referee the only hope? Total military defeat. Russians need to see Putin, Shoigu and Gerasimov sentenced and imprisoned like Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic; Ukrainian flag flying over Sevastopol; and their press openly discussing the truth. After that, they need constant international pressure, for decades, until they develop into a modern society. The mistake of Europe and the US in the 1990s was not "encircling" and "humiliating" and "not respecting" Russia, but the opposite - Russia was left on its own, and nothing was done as it gradually grew into a poisonous tree. Where the EU and US were more active, set demands and expected progress - like in Central and Eastern Europe - countries developed into free, prosperous, stable and good places to live. Russia as it is in 2024 has passed the point of no return. MPs like Gurulyov are saying on television that everyone except a few million retirees must be exterminated in Ukraine, and no-one in the TV studio even dares to say a word to oppose it. Proclaiming how many millions of people must be killed has become socially acceptable, while arguing for human rights and basic decency is met with contempt, hostility and ridicule, and punished with prison sentences. What will make people like these stop, if not a total demoralizing defeat and expulsion to the outskirts of the society?