4 ms·

Its not completely unfounded. The top US diplomat to the USSR for 20 years predicted a conflict if the US expanded the NATO alliance further east after the USSR

by mu53 2y ago

Its not completely unfounded. The top US diplomat to the USSR for 20 years predicted a conflict if the US expanded the NATO alliance further east after the USSR fell. This lines up with what Russia says. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border."

aguaviva 2y ago
Predicted a conflict if the US expanded the NATO alliance further east after the USSR fell. Except Russia formally greenlighted at least partial NATO expansion (to CZ, HU, and PL) via a formal treaty it signed with NATO in 1997. Which right there, should suggest to you that there's something deeply broken with this narrative. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border." NATO wasn't built "to destroy" Russia. You can say that NATO annoys Russia, or "is built to challenge Russia's influence outside its borders" if you want. But to say it was built, or at any point even remotely intended "to destroy Russia" is just dumb, emotional manipulation.
- zakki 2y ago
  I guess "us" in this context also means USSR. So NATO destroyed USSR and now they want to destroy Russia by expanding their "territory" closer and closer to Russia.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    So NATO destroyed USSR Well, we can see this conversation is going at least. In any case there's evidently no meaningful relationship to the actual word "destroy" in play here. Seems they meant "irritates" or "offends".
    - mu53 2y ago
      I think geopolitics is signifcantly more complex than you make it out to be. If you consider how specific you are about word choices over actions, you are repeating the western narrative verbatim. The signatories to the treaty in 1997 may not have understood how the Russian population at large would perceive NATO expansion. When it happened, the russian people responded differently than they did in a much more idealistic period. Destroying, irritating, and annoying are easy to understand between individuals, but in talking about nation states, what do these really mean? One nation state can annoy another into an economic collapse thus destroying it. Everything thing you say ignores what the Russians have been saying about NATO expansionism, and I think that is more key to understanding both sides of the issue. I only suggested that actions of NATO contributed to the "irritation" that drug Russia into conflict.
      - mopsi 2y ago
        > Everything thing you say ignores what the Russians have been saying about NATO expansionism, and I think that is more key to understanding both sides of the issue. The trouble with this narrative is that it has no connection with reality whatsoever. It is a cover story produced to lull distant foreigners into sleep; it is not connected to the actual developments in Russia or Russian relations with its neighbors. Nobody takes this story seriously in Russia; it is not discussed in military or policy circles. It is a pretext very much in the same tradition as German excuses for invading Poland. Few people can offer better insight into "understanding both sides" than Andrei Kozyrev, the first foreign minister of Russian Federation, in office 1990-1996 and in charge of rebuilding foreign relations of the entire country after USSR's demise. And he openly calls this narrative bullshit and people who fall for it idiots. Most key figures from pre-Putin Russia hold the same view. NATO is a pain in the butt for Russia for the very simple reason that Russia still carries imperialist desire to roll over its neighbors, and a country being in NATO makes it much more difficult for them to invade. Without support from allies, Ukraine would've lost years ago, but with international support, they persist and have caused incredible losses to Russians. It's simple calculus. Without NATO, Russian invasion of Poland would face only the fairly limited Polish conventional forces. With NATO, they would be potentially facing anything up to US carrier groups and British nuclear missiles. Risks associated with invading their neighbors go way up if they are in NATO, enough to deter from invading. Understanding this, joining NATO and other international organizations has been a top foreign policy priority for most countries in Eastern Europe. "Expansionism" is a completely wrong word to use when the initiative for joining NATO has always been very intense in Eastern Europe, out of fear of Russian invasion, against lukewarm and skeptical acceptance by the existing members, who believed such fears to be overblown.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        If you consider how specific you are about word choices over actions, you are repeating the western narrative verbatim. And this take showcases the fundamental problem with giving a fuck about major narratives, and our perceived overlap with or opposition to them. As in: "Oh gosh, in taking position X, it looks like I'm overlapping with the received narrative, which happens to roughly include position X. Which is Bad, because that narrative is on the whole Bad. Therefore I should check myself and start importing positions from, or expressing empathy with narratives from the supposedly opposite direction. Because the enemy of my enemy can't be such a bad guy, once you get to know him", or something like that. Which seems to be what drives about 90 percent of the "If you just listen to Putin, it turns out he actually has a point with Ukraine" take. (Along with an uncritical acceptance of the web of factual distortions about what actually did happen). When it happened, the russian people responded differently than they did in a much more idealistic period. Except it wasn't "the Russian people" responding back then. And it certainly isn't "the Russian people" who decided to launch the current invasion. One nation state can annoy another into an economic collapse thus destroying it. Okay I guess, and evidently you're alluding to the 90s shock therapy advice given to Russia and associated shenanigans. Fine enough, but that wasn't "NATO". And it's when one starts boldly and utterly conflating the two (I'm guessing on the principle that they're both "The West") where things start to get loopy. Everything thing you say ignores what the Russians have been saying about NATO expansionism, and I think that is more key to understanding both sides of the issue. That's the thing -- we don't get to hear from "the Russians" as a people in any meaningful sense these days. By and large, we only get to hear what its current regime says (and the various statements it pretends to believe). Which has some relation to what Russians as a people think, but is at best a highly distorted and manipulated representation of what they think. I only suggested that actions of NATO contributed to the "irritation" that drug Russia into conflict. Your words said a lot more than that, I'm afraid. Let's replay the tape: This lines up with what Russia says. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border." It's extremely difficult to read this other than as conveying: (1) You do think this is what "Russia" (meaning its people) thinks, (2) That it's a reasonable position we should have empathy with and extend credibility to, (3) including, implicitly but unavoidably the "NATO was built to destroy Russia" part. Instead of treating it as the obvious hogwash that it is, that no reasonably sane and informed person would ever believe.
  - rat87 2y ago
    the USSR is not russia and they dont want to destroy russia. NATO not expanding teritory (it has none, its merely a defwnsive military alliance) like say russia is trying to do. Members choose to join NATO in large lart to protect themselves from russia. And NATO didn't destroy the USSR the whole corrupt thing collapsed in of itself driven by bad economy and the forces of liberalism and nationalism.
rat87 2y ago
It is completly unfounded. He was wrong and if he was still alive hed probably acknowledge that he was wrong. Russias invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO (besides the fact that if we had been wise and invited Ukraine into NATO this stupid war wouldn't have happened). It is an imperialistic war that seems to reconquer Ukraine and to be an empire again. Also Yelstin admitted in the 90s that Poland and other countries had the right to join NATO. Russia or at least Putin is saying that Ukraine has never existed and must be reconquered just like the old conquering czars did. The NATO bullshit excuse is the lowest level of propaganda and I'm sure even that are surprised how many people fall far it. NATO was not built to destroy Russia or the Soviet Union (which are separate things) and Ukraine was not seeking to join NATO in 2014 (and had no chance of joining NATO in 2014 and 2021 as everyone including Russia was well aware of).

by mu53 2y ago

aguaviva 2y ago

Predicted a conflict if the US expanded the NATO alliance further east after the USSR fell. Except Russia formally greenlighted at least partial NATO expansion (to CZ, HU, and PL) via a formal treaty it signed with NATO in 1997. Which right there, should suggest to you that there's something deeply broken with this narrative. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border." NATO wasn't built "to destroy" Russia. You can say that NATO annoys Russia, or "is built to challenge Russia's influence outside its borders" if you want. But to say it was built, or at any point even remotely intended "to destroy Russia" is just dumb, emotional manipulation.

zakki 2y ago
I guess "us" in this context also means USSR. So NATO destroyed USSR and now they want to destroy Russia by expanding their "territory" closer and closer to Russia.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  So NATO destroyed USSR Well, we can see this conversation is going at least. In any case there's evidently no meaningful relationship to the actual word "destroy" in play here. Seems they meant "irritates" or "offends".
  - mu53 2y ago
    I think geopolitics is signifcantly more complex than you make it out to be. If you consider how specific you are about word choices over actions, you are repeating the western narrative verbatim. The signatories to the treaty in 1997 may not have understood how the Russian population at large would perceive NATO expansion. When it happened, the russian people responded differently than they did in a much more idealistic period. Destroying, irritating, and annoying are easy to understand between individuals, but in talking about nation states, what do these really mean? One nation state can annoy another into an economic collapse thus destroying it. Everything thing you say ignores what the Russians have been saying about NATO expansionism, and I think that is more key to understanding both sides of the issue. I only suggested that actions of NATO contributed to the "irritation" that drug Russia into conflict.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > Everything thing you say ignores what the Russians have been saying about NATO expansionism, and I think that is more key to understanding both sides of the issue. The trouble with this narrative is that it has no connection with reality whatsoever. It is a cover story produced to lull distant foreigners into sleep; it is not connected to the actual developments in Russia or Russian relations with its neighbors. Nobody takes this story seriously in Russia; it is not discussed in military or policy circles. It is a pretext very much in the same tradition as German excuses for invading Poland. Few people can offer better insight into "understanding both sides" than Andrei Kozyrev, the first foreign minister of Russian Federation, in office 1990-1996 and in charge of rebuilding foreign relations of the entire country after USSR's demise. And he openly calls this narrative bullshit and people who fall for it idiots. Most key figures from pre-Putin Russia hold the same view. NATO is a pain in the butt for Russia for the very simple reason that Russia still carries imperialist desire to roll over its neighbors, and a country being in NATO makes it much more difficult for them to invade. Without support from allies, Ukraine would've lost years ago, but with international support, they persist and have caused incredible losses to Russians. It's simple calculus. Without NATO, Russian invasion of Poland would face only the fairly limited Polish conventional forces. With NATO, they would be potentially facing anything up to US carrier groups and British nuclear missiles. Risks associated with invading their neighbors go way up if they are in NATO, enough to deter from invading. Understanding this, joining NATO and other international organizations has been a top foreign policy priority for most countries in Eastern Europe. "Expansionism" is a completely wrong word to use when the initiative for joining NATO has always been very intense in Eastern Europe, out of fear of Russian invasion, against lukewarm and skeptical acceptance by the existing members, who believed such fears to be overblown.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      If you consider how specific you are about word choices over actions, you are repeating the western narrative verbatim. And this take showcases the fundamental problem with giving a fuck about major narratives, and our perceived overlap with or opposition to them. As in: "Oh gosh, in taking position X, it looks like I'm overlapping with the received narrative, which happens to roughly include position X. Which is Bad, because that narrative is on the whole Bad. Therefore I should check myself and start importing positions from, or expressing empathy with narratives from the supposedly opposite direction. Because the enemy of my enemy can't be such a bad guy, once you get to know him", or something like that. Which seems to be what drives about 90 percent of the "If you just listen to Putin, it turns out he actually has a point with Ukraine" take. (Along with an uncritical acceptance of the web of factual distortions about what actually did happen). When it happened, the russian people responded differently than they did in a much more idealistic period. Except it wasn't "the Russian people" responding back then. And it certainly isn't "the Russian people" who decided to launch the current invasion. One nation state can annoy another into an economic collapse thus destroying it. Okay I guess, and evidently you're alluding to the 90s shock therapy advice given to Russia and associated shenanigans. Fine enough, but that wasn't "NATO". And it's when one starts boldly and utterly conflating the two (I'm guessing on the principle that they're both "The West") where things start to get loopy. Everything thing you say ignores what the Russians have been saying about NATO expansionism, and I think that is more key to understanding both sides of the issue. That's the thing -- we don't get to hear from "the Russians" as a people in any meaningful sense these days. By and large, we only get to hear what its current regime says (and the various statements it pretends to believe). Which has some relation to what Russians as a people think, but is at best a highly distorted and manipulated representation of what they think. I only suggested that actions of NATO contributed to the "irritation" that drug Russia into conflict. Your words said a lot more than that, I'm afraid. Let's replay the tape: This lines up with what Russia says. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border." It's extremely difficult to read this other than as conveying: (1) You do think this is what "Russia" (meaning its people) thinks, (2) That it's a reasonable position we should have empathy with and extend credibility to, (3) including, implicitly but unavoidably the "NATO was built to destroy Russia" part. Instead of treating it as the obvious hogwash that it is, that no reasonably sane and informed person would ever believe.
- rat87 2y ago
  the USSR is not russia and they dont want to destroy russia. NATO not expanding teritory (it has none, its merely a defwnsive military alliance) like say russia is trying to do. Members choose to join NATO in large lart to protect themselves from russia. And NATO didn't destroy the USSR the whole corrupt thing collapsed in of itself driven by bad economy and the forces of liberalism and nationalism.

rat87 2y ago

It is completly unfounded. He was wrong and if he was still alive hed probably acknowledge that he was wrong. Russias invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO (besides the fact that if we had been wise and invited Ukraine into NATO this stupid war wouldn't have happened). It is an imperialistic war that seems to reconquer Ukraine and to be an empire again. Also Yelstin admitted in the 90s that Poland and other countries had the right to join NATO. Russia or at least Putin is saying that Ukraine has never existed and must be reconquered just like the old conquering czars did. The NATO bullshit excuse is the lowest level of propaganda and I'm sure even that are surprised how many people fall far it. NATO was not built to destroy Russia or the Soviet Union (which are separate things) and Ukraine was not seeking to join NATO in 2014 (and had no chance of joining NATO in 2014 and 2021 as everyone including Russia was well aware of).