7 ms·

Putin caused the war, but the idea that NATO had no role in it is hard to justify. The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian in

Putin caused the war, but the idea that NATO had no role in it is hard to justify. The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian intervention, and they did it anyway.[0] What security benefits were to be gained that were worth risking this horrific outcome? The whole thing reminds me of the British security guarantee for Poland in '39. If it was intended to gin up an excuse to fight, it was masterful. If it was a good-faith attempt at securing the peace, it was asinine and catastrophically counterproductive. [0]https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

CamperBob2 2y ago
"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" isn't the incisive argument you may have meant to advance.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  These sort of black and white, good and evil, analogs don't make any sense as NATO is, in large part, a proxy for the US. And we've overthrown, invaded, and destroyed more countries than literally anybody. Multiple of those invasions were also based on fabricated evidence/lies. And when international law, such as the UN, gets in the way - we simply ignore it. These are not the behaviours of a 'neighbourhood watch.'
  - discreteevent 2y ago
    > These sort of black and white, good and evil, analogs don't make any sense. Not black and white but worse and better. And Russia is so much worse (Its main offerings seem to be destruction and thievery) that nearly all of its neighbours tried to join NATO.
- invalidOrTaken 2y ago
  I don't think this is an apt analogy. It would be more like "I only robbed your house b/c you threatened to join the neighborhood watch, after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't." And the "neighborhood watch" vs "crime" thing is stacking the deck a bit---in modern society we have a professionalized police force and a norm against vigilante first-strike violence, but sovereign countries can by definition go to war. This doesn't even mean I "want Russia to win" or whatever, but I definitely would like NATO to put on its adult pants.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't You've been lied to. Instead of propagating the lie, please consider informing yourself. Begin by understanding the fact that any such promises were made to a state that no longer exists by people who were unauthorized to make them. Moving on, consider that nobody spends billions of dollars or Euros preparing to defend themselves against countries who are not a genuine threat to peace and stability, particularly those whose leaders have stated their revanchist goals publicly and unequivocally. Then, go back to the people who lied to you, ask them why they did so, and ask them not to do it again. Chances are, someone lied to them, too.
coliveira 2y ago
The most absurd thing of this story is that NATO cannot guarantee the defense of Ukraine. Even now after 2 years, NATO cannot establish air defenses over Ukraine. So what is the point of the expansion? To make the whole NATO weaker?
- ciupicri 2y ago
  NATO does not want to get involved at the level you're mentioning. Also just for the record, Ukraine is a not a member of NATO.
  - coliveira 2y ago
    It is not a member, but the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine. What's the point of considering them for membership if they don't want to get involved?
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > It is not a member, but the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine. No, its not. The Russo-Ukrainian war started when Ukraine had a neutrality commitment and no one was pushing for changes from the NATO side, either. Now, immediately after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and invaded and begin direct (with “deniable” forces) and local proxy wars in other parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine dropped that commitment and resumed attempts to join NATO, but the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is about Russia trying to take over Ukraine despite their being no active efforts toward NATO membership, not about NATO offering membership to Ukraine.
    - benterix 2y ago
      > the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine This is what Putin says now. The actual reasons are clearly spelled out in the article published by TASS after Putin started the invasion: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 As you can see, they have nothing to do with NATO expansion - Putin just wanted Ukrainians to be part of Russian empire just like Belorussians are.
n4r9 2y ago
What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and military combat? There are other more likely reasons for Putin to invade Ukraine, such as mineral/crop/nuclear resources and leaving behind an imperial legacy. NATO expansion is almost certainly just the most convenient scapegoat, without which some other justification would be floated.
- cess11 2y ago
  The NATO core has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, participated in the dissolution of both Libya and Syria, and is currently extending an occupation of Lebanon and perpetrating a genocide in Palestine. I think fear of NATO is pretty reasonable, but it's likely it's rather seen by Russia and others as moving the limit of the possible in international law and war.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    The above interventions are all highly morally dubious, agreed. However, I do not think it at all likely that NATO would attempt similar against a highly developed country with a (relatively) modern military such as Russia.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  > What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? NATO was created as an anti-Soviet bulwark. The Soviet Union is gone, yet NATO has continued to expand in a manner which seems designed to weaken the strategic position of Russia. Add to that America's history of color revolutions and military aggression, and it would be difficult not to interpret this as anything other than a threat. Imagine China entered into a "defensive" military alliance with Mexico. Imagine you spoke to a Chinese friend about it, and they demanded that you justify "what makes Chinese proximity so bad for America?", as though the Chinese have just as much reason to place their military assets along our southern border as we do! Would you consider such a question to be in good faith? > Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and military combat? Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. It's hardly unreasonable for them to be concerned.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian intervention Its true that NATO (not just the US) understood that as a Russian concern, and that’s why they acceded to Russia’s demand not offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans in 2008. Leading immediately to Russia invading Georgia in 2008, and then invading Ukraine – who had no active efforts on either the Ukraine or NATO side toward NATO membership – in 2014, immediately after Ukraine threw out the Russia-aligned government that had taken over while Russia was militarily occupied in Georgia (unsurprisingly, this invasion led to a renewed Ukrainian interest in NATO membership.) But given the actual sequence of events, its pretty hard to claim that NATO expansion in Ukraine – which literally was not progressing until after the 2014 invasion – lead to Russian intervention in Ukraine. In fact, both 2008 and 2014 events support the idea that the reason that Russia was concerned about NATO expansion in Georgia and Ukraine is that it would complicate their existing intent to intervene in those countries with or without NATO involvement.
- protomolecule 2y ago
  >that’s why they acceded to Russia’s demand not offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans in 2008 They did something worse: While NATO consisted of twenty-seven allies, Bush knew that the Alliance was divided right down the middle on the issue. He understood MAP was controversial but he also had many leaders from NATO allies, largely but not only from Central and Eastern Europe, coming through the Oval Office that spring urging him to push for it. In Bush’s mind, the final decision would boil down to a handful of countries and personalities who held the key votes—himself, Merkel, and Sarkozy—and who would be decisive in shifting the debate one way or the other. Bush also sensed a fault line in the German position. While Merkel and Steinmeier both opposed MAP, they did so for very different reasons. In Bush’s mind, Merkel’s thinking was not driven by concern over Russia, which meant she could still be persuaded to move. She, too, believed in the advancement of democracy and freedom and was willing to stand up to Moscow. He hoped he could personally appeal to those instincts over the heads of those in her government who focused, too much, in his mind, on Moscow. <...> Adamkus stepped in to echo B_sescu’s point: “Do we agree that these countries should become NATO members?” Merkel replied, “We agree on that. Where we don’t agree is on timing.” The response of the three presidents was immediate and spontaneous: “Then let’s write that down!” <...> Listening to Merkel, the Central and Eastern European leaders sensed an opening. NATO had never before stated explicitly that a country would become a member. None of them had ever had such a pledge. Most of their Western European counterparts, in all likelihood, would never have suggested this approach. They doubted if Merkel’s foreign minister would have either, but he was not in the room. If Merkel agreed, it could be a major step forward. Merkel then took out her pen and wrote on a sheet of paper: “We agree today that Georgia and Ukraine shall one day become members of NATO.” After studying the wording, B_sescu said: “Madame Chancellor, in our part of the world saying ‘one day’ means nothing and does not commit you to anything—it means never.” Kaczy_ski chimed in: “Absolutely.” Merkel agreed to delete “one day” <...> <...> British prime minister Gordon Brown leaned over to President Bush at the Council table and half-jokingly said, “I am not sure what we did here. I know we did not extend MAP. But I’m not sure we didn’t just make them members of NATO.” The question now was how Russia would react—and whether Putin would keep his promise to Bush not to create a problem at the summit. <...> Moscow’s very public goal had of course been to ensure that Georgia and Ukraine did not get MAP. Technically, of course, NATO had not given it to them. But these countries had received something that was arguably better and stronger—an explicit political promise from NATO heads of state that they would one day became members. That had never happened before. <...> The Russian president was even tougher on Kiev—describing Ukraine as an artificial creation and a state whose final formation was not complete. He noted that large parts of Ukraine were dominated by ethnic Russians and had been given to Ukraine by Moscow in an arbitrary fashion under Stalin, and asked, “Who can say that we do not have interests there?” The issue of NATO membership, he claimed, could threaten the very existence of Ukraine. “We should act very, very carefully. We do not have a right to veto [such a decision] and we probably don’t even want one, but I want all of us to realize, when deciding such issues, that we have our interests there as well.” At the press conference afterwards, Putin was also polite, but he was clear in reaffirming his opposition to NATO enlargement. Russia viewed “the appearance of a powerful military bloc” on its borders “as a direct threat” to its security, he said. “The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice,” he continued. “National security is not based on promises.” [0] [0] https://www.amazon.com/Little-War-That-Shook-World/dp/0230617735 https://www.amazon.com/Little-War-That-Shook-World/dp/023061...
aguaviva 2y ago
The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian intervention, and they did it anyway.[0] Except they didn't. The footnote you cite describes Burns's concern, but not what actually happened: NATO rejected Ukraine's membership appliction in 2008, and Ukraine itself formally disclaimed aspirations of joining NATO in 2010, stating that Ukraine would remain a "European, non-aligned state." And there the situation sat until 2014, when Russia invaded anyway, making any objections it might have had to Ukraine joining NATO instantly and forever moot. This idea that the West was aggressively dragging Ukraine into NATO is just a soundbite you heard somewhere, but has no connection to reality.

CamperBob2 2y ago

"I only robbed your house because you threatened to join the neighborhood watch!" isn't the incisive argument you may have meant to advance.

ANewFormation 2y ago
These sort of black and white, good and evil, analogs don't make any sense as NATO is, in large part, a proxy for the US. And we've overthrown, invaded, and destroyed more countries than literally anybody. Multiple of those invasions were also based on fabricated evidence/lies. And when international law, such as the UN, gets in the way - we simply ignore it. These are not the behaviours of a 'neighbourhood watch.'
- discreteevent 2y ago
  > These sort of black and white, good and evil, analogs don't make any sense. Not black and white but worse and better. And Russia is so much worse (Its main offerings seem to be destruction and thievery) that nearly all of its neighbours tried to join NATO.
invalidOrTaken 2y ago
I don't think this is an apt analogy. It would be more like "I only robbed your house b/c you threatened to join the neighborhood watch, after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't." And the "neighborhood watch" vs "crime" thing is stacking the deck a bit---in modern society we have a professionalized police force and a norm against vigilante first-strike violence, but sovereign countries can by definition go to war. This doesn't even mean I "want Russia to win" or whatever, but I definitely would like NATO to put on its adult pants.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  after twenty years of explicit promises by the neighborhood watch that you wouldn't You've been lied to. Instead of propagating the lie, please consider informing yourself. Begin by understanding the fact that any such promises were made to a state that no longer exists by people who were unauthorized to make them. Moving on, consider that nobody spends billions of dollars or Euros preparing to defend themselves against countries who are not a genuine threat to peace and stability, particularly those whose leaders have stated their revanchist goals publicly and unequivocally. Then, go back to the people who lied to you, ask them why they did so, and ask them not to do it again. Chances are, someone lied to them, too.

coliveira 2y ago

The most absurd thing of this story is that NATO cannot guarantee the defense of Ukraine. Even now after 2 years, NATO cannot establish air defenses over Ukraine. So what is the point of the expansion? To make the whole NATO weaker?

ciupicri 2y ago
NATO does not want to get involved at the level you're mentioning. Also just for the record, Ukraine is a not a member of NATO.
- coliveira 2y ago
  It is not a member, but the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine. What's the point of considering them for membership if they don't want to get involved?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > It is not a member, but the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine. No, its not. The Russo-Ukrainian war started when Ukraine had a neutrality commitment and no one was pushing for changes from the NATO side, either. Now, immediately after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and invaded and begin direct (with “deniable” forces) and local proxy wars in other parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine dropped that commitment and resumed attempts to join NATO, but the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is about Russia trying to take over Ukraine despite their being no active efforts toward NATO membership, not about NATO offering membership to Ukraine.
  - benterix 2y ago
    > the whole conflict is about NATO offering the possibility of membership to Ukraine This is what Putin says now. The actual reasons are clearly spelled out in the article published by TASS after Putin started the invasion: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240 As you can see, they have nothing to do with NATO expansion - Putin just wanted Ukrainians to be part of Russian empire just like Belorussians are.

n4r9 2y ago

What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and military combat? There are other more likely reasons for Putin to invade Ukraine, such as mineral/crop/nuclear resources and leaving behind an imperial legacy. NATO expansion is almost certainly just the most convenient scapegoat, without which some other justification would be floated.

cess11 2y ago
The NATO core has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, participated in the dissolution of both Libya and Syria, and is currently extending an occupation of Lebanon and perpetrating a genocide in Palestine. I think fear of NATO is pretty reasonable, but it's likely it's rather seen by Russia and others as moving the limit of the possible in international law and war.
- n4r9 2y ago
  The above interventions are all highly morally dubious, agreed. However, I do not think it at all likely that NATO would attempt similar against a highly developed country with a (relatively) modern military such as Russia.
marcusverus 2y ago
> What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? NATO was created as an anti-Soviet bulwark. The Soviet Union is gone, yet NATO has continued to expand in a manner which seems designed to weaken the strategic position of Russia. Add to that America's history of color revolutions and military aggression, and it would be difficult not to interpret this as anything other than a threat. Imagine China entered into a "defensive" military alliance with Mexico. Imagine you spoke to a Chinese friend about it, and they demanded that you justify "what makes Chinese proximity so bad for America?", as though the Chinese have just as much reason to place their military assets along our southern border as we do! Would you consider such a question to be in good faith? > Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and military combat? Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. It's hardly unreasonable for them to be concerned.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian intervention Its true that NATO (not just the US) understood that as a Russian concern, and that’s why they acceded to Russia’s demand not offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans in 2008. Leading immediately to Russia invading Georgia in 2008, and then invading Ukraine – who had no active efforts on either the Ukraine or NATO side toward NATO membership – in 2014, immediately after Ukraine threw out the Russia-aligned government that had taken over while Russia was militarily occupied in Georgia (unsurprisingly, this invasion led to a renewed Ukrainian interest in NATO membership.) But given the actual sequence of events, its pretty hard to claim that NATO expansion in Ukraine – which literally was not progressing until after the 2014 invasion – lead to Russian intervention in Ukraine. In fact, both 2008 and 2014 events support the idea that the reason that Russia was concerned about NATO expansion in Georgia and Ukraine is that it would complicate their existing intent to intervene in those countries with or without NATO involvement.

protomolecule 2y ago
>that’s why they acceded to Russia’s demand not offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans in 2008 They did something worse: While NATO consisted of twenty-seven allies, Bush knew that the Alliance was divided right down the middle on the issue. He understood MAP was controversial but he also had many leaders from NATO allies, largely but not only from Central and Eastern Europe, coming through the Oval Office that spring urging him to push for it. In Bush’s mind, the final decision would boil down to a handful of countries and personalities who held the key votes—himself, Merkel, and Sarkozy—and who would be decisive in shifting the debate one way or the other. Bush also sensed a fault line in the German position. While Merkel and Steinmeier both opposed MAP, they did so for very different reasons. In Bush’s mind, Merkel’s thinking was not driven by concern over Russia, which meant she could still be persuaded to move. She, too, believed in the advancement of democracy and freedom and was willing to stand up to Moscow. He hoped he could personally appeal to those instincts over the heads of those in her government who focused, too much, in his mind, on Moscow. <...> Adamkus stepped in to echo B_sescu’s point: “Do we agree that these countries should become NATO members?” Merkel replied, “We agree on that. Where we don’t agree is on timing.” The response of the three presidents was immediate and spontaneous: “Then let’s write that down!” <...> Listening to Merkel, the Central and Eastern European leaders sensed an opening. NATO had never before stated explicitly that a country would become a member. None of them had ever had such a pledge. Most of their Western European counterparts, in all likelihood, would never have suggested this approach. They doubted if Merkel’s foreign minister would have either, but he was not in the room. If Merkel agreed, it could be a major step forward. Merkel then took out her pen and wrote on a sheet of paper: “We agree today that Georgia and Ukraine shall one day become members of NATO.” After studying the wording, B_sescu said: “Madame Chancellor, in our part of the world saying ‘one day’ means nothing and does not commit you to anything—it means never.” Kaczy_ski chimed in: “Absolutely.” Merkel agreed to delete “one day” <...> <...> British prime minister Gordon Brown leaned over to President Bush at the Council table and half-jokingly said, “I am not sure what we did here. I know we did not extend MAP. But I’m not sure we didn’t just make them members of NATO.” The question now was how Russia would react—and whether Putin would keep his promise to Bush not to create a problem at the summit. <...> Moscow’s very public goal had of course been to ensure that Georgia and Ukraine did not get MAP. Technically, of course, NATO had not given it to them. But these countries had received something that was arguably better and stronger—an explicit political promise from NATO heads of state that they would one day became members. That had never happened before. <...> The Russian president was even tougher on Kiev—describing Ukraine as an artificial creation and a state whose final formation was not complete. He noted that large parts of Ukraine were dominated by ethnic Russians and had been given to Ukraine by Moscow in an arbitrary fashion under Stalin, and asked, “Who can say that we do not have interests there?” The issue of NATO membership, he claimed, could threaten the very existence of Ukraine. “We should act very, very carefully. We do not have a right to veto [such a decision] and we probably don’t even want one, but I want all of us to realize, when deciding such issues, that we have our interests there as well.” At the press conference afterwards, Putin was also polite, but he was clear in reaffirming his opposition to NATO enlargement. Russia viewed “the appearance of a powerful military bloc” on its borders “as a direct threat” to its security, he said. “The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice,” he continued. “National security is not based on promises.” [0] [0] https://www.amazon.com/Little-War-That-Shook-World/dp/0230617735 https://www.amazon.com/Little-War-That-Shook-World/dp/023061...

aguaviva 2y ago

The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian intervention, and they did it anyway.[0] Except they didn't. The footnote you cite describes Burns's concern, but not what actually happened: NATO rejected Ukraine's membership appliction in 2008, and Ukraine itself formally disclaimed aspirations of joining NATO in 2010, stating that Ukraine would remain a "European, non-aligned state." And there the situation sat until 2014, when Russia invaded anyway, making any objections it might have had to Ukraine joining NATO instantly and forever moot. This idea that the West was aggressively dragging Ukraine into NATO is just a soundbite you heard somewhere, but has no connection to reality.