5 ms·

Although I agree that Trump's desire to end the war without any Russian concessions is foolhardy, Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons on

Although I agree that Trump's desire to end the war without any Russian concessions is foolhardy, Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons on its borders. Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse. None other than George Kennan, the Russian-speaking architect of Cold War containment, wrote an op-ed about it then... https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h... https://archive.ph/7qYtE https://archive.ph/7qYtE

dralley 2y ago
>Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons for Ukraine. Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded Ukraine. >Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse. There was no such promise. There was a quick comment in a meeting, which was quickly retracted seconds later in that same meeting, not turned into any official agreement, and by the way that was before the USSR had collapsed and not after. So the non-promise was made to an entity which also no longer existed. Also, like, what exactly do you think would have happened to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. if they were not in NATO.
- ioblomov 2y ago
  Fair enough: promise is too strong a word. But hints to that effect were given during diplomacy to ensure German reunification... https://archive.ph/hyDhA https://archive.ph/hyDhA My point is that Russia taking Crimea and invading Ukraine are a consequence of NATO expansion to Russia's borders. The Baltic republics joined in 2004, while Ukraine and Georgia's "aspirant" status was declared in 2002 and 2004... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring_members https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring... And recall that Putin took Crimea in 2014 right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity To say Russia's aggression was entirely unprovoked represents an ignorance of recent history.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    You make a good point. The EU/NATO expansion was deliberately intended to hem Russia in, and Russia's actions are at least partly in response to that. However, there's a big difference between expanding your sphere of influence through "soft power" whereby those countries voluntarily join you, and expanding it through military invasion, as Russia is doing. The two are not at all comparable.
    - ioblomov 2y ago
      Appreciate the props, I was starting to question my rhetorical chops. ;) Regarding the distinction between soft and hard power, however, I think both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would disagree: "Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to fight." https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html The almost unescapable conclusion is that the Neocons' soft power forced Putin's hand, perhaps by design.
      - dralley 2y ago
        This is all total sophistry. Realists try to wrap Putin's decisionmaking in layers of geopolitical reasoning, when the dude literally compares himself to Peter the Great and uses 17th century maps to claim that Ukraine is an illegitimate nation. This is bog-standard nationalist stuff. Tucker Carlson literally sat down with Putin and did everything he could to tee up this nonsense about NATO that Westerners want to hear and believe was the real reason, and instead Putin dropped 45 minutes worth of nationalist pseudohistory on him that had nothing to do with NATO. Nobody in Russia pretends the war is about NATO. It's just not really part of their narrative at all. In summary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9/live_tucker_reaction_2_hours_of_revisionist/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9...
        2y ago
wavemode 2y ago
What relevance does Ukraine joining NATO, a defensive alliance, have to Russia? (Unless they are planning to attack again, which would mean the "peace deal" isn't actually worth the paper it's signed on, and is just a way for Russia to regroup for their next invasion.)
- ioblomov 2y ago
  Whether you call it "defensive" or not, NATO—and the arms race it and the Warsaw Pact fostered—directly led to the Soviet Union's collapse. Recall that JFK almost started WW3 when the Soviets sent nukes to Cuba. NATO on Russia's borders isn't all that different to them.
TinkersW 2y ago
Russia already had, and even created more NATO membership on its borders(Finland just recently). That excuse is clearly false.
terribleperson 2y ago
The only reason for them to not accept NATO membership of a neighbor is if they're planning to invade that neighbor. Russia's desire to not have NATO neighbors rather makes the point of why there can be no peace between Ukraine and Russia - Ukraine understands that without real guarantees of security, any 'peace' with Russia is a farce that only lets them prepare for the next invasion, except this one will start closer to home and be better planned.

dralley 2y ago

>Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons for Ukraine. Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded Ukraine. >Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse. There was no such promise. There was a quick comment in a meeting, which was quickly retracted seconds later in that same meeting, not turned into any official agreement, and by the way that was before the USSR had collapsed and not after. So the non-promise was made to an entity which also no longer existed. Also, like, what exactly do you think would have happened to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. if they were not in NATO.

ioblomov 2y ago
Fair enough: promise is too strong a word. But hints to that effect were given during diplomacy to ensure German reunification... https://archive.ph/hyDhA https://archive.ph/hyDhA My point is that Russia taking Crimea and invading Ukraine are a consequence of NATO expansion to Russia's borders. The Baltic republics joined in 2004, while Ukraine and Georgia's "aspirant" status was declared in 2002 and 2004... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring_members https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring... And recall that Putin took Crimea in 2014 right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity To say Russia's aggression was entirely unprovoked represents an ignorance of recent history.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  You make a good point. The EU/NATO expansion was deliberately intended to hem Russia in, and Russia's actions are at least partly in response to that. However, there's a big difference between expanding your sphere of influence through "soft power" whereby those countries voluntarily join you, and expanding it through military invasion, as Russia is doing. The two are not at all comparable.
  - ioblomov 2y ago
    Appreciate the props, I was starting to question my rhetorical chops. ;) Regarding the distinction between soft and hard power, however, I think both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would disagree: "Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to fight." https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html The almost unescapable conclusion is that the Neocons' soft power forced Putin's hand, perhaps by design.
    - dralley 2y ago
      This is all total sophistry. Realists try to wrap Putin's decisionmaking in layers of geopolitical reasoning, when the dude literally compares himself to Peter the Great and uses 17th century maps to claim that Ukraine is an illegitimate nation. This is bog-standard nationalist stuff. Tucker Carlson literally sat down with Putin and did everything he could to tee up this nonsense about NATO that Westerners want to hear and believe was the real reason, and instead Putin dropped 45 minutes worth of nationalist pseudohistory on him that had nothing to do with NATO. Nobody in Russia pretends the war is about NATO. It's just not really part of their narrative at all. In summary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9/live_tucker_reaction_2_hours_of_revisionist/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9...
      - 2y ago

wavemode 2y ago

What relevance does Ukraine joining NATO, a defensive alliance, have to Russia? (Unless they are planning to attack again, which would mean the "peace deal" isn't actually worth the paper it's signed on, and is just a way for Russia to regroup for their next invasion.)

ioblomov 2y ago
Whether you call it "defensive" or not, NATO—and the arms race it and the Warsaw Pact fostered—directly led to the Soviet Union's collapse. Recall that JFK almost started WW3 when the Soviets sent nukes to Cuba. NATO on Russia's borders isn't all that different to them.

TinkersW 2y ago

Russia already had, and even created more NATO membership on its borders(Finland just recently). That excuse is clearly false.

terribleperson 2y ago

The only reason for them to not accept NATO membership of a neighbor is if they're planning to invade that neighbor. Russia's desire to not have NATO neighbors rather makes the point of why there can be no peace between Ukraine and Russia - Ukraine understands that without real guarantees of security, any 'peace' with Russia is a farce that only lets them prepare for the next invasion, except this one will start closer to home and be better planned.