5 ms·

Was Russia happy about those countries joining NATO or did it protest? Were the relationships between the East and the West better so that this was of less conc

Was Russia happy about those countries joining NATO or did it protest? Were the relationships between the East and the West better so that this was of less concern? Was Russia weaker and had less power to resist? I do not see how Russia living with the existing NATO neighbors would imply that Ukraine becoming another one would be of no concern. How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier? Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia? I am not determined to believe anything, I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth. I can give you countless examples over several decades where Russia protest NATO expansion and threatened consequences. Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations? And before you say On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, make sure you actually read it.

kubb 2y ago
Russia wasn't happy, because it wanted to keep the option to militarily expand in all of these countries. I think we agree here. > I do not see how Russia living with the existing NATO neighbors would imply that Ukraine becoming another one would be of no concern. The current NATO neighbors didn't present any threat to territorial integrity of Russia. The only reason Russia doesn't like them joining is that it doesn't have an option to militarily expand there anymore, something that is important to Russian leadership and people. > How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier? If Ukraine joined, Russia wouldn't touch it like it didn't touch any of the NATO countries. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have a Russian minority, but Russia can't support separatist movements, and intervene militarily there as easily as in Ukraine or Georgia. > I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth. In geopolitics, there's no single "truth," only perspectives backed by evidence. Every Russian is taught in school that eastern Ukraine is "rightfully" theirs, and they get a compelling story to back up this belief. Ukraine being in NATO would make it impossible for Russia to act on this claim for decades, and the claim would have weakened with time. > Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia? Russia intervened in Georgia to support separatists, not to stop NATO accession. > Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations? https://irp.fas.org/news/2005/04/putin042505.html https://irp.fas.org/news/2005/04/putin042505.html "Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_units_which_invaded_the_territory_of_Ukraine_(2014%E2%80%932022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_units_which_in... "You don’t understand, George, Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us." https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/accepting-nato-aspirations-denazifying-20-years-putins-changing-views-ukraine https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/accepting-nato-aspira... They want the greater part "back". --- The benefit of the doubt that you give to Russia is fantastic!
- danbruc 2y ago
  Sorry, it is too late here to continue that discussion now. If I find the time maybe tomorrow. Or you could watch this talk [1], I essentially agree with the views of John Mearsheimer, so that talk might address your points. That one predates the invasion by seven years, but there are newer talks including post-invasion. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
  - mopsi 2y ago
    Mearsheimer is literally on Russian payroll and the linked video is full of lies. I'll give you one non-political example. At 8:45, he shows a map of Europe. Countries like Finland and Estonia are shown as importing 100% of their natural gas from Russia. Mearsheimer comments that this shows their heavy dependance on Russia. He omits the fact that the share of natural gas has been limited only to a small fraction of the overall energy mix, by government policy, precisely to avoid dependence on Russia. In Finland's case, that "100% Russian gas" was less than 10% of the total energy mix, and mostly in non-critical uses. This trick is known as inflated importance: using absolute percentages without relative context to exaggerate significance. He pulls similar well-known tricks throughout the video. Shows a map that divides Ukraine into two parts by their dominant language and calls Ukraine "a badly divided country", but fails to mention that Ukraine is bilingual and the difference is only something like "92% speak Ukrainian / 88% speak Russian" and "91% speak Russian / 87% speak Ukrainian" in areas that have drastically different colors. Just compare the map shown at 6:22 with the magenta/teal bars representing Ukrainian/Russian languages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Map12_b.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine#/media/Fi... This manipulation technique is known as false binning: grouping values into distinct color categories that overemphasize minor variations. The man is an incredible fraud, and the linked video is one of the most damaging pieces of propaganda produced this century.
    - danbruc 2y ago
      Do not get hung up on the details of the presentation and if some charts are misleading, address the core argument. Russia perceives NATO expansion as a security threat, that concern is not imaginary given the uncertainty of the future, and the West ignored those concerns which left Putin with essentially no other option than the use of force.

kubb 2y ago

Russia wasn't happy, because it wanted to keep the option to militarily expand in all of these countries. I think we agree here. > I do not see how Russia living with the existing NATO neighbors would imply that Ukraine becoming another one would be of no concern. The current NATO neighbors didn't present any threat to territorial integrity of Russia. The only reason Russia doesn't like them joining is that it doesn't have an option to militarily expand there anymore, something that is important to Russian leadership and people. > How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier? If Ukraine joined, Russia wouldn't touch it like it didn't touch any of the NATO countries. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have a Russian minority, but Russia can't support separatist movements, and intervene militarily there as easily as in Ukraine or Georgia. > I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth. In geopolitics, there's no single "truth," only perspectives backed by evidence. Every Russian is taught in school that eastern Ukraine is "rightfully" theirs, and they get a compelling story to back up this belief. Ukraine being in NATO would make it impossible for Russia to act on this claim for decades, and the claim would have weakened with time. > Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia? Russia intervened in Georgia to support separatists, not to stop NATO accession. > Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations? https://irp.fas.org/news/2005/04/putin042505.html https://irp.fas.org/news/2005/04/putin042505.html "Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_units_which_invaded_the_territory_of_Ukraine_(2014%E2%80%932022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_units_which_in... "You don’t understand, George, Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us." https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/accepting-nato-aspirations-denazifying-20-years-putins-changing-views-ukraine https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/accepting-nato-aspira... They want the greater part "back". --- The benefit of the doubt that you give to Russia is fantastic!

danbruc 2y ago
Sorry, it is too late here to continue that discussion now. If I find the time maybe tomorrow. Or you could watch this talk [1], I essentially agree with the views of John Mearsheimer, so that talk might address your points. That one predates the invasion by seven years, but there are newer talks including post-invasion. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
- mopsi 2y ago
  Mearsheimer is literally on Russian payroll and the linked video is full of lies. I'll give you one non-political example. At 8:45, he shows a map of Europe. Countries like Finland and Estonia are shown as importing 100% of their natural gas from Russia. Mearsheimer comments that this shows their heavy dependance on Russia. He omits the fact that the share of natural gas has been limited only to a small fraction of the overall energy mix, by government policy, precisely to avoid dependence on Russia. In Finland's case, that "100% Russian gas" was less than 10% of the total energy mix, and mostly in non-critical uses. This trick is known as inflated importance: using absolute percentages without relative context to exaggerate significance. He pulls similar well-known tricks throughout the video. Shows a map that divides Ukraine into two parts by their dominant language and calls Ukraine "a badly divided country", but fails to mention that Ukraine is bilingual and the difference is only something like "92% speak Ukrainian / 88% speak Russian" and "91% speak Russian / 87% speak Ukrainian" in areas that have drastically different colors. Just compare the map shown at 6:22 with the magenta/teal bars representing Ukrainian/Russian languages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Map12_b.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine#/media/Fi... This manipulation technique is known as false binning: grouping values into distinct color categories that overemphasize minor variations. The man is an incredible fraud, and the linked video is one of the most damaging pieces of propaganda produced this century.
  - danbruc 2y ago
    Do not get hung up on the details of the presentation and if some charts are misleading, address the core argument. Russia perceives NATO expansion as a security threat, that concern is not imaginary given the uncertainty of the future, and the West ignored those concerns which left Putin with essentially no other option than the use of force.