4 ms·

I was born behind the Iron Curtain, too. And I said that Ukraine has good reasons wanting to join NATO and so did and do other former Soviet Bloc countries, nob

I was born behind the Iron Curtain, too. And I said that Ukraine has good reasons wanting to join NATO and so did and do other former Soviet Bloc countries, nobody is denying that. But that is only one side of the conflict. No matter what Russia or the Soviet Union did in the past, it still remains true that having a powerful military alliance right at your border poses a potential security thread. And for long-term strategic planning it does not only matter what the situation is right now. Relationships change, the Cold War was not the same situation as the relatively good relations after the Cold War - were even the idea of Russia joining NATO floated around - and then the relationship heavily deteriorated again. So even if your characterization of NATO was correct today - and I would disagree, I think of NATO more as the USA plus some minions given the vast power differential - that is no guarantee for future behavior.

mopsi 2y ago
Mearsheimer and others, by omission, are denying the influence of past Russian behavior. Why are you focusing on purely hypothetical Russian security concerns instead of the very real security concerns of countries that have been attacked many times in the past, are under attack now - like Ukraine - , or fear they will be next? The narrative about NATO being a threat to Russia is also ridiculous in how detached it is from reality. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia, then why aren't Russians building air raid shelters as a mandatory part of every building, preparing their bridges for demolition, and carrying out other preparatory work like the Finns are doing? Why are the Finns digging anti-tank ditches and mapping border areas for minefields, while Russia's side is completely open and doesn't even have a chainlink fence? Where is the fear of NATO in real observable facts? The problem Russia has with NATO is not an imagined threat, but the fact that NATO stands in the way of Russia conquering Eastern Europe again. If Finland were not allied with anyone, Russia would face only Finnish regular forces with limited foreign aid when invading the country. The maximum opposing force would be relatively small and predictable. With NATO, Russia faces potentially everything, up to American carrier groups and nuclear missiles tucked between cornfields in Ohio. For Russia, demanding that European countries be kicked out of NATO means significantly lowering the cost of invading them, but does nothing to shelter them from the most powerful NATO countries, like the US, which constitute the overwhelming majority of NATO's military force. This too reveals where the true concern lies.
- danbruc 2y ago
  Why are you focusing on purely hypothetical Russian security concerns instead of the very real security concerns of countries that have been attacked many times in the past [...] I have repeatedly stated that both sides have good reasons for what they want, either joining NATO or not wanting NATO at the border. That is why there is even a conflict, because two parties want opposing things. Your claim is essentially NATO is the good guy, so Russia being worried is irrational and nobody needs to care. That sounds more like focusing on one site to me. The USA is worried about Chinese military bases in Solomon Islands half way around the globe, so why can Russia not be worried about the USA in Ukraine?
  - mopsi 2y ago
    Where is the Russian fear of NATO in real terms? Why is everyone in Europe building defensive lines on their side of the border with Russia, while Russia has only open fields on its side? Putin's dictatorship is indeed extremely irritated by Eastern Europe being in NATO for rational reasons, but those are different reasons than you are trying to present.
    - danbruc 2y ago
      I am not entirely sure what I should make out of this response. You are not attacking the position that Ukraine in NATO is a potential security threat to Russia, you are only saying that they are not acting accordingly. Does that imply that you are agreeing that having a competing military alliance at your border is a potential security threat? Besides that I can think of several reasons why Russia only has fields. Firstly, Ukraine is not yet in NATO, so any defensive measures would be premature. And they invaded Ukraine to maintain that state which seems a way stronger reaction then constructing defensive lines. Also building defensive lines implies worries about a ground invasion and it is not obvious to me that this would be Russia's primary concern. They might, for example, be mainly worried about the nuclear balance. If the USA could place ABM defense systems closer to Russia, they might be able to more efficiently intercept Russian ICBMs in the boost phase when the missiles are still relatively slow and vulnerable. That would diminish the Russian retaliatory strike threat in case of a US nuclear attack. Also having weapons closer to the target reduces the reaction time the enemy has. For that kind of risk ground defense lines it not the reaction one would expect. It might also be for simple reasons like a lack of resources. Or Russia might refrain from doing what it does not want NATO to do.

mopsi 2y ago

Mearsheimer and others, by omission, are denying the influence of past Russian behavior. Why are you focusing on purely hypothetical Russian security concerns instead of the very real security concerns of countries that have been attacked many times in the past, are under attack now - like Ukraine - , or fear they will be next? The narrative about NATO being a threat to Russia is also ridiculous in how detached it is from reality. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia, then why aren't Russians building air raid shelters as a mandatory part of every building, preparing their bridges for demolition, and carrying out other preparatory work like the Finns are doing? Why are the Finns digging anti-tank ditches and mapping border areas for minefields, while Russia's side is completely open and doesn't even have a chainlink fence? Where is the fear of NATO in real observable facts? The problem Russia has with NATO is not an imagined threat, but the fact that NATO stands in the way of Russia conquering Eastern Europe again. If Finland were not allied with anyone, Russia would face only Finnish regular forces with limited foreign aid when invading the country. The maximum opposing force would be relatively small and predictable. With NATO, Russia faces potentially everything, up to American carrier groups and nuclear missiles tucked between cornfields in Ohio. For Russia, demanding that European countries be kicked out of NATO means significantly lowering the cost of invading them, but does nothing to shelter them from the most powerful NATO countries, like the US, which constitute the overwhelming majority of NATO's military force. This too reveals where the true concern lies.

danbruc 2y ago
Why are you focusing on purely hypothetical Russian security concerns instead of the very real security concerns of countries that have been attacked many times in the past [...] I have repeatedly stated that both sides have good reasons for what they want, either joining NATO or not wanting NATO at the border. That is why there is even a conflict, because two parties want opposing things. Your claim is essentially NATO is the good guy, so Russia being worried is irrational and nobody needs to care. That sounds more like focusing on one site to me. The USA is worried about Chinese military bases in Solomon Islands half way around the globe, so why can Russia not be worried about the USA in Ukraine?
- mopsi 2y ago
  Where is the Russian fear of NATO in real terms? Why is everyone in Europe building defensive lines on their side of the border with Russia, while Russia has only open fields on its side? Putin's dictatorship is indeed extremely irritated by Eastern Europe being in NATO for rational reasons, but those are different reasons than you are trying to present.
  - danbruc 2y ago
    I am not entirely sure what I should make out of this response. You are not attacking the position that Ukraine in NATO is a potential security threat to Russia, you are only saying that they are not acting accordingly. Does that imply that you are agreeing that having a competing military alliance at your border is a potential security threat? Besides that I can think of several reasons why Russia only has fields. Firstly, Ukraine is not yet in NATO, so any defensive measures would be premature. And they invaded Ukraine to maintain that state which seems a way stronger reaction then constructing defensive lines. Also building defensive lines implies worries about a ground invasion and it is not obvious to me that this would be Russia's primary concern. They might, for example, be mainly worried about the nuclear balance. If the USA could place ABM defense systems closer to Russia, they might be able to more efficiently intercept Russian ICBMs in the boost phase when the missiles are still relatively slow and vulnerable. That would diminish the Russian retaliatory strike threat in case of a US nuclear attack. Also having weapons closer to the target reduces the reaction time the enemy has. For that kind of risk ground defense lines it not the reaction one would expect. It might also be for simple reasons like a lack of resources. Or Russia might refrain from doing what it does not want NATO to do.