6 ms·

While I find the Russian invasion of Ukraine appalling, as a counterpoint to all the "Trump is destroying the US' reputation" mono-point that I've read so far (

While I find the Russian invasion of Ukraine appalling, as a counterpoint to all the "Trump is destroying the US' reputation" mono-point that I've read so far (although I agree with that, too): John Maersheimer [1] gave a great explanation and prediction (~10 years prior) of why the whole thing happened. The US saw Russian weakness, decided to expand NATO to Ukraine, and the Russians said "no way will we let NATO be on our border, we'll destroy Ukraine first". We ignored them because they were weak, and they did what they said they would do. So I'm a little torn, because the situation is unwinnable without a major commitment, which nobody wants to do, and is not even in our interests, since we have a peer-competitor conflict shaping up with China. But our hubris caused the whole situation. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

genter 2y ago
Ukraine is an independent country, it was their choice to join NATO.
tim333 2y ago
Just one problem with that amongst many: Russia has bordered NATO for years. Estonia and Latvia both do and if you count Kaliningrad as Russia then Poland and Lithuania do too. In common with much stuff Russia comes up with it's just lies to justify their bad behaviour.
relistan 2y ago
No. Countries with their own free choice asked to be part of NATO. The US did not push this on them. NATO expansion happened exactly because none of those countries trusted their neighbor Russia, who had previously invaded them and kept them under its thumb for 50 years. Russia is both to blame for the expansion of NATO and Russia's subsequent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  >No. Countries with their own free choice asked to be part of NATO. The US did not push this on them. I've seen this stated frequently on HN. Here's a quote from President Clinton in February 1999[1]:That is why I have pushed hard for NATO's enlargement and why we must keep NATO's doors open to new democratic members... NATO would add 12 nations in the decade after those remarks, with the first 3 formally joining 2 weeks later. Also look at Clinton's remarks from October 1999[2]:NATO must also take in new members, including those from among its former adversaries. It must reach out to all the new democracies in Central Europe, the Baltics and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. At the first NATO summit I attended in January of 1994, I proposed that NATO should enlarge steadily, deliberately, openly. >Russia is both to blame for the expansion of NATO and Russia's subsequent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. I used to have a link to a really good interview with a former US ambassador or special advisor to Sakashvilli. In it, he basically says that Sakashvilli is a risk-taker and gambler much like Putin, and in 2008 he gambled and lost. He basically laid the blame for what happened at the Georgian President's feet. Which is also the conclusion of the EU-backed investigation.[3] [1] https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-05.html https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-... [2] https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s961022a.htm https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s961022a.htm [3] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-with-russia-eu-backed-report-idUSTRE58T4MO/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi...
  - relistan 2y ago
    I think you are confusing support for expansion—which was necessary for it to happen—with somehow forcing the hand of other nations to join. Yes the above all shows that America thought it was in its strategic interest, that Clinton supported it. That does not eliminate the fact that much of Eastern Europe wanted to join for exactly the reasons I mentioned. And nobody made them do it. Furthermore, if you read the articles you cited, you’ll find that you are starting mid conflict. By the point when Georgia engaged with Russia in 2008, Russia had already stirred up separatist groups, armed them, supported their violent takeover, and sent Russian advisors to support them in occupying Georgian territory. You can’t start at the middle.
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      >Yes the above all shows that America thought it was in its strategic interest, that Clinton supported it. That does not eliminate the fact that much of Eastern Europe wanted to join for exactly the reasons I mentioned. And nobody made them do it. To prove that we'd probably need a FOIA request or a large CIA/USAID/NED document leak. Saying "nobody forced them" while the US operated probably the most effective coercive soft power institutions the world has ever seen, by subsidizing NGOs and "pro-democracy movements", strikes me as incredibly naive. I recommend reading some articles at the New Eastern Outlook by Brian Berletic (or watching his YT channel "The New Atlas"), he has some well-sourced deep dives on US soft power. > By the point when Georgia engaged with Russia in 2008, Russia had already stirred up separatist groups, armed them, supported their violent takeover, and sent Russian advisors to support them in occupying Georgian territory. You can’t start at the middle. 1. The Reuters article reads" Saakashvili had said Georgia was responding to an invasion by Russian forces when it attacked breakaway South Ossetia, but the report found no evidence of this. It said Russia's counter-strike was initially legal.." This sounds contrary to your point that Russia stirring up separatists to occupy Georgian territory was considered an acceptable casus belli. 2. Do you have references for WHEN the Russians initiated support for anti-Georgian separatism? If it was after the major NATO expansions of 1999 and 2004 it's kinda a moot point. I focused on the information around the timeframe of the 2008 invasion specifically because it was what you directly called out in your post. Re-reading it, I suppose you were thinking of all Russian grey-zone warfare in Eastern Europe but that context isn't clear. 3. Is your position that subsidizing armed rebel factions is not moral / not justified? Is it wrong for the US to support the MEK organization which actively works towards violent overthrow in Iran? At one point the Pentagon and CIA were funding two different separatist groups in Syria that were also fighting each other. This is what is missed by my most Americans and Europeans: to the rest of the world, complaining about Russia looks like blatant hypocrisy when the US has spent the post-Cold War period doing the exact same shit. Which would be fine, realpolitik and all that....if we didn't constantly posture as if we hold the moral high ground.
mopsi 2y ago
Mearsheimer is on the Russian payroll through the Valdai Club, which was set up to influence Western thinkers. He omits facts or twists them to fit his narrative. So it's no wonder that Russians have paid to have his books published. If you are listening to anything he says, you are ingesting Russian propaganda. It's like trying to learn about Germany from revisionist Neo-Nazi literature paid by a "friends of the SS" type of organization. Not a good idea unless you are an expert who can spot the distortions. Mearsheimer's manipulations become very obvious when he faces a knowledgeable person who is not easily fooled by him. Such as Radoslaw Sikorski, the foreign minister of Poland. Sikorski and Mearsheimer held a public debate over Ukraine, and Mearsheimer was utterly humiliated when he tried to argue against Sikorski about events he has only read about, but where Sikorski was a direct participant. The debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivcSVG5eCeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivcSVG5eCeQ
rat87 2y ago
Maersheimer has basically destroyed his reputation with his nonsense on hubris on Ukraine. Not only is he wrong be he refuses to admit he's wrong even when his contortions make him sound like an idiot. Example claiming Putin is not an imperialist Actual history shows NATO bent over backwards to appease Russia (hint how many non local troops did nato have near russian borders before 2022? Almost none)and that Ukraine was not about to join NATO in 2022 or 2014 and that everyone including Putin knew this. Hell after the revolution of dignity but before the Russian invasion of Ukraine/local coups(Crimea in the south and parts of eastern Ukraine) Ukraine wasn't even seeking to join NATO, it was seeking to join the EU (which was also at best a difficult goal tha5 would take a long time).

genter 2y ago

Ukraine is an independent country, it was their choice to join NATO.

tim333 2y ago

Just one problem with that amongst many: Russia has bordered NATO for years. Estonia and Latvia both do and if you count Kaliningrad as Russia then Poland and Lithuania do too. In common with much stuff Russia comes up with it's just lies to justify their bad behaviour.

relistan 2y ago

No. Countries with their own free choice asked to be part of NATO. The US did not push this on them. NATO expansion happened exactly because none of those countries trusted their neighbor Russia, who had previously invaded them and kept them under its thumb for 50 years. Russia is both to blame for the expansion of NATO and Russia's subsequent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine.

CapricornNoble 2y ago
>No. Countries with their own free choice asked to be part of NATO. The US did not push this on them. I've seen this stated frequently on HN. Here's a quote from President Clinton in February 1999[1]:That is why I have pushed hard for NATO's enlargement and why we must keep NATO's doors open to new democratic members... NATO would add 12 nations in the decade after those remarks, with the first 3 formally joining 2 weeks later. Also look at Clinton's remarks from October 1999[2]:NATO must also take in new members, including those from among its former adversaries. It must reach out to all the new democracies in Central Europe, the Baltics and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. At the first NATO summit I attended in January of 1994, I proposed that NATO should enlarge steadily, deliberately, openly. >Russia is both to blame for the expansion of NATO and Russia's subsequent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. I used to have a link to a really good interview with a former US ambassador or special advisor to Sakashvilli. In it, he basically says that Sakashvilli is a risk-taker and gambler much like Putin, and in 2008 he gambled and lost. He basically laid the blame for what happened at the Georgian President's feet. Which is also the conclusion of the EU-backed investigation.[3] [1] https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-05.html https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/EOP/NSC/html/nsc-... [2] https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s961022a.htm https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1996/s961022a.htm [3] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-with-russia-eu-backed-report-idUSTRE58T4MO/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi...
- relistan 2y ago
  I think you are confusing support for expansion—which was necessary for it to happen—with somehow forcing the hand of other nations to join. Yes the above all shows that America thought it was in its strategic interest, that Clinton supported it. That does not eliminate the fact that much of Eastern Europe wanted to join for exactly the reasons I mentioned. And nobody made them do it. Furthermore, if you read the articles you cited, you’ll find that you are starting mid conflict. By the point when Georgia engaged with Russia in 2008, Russia had already stirred up separatist groups, armed them, supported their violent takeover, and sent Russian advisors to support them in occupying Georgian territory. You can’t start at the middle.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    >Yes the above all shows that America thought it was in its strategic interest, that Clinton supported it. That does not eliminate the fact that much of Eastern Europe wanted to join for exactly the reasons I mentioned. And nobody made them do it. To prove that we'd probably need a FOIA request or a large CIA/USAID/NED document leak. Saying "nobody forced them" while the US operated probably the most effective coercive soft power institutions the world has ever seen, by subsidizing NGOs and "pro-democracy movements", strikes me as incredibly naive. I recommend reading some articles at the New Eastern Outlook by Brian Berletic (or watching his YT channel "The New Atlas"), he has some well-sourced deep dives on US soft power. > By the point when Georgia engaged with Russia in 2008, Russia had already stirred up separatist groups, armed them, supported their violent takeover, and sent Russian advisors to support them in occupying Georgian territory. You can’t start at the middle. 1. The Reuters article reads" Saakashvili had said Georgia was responding to an invasion by Russian forces when it attacked breakaway South Ossetia, but the report found no evidence of this. It said Russia's counter-strike was initially legal.." This sounds contrary to your point that Russia stirring up separatists to occupy Georgian territory was considered an acceptable casus belli. 2. Do you have references for WHEN the Russians initiated support for anti-Georgian separatism? If it was after the major NATO expansions of 1999 and 2004 it's kinda a moot point. I focused on the information around the timeframe of the 2008 invasion specifically because it was what you directly called out in your post. Re-reading it, I suppose you were thinking of all Russian grey-zone warfare in Eastern Europe but that context isn't clear. 3. Is your position that subsidizing armed rebel factions is not moral / not justified? Is it wrong for the US to support the MEK organization which actively works towards violent overthrow in Iran? At one point the Pentagon and CIA were funding two different separatist groups in Syria that were also fighting each other. This is what is missed by my most Americans and Europeans: to the rest of the world, complaining about Russia looks like blatant hypocrisy when the US has spent the post-Cold War period doing the exact same shit. Which would be fine, realpolitik and all that....if we didn't constantly posture as if we hold the moral high ground.

mopsi 2y ago

Mearsheimer is on the Russian payroll through the Valdai Club, which was set up to influence Western thinkers. He omits facts or twists them to fit his narrative. So it's no wonder that Russians have paid to have his books published. If you are listening to anything he says, you are ingesting Russian propaganda. It's like trying to learn about Germany from revisionist Neo-Nazi literature paid by a "friends of the SS" type of organization. Not a good idea unless you are an expert who can spot the distortions. Mearsheimer's manipulations become very obvious when he faces a knowledgeable person who is not easily fooled by him. Such as Radoslaw Sikorski, the foreign minister of Poland. Sikorski and Mearsheimer held a public debate over Ukraine, and Mearsheimer was utterly humiliated when he tried to argue against Sikorski about events he has only read about, but where Sikorski was a direct participant. The debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivcSVG5eCeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivcSVG5eCeQ

rat87 2y ago

Maersheimer has basically destroyed his reputation with his nonsense on hubris on Ukraine. Not only is he wrong be he refuses to admit he's wrong even when his contortions make him sound like an idiot. Example claiming Putin is not an imperialist Actual history shows NATO bent over backwards to appease Russia (hint how many non local troops did nato have near russian borders before 2022? Almost none)and that Ukraine was not about to join NATO in 2022 or 2014 and that everyone including Putin knew this. Hell after the revolution of dignity but before the Russian invasion of Ukraine/local coups(Crimea in the south and parts of eastern Ukraine) Ukraine wasn't even seeking to join NATO, it was seeking to join the EU (which was also at best a difficult goal tha5 would take a long time).