4 ms·

It’s worked out in as much as no NATO country in the east has been yet as tacked - despite all of them being smaller prey than Ukraine. (I find it difficult to

by w0de0 1y ago

It’s worked out in as much as no NATO country in the east has been yet as tacked - despite all of them being smaller prey than Ukraine. (I find it difficult to believe that Russia wouldn’t have embarked on an expansionist project if NATO had just kept out of its traditional sphere of influence after the fall of the USSR. Russia would still have rebounded from the vicious 90s with a desire for near-abroad dominance - and would have found many more avenues of advance.)

drysine 1y ago
"I find it difficult to believe that Russia wouldn’t have embarked on an expansionist project" Why?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Because he’s almost perfectly modelled by every other expansionist dictator. A war machine benefits him domestically, and revanchism decorates his conservative credentials. Also: Turkey. Chechnya. Putin responds to force by backing off. He responds to perceived weakness by doubling down. Same as every other expansionist dictator in history.
  - drysine 1y ago
    "he’s almost perfectly modelled by every other expansionist dictator" Only if you are willing to ignore the facts that don't fit into your model. Namely specific triggers for Putin's actions like 2008's NATO declaration of imminent NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and American involvement in 2014 coup. [0] Or many years of Putin's warnings accompanying NATO expansion. "A war machine benefits him domestically" No, it doesn't. Otherwise there would'be been no need for all the restrictions on the access to information, freedom of speech and assembly in Russia. "Also: Turkey. Chechnya. Putin responds to force by backing off. " Chechnya? You are confusing Putin with "democratic" Eltsin, West's drunken darling. Putin started and won the second Chechen war. As for Turkey, there was no fundamental reason to start a war with Turkey. It wasn't expanding its military infrastructure towards Russian borders and supporting anti-Russian coups in Russia's neighbours. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
    - mopsi 1y ago
      > Only if you are willing to ignore the facts that don't fit into your model. Namely specific triggers for Putin's actions like 2008's NATO declaration of imminent NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and American involvement in 2014 coup. [0] Or many years of Putin's warnings accompanying NATO expansion. You are the one ignoring facts. Here's Putin's former senior advisor explaining why this narrative is garbage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFCNwGjko54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFCNwGjko54 Elsewhere, he has also said that he personally attended closed meetings for senior staff as early as 2003 where Putin laid out his plans for Ukraine. I trust that the language of the video is not a barrier for you.
      - drysine 1y ago
        That's Andrei Illarionov, he says a lot of things. I opened the video anyway with the intention of watching it, but after seeing the title "Putin's fake about "NATO non-expansion to the East" closed the tab. Here is why: "30 years ago today: Kissinger on Russia & NATO expansion Dec. 5, 1994 PBS Newshour, w/ Jack Matlock" [0] "Matlock: There is one of the factor here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward. And, you know, I think that the current Russian government is very clear Host (interrupts): So we would be..., but that assurance was given to the Soviet Union. Matlock: That is right. It is not a legally binding, but it was, you might say, a geopolitical deal. And if we simply ignore it, then I, certainly if I were a Russian, it would be hard for me to interpret this, even though it may not be intended that way, and it is not, as anything less than an attempt to shut Russia off from Eastern Europe. Host: And that was a line that Yeltsin used today, that it would isolate Russia and sow the seeds of discord." Note that Kissinger doesn't dispute that fact even though he gives different objections. Matlock used to be an ambassador to Russia in the late days of the USSR but he is not a Russian sympathizer: "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them." What an arrogant stance. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8&t=706s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8&t=706s
- w0de0 1y ago
  Because I think Russia’s project has far more to do with their internal politics than with geopolitics. The Chechen wars foreshadowed Ukraine, and were enitrely, as with Ukraine, a response to the fall of the Soviet empire. (Perhaps a Marshall Plan-esque foreign policy could have forestalled their revanchism. Perhaps - chauvinism is hard to break. But abandoning the eastern former subject states would not alone have been enough.)

by w0de0 1y ago

drysine 1y ago

"I find it difficult to believe that Russia wouldn’t have embarked on an expansionist project" Why?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Because he’s almost perfectly modelled by every other expansionist dictator. A war machine benefits him domestically, and revanchism decorates his conservative credentials. Also: Turkey. Chechnya. Putin responds to force by backing off. He responds to perceived weakness by doubling down. Same as every other expansionist dictator in history.
- drysine 1y ago
  "he’s almost perfectly modelled by every other expansionist dictator" Only if you are willing to ignore the facts that don't fit into your model. Namely specific triggers for Putin's actions like 2008's NATO declaration of imminent NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and American involvement in 2014 coup. [0] Or many years of Putin's warnings accompanying NATO expansion. "A war machine benefits him domestically" No, it doesn't. Otherwise there would'be been no need for all the restrictions on the access to information, freedom of speech and assembly in Russia. "Also: Turkey. Chechnya. Putin responds to force by backing off. " Chechnya? You are confusing Putin with "democratic" Eltsin, West's drunken darling. Putin started and won the second Chechen war. As for Turkey, there was no fundamental reason to start a war with Turkey. It wasn't expanding its military infrastructure towards Russian borders and supporting anti-Russian coups in Russia's neighbours. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
  - mopsi 1y ago
    > Only if you are willing to ignore the facts that don't fit into your model. Namely specific triggers for Putin's actions like 2008's NATO declaration of imminent NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and American involvement in 2014 coup. [0] Or many years of Putin's warnings accompanying NATO expansion. You are the one ignoring facts. Here's Putin's former senior advisor explaining why this narrative is garbage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFCNwGjko54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFCNwGjko54 Elsewhere, he has also said that he personally attended closed meetings for senior staff as early as 2003 where Putin laid out his plans for Ukraine. I trust that the language of the video is not a barrier for you.
    - drysine 1y ago
      That's Andrei Illarionov, he says a lot of things. I opened the video anyway with the intention of watching it, but after seeing the title "Putin's fake about "NATO non-expansion to the East" closed the tab. Here is why: "30 years ago today: Kissinger on Russia & NATO expansion Dec. 5, 1994 PBS Newshour, w/ Jack Matlock" [0] "Matlock: There is one of the factor here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward. And, you know, I think that the current Russian government is very clear Host (interrupts): So we would be..., but that assurance was given to the Soviet Union. Matlock: That is right. It is not a legally binding, but it was, you might say, a geopolitical deal. And if we simply ignore it, then I, certainly if I were a Russian, it would be hard for me to interpret this, even though it may not be intended that way, and it is not, as anything less than an attempt to shut Russia off from Eastern Europe. Host: And that was a line that Yeltsin used today, that it would isolate Russia and sow the seeds of discord." Note that Kissinger doesn't dispute that fact even though he gives different objections. Matlock used to be an ambassador to Russia in the late days of the USSR but he is not a Russian sympathizer: "It's not that you refrain from doing something because it will offend Russia. If Russia is doing something that we don't want it to do, we should offend them." What an arrogant stance. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8&t=706s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHm_7T7QNl8&t=706s
w0de0 1y ago
Because I think Russia’s project has far more to do with their internal politics than with geopolitics. The Chechen wars foreshadowed Ukraine, and were enitrely, as with Ukraine, a response to the fall of the Soviet empire. (Perhaps a Marshall Plan-esque foreign policy could have forestalled their revanchism. Perhaps - chauvinism is hard to break. But abandoning the eastern former subject states would not alone have been enough.)