So it was just like an invasion except without the invasion.
To someone who is pro-Russia, Russia has “grievances” and is just “taking right and legitimate action” about those “grievances.”
Yeah, but you have to start out pretty hardcore pro-Russia for that point of view to make any sense. If you care about any other country, the position looks pretty damn ridiculous.
I’m not pro Russia. I don’t think invasions of their neighbors are justified. But it’s totally simplistic and inaccurate to deny the existence of provocative actions even if you think the reactions to those provocations were out of line, unjustified, or wrong.
As an analogy, it’s pretty obvious that US intervention in the middle east is the provocative factor in a lot of terrorism. To acknowledge this doesn’t mean they’re you’re pro-terrorist, or that terrorism is an appropriate response. But to deny that those provocations exist is to fail to understand what’s actually going on.
To blow me off as “blah blah pro-Russia blah blah” is to simplify things to the extent of people who say “The terrorists hate us for our freedoms”, as if sitting over here and drinking starbucks and watching TV is what makes them cross the world and kill themselves to harm us after we’ve done nothing at all to them.
I suspect that almost no one in the US comprehends the great sacrifice and amazing feat that Russia underwent to win WW2. Due to cold war politics and jingoistic nationalism, our history glosses over the fact that nearly the entirety of WW2 was the war between the USSR and Germany, and that it was, by a huge amount, the greatest conflict in human history. Almost no nation in history was tested to the degree that they were, and almost all of them would’ve utterly collapsed as it had been. But they were grievously harmed in a way that no one in the US can possibly relate to. But this great harm essentially defines the Russian existance. It permeates their every action as a nation.
Due to the same cold war propoganda, we’ve always played up the red menace as aggressive and expanionist. Wanting to conquer the world, to build an empire, to subjugate everyone else. But their post-war policy was steered entirely by people who had experienced the conflict first hand, who knew untold suffering, and made the entire goal of the governance of that country to prevent the threat of another western invasion. The Russians wanted war no more than we did - probably significantly less, in fact - and yet our idea of them is of this bloodthirsty bully. It’s all a result of propoganda and a superficial understanding of history. They were taught the same of us - that the US and the west were these aggressive, expansionist powers that wanted to conquer the world and destroy the Soviet Union.
The late Soviet and early Russian periods were basically a time when detente and glasnost had opened up each society enough that we came to acknowledge that both sides had blown up their aggressive stance towards each other, and that if Russia were to demilitarize, we wouldn’t exploit the situation. That aided reform in Russia to a less interventionist, more peaceful period. Obviously I’m not saying that their economic collapse was the primary driver of the change - it was - but it could’ve been a lot uglier if those who remained in power were convinced that this moment of weakness would lead to western aggression.
As I mentioned in previous posts, that wasn’t a unanimous idea. There were factional battles between reformers and old Soviet hardliners who wanted to maintain their aggressive military and foreign policy. But the apparent new period of understanding and the lack of western aggression allowed the reformers to win out for a time.
But then western policy turned aggressive again. The US actually increased its military budget after the cold war, which is just insanity. The west tried to influence former Soviet satellite states to favor western ties over Soviet ones, even to the extremely provactive step of forming full military alliances with former warsaw pact nations to put western military assets closer and closer to Russia’s borders.
This intervention did not create a hardline core of militaristic, interventionist Soviet politicians out of thin air. Those had still existed as a faction that was out of power after the cold war. But it empowered them by providing the provocations necessary to sell the country on the idea that the West was still threatening and encroaching upon Russia.
This is not a justification for Russian actions. Their foreign policy in Ukraine is wrong. But to dismiss the context around it is simplistic. If you say “blah blah Russian apologist” in regards to my post, you are simply doing the exact same thing neocons do when they dismiss criticism of US foreign policy in the middle east and elswhere by saying “oh no, it has nothing to do with western intervention in their homelands, they just hate our freedom”
To add to that, NATO is not a “hey, we kinda like you, let’s be friends” pact. It is a pact that says we will treat any aggression towards you as aggression on all of us. In the world of nuclear weapons, it is of the most grave seriousness. I’m willing to make such a pact with our closely tied allies. An attack on Germany, or Holland, or the UK is almost certainly an attack on the west in general.
There are also countries in NATO that are effectively only there because their location is advantageous to NATO in a war. Turkey would be the prime example here. Turkey is not linked to the US or the west in the same way that the UK, France, or Germany are. But they occupy some strategically vital territory, and they make a very threatening launch platform for medium range ballistic missiles. But NATO involvement in Turkey is roughly analogous to Soviet involvement in Cuba. It is only relevant to the defense of those nations in the sense that it presents a credible nuclear threat due to its positioning.
The former Warsaw pact nations aren’t vital to the economies to the original NATO members. They’re not recognized as culturally tied to them. They don’t have long standing cooperation and alliances. An attack on them could not be generally reasonably construed as being an attack on all of the West in all cases.
Which makes them more like Turkey than Denmark/Italy/etc. They are essentially an aggressive outpost of NATO. So why are we, in a period of post-Soviet peace, creating aggressive NATO outposts closer and closer to Russia? How does this benefit the west?
My conclusion is that there are politicians in the US whose lives were defined by the cold war, and the final victory in it tempts them to do a victory lap. And the massive influence military contractors exert, and the benefit they’d receive, from a newly-remilitarized and aggressive Russia are potentially great.
I’d say so, yea.
SenorBeef, I wasn’t thinking of you as a hardline supporter of Russia, but I wonder at your description of countries joining NATO as being “aggressive”. It’s inherently a defensive pact, and does not really provide for offensive action. Its members don’t really need to be culturally cohesive, they just need to be currently at a state of peace, interested in joining, and willing to uphold their side of the treaty. You said yourself that it’s a military alliance, not a social club.
At any rate, we agree that Russia’s current behavior isn’t justified by other countries joining NATO. I think their justified courses of retaliation ends at peaceful negotiation. The countries joining NATO are joining it primarily because of Russia’s behavior, . They’ve been acting aggressive toward their neighbors since at least 2008, and have been getting worse since then. What besides talk is justified by Russia’s neighbors joining NATO?
Would you classify Russia’s actions in regards to Cuba in the 60s to be aggressive? Certainly it would be painted as a defensive alliance. The warheads they were storing there were nominally defensive, to be used in the event that the US invaded Cuba. So was the US insane to treat that as an act of Soviet aggression and to respond militarily to it?
NATO’s reason for existance was to oppose what would become the Warsaw pact. The warsaw pact dissolved and there was very little to no hostility coming out of any of the former members for a decade after the cold war ended. And yet NATO - whose primary role of opposing the warsaw pact - was expanded. Why? What was the benefit to NATO to allow countries that didn’t have anything to contribute militarily except their proximity to Russia to be allowed into NATO? How did that benefit the alliance or the original members of the alliance?
Russia isn’t justified in invading its neighbors. But after a period of peace, the alliance that exists to destroy Russia if need be is getting closer and closer to their borders. Depending on what you believe, they might also have a hand in covert influence on the government of governments that have ties to Russia to be more pro-western. That would justifiably trigger re-armament and potentially a new cold war. The former warsaw pact members joining NATO happened in 1999 and 2004, so it predates your 2008 link.
Again, just flip the scenario around. The US loses the cold war, disarms peacefully, and gives up its aggressive interventionist foreign policy. Russia assures them that they won’t take advantage of this to push their gains and will instead respect the peace. Less than a decade later, Russia is possibly fermenting civil unrest in Canada towards their pro-US government, and Mexico and some Central American states have joined the Warsaw Pact. Is there any doubt that the US would feel compelled to re-arm and start sabre rattling at that point?
The expansion of NATO closer to closer to Russia long before any recent Russian aggressive foreign policy is obviously provocative.
You don’t consider yourself pro Russia? What positions do you think a pro Russian person would be taking on these issues?
I don’t consider Russia’s actions in Cuba to be aggressive. Cuba was (and is) an independent nation and is free to set its own foreign policy. If it wanted to ally itself with the Soviet Union, it had the right to do so.
NATO did not and does not exist to destroy Russia. If it did, quite frankly, Russia would now be destroyed.
NATO’s purpose is to keep Russia from attacking the member nations of NATO. For that reason, countries that feel they might be attacked by Russia want to join NATO.
If no country felt threatened by Russia then NATO would cease to exist.
I do think that their placing the missiles in Cuba was the deployment of an aggressive weapon, and it doesn’t have much to do with countries currently joining NATO. We can still examine that situation and learn what would be acceptable (even desirable) for countries to do in situations where they think they’re threatened.
Kennedy had learned the hard way that he wasn’t going to invade Cuba any time soon, even though several advisors thought attacking the missile sites was the best way to remove them. Instead, he blockaded the island and negotiated in good faith - well, as in as good faith as international relations permit.
The missiles being placed in Cuba were a direct response to the missiles in Turkey. After the crisis, the missiles in Turkey were removed. At the height of the cold war, both countries had nukes stashed all over. I’m not aware of any U.S. nuclear weapons currently in foreign countries, so this really doesn’t apply to the current situation.
The only time where nations joining NATO, or any other defensive alliance, are provoking their neighbors is when their neighbors want to invade them.
NATO’s purpose was to face down the Soviet Union - you may remember that, Ukraine was integral.
NATO now is a political tool and useful big stick.
Technically, NATO was not directed against any particular country. Its mission was to defend its member nations from an attack from any non-member nation.
It’s just that realistically everybody’s always known that the Soviet Union and Russia were the most likely threats to countries in NATO. But if, for argument’s sake, Sweden were to attack Norway, then NATO would counterattack Sweden. And the only country that ever did attack a NATO member under the terms of the treaty was Afghanistan.
What positions is it that you think I’m taking? In response to the OP, I’m saying that trying to start proxy wars as an attempt to re-ignite the cold war is bad, and I’m saying that Russia is justifiably feeling that the West has engaged in provocative behavior in terms of foreign policy towards Russia’s neighbors, given Russia’s internal factions and their historical mindset.
I’m not pro-Russia. Why would I be? I’m not one of those 14 year old internet communist trolls who denounces capitalism and talks about utopia. I have no loyalty to Russia nor do I think they’re a particularly good country. In the last century, they’ve been repressive and killed tens of millions of their own people among other crimes. Their current state is a pretty shitty place to live and their government is starting to get scary again.
But trying to understand the reasoning behind their actions, and accepting that indeed external forces may have influenced them is not condoning any action they could take.
I feel like I’m on some sort of Fox News message boards, basically where everyone is saying YOU’RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US. And if anyone tries to tries to understand the reasoning behind, say, Islamic terrorism towards the west, and we examine their reasons for feeling as they do, and acknowledging that certain US foreign folicy in the middle east could be considered provocative, then I must be pro-terrorist, and obviously the US has never done anything wrong or controversial or provocative. The terrorists just hate our freedom. They hate that American flag pin I wear to work. They hate my American flag banana hammock. They hate that I can get a double cheeseburger for only $1.29.
Seriously, if I was talking about how US policy influenced Islamic terrorism, would you be asking me “why are you pro-terrorist? Oh I’m not even going to respond to your post, I’m just going to say blah blah pro-terrorist blah blah”.
I didn’t ask why this countries wanted to be let into NATO. I asked why NATO accepted their membership. NATO is not a fancy golf resort with a member’s club. It is an organization that ultimately must be willing to give their all to the defense of any of its member nations, including ultimately potentially sacrificing their entire civilization and the lives of hundred of millions of people if it comes to that. It’s potentially a far bigger powderkeg of an entangling alliance than the mess that lead to WW1, with orders of magnitude more potential for damage. NATO membership is not to be taken lightly.
So why are we integrating Eastern Europe into it? They don’t have the cultural, economic, or historical ties. They don’t bring anything to the table militarily excepting their proximity to Russia. And if we’re recruiting them simply because they allow us to deploy NATO military forces closer to Russia, that’s a provocative act. They run a higher risk of being part of some sort of spark that could potentially ignite the NATO powderkeg, than the Netherlands or Italy would. What’s in it for NATO to accept them?
I would like to clarify, because I might have been unclear before. The participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis all had legitimate reasons to have existential worries, and Khrushchev was willing to gamble on the missiles because it would bring the USSR closer to parity in first strike capabilities if they were successful in placing them covertly. Even if they were caught, they would have a bargaining chip for (he hoped) West Berlin, and to try to remove the missiles from Turkey. Defending Cuba was only a purpose for the missiles in Castro’s mind.
Khrushchev got caught, brought his country closer to being attacked by nukes than it ever was before or since, and only got a set of outdated missiles removed from Turkey in return for his trouble.
Russia is currently facing no threat from NATO provided it does not attack its constituent countries, for it to claim otherwise beggars belief. Putin’s aggression doesn’t appear to have improved his country’s strategic position at all, quite the opposite. Other than playing to his domestic audience, I can’t think of a believable reason for his actions in Ukraine. If he actually was concerned about NATO, he’d be wooing the countries who would want to join, not threatening them.
As above, because it has become predominently a political tool and, through that, a stick to beat Putin with.
Technically, you may be the only person in the history of the planet who can’t just say the primary purpose of NATO was to present a united front against the Soviet Union.
…
If you think this is some thing like a Fox News message board, you’re wildly off the mark.
People here will listen to what you say and consider it. But they’re not just going to swallow any nonsense that’s throw before them. If what you’re claiming is contradicted by the evidence, people here are going to call you on it.