Are they, though? As I understand it, NATO allies don’t want Russia to have a veto on who joins. That’s different from pushing for Ukraine to join. (Plus, at this point, would the Allies really commit to treating an attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO? I think they’d prefer to maintain a lower level of cooperation.)
Or perhaps if Russia wanted to install some missiles on a Russia-friendly Caribbean island? One can imagine the United States being a little discomfitted if that happened. IIRC, there was something like that in the news a few years back.
Russia has no reason to sign such a pact if the US doesn’t look tough. We already look very weak since we let them just take Crimea with only a token gesture.
Russia made some gestures toward Ukraine. So now the US is making gestures to say “you’d better not.”
Yeah, the US didn’t like it that missiles were stations in Cuba. That doesn’t mean it was the wrong move for the USSR.
Ukraine wants in, and NATO is emphatically insisting that they can join if they want, and they don’t care what Russia says. So NATO isn’t recruiting, but it’s still an aggressive posture toward Russia.
My question is simply… why? Why poke the thumb in your eye of a nuclear power by inviting one of its former satellites/possessions to join your military treaty? It’s not like NATO needs to get bigger so it can survive. Are there no diplomatic solutions to be had?
Cuba wasn’t the wrong move for the USSR? How was it the right move? They lost credibility from having to back down after Kennedy called their bluff.
AFAIK Russia got nothing for its Cuba gambit except a non-public backdoor agreement to remove “old” Jupiter missiles from Turkey. Plus I guess a pledge to Castro that the US wouldn’t invade Cuba. (I scare-quoted “old” because it depends on who is telling the story… the US claims the Jupiters were obsolete, but they’d only been in service for 2 years when removed).
Maybe that’s the game here… both sides drive the dispute to a crisis point to see what concessions they can get. Maybe NATO gets a promise not to invade Ukraine, like Castro got a promise that the US wouldn’t invade Cuba. I can comprehend that strategy but I still find it needlessly reckless.
To stretch the analogy a little bit, the comparison would also mean that the US capitol is located somewhere near Dallas.
Moscow to Ukraine’s border is only about 300 miles.
The Baltic states are all NATO members and are roughly as close to Moscow as Ukraine. Actually Kaliningrad, a major Russian military city, is entirely surrounded by Poland and Lithuania. So there’s already precedent for this, although I’m sure Russia feels that’s exactly the reason they need to keep it from happening again in Ukraine.
The whole NATO aspect is a pretext. NATO is not eager to have one more member, although it does want to limit the expansionist views of Russia.
Rallying the people around a great patriotic struggle can make them forget their economic fragility and their lack of democracy. Putin has slowly rehabilitated the memory of the great USSR in recent years, even expunging the record of Stalin’s atrocities (witness the recent closing of Memorial). Expanding Russia itself to recover what was once part of the USSR is a natural outgrowth of that. Although the Russian military is not what it once was, the former satellite countries are weaker, so anything can be made to look like a great (re)conquest.
And it’s also important to cultivate (at home) the image that Russia is a major player in world affairs, can still get the attention of Western Europe and the U.S., etc. Witness Syria. While Trump was president of the U.S., Putin knew that he could just invade the Ukraine and Europe and the U.S. would do nothing beyond some sanctions. What would be the fun in that ? But now that Mr. Biden is in office, he knows he can weaken the U.S. even more, since the Republicans will blame the President either way, if he backs down or if he steps up. Strategically and politically, Putin has nothing to lose and much to gain.
Putin’s dreams of being a supremely powerful oligarch at the head of a recreated Soviet Union are threatened by Ukraine joining NATO.
Considering the Nazi intention to depopulate the majority of the Ukrainian (in their ideological view) Untermensch and reduce the remainder to illiterate slaves to serve the German colonists arriving in their Lebensraum, the Nazis would have been far worse than Stalin. Even in the short term while the Germans occupied the Ukraine from 1941-44, German seizure of food resulted in (intended) starvation of the Ukrainians in order to feed Germany. Generalplan Ost called for 65% of the Ukrainians to be deported east of the Urals to starve while the remaining 35% were to be Germanized.
A lot of Soviet POWs and civilians in occupied territories served the German military as Hiwis or Ostruppen, but this was mostly driven by the motivation to survive rather than any positive view of the Nazis. After Jews, Slavs were the second largest group of victims of Nazi genocidal racial policies, with 3.3-3.5 million Soviet POWs dying in captivity. The first people murdered by gassing at Auschwitz were a batch of Soviet prisoners.
I’ll note that Russia was invited to start cooperating as an ally of NATO as early as 1994, got some quasi-leadership positions in the organization starting around 1997, started flying missions with NATO in 2009, and started participating in training events in 2011.
I’ll also note that they invaded Ukraine seemingly over the issue of its considering joining the EU, not anything to do with NATO nor the US.
For the Russian people, themselves, I don’t know how much they care beyond feeling like they should support the actions of their country.
I don’t know the factual answer but, likely, it’s just Putin feeling like he’ll get a lot of praise and respect for engineering a restoration of the USSR - minus the Communism. The Russians, themselves, seemed fine with NATO right up to the point where it became an excuse to put an army on the border of Ukraine.
At a more subtle level I think it may be not so much about Putin wanting to actually invade Ukraine or have the ability to invade Ukraine, or actually being concerned about NATO aggression aided by weaponry placed in Ukraine.
He’s concerned about what Ukraine joining NATO would do to his image (with the home audience). As matters stand he can posture and threaten and have his home audience believe he is a Big Guy who might actually “take Ukraine back” for mother Russia some day.
If Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, that posturing won’t work. Putin knows that if that occurs any threats he made against Ukraine would immediately sound transparently and pathetically hollow.
I think the Cuba comparison is not valid.
Cuba was a Soviet ally. The Ukraine is not a Russian ally.
The Ukraine does not want to be in the “sphere of influence” of Russia. NATO is about democracy.
Have we discussed the Crimea in this thread? NATO didn’t do shit.
It’s 2022 and European Oligarchs are just invading countries and seizing territory.
The US invades/bombs a lot of countries, but we generally don’t annex them. Least for a 100 years or so,
Two distinct languages, Russian and Ukrainian, are spoken in Ukraine. They’re related, but not the same.
Russia is supporting the rebels in southeast Ukraine; a few years ago they took over Crimea, which is an interestingly debatable illegal seizure of territory. One train of thought says that perhaps the troop buildup is intending to take the south coast of Ukraine between the rebel area and the Crimea, reducing the distance to Crimea and their dependence on a single bridge.
What I’ve heard on the news is that NATO has no plans to add Ukraine in the near term; but Biden is making it clear to Putin this is not a “Munich Peace for our Time” moment. The destiny of the Ukraine is not something that the USA and Russia will bargain with over the heads of the people involved - it will be up to the Ukrainian people.
Kennedy was an arrogant assertive type with inferiority complex over his late older brother always stealing his girlfriends. He was prepared to blow up the world if that what it took to win. Khrushchev thoughtfully backed down rather than blow up the world, even though it meant his career was over. Who was the better man at the end of that episode?
The analogy is apt. Ukraine wants to be a friend of the west, as Cuba was a friend of USSR.
The other difference is size. There’s a lot more room for NATO troops and equipment in Ukraine than in the Blatic republics. Plus, the Baltic states might be considered too much “small potatoes” for defending if NATO were pushed, but a country the size of the Ukraine is a different story. But yes, Russia feels a stronger attachment to former SSR’s than to the eastern bloc countries, and is very touchy about losing them.
Afghanistan was annexed in all but form.
This is absolutely incorrect. When the Germans first invaded, Ukrainians thought that they might be liberated from Soviet tyranny, but very quickly realized that the Nazis were no better. There were a few Ukrainian citizens of German ancestry who joined the Nazis, but saying the Ukrainians were Nazis is simply untrue.
Come on… did the US annex Afghanistan to liberate all the Americans living in Afghanistan. Because Afghanistan is traditionally part of America? Afghanistan is part of our sphere of influence.
Yes, that is the Ukrainian view. Two different languages.
During the Soviet era, the position of the Soviet government was that Ukrainian was simply a Russian dialect. One language. That was part of their justiication for Ukraine being part of the USSR, not a separate country.
I don’t know if the current Russian government takes the same position, but wouldn’t be surprised.
According to Merriam-Webster, a meaning of “annex” in this context is to “take control of (a territory or place)”. You may want to use a narrower definition but I suspect to Afghans it would all feel about the same.