Since then Russia has invaded annexed part of Ukraine.
So no one observing this should be fooled to think that NATO is really relevant at all. The NATO talk from Russia now is chosen as an impossible demand because they know it’s impossible. It’s used to be able to point fingers and say “look, they are being unreasonable”. The audience is domestic.
Whether NATO should be disbanded or not isn’t exactly a point on the agenda, nor is it fair to say that Ukraine (not a NATO member) has any responsibility in it.
What should Ukraine do here? promise to never join NATO? At gunpoint? In what way does that respect the sovereignty of Ukraine? (The same way it’s borders are respected apparently).
As a Russian I say you are completely wrong. The current crisis is entirely manufactured by Putin and his authoritarian needs, which are contrary to the actual needs of the Russian people. The Baltic states joined NATO in 2004, and there isn't much difference in nuke flight time between a launch from Latvia or from Kharkiv, so the entire premise that Ukraine potentially joining NATO somehow threatens Russia is a ruse. What's really going on is that Putin's popularity is falling, and he needs a) distractions b) to fullfill the imperialistic need that has been propagandized out of every hole for the last 15+ years (I.e the need Putin himself created), and through that increase his popularity. For some time the conflict in the eastern Ukraine served that purpose, but people's eyes and ears got tired of that, so he has to up the stakes. Also an endless conflict with a great adversary is a good justification to further limit the scraps of freedom that remain, and justify the poor state of the economy, arrest people for being "foreign agents" etc etc -- something that the North Korean monarchy has perfected.
>NATO should've been disbanded.
If that happened the Baltic states would have already been occupied by Russia, to protect the Russian minority of course. Nobody forced east European countries to join NATO, it's in their interest, it preserves their sovereignty.
America is imperialist too, but it's much more benign imperialism, focused on furthering globalism, democratic rule, and capitalists' profits. Russian imperialism only brings submission and authoritarianism -- the main narrative is sacrificing oneself for the imperialist rodina like the деды.
I can share a worldview many Russians hold. Of course I'm influenced by a state propaganda to some extent, but at least I read both, Russian and Western media.
I guess there's quite some truth to that, especially with regards to the cultural differences.
I honestly cannot grasp where does this narrative come from. I live in Russia and read local media and I don't see the idea being pushed. Putin himself once considered USSR disbanding as catastrophic but nothng beyond that.
In general if you turn on Russian news, almost every sentence said reeks of imperialism, imperialistic assumptions one way or another. If you don't notice that, I can't help you. Sorry.
Being positive about USSR and Russian empire and pushing the idea of restoring it are pretty different things. There are no ideas such as rebuilding USSR (or Russian empire) pushed by local media.
> even positive coverage of the imperialism of the Russian empire (the Great Game)
What is wrong with empires by then? This was the way thing worked in 19th century. Are we supposed to condemn that? If yes, was, for instance, feudalism any better?
They present bad things(imperialism) as good things. Today.
>What is wrong with empires by then?
It's like asking what's wrong with slavery or serfdom in the 19th century.
>Are we supposed to condemn that?
Maybe not present it at prime time on TV, in a way that tells the audience that Russian/Soviet imperialism was a great thing, was sorely needed, and today's actions are a continuation of these great deeds, right before the "news" segment with its usual "these westerners are out to get our poor "Russki Mir"?
Could you share an example of "today's actions are a continuation of these great deeds"? I do see USSR and even empire times nostalgy, but it is just a nostalgy, nothing else.
> They present bad things(imperialism) as good things. Today.
I don't see that happening. Since you state that this is a part of the state propaganda these ideas must be pretty widespread, but I cannot confirm that.
> It's like asking what's wrong with slavery or serfdom in the 19th century.
AFAIK in 19th century British empire dominated the world. So what? I don't quite get your idea of labeling 19th century imperialism bad. They could do better? Probably. It is meaninless to discuss this from a 21th century man's perspective.
> in a way that tells the audience that Russian/Soviet imperialism was a great thing
I would disagree. Soviet "imperialism" was always backwards, everybody was tooking advantage of it, except russians themselves.
But this is not really present in many countries.
This is true and Russia demands include ALL such installations after "1997". It is the Western press that has been formulating this as "about Ukraine". The documents btw are publicly published, in English, and very straight forwrd.
Russia is demanding a strategic retreat to "1997". (See "already deployed" below)
"Article 7: The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty to their national territories. The Parties shall eliminate all existing infrastructure for deployment of nuclear weapons outside their national territories."
And we learned a while ago about being unprepared when the shooting starts. It's not fun.
https://theanalysis.news/is-nato-for-security-or-aggression-...
Remember, it was the United States that broke the promise to not expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union.
> Paul Jay
>Crazy! Larry, how much of this is driven essentially, really by what domestic politics, that you get this saber-rattle and look all huff and puff on both sides, not just the American and west side, but the same thing goes for Putin, satisfying the nationalist fervor in Russia. And two, and maybe this is the most important thing, continuing this rationale of enormous arms purchases, and NATO helps keep all these countries within at least the Western arms market and mostly the American arms market, but they can’t be serious about actually fighting? They know what a shitstorm that leads to.
> Larry Wilkerson
>I hope you’re right. The history of warfare, especially major warfare in the last 200 years or so, doesn’t support that logic. Let me go back to something Yves said. I think one of the greatest travesties of US foreign policy in the last 25-30 years, and that’s a lot of things, including the invasion of Iraq, was the violation of Jim Bakker and Eduard Shevardnadze, and ultimately Reagan and Herbert Walker Bush, and Gorbachev’s promise that NATO would not go one step further East if Germany were allowed to reunify and remain in NATO.
This promise is a myth [1]. At best, it was an informal statement by some guy in the U.S. government [2]. This has been blown out of proportion beyond any semblance to reality by Putin's propaganda.
And if it had happened, it would have been an agreement with the Soviet Union. Which does not exist. Russia, in 1994, formally agreed to "respect...Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders" and "refrain from the threat or the use of force against...Ukraine," among other things. It has flagrantly broken these agreements.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...
[2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41311-020-00224...
There is no shortage of sources on the ambiguity of this alleged promise [1][2]. More critically, there is a total absence of sources from Putin. Because he doesn't have any. Because when nations agree to things, they do so by issuing public declarations and/or signing treaties.
[1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
.. signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.
With "some guy in the government" being the US secretary of state.
Maybe. The person to whom Baker supposedly made these comments doesn't remember them. The treaty regarding the reunification of Germany, in the context of which these statements were supposedly made, is devoid of any reference to them, as is any other official or public record.