Ukraine war – Top strategic thinkers who warned for years that it was coming
nitter.net
nitter.net
Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO. There's just no merit to the claim that Nato was a proximate cause of the invasion. Notably it is however, a pretext that Russia used in the build up to the invasion, so what you have here is essentially people pushing a Russian propaganda line.
Finally, it's important to consider the counter-factual. If Nato hadn't expanded maybe the US would have more cordial relations with Russia, but it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia. Given a situation where Nato is far from Ukraine and the US is disinterested in the region it seems far more likely that Ukraine would be run over by Russia at the first opportunity. Maybe you can argue that the result of that would've been less likely to lead to Nuclear war, but it's hardly a great principled stance to decide to appease Russia, and at that point you have to ask yourself which countries in Europe are you willing to defend as sovereign nations? Or is the answer none?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zel...
The world will remember.
So what? That's what hindsight is. The title is accurate.
>Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO.
Perhaps Russia saw the right timing of geopolitical forces to do something (invade Ukraine to prevent NATO ascention) now despite it not being imminent. Winter, Nord Stream 2, war-weary Americans, etc.
>it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia
Isn't that the argument of some in the linked thread you criticize? John Mearsheimer says "Make Ukraine neutral, make it strong and independent".
The argument of these people isn't that Ukraine should have become a puppet state of Russia, but that there was a reality where NATO didn't expand and these eastern states would have grown anyway. In other words, to your point, they do seem to think Russia would have been less aggressive about the reunification of Ukraine if they didn't see it as "cheating" on it with the West.
---
Now, that was mostly devil's advocate. I am no expert on NATO or eastern Europe. Invading a peaceful country because you don't like who they talk to isn't ethical. Thousands are already dead, hundreds of billions of dollars in economic costs worldwide, and a new threat of armed conflict seemingly as a self-fulfilling prophecy by the Russian hardliner-in-chief.
I also don’t think you can make the argument that the better response was to make neutral. It’s not up to external people to make Ukraine neutral. It’s up to Ukraine to decide how they want to align themselves. I’m not surprised they decided against aligning with the country that keeps on invading them.
England spent centuries working on the balance of power and supporting small states vs. Large. It works.
If Russia is into “Ukraine used to be Russia” then they support “Kaliningrad used to be German”, right? Or is it more “Poland and Finland used to be Russian”? And it’s really bad form to break signed treaties for the hell of it.
I don't think the cause is so much pure historical reasons, but current defense worries.
There was another talk explaining the russian perspective in 2015 by John J. Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago [2]
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/ru...
That must be why russia is upset with the West. No it didn't. The west spent a generation robbing, stealing, attacking and bullying russia. Also, Russia doesn't need to integrate into europe. Russia IS europe. What the west did to russia in the 90s was objectively worse than what the nazis did to them in the 40s. I know it sounds hyperbolic and I didn't believe it either. But it's true. Go look at the population, economic, etc stats. It was such a disaster that the russian population still hasn't recovered to the early 90s level. And the expansion of NATO/EU which led to the wars in Georgia and Ukraine. The problem for russia is that they have no alternative. They can't really form a alliance with china. They are historical and geographical enemies. The same for turkey, iran, etc. And india is simply too far away to form an alliance not to mention the fact that india is still part of the british empire.
It was russia trying to be nice to the west. It was russia that let NATO/EU expand into their sphere of influence. This is a fact. All the west did was treat russia like crap and take advantage of them.
This is the same thing we have done to Turkey, Iran, India, China, etc. Treat them like shit and stab them in the back. But they do not seem to be able to form a coalition against the west so they'll keep getting shit on. Of course the west doesn't suffer. It places like ukraine, taiwan, myanmar, africa, middle east, etc that will suffer.
Exactly how did the West spent a generation with Putin in power robbing, stealing and attacking Russia? Describe exactly how.
As a European I'm shocked that Euro leaders have allowed this to get so out of hand.
No matter what your defence posture is, how many weapons you have, how many megatons is your nuke, all your weapons are useless if you don't use them, and more so, if you don't want to use them.
To the major demographic on HN, you have to change. There is no succinct, suave, hispter startup solution to a Russian paratrooper landing on your lawn. There is none.
You, and HN have to get ALL political, just like the society itself.
Next time somebody tries to shut your mouth for speaking about politics, I would've said the most un-gentle response to that man's face be the most befitting action.
"If you're not bothered about how the world is changing around you, it should not surprise you one day if it came with devastating effects"
You know, the standard of humanity shouldn’t be “Unlike Russia or China, at least America doesn’t oppress their own”.
Alas, geography has a power which cannot be negated by the UN, NATO or pacifism.
That's all very nice, and no one likes coddling rogue states, but is it better than the alternative, if that alternative is war? That's the dilemma. This kind of "give me liberty or give me death" kind of rhetoric is easy to espouse if you're not the one doing the dying.
That's fine, especially in a historical strategic argument context, but it's hardly balanced in terms of discussion of European security policy.
This is especially true given strong current evidence that Putin's stated concerns about NATO or the EU are a smokescreen. He has essentially said NATO is not a concern because of Russia's nuclear capability. And it's patently evident they are doing something to increase NATO involvement and strength, not weaken it.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QEsqKFabffwKXAPso/
Same content with different web-site design decisions:
[1] https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1496681530005110785
If anything these recent aggression towards Ukraine should drive other countries on its border to seek out the alliance, or else be invaded if your government doesn't cow-tow to Russia.
A great alternative I once heard was to let these former eastern block counties form their own alliance to counter Russia, but that may have just had the same outcome plus other unintended consequences.
From what I know of Armenia from my colleagues, that same drift is happening there.
He is not a sagacious "strategic thinker," but a real world Grima Wormtongue, and should be treated as such.
Have you seen his "brilliance" yourself? No, and these people didn't either.
Many people who credit him don't actually know a thing what his political theories are.
He was an extremely good networker though. He took credit for things he didn't do to raise his stature among US elites, which he then used to solicit other people giving him more credit. He liked to collect recommendations, and introductions.
His "Realpolitik" was mostly about how to strategically backstab allies for "geopolitial considerations" only he can see, or understand, but really they were just bullshit he made up to cover for failings of Nixon administration.
His political theories don't make sense on closer examination, but they were used to grow 3 generations of US state department officials, who were told of them as truth in its last instance.
In other words, this man is the reason why a lot of US state department officials have porridge for brains.
Now, some may still be critical of the first, but his role in Yom Kippur War was absolutely critical in brokering peace.
1. The South folded in the first place because he persuaded Nixon to lose the war
2. Egyptians expected Nixon to be weak on Israel (and they likely knew Kissinger would play a role in that,) and force them to give up Sinai. They succeded.