NATO no longer bound by commitments to Russia, to beef up East Europe presence
lrt.lt
lrt.lt
Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me. America's no saint but if you're equating its shenanigans with Russia's you have no clue what you're talking about. I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand. NATO is not encroaching on Russia. It's the countries bordering Russia that are running the fuck away from its awful embrace. No country that joined NATO after 1989 did it because they were being coerced. They all _begged_ to be admitted and made a lot of sacrifices to get in. Dwell on that before you give credence to any Russia apologetics.
You and millions of others. So that gives you some sort of privilege to tell everyone about America and NATO? Also, Russia is not the USSR.
Russia is a direct inheritor of the legacy of USSR. Culturally as well as legally. But I digress.
My personal experience is but one data point for you and other westerners. Just be aware that sometimes a spade really is a spade and when I and millions like me tell you that Russia is a piece of shit neighbour then maybe just maybe we are on to something more so than American born, basement dwelling teenage edgelords who tell you otherwise?
This analogy is flawed for two reasons.
First, the USA is not trying to build advanced weapons systems on Russia's borders. Russia's neighbours are BEGGING the US to install advanced weapons systems on their borders to keep Russia at bay. That's issue number one.
Issue number two is that this analogy would only work if USA had a history of constantly threatening Canada with military invasion and had a history of abusing and committing genocide against its citizens. In which case would you really then be surprised if Canada sought overseas protection from its abusive next door neighbour?
Just look a bit into the history (go back a few centuries) of what Russia did to its neighbours. Take my native Poland for example. I don't think there was a single century where Russia did not try to meddle with its affairs or outright invade in our 1000 year shared history. The 19th and 20th centuries being particularly brutal as the relative strength of Russia became more disproportionate.
The US / NATO is a US weapons sales grift.
https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=1998123...
I've yet to read through those (or others elsewhere), but at the time, there was much being made of the peaceful transition of the former Soviet bloc to democratic and independent rule, including the former states of the Soviet Union, some of which remained within Russia, others, including Ukraine, which did not. There was a delicate balance of diplomacy, military concerns, economics, and internal politics in seeking a successful path forward. Committments to ease Russian concerns were all but certainly made under those considerations.
The general principle of spheres of influence or concern are old and long-standing. The US Monroe Doctrine held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas was a potentially hostile act against the United States. It was first articulated in 1823 and goverened US policy through the early 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine
See also the Carter Doctrine, which put a specific emphasis on oil:
The notion of a sphere of influence dates to ancient times, though most typically refers to the 19th century and following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence
Put simply: a state's interests and concerns extend past its borders. That does not give unlimited licence to act beyond borders, though this has of course occurred frequently throughout history by any number of parties: Russian and its precursor state the Soviet Union, the United States, the UK and its precursor England, Germany, Japan, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, Pakistan, and more. Whether acting unilaterally and without reasonable provocation or expressing interests and concerns, any major state will have such concerns, and will likely have some history of action.
That said, a defensive alliance to which states seek membership on a voluntary basis without coercion from the alliance itself, and in paritcular under a credible hostile external threat, as seems to be the present case with Russia, would be hard to argue against under even the broadest of Sphere of Influence / external concerns constructions.
Russia can dictate whatever they want- free countries need to tell them to jump in a lake.
Which says a lot about YOU as a neighbour...
It wasn't a Russian dictate, it was an agreement. Russia didn't want a strong NATO presence in eastern Europe. NATO of course has to be able to defend its members. But the best defense is if they don't get attacked at all, so if Russia promises not to threaten or attack, then NATO an promise not to commit a large defense there.
But it's been pretty clear that this has been woefully outdated for some time now. Russia does attack its neighbours, takes land from them, and threatens NATO members.
The commitments made sense when Yeltsin was president of Russia. Yeltsin had honestly no interest in conquering, threatening or coercing Russian neighbours. It's a good idea to formalise that so NATO can reduce its military presence. But Putin is very different, and has been very threatening and aggressive. In violation of the treaty, and clearly making NATO presence necessary.
This is political reality and what Merkel really meant with Realpolitik. It was very well known that NATO involvement in these countries is seen as aggression and that makes the reaction of Putin almost predictable. Most did not believe he would do the last step and he certainly surprised with that. But Ukraine has to have a relation to Russia too. If they want to associate with former enemies of the Russia, the result might also be a war.
Without context this question is almost comical because western nation more often than any other group of countries to intervene in other countries. Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, ... It is simply a question of political will, power and interests. Ukraine suffers from that aggression. It was no secret that it is seen as nothing else. Does it ever justify an invasion? Of course not but that also is of no relevance.
> Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me.
I probably did just that in your opinion, but "whataboutism" is of no relevance. Geopolitics isn't about morals or justifications for foreign interventions.
NATO (Stoltenberg, Geoană etc.) will act strictly the way America wants them to act. For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on...
I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated?
Russia will invade more countries? Russia will start a war with NATO?
Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known.
The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE
The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo
You were saying?
If Ukraine is split into Eastern (New Russia) and Western Ukraine, they will have avoided the worst possible outcome, but at significant cost.
If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland) that would have been the best outcome for Russia. No troops deployed, no losses, no big threat of NATO on your doorstep.
This game is merely about avoidance of the worst outcome at this point for the Russians
How about Finland? Putin stated that he has no problem with Finland joining NATO, wouldn't missiles within seconds of St Petersburg be a reason to invade?
It's also a strange idea that a fully mobilized Soviet Union in 1945 could push the German army back to Berlin, but would be incapable of taking over Finland. Finland was there for the taking for the Soviet Union in 1945, but the USSR did not see any threat outside Karelia so did not pursue this. This would not have been much disputed at all back then.
But after barbarossa, Finland then seized the opportunity to regain it's earlier losses and attacked the USSR, this time with german help.
That didn't turn out well for the Finnish, and their situation was extremely dire by the end of WW2. Which is why they sued for peace in secret. The USSR could have taken the entirety of Finland at that point, and in fact the finnish government basically evacuated the capital. Why didn't stalin go for it? I guess we can't really know but from the wiki article:
"Stalin's desire to crush Hitler quickly and decisively without distraction from the Finnish sideshow" concluded the war.
Not only that, but for decades after the war, the Finnish communists (puppets to the kremlin) became extremely powerful politically. Finland was forced to hold trials against its own army, and for a time was completely subservient to the soviets. So if they really wanted to take over the entirety of Finland in 1940, I don't see why they wouldn't have done it in 1945.
' would receive self-governing status once they hold elections ' https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-agrees-to-election-in-occupi...
According to RFE/RL (US state media), Ukraine agreed to hold elections "once all armed formations leave the area." That's not something that happened between 2019 and the beginning of the war.
I'm still for referenda in all disputed oblasts, including Crimea, but Russia has to end their occupation first.
It was the Eastern Ukrainians that declared independence and broke away from Ukraine, after the coup that deposed a democratically elected albeit corrupt government.
Ukraine to Moscow is ~ 475 KM and lacks significant choke points.
Finland to Moscow is ~780 KM and involves a number of impediments, including a major city in St Petersburg
This isn't as relevant as it seems. Russia considers Murmansk critical because it hosts some of their largest military installations, including a very large portion of their nuclear deterrent. Russia has made clear that it would respond if heavy hardware were moved into Finland, although Putin claimed that they don't care as long as nothing changes physically.[1]
1. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/vladimir-putin-warns-ag...
No, this isn't right. On the day that Finland announced they would apply, Putin said that it's not a problem as long as heavy NATO hardware wasn't moved into Finland or Sweden. If it were, he claimed, then they would respond. He was claiming that he doesn't care what people do on paper as long as the physical situation doesn't change. [1]
1. https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/vladimir-putin-warns-ag...
Zelensky already conceded to not going in NATO in March[1]... Russia partially withdrew after that (combined with the increasing cost of continuing to try to take Kiev), but I believe the current continuation is about taking the south, as I explained here [2], so it seems disingenuous to continue to claim some kind of self-defense case at this point.
1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/zelensky-ukr...
If they were far closer there could definitely be war.
No it doesn't. The US can position Ohio-class submarines in the Baltic, or in the Black Sea, or in the Arctic Ocean. Their Trident missiles, even now 30 years after they were introduced, are still unparalleled. But they can’t strike every missile that Russia has, and in any case, not in just seconds, or even minutes. Russia is a big country; it has lots of road-mobile ICBMs. Those are simply impossible to eliminate in a first strike. Russia has for now, and for the foreseeable future, a guaranteed second strike.
As for the "missile defense", there was never enough confidence in any missile defense system. At this point in time, all missile defense systems can be trivially defeated by a saturation attack.
The issue isn't Ukraine becoming "NATO controlled" (all NATO members actually control themselves; NATO is a voluntary alliance), it's about keeping it Ukraine-controlled. Putin wants it to be controlled by Moscow instead, and that's why he invaded.
Besides, there are already NATO members close to Moscow. And you know why they joined NATO? Because Russia is also close to them. Putin-supporters keep arguing that Russia needs security guarantees, but completely ignore the security guarantees of Russia's neighbours. And Russia is clearly a far larger threat to its neighbours than those neighbours are to Russia. Few countries have as much buffer built in as Russia does. What right does Russia have to demand entire countries as additional buffer? Where is Ukraine's buffer?
> If Ukraine had announced permanent neutrality and buffer state status (like Switzerland)
Switzerland is not a buffer state. They're neutral because they choose to be. Chose, because Russian aggression is making even the Swiss consider choosing sides.
> that would have been the best outcome for Russia.
Because then Russia would be able to coerce and invade with impunity. Ukraine doesn't need neutrality, it needs security guarantees. Guarantees that Putin is clearly unwilling to give, and NATO is able to provide.
Putin's aggression is Russia's biggest enemy.
Ukraine is actually controlled by the US State Department, and has been since the Maidan Coup overthrew a democratically elected leader.
It was Washington & Brussels that issued an Ultimatum to Yanokovych in https://youtu.be/ROTwyP5no08?t=381 that preceded the protests and led to the coup.
It was US State Department leaders that selected, rather than elected, Ukraine's leaders post-coup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV9J6sxCs5k
The US's own STRATFOR, Private CIA, even calls this a coup https://archive.ph/NAXCc
It was the Oligarch Kolomoisky that bankrolled Zelensky's campaign, providing him protection, a bodyguard, vehicles, and other resources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgli7TpINw
However, it is also known that Burisma hired Hunter Biden, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Report%20document...
and, Burisma is controlled by the Oligarch Kolomoisky https://nypost.com/2021/03/06/businessmen-accused-of-ukraine...
It was the US State Department that also sanctioned the Oligarch Kolomoisky for public corruption in 2021 https://www.state.gov/public-designation-of-oligarch-and-for...
It's find to support turning a border conflict into WWIII, but pretending like sending $40 billion of arms to Ukraine isn't an escalation is beyond the pale. Russia's yearly military budget is only $70 billion.
Are you also aware that today the US refused to give Ukraine long-range missiles that would be able to strike within Russia? And do you also know that the US has consistently refused to give Ukraine targeting information on Russia?
I think you're either being naive or acting like one.
First you need to define what border are you talking about? Ukraine and Russia Border? Ukraine, Belarus, Russia border? Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Russia border? EU and Russia border?
You can pick any of them and it'll be a right answer.
Second, this aggression of Russia destroyed many treaties, violated international laws, and acted on a basis of deceive - remember Russia was just doing military exercises closer to the Ukraine border and any claim of invasion was just a provocation from the west.
So let's not pretend that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the country that was supposed to secure Ukraine safety after they gave their nukes away, isn't an international conflict.
This is what we know so far, apparently international laws mean nothing to Russia, they act differently from their words, and they're willing to be aggressive - how can Russia be trusted at this point in time?
To contain this war, it's vital that Russia fails. But it's also vital that it doesn't turn into a large-scale NATO vs Russia war, because that increases the chance that it will turn nuclear. It's a tightrope, but supplying Ukraine with everything it needs to contain the Russian invasion is probably the best way to do it. If that doesn't work, expect direct NATO involvement.
...until Russia stops invading Ukraine, or successfully conquers it.
Do you think going back and bringing the polish army at the border in August 1939 should also be classified as "escalation"? Or, better, the Dutch army at the border of The Netherlands in April 1940?
1938 has athing to say, too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
Whether this is good or bad from your perspective depends on many, many factors. But that is the truth.
Edit: That being said, Sweden and Finland were already quite integrated as NATO partners. It's unclear to me, a layman, how much is really changing vs. just being formally declared.
Honestly I suspect that's just a momentary bout of mass irrationality (to put it politely). Both countries are completely safe, de-facto NATO members. Russia has no stated or implied interest in invading either. More importantly, Russia has no capacity to do so - they can barely push 50 km into Ukraine as it is.
America, otoh, has a lot to gain in extra weapons sales (remember NATO comes with a 2% of GDP spending target).
Maybe, but not too likely. OTOH, if you have numbers I'd like to see them. We make our own very high-tech weapons, which have already been NATO standard forever. We even sell some to the US (and Ukraine) and train them. We have been de facto NATO partners for a while.
I guess I should have known I was poking the dragon with this one, sorry for that.
Just to clarify things a bit, here's my general position:
1. I have complete sympathy and respect for the Ukrainian cause. They are fighting heroically to defend their country against imperialist aggression. I think my country (Romania) should continue to help refugees as much as possible and should offer military support, with the caveat that this support should be sized appropriately.
2. While in the relation Ukraine-Russia it's clear who's the aggressor and who the victim, there's a second dimension to this war, namely the US-Russia conflict.
For decades the US has extended NATO towards Russian borders and into what Russia considers its sphere of influence. Does Russia have a right to have a sphere of influence? No, no country does. Nevertheless, this is how the world works. America knows this full well (see the fuss it makes over developments in Equatorial Guinea [1] and the Solomon Islands [2]). They have decided to expand NATO not because of some great love for Eastern Europe, but because they're playing great power politics.
This cynical game has now reached the hot war phase. If it wanted to, America could force the sides to start peace negotiations - it's vastly more economically and militarily powerful than Russia; and by now I think even Putin understands how badly he miscalculated this invasion. Alas, that's not what America wants - its stated goal is that of weakening Russia [3], not of reaching peace. The subtext here is that they're willing to let Ukrainians die, as long as more Russians die as well.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-aims-to-thwart-chinas-plan-...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-o...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakede...