Chernyshevsky -> Lenin -> Solzhenitsyn -> Dugin
This is the trajectory of the Russian intellectuals striving for the "better world".
This is the trajectory of the Russian intellectuals striving for the "better world".
There is an interesting quote by him (regarding the so-called "NATO's expansion"): "This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc."[0]
Paradoxically, it wasn't NATO who did this 20 years later but his beloved Putin.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn#On_the_...
Holodomor sounds like a great justification for guarding against populism or even pure democracy.
The Americans knew that NATO expansion into Ukraine could provoke Russian intervention, and they did it anyway.[0] What security benefits were to be gained that were worth risking this horrific outcome?
The whole thing reminds me of the British security guarantee for Poland in '39. If it was intended to gin up an excuse to fight, it was masterful. If it was a good-faith attempt at securing the peace, it was asinine and catastrophically counterproductive.
These are not the behaviours of a 'neighbourhood watch.'
Not black and white but worse and better. And Russia is so much worse (Its main offerings seem to be destruction and thievery) that nearly all of its neighbours tried to join NATO.
This doesn't even mean I "want Russia to win" or whatever, but I definitely would like NATO to put on its adult pants.
You've been lied to. Instead of propagating the lie, please consider informing yourself. Begin by understanding the fact that any such promises were made to a state that no longer exists by people who were unauthorized to make them. Moving on, consider that nobody spends billions of dollars or Euros preparing to defend themselves against countries who are not a genuine threat to peace and stability, particularly those whose leaders have stated their revanchist goals publicly and unequivocally.
Then, go back to the people who lied to you, ask them why they did so, and ask them not to do it again. Chances are, someone lied to them, too.
No, its not. The Russo-Ukrainian war started when Ukraine had a neutrality commitment and no one was pushing for changes from the NATO side, either.
Now, immediately after Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and invaded and begin direct (with “deniable” forces) and local proxy wars in other parts of Eastern Ukraine, Ukraine dropped that commitment and resumed attempts to join NATO, but the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is about Russia trying to take over Ukraine despite their being no active efforts toward NATO membership, not about NATO offering membership to Ukraine.
This is what Putin says now. The actual reasons are clearly spelled out in the article published by TASS after Putin started the invasion:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
As you can see, they have nothing to do with NATO expansion - Putin just wanted Ukrainians to be part of Russian empire just like Belorussians are.
NATO could, it chooses not to.
> Even now after 2 years, NATO cannot establish air defenses over Ukraine.
“Cannot” implies it has tried and failed, rather than simply repeatedly deciding not to try.
> So what is the point of the expansion? To make the whole NATO weaker?
Expansion doesn’t make NATO weaker. (Except insofar as NATO’s consensus decision making make decision-making dependent on the least-reliable member, which is actually a problem recently, and potentially about to become a much bigger one with the new US administration.)
So they're lying, because they have repeatedly said to Ukraine that they're committed to protect them against foreign aggression.
> Expansion doesn’t make NATO weaker.
Of course it can, if you include a geographic area you cannot defend, that's by definition adding a weakness.
No, they haven’t.
They have repeatedly said they will provide material assistance to Ukraine in the current emergency with Russia, but they have pointedly not committed the alliance to protect Ukraine, and have in fact stalled every Ukrainian request for such a commitment since 2008. They have indicated that at some future time they expect to be willing to make such a commitment, but that’s…very different than making it now.
(There have been several NATO members discussing making a similar commitment outside the confines of the alliance, and more directly intervening in the conflict, but that is both still just talk, and distinct from the commitments of the alliance itself.)
What history tells us, though, is that the best time to stop Putin was 2014, and the second best time is now.
I think fear of NATO is pretty reasonable, but it's likely it's rather seen by Russia and others as moving the limit of the possible in international law and war.
NATO was created as an anti-Soviet bulwark. The Soviet Union is gone, yet NATO has continued to expand in a manner which seems designed to weaken the strategic position of Russia. Add to that America's history of color revolutions and military aggression, and it would be difficult not to interpret this as anything other than a threat.
Imagine China entered into a "defensive" military alliance with Mexico. Imagine you spoke to a Chinese friend about it, and they demanded that you justify "what makes Chinese proximity so bad for America?", as though the Chinese have just as much reason to place their military assets along our southern border as we do! Would you consider such a question to be in good faith?
> Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and military combat?
Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. It's hardly unreasonable for them to be concerned.
Yeah. I'd be worried if I was a US citizen. Because China has a recent history of pushing airspace boundaries and behaving in an expansionist manner. But the comparison there is more accurately with Russia rather than NATO. Russia is continually making minor incursions into NATO and European airspace and waters, for example, whereas the reverse is very rare. I'm no fan of US foreign policy, but it pales in comparison to Russia's.
> Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe.
Believing that the political reality of Europe in the 1940s is anywhere close to today is bizarre.
So while the "Soviet Union" is gone, Russia remains, weakened by it's loss of territories, still as irredentist and imperialist as ever. Hence why ex-Soviet and Soviet client-states begged to join.
Wow, that sounds pretty bad. But I seem to remember that when Ukraine unilaterally declared its independence from the Soviet Union, Russia let them go without a fight. That's hardly what you'd expect from an evil empire, is it? Imagine how poorly you'd think of them if instead they had chosen to wage an unconstitutional war, suspended habeus corpus, shut down newspapers and imprisoned dissenters! Imagine the low regard you'd hold them in if they had invaded the "rebel" territories, killing the very people they insisted were their countrymen, burning their homes and property until they surrendered, then unconstitutionally altering the terms of their membership in the empire.
The USSR's collapse was rather peaceful not by their own choice. The USSR was in such a deep shit by the final days that officers were forcing conscripts into street prostitution to earn money for food. Secret services and armed forces became completely demoralized. Officers and soldiers sat in their bases, ignored orders in total apathy, and were busy drinking or selling off anything they could, even copper wiring from the walls of their barracks was sold for scrap. You could buy a truckload of binoculars directly from the gates of a military base for less than $100. Radars, missiles, fighter jets too - anything for the almighty dollar. Survival until the next day was the only concern; little else mattered.
The US civil war comparison alluded to is superficial nonsense. They're only similar if you ignore all the details that matter like states voluntarily joining with full knowledge they were giving up sovereignty, actual federal political representation and that the Confederacy started the war by attacking Union soldiers first. Nor was there anything unconstitutional about waging a war, putting down a rebellion or even suspending habeas corpus - those are explicitly enumerated powers - powers that several of the seceding states helped draft.
The idea that Sumter justified the Yankees' war of aggression is one of the greatest canards in human history. The Yanks were occupying foreign soil at Sumter (an act of war). They lied about their plans to leave. They attempted to resupply the occupiers but were foiled by an attack... which resulted in zero Union dead. Ergo the Yanks had to wage total war? Lmao.
Read Spooner.
You mean like what Russia is now doing to Ukraine?
Russia declared independence from the Soviet Union before Ukraine did.
Correction. WWII costed Soviet Union between 20 and 30 million lives [0]. Main thrust of the German onslaught in 1941 went through Ukraine. The same happened in WWI when in 1914 Germany and Austria invaded Russia through Ukraine.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the...
NATO is not a living organism that expands. It is composed of free countries who can join it if the rest agrees (the rest didn't agree on Georgia or Ukraine). Whenever a country like Finland or Sweden feels threatened by Russia, they can join NATO and immediately gain protection from Russia. That's why Putin hates NATO as it limits his option for potential invasion. So far, he could only invade Georgia and Ukraine - only because they are not in NATO.
Basically the expansion of NATO and the EU screwed up the Kremlin's plans to weaken Russia's Western neighbours and bring them into its sphere of influence. Poland and Romania are the new West Germany. In fact Moldova was part of Romania before it was occupied by the USSR after WW2, so it's pretty much in a similar situation to East/West Germany. It became independent after 1991 because Russia wanted to control it. They are using narratives such as the "Moldovan language" (in fact Romanian) since at least the 70s and later blackmail using Transnistria in order to divide and control. Moldova being admitted into the EU is basically on a path to de facto unification.
It makes Russian interference in its neighboring countries more difficult.
surely you would like to be surrounded by people who are adversaries to you and your family, you woild flock to move to a neighborhood like that :)
I mean, I wouldn't feel 100% comfortable but I wouldn't launch an invasion over it. Especially since it predictably encourages other bordering countries like Finland to accelerate their membership, and Ukraine itself will definitely be pushing for membership as soon as possible once the war is over. It was neither a proportionate nor a productive course of action, if that was the reason.
Except that's not what happened.
It's just a soundbite you heard somewhere, but has no basis in reality.
You can follow this thread, if of interest:
Ukraine decided to break the Budapest Memorandum by seeking the NATO ascension, and GW Bush promised them NATO in 2008, and then in 2014 CIA/State Department organized a coup (just a mere month before official elections) and pro-western puppet leader was put in charge (search Victoria Nuland's call where she decided to appoint pro-western Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister after the coup) who decided to seek EU and NATO membership.
Thus, Ukraine effectively nullified the neutrality clause of the Budapest Memorandum.
So it was Ukraine that walked back from Budapest Memorandum by giving up neutral status, that nullified the territorial sovereignty guarantees given by Russia.
if you think about it, it kinda makes sense. Russia can tolerate friendly and aligned country on its border that is 70% comprised of Russian speakers and/or Russian ethnicity.
But Russia cannot tolerate NATO member on its border, the same way that USA cannot tolerate Canada/Mexico that are in military alliance with Russia/China.
Ask yourself, what would USA do if tomorrow Canada/Mexico decided to join exclusive economic and military alliance with China ?
Did you generate your post with an AI tool? It's such a strange collection of undisputably incorrect statements, from the wrong year of the Budapest memorandum to the invalid reference of upcoming elections in 2014.
In August 2014, and only after Russia invaded both the Crimea and the Donbas. In fact even after the invasion of just the Crimea (in March) his government was still playing it safe, and renouncing any intent to join NATO (Reuters, March 18):
Ukraine's new pro-Western leadership is not seeking membership of NATO, Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said on Tuesday, in comments intended to reassure Russia and Ukraine's large number of Russian-speakers.[0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-nato-idUKB...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#August_2014_inva...
Its true that NATO (not just the US) understood that as a Russian concern, and that’s why they acceded to Russia’s demand not offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans in 2008.
Leading immediately to Russia invading Georgia in 2008, and then invading Ukraine – who had no active efforts on either the Ukraine or NATO side toward NATO membership – in 2014, immediately after Ukraine threw out the Russia-aligned government that had taken over while Russia was militarily occupied in Georgia (unsurprisingly, this invasion led to a renewed Ukrainian interest in NATO membership.)
But given the actual sequence of events, its pretty hard to claim that NATO expansion in Ukraine – which literally was not progressing until after the 2014 invasion – lead to Russian intervention in Ukraine. In fact, both 2008 and 2014 events support the idea that the reason that Russia was concerned about NATO expansion in Georgia and Ukraine is that it would complicate their existing intent to intervene in those countries with or without NATO involvement.
They did something worse:
While NATO consisted of twenty-seven allies, Bush knew that the Alliance was divided right down the middle on the issue. He understood MAP was controversial but he also had many leaders from NATO allies, largely but not only from Central and Eastern Europe, coming through the Oval Office that spring urging him to push for it. In Bush’s mind, the final decision would boil down to a handful of countries and personalities who held the key votes—himself, Merkel, and Sarkozy—and who would be decisive in shifting the debate one way or the other. Bush also sensed a fault line in the German position. While Merkel and Steinmeier both opposed MAP, they did so for very different reasons. In Bush’s mind, Merkel’s thinking was not driven by concern over Russia, which meant she could still be persuaded to move. She, too, believed in the advancement of democracy and freedom and was willing to stand up to Moscow. He hoped he could personally appeal to those instincts over the heads of those in her government who focused, too much, in his mind, on Moscow.
<...> Adamkus stepped in to echo B_sescu’s point: “Do we agree that these countries should become NATO members?” Merkel replied, “We agree on that. Where we don’t agree is on timing.” The response of the three presidents was immediate and spontaneous: “Then let’s write that down!”
<...> Listening to Merkel, the Central and Eastern European leaders sensed an opening. NATO had never before stated explicitly that a country would become a member. None of them had ever had such a pledge. Most of their Western European counterparts, in all likelihood, would never have suggested this approach. They doubted if Merkel’s foreign minister would have either, but he was not in the room. If Merkel agreed, it could be a major step forward. Merkel then took out her pen and wrote on a sheet of paper: “We agree today that Georgia and Ukraine shall one day become members of NATO.” After studying the wording, B_sescu said: “Madame Chancellor, in our part of the world saying ‘one day’ means nothing and does not commit you to anything—it means never.” Kaczy_ski chimed in: “Absolutely.” Merkel agreed to delete “one day” <...>
<...> British prime minister Gordon Brown leaned over to President Bush at the Council table and half-jokingly said, “I am not sure what we did here. I know we did not extend MAP. But I’m not sure we didn’t just make them members of NATO.”
The question now was how Russia would react—and whether Putin would keep his promise to Bush not to create a problem at the summit.
<...> Moscow’s very public goal had of course been to ensure that Georgia and Ukraine did not get MAP. Technically, of course, NATO had not given it to them. But these countries had received something that was arguably better and stronger—an explicit political promise from NATO heads of state that they would one day became members. That had never happened before.
<...> The Russian president was even tougher on Kiev—describing Ukraine as an artificial creation and a state whose final formation was not complete. He noted that large parts of Ukraine were dominated by ethnic Russians and had been given to Ukraine by Moscow in an arbitrary fashion under Stalin, and asked, “Who can say that we do not have interests there?” The issue of NATO membership, he claimed, could threaten the very existence of Ukraine. “We should act very, very carefully. We do not have a right to veto [such a decision] and we probably don’t even want one, but I want all of us to realize, when deciding such issues, that we have our interests there as well.” At the press conference afterwards, Putin was also polite, but he was clear in reaffirming his opposition to NATO enlargement. Russia viewed “the appearance of a powerful military bloc” on its borders “as a direct threat” to its security, he said. “The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice,” he continued. “National security is not based on promises.” [0]
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Little-War-That-Shook-World/dp/023061...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
Encouraging Saakashvili to resolve Georgia's territorial issues by taking over breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And then Russian intervened. [0]
>who had no active efforts on either the Ukraine or NATO side toward NATO membership
The efforts were quite active during pro-Western president's rule and were halted by pro-Ukrainian president.
>Ukraine threw out the Russia-aligned government
No, Yanukovich was thrown out by pro-Western coup 'mid-wifed' by the US. [1]
"The night before the clashes, Right Sector called on all of its members to ready themselves for a "peace offensive" on 18 February. <...> That morning, around 20,000 demonstrators marched on the parliament building as that body was set to consider opposition demands for a new constitution and government. Around 09:45, the demonstrators broke through the police barricade of several personnel-transport trucks near the building of the Central Officers' Club of Ukraine and pushed the cordon of police aside. The clashes started after some two dozen demonstrators moved a police vehicle blocking their path to parliament." [2]
Right Sector is "the right-wing, paramilitary confederation of several ultranationalist organizations" [3]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/world/georgia-started-war-wi...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#Protest_...
Except they didn't.
The footnote you cite describes Burns's concern, but not what actually happened: NATO rejected Ukraine's membership appliction in 2008, and Ukraine itself formally disclaimed aspirations of joining NATO in 2010, stating that Ukraine would remain a "European, non-aligned state."
And there the situation sat until 2014, when Russia invaded anyway, making any objections it might have had to Ukraine joining NATO instantly and forever moot.
This idea that the West was aggressively dragging Ukraine into NATO is just a soundbite you heard somewhere, but has no connection to reality.
20? No, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords were signed in 1991, much earlier.