I wonder what it says about a country's intentions if they feel threatened enough to kill tens of thousands of innocent people over them shifting towards joining a defensive alliance.
The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden if the US offered evidence of his culpability. It was never a threat to NATO. NATO was not defending itself from Afghanistan.
Libya was supposed to be a UN sanctioned humanitarian op. It got silently upgraded to regime change, which is why Putin publicly expressed regret at not vetoing it.
Libya was never a threat to NATO. NATO was not defending itself from Libya.
Serbia was never a threat to NATO. NATO was not defending itself from... well, not to put too fine a point on it but... Russia's closest ally in Europe.
It is not a purely defensive alliance in any sense of the word except an Orwellian one. All of its military operations have been exclusively offensive in nature.
That's how the alliance markets itself, but that's not how everyone in the world, especially their potential adversaries, perceives it. And its potential adversaries have been saying so, publicly, for decades.
As I'm sure you understand, all military alliances, even if they start out defensive in nature, can easily become offensive in nature.
> if they feel threatened enough
Exactly, they felt threatened, because they did not and do not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance.
I highly recommend watching the videos I linked in my earlier comment.
The only ones pretending that it isn't a defensive alliance are the ones who have some territorial claim they're hoping to take military action against. For whom it is very inconvenient that there's this group of countries who would very much rather they didn't.
Everyone else sees very clearly that an alliance which only invokes when attacked and requires the resolution of territorial disputes prior to gaining membership is not going to just invade them first.
Half of the members were literally dependent on Russia for their energy needs, many of them thinking that the US was the warmongerer for being constantly paranoid about Russia's intentions, with defense budgets trending downwards and the former American president having openly questioned the need for NATO. There is no reasonable way to argue that they were at all going to be attacking Russia as an alliance in that state.
This is a Good Post, and honestly your last point includes one of the things that I (as an American, and generally critical of our own foreign adventurism) am most astonished by. We have culturally never expected much of NATO to stand up to Russia; the saber-rattling felt like it was frequently working against Europe. That Russia could push too far and stiffen European resolve so sharply seemed off the table.
The cynic in me sometimes thinks that part of it, and the American response as well, is perhaps as much that it's a European country being bullied and not somewhere far away (read: brown), but that it's happening at all is any port in the storm.
I don't really think you're being cynical for thinking that. The entire "war has returned to Europe" narrative from the start of the war kind of confirms that as part of the reason for the response.
I disagree that it was due to racism though (in the sense that they're explicitly thinking that "brown people's lives are less valuable"), it's simply that Europe naturally cares more about problems closer to home and the US has the context of its relationship with Russia.
On top of that, both of them have a lot of historical "trauma" from the part of WW2 which was fought by big powers in Europe. I think there would be a similar reaction from Japan, South Korea, and America in response to an invasion of Taiwan by China due to their own history on that front.
The historical Russian counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact, which was pretty clearly solely an instrument by which the USSR exerted its will over its members --its primary intervention was to invade a country that wanted to leave.
So it's not entirely unreasonable for a Russian to look at the NATO as potentially acting like the Warsaw Pact did, although, as you note, the fact that much of NATO doesn't share the same foreign policy as the US (indeed, often criticizes the US's foreign policy aims!) should disabuse them of that notion.
There was rather a lot of NATO coordination in the US-led invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan. None of the military missions in these countries were in response to the Article V mutual defense clause of the NATO treaty. It's very easy to see how these operations (and therefore the NATO alliance) would be seen as aggressive to these countries.
Whether they feel threatened or not still is no justification for their war in Ukraine. Not to mention their attempts to annex Donbas etc, or their annexation of Crimea.
Ukraine was no threat to Russia. By invading, Russia just proved to everyone else in the world that Russia is the threat.
Which interestingly leads to even more "Russophobia" because apparently having enough Russian speakers in your area is justification enough for Russia to come in and invade.
It's all ridiculous and shameful behavior on Russia's part. I feel bad for all those having to live under their current regime.
>> That's how the alliance markets itself, but that's not how everyone in the world, especially their potential adversaries, perceives it.
Not since 1990, at least. Cold War era defensive structures were dismantled when Warsaw Pact dissolved and Russia never established any comparable defensive structures on its own borders.
In terms of military doctrine, composition and placement of armed forces, preparations of border defenses, early warning systems etc, Russia has not prepared for invasion in any way. Why, if they perceive this as a threat like you say? With virtually all of Russia's fighting force in Ukraine, the road to Russia is wide open. There isn't even a wire fence on Russian side of border with NATO countries Norway, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia! Where do you see any signs of belief in threat from NATO to Russia?
Countries that border Russia, in contrast, have made extensive preparations to fight off another Russian invasion.
Correlation does not imply causation. Of course countries that are already involved in a joint-forces defensive military alliance are going to be more likely to enter into other external wars together. That doesn't mean the defensive alliance is somehow a contributing factor to that external war.
Countries in an existing defensive alliance are likely using similar gear, have similar doctrine, have similar values, and have alignment strategic interests.
The defensive alliance exists as an outcome of these alignments, as does the cooperation on the external war. The alliance doesn't cause the external war.
Australia is not part of NATO, yet it's followed America into basically every war it's had in the last 60 years because of these preexisting alignments, not because of NATO.
For context for anyone reading this, Mearsheimer is one of the most hardcore anti-nato theorist's in the International Relationship world.
He IS credible, don't get me wrong. But he does also represent the extreme end of the "Realist" school of thought so definitely isn't what you'd call "balanced".
Just make sure you balance his theories out with some other options, don't take him as gospel.
"We must respond to defensive fortifications that put missile batteries up outside our sovereign borders with extremely violent, extremely aggressive, expansionary excursions to conquer territory and move our border CLOSER to said missiles"
The logic makes zero sense, I'm sorry. It's still a "well, I wouldn't have to do X if you didn't do Y" mentality that completely and utterly shirks any sense of responsibility for one's or one's country's own actions. It's hogwash doublespeak used by BOTH abusers in messy interpersonal relationships, AND by international politicians playing realpolitik.
"If the USA had not continued to expand NATO eastward (especially the discussion of making Georgia and Ukraine part of NATO in 2008), a few hundred thousand Ukrainians and Russians would still be alive and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine."
Yes, you did say that. Russian response was overkill, but you didn't mention Putin there. Clever.
I rarely take political speech on its face value. I only watched half a minute but Putin was stating what he stated for a particular audience, to get a particular reaction.
You posted a lecture in which Mearsheimer says Russia will never try to conquer Ukraine, because "Putin is much too smart for that" -- and ask us to accept him as an expert?
Not that I agree with the content of the lecture, but you have to read between the lines for that. "Putin is much too smart for that" is a stand in for "it would be very stupid for Putin to do this please don't" that looks like a compliment at surface level.
"That would probably involve the invasion of the eastern part of the country" - direct quote from your YouTube video.
Mearshimer's claim to fame stems from accurately predicting this invasion would happen.
He did also say that Putin wouldnt try to occupy Ukraine (presumably beyond the eastern part/crimea) but would instead aim to wreck it.
That part seems to be coming true as we speak.
The only way to "disprove" Mearshimer's prediction is mischaracterize Russia's military goals during the initial strike on Kiev (I am not certain what they were but I am 200% certain occupation wasn't one of them because the force was far too small for that task).
He tried to invade and occupy the whole fucking country. Not just "the eastern part". He went for Kherson, he went for Odesa, he went for Kyiv. The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried.
Putin gave his speech about wanting to be Peter the Great, how Ukrainians are just Russians who've been convinced otherwise by the evil West, and Russian state media went around praising Putin for "solving the Ukrainian question" (yikes, and yes that's a quote).
None of that fits into JM's worldview.
No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational, especially dictators. This ought to have been obvious after WWII.
>The fact that he failed doesn't diminish the fact that he tried.
The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force.
(not that we can prove the military objectives of sending that force with any great certainty)
>No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational
Definitely not, but if you dont know a military objective for sure and from a list of 7 you pick the least rational, least likely one because reasons your doctrine is absolutely stupid.
Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow.
>JM was just wrong.
No, JM absolutely nailed it. Every word of that YouTube video you linked to was prescient.
>The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force.
Lol. No.
Explain the military purpose of sending riot police and parade uniforms? Explain the military purpose of getting 10,000 of his most capable special forces troops slaughtered in 3 days? Explain the 30 mile convoy?
The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians, that they would welcome the overthrow of their government, etc. That he believed Russia was the 2nd most powerful military in the world, that Ukrainians would immediately surrender, that it would be easy.
All of which is in fact backed up by intercepts and intelligence as well as the entire state narrative in the early war.
>Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow.
What? It's not the sole piece of evidence...
You need to read the reports about what actually happened on the ground. JM did not "nail it", he was clueless. They've been planning this for a long time. They thought they had deeply infiltrated all levels of Ukrainian government with spies whom would be able to paralyze the response (and to be fair, in the South, they did).
Let’s not forget that the Russian state media also accidentally posted an article on the victory of the war, which details pretty much everything you’ve said.
>Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police
OMON are not just riot police and are routinely sent on Russian military expeditions (e.g. there are some in Syria). Theres some evidence that a few hundred of the invading force of 15,000 (cite: Wikipedia) were OMON.
The question you apparently haven't asked yourself is "if their goal was occupation, why did they send a few hundred OMON troops rather than the hundred thousand they'd actually need?"
>The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians
The most likely explanation is that he was primarily gambling on a quick collapse of Ukrainian resistance and the ability to pull off a coup, before placing Opposition Platform for Life (who already had ~44 seats) in charge.
The backup/secondary plan was likely to provide a distraction such that the southern and eastern forces could link up and secure Russia's main geopolitical achilles heel - the land bridge to crimea.
I think you got confused. The attack on Kiev had 16,000 troops total. It's unclear how many were OMON but it's clear that it was no more than a few hundred.
In no way, shape or form does that justify presuming that this was an occupation force - with or without uniforms.
> Mearshimer's claim to fame stems from accurately predicting this invasion would happen.
In the east, not around Kyiv. Less than a month before it happened – i.e. long after everyone else had predicted it would. And after, as shown above, he himself had spent his career claiming it wouldn't. Weak sauce, utterly weak.
Mearshimer's claim to any current fame stems almost entirely from spouting the same tired old anti-USA and anti-NATO propaganda we've heard from Russia since the Soviet era.
> The only way to "disprove" Mearshimer's prediction is mischaracterize Russia's military goals during the initial strike on Kiev (I am not certain what they were but I am 200% certain occupation wasn't one of them because the force was far too small for that task).
Oh holy shit, I never thought this infamous Twitter Copium would show up on HN too. How naïve of me.
>Oh holy shit, I never thought this infamous Twitter Copium
Copium? The Guardian (a pro Ukraine cheerleader extraordinairre) said this during the offensive.
Your proclivity towards using troll slang suggests you might be spending a little too much time on twitter. You might consider cutting back. It's neither healthy nor informative.
> Copium? The Guardian (a pro Ukraine cheerleader extraordinairre) said this during the offensive.
> Your proclivity towards using troll slang suggests you might be spending a little too much time on twitter. You might consider cutting back. It's neither healthy nor informative.
The Russian state media accidentally uploaded an article celebrating their occupation of Ukraine after about 3 days.
The plan was always 3 days to occupy Ukraine and cut off the seat of power.
NATO expansion is a scapegoat for Russia's imperial conquests. They will latch on to any reason to justify the invasion of Ukraine. If I recall correctly, it was to take care of "Nazis" in Ukraine, right? But then they kind of stopped promoting that angle. Also they took Crimea, which understandably made a lot of Ukrainians very nervous.
Russia should have just not invaded Ukraine. I find it incredible that people try to justify that action on increasingly flimsy grounds.
No, it's mostly Putin. He wants to be Tsar of All the Russias, like Peter the Great, whom he greatly admires.
‘All his (Putin's) ideas... come from the past. He wants to move the country to the 19th century, to a time when empires were possible.’ — Marat Gelman, former Putin adviser.[1]
This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked. The USA put missiles in Turkey in 1961, and the Soviets responded by puting missiles in Cuba. The Soviets felt threatened by missiles that could hit Moscow in 30 minutes, and they responded in kind. What did the USA do? They blockaded Cuba, and the Soviets backed down, seemingly cowed. But secretly JFK had made a pact with Krushschev, and withdrew missiles from Turkey shortly after.
In other words, the USA acknowledged that they had provoked the Soviets.
But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation?
It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy.
RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army.
Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise?
Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas.
Comparisons with Cuba ignore the fact that the balance of military power in Europe is heavily in Russia's favor. For example, Russia hosts nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad enclave, in the middle of Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...
And now it's placing further nuclear missiles in Belarus.
And yet, when countries directly threatened by these weapons seek mutual defense pacts and cooperation with other countries in Europe and North America, you call this a provocation. Russia can place nukes in Europe and that's fine, but Poland can't even hold joint military exercises with France. Can you tell me why?
> Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army.
Their young men are being sacrificed to evict a foreign army that has invaded their soil. This has the side effect of wearing down the Russian army, so of course others are going to help who want that effect, too. But that is not why they are sacrificing their lives.
If Russia had been consistent in their reasons for expansion this would be believable. But they've said too many things to believe that they are primarily motivated by NATO expansion on its lonesome.
> Who benefits from this conflict?
Minority populations in a variety of countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus) who nostalgically yearn for Russian confederation again.
> But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation?
Nobody is “bringing NATO” anywhere. Neither the USA nor anyone else can annex other countries to NATO. Those countries apply to join the alliance, because they want to.
Educate yourself a little better on what you're talking about (in stead of listening to infamous tinfoil hatters like RKjr), then maybe you won't have to sound exactly like a Putler troll.
> This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked.
I keep forgetting in Russias absolute drug hazed existence a country looking to defend itself is justification for invasion.
But we know all the NATO stuff is false as Russia was given assurances by NATO members that Ukraine would be vetoed.
That didn’t do anything to stop Russias brutal war.
> But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation?
So when’s the invasion of Finland happening? If keeping NATO from Russias door step was the goal of this war if failed already.
> It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy.
I’m not sure what you’re saying, are you saying that Putins army is so pathetic that he needs other countries to handicap the country defending itself so he can look good?.
> RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army.
RJK Jrs message is pure Russian propaganda.
But even if this was a devious American plan to wear down the Russian army. The russians could easily avoid this by just leaving.
The Ukrainians are defending themselves from a brutal invasion if they stop fighting there is no more Ukraine who knows how many more war crimes the Russians will commit.
If the Russians stop fighting there is no more war.
> Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise?
The world has tried compromising with Russia time and time again and it just leads to more invasions and more war crimes by them.
The Russians don’t understand compromise only strength, the only way to get Russia to stop is by displaying strength not compromise.
> Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas.
The Russians benefit greatly from this conflict if they win, that is why a lot of the world is trying to help stop the brutal imperialistic invasion.
