World Politics

[SaintLouisan]

There are legitimate points within the critique of NATO expansion as it pertains to a continuation of Cold War struggle for geopolitical ideology/power between super powers. But ultimately there's nothing that justifies the violent destruction on an innocent people. And, yes, despite there being provocation for our entrance in WWII, I would not have used the atomic bomb on the Japanese as a way to end that chapter of WWII.

Trump's supposed understanding of the POV on NATO expansion that you allude to is is giving way too much credit to the guy who - along with his conservative Republican acolytes - constantly weaponize "radical left" and "communist" for domestic political gain and leverage. And, certainly, the domestic liberal wing traffics in this as well when advantageous.

That's essentially what the critique of NATO expansion is about, that in a post-Cold War world the resulting super powers should no longer be motivated by expanding their power, in particular as it relates to their financial ideology. So the Cold War never really ended as it relates to international or domestic power politics.

Should the U.S. have been courting the former Eastern Bloc countries/former SSRs to joint NATO? There is a legitimate argument to make that we were short sighted and overzealous. At the same time, those countries had to see enough benefit to do so. A part of that decision had to be we no longer want to be under a Russian sphere of influence. Whatever the various reasons, they viewed it as in their best interest or they wouldn't have joined.

The problem with this critique of NATO expansion is that is only works in an idealized world where the major world powers magically agree to complete to a level of collaboration and/or neutrality in the power dynamic. Something along the lines of the US and Russia actually taking their own nuclear arms reduction commitments seriously, for example.

So, yes, the US is not beyond questioning in the overarching atmosphere that the unprovoked attack on Ukraine occurs in. But ultimately it's the Russian elite who authorized the slaughter of an innocent population and the disregard for and destruction of a sovereign nation.

Lots to agree with here, but I will say this: we knew the Russians, justifiably or otherwise, viewed Western expansion as an existential threat (it goes beyond NATO and the EU but those are the most obvious touchstones) to which there was a reasonable chance they'd respond militarily, and yet we persisted in courting nations like Georgia and Ukraine anyway. This despite the fact that it was patently obvious that apart from sanctions and strongly worded letters, we weren't going to actually do anything if they were attacked.

Therefore, I do think it's fair to say that we deserve some of the blame for what's happening here. We shouldn't have said in 2008 that they'd be joining NATO someday, or sent dumbasses like McCain over to loudly agitate in favor of Western alignment following the Maiden protests. I do believe Ukraine is essentially blameless for responding positively to our overtures, we run the world and they want to be in the kool kids club which is understandable, but it was on us to slap them in the face and tell them to tread lightly, because they were clearly going down a path that would lead to violence that they'd be left alone to face. That's what bothers me about our actions here.

Hoping we'd voluntarily not be looking to expand our sphere of influence is, as you say, probably naive. But the fact we're used to reckless American foreign policy doesn't excuse the US, especially since we are the most powerful nation on Earth and effectively the ones who run the global order. Which, by the way, also goes a long way toward explaining Russian anxiety vis a vis the West. IMO it's essential to remember that; all interactions between nations must be viewed in the context of American/Western hegemony.

[SaintLouisan]

Let's not forget about Cuba, Venezuela or many other countries in South America It's not like Russia hasn't dabbled in our neck of the woods.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/0...rica-pub-76228

The character of the dabbling is different though (in a post Cold War world), because ultimately Russia doesn't control **** or have the ability to actually make **** happen on their own. Establishing connections with countries unsympathetic to us is something that happens after those regimes have taken hold, not as the result of Russian meddling.

Which again leads us back to the power structure of the global order. This is also why talk of Russia offering an alternative to NATO to which the likes of Ukraine could be attracted to misses the mark. We are exponentially more wealthy and powerful; the only leverage Russia has is the threat of violence. Russia even offered a $22b aid package to Ukraine in the wake of the Maiden unrest, with no strings attached (in the form of changes to government or constitution); the EU offered something like $600m and demanded a host of fundamental changes to their laws and regulations. Yet when the Ukrainian president took the Ruskie deal, the population erupted and ultimately booted him out, because the long-term benefits of EU/Western association are vastly more attractive to the Ukrainian populace. Again, this reflects the relative power of the West as compared to Russia.

If we assume that Russia is apprehensive about Western leverage over them, and that Western control of a nation they are culturally, socially, and economically quite closely tied to will only worsen that feeling, then we should have anticipated that they would react negatively to this turn of events.

[dal9]

^^this is too anti-US. ukraine is a sovereign nation. it has every right to decide that a western approach will benefit it more than a quasi-unification with russia. i'm sure the us made clear to them the benefits of joining eu/nato; at the same time, russia was making its case. unsurprisingly, russia's vision was not particularly appealing to ukraine. that in no way comes close to justifying russia's actions here, or shifts the blame in any way to the us.

[dal9]

If we assume that Russia is apprehensive about Western leverage over them, and that Western control of a nation they are culturally, socially, and economically quite closely tied to will only worsen that feeling, then we should have anticipated that they would react negatively to this turn of events.

they're not gonna be closely tied after this !

[D-BONE]

Lots to agree with here, but I will say this: we knew the Russians, justifiably or otherwise, viewed Western expansion as an existential threat (it goes beyond NATO and the EU but those are the most obvious touchstones) to which there was a reasonable chance they'd respond militarily, and yet we persisted in courting nations like Georgia and Ukraine anyway. This despite the fact that it was patently obvious that apart from sanctions and strongly worded letters, we weren't going to actually do anything if they were attacked.

Therefore, I do think it's fair to say that we deserve some of the blame for what's happening here. We shouldn't have said in 2008 that they'd be joining NATO someday, or sent dumbasses like McCain over to loudly agitate in favor of Western alignment following the Maiden protests. I do believe Ukraine is essentially blameless for responding positively to our overtures, we run the world and they want to be in the kool kids club which is understandable, but it was on us to slap them in the face and tell them to tread lightly, because they were clearly going down a path that would lead to violence that they'd be left alone to face. That's what bothers me about our actions here.

Hoping we'd voluntarily not be looking to expand our sphere of influence is, as you say, probably naive. But the fact we're used to reckless American foreign policy doesn't excuse the US, especially since we are the most powerful nation on Earth and effectively the ones who run the global order. Which, by the way, also goes a long way toward explaining Russian anxiety vis a vis the West. IMO it's essential to remember that; all interactions between nations must be viewed in the context of American/Western hegemony.

I don't know. I mean I fully agree with your last sentence. And I'm not arguing that the U.S. hasn't been "neutral" nor that we have no responsibility in the back and forth that has resulted in this. But Russia hasn't been "neutral" either. They were okay with things as long as Putin puppets were running Ukraine. My point is history will continue to repeat itself (in this case a neo Cold War era proxy war) as long as both major players in this relationship won't both commit to neutrality (collaboration/agreement/tolerance?).

Is the U.S. - as the stronger power (strongest power) obligated not to exert influence and the lesser powers free to exert it to whatever extent they see fit? If we don't play the game, that doesn't mean others just follow our lead. There's no good answer to that conundrum. Hence my suggestion that, ultimately, Putin and his supporters will have to deal with the consequences of making the call to obliterate innocents. My stance on war regardless is it's only justified in the most extreme defensive cases. Putin can claim that's what this is, but Russia wasn't under attack or threat of attack. We've initiated or participated in several wars where we were not directly provoked. That's not defensible in my mind either.

[SaintLouisan]

^^this is too anti-US. ukraine is a sovereign nation. it has every right to decide that a western approach will benefit it more than a quasi-unification with russia. i'm sure the us made clear to them the benefits of joining eu/nato; at the same time, russia was making its case. unsurprisingly, russia's vision was not particularly appealing to ukraine. that in no way comes close to justifying russia's actions here, or shifts the blame in any way to the us.

It certainly is and does, but there's nothing that says Ukraine must be aligned with the EU and NATO or that we must offer it to them. Now obviously we could persist and tell Russia to go **** themselves, but when they start dropping bombs (which they made obvious was on the table) I have to think we acted wrongly by putting Ukraine in a position where suddenly it had the option to pursue interests that would expose them to danger.

Moreover, I think there's much to be gained from long term rapprochement with Russia, especially in terms of containing China. There was a picture I saw today of Xi, Putin, Bolsonaro, Modi, and someone else (South African president i think) all smiling and waving at the camera at some conference recently. Mexico and Pakistan have also been notoriously ambivalent about the whole thing and in some senses supportive. This all portends bad things IMO. Western hegemony has been largely good for the world and it's certainly been good for us. Ignoring Russia's concerns until it turns them into our enemy and encourages them to align with our emerging rivals only facilitates the end of that international order. That only hurts us in the long run. If this means accommodating their concerns (not in terms of allowing them to invade Ukraine or whoever, but in the sense of relenting when it's made clear they don't want our organizations embedded in the nations along their border), it makes sense for us to do so if it means bringing and keeping them aligned with us.

I very highly suspect a multipolar world is not going to be hospitable for liberalism (of the sort 95% of Americans approve of) and human rights.

[dal9]

russia's gonna be left as a vassal / colony of china after this...they've been exposed and are no threat to the world order as long as the current regime is in power...

then again, it's hard to make predictions about how things will go...supposedly even many in putin's inner circle were shocked his crazy azz actually decided to invade

[SaintLouisan]

russia's gonna be left as a vassal / colony of china after this...they've been exposed and are no threat to the world order as long as the current regime is in power...

then again, it's hard to make predictions about how things will go...supposedly even many in putin's inner circle were shocked his crazy azz actually decided to invade

Saw someone mention Russia's future is to be the UK to the China's US. Found that amusing and probably accurate.

[Gamble1]

The character of the dabbling is different though (in a post Cold War world), because ultimately Russia doesn't control **** or have the ability to actually make **** happen on their own. Establishing connections with countries unsympathetic to us is something that happens after those regimes have taken hold, not as the result of Russian meddling.

Which again leads us back to the power structure of the global order. This is also why talk of Russia offering an alternative to NATO to which the likes of Ukraine could be attracted to misses the mark. We are exponentially more wealthy and powerful; the only leverage Russia has is the threat of violence. Russia even offered a $22b aid package to Ukraine in the wake of the Maiden unrest, with no strings attached (in the form of changes to government or constitution); the EU offered something like $600m and demanded a host of fundamental changes to their laws and regulations. Yet when the Ukrainian president took the Ruskie deal, the population erupted and ultimately booted him out, because the long-term benefits of EU/Western association are vastly more attractive to the Ukrainian populace. Again, this reflects the relative power of the West as compared to Russia.

If we assume that Russia is apprehensive about Western leverage over them, and that Western control of a nation they are culturally, socially, and economically quite closely tied to will only worsen that feeling, then we should have anticipated that they would react negatively to this turn of events.

I think we knew that they could react negatively. You already had many examples of them doing this very thing in the 80s and 90s and in the 2000s.

Does that make the US or the EU culpable for Russian atrocities? I mean what the Russians wanted was against the Nato charity. You can not have another nation dictate the terms of Nato because they feel uncomfortable. They did not follow the missle agreements in the past and they won't agree to any terms in the future and keep the promises.

This last mistake by Russia basically sealed their fate. The Nato alliance and the EU will gain more power and Russia will keep fading into the background and China will choose the US over Russia. It is the economy size that dictates the power and China will not choose Russia over the US or the EU. China will always go to the economy the makes them stronger while talking trash about that very democratic system that made them who they are.

[Gamble1]

So it looks like Biden had a slip up in his speech. Everybody's thinking it but you probably can't say it unless the Russian people agree.

I still don't understand why we don't give them planes considering how they use them against Russian planes. Its basically a bait system to try to lure the Russian pilots into ukrainen air defense system. They use ground based radar to inform uktaine pilots that they have an incoming missle fired by a Russian plane. They then basically try to out run the missle. This is how they don't lose planes to Russian missles. If the Russians make a mistake and get baited they get hit with the ground based air defense. The Polish MIGs could be used to do this against the Russians.

Part of this just makes NATO look silly. What classifies as a defensive weapon vs an offensive weapon just looks like splitting hairs. Biden looks weak and NATO or Poland seem willing to allow the Ukraine to be split in two by Russia.

[dal9]

i mean, i think the russian people DO agree, but either way, i don't think it's some huge gaffe...it's an obviously true fact from the us perspective, and putin can hardly pretend to be indignant about this, given his interference in OUR elections

on the planes, i've read that there are differences even between the polish and ukranian versions of the jets that would require fairly extensive training...

[Sollozzo]

Biden said what most people are thinking.

[Gamble1]

Biden said what most people are thinking.

Agreed but he looks silly saying he wasn't calling for a regime change. It displayed a lack of composer or the balls to call for one. Either you want it or you don't.

Waffling looks weak and even though I follow this close enough to know what he meant and has said in the past in context of the Russian people deciding Putins fate in Russia the comment was a gaffe.

[Bball]

It appears Ukraine has stuck inside Russia:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/huge-explosions-major-russian-ammo-26587639

[dal9]