Majorian posted:

How was signing an agreement with the EU "Finlandization"? If anything, it was a move towards joining Western Europe's sphere of influence.

quote:

It would seem that the Kremlin didn't believe them when they said these things, which isn't that surprising. They feel that the US violated the agreement to keep Ukraine neutral when the Bush Administration started pushing for Ukrainian accession in 2002. Why would they believe NATO and Yatsenyuk now?

quote:

Also, nobody's claiming that the possibility of Ukraine acceding to NATO membership was the spark that lit up the powder keg - just that it made up a good chunk of the "powder."

Majorian posted:

Eh, I think he'll back down, if we give him something he can claim as a victory. Again, I don't think he wants to be shoveling money into the furnace over the status of the Donbas. I don't know how long it would take Russia to implode, but it would probably depend upon the pace of whatever arms race we got into with them. Some years, certainly.

Majorian posted:

Are you referring to the nuclear weapons left over in Ukraine from the Soviet period? Because they gave those back to Russia in 1996.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

The new dividing line here being the precise thing people have been talking about in this thread, with the current Ukrainian situation being applied to the rest of Russia's neighbors. NATO pushing east stabilized Eastern Europe, by simply removing large parts of it from NATO-Russian competition.

karthun posted:

Ukraine already has a free trade agreement with Russia, The EU agreement would be the bridge between Russia and Europe that a Neutral Finlandized Ukraine would have to have to be a Neutral Findlandized Ukraine. It is similar in ideal to the trade treaties that Finland had between the USSR and European states (Yes I do now that the trade agreements under GATT and WTO are quite different but the point still stands). You know, the country that the word "Findlandization" comes from.

quote:

If NATO accession was the reason then why was Russia fine with Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea joining Russia and leaving the rest of Ukraine independent to still join NATO in the future?

quote:

You claim that NATO was the powder keg? Bullshit and you know it.

Denzine posted:

No I mean I remember reading earlier in the thread that Ukraine literally does maintenance on Russia's nukes, there was a lot of talk about how dumb that was.

Anyone else remember that? I could be confusing some things.

fake edit: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/736727

other stuff says they do maintenance on the SS-18 and SS-25 missiles. I wish I had the foresight to save the sources from earlier in the thread, they were better I think.

Denzine posted:

No I mean I remember reading earlier in the thread that Ukraine literally does maintenance on Russia's nukes, there was a lot of talk about how dumb that was.

Anyone else remember that? I could be confusing some things.

fake edit: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/736727

other stuff says they do maintenance on the SS-18 and SS-25 missiles. I wish I had the foresight to save the sources from earlier in the thread, they were better I think.

Majorian posted:

But I'm not arguing for Ukraine to be left at Russia's mercy. I'm arguing for Ukraine to be neutral.

Cat Mattress posted:

By Russian definition, "neutral Ukraine" means "Russian-aligned Ukraine".

Majorian posted:

There wasn't a competition when NATO expansion started. If you're going to claim that it would have started anyway, regardless of whether or not NATO expanded, you're going to have to show your work, because I'm not seeing it as a given. A possibility, sure, but not a given.

Majorian posted:

But I'm not arguing for Ukraine to be left at Russia's mercy. I'm arguing for Ukraine to be neutral.

Majorian posted:

Which is why this is where NATO comes into play. Regardless of what Yatsenyuk ended up saying, when you have the Secretary-General of NATO saying that Ukraine's accession to NATO "remains an option," it's hardly surprising that Russia didn't see Ukraine as heading towards a neutral status.

quote:

I think the Kremlin is counting on everything but Crimea still staying in Ukraine, thus making it impossible for Ukraine to join NATO anytime soon.

quote:

Prove it. Look at those articles I posted and tell me where they're wrong.

e: Also, "the" powder keg? You just quoted a sentence where I said NATO wasn't the only factor.

Majorian posted:

Here's where you're wrong: you mistakenly assume that realist analyses seek to justify anything. Political scientists aren't interested in justifying things. They're interested in explaining things.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Well, let's consider the facts, partially as you've presented them:

- Russia views itself as a great power.
- Great powers demand spheres of influence.
- The West really wanted to make money in Eastern Europe.

quote:

Now combine that with several of those states being former constituent parts of the USSR, a long history of Russian imperialism, plus Russian settlers in these states, and it's hard to imagine a Russia which would not push hard to make its influence felt in these states. I simply can't believe Russian attitudes could change so rapidly.

karthun posted:

Yes, Ukraine's accession to NATO does remain an option and to say anything but would be a lie. Too bad NATO voted against the Ukraine's MAP in 2008.

quote:

I agree with you that the Crimea question makes it impossible for Ukraine to join NATO. But that doesn't explain why Russia invaded mainland Ukraine in Aug 2014.

quote:

There are academic journals that specialize in foreign relations, perhaps you should look there for critiques of offensive realism.

quote:

In regards to "the" powder keg break down the powder keg by percent for me.

WAFFLEHOUND posted:

I've mostly been reading this from the sidelines but I fail to see how neutrality backed up by threats from a stronger neighbour if the situation changes is actually neutrality and not, say, being that stronger country's bitch? Neutrality seems to be from a position of self interest complete with an internal ability to enforce it, as opposed to something like what you're advocating, which is "Stay 'neutral' and we won't invade an annex everything."

The Swiss and Swedes are Neutral in large part because of massive degrees of internal cohesion, if the Swiss were neutral because they second they hinted that maybe they indicated anything else a neighbour would steamroll in and destabilize them then they're not neutral, they're a subservient puppet.

bird cooch posted:

"OH poo poo! what happened in Ukraine?" (clicks link) "Oh, this again...."

Majorian... You are making GBS threads up the thread.

Discendo Vox posted:

It's not explanatory because it can't predict things. If self-interest can be used to explain any action, then it has no value as an explanatory tool.

quote:

And you're still avoiding the central criticism of the theory, which is that it, and you, are ignoring the domestic political dimension-

Cliff Racer posted:

No, he is not. He's making a point and arguing it. I disagree with him but I went to school to get an International Politics degree so all of his bullshit about realism and such was drilled into my head for four years. The only ones making GBS threads up the thread are those who can't bear to see anyone, anyone at all deviate from the thread consensus.

Cliff Racer posted:

I'd much rather have a hundred of his posts than ten more posts of "hurr, hurr homonazis" drivel.

Majorian posted:

I actually don't think that Great Powers demand spheres of influence as they seek security. While there you are right that there was always going to be some competition for Eastern Europe, it didn't have to be military in nature, and that obviously is an important distinction.

Majorian posted:

They haven't changed that much at all-that's central to my point though. Russian imperialism isn't driven by a single-minded obsession with conquest, but by fear of being left vulnerable to yet another invasion.

Majorian posted:

That's a ridiculous statement. All political science schools of thought acknowledge that self interest plays a role in how states behave. Moreover, nobody is arguing that self-interest alone can explain how states behave. That's a ridiculously broad argument.

Majorian posted:

I've actually acknowledged that Putin has domestic incentives for invading Ukraine. It's kind of funny that you should accuse me of ignoring posts when you can't be bothered to read mine.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Russia's military is its greatest strength though, and it's going to have a hard time competing with the EU as a whole, so I kinda doubt the kind of people who happily robbed their own country blind would not use military force to protect their interests. (Like, say, in Ukraine.)

quote:

Russia not moving away from a historic obsession with controlling as much territory to its west as possible, as a buffer against potential aggression, is a pretty good argument for why NATO was right to expand east.

Discendo Vox posted:

It is, which is why you've presented a number of variations of it all thread long.

quote:

Your discussion of that, after having it pointed out to you for pages,

quote:

There is nothing that will not antagonize Russia if anything anyone does can be constructed as a threat.

bird cooch posted:

Majorian posted:

The most basic version of my argument is that Russia, like all states, is partially motivated by security interests, and felt threatened by NATO's eastward expansion.

Majorian posted:

Even so, now that I'm home and not on my phone, I'm going to make a new thread to continue this subtopic.

Majorian posted:

Given how much Ukraine has relied upon Russia for its energy needs, I think it's reasonable to imagine that Russia would have had at least some advantages in Ukrainian markets. Plus, even if we do assume that the Russian military would have gotten involved sooner or later, I think it's safe to assume that it wouldn't have happened as quickly, or as virulently, as it has without NATO expansion.

Majorian posted:

But where did that obsession manifest itself in the 90's? It seems to me that Russia was, for the most part, trying to play by the West's rules.

Majorian posted:

And neutrality, which the Russians feel the US violated by pushing NATO accession, promoting the Orange Revolution, etc.

Pycckuu posted:

Another brilliant policy by Vladimir Putin, our fearless leader. Even a fool knows more people will come to vote in local elections if there is a chance to see some naked babes. More boobs means more democracy!

Perhaps the people of Ferguson should try something like this?

my dad posted:

I'm just going to point out that Yugoslavia's neutrality after WW2 was only guaranteed by having enough tanks and veteran troops for Tito to be able to tell Stalin to gently caress off.

How many tanks and veteran troops does Ukraine have, in comparison to Russia?

Discendo Vox posted:

If it means he stops posting it here, so much the better.

Discendo Vox posted:

That's all right, I'm one of many. I look forward to not posting in, and therefore not getting my arguments misconstrued and ignored in, your separatist thread.

bird cooch posted:

"OH poo poo! what happened in Ukraine?" (clicks link) "Oh, this again...."

Majorian, you made your point pages and pages ago. Not strangely, most people in this thread seem to disagree. Continuously restating and rehashing your reasons for holding this position with every new development is tiresome. You are making GBS threads up the thread.

Maarek posted:

You can't poo poo up something that's made out of poo poo to begin with. No one in this thread has any problems with posters continuously restating stuff about HOMONAZIS and invectives about Russia. Either this is a topic of debate and discussion or it's a hugbox for people to say angry words about Vlad Putin. I would recommend checking kalstrams' post history if people need an example of how you can talk about the invasion of Ukraine without being a pointless white noise poster.

quote:

Nato countries have started delivering arms to Ukraine to help its soldiers fight pro-Russian separatists in the east, the defence minister says.

Valery Heletey did not give details of the weapons being delivered or name the countries involved.

A similar statement earlier was denied by five Nato members, including the US.

Ukraine's prime minister says Nato is the "only vehicle" to protect the country from Russia, which he and the West accuse of intervening in the east.

Moscow has denied sending troops to help pro-Russian rebels who have been engaged in heavy fighting with government forces in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions since April.

At least some 2,600 people have been killed in five months of conflict.

A fragile ceasefire has been in place since 5 September, despite recent outbreaks of violence around key flashpoints such as Donetsk airport.

No lethal assistance
Mr Heletey told reporters on Sunday that he had discussed weapons deliveries in bilateral meetings with Nato defence ministers during a Nato summit in Wales earlier this month.

"I have no right to disclose any specific country we reached that agreement with. But the fact is that those weapons are already on the way to us - that's absolutely true, I can officially tell you," he said in remarks quoted by Ukraine's Unian news agency.


While the issue of restoring Ukraine's nuclear arsenal was not on the agenda, Mr Heletey said it would not be ruled out in future.

Nato officials say they have no plans to send lethal assistance to non-Nato member Ukraine, but that members states may do so.

But defence officials in Italy, Poland and Norway have all denied plans to provide any weapons.

On Saturday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk accused Russia of wanting to "eliminate his country," saying it was the "key aggressor" in the conflict.

Nato says Russia still has about 1,000 heavily armed troops in eastern Ukraine and about 20,000 more near the border.

But Russia denies sending direct military help to the rebels, insisting that any Russian soldiers there are "volunteers".

Nato has announced the formation of a new "spearhead" force numbering several thousand troops, which can be deployed anywhere in the world in a matter of days.

It followed growing concern from Nato member countries bordering Russia over its involvement in Ukraine.

Zohar posted:

To be honest I don't think there are any particularly good places online for in-depth discussion of the crisis. /r/ukrainianconflict is much much better for keeping up with the actual news if only because Reddit's posting system means each event gets its own thread and week-long derails are basically impossible, the mods there are also reasonably proactive unlike this thread.