|
Majorian posted:It takes some pretty huge balls to say that a few SA goons have a less biased, more appropriate, more productive point of view on this issue than a former ambassador to Russia, several former ambassadors to Eastern European countries, the father of modern arms control, and George Kennan. Do you even know what George Kennan advocated? What he caused? The mess he made by advocating for Containment? quote:Soon after his concepts had become U.S. policy, Kennan began to criticize the foreign policies that he had seemingly helped begin. Subsequently, prior to the end of 1948, Kennan became confident that positive dialogue could commence with the Soviet government. His proposals were discounted by the Truman administration and Kennan's influence was marginalized, particularly after Dean Acheson was appointed secretary of state during 1949. Soon thereafter, U.S. Cold War strategy assumed a more assertive and militaristic quality, causing Kennan to lament about what he believed was an abrogation of his previous assessments. Majorian posted:No, Putin is a cynic who has benefited from the fears of the Russian public. Right, so either you don't think he is wholly in charge of his own defensive forces, or you think he is wholly caught up in the propaganda he is selling his own public? Why doesn't this make sense? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Mar 10, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Do you even know what George Kennan advocated? What he caused? The mess he made by advocating for Containment? I actually think you might be the one who doesn't know what George Kennan advocated. "Containment" doesn't mean what you think it means. quote:Right, so either you don't think he is wholly in charge of his own defensive forces, or you think he is wholly caught up in the propaganda he is selling his own public? LOL, what? No, Putin is definitely in charge of his own defensive forces. He came to power on a wave of Russian fear of the West, resurgent nationalism, and disappointment in democratization. He continues to hold onto power by stoking those sentiments. Unfortunately, we have played into this strategy quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I actually think you might be the one who doesn't know what George Kennan advocated. "Containment" doesn't mean what you think it means. I suggest you read his diaries before advocating for his ideas on how to counter the Soviets. The guy had delusions of grandeur that completely ignored the Stalinist attitudes of his day in the Soviet Bloc Majorian posted:LOL, what? No, Putin is definitely in charge of his own defensive forces. He came to power on a wave of Russian fear of the West, resurgent nationalism, and disappointment in democratization. He continues to hold onto power by stoking those sentiments. Unfortunately, we have played into this strategy quite a bit. So the guy leading their country specifically exploits the POPULATIONS weakness to advocate militaristic goals and somehow this is NATOs fault? Putin OPENLY stokes those sentiments knowing the results and its NATOs fault? C'mon now. Blaming NATO for the OBVIOUS exploitation Putin uses is laughable and reeks of poor attempts to move the goalposts of the real issues surrounding what is happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I suggest you read his diaries before advocating for his ideas on how to counter the Soviets. The guy had delusions of grandeur that completely ignored the Stalinist attitudes of his day in the Soviet Bloc I've read all of Kennan's works multiple times over. Post exact quotes, please. quote:So the guy leading their country specifically exploits the POPULATIONS weakness to advocate militaristic goals and somehow this is NATOs fault? Nope. NATO helped make Russia receptive to the political platform advocated by nationalists like Putin. Putin obviously manipulates and exploits his population, but our past mistakes, and the mistakes we continue to make, helps make that manipulation and exploitation possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
commiegir, please stop being hysterical tia
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope. NATO helped make Russia receptive to the political platform advocated by nationalists like Putin. Putin obviously manipulates and exploits his population, but our past mistakes, and the mistakes we continue to make, helps make that manipulation and exploitation possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope. NATO helped make Russia receptive to the political platform advocated by nationalists like Putin. Putin obviously manipulates and exploits his population, but our past mistakes, and the mistakes we continue to make, helps make that manipulation and exploitation possible. Once again: Let's say NATO completely backed off. What do you think Putin would do? V. Illych L. posted:commiegir, please stop being hysterical tia How am I being hysterical?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
randomly all-capping words is a thing hysterical people do also you're toting too much righteousness and too little reflection imo, you should work on that
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You mean like how we orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, then supported the new Ukrainian government in their attempt to commit genocide against Russian speakers? Nope. Not claiming that, and I don't believe that's what happened. Nor have I given any indication that I think anything similar to this, so it's kind of dishonest for you to suggest that this is an opinion I hold. CommieGIR posted:Once again: Let's say NATO completely backed off. What do you think Putin would do? Backed off from what, exactly? Ukraine? Are you going to post those Kennan quotes, by the way? Or am I to assume that you're talking out of your rear end?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:randomly all-capping words is a thing hysterical people do It allows me to emphasize certain words. Its not hysteria. Majorian posted:Backed off from what, exactly? Ukraine? Yes. Let's say we completely backed off. Gave nothing to Ukraine. The EU withdrew their financial support. Hell, even forces pulled away from Poland. What do you think Putin's response would be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes. Let's say we completely backed off. Gave nothing to Ukraine. The EU withdrew their financial support. Hell, even forces pulled away from Poland. What do you think Putin's response would be? Well, first of all, nobody's advocating the EU (or the U.S. or anyone) withdrawing their financial support, and secondly, Ukraine not being able to join NATO is pretty much a given at this point. I think that the U.S. ought to make clear to the Kremlin that we acknowledge this fact and won't push for their and Georgia's accession - effectively repudiating our position at Bucharest in 2008. Having said that, if all support were withdrawn from Ukraine, Putin would probably continue to support the insurgents in the country until they destabilized and overthrew the government in Kiev. A pro-Moscow government would be "elected," and Ukraine would be worse off for that. At this point, though, some level of Russian influence over Ukraine is going to be a given no matter what we do, unless we go to war with Russia and absolutely annihilate them. Obviously that would open up a new can of worms that we really don't want to deal with, so we're not going to take that option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's not that hard, dude: Russia saw NATO expanding eastward, gradually, in successive waves, and as the US adopted more neoconservative policies and unilateral actions, they began to worry that NATO's primary objective was to weaken Russia and expand the American empire. Each blunder the US and NATO made led Russia closer to the present state of affairs. Don't play coy. You don't have a single argument against the first NATO expansion. At most all you can say that it led a further series of steps that led to something bad happening 15 years later. So why toss out the baby out with the bath water because of the future mistakes? Wouldn't it make more sense to just correct those later mistakes and keep the NATO expansion, since it was beneficial to the security and European integration of those countries? Majorian posted:The Pristina Airport incident, while tense, wasn't some grand display of Russian national will; it was a series of miscommunications. The fact that you don't think that this was a grand display of Russian national will, when the Russian soldiers who participated in the operation were given medals, lauded as heroes and the incident is remembered fondly as practically the only triumph of the Russian army during the disastrous 1990s, just demonstrates your ignorance on the issue. Please, please, at least read the article that I posted. Majorian posted:Yes, what Dr. Brovkin is arguing there kinda-sorta resembles what you're arguing. Since you're having trouble seeing why the Kosovo issue is central to Russia's antagonism with the West, I'll quote a bit more of the article: quote:President Yeltsyn had to play along with the nationalist hysteria. Not mentioned in that article but worth mentioning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/304836.stm quote:The ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky has been trying to enlist volunteers to go to Serbia. Now, jumping forward to 2014, President Putin is playing to nationalist hysteria. Russia is supplying weaponry to the separatists. Alexander Dugin is writing about a pan-European movement to stand up to US aggression. Official propaganda is uniting Russia on a holy war against the West. The breakaway Ukrainian territories want to join Russia. And Zhirinivsky is one of the many politician helping Russian volunteers go to the Donbass. But wait, it doesn't stop there. This wasn't a one-time issue that got resolved by negotiations after the Pristina incident. No, the West kept poking at that sore spot again and again, finally culminating with Kosovo's declaration of independence. You don't have to search far to see Russia's reaction (emphasis mine): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%27s_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence wikipedia posted:In February 2008, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that [...] "those who are considering supporting separatism should understand what dangerous consequences their actions threaten to have for world order, international stability and the authority of the UN Security Council's decisions that took decades to build". Then in August of the same year Russia unilaterally recognized South Ossetia and Abhazia. Once again, I call on you to list anything close to this reaction when NATO expanded (during either time)! Russian-Western relations were not doomed because of NATO expansion in 1999 and 2004. They were ruined by the Kosovo war, Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
If NATO backed off (more than it has), I assume Putin would reassert dominance over the former Soviet Union easier but to be honest NATO isn't that much of a presence anyway but Putin would like to keep it a zero presence. As for Russian paranoia, I don't think the Russian government seriously worries about NATO invasions but at the same time very much doesn't want a NATO presence in the former Soviet Union since it obviously weakens their hand and puts them far more on the defensive. You may say that is a good thing because Russia is a "habitual aggressor state" that needs to be corralled to protect the sovereignty of the states around it, but the Russians by and large do not see it that way. Eigenstate posted:Russian-Western relations were not doomed because of NATO expansion in 1999 and 2004. They were ruined by the Kosovo war, Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia. It is very possibly paranoia of the events fed into each other. You can't stop expansion to please Russia and reassure them but nevertheless it was going to come to a boil at some point and as NATO expanded closer to their borders, the issue only grew exponentially. That said, I think the Georgian War was the breaking point one way or another and after that the rift only grew more open. The protests against Putin in 2011-2012 added some heat to that fire by threatening the regime itself (the protests weren't "engineered" but undoubtedly they were perceived it as such by Putin), and by 2014 the stage had been set. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope. Not claiming that, and I don't believe that's what happened. Nor have I given any indication that I think anything similar to this, so it's kind of dishonest for you to suggest that this is an opinion I hold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, first of all, nobody's advocating the EU (or the U.S. or anyone) withdrawing their financial support, and secondly, Ukraine not being able to join NATO is pretty much a given at this point. I think that the U.S. ought to make clear to the Kremlin that we acknowledge this fact and won't push for their and Georgia's accession - effectively repudiating our position at Bucharest in 2008. So, your argument amounts to "Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but its the West's fault, and not Putins"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:Don't play coy. You don't have a single argument against the first NATO expansion. Sure I do: it helped move Russian paranoia, nationalism, and anti-Westernism closer to where it is today. Kennan had the same argument in 1998. quote:At most all you can say that it led a further series of steps that led to something bad happening 15 years later. So why toss out the baby out with the bath water because of the future mistakes? Wouldn't it make more sense to just correct those later mistakes and keep the NATO expansion, since it was beneficial to the security and European integration of those countries? I'd certainly prefer that above what has actually happened. Even so, a far better solution would have been to either let Russia into NATO in the 90's, or else beef up a European collective security organization (Matlock's WEU plan) that was able to maintain stability and security and didn't have the baggage that NATO did and still does. quote:I'm still anxiously waiting for your explanation for what the "miscommunication" was. Was there some miscommunication when Russia begged and pleaded in front of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council for NATO to stop bombing Serbia? Was something (mis)communicated when Yeltsin planned the Pristina maneuver with the general staff in secret? Was there some miscommunication when a Russian soldier threatened general Jackson with a rocket launcher, as the story goes? The Russian unit seizing the airport was due to a miscommunication in orders. Yeltsin bungled the affair by giving too loose a leash to the military, which interpreted this as a go-ahead to seize the airport. Obviously the Russians really embarrassed themselves in this situation, but it's a little disingenuous of you to suggest that a series of errors like this amounts to Russia being willing to start WW3 over Kosovo. quote:The fact that you don't think that this was a grand display of Russian national will, when the Russian soldiers who participated in the operation were given medals, lauded as heroes and the incident is remembered fondly as practically the only triumph of the Russian army during the disastrous 1990s, just demonstrates your ignorance on the issue. Do me a favor: find me an article from a credible analyst in the last, say, decade that has come to the conclusion that Russian aggression was caused primarily by how the Kosovo conflict shook out. Then I'll take your argument a little more seriously, because right now, all you've got is a single 16-year old piece, written in the immediate aftermath of the crisis (and also in a pre-Putin, pre-Bush era), by an academic whose mental stability is, ahem, questionable at best. Until you do that, you're in no position to say that I'm ignorant on this topic. CommieGIR posted:So, your argument amounts to "Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but its the West's fault, and not Putins"? Nope. At this point I've probably said it hundreds of times: Putin is the bad guy here. He is mostly at fault. But NATO played a crucial part leading up to this state of affairs as well. A Buttery Pastry posted:Missing the point completely. No, you just don't have a response to my point, so you're dodging it. quote:What has currently got Russians in a tizzy is an essentially made up scenario Not really. NATO expansion has happened, the US hasn't taken expansion into Ukraine and Georgia off the table, the US has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty and planned to put ABM sites in former Eastern Bloc countries, and the US has adopted a neonconservative foreign policy. These are not made-up things; these are facts. Putin has certainly played them up to attain more public support, but it's silly to say that there aren't concrete things that we've done to help him in that regard. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope. At this point I've probably said it hundreds of times: Putin is the bad guy here. He is mostly at fault. But NATO played a crucial part leading up to this state of affairs as well. So hindsight is 20/20 and how dare we cause this, except we don't have time machines. So how do we deal with it now in the present, and not some alternative history?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So hindsight is 20/20 I've posted articles from before and around the time of the expansion saying, "Don't do this, it's a bad idea." quote:So how do we deal with it now in the present, and not some alternative history? Take Ukraine's accession to NATO off the table, engage in confidence-building measures with the Russians (ie: new arms reduction agreements, signing back onto the ABM Treaty), make it clear that lifting the sanctions is contingent upon an end to their support of the insurgents, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, you just don't have a response to my point, so you're dodging it. Majorian posted:Not really. NATO expansion has happened, the US hasn't taken expansion into Ukraine and Georgia off the table, the US has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty and planned to put ABM sites in former Eastern Bloc countries, and the US has adopted a neonconservative foreign policy. These are not made-up things; these are facts. Putin has certainly played them up to attain more public support, but it's silly to say that there aren't concrete things that we've done to help him in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:But the current fever pitch of craziness is over a made up scenario, even if NATO/US politics had made Russians more receptive to it in the first place. Doesn't matter - the underlying issues still exist, regardless of whether or not the inciting event (in this case, the overthrow of Yanukovych) happened as the Russian public believes it happened. If things hadn't reached a boiling point over this precise incident, they inevitably would have done so over something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I've posted articles from before and around the time of the expansion saying, "Don't do this, it's a bad idea." We'd have to assume that Russian aggression was not a problem to begin with as far as Ukraine's access to NATO. But in this case, Russia was already stepping on toes, and we had a treaty with Ukraine to enable their self defense in allowing them to give up their nukes. What you are suggesting would involve breaking treaties to appease Russia, and we'd get another 'Czech/Hitler' situation where another ex-Soviet Bloc state would never trust the West again. Majorian posted:I've posted articles from before and around the time of the expansion saying, "Don't do this, it's a bad idea." Forgive me, but can you link a couple for me? I'm on my phone and can't search the thread easily. Majorian posted:Doesn't matter - the underlying issues still exist, regardless of whether or not the inciting event (in this case, the overthrow of Yanukovych) happened as the Russian public believes it happened. If things hadn't reached a boiling point over this precise incident, they inevitably would have done so over something else. Except at the time of the offer to Ukraine, Russian aggression was already the issue, so how were we to resolve it by telling Ukraine to sit and spin in direct disregard for the treaties we gave them? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But in this case, Russia was already stepping on toes, and we had a treaty with Ukraine to enable their self defense in allowing them to give up their nukes. What you are suggesting would involve breaking treaties to appease Russia, and we'd get another 'Czech/Hitler' situation where the ex-Soviet Bloc states would never trust the West again. Unfortunately, a lot of this is probably inevitable no matter what. The US isn't going to send troops to defend Ukraine. quote:Forgive me, but can you link a couple for me? I'm on my phone and can't search the thread easily. One from 1995, one from 1997. quote:Except at the time of the offer to Ukraine, Russian aggression was already the issue How was Russian aggression against Ukraine an issue in 2008?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Doesn't matter - the underlying issues still exist, regardless of whether or not the inciting event (in this case, the overthrow of Yanukovych) happened as the Russian public believes it happened. If things hadn't reached a boiling point over this precise incident, they inevitably would have done so over something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay, so the fact that Putin essentially created this crisis from scratch is irrelevant? The Maidan/Yanukovych issue is just one small episode of a greater crisis that predates Putin's rule. It was going to reach a boiling point at one juncture or another. quote:What about the next time? I mean, given NATO's crimes in Ukraine, it'd be understandable if Russia went completely bonkers the next time something happened in Eastern Europe. We'd better talk them down from the ledge, then, hadn't we?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How was Russian aggression against Ukraine an issue in 2008? Georgia happened. How do some notes from 1997 and 1998 reflect Putin's current obvious campaign of rebuilding a Russian strong man image? Despite these notes, the actions Putin is CURRENTLY taking that are obviously not keyed to NATO, so why would this make any difference to Putin's scheme? Majorian posted:We'd better talk them down from the ledge, then, hadn't we?  "Don't do it Mr. Putin, we'll put the weapons down, you can continue to point yours at the hostage, however"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Maidan/Yanukovych issue is just one small episode of a greater crisis that predates Putin's rule. It was going to reach a boiling point at one juncture or another. NATO expansion is just one small episode of a greater crisis that predates Putin's rule. It was going to reach a boiling point at one juncture or another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:We'd better talk them down from the ledge, then, hadn't we?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It doesn't seem like it's in the interest of Putin to get off the ledge though. To be fair to Putin, territory expansion is quite an attractive ledge for a near dictator to stand on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Georgia happened. Yes, after the Bucharest Summit. The summit was in April, the conflict in Georgia was in August. quote:How do some notes from 1997 and 1998 reflect Putin's current obvious campaign of rebuilding a Russian strong man image? They certainly predict (correctly) that NATO expansion would lead to a rise in nationalism and an aggressive government. More importantly, though, I posted those to show you that this was not just an argument being made in hindsight, as you claimed. quote:Despite these notes, the actions Putin is CURRENTLY taking that are obviously not keyed to NATO Back up this claim, please. quote:
What solution would you propose? MeLKoR posted:NATO expansion is just one small episode of a greater crisis that predates Putin's rule. It was going to reach a boiling point at one juncture or another. I don't think NATO expansion was inevitable. Otherwise people like Kennan, Matlock, Nunn, Dean, and Davies wouldn't have been arguing against it. A Buttery Pastry posted:It doesn't seem like it's in the interest of Putin to get off the ledge though. Sure it is. If the US backs off on allowing Ukrainian and Georgian membership and says there will be no more eastward expansion for the foreseeable future, Putin can declare victory at home. He'll have thwarted NATO and poked the American imperialists in the eye. If that's accompanied with WMD reductions, everybody wins: the world has less nukes that could run loose at some point, the US and Russia don't have to pay to maintain the drat things, and their respective security situations are enhanced by having fewer warheads pointed at each others' countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Do me a favor: find me an article from a credible analyst in the last, say, decade that has come to the conclusion that Russian aggression was caused primarily by how the Kosovo conflict shook out. Then I'll take your argument a little more seriously, because right now, all you've got is a single 16-year old piece, written in the immediate aftermath of the crisis (and also in a pre-Putin, pre-Bush era), by an academic whose mental stability is, ahem, questionable at best. If you compared people to being like climate change skeptics, then you're like an anti-vaxxer: when Russia got autism in 2014, you got convinced by arguments that "vaccinating" Eastern Europe really does cause autism and feel vindicated. In actual fact, there were more important issues than NATO expansion that led to the current situation in 1998-2004, and more recent, pertinent issues that happened in the decade after 2004. quote:The Russian unit seizing the airport was due to a miscommunication in orders. Yeltsin bungled the affair by giving too loose a leash to the military, which interpreted this as a go-ahead to seize the airport. Obviously the Russians really embarrassed themselves in this situation, but it's a little disingenuous of you to suggest that a series of errors like this amounts to Russia being willing to start WW3 over Kosovo. quote:The first thing the battalion did upon arriving in the airport was to establish satellite communications with Moscow and the first message that came from Moscow was a promotion in the rank for General Zavarzin by Yeltsyn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, after the Bucharest Summit. The summit was in April, the conflict in Georgia was in August. Your assumption being that the Bucharest Summit didn't have intel relating to a possible build up near Georgia, which often takes months of preparation? What do you think prompted the summit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic_crisis While Georgia trying to join NATO was certainly part of the issue, it showed a renewed willingness on the part of the Russians to forcefully prevent independent nations of self-governance, including the fact that Ukraine provided supplies to Georgia prior to and during the conflict. What you are telling me is that we should willfully abandon improved relations with independent nations near Russia because they might get cross and get an itchy trigger finger?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:Are you for real? Your source so far has been a senile 94 year-old And a rebuttal signed by 19 former ambassadors, senior government analysts, and State and DoD officials. And an open letter from 50 former ambassadors, senior government analysts, and State and DoD officials. Also, Kennan was not senile by 1998. quote:If you compared people to being like climate change skeptics, then you're like an anti-vaxxer: when Russia got autism in 2014, you got convinced by arguments that "vaccinating" Eastern Europe really does cause autism and feel vindicated. Actually, the people who know what they're talking about (the doctors, in the vaccination analogy) are backing up my argument. quote:Please cite the sources where you got this information. And please, please, PLEASE read the article I posted. I mean, it says there black on white: I read it the first time you posted it. It's not a convincing argument. I've told you why already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think NATO expansion was inevitable. Otherwise people like Kennan, Matlock, Nunn, Dean, and Davies wouldn't have been arguing against it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I wasn't saying NATO expansion was inevitable, I said all things being equal we would still be in the same place even had NATO not expanded Why do you think this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why do you think this? Because the current situation is largely reactionary bullshit propagated by none other than Putin himself to prey on the fears of his constituent population? I mean, unless you are honestly suggesting that the homo-fascists of the West are a real threat to the Russian homeland and their national security?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because the current situation is largely reactionary bullshit propagated by none other than Putin himself to prey on the fears of his constituent population? You're deluding yourself if you think that this current crisis isn't simply the latest episode in a twenty four-year ongoing series of fuckups by both sides. quote:I mean, unless you are honestly suggesting that the homo-fascists of the West are a real threat to the Russian homeland and their national security? I obviously don't believe there are homo-fascists anywhere, nor do I think that the West truly intends any harm to Russia. But this is a game of perceptions, not intentions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They certainly predict (correctly) that NATO expansion would lead to a rise in nationalism and an aggressive government. More importantly, though, I posted those to show you that this was not just an argument being made in hindsight, as you claimed. Majorian posted:Sure it is. If the US backs off on allowing Ukrainian and Georgian membership and says there will be no more eastward expansion for the foreseeable future, Putin can declare victory at home. He'll have thwarted NATO and poked the American imperialists in the eye. If that's accompanied with WMD reductions, everybody wins: the world has less nukes that could run loose at some point, the US and Russia don't have to pay to maintain the drat things, and their respective security situations are enhanced by having fewer warheads pointed at each others' countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're deluding yourself if you think that this current crisis isn't simply the latest episode in a twenty four-year ongoing series of fuckups by both sides. It's pretty clear that, while Putin might have valid security and border fears from NATO, that is not the driving force in his actions. Nobody is claiming Russia has no right to fear for their borders, but that is not what is driving Putin's choices. A Buttery Pastry posted:You're confusing Russian interests for Putin's here. If he wasn't just a thief with the backing of the state, and was willing to forgo personal profits in favor of improving the lot of the average Russian then that would certainly be in his interest, but as is, the crazed nationalism card is really loving useful for a guy who doesn't offer much else to the people he rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Correlation=/causation. No, but when a group of experienced, tried-and-true Russia analysts predict a trend, and that trend turns out to be happening, it's usually a good idea to listen to them. quote:You're confusing Russian interests for Putin's here. If he wasn't just a thief with the backing of the state, and was willing to forgo personal profits in favor of improving the lot of the average Russian then that would certainly be in his interest, but as is, the crazed nationalism card is really loving useful for a guy who doesn't offer much else to the people he rules. All evidence suggests that Putin isn't just a kleptocrat, though - he's a megalomaniac who's obsessed with securing his legacy as a new groznyi tsar. He likes money, but more than anything, he wants to be remembered as Russia's George Washington. CommieGIR posted:It's pretty clear that, while Putin might have valid security and border fears from NATO, that is not the driving force in his actions. That's not clear at all. Back up your claims, please.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Actually, the people who know what they're talking about (the doctors, in the vaccination analogy) are backing up my argument. Majorian posted:Why do you think this? You said time and time again that Putin is ~*a bad man*~ that is deliberately stoking the fear and paranoia of his population with bullshit that he knows perfectly well to be a lie but you are apparently unable to consider that maybe when ~*bad men*~ don't have a ready made excuse for their aggressive policies they don't say "shucks, if only I had an excuse I could invade my neighbor" instead - you know - they make poo poo up. Russia is a rump state that failed the transition into a modern democracy. Putin's goal is to restore Russia to it's former glory, that is not going to happen without vassals. The problem with Russia is that it is in the hands of an autocrat whose sole way to ensure his continuation in power is to at least look like he is restoring Russia to it's former glory regardless of how much long term damage he causes. This is a man that has time and time again blatantly lied to his people, his neighbors and the West, and he does it without even blinking an eye and yet you somehow think that if only NATO had done this one thing differently 20 years ago then none of this would have happened. Why, when you readily admit Putin is a piece of poo poo, do you insist on this idea? It is at best naive. Majorian posted:I obviously don't believe there are homo-fascists anywhere, nor do I think that the West truly intends any harm to Russia. But this is a game of perceptions, not intentions.  Majorian posted:
All evidence suggests that Putin isn't just a kleptocrat, though - he's a megalomaniac who's obsessed with securing his legacy as a new groznyi tsar. He likes money, but more than anything, he wants to be remembered as Russia's George Washington. MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:41
|
|