|
New to the thread, I have scanned the previous few pages but didn't find any posts discussing this aspect in detail so forgive me if it has been tackled before. What is an outcome that is acceptable to the current government and if it is drastically different from the population, what does the population see as an acceptable outcome without a military conflict? Right now one of the key demands made publicly by the Russians is that NATO needs to guarantee that Ukraine will not be allowed into the alliance. Regardless of the morality of whether such a demand should be met it seems this is the primary driver for Russian behavior in the region during the past decade plus. Would the Ukrainian government and its people realistically be willing to walk away from NATO if the Russians allowed for some sort if special economic partnership with the EU? Maybe not EU membership outright but benefits that emulate some degree of western integration that the Ukrainians see to desire? I ask because it seems clear to me that publicly renouncing NATO as an option for Ukraine would remove one of the biggest blocks thatbis immovable in this situation by the outside powers. Russia sees NATO expansion to its doorstep as unacceptable and NATO/US are now so knee deep that agreeing to exclude Ukraine from the alliance would be a severe loss of face after having already spent so much time publicly saying otherwise. Furthermore I would imagine that the Ukrainians should now view NATO with some degree of suspicion wrt to its willingness to fight on its behalf even if nominally given membership. The Germans outright appear to be rejecting any military confrontation and the US is also publicly saying it will not defend Ukraine with force. If two of the countries leading the alliance has effectively declared that Ukraine is not considered a core strategic interest to the alliance, in not so many words, what is the likelihood that Article 5 would actually be honored if they did get into NATO and the poo poo hit the fan with Russia in the future? The Donbas region is almost certainly lost for good as is the Crimea. Is there any thought in Kiev and the rest of the country that maybe they need to rethink what is or is not acceptable under the current circumstances?
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, worth noting that Russia is pissed about Ukraine being "NATO on their doorstep" I appreciate yours and the responses of others but this wasn't really the crux of my question. I was more interested in what Ukrainians are actually thinking and whether there is any appetite to accept less than ideal situations in order to prevent an invasion. This applies regardless of what the Russians actually will do or not do. Ie Is there any reporting on any acceptable series of concessions that is not being publicly stated by the Ukranian government if it means Putin will back off. Similarly what is the mood on the streets, especially in the western, pro EU end of the country. Is there a sentiment of 'let's make a deal' or is both the government and the population willing to fight and go down with the proverbial ship for unmitigated sovereignty? I ask because everything I google ends up with articles about what Putin wants or what the US does not want but very few articles talk about what the Ukrainians are willing to actually accept when the rubber meets the road so to speak. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/19/ukraine-frontline-fear-and-defiance This article for example seems to say this one guy is willing to fight it out despite acknowledging massive casualties and the likelihood of Russian occupation and speculates on partisan warfare if occupied. Is he alone? Is the Ukrainian government also of that all or nothing mindset? Like is there links to translated newspaper opinion articles that reflect the Ukrainian mindsets with respect to the spectrum of outcomes it can lie with it means avoiding war.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:You don’t seem to get that the minimum concessions Russia is ready to accept are total capitulation and relinquishment of sovereignty. Ukrainians, naturally, are disinclined to surrender their constitutional ambitions and aspirations just because Putin has some demands - the man has proven his beliefs, and strength of his word, enough with Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk already. CommieGIR posted:No, I did address them: Those were the Russian terms. They want NATO to scoot west of Eastern Germany. They want Ukraine to become a loose association rather than a State. They want to limit and even have veto of who can and cannot join NATO. They want to limit Ukraine's access to the EU Not sure why we keep going on about what Russia wants. I was kinda interested in knowing where the line in the sand for the Ukrainians is at this point (ie the current discussion about how enthusiastic the Ukrainians really are for war the past few posts). I thought I made that explicitly clear in my post but whatever. I'll try another tack then. If there are Ukrainian posters here either in Ukraine or ex-pats, can you point me to what you consider are the best free newspapers/media outlets - preferably those that allow users to comment/discuss and I'll hope google translate holds up. Preferably a smatter across the spectrum from pro-Russian to die-hard EU/NATO or bust papers. If you feel the state of the media in Ukraine is such that it is 100% unreliable in terms of speaking for the populace, then let me know so I don't waste a bunch of time just struggling through a bunch of state/Russian propaganda. IE According to Wikipedia Kyiv Post is legit (and happily in english). Does anyone feel that its views are radical and not reflective of the Ukrainian population? Sinteres posted:I think people are overestimating how much resistance there would be in a post-war Ukraine because they're applying a jihadist concept to Europe. Doesn't pretty much every country in eastern Europe have a lot of young people looking to leave for better jobs elsewhere as it is? That kind of suggests to me that nationalism isn't the top priority on everyone's mind, though obviously war has and would radicalize some. Assuming Russia would allow disaffected youths to leave, and that nations sympathetic to Ukraine wouldn't suddenly cut off all migration from the country, why stay and die for Ukraine when you can get a job somewhere else that pays better than what you made before the war? That's not a realistic avenue for everyone, but I do think it's a critical escape valve. https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-russia-invasion-calm-fears/31633377.html dated Dec 30,2021 has figures of about 1 in 3 willing to join the army overall. Support is greatest in the western regions of the country where support is 2 in 5. Those in the east, close to the Russian border/Donbas region support falls to 1 in 4. This was also taken at a time when Ukrainians apparently felt that war was very unlikely (1/4 felt that war was a possibility). So how the sentiments have shifted I am unsure given that invasion looks like it could kick off any minute now. Hence my interested in more up to date stances both publicly and behind the scenes as well as up to date public sentiment. MikeC fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jan 25, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:The majority of the journalists formerly at the Post created the Kyiv Independent: Thank you, this was helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I am not sure how anyone is supposed to negotiate with Russia given they blatantly don't follow the agreements they signed? Treaties are followed by nations only until it is no longer beneficial for one or the other. Nations abide by treaties because they codify a core interest they want in exchange for a core interest the other side wants. Every country breaks agreements the moment the original calculus that lead to the agreement being signed in the first place is no longer valid. Anytime you as an observer sees nation signs an agreement that on the surface appears to gain nothing for them, you know it is just a polite lie or you aren't seeing the full picture. Or if a country continues to abide by an agreement of the same nature, you know one or more of their core interests is not what it appears to be or that the price of breaking the agreement risks other core interests that are more valuable. This happens between countries with friendly relations, hostile relations, or middling relations. It happens between the full range of democratic and open societies to the most brutal totalitarian ones. There isn't a single country on earth that will continue to honor an agreement that is underwater in terms of benefits to core interests purely on a moral basis. At the end of the day, if the NATO/EU is serious about Ukrainian sovereignty, it better sit down and determine what Putin actually needs to extract out of this or actually prepare countermeasures so painful that Putin is willing to suppress this core interest to protect the one that the NATO/EU can hit if it isn't willing to send 5 NATO divisions to Ukraine to physically make an invasion/incursion/what-have-you impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Their demand is nobody east of Eastern Germany can participate in NATO. That's a no go. No one negotiates without the first offer being a clear overreach. Even then, that isn't their demand even at face value. quote:Article 4 They want a pullback of non-state troops behind the first traunch of NATO eastward expansion. They can be in NATO and receive their article 5 guarantee but no peacetime deployments or exercises into those areas. A clear non-starter but they knew that. But they aren't asking for a rollback on NATO, just a cessation of further expansion onto their borders as can be seen in Articles 6 and 7. The rejection of any further expansion of NATO in their written reply earlier today seems so scatterbrained. This should be the easy part for all involved. Everyone can see that the US has no time for Ukraine and that it isn't a core interest. The Ukrainians now know for a fact, as indicated by their public frustrations with the US and Germany, that they are not a core interest. The Russians know that they have effectively proven that Ukraine is more of a core interest to them than it is to NATO and that further overreach just makes it harder for NATO to disengage without massive loss of face. No amount of wishful thinking will change that. A realist in Kyiv should see that it isn't going to be allowed to join the pack because the pack has no desire to start a fight with the starving wolf and that if it wants to survive and prevent further destabilization for its country, it needs to readjust its vision for the future. In no way is this fair or just but it isn't a fair or just world and it is unlikely to change in the near future.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Tigey posted:The collective security guarantee (ie: Article 5 etc) is meaningless without having some credibility that it will actually be followed up on in time of conflict by the rest of NATO (primarily, but not exclusively the US). That is explicitly the point that Russia is making right now. In their minds, there is no reason to expand NATO eastward. The raison d'etre for NATO was to counter the Soviet Bloc, which no longer exists. NATO's frontier used to be Central Europe. NATO expansion occurred when the supposed threat to it was at is absolute weakest in the immediate years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Any expansion eastward, since there was no threat to counter, must be viewed in the lens of putting troops belonging to the core NATO countries closer to Russia - ergo a threat. Russia is simultaneously drawing a line in the sand on Ukraine and also making every single member of the 1st and 2nd traunch expansions of NATO question just how committed the heavy lifters of NATO are to its cause should a crisis situation hit. Posters here keep saying Putin wants to restore the USSR. I doubt that. Russia and Putin definitely understand they are no longer a Great Power but neither are they just a trash heap that can be ignored and taken for granted. They are remolding themselves into a regional power and showing that they clearly have interests both in the economic and security sphere and that should a conflict arise, you shouldn't look westward for backup. Perhaps it is time to take a less western-centric approach and see what the new Russia has to offer in return for a modicum of respect and cooperation. Just as how any sovereign nation in the New World has must defer to the United States with respect to how it view the security situation there. Ex. No matter how much money the PRC might plow into some minor Central or South American country, it is unlikely they will ever simply allow basing rights for the PRC military because just the idea of it will piss Washington off to no end. What doesn't help Putin and his cause is the fact that his regime is undeniably authoritarian and by nature, is viewed with instinctual distrust by democratic societies, even in those countries that have only converted to it within a generation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:Here's a fun thought experiment: keep all the variables the same except swap Ukraine for Poland. What does NATO do when it's a member state under threat? That's a good idea of what NATO *could* do vs what they will do It's obvious, isn't it? Donbas never would have been allowed to happen at all and US armored divisions would already be rolling to the Polish Belorussian border. If NATO allows anything like what happened in the Ukraine in 2014, much less even the possibility of an invasion with any degree of hesitation, NATO is dead on the spot. Hence the hardline stance on Ukraine and Georgia in 2008. The moment NATO membership is granted, Russia's freedom of action is curtailed since it and NATO knows failure to defend its own will lead to dissolution. Russia would much rather play this game of chicken whenever there is a conflict of interest in its border states when NATO has the option of gracefully backing out without the possibility of an existential crisis.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:Well, thank god at least Germany is safe for now Yes. Everything is always in a state of "for now". That's how the world works. There are no guarantees in perpetuity and the calculus changes decade by decade, year by year, day by day. Powers rise and fall and those who either cannot or choose not to have great power aspirations must bend with the wind as it comes. If the US breaks down under the weight of the culture wars and once again turns its sights inwards and abandons its status as a great power, everyone in Europe and around the world will have to revaluate where it stands. If Putin was to keel over dead tomorrow and the Russians enter another bout of infighting and self-introspection, you can be sure the Ukrainians would be welcomed into EU and NATO with open arms.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 05:28
|
|
|
Sekenr posted:Why does the USA need to collapse to withdraw from europe? The point is to refute your "for now" post as equally just a bunch of white noise. Any treaty, any agreement, any arrangement is always "for now". So just because Germany can buy entente with Russia "for now" by sacrificing Ukrainian sovereignty and aspirations, doesn't mean that it isn't in their best long-term interests to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2022 06:12
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I’d like to chime in about NATO expanding into former Warsaw Pact and Baltics. I don’t know the WP details, but Baltics basically bankrolled their own armies from 0 in early 90s, paid for Danish advisors, and then sent them dressed in Adidas and hand-me-down equipment to die Balkans to buy ourselves a shot at joining NATO, which was a day 1 priority when the Soviet Union fell. I find it rather disingenuous to bring us up as an example of NATO actively encroaching upon implied passive Russian hinterlands. TipTow posted:It's not disingenuous. I understand there's several EE posters in here (including you) and of course y'all's perceptions of what's going on wrt the Ukrainian crisis are going to be informed by your own countries' history with Russia. As they should! That's perfectly reasonable. I even understand why, from the Baltics' point of view, joining NATO was a wise move. But I also understand why NATO expansion would be seen as threatening to Russia. What did the U.S., France, Turkey, et al. gain from the Baltics joining? Just because the Baltics wanted in doesn't mean NATO was obligated to bring them in. Nenonen posted:Why do you think Nato exists if not to bring stability to Europe? Isolationism didn't work out that well for USA one hundred years ago. It would be silly to dismantle it all just because the sort of bully the system was designed to protect its members from demands so. I keep seeing posts that revolve around the idea of what is NATO expansion for, why Russia is just a paranoid bear, and how Putin is just trying to restore the evil USSR. These views see Russian behavior in purely a moralistic western viewpoint and unfortunately fails to see things through Russian eyes. It is also instructive to remember that Vladimir Putin is entering his third decade as the primary political leader in Russia whereas administrations in the West have come and gone since then and it appears that our leaders, and we along with them, have forgotten things that have happened that Putin clearly still remembers. I decided to take the past few days to review the past two decades (I was just entering post-secondary schooling when Putin took power) and it reminded me a lot of what I had forgotten and how it must look from the Russian viewpoint. I am going to take a stab at presenting a view on the situation on how Russia sees things. This includes reading articles written back in the early 2000s and reviewing the situation as the writers saw it at that time rather than looking at the past through the tinted lens of today's events. Let me preface this by stating that the Russian viewpoint is classic 19th-century balance of power politics. The moral and just thing to do would be to allow the Ukrainians to decide for themselves who to look to, but we don't live in a moral or just world and I think it is only realistic and prudent for Russia, just like every other nation, to look after its own interests even at the expense of others. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, there was a vacuum of power effectively occupied by the Russians, historically a great power nation since the late 18th Century under the reign of Catherine the Great. The term 'sphere of influence' has been interpreted by many in this thread to be a negative thing and when viewed specifically within the framework of a sphere of influence impeding the freedom of action of a sovereign nation, it is indeed an obstacle. Spheres of influence though are also beneficial in that they lay out predictable and accepted ground rules and boundaries for conflict resolution both between members within a sphere of influence and members in opposing spheres of influence. In such ways, core interests are clearly identified and protected, and the pathway to resolution is more likely predictable and mundane. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and the rest of Russia understood that after 1989, Russia was no longer a great power but with the ideological divide now gone, the Russians felt that a new system of European security could be forged with the US, Europeans, and Russia bound within a new set of rules that would respect the interests of each nation. Gorbachev called it the "Common European Home", and the Russians expected with the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact, NATO would soon follow and a new security arrangement could be reached in which Russia would join the club of European nations and have both a seat and a relatively powerful say in European affairs and that Russian interests would be respected in this framework. Yeltsin expressed many times in the 90s that the expansion of NATO, when it failed to dissolve could only be viewed as simply keeping Russia out of the club and when Clinton moved forward with the "Partnership for Peace" initiative, there is some evidence to suggest that Washington assured them that Russia too, like the former states of the WP which were being eyed for inclusion into NATO, would soon get its seat at this table. Indeed Yeltsin is said to have viewed the Partnership for Peace as the 'alternative' to NATO expansion and part of the process by which NATO would transform from a military alliance into a political framework for dispute resolution on the continent. Indeed when Putin entered his first Presidential term in 2000, shortly after 9/11 the concept of a pan-European security arrangement (ie sphere of influence) was still largely on Russian minds. Despite open invitations to NATO expansion in the late 90s, the Russian reaction was relatively muted and always seemed to indicate that they were waiting their turn for integration into the system. When the 1997 invitations to the Poles, Czechs, and Hungarians to join, another agreement was made with Russia (Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security) in which NATO promised not to station permanent forces or redeploy nuclear weapons on to the territory of its new members (sounds suspiciously like the recent Russian demands no?). The Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty was another failed experiment in which only Russia and 3 other Soviet Bloc countries ratified the treaty despite NATO members signing it. The breakdown of Yugoslavia and the NATO intervention in Kosovo with no meaningful consultation with the Russians who had Serbia as an effectively a client state was one of utter humiliation for the Russians. The promise of integrating Russia into a pan-European security arrangement seemed to be forgotten and soured Moscow on their naivety of expecting to be treated like a partner. Yet their efforts to integrate into Western Europe did not stop. George Robertson who led NATO in 1999-2003, indeed related a story recently where he says Putin talked to him and asked him point-blank when they could expect their invitation to NATO. In June of 2001, Putin openly expressed talk of joining NATO as a preferable 2nd alternative if the expansion of NATO continued. In the wake of 9/11, Putin met Bush, and despite continued talk of NATO expansion Putin was willing to play ball and the Russia-NATO Council was formed. But none of this seemed to matter. No meaningful attempt was made to integrate the Russians. Instead, from the Russian perspective, everything was done to antagonize them. In 2002, G W Bush pulled out of the ABM missile treaty which the Russians saw as an attempt to undermine their nuclear deterrence. At the same time in 2002, agreements were made to accept all the Baltic States and Romania among others into NATO. No meaningful consultations were made with Putin with these expansions. No assurances or suggestions were made that Russia would ever be included. Indeed it saw the 2004 revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia saw the toppling of governments that were friendly Russia and instead installed pro-western regimes that were openly declaring their intention of joining NATO - a club that Russia expressed interest in joining and was effectively cold-shouldered from. The Bush administration's decision to place ballistic missile defense systems in Poland (a new NATO member) infuriated the Russians and when Georgia invaded separatist South Ossetia with what they thought was a NATO green-lit affair, it can sympathize that Russia's only conclusion at that point was that NATO was slowly strangling it by installing friendly regimes, granting it NATO membership and then installing weapons that undermined Russian deterrence. Keep in mind when Serbia invaded the breakaway Kosovo in what Russia viewed as a similar situation, NATO intervened on the side of Kosovo (separatists). It can be argued that when viewed from the Russian perspective, the rules and principles that NATO/US/The West claimed to operate by are simply a sham of an excuse to intervene and pursue its own interests and a flimsy shield by which to lecture Russia with when Russia attempt to secure its own interests. Public speeches made by Putin back in 2007 and far more recently can only confirm that this is how he now views the NATO, a club that Russia tried on multiple attempts to join and were rebuffed. Putin 2007 speech Munich Conference "But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all. I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them." Putin at his end of year Presser is even more explicit "But the matter at hand concerns security, not history, but security guarantees. This is why it is not the negotiations themselves but the results that matter to us. We remember, as I have mentioned many times before and as you know very well, how you promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly: there have been five waves of NATO expansion, and now the weapons systems I mentioned have been deployed in Romania and deployment has recently begun in Poland. This is what we are talking about, can you not see? We are not threatening anyone. Have we approached US borders? Or the borders of Britain or any other country? It is you who have come to our border, and now you say that Ukraine will become a member of NATO as well. Or, even if it does not join NATO, military bases and strike systems will be placed on its territory under bilateral agreements. This is the point. Fundamentally, his opposition to NATO expansion, especially in Ukraine is less about restoring Imperial Russian borders but about obtaining a measure of control over a security situation that Russia, himself, has tried over two decades resolve; first by attempting to join the club, then attempted detente with the club, and now taking a hardline stance against further encroachment by the club. A club that in Russian eyes is every expanding around its borders, providing new bases from which to stage offensive weapons and having a deleterious effect on Russia's own ability to mount a credible deterrence over a time period (especially in the 90s and 00s) where Russia has simply made no substantial offensive moves of its own and over that same time period has been seen that its cultural, political, and strategic interests have been totally ignored by the West. Anytime Russia sought to act to protect its interests, it feels like it is picked on by NATO countries and slammed with the usual human rights and self-determination principles while those same principles are ignored whenever the West feels it needs to act unilaterally and without consultation from Russia. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/67438 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034 https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8439.htm https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2019/jul/10/gorbachev-vision-for-a-common-european-home--july-1989 https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-etrangere-2009-5-page-107.htm?contenu=article https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.brookings.edu/research/nato-enlargement-moving-forward-expanding-the-alliance-and-completing-europes-integration/?amp
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Oh, yes, moralistic "Western" viewpoint that Russia murdering 13,000 Ukrainians and forcing millions from their homes is bad and they shouldn't do even more. Did you.....actually read the post?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2022 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
ronya posted:was it ever realistic for Russia to expect to join NATO as an equal partner with the US rather than as a de facto subordinate partner on the level of the UK, France, or Germany (the "big three", never mind the smaller European nations) Going back and reading what the Russians and even some American politicians were saying, I think there was clearly the expectation of a new political arrangement in which the Russians would partake in. I also don't think that they expected to be treated as an equal to the US. I mean you don't ask to join institutions that belong to the other guy if you see yourself as a peer competitor. But I very much get the impression reading what I have from sources back then as well as articles before the hard shift in 2002 that they expected that they would be treated like partners of the stature of the UK and the like. Instead what they got was total abandonment and got slapped in the face during the Kosovo situation and the subsequent unilateral ABM pullout. You are right about the hat in hand business but the outright rejection of any serious integration of Russia probably had the Russians taken aback. Budzilla posted:I am reminded of Robert McNamara saying how he almost got into a fight with the former foreign minister(iirc) of Vietnam over the reasons for the Vietnam war. McNamara was saying how it was another battleground in the Cold War against Communism while the foreign minister stated that it was another war for the Vietnamese people against outside oppressors. I feel like when I read posts like this that you can see the forest but not the trees. Russia does have legitimate security concerns like any other nation state but so do other states like Ukraine. Unfortunately for Russia it is not the center of the Soviet Union anymore and it will have readjust to the new reality on the ground. If a country like Ukraine decides it is in its national interest to do business with a larger, less corrupt and wealthier market it should be able to do so. If a country like Ukraine decides its security could be improved by forming partnerships with countries it hasn't had the choice to join before, then why should an outside power stop it? Russian leadership will have to realise they suck and unless there is a paradigm shift in how they treat countries in their "sphere of influence" they will continue to find that these countries will escape their orbit. This is also happening in central Asia with China. The parallels did strike me as similar incident as well. I think the Russians have adapted to the new reality alreqdy though. Unlike China, Putin has no great power designs. All of its disruptive actions have so far been in the border zones of 'the Near Abroad'. One can argue that this is due to power protection limitations but so far given no indication that it intends to return to the global stage like the Chinese have done. It does however see itself as a regional power and if it cannot get entry into key institutions from which to protect its interests, then they will go about it the old fashion way. If it cant talk in a meaningful way, then it means destabilizing the American and NATO designs through brinksmanship and exposing then driving wedges between NATO members like we have seen as well as destabilizing the internal politics of NATO members to keep their energies focused inwards rather than outwards It is unrealistic to see or expect Russian behavior to change in the near term until its security demands are dealt with in a substantive fashion. For example, one of the the demands made by the Russians is no brigade level or higher exercises inside some buffer zone yet to be determined. It is holding 'excercises' of its own precisely to demonstrate how annoying it is to have military units of an alliance that has you on its hitlist randomly massing on your borders without consultation. That's how the Russians see it at least. That's really the crux of my post. To present the Russian viewpoint from a historical basis over the past 30 years. Ofcourse people don't actually read and assume I am defending Hitler in 1938 or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2022 15:40
|
|