Invasion of Ukraine • Page 169

I think you go back as far as necessary to understand the present. Very simply, the point is that US victory in the Cold War and its continued aggression worldwide has led us here. Putin/Russia also has responsibility but is operating within a geopolitical environment largely shaped over previous decades by the US.

 

Did NATO invade any countries to make those countries join? No.

Did Russia take military actions against former Soviet territories to influence their independence as early as 1994? Yes

Did former Warsaw Pact nations willingly initiate their membership due security concerns and Russia’s aggression in the mid-90s? yes.

 

The fall of the Soviet Union was primarily the result of internal systemic weaknesses. The big ones were economic stagnation, political inefficiency, and the rise of nationalist movements within the republics.

While external pressure did come from the West, it was primarily through economic competition and ideological influence during the Cold War. The collapse was more a result of internal contradictions and Gorbachev’s failed reforms.

While the ideological influence from West was significant (and one can argue the internal problems of the USSR helped the West’s propaganda sound better), it was not the central cause of the Soviet Union’s collapse.

 

my personal opinion is that NATO should have worked tirelessly and in good faith to bring Russia in and have them join (changing or evolving the name at the same time), or it should have gone away entirely

and when I say tirelessly, I mean it - I think it should have been the overriding focus and goal of the entire organization during that time period to somehow make inroads and build relationships with Russia to try to get to the point where they would want to join, or scrap the whole thing and come up with an alternative security architecture that worked for both sides

 

"There have been debates and ideas over the years about scrapping NATO or transforming it into a different kind of security framework, particularly in Europe. These discussions often arise during periods of heightened tension or shifting geopolitical priorities. Below are some key contexts in which these ideas have emerged:

1. Post-Cold War Optimism
After the Cold War, some policymakers and analysts questioned NATO's relevance, arguing that its original purpose—to counterbalance the Soviet Union—was no longer necessary.

• Incorporating Russia: Proposals were made to create a pan-European security structure that included Russia, such as expanding the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) or creating a new framework altogether. For example, Russia's early 1990s leadership under Boris Yeltsin expressed interest in closer cooperation with NATO, though these efforts never fully materialized into a comprehensive security overhaul.

2. France and European Strategic Autonomy
France has historically been a vocal advocate for European-led security and defense. French President Charles de Gaulle famously withdrew France from NATO’s integrated military command in 1966, though the country remained a member of the alliance. More recently, President Emmanuel Macron called NATO "brain dead" in 2019, advocating for greater European strategic independence and questioning the alliance's future.

• European Defense Initiatives: Some European leaders have suggested replacing NATO with a Europe-focused defense pact that might better integrate European and Russian security concerns. However, this idea has struggled to gain traction due to varying levels of commitment to U.S. security guarantees.

3. U.S. Skepticism of NATO
In recent years, U.S. leaders, particularly under former President Donald Trump, have questioned NATO’s utility and criticized European members for not meeting defense spending commitments. This prompted fears that the U.S. might reduce its involvement in NATO or withdraw altogether, leading to calls for Europe to rethink its security architecture.

4. Russian Proposals for a New European Security Order
Russia has long advocated for a new European security framework, arguing that NATO expansion threatens its national security. Key proposals include:

• Medvedev’s 2008 Proposal: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed a European Security Treaty to replace NATO-centric security arrangements. The proposal aimed to create a collective system where no single country or bloc (like NATO) could dominate.
• Helsinki II: Some analysts and politicians have called for a revival of the spirit of the 1975 Helsinki Accords, which emphasized dialogue and mutual security between East and West.

5. Contemporary Challenges and Skepticism
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has largely sidelined these debates in recent years. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 have reinforced NATO’s importance in the eyes of its members. Many European nations, including traditionally neutral countries like Sweden and Finland, have moved closer to or joined NATO, making the idea of scrapping the alliance less politically feasible.

Challenges to a New Architecture

• Distrust of Russia: Many NATO members view Russia as a destabilizing force, particularly after recent aggression.
• Diverse Interests in Europe: European countries have differing security needs and relationships with the U.S., making consensus on an alternative framework difficult.
• U.S. Role: NATO’s structure heavily relies on the U.S. for leadership and funding. A new architecture might not have the same level of military capability without American involvement.

While the idea of scrapping NATO or replacing it with a more inclusive European security framework has been floated, the geopolitical realities and recent conflicts have made NATO’s continued existence more appealing to its members.

 

hey, I didn't say I thought the idea would have ever been easy, or that it would be now, only that both sides should have tried in good faith to make it happen

this game where we are all one whoopsie-daisy or miscommunication away from nuclear annihilation is fucking absurd

 

From what I have gathered, it seems that the biggest obstacle to Russia joining NATO was the fact that former Warsaw Pact members joined. This turned Russia’s interest away. So, the only way it might have worked would be if we were in the same situation we’re in now, where Russia believes it has the right to decide what former Warsaw Pact members do with their sovereignty. Russia never wanted to be at equal footing with former Warsaw pact nations. It’s always wanted to control them. That’s the core issue and the US can’t do anything about it. No nation can without challenging Russia and we’re seeing where that is going.

And, yes, it is absurd. A former KGB like Putin should never have been allowed to rule Russia. The moment he did, vengeful Soviet ambitions were there to stay. With those Soviet ambitions its neighbors have three options 1) willingly be taken over 2) fight back and risk Russia using nukes 3) join a defensive alliance that will deter Russia from ever attacking and having the opportunity to use nukes.

 

Did NATO invade any countries to make those countries join? No, they just invade them and then don't let them join and leave them to rubble. Is that better?

Who was the President of the Russian Federation in 1994? Boris Yeltsin, elected with American help, re-elected with even more American help in 96, after invading Chechnya.

Russia wanting to join was not the issue after the fall off the Soviet Union. There were deepening ties through the 90s, harmed by the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia, helped by 9/11, and then destroyed by the US withdrawaing from the ABMT. There was one obstacle to Russia joining NATO and it wasn't Russia.

Highly recommend Collapse by Vadislav Zubok of LSE. I linked a couple reviews below. His thesis is basically: the former, but also it's pretty much only Gorbachev's fault. Or at least, could have been avoided if Gorby made different decisions.

Book Review: Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union by Vladislav M. Zubok

 

I don't think either side pursued the idea in good faith, and I think it is a little reductive to say this was the biggest obstacle when there were enormous obstacles on both sides that they each would have had to wrestle with and resolve both on their own and together.

what is the one obstacle you are referring to here...?
even before hearing your answer, I have a feeling I am not going to agree with you, because I think there were many obstacles on both sides and not one obstacle on one side

 

Yes, there were probably many obstacles on both sides. I meant that, even at the time when it was the closest it ever came to happening, the US/NATO was the less willing/certain/convinced side. Just talking about the attitudes of the countries with 'obstacle', probly not the best word

 

thanks, that makes sense

 

The obstacle i’m referring to is former Warsaw Pact members joining NATO.

One of the most significant pieces of evidence is the public statements made by Russian leaders, particularly Vladimir Putin. After the end of the Cold War, Russia expressed a willingness to cooperate with NATO, but it became increasingly wary as NATO expanded. Putin has repeatedly stated that the enlargement of NATO, especially towards Russia’s borders, was seen as a betrayal of promises made by Western leaders in the early 1990s. Said promise was John Baker telling Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t move one-inch eastward and the context seems to be about Germany.

While NATO and Russia had some cooperative efforts in the 1990s, including the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the NATO-Russia Council (2002), these initiatives became increasingly strained as NATO expanded. Russia’s sense of being sidelined grew, especially when it perceived that its concerns about NATO expansion were not being taken seriously by Western powers.


You can disagree, but are there any statements before former Warsaw Pact members joined NATO in which Russia expressed wariness of the alliance? It seems that these concerns mostly came after NATO’s expansion. If that’s the case, it suggests that Russia’s primary objection was to former Warsaw Pact members joining NATO.

 

I do not know the answer to that question. I am not even saying that you are factually incorrect here, I am simply saying that in my opinion neither side took the efforts seriously or in good faith and then stated that the problem was the other side.

I am saying that each side was at fault.

 

Tony Wood in his book Russia Without Putin blames the West: “The drive for NATO expansion also made it clear that there was no room for Russia within European institutions or Euro-Atlantic security arrangements. The Yeltsin government several times floated the idea of joining NATO, but Russian membership was never seriously considered… Moscow's aspirations for alliance or integration were repeatedly ignored or rebuffed by the West, which had its own plans and priorities. Foremost among these was the drive by NATO and the EU to bring the former Soviet and Warsaw Pact states of Eastern Europe into the Western orbit, reformatting their political and economic systems along liberal capitalist lines.”

 

“Despite its weakness in the 1990s, Russia was still too large and powerful a state to be easily fitted into the system as it was. According to Brzezinski, ‘the politically decisive fact is that Russia bulks too large, is too backward currently and too powerful potentially to be assimilated as simply yet another member of the European Union or NATO. It would dilute the Western character of the European community and the American preponderance within the alliance.’ As part of NATO or an expanded EU, for example, it would have been on a par with Germany or France in terms of its decision-making influence, capable of banding together with either to block US designs.”

The US wanted to maintain and build its hegemony.

 

sure, these are some valid critiques of The West and particularly the US, but this is leaving Russia out of the equation entirely and operating with the assumption baked in that Russia was engaging with the West in good faith and was genuinely trying to join NATO

 

There’s plenty of evidence that Russia did want genuine integration with the West to some degree. For instance, after the 9/11 attacks, Putin saw this as an opportunity for an alliance with the Bush administration against “terrorism”. This came to nothing when the US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. Russia’s overtures were not to be reciprocated by the US

 

Russia’s War Economy Is Hitting Its Limits

 

Yeah, but there seems to be a wall that can’t be moved. Good faith, bad faith, Russia has always opposed former Warsaw Pact members joining NATO. NATO has an open door policy. Realistically, one of those would have had to go.

 

Easy for Putin to say this being that he is the one bringing in troops from around the world

 

Get em, Xi

 

I've said this multiple times here, but if CHina started creating closer ties with Mexico economically or militarily, the US would be wrong for invading Mexico in response and everyone here would agree with that, I would think.

 

the post you’re quoting is EXPLICITLY not about right and wrong