War with Russia

[stowie]

If you can find my saying there was "an agreement for NATO not to expand East", let alone repeating it, do show. If you can't, please don't misquote me just to make a point that found your favour.

Notwithstanding, that 2014 Brookings article you rely on is disingeneous at best. In case you have not noticed, the key sentence in the article contains two apparently opposing narratives attributed to the same Gorbachev:

"To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it 'a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990', but

he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement."

Note the first contains a direct quote. The second is only the article author's own words, not what Gorbachev said.

If you had looked, you would have found a whole bunch of US, British and other diplomatic records have since been declassified for all to see, proving the Russians were indeed misled on NATO expansion Eastward:

"The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”

As the documents show, there was not just one, but a cascade of the same assurance by Western leaders. For example, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.”

Today's mess not only has fundamental roots in Gorbachev being seriously misled, other declassified documents show the deception of Yeltsin and subsequent cover-up by those responsible was perhaps even more egregious, from the Russian standpoint.

The key issue of relevance however, is Western leaders knew full well serious consequences will follow, as the string of senior officials/diplomats have warned and clearly documented. As leader of NATO, the US government pressed ahead anyway. Even certain US Senator nobody heard of in 1997 knew this, in the context of the smaller and less strategic Baltic States potentially joining NATO, which eventually did happen in 2004:



The link to the full video is given in this article. The hubris displayed e.g. from 21:21 to 23:40 is quite something, but helps to explain US foreign policy to this day.

This argument about NATO expansion eastwards affords no agency to the nations that joined NATO. Those nations weren't forced into NATO down a tank barrel (unlike some when the USSR expanded). They were desperate to join NATO and with good cause - they don't trust Russia to respect their nations' borders. Something rather amply proven with Ukraine. It seems an argument harking back to the height of the cold war where autonomy of smaller nations was overridden by superpowers.

I am sure that Putin is hugely exercised about NATO and its borders. Apparently he carries big mental grudges on both the way the USSR collapsed and NATO intervention in Kosovo.

But, in my opinion, the invasion of Ukraine is as much about NATO expansion as it is about "de-nazification". That is, not at all. I cannot see that Putin would have not have invaded if NATO had not expanded, in fact I think he may have invaded more countries (or employed "little green men") and sooner. Putin wants a Russia that projects past borders to be able to shape Europe to his advantage. It is, at its core, good old fashioned imperialism.

The real surprise is how badly he has executed on this desire and how his actions will ultimately reshape Europe in a way that is furthest from his wishes.

 

[stephec]

That's a big question!
I can only tell you my impressions based on my experiences of 10+ years travelling regularly to and working in Kaliningrad (which is a bit of an outlier in Russian terms), Efremov, and the outer-reaches of Moscow. I have spent one long weekend in central Moscow as a Tourist. I really wouldn't waste my own money to go there. St Petersburg may be a different matter.
As you know I work in food production plants, on the factory floor mostly, but I meet with the MDs down to the floor cleaners, so see a slice of life.
There are many positives on the surface, most people have accommodation that is warm and food to eat and work to do, but compared to life in the west, the standard of living for most people is pretty grim, life and work is hard. The apartments are dimly lit, run-down, furniture is cheap and basic. Roads and pavements etc. in poor states of repair in and around most living areas - main highways are generally OK. Where the govt. wants to put on a show it makes a very special effort. Kaliningrad was visually (cosmetically) transformed with the airport mostly finished after 8 years of being part built to host the Footie. Public transport on which the majority rely, just about works, overcrowded and ageing, but it gets-by. Car ownership is for the few.

In the factories long hours are worked, despite there being twice a many people to do the work as would be done elsewhere*, at breaktime many just sleep in the changing rooms - not something I see elsewhere. People generally appear very down and miserable, not much laughter or banter compared to non-Russian factories. Ownership matters, those in lets say International hands have better facilities and treat staff better than Russian-owned. Outside of the bigger conurbations, hotels and eateries are very basic. Hotel rooms are sparse and most have very basic food preparation facilities. International companies outside of major cities have to put a lot into local infrastructure if they expect a lot of non-Russians to operate there with some degree of comfort.
The Russian workplace is very hierarchical and visible kicking down the chain is very apparent - it shows others not to step out of line. Initiative seems beaten out of people, they do what they're told until it's time to go home.
In the big hotels particularly the non-international brands, you can see the fear on the waiting staff that they may drop a fork or not remove a finished plate exactly as instructed. We used to say if you accidently knocked a fork off the table it would be caught before it hit the ground. The Russians staying in these hotels generally treat the staff like shoot. Money and status is to be obeyed. It's not pretty. We are gently instructed as western 'visitors' not to smile, it shows weakness....
Misogeny, Racism and homophobia abound. If you're woman, looks really help attract a wealthier husband/'better life, but wife beating is still legal in Russia and common-place. A very beautiful gentle lady I was working with at one of the factories, was so abused by her husband that she set fire to herself and died.
You soon realise there are 2 systems at play with everything, the 'Official Way' and the unofficial that get's things done....

I mentioned earlier that the military and Russia's 'Strength' is held on a pedestal. As we can see, the reality is (as with much in Russia) very different from that portrayed. Among the rank-and-file Russians, the message is swallowed hook-line and sinker. However, as more Russian acquire wealth, work with International companies and travel overseas, the strength of the message is getting diluted. The lies are being seen through, but the options to make any meaningful change is limited.

But what of the people?
Was talking to a Navy guy at the weekend who said 'I hate Russians', I was interrupted before I could put him straight. In general and I admit at relatively face-value most appear decent people. It takes a while to get to know them, especially those shall we say on the lower pay scales (who often speak little English) or with less opportunities, but kindness and respect goes a long way and behind the stern facades they're nice people operating in a hard environment. They are proud, loyal, and tough. They have a can-do attitude when it's needed (or when instructed). I have a lot of admiration for the Russian people. The sooner they are stopped being hoodwinked the better.

I don't miss going there. Initially it was fun, after a while, you get worn-down by the place. It has been a great experience and privilege to have worked there, but it's hard.

*this is a common theme in many parts of Russia to keep people employed. Airports are a prime example, inefficiency by overmanning!

Thanks, sounds just like Lithuania when I went there in 1999, my driver picked me up at the airport and took me into town and declared proudly, 'here centro Vilnius,' at a load of eastern bloc concrete, I smiled and nodded politely.

At the factory in Kaunus there was a bloke employed purely as a lift attendant and we weren't allowed to press the buttons, that was his specific job, it was like an episode of Are You Being Served.

And plenty of shops that only sell one thing. 😅

.

 

[stowie]

So......

Finland looks on course to apply for NATO membership within weeks, if not days. It might be only a matter of months until they are a NATO member. I suspect Sweden is on a similar course.

Two of the most stable and open democracies in the world, highly integrated with their EU neighbours and known for their liberal social attitudes. Oh, and one of them has one of the biggest standing armies in Europe. And also shares nearly 1000km of border with Russia.

This is bound to really piss off Putin.

Should NATO refuse membership of these countries on this basis? It should just say "sorry, you are too late to the party and we don't want to piss off the neighbour. Hope it all goes well out there..."

 

[Fab Foodie]

So......

Finland looks on course to apply for NATO membership within weeks, if not days. It might be only a matter of months until they are a NATO member. I suspect Sweden is on a similar course.

Two of the most stable and open democracies in the world, highly integrated with their EU neighbours and known for their liberal social attitudes. Oh, and one of them has one of the biggest standing armies in Europe. And also shares nearly 1000km of border with Russia.

This is bound to really piss off Putin.

Should NATO refuse membership of these countries on this basis? It should just say "sorry, you are too late to the party and we don't want to piss off the neighbour. Hope it all goes well out there..."

What it will do is bolster Putin's rhetoric at home that NATO's aim is to envelope Mother Russia etc. etc....

 

[All uphill]

I welcome this news.

It has often been said that Putin, like any bully, only respects strength and walks on weakness.

There are risks whether they join or not; I prefer the risk of strength, not weakness.

 

[stowie]

What it will do is bolster Putin's rhetoric at home that NATO's aim is to envelope Mother Russia etc. etc....

At this stage I wonder if that matters much. What isn't based in reality would be lied about anyway with Putin's control over the Russian media.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

If you can find my saying there was "an agreement for NATO not to expand East", let alone repeating it, do show. If you can't, please don't misquote me just to make a point that found your favour.

The general topics of your post is ''Nato provokes Putin'' which is wrong, it's more like Putin uses war whenever his popularity is dropping, as he can use poeple from the countryside as cheap cannon fodder. Just like his big example Stalin did. Nato provoking him is an non-argument, it just makes it impossible for him to invade his neighbouring countries
Like @stowie already explained in an excellent post the NATO isn't a country and isn't actively looking to expand, more the contrary countries have to apply to the Nato and after that they need to meet certain requirements before they can join Nato.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

This argument about NATO expansion eastwards affords no agency to the nations that joined NATO. Those nations weren't forced into NATO down a tank barrel (unlike some when the USSR expanded). They were desperate to join NATO and with good cause - they don't trust Russia to respect their nations' borders. Something rather amply proven with Ukraine. It seems an argument harking back to the height of the cold war where autonomy of smaller nations was overridden by superpowers.

I am sure that Putin is hugely exercised about NATO and its borders. Apparently he carries big mental grudges on both the way the USSR collapsed and NATO intervention in Kosovo.

But, in my opinion, the invasion of Ukraine is as much about NATO expansion as it is about "de-nazification". That is, not at all. I cannot see that Putin would have not have invaded if NATO had not expanded, in fact I think he may have invaded more countries (or employed "little green men") and sooner. Putin wants a Russia that projects past borders to be able to shape Europe to his advantage. It is, at its core, good old fashioned imperialism.

The real surprise is how badly he has executed on this desire and how his actions will ultimately reshape Europe in a way that is furthest from his wishes.

Strange. So you are sure Putin is "hugely exercised about NATO and its borders", yet somehow his invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO expansion at all?

Your self-contradictory conclusion is also at odds with warnings and predictions by a string of Western diplomats and officials never mind political scientists, experts who warned about the present mess as a consequence of NATO expansion for over two decades. Even Biden indicated pretty much the same, though I am unsure if he qualifies as an expert.

Of course Ukraine has agency, in theory. But unless you have been living under a rock, not really - according to the US - ask Cuba, or Granada, or the Solomon Islands (see looooooong list). Is Ukraine special? Why?

To say the current war is evidence that Putin would have invaded anyway is disingenuous, but fits the US playbook perfectly. Putin famously said, in 2010, "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain". Your thesis completely ignores Western rejections of his consistent protests against NATO expansion, for years, not to mention the ultimatums early this year.

To make light of the red lines (for merely fulfilling prior assurances) of a cornered bear like Russia is stupid, because it is dangerous. Are the benefits of having played hardball before 24th Feb greater than the costs? How so? One of the likely consequences of the conflict is nuclear proliferation - what can possibly go wrong?

It is also evident, from posts here, that everybody delights in Putin's costs, with scant attention paid to everyone elses', including our own, or what will surely come. I get it. But that is not how Putin would be looking at it. Given Russia is a resource rich country, it might just be instructive to look at the conflict from both perspectives.

As I have asked you before, given you disagree with those expert opinions, please do tell why you think they are wrong and you are right - I am curious how you arrive at your opinion.

 

[Mr Celine]

Yawn.

Nato didn't expand after 1990 apart from the addition of the former GDR.

But three nations joined Nato in 1999 shortly before your hero first came to power as prime minister. A further eleven nations have joined Nato since then. Another two will join shortly.

Why don't you see the connection between Russia's brutal dictatorship and the wish of formerly non-aligned sovereign nations to join a defensive alliance? Why are you stuck 30 years in the past? Why do you disagree with the expert opinions of 16 democratically elected governments?

 

[All uphill]

Maybe both views have some truth.

As Putin became more autocratic and Russia became more aggressive and expansionist more countries needed the security of a larger alliance and join NATO.

As more countries joined NATO Putin felt more threatened and angry and became more hostile.

Perfect feedback loop.

In my view the West did a lot to offer Russia a positive role, and turned a blind eye to the actions of 2008 and 2014. This was perceived as a green light for further incursions. So, sure, there were diplomatic failures but the fact remains that Ukrainians are paying a high price for tackling the bully in the playground.

 

[stowie]

Strange. So you are sure Putin is "hugely exercised about NATO and its borders", yet somehow his invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO expansion at all?

These two statements are only contradictory if one makes the assumption that all Putin's actions are formed by him being exercised over NATO expansion. The two statements can both be true.

Putin demands that Ukraine falls squarely within his sphere of influence - a bigger Belarus if you like. Movement away from this influence warranted invasion in order to (re)-establish this influence.

Just listen to Putin himself or his allies. These are not people who accept the autonomy of Ukraine.

Of course Ukraine has agency, in theory. But unless you have been living under a rock, not really - according to the US - ask Cuba, or Granada, or the Solomon Islands (see looooooong list). Is Ukraine special? Why?

Completely agree. Russia is not alone by a very long stretch in subverting nation or regional autonomy. The cold war superpowers have a very long history of this in particular. My wife is from South America and believe me, the stripping of agency during this period is burned into the national consciousness. But playing the game of "who has been the bigger bastard" is not massively constructive. Interviews with an FInnish ex-Prime Minister were illuminating to me about how Finland's neutrality came at considerable national cost and the concept of "Finlandisation" of other nations is actually somewhat offensive to him.

As I have asked you before, given you disagree with those expert opinions, please do tell why you think they are wrong and you are right - I am curious how you arrive at your opinion.

Well, firstly this is a political opinion board. It would be quite an empty place if we had to simply defer to expert opinions without commentary. Secondly, there has been much written about NATO expansion and its influence on Putin's actions from both opinions - I don't have to go far to read political and diplomatic experts that disagree with your opinion either. I could ask the same question back, but it doesn't really get us very far.

Your posts do challenge my opinions and thoughts, and I am glad for that. It has made me realise that I am conflating two questions, and they are not quite the same thing. The two questions being

1) Did Putin invade Ukraine because of NATOs historic expansion to the East?
2) Consequently is NATO "to blame" for Putin's actions?

I say no to both. I struggle with the opinions that answer yes to question 2 much more than question 1. It strips away agency from nation states and citizens, or it assumes that Putin's actions are in defense of Russia's borders which is nonsensical. At worst it justifies Putin's actions. Putin has a long history of intervention in nations, from the brutal war in Syria, to Ukraine, to Georgia, and then to the tech offensives Russia has been engaged in for years. Hell, this is the regime that engaged in a chemical attack in the UK on UK citizens. That surely shows a certain "modus operandi"?

Putin is in legacy mode, and he wants his legacy to be Russia having profound influence over Europe and especially its neighbours. He is an expansionist who may not want the USSR back but sure wants its influence on the world stage.

A question back to you. Finland now looks certain to join NATO. Is this NATO expansionism "poking the bear" and consequently to blame for whatever Putin does next? Are you against it? Should NATO say no in order to placate "the bear"? (sorry, that is three questions!!)

 

[qigong chimp]

The beeb are telling me the cost of living crisis, rising inflation, steepling energy bills and looming recession are all outcomes of the war in Ukraine, with nary a Brexit ingredient in the mix.
Where might I find a less 'cowed' analysis?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

The beeb are telling me the cost of living crisis, rising inflation, steepling energy bills and looming recession are all outcomes of the war in Ukraine, with nary a Brexit ingredient in the mix.
Where might I find a less 'cowed' analysis?

Partly, if you cut out an big gas and oil supplier it's only expected to be of influence, then take in to account all the things produced in Ukraine and it's not that hard at all. But on a large picture more things come to light and altough some may like to put it all the the pile off ''putin's war'' it's not completely true.
The cost of living is an issue here, but also in the Netherlands, Germany and so on, so i don't see how Brexit would fit in that mix.
Think the bigger issue is things like farming is large in the hands of large companies who all get their produce from Ukraine in this case, not because they can't source local, but because they get higher profit margin's working with countries like Ukraine.
As long as that happens prices will rise when things like this war/special operation/mass scrap metal collection happen.
If we could source most of our need locally it would have much less of an impact. and in the progress it would be better for the environment as we have much less truck/boat etc. movements

 

[slowmotion]

The beeb are telling me the cost of living crisis, rising inflation, steepling energy bills and looming recession are all outcomes of the war in Ukraine, with nary a Brexit ingredient in the mix.
Where might I find a less 'cowed' analysis?

You need look no further than the citizens of NACA.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Maybe both views have some truth.

Nope, You can't put an defense alliance 1:1 with an aggressive country that bullies, annexes and tries to install puppets governments in it's members.
One of the reasons Nato is so slow is because, they don't interfere politically, don't say how their member countries must act etc.

Since Putin Russia has adapted and escalated in this policy starting with Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine in 2014 and all what i might have forgotten to mention.

One point the Russians could have are separate agreements the Us has with Polen for example and the storage of nuclear weapons in other European countries. or the missile defence system they placed in Poland, however this is not Nato but the US and considering Russia's continues aggression it is justified, probably one of the reasons they won't launch a nuclear weapon into europe, if the Us can strike them in similar fashion from multiple countries around the world.
As Putin became more autocratic and Russia became more aggressive and expansionist more countries needed the security of a larger alliance and join NATO.

As more countries joined NATO Putin felt more threatened and angry and became more hostile.

Nope, it about the countries around Russia that Putin still sees as part of Russia and therefore things it is ok, the install puppets goverments, invade them or otherwise use political and military pressure.
It also worth mentioning that Putins de-nazification is basically what we call genocide, he wants to ''remove'' all that don't agree with him(=ukranians) Bucha is an good example of how that could look like, i think (and fear)if Mariupol and/or Kherson gets liberated we will see even worse.

If you go down in the reasons then it's much more likely Putin didn't agree with the fall of the sovjet union and therefore pretends it didn't happen than the thread Nato would be to him.

Perfect feedback loop.

In my view the West did a lot to offer Russia a positive role, and turned a blind eye to the actions of 2008 and 2014. This was perceived as a green light for further incursions. So, sure, there were diplomatic failures but the fact remains that Ukrainians are paying a high price for tackling the bully in the playground.

I wouldn't neccaserly say an blind eye, but i do agree that the actions in 2008 and 2014 should have been more robust, a line was crossed then and it's even worse now. Which was enabled by the inaction a 8 years back.