With all due respect, that is a really stupid argument. The official NATO position was that Ukraine will eventually become a NATO member, Bucharest summit 2008. That position remained unchanged, at least until the beginning of the Russian invasion. The Russian demand was and probably is, that Ukraine will not become a NATO member in the future, not that it is not a NATO member right now. To the best of my knowledge, NATO has never stated that it will not bar Ukraine from joining NATO indefinitely or something even remotely similar.
And while you think Russia just wanted the territory, I think Russia just does not want US troops or weapons at their borders, just as the USA would probably not enjoy Chinese troops or weapons in Mexico. Or how they did not like Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. Or how they in 2022 threatened consequences to Solomon Islands - 10,000 km from US borders - if they allowed China to establish a military base.
There are already 6 NATO countries on the border with Russia, I'm shocked that you don't know this.
If Ukraine became a member before 2014, we wouldn't have had this horrible war, but Russia was controlling Ukraine's political class, and making threats to NATO countries against them joining. Especially against Germany who was reliant on Russian gas imports.
I can see that you're determined to believe that Russia is just defending itself here by attacking preemptively, and you will probably support any action by them, including a full annexation, and attribute it to their reasonable intentions.
No need to pretend that you have respect for me... But in reality what's happening is that you're dismissing information that doesn't fit in your worldview, by disparaging the person who presents them to you.
Was Russia happy about those countries joining NATO or did it protest? Were the relationships between the East and the West better so that this was of less concern? Was Russia weaker and had less power to resist? I do not see how Russia living with the existing NATO neighbors would imply that Ukraine becoming another one would be of no concern.
How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier? Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia?
I am not determined to believe anything, I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth. I can give you countless examples over several decades where Russia protest NATO expansion and threatened consequences. Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations? And before you say On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, make sure you actually read it.
Russia wasn't happy, because it wanted to keep the option to militarily expand in all of these countries. I think we agree here.
> I do not see how Russia living with the existing NATO neighbors would imply that Ukraine becoming another one would be of no concern.
The current NATO neighbors didn't present any threat to territorial integrity of Russia. The only reason Russia doesn't like them joining is that it doesn't have an option to militarily expand there anymore, something that is important to Russian leadership and people.
> How do you know that Russia would not have attacked if Ukraine would have tried to join earlier?
If Ukraine joined, Russia wouldn't touch it like it didn't touch any of the NATO countries. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have a Russian minority, but Russia can't support separatist movements, and intervene militarily there as easily as in Ukraine or Georgia.
> I want to correctly understand the world and know the truth.
In geopolitics, there's no single "truth," only perspectives backed by evidence. Every Russian is taught in school that eastern Ukraine is "rightfully" theirs, and they get a compelling story to back up this belief. Ukraine being in NATO would make it impossible for Russia to act on this claim for decades, and the claim would have weakened with time.
> Why would Russia not have intervened in 2008 as it did in Georgia?
Russia intervened in Georgia to support separatists, not to stop NATO accession.
> Can you give me any sources where Russia was expressing expansionist considerations?
"You don’t understand, George, Ukraine is not even a state. What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, but the greater part is a gift from us."
Sorry, it is too late here to continue that discussion now. If I find the time maybe tomorrow. Or you could watch this talk [1], I essentially agree with the views of John Mearsheimer, so that talk might address your points. That one predates the invasion by seven years, but there are newer talks including post-invasion.
Mearsheimer is literally on Russian payroll and the linked video is full of lies. I'll give you one non-political example. At 8:45, he shows a map of Europe. Countries like Finland and Estonia are shown as importing 100% of their natural gas from Russia. Mearsheimer comments that this shows their heavy dependance on Russia. He omits the fact that the share of natural gas has been limited only to a small fraction of the overall energy mix, by government policy, precisely to avoid dependence on Russia. In Finland's case, that "100% Russian gas" was less than 10% of the total energy mix, and mostly in non-critical uses. This trick is known as inflated importance: using absolute percentages without relative context to exaggerate significance.
He pulls similar well-known tricks throughout the video. Shows a map that divides Ukraine into two parts by their dominant language and calls Ukraine "a badly divided country", but fails to mention that Ukraine is bilingual and the difference is only something like "92% speak Ukrainian / 88% speak Russian" and "91% speak Russian / 87% speak Ukrainian" in areas that have drastically different colors. Just compare the map shown at 6:22 with the magenta/teal bars representing Ukrainian/Russian languages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine#/media/Fi... This manipulation technique is known as false binning: grouping values into distinct color categories that overemphasize minor variations.
The man is an incredible fraud, and the linked video is one of the most damaging pieces of propaganda produced this century.
Do not get hung up on the details of the presentation and if some charts are misleading, address the core argument. Russia perceives NATO expansion as a security threat, that concern is not imaginary given the uncertainty of the future, and the West ignored those concerns which left Putin with essentially no other option than the use of force.
The core argument is nonsense and bears little connection to actual events or motivations. Mearsheimer completely ignores the many nations of Europe, their history and current goals. He reduces the complex web of relations that goes back many centuries into an imagined US vs Russia confrontation that never was. He doesn't even speak Russian, which limits him to a tiny sliver of knowledge published in English. It's like a blind man trying to act as an expert in visual arts.
There is no such thing as "NATO expansion". At the end of the WWII, the USSR rolled over the entire Eastern Europe while fighting Germany. After the war ended, they refused to leave, and instead set up Moscow-controlled dictatorships that lasted until the USSR collapsed. I was born in one of such. Couldn't travel nor read foreign books. Didn't have freedom of speech and other most basic rights. An inappropriate joke could get you jailed. I personally knew someone who was sentenced to a Siberian labor camp in the 1980s for advocating human rights. Economy stagnated severely and shops were empty all the time. People had money, but there was nothing to buy in stores. Even top scientists and engineers had to grow their own food on small plots to feed their families. Bananas and jeans were considered rare luxury items.
The shithole finally collapsed in 1991 and Russia was forced to end their military occupation: pack up their dictatorship, dismantle the oppressive secret services and remove their armies. We were finally able to live as free Europeans again after 50 years. Visit other countries, read and write whatever we wanted.
And to ensure that we would never see the return of Russia, we tried to get as deeply integrated with the rest of Europe as possible. That means membership in the Council of Europe, European Union, and NATO.
Eastern Europe's entry into NATO and other organization was motivated purely by the extremely traumatic post-WWII experience of living under the Russian boot. It was our strong initiative desire to join the organization, against cold reception of existing members who had no interest in extending their defence pact. Ironically, they accepted us only because they believed our fears to be unfounded, meaning that they would never actually have to help us fight Russian invasions onto our soil, but saw value in the stabilizing effect that being in NATO would have.
NATO is not a threat to Russia, because NATO mandates civilian oversight over military affairs, and the mutual defense guarantee acts as a moderator that forces every member to consult with others before any military actions. This makes NATO countries extremely stable and predictable. We can see this clearly with aiding Ukraine, where every step is discussed for months and telegraphed long in advance. The over-reliance on stronger members of the organization, namely the US, has led to most European members to being unable to defend even their own country. Who in their right mind calls such countries a threat?
Russians unaffiliated with the dictator Putin understand this perfectly. The man who was Russia's foreign minister for most of the 1990s decribes NATO as "providing free-of-charge security along Russia's western borders". They have no problem with NATO and they are remarkably supportive of it.
The only ones raging over NATO are Putin and his cronies who have destroyed all opposition and consolidated all power in Russia and have now set their sights on external expansion through conquest. NATO stands in their way. They can't invade small countries one by one, but must face the entire bloc at once. They are unable to handle such a confrontation, hence their impotent rage.
I was born behind the Iron Curtain, too. And I said that Ukraine has good reasons wanting to join NATO and so did and do other former Soviet Bloc countries, nobody is denying that. But that is only one side of the conflict. No matter what Russia or the Soviet Union did in the past, it still remains true that having a powerful military alliance right at your border poses a potential security thread.
And for long-term strategic planning it does not only matter what the situation is right now. Relationships change, the Cold War was not the same situation as the relatively good relations after the Cold War - were even the idea of Russia joining NATO floated around - and then the relationship heavily deteriorated again. So even if your characterization of NATO was correct today - and I would disagree, I think of NATO more as the USA plus some minions given the vast power differential - that is no guarantee for future behavior.
Mearsheimer and others, by omission, are denying the influence of past Russian behavior. Why are you focusing on purely hypothetical Russian security concerns instead of the very real security concerns of countries that have been attacked many times in the past, are under attack now - like Ukraine - , or fear they will be next?
The narrative about NATO being a threat to Russia is also ridiculous in how detached it is from reality. If NATO were truly a threat to Russia, then why aren't Russians building air raid shelters as a mandatory part of every building, preparing their bridges for demolition, and carrying out other preparatory work like the Finns are doing? Why are the Finns digging anti-tank ditches and mapping border areas for minefields, while Russia's side is completely open and doesn't even have a chainlink fence? Where is the fear of NATO in real observable facts?
The problem Russia has with NATO is not an imagined threat, but the fact that NATO stands in the way of Russia conquering Eastern Europe again.
If Finland were not allied with anyone, Russia would face only Finnish regular forces with limited foreign aid when invading the country. The maximum opposing force would be relatively small and predictable. With NATO, Russia faces potentially everything, up to American carrier groups and nuclear missiles tucked between cornfields in Ohio. For Russia, demanding that European countries be kicked out of NATO means significantly lowering the cost of invading them, but does nothing to shelter them from the most powerful NATO countries, like the US, which constitute the overwhelming majority of NATO's military force. This too reveals where the true concern lies.
Why are you focusing on purely hypothetical Russian security concerns instead of the very real security concerns of countries that have been attacked many times in the past [...]
I have repeatedly stated that both sides have good reasons for what they want, either joining NATO or not wanting NATO at the border. That is why there is even a conflict, because two parties want opposing things.
Your claim is essentially NATO is the good guy, so Russia being worried is irrational and nobody needs to care. That sounds more like focusing on one site to me. The USA is worried about Chinese military bases in Solomon Islands half way around the globe, so why can Russia not be worried about the USA in Ukraine?
Where is the Russian fear of NATO in real terms? Why is everyone in Europe building defensive lines on their side of the border with Russia, while Russia has only open fields on its side?
Putin's dictatorship is indeed extremely irritated by Eastern Europe being in NATO for rational reasons, but those are different reasons than you are trying to present.
I am not entirely sure what I should make out of this response. You are not attacking the position that Ukraine in NATO is a potential security threat to Russia, you are only saying that they are not acting accordingly. Does that imply that you are agreeing that having a competing military alliance at your border is a potential security threat?
Besides that I can think of several reasons why Russia only has fields. Firstly, Ukraine is not yet in NATO, so any defensive measures would be premature. And they invaded Ukraine to maintain that state which seems a way stronger reaction then constructing defensive lines. Also building defensive lines implies worries about a ground invasion and it is not obvious to me that this would be Russia's primary concern.
They might, for example, be mainly worried about the nuclear balance. If the USA could place ABM defense systems closer to Russia, they might be able to more efficiently intercept Russian ICBMs in the boost phase when the missiles are still relatively slow and vulnerable. That would diminish the Russian retaliatory strike threat in case of a US nuclear attack. Also having weapons closer to the target reduces the reaction time the enemy has. For that kind of risk ground defense lines it not the reaction one would expect.
It might also be for simple reasons like a lack of resources. Or Russia might refrain from doing what it does not want NATO to do.
I do not accept your hypothetical scenarios, but I am willing to investigate them.
People often point to Napoleon or Hitler and claim that Russia fears an invasion over the flatlands of Eastern Europe. Yet, if we investigate this, we find that Russia's European neighbors are building defensive lines on their side, while Russia is not. This suggests that Russia is not afraid of a ground invasion, but its neighbors are.
Likewise, if you look at a globe, Ukraine is nowhere near the launch sites or flight paths of Russian nuclear missiles headed for the US. The Earth is not flat. Nuclear missiles would be launched from sites near in central and northern Russia, flying north over the pole toward the US - not west over Ukraine. Ukraine is geographically irrelevant to these flight paths because it is too far south.
So again, how does NATO threaten Russia?
There is one far easier explanation: NATO is not a threat to Russian security but a threat to Russian ambitions. NATO stands in the way of Russia invading other countries. If every country in Europe were isolated and didn't cooperate with others, a Russian invasion would face only their regular forces. For example, Estonia has just a few tens of thousands of soldiers, less than 100 artillery guns, a few HIMARSes, and some anti-ship missiles. No tanks, no air force, no navy. That's it - something Russia could clearly defeat. But with NATO, Russia could potentially face everything up to American carrier groups and nuclear missiles when invading Estonia. Managable risk grows into unlimited risk.
This is self-evident from the invasion of Ukraine as well. Without foreign military aid, Ukraine could have been defeated long ago, but with the aid, Russia is stuck fighting for just the first fifth of Ukraine. Foreign military aid made the difference between victory and defeat for Russia in Ukraine, so naturally, they seek to isolate countries they intend to invade from military partnerships.
How do you conclude that my view of the world comes from YouTube videos? If I am interested in a topic, I actually read the primary sources, and on the war in Ukraine I have done a fair bit of that in the beginning. In that respect I am easily better informed than 99 % of people that just consume the news in one way or another.
And there are essentially two points of view, either Russia has expansionist ambitions or Russia has legitimate security concerns not taken serious by the West. It is trivial to find someone that argues either position. And nuance does not matter here because we disagree on the absolute fundamentals, so it does not even matter whether I agree with every last word as long as I agree with the main points.
And am I neither Russian nor American nor do I feel close ties to any side, so I will happily change my position if someone provides the necessary evidence. But so far nobody has done so.
> If I am interested in a topic, I actually read the primary sources,
You're not referring to any primary sources here.
> In that respect I am easily better informed than 99 % of people
Bold claim, but even if true, doesn't mean that you can accurately assess the situation.
> there are essentially two points of view, either Russia has expansionist ambitions or Russia has legitimate security concerns not taken serious by the West.
The first is evidence based - Russia is expanding. The second has the convenient property that it backwards rationalizes Russia's violent actions, while not looking at the evidence. It requires mental gymnastics, and is therefore more popular with Russians who have an interest in believing it.
> nuance does not matter here because we disagree on the absolute fundamentals
Like what? Do you deny that Russia invaded Ukraine?
> am I neither Russian nor American nor do I feel close ties to any side
This is presenting the conflict as just two empires fighting over who gets the influence over the European countries, and completely ignores these countries' own agency.
The reason Ukraine wants to join NATO is because they're threatened by a neighbor who actively invades their territory, kills civilians, disrupts their economy ands terrorizes them. Not because they like Biden or want to be American.
Instead of discussing many different points, let us focus on one.
You're not referring to any primary sources here. [...] The first is evidence based - Russia is expanding. The second has the convenient property that it backwards rationalizes Russia's violent actions [...]
Give me a pre-invasion source that says that Russia has expansionist ambitions, bonus points if that claim is substantiated by evidence. I give you Putin's speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference [1] and the draft Agreement on measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation and member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [2].
And just to be clear, I think that declaring that Russia has expansionist
ambitions is backwards rationalization, nobody claimed that before the invasion. Russia warning about the consequences of further NATO expansion, especially Ukraine, on the other hand has been stated countless times and for decades now.
You ignored the sources I gave you. I don’t think you will accept any source, given that you are willing to write down an invasion, terrorism and disregard for own human casualties to being afraid of a neighbor entering a defensive pact where the US is a member.
Imperialism is an element of Russian culture that runs for centuries. You can only question it if you don’t know Russia’s history, or are just arguing in bad faith.
The criteria you have for interpretation of these sources are asymmetrical for Russia and for Ukraine, and I suspect you might be simply trolling me, so I need to disengage.
You’re willing to frame a devastating invasion as protecting themselves from the US! And ignoring Ukraine’s desire to protect themselves by joining a defense alliance!
You can also ask any Russian what they think about Ukrainian statehood, but you’ll be determined to search for obvious declarations of expansion intent in their censored media in English.
Sorry for overlooking your sources, but if you have to respond to a handful of threads alone, mistakes will happen, the amount of time and attention I have available is limited.
"Tens of millions of our citizens and fellow-countrymen found themselves outside the Russian Federation."
There is nothing in the quoted sentence or the rest of the speech that implies expansionist tendencies, quite to the contrary I would say.
Meanwhile, the horrible lessons of the past continue dictating their imperatives to us today. Russia, with its ties to former Soviet republics, states that are independent today, ties of common destiny, ties through the Russian language and a great culture, cannot stand apart from the universal aspiration for freedom. Today, when independent states have formed and are developing in post-Soviet space, we want to aspire together to meet human values, to embrace broad opportunities for personal and collective success and to achieve standards of civilization gained through suffering. These are the standards that can give us a single economic, humanitarian and legal space.
And the Russia Matters article quite nicely illustrates the deteriorating relationships between Russia and the West. Initially, I think, Putin really [wanted to] believe that everyone will cooperate and follow international law, but over time he became disillusioned. There is this theme of the shared Russian history that Putin repeatedly talks about, but this is always balanced by statements about the rights to sovereignty. He mostly talks about cooperation between states with a common history but he never says that anything has to be incorporated into Russia. Which is a really stupid idea to begin with, just imagine the amount of resources it would take to force a country like Ukraine into Russia when the population is categorically opposed to this.
Besides that, this is not really what I was asking for, I was thinking of political or military analysts or even just the media stating that Putin wants to conquer its neighbors. We can of course now look over all the things Putin said and cherry pick those that could be interpreted this way. But where are the statements like »For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.«?
So for moving the goalpost, I just want something concrete, not vague statements where I have to read something into it. Either, like in the case of Trump, from Putin itself, or in case he never said something like this, I am also happy with some analyst saying before the invasion, we have looked at what Putin says and does and we think he wants to conquer some of his neighbors in the future. Because that is exactly the story the media tells since the invasion, now he wants to take over Ukraine and then he will go for the Baltic states. Quotes expressing that Russians and Ukrainians are one nation can mean all and nothing - you read into that your point of view, I see it as a harmless statement.
And while you think Russia just wanted the territory, I think Russia just does not want US troops or weapons at their borders, just as the USA would probably not enjoy Chinese troops or weapons in Mexico. Or how they did not like Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. Or how they in 2022 threatened consequences to Solomon Islands - 10,000 km from US borders - if they allowed China to establish a military base.