If you are really sincere, I invite you to ponder this video essay by Sarcasmitron. It explains why this familiar talking point has some basis in truth, but doesn't hold up on closer scrutiny.
Well if you are in war with a country, you should at least try to understanding their perspective from their viewpoint to understand their motivations. If you want to prevent more conflict at least..
The context is that Russia kept expanding for 13 years under the same dictator, and then this time is the straw that broke the camel's back. The trust was broken several times.
I don't really care to understand the mindset of a dictator. They want power, resources,or reputation out of it. There's not a lot of justified reasons to lead an assault that will cost millions of your citizen's lives.
I agree we shouldn't take the mindset of a dictator seriously, but we should take the threat of a superpower seriously. And we should show respect to a superpower as long as it's a superpower, because getting into conflict with a superpower can cause WW3.
I don't mean with that that I fully agree with their standpoint, but that we shouldn't fuck too much with them, because they might fuck with us.
Ultimately it's the weakest justification to allow Russia to do what it was always going to do anyway. There's not much to really discuss here unless you thought Russia was a credible place in the last 20 years.
That sounds like a prejudgment. You say Russia would have done this regardless of NATO's actions, but you don't know that. And you're downplaying the importance of NATO's actions and it's influence on Russia's actions.
The truth of the matter from Ukraine's perspective is that this never would have happened if Ukraine was a NATO member.
NATO hasn't moved aggressively on Russia.
The motivations for Russia and it's neighbours for their opinions on joining NATO are the same. Russia doesn't invade NATO members. That's why Russia's neighbours want to join and why Russia doesn't want them to.
I think it's because the US did sort of promise to block expansion, but then changed its mind and in now in hindsight it doesn't seem like they managed it very well but don't want to look bad.
The only part of you post that can be steelmanned into what can be considered an argument is "NATO expansion". And that argument falls apart if you actually think and explore it for like 15 minutes. Like, what is NATO and its purpose, how does "expansion" actually work in terms of process, what events took place on the continent between 90s and new NATO members joining, what else could have compelled parties to go through the process and how durable that would be?
And then the rest of your "question" is straight up factually false.
Well if it's so clear to you, why can't you give a straight up argument? People always say things like "explore it for 15 minutes" or "think about it" or whatever. But I think people are just repeating what other people say. And yeah if everyone's opinion is like this, and you explore it for 15 minutes, and you're the kind of person that repeats what everybody says, then I can understand. But then you can't explain why you actually have that opinion.
Eastern Europe rushed towards NATO as soon as the Russian-controlled Eastern Bloc dictatorships crumbled, to secure themselves from falling prey to Russia ever again. Existing NATO members were for a long time very lukewarm about the idea of accepting new members.
The US did not push or expand NATO onto anyone, but Eastern Europe did everything they could to pull NATO towards them to gain additional security against the very same Russia that had just reluctantly agreed to the dismantlement of their dictatorships and removal of their armies from Eastern Europe.
Are you not aware that the Russian-run communist dictatorships were not voluntary, but forced upon Eastern Europe? That's the key to understanding everything.
the problem is that simply asking the question plays into the hands of Putin.
In war, the objective is to get the other party to stop fighting. Either by destroying his means, or by destroying his will. If you can get enough people to believe that a war cannot be won, or that it is not just, then they will stop. And you have won. See Psychological warfare [1]
This is why Putin is menacing with nuclear weapons, even if he knows that he cannot use them. This is why Putin is making statements about Ukraine being a fascist nazi state, that he just had to invade for the good of the planet. This is why reliable / true statistics about macro-economics and battlefield victims have become state secrets.
Every time someone naively, but sincerely, enters in the reasoning of Putin, the public debate is shifted a little bit to his advantage. This is what is referred to as a Useful Idiot [2]. And due to Brandolini's Law, otherwise known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle [3] it takes time for people to be educated.
So people get frustrated with having to explain every time. So they just downvoted you. I guess.
So what is your argument, that we should go on fully with the war and send more soldiers to the front? Because we don't want to make any concession with Russia? Because we don't want to sympathize at least a little bit because that would make us "weak"? So we should go on and risk WW3?
"We" (americans) aren't doing anything to help, and are in fact withdrawing support. "We" honestly don't have much say in how the ones who actually fought against our supposed enemies should feel (to reverse a recent quote). Trump is kissing the ring so it's very clear we're already making consessions.
>So we should go on and risk WW3?
Well this is part of why your top comment was unpopular. Ukraine is not going to start WW3. Our inaction only accellerates the possibility since this was already winding down.
As others said, you are repeating Russian talking points. Blaming the one attacked for causing a mass scale war instead of the agressors or the spposed "allies" deciding to betray them and help the enemy.
My reply was just based on your question, the point being that your question originated in Russian propaganda. That it was based on dishonest reasoning by Putin. And that asking the question was helping Putin. Read a history book: anyone can give reasonable sounding justifications for invading a country. At the very least leaders need support for their wars, so nobody lets loose the dogs of war, saying "yeah I just want their stuff". In geopolitics, the truth is not always in the middle.
But if you're now asking me my personal opinion, should we "continue the war", then, yes I think we should continue to enable Ukraine to defend itself. So if Ukraine wants to send more soldiers to the front, to defend their nation, then yes we should support them. Note: that does not automatically mean sending American or European soldiers, but that was never on the table.
We should continue to support them because we engaged ourselves to support Ukraine in the 90's, when we forced them to hand over their nukes to Russia.
We should continue the war because as both recent and less recent history has borne out, allowing Russia to perform a landgrab will give the wrong ideas to other countries, ultimately resulting in geopolitical instability everywhere.
We should continue to allow Ukraine to defend itself because demonstrably, it is effective.
I have kids, and do not want WW3. But if after losing hundreds of thousands of men, during a three year war, Putin has not started a nuclear war; do you really think he will start one now? If anything, supporting Ukraine will prevent future conflict.
All of this is obvious for anyone who has performed even a cursory study of history. Which probably explains why you were downvoted.
Why is this Russian propaganda? The agreement was not official, but it did certainly seem to have happened. If you open up history books you should also understand that.
In fact I have read the history books (have you?). Yes it happened. Many things were said in fact during the negotiation. That generally happens during negotiations whilst people are trying to find a solution.
During scores of negotiations, over a period of months if not years, at one instance the phrase was uttered. Then it was retracted. It was never restated. It was not in the final agreement.
Does it mean that anything the Russians said at some point in time during the negotiations, even if it was retracted afterwards, should apply?
If you were negotiating a contract, do you think that sort of reasoning would fly? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
This is why it is propaganda. Because it is self-serving and disingenuous.
Are you sure that your original question was a sincere question?
I never said that no questions should be asked. And there is indeed a risk to standing up against agression. This is why it is very important to manage escalation risks, and the various American and European administrations so far have taken great care. For example by not supplying strategic weapons, and by disallowing strikes on certain Russian targets.
Also, note that there is also a risk of not standing up to agression. The price of doing nothing is not zero.
All I said was that one should take care not to be instrumentalised by unwittingly propagating false propagandist narratives. I think we can agree on that?
my understanding of the video, and after having read the historical book "Not One Inch" by ME Sarotte [1] is that during the numerous meetings between the US and the USSR, over several years, at one (1) time George Baker said the famous "Not One Inch" (which I highly recommend)
Not only was this subsequently retracted, but it was never repeated, and it was not in any of the treaty texts. Russia had essentially lost the cold war, was so near to collapse that it needed billions of dollars from it's previous enemies, and so never asked for any sort of confirmation because they knew they wouldn't get it.
It's a bit like, calling the AT&T hotline 20 times, and when during one conversation the agent tells you by mistake that you can have free internet for life (without written confirmation), upon which you then loudly complain that AT&T is in breach of contract.
As the book and the video also remind people, it's not the US that extended NATO. It's the various countries that spent 40 years behind the iron curtain, that were so eager to join NATO that they essentially forced their way into NATO, against the wishes of the US. And given the various Russian invasions the last 10-15 years, history has more than validated them.
The west tried for years and years to accommodate Russia, and only gave weapons to Ukraine in 2016 because ... in 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine? Let's not forget that in the 90's, Ukraine was the third biggest nuclear power, and gave away it's nuclear weapons to Russia at the behest of the rest of the world (who were afraid of nuclear escalation), but only in return from security guarantees, from Europe, the US and even Russia. This deal was very much not at the initiative of Ukraine.
Supporting Ukraine is not a moral issue. It's a contractual issue. We wanted to reduce nuclear proliferation 35 years ago, and -at the time- were willing to pay the price. It's time to make good on that promise.
I'm not talking about the fact that Ukraine is seeking NATO membership now, I'm talking about the fact that NATO agreed to not expand to Russian borders and did anyway, putting pressure on Russia.
The controversy regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion relates to the aftermath of the Revolutions of 1989, when the fall of Soviet-allied communist states to opposition parties brought European spheres of influence into question.
Russian authorities claim that agreement on non-expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe took place orally and the alliance violated it with its expansion while the leaders of the alliance claim that no such promise was made and that such a decision could only be made in writing.
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who participated in the 1990 negotiations, subsequently spoke out about the existence of a "guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east" inconsistently, confirming its existence in some interviews and refuting in others.
Among academic researchers, opinions on the existence or absence of a non-extension agreement also differ.
OTOH, I understand there was an actual drawn up agreement regarding Ukraine giving up post Soviet nuclear weapons, Russia agreeing to Ukranian autonomy and the US agreeing to provide secuirty for Ukraine.
Regardless of whether there is a drawn up agreement, still the expansion of NATO to the Russian borders is putting pressure on Russia I would assume, and can cause conflicts.
But yeah it would certainly help if they would make the agreement more official.
Nobody wants to invade Russia. The only reason Russia and Putin are opposed to NATO expansion is because it stops them from being able to bully their neighbours. Calling that "putting pressure on Russia" is crazy.
Russia started the war by invading Ukraine. Russia can end the war any time they want by simply moving all of their troops out of Ukraine and back behind their border.
Any concession to Russia means we are saying that it's ok for nuclear-armed states to invade their neighbours at will, and to expand their territory at will, because "oh no, ww3!".
That is unacceptable. That is unjust. There is exactly one guilty party in this conflict, and it is not Ukraine. We do not appease dictators who invade their neighbours.
Before I started delving into this topic, I also thought that Russia was just doing this because they are a crazy war machine. But after I looked into the history of it, I can understand better that Russia does have some reasons to feel threatened by NATO. And yeah, if you threaten a country, you can expect conflict.
We should rather go into conversation with Russia instead of ignoring their perspective and continue with things causing conflicts with them.
You've been explained why several times by now and you're just dismissing the argumenst with "well Russia is just defending itself".
Actions speak louder than words. You can justify with all the quotes you want, the point is that reality is before our eyes. I don't sympathize with dictators waging wars for 13 years over much smaller countries.
I'm not saying Russia is just defending itself. I'm saying there was an agreement between NATO and Russia which NATO broke. And since Russia is a superpower, it can start a war, and it can result in WW3. So it's maybe wise to try to make a deal to get peace.
Are you surprised a country with Russia as it's neighbour wants to join NATO? Especially since it has been an important part of the defense of the European union.
Putin has been stuck in the cold war since forever. His expansionist ideals have been visible since forever.
Note that Georgia joining was also on the table. Several months after this summit Russia trounced Georgia in a few days and since then there has been no serious movement towards joining NATO.
Russia likely expected the same outcome in Ukraine but as we know now that didn't materialize.
Well, already in April 2008 Ukraine got a pledge in Bucharest that they "will become" a member of NATO, which is before the mess in Crimea and Donbass and even before Georgia got smacked which are the usual examples of Russian early aggression.
There's also Putin's 2007 speech in Munich about them being really pissed with how they are treated, does that count? Other than that there's the second Chechen war and maybe the time the Russians rushed some peace keepers into Kosoy.
Yeah but the other countries were already added, so the pressure for Russia was building up. So I don't understand why it would be an unexpected action of Russia.
Yeah but we could have prevented it, so that means we wanted to so badly expand NATO that we would go into war with Russia for it? Why can't we stay put and maybe try to talk more? And now that we have an opportunity to talk or make a deal, and we blow it off as being in bed with Putin?
Because we don’t want to be told who to voluntarily take into our alliance by an opponent? Are you going to give china everything they ask for next because they take Taiwan if you don’t?
But NATO first agreed not to expand to countries along Russia's border, because they see that as a threat. But then NATO did anyway. So it's not like we're being told by Russia what to do, we made an agreement.
And Russia is also a superpower, and we don't want to be in conflict with them. So yeah it's not that everything they say we should abide to, but we should also not think that we can do everything without upsetting them.
NATO didn’t agree to not expand, some ministers of some member countries verbally said that NATO wouldn’t expand. It’s not like there was a treaty that was signed and then ignored.
Well I guess that for Russia it doesn't really matter if the agreement was official. They still feel threatened by it, and they have been saying that, and NATO still went on.
I think this view us a overly flattering interpretation of events.
The basic facts is that the US did give serveral verbal promises that NATO wouldn't expand, and that the later written treaties did not make such promises.
It is however not clear at all from the evidence that the US ever said that they were retracting the early verbal promises.
Further the Brookings piece you linked is trying to make hay out of the fact that the verbal promises were explicitly "only" about expansion into Eastern Germany, which is really just childish: If someone says you can't borrow their shovel, that's not to be understood as them allowing you to borrow anything else they own without asking.
The point is that while it's true that the US never signed anything that prohibited NATO expansion to the east, they were aware they did at one point promise just that.
Then later, as the US changed its minds during spring of 1990, the strategy seems to have been to just pretend not to remember those earlier promises and by narrowly focusing on German unification hope that the issue of the wider European order didn't come up again.
One thing that is really remarkable with all these accounts of how there wasn't any pledges is that the talks were only about German unification in the most narrow sense, and nothing else happened. So the Ion Curtain fell but the US was apparently entirely uninterested in talking to the Soviets about what the new overall structure would be?!
Independently of your overall point, what strikes me here is that Trump could not possibly care less about any promises that the "US" may have made. He is effectively breaking every deal ever made, with no regard for any continuity of policy (not just now, think the Iran deal in his first term). With Zelensky yesterday, he again went on about this ceasefire deal would be with "him", not like "the other presidents".
In this context, its a bit rich for the pro-Trump "great peace negotiator" group to imply that the US needed to keep verbal promises made 35 years ago. It was, after all, just what some dude said one time.
He's maybe breaking continuity of the US as a whole, but in general he seems to be quite consistent in his actions and motivations. And maybe he's the first president in a long time that actually understands Russia's perspective.
From the last presidents he's the one that started the least wars. I don't understand why people are saying that he's pairing with Russia when he wants to end a war that's been going on for 3 years.
