Ukraine 15 - Minsk II and other disappointing sequels

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

'Uncontroversial' is an interesting word choice. What is uncontroversial about realpolitik as espoused by snake and those old geezers? Is it a consensus viewpoint in international relations theory? Does it make strong empirical findings? Offer reliable predictions? I'd suggest the answers to all of these questions is a resounding 'no'. Realpolitik is a contested term for a set of contestable viewpoints. We can get around to how sensible various realpolitik policy options for the current crisis are (my take: not very), but I think it's enough here to say that invoking international relations realism and all the serious old geezers with laminated NSC clearance badges gathering dust in back cabinets of their Georgetown edifices who subscribe to it does not resolve any controversy.

To be clear, and my language was a little imprecise - what I meant to say by calling Snake's view "fairly uncontroversial realpolitik" is not that realpolitik as a prescriptive (or even descriptive, although I think it has a stronger claim there) understanding of how State actors behave is uncontroversial, but that rather within those to accept and view international relations from a realpolitik perspective, Snake is espousing a particular view that's uncontroversial.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

No Nestor, it's not. The issue is that many are very much framing the issue prescriptively. I think you are again trying to ascribe motives to others based on your own innate sense that you are obviously the only one here being logical and unemotional and above the fray, as you do in basically all these arguments.

Celestial is dead on in that the fundamental issue is that many are arguing that Russia is right to be offended or scared or what have you by NATO expansion and Nuland's magic cookies. That said feelings are legitimate. Whereas the rest of us are agreeing that Russia may see it as a threat but we don't think that actually places any sort of prescription on others. NATO has no obligation to entertain Russia's delusions of hegemony at the expense of it's neighbours.

The issue here with you is that you refuse to believe that this extends beyond a neutral realpolitik-style rational assessment to actual judgement. And yet it very much appears that no one else really agrees with you on this. But no, it must be US who are unwilling or unable to deal with arguments outside our frame of reference. Just like it is every time you pull this shtick.

There's nothing for me to respond to here. If you want to make a concrete, specific claim about something that I've said that you think is wrong, I'm happy to address it. But you're arguing at such an absurd level of generality and making such nebulous claims as to what you think I and other posters are actually saying, even where our actual arguments say otherwise, that there's no way to frame a meaningful response. I made a specific claim about a specific poster and a specific type of argument. To tell me that "many are arguing" something else is a non sequitur.

[Solmyr]

Girls should not wear miniskirts and other provocative clothing when out on the town.

Everyone agrees that Ukraine's short skirt made Russia feel it's pride stir in it's loins.

I find it extremely amusing that people are using the girl-in-a-short-skirt metaphor to describe Russia feeling threatened by NATO expansion, yet they insist on turning the metaphor around. For you see, Ukraine is not the girl in a short skirt, Russia is. And NATO is the burly dude catcalling and taunting her from across the street. He used to do it from two streets away, but now he's moving closer.

What possible reason would Russia have to fear NATO, an organisation that was created for the sole purpose of opposing it...

[Celestial]

I'm going to save us both a lot of time.

First, I haven't seen anything from Snake that portrays Putin's Russia as any kind of a "victim." In fact, as with Shryke, I think your perception that this is the case has more to do with your failure to take his arguments on its own merits. As for Arakan, I'm not defending or supporting anything he's said.

Second, I'm not Defending Russia's pretext for its current actions nor the propriety of its actual reasons for its current actions. I'm not defending Russia at all.

So, I'm not sure what you're actually disagreeing with me about.

It does not have to be stated directly that Russia is a victim. But, by making a rather general statement like "Russia fears NATO expansion" and obfuscating the first and foremost consequences of that expansion, it gives the impression that Russia has some legitimate grievances and they are struggling to prevent Operation Barbarossa Round Two.

See Solmyr's point above as a case in point. By making a similar general point, that Russia fears NATO because the latter was created to oppose Russia, Solmyr can attempt to depict Russia as a "girl in a short skirt".

If he were to say that NATO was created to block Soviet expansionism and the expansion of NATO is thwarting similar imperial ambitions of current Russia, then it would be much harder to claim that Russia is a "girl in a short skirt".

Although I wonder why the desires of Russia's neighbours to be protected against Russian bullying never enters the picture...

[Solmyr]

See Solmyr's point above as a case in point. By making a similar general point, that Russia fears NATO because the latter was created to oppose Russia, Solmyr can attempt to depict Russia as a "girl in a short skirt".

If he were to say that NATO was created to block Soviet expansionism and the expansion of NATO is thwarting similar imperial ambitions of current Russia, then it would be much harder to claim that Russia is a "girl in a short skirt".

If NATO was created to block Soviet expansionism, as you claim, why wasn't NATO disbanded when the Soviet Union disbanded. If NATO's current purpose is not to oppose Russia, why isn't Russia offered to join NATO? How is NATO's expansion "thwarting imperial ambitions of current Russia", when the post-Soviet Russia has not expanded at all, instead it has lost a lot of territory and spheres of influence, yet NATO's expansion has not stopped, it has continued creeping closer to Russia's post-Soviet borders.

[ElizabethB.]

it's not like anyone blames the naked maidens in their nakedness, (of course we blame them, why else would they be frolicking at the other side of the bears border naked unless they wanted a piece of bear. it's not like its their home, or that the bear made grief threats against them wearing anything) but we blame the maidens in the unattractive nato jumpsuits, making the naked maidens all the more alluring for the bear that is only acting according to its natural instincts.

so, jumpsuit or naked, you had it coming.

[The Iceman of the North]

If NATO was created to block Soviet expansionism, as you claim, why wasn't NATO disbanded when the Soviet Union disbanded. If NATO's current purpose is not to oppose Russia, why isn't Russia offered to join NATO? How is NATO's expansion "thwarting imperial ambitions of current Russia", when the post-Soviet Russia has not expanded at all, instead it has lost a lot of territory and spheres of influence, yet NATO's expansion has not stopped, it has continued creeping closer to Russia's post-Soviet borders.

Because in the course of more than half a century the geopolitical situation change? When the Soviet Union dissolved, this was met by a general disarmament in NATO, while the focus was moved to other less lethal threats. The disappearance of the Soviet Union did not mean that the global threat level went from 90 to 0. The NATO members found the alliance useful in dealing with other situations, like the Balkan war. It's just during the last decade, or even half a decade, that the focus have returned to Moscow. During the first two decades since 1990, when Russia was considered at all by NATO and NATO members, they were treated like a possible partner, not a potential enemy. There have been extensive military cooperation with Russia, ranging from shared military exercises, to assistance in cleaning up the nuclear waste left by the Soviet Union.

[DJDonegal]

Reuters reporting there is "fierce fighting" taking place. So much for the ceasefire.

[Celestial]

To Solmyr:

Why NATO has not disbanded:

1. Out of political inertia.

2. Because it was convenient: NATO gives US a certain leverage in European military policy (which US likes) and it provides European countries with a clear option of calling for US help in case of crisis (which Europe likes).

3. Because US and most other European countries have mutual interests and shared values: even if NATO per se were to disband, military cooperation between various NATO countries would continue and a different framework for it would have to be found. So why go through all that trouble in creating a new such framework when NATO already provides one?

Why isn't Russia offered the option to join NATO: because Russia's current political structure is utterly incompatible with NATO's core values.

How is NATO thwarting imperial ambitions of Russia: for instance, by preventing Russia from doing to the Baltic states what it does now to Ukraine and it did to Georgia.

As for Russia "losing a lot of territory and spheres of influence", what of it? In case you are not aware of it, pre-1991 Soviet Union was a multinational empire build by force of arms by the Russian tsars and comrade Stalin. It makes as much sense to cry over its fall as it would over the collapse of the British and French colonial empires. Do you perhaps suggest that Russia had some natural right over those lands and spheres of influences it has lost? On what grounds? Even within the Soviet Union proper, the Baltic people, the Caucasians peoples and the Turkish People from Central Asia had no ethnical, linguistical or cultural ties with the Russians and many of them fiercely fought Russian expansionism during the nineteenth century.

As for the former soviet satellites, do you recall how they came to be? During the WW2 the Soviet Union signed the Atlantic Charter promising to respect the freedom of the liberated European countries, then it took a giant crap on that promise and cheated both the "liberated" countries and their US/UK allies by turning East Europe into a puppet buffer zone for the new Soviet empire. So, it's kinda rich hearing the Russian complaining that NATO did not respect its promise not to expand eastward.

On what basis should someone presume that NATO actually owes Russia anything?

[Solmyr]

To Solmyr:

<snip>

Neither of these are justifications for the existence of the role of NATO in the post-Soviet era. NATO is more than a way for countries to "call for help". NATO calls for each country to defend one another. Now that all looks nice and dandy, as long as you're part of the club. Russia was never part of the club, was never offered to be, probably never will be offered to be. You claim that "Russia's current political structure is utterly incompatible with NATO's core values". Has this always been the case? Was Yeltsin's Russia of the 90s the same boogieman Putin's Russia is? Is there any possible Russia that NATO would accept as an ally, or does NATO need a boogieman in order to justify its agenda and goals, and post-Soviet Russia, although not as scary as the Soviet Union, is the best thing they got?

There are many other countries in the same boat as Russia, who were never invited to join NATO. As long as this is the case (and it looks like it always will be), NATO is nothing more than a strong, western military block that is a potential geopolitical and even military threat to anyone outside of it. Does it surprise you that those outside of it might feel threatened by NATO and attempt to form their own military clubs?

Russia used to do that by having bases and weapons in satellite states. The US, the most powerful member of NATO, follows the same practice since the end of WWII. In the post-Soviet era Russia lost most of its satellite states; the US - hardly any. On the contrary, the US and NATO continued to expand their areas of influence, which now include former Soviet satellite states.

You claim that NATO's expansion was done for the sole purpose of thwarting Russian imperial ambitions - what proof of these ambitions do you have? Evidence from the period 1989-2013 show that Russia relinquished most of its spheres of influence - both neighbouring and satellite states. Meanwhile NATO went about and got involved in several Balkan conflicts that had nothing to do with Russia.

NATO clearly has an agenda beyond thwarting Russia, the latter is merely one of the items on the agenda and it serves as the glue that holds the pact together. The rest of NATO's agenda includes expansion, often forceful (politically), and the ability to influence geopolitical events in the regions where NATO has a foothold - something, which is very similar, albeit is a tad more mild, to imperial ambitions.

A final note about the former Soviet satellite states - they came to be as a result of the Percentages agreement. And gentleman Churchill got just as much spheres of influence out of the agreement as comrade Stalin did. Which, allow me to say, was unfair, given what comrade Stalin and the SU sacrificed to save gentleman Churchill's sorry ass, while he huddled on his island.

[Horza]

Indications coming through that Debaltseve is falling, rebels are claiming they have the railway junction.

Were the generals bullshitting Poroshenko about the situation? And why would he believe them after Donetsk airport, Ilovaisk, Amvrosiivka...

------

Reuters reporting there is "fierce fighting" taking place. So much for the ceasefire.

Scroll up, right from the start the rebel leadership said it didn't apply to Debaltseve.

[ElizabethB.]

Or is someone really claiming that Russia should get to decide about the defence of Baltic countries, the Nordics, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia and god knows how many more?

Why yes ElizabethB., there are people in this thread that claim that exactly.

[DJDonegal]

Scroll up, right from the start the rebel leadership said it didn't apply to Debaltseve.

Did not know that.

But that's stupid.

[Horza]

Did not know that.

But that's stupid.

Many would say.

This was Merkel and Hollande's last shot. US weapons here we come.

[maarsen]

I find it extremely amusing that people are using the girl-in-a-short-skirt metaphor to describe Russia feeling threatened by NATO expansion, yet they insist on turning the metaphor around. For you see, Ukraine is not the girl in a short skirt, Russia is. And NATO is the burly dude catcalling and taunting her from across the street. He used to do it from two streets away, but now he's moving closer.

What possible reason would Russia have to fear NATO, an organisation that was created for the sole purpose of opposing it...

Nato started as a mutual defense pact in the aftermath of WWII. The Soviet Union, not Russia, was not considered much of a physical threat as the US had atomic bomb technology. The Cold war started with the Igor Gouzenko revelations of the massive spying network in Canada and the US. Russia's belligerence since the collapse of the Soviet Union comes and goes with whomever is in office and the political situation at home. Standard procedure since the beginning of nation states is to divert attention from problems at home with foreign adventurism. This is no different than what has happened before. Russia has always wanted a warm water port since the 17th century and lost it with Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union. They have paid rent since then and could have continued to do so with no issues.

[maarsen]

I find it extremely amusing that people are using the girl-in-a-short-skirt metaphor to describe Russia feeling threatened by NATO expansion, yet they insist on turning the metaphor around. For you see, Ukraine is not the girl in a short skirt, Russia is. And NATO is the burly dude catcalling and taunting her from across the street. He used to do it from two streets away, but now he's moving closer.

What possible reason would Russia have to fear NATO, an organisation that was created for the sole purpose of opposing it...

Nato started as a mutual defense pact in the aftermath of WWII. The Soviet Union, not Russia, was not considered much of a physical threat as the US had atomic bomb technology. The Cold war started with the Igor Gouzenko revelations of the massive spying network in Canada and the US. Russia's belligerence since the collapse of the Soviet Union comes and goes with whomever is in office and the political situation at home. Standard procedure since the beginning of nation states is to divert attention from problems at home with foreign adventurism. This is no different than what has happened before. Russia has always wanted a warm water port since the 17th century and lost it with Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union. They have paid rent since then and could have continued to do so with no issues.

[maarsen]

I find it extremely amusing that people are using the girl-in-a-short-skirt metaphor to describe Russia feeling threatened by NATO expansion, yet they insist on turning the metaphor around. For you see, Ukraine is not the girl in a short skirt, Russia is. And NATO is the burly dude catcalling and taunting her from across the street. He used to do it from two streets away, but now he's moving closer.

What possible reason would Russia have to fear NATO, an organisation that was created for the sole purpose of opposing it...

Nato started as a mutual defense pact in the aftermath of WWII. The Soviet Union, not Russia, was not considered much of a physical threat as the US had atomic bomb technology. The Cold war started with the Igor Gouzenko revelations of the massive spying network in Canada and the US. Russia's belligerence since the collapse of the Soviet Union comes and goes with whomever is in office and the political situation at home. Standard procedure since the beginning of nation states is to divert attention from problems at home with foreign adventurism. This is no different than what has happened before. Russia has always wanted a warm water port since the 17th century and lost it with Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union. They have paid rent since then and could have continued to do so with no issues.

[Solmyr]

Russia has always wanted a warm water port since the 17th century and lost it with Ukraine leaving the Soviet Union. They have paid rent since then and could have continued to do so with no issues.

Are you insinuating that the Ukrainian conflict and the annexation of Crimea was all part of Putin's plan to stop paying rent in Sevastopol?

[Solmyr]

Double post, seems to be affecting more people lately :dunno:

[Celestial]

Solmyr:

Your assertion that the spheres of influence came into being due to the "Percentage agreement" is false. When the Percentage Agreement was signed, the Red Army had already occupied Romania, Bulgaria and parts of Poland and they were already implementing their plans to turn these countries into satellites.

Churchill's proposal amounted to nothing else than acknowledging the situation on the ground and try to limit to a certain extent the stranglehold Soviet Union had on these countries. And it was an agreement which Soviet Union mostly did not respect: the deal gave Britain a certain influence in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, yet these countries became communist with no British influence.

Regarding your assertion that Soviet Union saved Churchill's ass: Soviet Union simply defended itself. When Soviet Union had a choice to make, they chose Nazi Germany. And Churchill saved Soviet Union's ass just as much. The Russian/Soviets like to emphasize the human toll of the Eastern Front and point out that England had not lost as much, "huddled on its island". but they are ignoring the fact that the Western Front (which, btw, includes both the air war against Germany and the naval war in Atlantic), while less bloody, put an enormous toll on German economy. For instance, during the Battle of Stalingrad, Germany had around 200 submarines operating against the British and American navies. One Type VII submarine cost as much as 40 medium tanks. If Germany did not have to fight in Atlantic, then they could have deployed several additional tank armies on the Eastern Front and with those Germany might have took both Stalingrad and the Caucasus, basically ending the war for the Soviet Union.

As for the rest of your post, it makes no sense. Suffice to say, the justifications for NATO's continued existence do not require your acknowledgement to be valid. Nor is NATO having an agenda bent on forceful expansion, simply because it is a group of countries which often does not actually have a common agenda, as it happened many times. The initiative for NATO's expansion came more from the new potential members rather than the old ones. Originally, NATO was going to receive only Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, while Romania and Bulgaria (who wanted a lot to join) were rejected. And the idea that this expansion is somehow "forceful" does not even merit attention.