Jump to content

Russian Games: 120,000-140,000 Russian Troops on the Ukrainian border…


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

No sanctions can hurt Russia without hurting Europe too. Biden will be unable to rally enough support at home to hurt Russia.

Biden's opposition party at home wants more aggressive - and more immediate - sanctions, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

Political hints that Ukraine and Georgia were going to be accepted at NATO despite their territorial disputes. This basically makes certain that a military conflict will happen in the future with more uncertain consequences than a conflict now.

Such as?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mnedel said:

I think this article offers a good view of the situation and reasons for the behavior of Russia: https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-warning-ukraine-decades-west-202059918.html

How is this different from addressing the concerns of QAnon believers?  What rational basis does the Russian State have to fear an invasion by NATO?  Not Germany, not France, NATO.

That article reads like an abusive husband (Russia) saying “Why do you make me do this” to his abused spouse.  Yes, the “Monroe Doctrine” is inherently imperialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How is this different from addressing the concerns of QAnon believers?  What rational basis does the Russian State have to fear an invasion by NATO?  Not Germany, not France, NATO.

That article reads like an abusive husband (Russia) saying “Why do you make me do this” to his abused spouse.  Yes, the “Monroe Doctrine” is inherently imperialist.

Nice strawman there.

Anyway, taking into account that Russia has historically been invaded several times by western powers, that NATO and USA have been pressuring and working on destabilizing Russia for decades, that USA is invading and sanctioning countries left and right, I say they have real reasons to fear. Maybe not outright invasion by NATO or USA but other types or military action or increased pressure - sure.

It seems to me you, and others, consider all Russian actions as evil and irrational. If people can’t see beyond propaganda and acknowledge the crucial legitimate interests of their adversary, there will never be lasting stability. This goes for Russia too of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mnedel said:

Nice strawman there.

Anyway, taking into account that Russia has historically been invaded several times by western powers, that NATO and USA have been pressuring and working on destabilizing Russia for decades, that USA is invading and sanctioning countries left and right, I say they have real reasons to fear. Maybe not outright invasion by NATO or USA but other types or military action or increased pressure - sure.

It seems to me you, and others, consider all Russian actions as evil and irrational. If people can’t see beyond propaganda and acknowledge the crucial legitimate interests of their adversary, there will never be lasting stability. This goes for Russia too of course.

So you do buy into Russia’s abusive “Why is the West making Russia invade other sovereign Nation-States” claim?

You didn’t answer my question.  What rational basis does Russia (Putin) have to fear a NATO invasion?  Was Russia invaded by NATO after Russia baited Georgia then invaded and took South Ossestia from Georgia?  Did NATO invade after Russia invaded and Annexed Crimea?  Has NATO invaded Russia at any point during its ongoing support for seperatists in the Donbas region of Ukraine?

What rational basis does Russia have for fearing a NATO, not German, not French, a NATO invasion of Russia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How is this different from addressing the concerns of QAnon believers?  What rational basis does the Russian State have to fear an invasion by NATO?  Not Germany, not France, NATO.

That article reads like an abusive husband (Russia) saying “Why do you make me do this” to his abused spouse.  Yes, the “Monroe Doctrine” is inherently imperialist.

There's a variety of answers to this and it depends largely on the view within Russia itself. It is very hard to discern if Russian political leadership really believes that a NATO attack on Russia is likely, or if they know 100% it will never happen but they are capitalising on the fear of it for their own political agenda. A repeated refrain is that the West would do well not to automatically assume that Russia's view of international events, history and political philosophy is in accordance with their own. The degree to which Soviet revisionist history colours modern Russian political thinking is quite striking (particularly myths about Britain and American "letting Russia bleed" rather than invading France in 1943 or even 1942, despite that clearly not being practical).

There is also the very real fear in Russia as a whole of foreign invasion. Repeated invasions of Russia during and after World War I (including by British and French forces) and then during World War II (by not only Germany, but Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland as well) killed over 30 million people, which is an absurd number which left a deep scar on the Russian national psyche. For comparison, Russia lost fifty times as many dead, most of them civilians, than the UK and USA combined during the Second World War.

One of the reasons Germany is so reluctant to take a firm stance on Russia is due to Russia playing very successfully on Germany's war guilt for the atrocities it committed during WWII, despite some German politicians believing that the resulting counter-attack into Germany that left almost half of the same number dead and the resulting forty-five year military occupation of half the country, during which time millions more died, repaid the guilt and debt. But it's still a difficult subject in Germany. Fear of being seen to becoming more aggressive is why Germany is so reluctant to enlarge its military, build ballistic missiles or take part in overseas operations.

There is also of course simple security concerns. If Russia had not undertaken hostile overseas action for many years and was broadly speaking a friendly country, Britain might still look askance at Russia inviting Ireland into a military alliance and stationing military units outside Dublin, or the US might do the same if Russia allied with Canada and placed troops - even a fairly small number - on the border.

An additional concern is that NATO was specifically set up to contain Russia. That was its MO in 1949. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, there were arguments in favour of rebranding NATO or even officially dissolving it and replacing it with a practically-identical international alliance designed around mutual defence of all members (which could theoretically include Russia itself), but that was ultimately rejected and left NATO - an alliance designed to contain the ambitions of Russia, effectively - expanding around the western flanks of Russia's borders. Turkey's accession led to NATO controlling the entire southern shores of the Black Sea, and the Baltic States' joining put NATO troops (theoretically, anyway) within 85 miles of St. Petersburg.

This led to fears in Russia of the country being encircled as a prelude to further attempts to curtail it. NATO may argue that it is an alliance of countries and it has an open door policy allowing any country to join as long as they are not nutjobs and that has nothing to do with Russia, but Russia's government believes - rather genuinely or just publicly for propaganda purposes - otherwise. NATO members may also, if rather quietly, be of the opinion that Russia is inherently a problematic country and adding more countries in Eastern Europe effectively prevents it from overrunning the eastern half of the continent as it did in 1945, and keeping Russian troops as far from Berlin, London and Paris as possible is an objective, if one that's not publicly spoken.

Ultimately the problem is a shift in political ideology between the West and Russia. Both sides believed before, during and after WWII in spheres of influence, the idea that great powers would wield authority not only within their borders but also over surrounding nations. There are great countries and minor countries that are, effectively, vassals to their greater neighbours. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the West effectively rejected this idea: each country, big or small, has sovereignty and that sovereignty stops at the borders. Your neighbour, no matter how big or small, is their own sovereign country and can do whatever they like and you have no say in it. Russia fundamentally rejects that idea and basically claims it has a say in what Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Central Asian Republics do, regardless of them being autonomous powers. That's where the fundamental problem lies.

(And not unrelated is the growing pro-democracy or at least anti-Putin movement in Russia, both popularly and in political circles, and Russia's miserable economic performance due to both corruption and massive military spending, and Russia's feeling it doesn't want to clamp down on corrupting and reduce military spending when it can try to grow the economy by forcing neighbours to kowtow to it and effectively rebuilding the USSR)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mnedel said:

Anyway, taking into account that Russia has historically been invaded several times by western powers

This is very weak sauce. First, this is the argument that can go in circles forever. E.g between Germany and France or France and England or almost everywhere in the world. Do you think Germany can derive any rights to attack because France attacked them before? Well, they did  and we all learned from the experience, it just took a few million deaths.  Digging out those old zombies just shows an inability to learn from history. Second, the Russians are not exactly innocent in this. Just ask a all their neighbours. Just take a look at the map of the world. 

Face it, most of the world sees the Russian state as a bad actor because of their belligerent behavior. Pointing at past grievances and using them as an excuse only makes everyone else even more weary. If Russia really believes they have the right to attack other countries because different countries attacked them in the past, then it makes them even more dangerous to peace. At this point in time we are somewhat over the stage where you destroy your neighbors before they destroy you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the Record if we try to go down the Historical rabbit hole, yes, the US was a bad actor and should have invaded Mexico in 1846.

@Werthead,

I’m well aware of the basis for Russia’s irrational fear.  But, Putin is playing on that irrationality to justify his beligerancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

For the Record if we try to go down the Historical rabbit hole, yes, the US was a bad actor and should have invaded Mexico in 1846.

I think Russia's concerns are about more recent invasions - specifically Kosovo and Libya, where NATO violated its own charter about being a purely defensive alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

I think Russia's concerns are about more recent invasions - specifically Kosovo and Libya, where NATO violated its own charter about being a purely defensive alliance.

Alright, what stable nation-state without potential crimes against humanity has NATO invaded?  Or is the second qualifier what gives Russia (Putin) pause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Alright, what stable nation-state without potential crimes against humanity has NATO invaded?  Or is the second qualifier what gives Russia (Putin) pause?

It's definitely what gives Putin pause, since I'm guessing he imagines NATO intervening in a future Chechnya-like crisis within Russia's borders. Those two events also violated some important precedents in international diplomacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defending the largest and most recently militarily aggressive empire in the modern world on the basis that it's been invaded in the past so its aggression is understandable is hilarious. 

 

Russia wants something from and/or for Ukraine that Ukraine does not want. The conversation should end there. Bringing up the actions of the US or anyone else in other nations is not a defence for Russia's actions now- it's a condemnation, because, short of human rights abuses that need immediate intervention, it's always wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gorn said:

It's definitely what gives Putin pause, since I'm guessing he imagines NATO intervening in a future Chechnya-like crisis within Russia's borders. Those two events also violated some important precedents in international diplomacy.

Which suggests he may be planning for a “Chechnya” like crisis within his borders?  Whatever border those may be as we, now, know Russia is willing to expand its borders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

For the Record if we try to go down the Historical rabbit hole, yes, the US was a bad actor and should have invaded Mexico in 1846.

@Werthead,

I’m well aware of the basis for Russia’s irrational fear.  But, Putin is playing on that irrationality to justify his beligerancy.

There is a fear but irrational may not be the right word. Consider Canada and Russia. Both are huge countries with a pretty thin population density. Canada only has 3 neighbouring countries that could conceivably invade. Those being the US, France and Denmark. Russia is surrounded by neighbours that can overwhelm it by population along with sea access that allows them to keep open supply lines. Russia has an extremely poor strategic position due to geography. This should be taken into account but in itself is not a justification for bad behaviour.  Don't give a paranoid person a justification for being so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Which suggests he may be planning for a “Chechnya” like crisis within his borders?  Whatever border those may be as we, now, know Russia is willing to expand its borders?

Chechnya was literally an existential crisis for Russia. If it had actually won independence, it would have been followed by the rest of North Caucasus, then by Tatarstan, and then maybe Russians in Siberia would decide they don't want to be governed from Europe, and Russians from St. Petersburg would decide they don't want their tax money to go to Moscow, and then Russia would no longer exist.

Even the most liberal Russian president would rather start a nuclear war than allow that to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Chechnya was literally an existential crisis for Russia. If it had actually won independence, it would have been followed by the rest of North Caucasus, then by Tatarstan, and then maybe Russians in Siberia would decide they don't want to be governed from Europe, and Russians from St. Petersburg would decide they don't want their tax money to go to Moscow, and then Russia would no longer exist.

Even the most liberal Russian president would rather start a nuclear war than allow that to happen.

So, does the same rule apply for allowing Ukraine to remain an independent Nation State as it has been for 30 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, does the same rule apply for allowing Ukraine to remain an independent Nation State as it has been for 30 years?

Of course it does. I'm not justifying the Russian aggression of Crimea, and I fully support Ukraine in the present crisis.

It's just worth remembering that their fears of NATO intervention are not exactly purely irrational paranoia, but something based on actual recent events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...