Honestly, it's pretty simple for me. It's Ukraine's land. Ukraine isn't Russia and borders mean something. This is boiling it down to the most basic level.
fair enough (and tx for prompt reply). Am going to share a few things below, not on the assumption that you don't know this stuff, you probably do - but I find that clarity is best, as assumptions make for awkward moments (... ie, "when one assumes, one makes an ASS out of U and ME ...).
Ukraine's land. True, in one context - that of the principle of sovereignty. Russian invaded Ukraine, simple as that. But maybe not so simple.
What about threats? Will a nation ignore a threat only to respond when that threat is now established at its door? Without having prepared an adequate defense against it? Without having tried via RealPolitic to prevent or weaken the threat, perhaps to the point of removing it in the first place? I daresay the answer to all the above is No. Else why do nations have defense planning, R&D, striving to improve weaponry and tactics so as to be able to present a
credible deterrence against such threats.
Russia for reasons already explained, violated Ukrainian sovereignty, to protect its own sovereignty from threats that had been developing for the past thirty years. I'm old enough to remember the collapse of the USSR, was active duty military at the time in fact (USN 1976-1984, USCG 1984-2000). I remember the US having promised Gorbachev that if the USSR let go of East Germany, Nato would move "not one inch eastward".
So, having discovered your blog here, I went to the attic of my mind, pulled out the box of my interest in this part of history, and did what any well-meaning man (... in the year 2023 ...) in search of all the truth does; I googled up any info sources on the topic in question :-).
And I found a few good ones, including a book, written by Mary Sarotte, "Not One Inch". Here's the link on NPR to an interview with Mz. Sarotte:
Briefly, the NPR interview reveals a few things. Caveat: I do not rely on NPR, hardly ever visit as they are very leftist-biased - but this is a simple interview and furthermore, the Leftist/Globalist narrative doesn't care about a 30 year-old truth being revealed because it doesn't/can't change anything in the present day. Recent example to prove this point: "... so what if there's compelling proof that the CIA killed an American President. That was 60 years ago!". So, the salient point in this interview can be aired w/out danger to the Narrative.
In the chat, Sarotte reveals that James Baker (Reagan's NS Advisor and best friend) did, in fact, promise Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward. Did, in fact, utter the words "Not One Inch". This, like the above point about Ukrainian Sovereignty, is also True.
However, Sarotte also discusses that the ensueing paperwork, made no mention of this promise. So we now have a promise which, taken on the honor of the leader of NATO, induced the leader of the USSR to embark upon a course of action that did, in fact, remove the Soviet control of East Germany.
Sarotte then makes a few points in support of her premise that the potential for a true, peaceful partnership between a reconstructing Russia and the West, was disrupted/undermined by both the West & Russia.
Which point i disagree with, because when the USSR fell, Russia was on the tarp, taking and eight count to see if the fight could continue. Russia before Putin was in no way capable of exercising anything like a foreign policy that could effectively be part of a strategic defense plan. The West could - and did - continue with NATO eastward expansion because, as the Amazon commentary shows, the West saw that it could "win, and win bigger".
A point of history bears mentioning here. Russia has no defensible borders against NATO, save for distance and buffer states. We are taught that the Cold War had massive Soviet tank and artillery armies poised on the Iron Curtain frontier, ready to attack the free West. Soviet history shows that Stalin readily took the eastern European nations (... conveniently handed to him via Roosevelt, Truman, and a reluctant Churchill ...) because after the horror of the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis, ensuring any future attacks against Russia proper would both (A) be hundreds of miles further west; and most importantly (B) emasculate any potential for a united Germany to rise and again pose a mortal threat to its neighbors.
As goes Germany, so goes continental Europe. Two world wars (weakening of the Russian Monarchy which lead to its destruction, and near-destruction of the Soviet Union) was enough of a history lesson for Stalin to take the eastern European states into the Soviet sphere. I strongly believe we must view this important point in consideration of what is happening today in the Ukraine.
Putin has made it very clear that Russia would not tolerate the Ukraine being brought into NATO. This statement, on its face would not seem to be enough of a justification for the Russian SMO. But it bears mentioning that NATO has been the most expansionist organization in the past thirty years - and that pesky little detail in the NATO charter, the one that declares an "... attack on one member will be considered an attack on all members ..." - well that introduces another contextual truth that cannot be ignored. That NATO could use this point from which to mount a considerable threat to any opponent/enemy. Except that now, the charter point takes on new meaning, "... if you militarily fight any one member of NATO, you fight ALL NATO members ...".
That's just NATO belligerance. NATO is no longer an organization based on mutual defense; it is now used as active, offensive threat pointed at Russia, with the aim of destroying that nation.
A Ukraine in NATO means that any NATO force is hundreds of miles closer to Moscow, to the Volga over which transport and pipelines from the Caspian sea area supply Russia's energy needs. Add to that, a Ukraine which - since the 2014 coup, run by the Obama administration, replaced the then-friendly towards Russia administration with the current anti-Russia puppet Zelensky admin - would keep casus belli for the Crimea, would continue killing it's own Ukrainian citizens for the crime of being Russian... and we would see a never-ending, grinding down against Russia which would be difficult to defend against w/out a general war. A war, under the above context, that would take place hundreds of miles closer to critical industry, energy centers that Russia needs to survive. Close enough, actually, that missile strikes from these areas could hit those critical points.
I'm sure may would dismiss my above summary, but I offer one historical event as proof of my "theory" - the 2008 war in Georgia. NATO was in support of Georgia's admittance to the alliance. Russia put a stop to that.
Now, let's ask ourselves, how can a nation located in the Caucasus area between the Black and Caspian Seas be even remotely considered as a member of a "North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization"?
A look at any map answers that question. See how close Georgia is to Russian Caspian Oil and Gas fields - less than 400 miles. Within easy reach of Air and Missile weaponry.
Put simply, Georgia has nothing to do with defending the North Atlantic, and everything to do with outflanking Russia and threatening Russian key and strategic energy, transportation and industrial locations. This also, is a Truth, like the others discussed above.
The same can also be said for Ukraine. Another Truth that cannot be denied.
Final point, on whether Russia has the right to do this: at this level of Nation-State interactivity, I do not think that Right and Wrong dictate what happens; only National Interest does. My discussion above makes it fairly clear that I believe and understand why Russia has acted in the manner above and is in Ukraine, in a military action that first started as the SMO, but now has expanded into a war because the US Government and NATO are pretty much "... fighting the Russians, and will continue to do so down to the last Ukrainian ...".
So I'll close with another historical example of when a Nation was willing to make a war so as to prevent it's enemy from deploying WMD a mere 70 miles from it's land - the Cuban Missile Crisis.
What difference, then, is there between what the US did and was willing to do back in 1962, and the Russian SMO into Ukraine in 2022?
1. US threatened war only when they had evidence that USSR actually had nukes in Cuba. Adlai Stevenson brought the evidence to the UN and showed it to the world. If Russia has evidence that NATO plans a war against them, they are welcome to present their evidence to the UN. Otherwise, Russia does not get a veto power on the foreign policy of its neighbours based on paranoid fantasies.
2. While "national interest" dictates what happens, sometimes that "national interest" is downright evil and has to be opposed. Based on your argument, one could easily justify Hitler's desire for "lebensraum" or Japan's desire for a "co-prosperity sphere". If Russia, with the biggest territory in the world and the biggest nuclear arsenal, cannot feel safe, then who the hell can?
3. You keep repeating all kind of fantasy scenarios about NATO attacks on Russia, but you do realize that if NATO launches a war against Russia, it will get nuked, right? The fact that NATO still cannot find the courage to enter the Ukraine war directly, with its own troops, in a favorable political context, when Russia is clearly the aggressor, gives the lie to your fanfiction about NATO launching a sneak attack on Russia. US just failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In what world will US even contemplate invading Russia?
4. If Russia's motivation is indeed fear of a NATO attack, then it could have tried to solve the problem of NATO expansion on its own, by improving its relationship with its neighbouring countries. NATO has not forced the new members into the alliance at gun point: it was the new members which pressured NATO to be allowed to join, every time. Has Russia even tried to apologize to countries like Poland, the Baltics, Romania or Czechia for past wrongs? Or at least treat them with consideration and respect? I happen to live in one of those countries: whenever it raised the issue of past Russian misdeeds, Russia's reaction was always one of a bully, like "How dare you question us? We are Russia, the greatest nation, we were right to invade/occupy you, shut up or you'll be sorry". Russia never even attempted to build a respectful relationship with its neighbours, always treating them like some former serfs who forgot their place. Instead, it tried to achieve its objective of preventing NATO expansion by blackmailing NATO, which suggests that behind this attempt was not any "security concern", but lust for conquest. In simple terms, Russia wants those countries to be left defenseless, so it could recover them whenever it saw fit.
NATO expansion is a problem for Russia because Russia wants its old empire back, not because NATO are going to invade it (it would take tectonic shifts in NATO society and politics for this to happen - basically, a Hitler-like regime would have to come to power first; how likely do you think that is?)
5. How do you know US trying to get a foothold in Georgia was directed against Russia and not against Iran?
J-bg - you have a lot of feelings on this, but no historical context. you speak only of the now, the immediate affect, when things never happen like that. True I presented immediate military threats in my scenarios to explain my positions - but these are not the only threats a Nation State must deal with. Note that before the US/NATO started sending weapons to Ukraine, they first attempted to destroy the Russian economy. That didn't work so well for them.
You don't agree with me, that's fine, but Russian foreign policy has always been to secure their borders. See Peter Zeihan thoughts on Russia; he's a pretty smart guy and I agree with his views.
you present a logical fallacy in your proposing that the example of Russia in Ukraine would thus "justify" Hitler, Mao, militaristic Japan. There is no justification for any of this; there is just national interest and the capability &/or will to take what actions a Nation State believes it must take. Again, don't take my word for it; simply get more acquainted with history and read Zeihan. YOur understanding will improve, I promise you.
That's about it for me; I haven't answered all your points because, so what? I've got many more miles in my rear view mirror than I have in front of me and trust me, I've seen your type many times in the past, and argued to no avail. I don't care to engage in that sort of useless dead end discussion. Nothing personal, bud but you're not worth my time on this.
"Again, don't take my word for it; simply get more acquainted with history and read Zeihan. YOur understanding will improve, I promise you." - That is quite patronizing when you don't know the credentials of your interlocutor. For your record, I happen to be a professional historian, so I don't need to become more "acquainted with history", thank you very much.
And I looked Peter Zeihan. He is full of shit. For instance, I checked his interview with Jordan Harbinger. He starts with the claim that "So Russia's been invaded 50 odd times in its history". That is shameless lie. Russia has been invaded three times in its history. The progenitor of current Russia is the cnyazat of Moscow, which started expanding in late fifteenth-century and during the sixteenth century, especially under Ivan III (1462-1505) and Ivan IV the Terrible (1533-1584). Since then, it was invaded in 1609 by Poland (during the Time of Troubles, a period of anarchy after the death of the last tsar Fiodor I), in 1812 by Napoleon and in 1941 by Hitler. All the other conflicts were initiated by Russia: 1632 - Russia invades Poland; 1654 - Russia invades Poland; 1700 - the Great Northern War was initiated by Russia, who attacked the baltic possessions of Sweden; 1710 - Russia attacks the Ottoman Empire; 1733 - Russia attacks Poland; 1735 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1768 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1772, 1793, 1795 - Russian invasions of Poland and partitions of the country; 1787 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1799 - Russia attacks revolutionary France; 1805 - Russia attacks Napoleon; 1806 - Russia decides to continue the war from 1805: Napoleon signed a preliminary peace treaty with a Russian ambassador in July 1806, but tsar Alexander I vetoed it; 1806 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1826 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1853 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1877 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1914 - Russia invades Germany and Austro-Hungary; 1949 - Russia invades Poland; 1940 - Russia blackmails the Baltic States and Romania to yield to its demands (I mentioned only those which took place in Europe or close by, to shorten the list)
Russia likes to portrays itself as the victim, but it has been the aggressor state far more often than not. Take the 1812 Napoleonian invasion. What Russia does not tell you is that, prior to that, they attacked France three times. In 1799, the decisive battles between Russian and French armies took place at Zurich (in fucking Switzerland!) and Novi, in northern Italy. In 1805, the battle took places at Hollabrunn and Austerlitz, in what is today Austria and Czechia. In 1807, the major battles were at Eylau and Friedland, in eastern Prussia. None of the previous three wars between France and Russia took place on Russian soil and the declaration of war came from Russia first.
When questioned whether buffer zones matter "in a world of missiles and airpower", Peter Zeihan also claims that " I mean, our best friends are the Canadians to the north. Our most integrated economy neighbor is Mexico, now, our largest trading partner, or second-largest demographic partner. Russia's never been like that." But during that timespan when Russia got invaded (from 1609 and 1941), US also waged a war with Britain in which Canada played a major part (right at the time Russia was fighting Napoleon) and fought a major war with Mexico. Why was Russia not capable of transforming its relationship with its neighbours like US did with Canada and Mexico?
Zeihan also claims that "Russia borders a dozen different countries, all of which have taken a crack at Russia at some point in the past." Which is downright hilarious. Of course they've "taken a crack at Russia" if they got invaded by Russia! You know, when countries get invaded, they tend to fight back. Take for instance, Finland (after all, Zeihan says ALL Russia's neighbours attacked them). They got invaded by Soviet Union in 1939. The Russians like to point out that Finland joined Hitler in 1941 in his war. What they don't tell you, though, is that Finland did that after the soviet air force carried out several bombing raids on Finland on 25 June 1941. Only then did Finland declared war on Russia again.
Here is the example of WW1. In 1914, Russia sent an ultimatum to Austro-Hungary warning them not to attack Serbia, then they started to mobilize their army. Germany sent their own ultimatum to Russia to cease mobilization: the German ambassador asked three times the Russian foreign minister whether they would reconsider and when the answer was no, he delivered a German declaration of war. Subsequently, Russia invaded the German province of East Prussia and was defeated in the battle of Tannenberg.
Besides, if Russia is so afraid of invasion, maybe they should look east and put their army next to China - because that's the only type of government who could actually contemplate the idea of getting bogged down in a land war in Russia.
You claim that "there is just national interest and the capability &/or will to take what actions a Nation State believes it must take". One, a country's national interest can be something evil or something good. It should be taken into consideration by reasonable people only if that national interest is both rational and reasonable. Second, "national interest" is not something unchangeable and unmistakable, like the law of gravity. "National interest" is whatever the country's government says it is. If a government is nuts, it could even decide that nuclear war is their national interest.
You also claim that "before the US/NATO started sending weapons to Ukraine, they first attempted to destroy the Russian economy. That didn't work so well for them." And waging wars of conquest helps the Russian economy how? Even if Russia were to somehow win, they would have expended tremendous resources to acquire a husk of a country which will be only a drain on Russsian economy. How does taking Ukraine (or the Baltics, or whoever) helps Russia fend off economic threats?
And your closing paragraph, by the way, is quite impolite, despite the "nothing personal" caveat, because YOU ASKED for a answer to some of your concerns. This nonchalant attitude when your arguments are debunked does not fly.
like i said, it never ends with you people. Am simply not interested in refuting every one of your points, because experience tells me you folks never stop coming up with points. That many of your points contain - like a well honed misdirection - grains of truth, is a useless, fruitless waste of time to engage. Also, this exercise becomes one of playing on your field, on your choice of context. Typical leftist/totalitarian psycho-babble.
That's one of the main reasons our conditions here in the USA have gotten to the point they have. The left controls the culture, the media, academia, and what passes for the right in this country (there are but a few true Americans in our government, or in the above mentioned zones of influence) simply go along and respond to the left's narrative. And when questioned, they change the subject, such as...
I asked what difference is there between the US response in the Cuban missile crisis - where they threatened war if the missiles weren't removed - and the Russian response to Ukrainian actions? Your reply? Crickets.
Oh, and at some point, leftists always start sounding angry, like I give a shit about your feelings. And yes, let's get this out of the way; if you think I was impolite because I said I was not interested in debating you - and again, i'll remind you it's because my experience with your type of thinking has taught me this never ends - then I'm pretty certain your head might explode after calling you what you are, a leftist, in this my present reply.
Again, I don't care... Me importa tres Carajos... Non me ne frega un Cazzo.
last question. Which of the countries are you from? I hope it's not Poland; they've saved the West twice; first against Islam, then against the Soviets - and you sound like you could find fault or treat others in derisive manner (such as how you have treated me since your first reply - talk about the Pot calling the kettle Black) if they wrote something that contradicts your knowledge from the heights of your status.
You're angry; you don't like others; and you let your feelings get in the way of your brain.
Here in the US, we call that a snowflake - no matter what credentials she may have.
Leftists? Hah! I made absolutely no comment of any social or economical issues dear to the left and only criticized Russia. If that gets people labeled as "leftists" in America, of all places, then we hit a new low. If Ronald Reagan were to hear people being called "leftists" because they're critical of Russia, his head would explode. I am old enough to remember a time when "leftists" were Russia's ass-kissers and the conservative standard position was that Russia can go fuck itself.
And if your position is that you are "simply not interested in refuting every one of your points, because experience tells me you folks never stop coming up with points. That many of your points contain - like a well honed misdirection - grains of truth, is a useless, fruitless waste of time to engage. Also, this exercise becomes one of playing on your field, on your choice of context. Typical leftist/totalitarian psycho-babble.", then why come to this blog and ask the author "why he supports Ukraine"? What exactly do you expect to hear?When he gave you a short answer, you engaged in a long tirade triying to imply that he is wrong and Russia is, somehow, in the "right" (at least this is what it looked like) and you ended it with an invitation for further discussion. When countered, your retorts basically amounted to "I can't be bothered". If you are a provocateur, then move along.
And as for your assertion that my reply to your question about Cuba was "crickets", that is a lie. The answer was right there, point 1 in my first reply. Here it is again:
"1. US threatened war only when they had evidence that USSR actually had nukes in Cuba. Adlai Stevenson brought the evidence to the UN and showed it to the world. If Russia has evidence that NATO plans a war against them, they are welcome to present their evidence to the UN. Otherwise, Russia does not get a veto power on the foreign policy of its neighbours based on paranoid fantasies."
To expand on it, since the first answer apparently was not enough for you:
1. US threatened war only AFTER it had evidence Soviet Union was putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Russia actually engaged in war based on the possibility that Ukraine might have joined NATO in the future. Wars started based on "might" and "could" are, according to international law, illegal and, by any reasonable ethical standards, unjust.
2. US motivation in 1962 (nuclear missiles in Cuba) was far more serious than Russia's in 2022: it was a direct nuclear threat which made them threaten war, not just Cuba aligning itself with the Soviet Union. Cuba stayed an ally of Soviet Union for the rest of the cold war and US respected its pledge from 1962 not to invade them. Russia wiped its ass with a similar pledge from 1994 to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity if Ukraine gave up its nukes.
3. The Cuban crisis also occurred at the height of the Cold War, just one year after the Berlin Crisis and when a war between NATO and the Soviet Union was a real possibility. The Ukraine crisis occurred in a context where there was zero chance from NATO to start a war against Russia. Just some days ago, there were news that NATO could not agree on defense plans against Russia because Turkey vetoed them. How the hell could an alliance where the likes of Turkey gets a veto start an aggressive war against such a dangerous opponent as Russia? The current conflict is Russia's own doing, because they apparently can't give up the idea of possessing an 19th century-style Eurasian empire.
4. US never expressed its intents to destroy Cuba's nationhood or annex the country or parts of it. Russia proclaimed its opinion that Ukraine does not actually deserve independence and should be part of Russia loud and clear - and acted upon this opinion.
Besides, Russia's invasion is counterproductive to their goals. If Russia did nothing in 2014, then the weak 2014 government would have fallen in several years at most and a more pro-Russia one would have taken its place. By drowning Ukraine in blood, they just made sure Ukraine is going to hate Russia for generations.
As for me being "angry", well, what do you expect? Normal people don't like when others start justifying genocidal wars.
"if you think I was impolite because I said I was not interested in debating you" - No, I just start to think you are a troll. Debating with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon: no matter what you do, the pigeon is just going to shit on the chessboard and strut around like it has won the debate.
latecomer to this blog, but a simple question: why are you pro-Ukrainian?
tx
CGVet58
Honestly, it's pretty simple for me. It's Ukraine's land. Ukraine isn't Russia and borders mean something. This is boiling it down to the most basic level.
fair enough (and tx for prompt reply). Am going to share a few things below, not on the assumption that you don't know this stuff, you probably do - but I find that clarity is best, as assumptions make for awkward moments (... ie, "when one assumes, one makes an ASS out of U and ME ...).
Ukraine's land. True, in one context - that of the principle of sovereignty. Russian invaded Ukraine, simple as that. But maybe not so simple.
What about threats? Will a nation ignore a threat only to respond when that threat is now established at its door? Without having prepared an adequate defense against it? Without having tried via RealPolitic to prevent or weaken the threat, perhaps to the point of removing it in the first place? I daresay the answer to all the above is No. Else why do nations have defense planning, R&D, striving to improve weaponry and tactics so as to be able to present a
credible deterrence against such threats.
Russia for reasons already explained, violated Ukrainian sovereignty, to protect its own sovereignty from threats that had been developing for the past thirty years. I'm old enough to remember the collapse of the USSR, was active duty military at the time in fact (USN 1976-1984, USCG 1984-2000). I remember the US having promised Gorbachev that if the USSR let go of East Germany, Nato would move "not one inch eastward".
So, having discovered your blog here, I went to the attic of my mind, pulled out the box of my interest in this part of history, and did what any well-meaning man (... in the year 2023 ...) in search of all the truth does; I googled up any info sources on the topic in question :-).
And I found a few good ones, including a book, written by Mary Sarotte, "Not One Inch". Here's the link on NPR to an interview with Mz. Sarotte:
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/07/1078929982/a-look-at-the-debate-over-nato-expansion-eastward-thats-at-the-heart-of-conflict
And here's a link to Amazon and AbeBooks on getting the book:
https://www.amazon.com/Not-One-Inch-Post-Cold-Stalemate/dp/030025993X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1687351094&sr=8-1
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-home-_-Results&tn=not%20one%20inch&an=sarotte
Briefly, the NPR interview reveals a few things. Caveat: I do not rely on NPR, hardly ever visit as they are very leftist-biased - but this is a simple interview and furthermore, the Leftist/Globalist narrative doesn't care about a 30 year-old truth being revealed because it doesn't/can't change anything in the present day. Recent example to prove this point: "... so what if there's compelling proof that the CIA killed an American President. That was 60 years ago!". So, the salient point in this interview can be aired w/out danger to the Narrative.
In the chat, Sarotte reveals that James Baker (Reagan's NS Advisor and best friend) did, in fact, promise Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward. Did, in fact, utter the words "Not One Inch". This, like the above point about Ukrainian Sovereignty, is also True.
However, Sarotte also discusses that the ensueing paperwork, made no mention of this promise. So we now have a promise which, taken on the honor of the leader of NATO, induced the leader of the USSR to embark upon a course of action that did, in fact, remove the Soviet control of East Germany.
Sarotte then makes a few points in support of her premise that the potential for a true, peaceful partnership between a reconstructing Russia and the West, was disrupted/undermined by both the West & Russia.
Which point i disagree with, because when the USSR fell, Russia was on the tarp, taking and eight count to see if the fight could continue. Russia before Putin was in no way capable of exercising anything like a foreign policy that could effectively be part of a strategic defense plan. The West could - and did - continue with NATO eastward expansion because, as the Amazon commentary shows, the West saw that it could "win, and win bigger".
A point of history bears mentioning here. Russia has no defensible borders against NATO, save for distance and buffer states. We are taught that the Cold War had massive Soviet tank and artillery armies poised on the Iron Curtain frontier, ready to attack the free West. Soviet history shows that Stalin readily took the eastern European nations (... conveniently handed to him via Roosevelt, Truman, and a reluctant Churchill ...) because after the horror of the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis, ensuring any future attacks against Russia proper would both (A) be hundreds of miles further west; and most importantly (B) emasculate any potential for a united Germany to rise and again pose a mortal threat to its neighbors.
As goes Germany, so goes continental Europe. Two world wars (weakening of the Russian Monarchy which lead to its destruction, and near-destruction of the Soviet Union) was enough of a history lesson for Stalin to take the eastern European states into the Soviet sphere. I strongly believe we must view this important point in consideration of what is happening today in the Ukraine.
Putin has made it very clear that Russia would not tolerate the Ukraine being brought into NATO. This statement, on its face would not seem to be enough of a justification for the Russian SMO. But it bears mentioning that NATO has been the most expansionist organization in the past thirty years - and that pesky little detail in the NATO charter, the one that declares an "... attack on one member will be considered an attack on all members ..." - well that introduces another contextual truth that cannot be ignored. That NATO could use this point from which to mount a considerable threat to any opponent/enemy. Except that now, the charter point takes on new meaning, "... if you militarily fight any one member of NATO, you fight ALL NATO members ...".
That's just NATO belligerance. NATO is no longer an organization based on mutual defense; it is now used as active, offensive threat pointed at Russia, with the aim of destroying that nation.
A Ukraine in NATO means that any NATO force is hundreds of miles closer to Moscow, to the Volga over which transport and pipelines from the Caspian sea area supply Russia's energy needs. Add to that, a Ukraine which - since the 2014 coup, run by the Obama administration, replaced the then-friendly towards Russia administration with the current anti-Russia puppet Zelensky admin - would keep casus belli for the Crimea, would continue killing it's own Ukrainian citizens for the crime of being Russian... and we would see a never-ending, grinding down against Russia which would be difficult to defend against w/out a general war. A war, under the above context, that would take place hundreds of miles closer to critical industry, energy centers that Russia needs to survive. Close enough, actually, that missile strikes from these areas could hit those critical points.
I'm sure may would dismiss my above summary, but I offer one historical event as proof of my "theory" - the 2008 war in Georgia. NATO was in support of Georgia's admittance to the alliance. Russia put a stop to that.
Now, let's ask ourselves, how can a nation located in the Caucasus area between the Black and Caspian Seas be even remotely considered as a member of a "North ATLANTIC Treaty Organization"?
A look at any map answers that question. See how close Georgia is to Russian Caspian Oil and Gas fields - less than 400 miles. Within easy reach of Air and Missile weaponry.
Put simply, Georgia has nothing to do with defending the North Atlantic, and everything to do with outflanking Russia and threatening Russian key and strategic energy, transportation and industrial locations. This also, is a Truth, like the others discussed above.
The same can also be said for Ukraine. Another Truth that cannot be denied.
Final point, on whether Russia has the right to do this: at this level of Nation-State interactivity, I do not think that Right and Wrong dictate what happens; only National Interest does. My discussion above makes it fairly clear that I believe and understand why Russia has acted in the manner above and is in Ukraine, in a military action that first started as the SMO, but now has expanded into a war because the US Government and NATO are pretty much "... fighting the Russians, and will continue to do so down to the last Ukrainian ...".
So I'll close with another historical example of when a Nation was willing to make a war so as to prevent it's enemy from deploying WMD a mere 70 miles from it's land - the Cuban Missile Crisis.
What difference, then, is there between what the US did and was willing to do back in 1962, and the Russian SMO into Ukraine in 2022?
Respectfully,
CGVet58
Let me answer to your last question:
1. US threatened war only when they had evidence that USSR actually had nukes in Cuba. Adlai Stevenson brought the evidence to the UN and showed it to the world. If Russia has evidence that NATO plans a war against them, they are welcome to present their evidence to the UN. Otherwise, Russia does not get a veto power on the foreign policy of its neighbours based on paranoid fantasies.
2. While "national interest" dictates what happens, sometimes that "national interest" is downright evil and has to be opposed. Based on your argument, one could easily justify Hitler's desire for "lebensraum" or Japan's desire for a "co-prosperity sphere". If Russia, with the biggest territory in the world and the biggest nuclear arsenal, cannot feel safe, then who the hell can?
3. You keep repeating all kind of fantasy scenarios about NATO attacks on Russia, but you do realize that if NATO launches a war against Russia, it will get nuked, right? The fact that NATO still cannot find the courage to enter the Ukraine war directly, with its own troops, in a favorable political context, when Russia is clearly the aggressor, gives the lie to your fanfiction about NATO launching a sneak attack on Russia. US just failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In what world will US even contemplate invading Russia?
4. If Russia's motivation is indeed fear of a NATO attack, then it could have tried to solve the problem of NATO expansion on its own, by improving its relationship with its neighbouring countries. NATO has not forced the new members into the alliance at gun point: it was the new members which pressured NATO to be allowed to join, every time. Has Russia even tried to apologize to countries like Poland, the Baltics, Romania or Czechia for past wrongs? Or at least treat them with consideration and respect? I happen to live in one of those countries: whenever it raised the issue of past Russian misdeeds, Russia's reaction was always one of a bully, like "How dare you question us? We are Russia, the greatest nation, we were right to invade/occupy you, shut up or you'll be sorry". Russia never even attempted to build a respectful relationship with its neighbours, always treating them like some former serfs who forgot their place. Instead, it tried to achieve its objective of preventing NATO expansion by blackmailing NATO, which suggests that behind this attempt was not any "security concern", but lust for conquest. In simple terms, Russia wants those countries to be left defenseless, so it could recover them whenever it saw fit.
NATO expansion is a problem for Russia because Russia wants its old empire back, not because NATO are going to invade it (it would take tectonic shifts in NATO society and politics for this to happen - basically, a Hitler-like regime would have to come to power first; how likely do you think that is?)
5. How do you know US trying to get a foothold in Georgia was directed against Russia and not against Iran?
J-bg - you have a lot of feelings on this, but no historical context. you speak only of the now, the immediate affect, when things never happen like that. True I presented immediate military threats in my scenarios to explain my positions - but these are not the only threats a Nation State must deal with. Note that before the US/NATO started sending weapons to Ukraine, they first attempted to destroy the Russian economy. That didn't work so well for them.
You don't agree with me, that's fine, but Russian foreign policy has always been to secure their borders. See Peter Zeihan thoughts on Russia; he's a pretty smart guy and I agree with his views.
you present a logical fallacy in your proposing that the example of Russia in Ukraine would thus "justify" Hitler, Mao, militaristic Japan. There is no justification for any of this; there is just national interest and the capability &/or will to take what actions a Nation State believes it must take. Again, don't take my word for it; simply get more acquainted with history and read Zeihan. YOur understanding will improve, I promise you.
That's about it for me; I haven't answered all your points because, so what? I've got many more miles in my rear view mirror than I have in front of me and trust me, I've seen your type many times in the past, and argued to no avail. I don't care to engage in that sort of useless dead end discussion. Nothing personal, bud but you're not worth my time on this.
CGVet58
"Again, don't take my word for it; simply get more acquainted with history and read Zeihan. YOur understanding will improve, I promise you." - That is quite patronizing when you don't know the credentials of your interlocutor. For your record, I happen to be a professional historian, so I don't need to become more "acquainted with history", thank you very much.
And I looked Peter Zeihan. He is full of shit. For instance, I checked his interview with Jordan Harbinger. He starts with the claim that "So Russia's been invaded 50 odd times in its history". That is shameless lie. Russia has been invaded three times in its history. The progenitor of current Russia is the cnyazat of Moscow, which started expanding in late fifteenth-century and during the sixteenth century, especially under Ivan III (1462-1505) and Ivan IV the Terrible (1533-1584). Since then, it was invaded in 1609 by Poland (during the Time of Troubles, a period of anarchy after the death of the last tsar Fiodor I), in 1812 by Napoleon and in 1941 by Hitler. All the other conflicts were initiated by Russia: 1632 - Russia invades Poland; 1654 - Russia invades Poland; 1700 - the Great Northern War was initiated by Russia, who attacked the baltic possessions of Sweden; 1710 - Russia attacks the Ottoman Empire; 1733 - Russia attacks Poland; 1735 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1768 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1772, 1793, 1795 - Russian invasions of Poland and partitions of the country; 1787 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1799 - Russia attacks revolutionary France; 1805 - Russia attacks Napoleon; 1806 - Russia decides to continue the war from 1805: Napoleon signed a preliminary peace treaty with a Russian ambassador in July 1806, but tsar Alexander I vetoed it; 1806 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1826 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1853 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1877 - Russia attacks Ottoman Empire; 1914 - Russia invades Germany and Austro-Hungary; 1949 - Russia invades Poland; 1940 - Russia blackmails the Baltic States and Romania to yield to its demands (I mentioned only those which took place in Europe or close by, to shorten the list)
Russia likes to portrays itself as the victim, but it has been the aggressor state far more often than not. Take the 1812 Napoleonian invasion. What Russia does not tell you is that, prior to that, they attacked France three times. In 1799, the decisive battles between Russian and French armies took place at Zurich (in fucking Switzerland!) and Novi, in northern Italy. In 1805, the battle took places at Hollabrunn and Austerlitz, in what is today Austria and Czechia. In 1807, the major battles were at Eylau and Friedland, in eastern Prussia. None of the previous three wars between France and Russia took place on Russian soil and the declaration of war came from Russia first.
When questioned whether buffer zones matter "in a world of missiles and airpower", Peter Zeihan also claims that " I mean, our best friends are the Canadians to the north. Our most integrated economy neighbor is Mexico, now, our largest trading partner, or second-largest demographic partner. Russia's never been like that." But during that timespan when Russia got invaded (from 1609 and 1941), US also waged a war with Britain in which Canada played a major part (right at the time Russia was fighting Napoleon) and fought a major war with Mexico. Why was Russia not capable of transforming its relationship with its neighbours like US did with Canada and Mexico?
Zeihan also claims that "Russia borders a dozen different countries, all of which have taken a crack at Russia at some point in the past." Which is downright hilarious. Of course they've "taken a crack at Russia" if they got invaded by Russia! You know, when countries get invaded, they tend to fight back. Take for instance, Finland (after all, Zeihan says ALL Russia's neighbours attacked them). They got invaded by Soviet Union in 1939. The Russians like to point out that Finland joined Hitler in 1941 in his war. What they don't tell you, though, is that Finland did that after the soviet air force carried out several bombing raids on Finland on 25 June 1941. Only then did Finland declared war on Russia again.
Here is the example of WW1. In 1914, Russia sent an ultimatum to Austro-Hungary warning them not to attack Serbia, then they started to mobilize their army. Germany sent their own ultimatum to Russia to cease mobilization: the German ambassador asked three times the Russian foreign minister whether they would reconsider and when the answer was no, he delivered a German declaration of war. Subsequently, Russia invaded the German province of East Prussia and was defeated in the battle of Tannenberg.
Besides, if Russia is so afraid of invasion, maybe they should look east and put their army next to China - because that's the only type of government who could actually contemplate the idea of getting bogged down in a land war in Russia.
You claim that "there is just national interest and the capability &/or will to take what actions a Nation State believes it must take". One, a country's national interest can be something evil or something good. It should be taken into consideration by reasonable people only if that national interest is both rational and reasonable. Second, "national interest" is not something unchangeable and unmistakable, like the law of gravity. "National interest" is whatever the country's government says it is. If a government is nuts, it could even decide that nuclear war is their national interest.
You also claim that "before the US/NATO started sending weapons to Ukraine, they first attempted to destroy the Russian economy. That didn't work so well for them." And waging wars of conquest helps the Russian economy how? Even if Russia were to somehow win, they would have expended tremendous resources to acquire a husk of a country which will be only a drain on Russsian economy. How does taking Ukraine (or the Baltics, or whoever) helps Russia fend off economic threats?
And your closing paragraph, by the way, is quite impolite, despite the "nothing personal" caveat, because YOU ASKED for a answer to some of your concerns. This nonchalant attitude when your arguments are debunked does not fly.
like i said, it never ends with you people. Am simply not interested in refuting every one of your points, because experience tells me you folks never stop coming up with points. That many of your points contain - like a well honed misdirection - grains of truth, is a useless, fruitless waste of time to engage. Also, this exercise becomes one of playing on your field, on your choice of context. Typical leftist/totalitarian psycho-babble.
That's one of the main reasons our conditions here in the USA have gotten to the point they have. The left controls the culture, the media, academia, and what passes for the right in this country (there are but a few true Americans in our government, or in the above mentioned zones of influence) simply go along and respond to the left's narrative. And when questioned, they change the subject, such as...
I asked what difference is there between the US response in the Cuban missile crisis - where they threatened war if the missiles weren't removed - and the Russian response to Ukrainian actions? Your reply? Crickets.
Oh, and at some point, leftists always start sounding angry, like I give a shit about your feelings. And yes, let's get this out of the way; if you think I was impolite because I said I was not interested in debating you - and again, i'll remind you it's because my experience with your type of thinking has taught me this never ends - then I'm pretty certain your head might explode after calling you what you are, a leftist, in this my present reply.
Again, I don't care... Me importa tres Carajos... Non me ne frega un Cazzo.
last question. Which of the countries are you from? I hope it's not Poland; they've saved the West twice; first against Islam, then against the Soviets - and you sound like you could find fault or treat others in derisive manner (such as how you have treated me since your first reply - talk about the Pot calling the kettle Black) if they wrote something that contradicts your knowledge from the heights of your status.
You're angry; you don't like others; and you let your feelings get in the way of your brain.
Here in the US, we call that a snowflake - no matter what credentials she may have.
goodbye - you win the internets...
Leftists? Hah! I made absolutely no comment of any social or economical issues dear to the left and only criticized Russia. If that gets people labeled as "leftists" in America, of all places, then we hit a new low. If Ronald Reagan were to hear people being called "leftists" because they're critical of Russia, his head would explode. I am old enough to remember a time when "leftists" were Russia's ass-kissers and the conservative standard position was that Russia can go fuck itself.
And if your position is that you are "simply not interested in refuting every one of your points, because experience tells me you folks never stop coming up with points. That many of your points contain - like a well honed misdirection - grains of truth, is a useless, fruitless waste of time to engage. Also, this exercise becomes one of playing on your field, on your choice of context. Typical leftist/totalitarian psycho-babble.", then why come to this blog and ask the author "why he supports Ukraine"? What exactly do you expect to hear?When he gave you a short answer, you engaged in a long tirade triying to imply that he is wrong and Russia is, somehow, in the "right" (at least this is what it looked like) and you ended it with an invitation for further discussion. When countered, your retorts basically amounted to "I can't be bothered". If you are a provocateur, then move along.
And as for your assertion that my reply to your question about Cuba was "crickets", that is a lie. The answer was right there, point 1 in my first reply. Here it is again:
"1. US threatened war only when they had evidence that USSR actually had nukes in Cuba. Adlai Stevenson brought the evidence to the UN and showed it to the world. If Russia has evidence that NATO plans a war against them, they are welcome to present their evidence to the UN. Otherwise, Russia does not get a veto power on the foreign policy of its neighbours based on paranoid fantasies."
To expand on it, since the first answer apparently was not enough for you:
1. US threatened war only AFTER it had evidence Soviet Union was putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. Russia actually engaged in war based on the possibility that Ukraine might have joined NATO in the future. Wars started based on "might" and "could" are, according to international law, illegal and, by any reasonable ethical standards, unjust.
2. US motivation in 1962 (nuclear missiles in Cuba) was far more serious than Russia's in 2022: it was a direct nuclear threat which made them threaten war, not just Cuba aligning itself with the Soviet Union. Cuba stayed an ally of Soviet Union for the rest of the cold war and US respected its pledge from 1962 not to invade them. Russia wiped its ass with a similar pledge from 1994 to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity if Ukraine gave up its nukes.
3. The Cuban crisis also occurred at the height of the Cold War, just one year after the Berlin Crisis and when a war between NATO and the Soviet Union was a real possibility. The Ukraine crisis occurred in a context where there was zero chance from NATO to start a war against Russia. Just some days ago, there were news that NATO could not agree on defense plans against Russia because Turkey vetoed them. How the hell could an alliance where the likes of Turkey gets a veto start an aggressive war against such a dangerous opponent as Russia? The current conflict is Russia's own doing, because they apparently can't give up the idea of possessing an 19th century-style Eurasian empire.
4. US never expressed its intents to destroy Cuba's nationhood or annex the country or parts of it. Russia proclaimed its opinion that Ukraine does not actually deserve independence and should be part of Russia loud and clear - and acted upon this opinion.
Besides, Russia's invasion is counterproductive to their goals. If Russia did nothing in 2014, then the weak 2014 government would have fallen in several years at most and a more pro-Russia one would have taken its place. By drowning Ukraine in blood, they just made sure Ukraine is going to hate Russia for generations.
As for me being "angry", well, what do you expect? Normal people don't like when others start justifying genocidal wars.
"if you think I was impolite because I said I was not interested in debating you" - No, I just start to think you are a troll. Debating with a troll is like playing chess with a pigeon: no matter what you do, the pigeon is just going to shit on the chessboard and strut around like it has won the debate.