Russia - General Discussion.

[Fredled]

While I think this matches the consensus Western view of Putin, I do find it interesting that he clearly possesses a deeper understanding of the history of his nation than perhaps any Western leader has of their own

I agree that ignorance of history by some of our leaders, in the west, can be sometimes abysmal.
Putin is clearly inspired by history and big historical figures like Napoleon. But that's precisely what makes him irrational. He behaves as if we were in the 16th Century or something.
It's a good thing to know History. It's not as good to think that you are the new Alexander The Great. Or Ivan The Terrible.

Putin has been a stabilizing figure for Russia since the chaotic Gorbatchev-Yelstsin years. There was even a widespread opinion (thought not shared by our medias) that he may be a dictator and oligarch #1, he was rational enough not to start a war against the West. And that another leader who would overthrow Putin in a putch would probably be worse.
That's what many people thought until he invaded Ukraine in 2022. What he does since is completely insane.

I'm curious how you interpret Western actions vis a vis Russia since the end of the Cold War,

Please tell what actions you are talking about.

In general I think that Western figures and medias have spoken too harshly about Putin. I wouldn't say contemptuously, but almost. That's our part of responsibility in what happens today. Had we talked with more respect about Putin, maybe we would be at peace by now. Of course, I say this with a big "maybe".
Now the Americans make the same mistake with the Chinese. And this is even more dangerous.

I also think that the sanctions after he seized Crimea were a mistake for the same reason.

But the West or the US never worked for the destruction of Russia. That's typical Ruissian paranoia.

The biggest mistake Putin did all his life, was to focus obsessively on military strategy instead of taking care of commercial interests. That's why Russia has never built an efficient trade relationship with Europe and stayed in a Soviet era mentality.

 

[SinisterMinister]

Putin has been a stabilizing figure for Russia since the chaotic Gorbatchev-Yelstsin years. There was even a widespread opinion (thought not shared by our medias) that he may be a dictator and oligarch #1, he was rational enough not to start a war against the West. And that another leader who would overthrow Putin in a putch would probably be worse.
That's what many people thought until he invaded Ukraine in 2022. What he does since is completely insane.

I would quantify it more as risky than insane. There is nothing particularly crazy about political leaders starting wars, especially when they feel boxed in by their enemies. If he were insane he would have launched a full invasion of Poland and the Baltics.

Please tell what actions you are talking about.

To name a few:

1. Shock therapy and the thorough pillaging of Russia's economy under the influence of Western power-brokers (and with a notable absence of economic support from the US and the IMF).
2. NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 without support from the UNSC (demonstrating its willingness to act aggressively in its own interests, and against Russia's)
3. The flat rejection of Putin's feelers to Clinton about Russia joining NATO (at least according to Putin)
4. The withdrawal of the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and subsequent agreements to build anti-ballistic missile defense systems in Poland and Romania
5. Constant interest from the US foreign policy establishment in enlarging NATO, prior to any aggressive Russian action
6. The 2008 Munich Security conference, when Bush puts forward the idea of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO
7. The 2014 Maidan Revolution and coup, which Russia sees with at least some merit as directed and funded by the CIA in an attempt to pry Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence.

I think if you read between the lines Bill Clinton makes it pretty clear here that the goal of US policy towards Russia ever since the Cold War has been this: get in line with our agenda or we will isolate you and make you a pariah state. They have been working quite feverishly toward making the latter a reality ever since 2008. It's pretty reasonable to expect that a man as ambitious and ruthless as Putin would draw a red line somewhere (that somewhere being the alignment of Ukraine).

I Tried to Put Russia on Another Path

My policy was to work for the best, while expanding NATO to prepare for the worst.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[benignstrategicenvironment]

Any rational examination of NATO policy and history leads to the inevitable conclusion that NATO is no threat to Russia. If Putin is a rational actor he knows this. He doesnt give one $hit about NATO - as evidenced by his actions. He worked SO hard to get FIN and SWE into NATO. He has also stripped the troops from his borders with NATO countries. NATO was withering on the vine before 2022, with EU countries spiraling into ever-decreasing military budgets.

If Putin is a rational actor, the "NATO expansion" is nothing more than a convenient political tagline for him.

You assert that "any rational examination" of NATO's history and policy results in the "inevitable conclusion" that NATO presents no threat to Russia. However, you don't explain why any conclusion to the contrary is impossible. From where I am sitting it seems quite easy to present an arguable case that NATO is a threat to Russia. NATO has presented Russia as its primary adversary since it was created. The State Department openly acknowledges this by saying. NATO was created to provide "collective security against the Soviet Union." Note the use of the word 'against' it necessarily creates an adversarial tone where they could have just said NATO was created to provide security to European countries. This defence against Russia idea has remained NATO's organising principle ever since.

It is a jump to say that because NATO's purpose is to provide security against Russia they obviously want to destroy Russia. But it is helpful to place things in perspective. I've argued above that there is a reasonable case that NATO views Russia as its main enemy. Then look at the map below, NATO countries surround Russia on three sides. There seems nothing irrational about viewing a hostile military bloc that surrounds your country on three sides as a threat. In my view it is entirely rational that Putin or any other Russian government official would view NATO as a threat.

Now to be clear, i'm not saying that this is the correct view instead I am trying to demonstrate that there is are legitimate arguments that NATO is a threat to Russia and that its actions contributed to the Russian decision to go to war. Your view is increasingly popular today and even NATO themselves are announcing that they present no threat to Russia. However, In my view there is ample evidence to reasonably conclude that such claims are untrue and that claims of this nature are disingenuous.

Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations - Office of the Historian

history.state.gov 3.0 shell

history.state.gov

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It is more of a gut feeling than anything else, but it seems to me that Europe may just be able to provide sufficient material assistance without the US.
If true, then Ukraine may just have its reason not to settle on any ceasefire agreement.

 

[Fredled]

1. Shock therapy and the thorough pillaging of Russia's economy

This is false and materialy impossible. The whole russian wealth is owned by a handful of Putin afiliated oligarchs and Putin himself.

2. NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

None of Russia's business.

The flat rejection of Putin's feelers to Clinton about Russia joining NATO

Putin wanted to join the alliance built to counter attacks from Russia. ==> Brillant. Any idea why it failed? LOL =))

4. The withdrawal of the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and subsequent agreements to build anti-ballistic missile defense systems in Poland and Romania

What's wrong with buildong anti-ballistic missile defense systems?

5. Constant interest from the US foreign policy establishment in enlarging NATO, prior to any aggressive Russian action

6. The 2008 Munich Security conference, when Bush puts forward the idea of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO

What's wrong with enlarging NATO? Especialy prior agressive Russian action?

7. The 2014 Maidan Revolution and coup, which Russia sees with at least some merit as directed and funded by the CIA in an attempt to pry Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence.

What's wrong with the CIA* helping Ukraine getting out of Russian sphere of influence?
Ukraine is a sovereign country with the right to chose which sphere of influence they are in.

*:It was not the CIA but diplomats and sometimes head of states meeting and calling directly, officially and openly with Ukrainian politicians.

There is nothing particularly crazy about political leaders starting wars, especially when they feel boxed in by their enemies.

But Russia didn't have ennemies. It traded natural gaz and oil with Europe for billions of $ per year month. Russia never faced a force even remotely able to attack it.
If Putin felt boxed by ennemies, it's a clear sign that he had to have his brain examined.

 

[Fredled]

I've argued above that there is a reasonable case that NATO views Russia as its main enemy.

Yes of course. And it's hard to explain that it should protect Europe against it without using the word against.
But NATO is and remains a defense organisation. It's an organisation around a treaty. It's not a military block. There is no such a thing as a NATO Army as everyone thinks.

USSR leaders were honnestly convinced that the US was preparing a military agression against them because the US was openly anti-communist, close to fanaticism, and because of the Vietnam War. And they believed that NATO was build in order to facilitate such attack. They didn't believe it was a defense organisation because they didn't believe that they were strong enough to pose a threat to Western Europe. But in Western Europe, the feeling was very real that the USSR was a very serious treath.

At the Fall of the Berlin Wall, it became obvious that soviet leaders were wrong and that NATO members had no intention to attack the USSR. NATO never fired a single shot at Russia and the event was celebrated as the End of the Cold War.
The best proof of that is that Western forces in Syria have always carefuly coordinated their actions with Russia to avoid firing at Russian planes.

About the map, it's strange to imagine the Arctic Ocean as an easy path for an invasion of Russia. This is not convincing. In fact common borders between NATO and Russia are only a tiny portion of the borders Russia shares with other countries. And Ukraine doesn't bring or remove anything at all in this respect.

So it's hard to believe that the head of the Russian Federation still thinks seriousely that NATO's goal is to invade or strike Russia.
________________________

It is more of a gut feeling than anything else, but it seems to me that Europe may just be able to provide sufficient material assistance without the US.

If true, then Ukraine may just have its reason not to settle on any ceasefire agreement.

Europe is able to but it takes timne. On one hand accepting a ceasefire would help Ukraine (a few months ago we thought the opposite). On the other hand, Russia presses on all front as much as they can before Ukraine recieve more weapons and ammos.
Ukraine may not be able to withstand Russian strike pressure long enough to allow European to send enough weapons and ammos if the US withdraws completely and they may lose more territory. But this is worse case scenario. It's more likely that the US will resume weapon deliveries, even when Trump will be President.

 

[koxinga]

What's wrong with enlarging NATO? Especialy prior agressive Russian action?

Taking this point alone, if I wear a NATO hat, it is obvious that expansion is not targeted at Russia. But if I wear a Russian hat, I would feel threatened by NATO. What I am trying to drive at both points are valid. Trying to convince the Russians that NATO was not a threat was foolish to start with and I am not sure why NATO needs to provide such assurances.

For people like Putin who are trapped in such a narrative, NATO should have assert itself and hinted at that possibility just to DETER Russia. Every time NATO tries to explain, it either makes Putin thinks that something is up or is seen as a sign of weakness.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Taking this point alone, if I wear a NATO hat, it is obvious that expansion is not targeted at Russia. But if I wear a Russian hat, I would feel threatened by NATO. What I am trying to drive at both points are valid. Trying to convince the Russians that NATO was not a threat was foolish to start with and I am not sure why NATO needs to provide such assurances.

For people like Putin who are trapped in such a narrative, NATO should have assert itself and hinted at that possibility just to DETER Russia. Every time NATO tries to explain, it either makes Putin thinks that something is up or is seen as a sign of weakness.

Not countering a lie eventually cements that lie as a truth.

My 2 cents as an ultra NATO simp:

NATO's new members since 1991 have all asked to join NATO as a way to de facto run away from Russia's grasp. This is a function of the USSR's oppressive policies.
The most basic rule of geopolitics is that you choose whom to befriend and whom to alienate. USSR conscientiously alienated its western republics and warsaw pact "allies". To claim that Russia could not have forseen these consequences is to claim Russia has no agency - exactly what it claims the west seeks to deny it.
So how do we reconcile this contradiction? By understanding that the war in Ukraine and the claim of NATO encroachment on Russia's doorstep are an internal matter for Russia. It isn't a line to advertise to the west, but for its own audience.
Why? Because toward the international community, Russia displays a coherent image. But when it comes to domestic propaganda, incoherence is a key feature.

 

[SinisterMinister]

I'll respond to your points, but just want to preface that I'm not necessarily talking about the facts of what happened in each of these instances, but moreso how they are viewed from a Russian POV. After all the question was, is Putin crazy or rational? To understand the answer we have to understand things from his POV as much as possible.

This is false and materialy impossible. The whole russian wealth is owned by a handful of Putin afiliated oligarchs and Putin himself.

Currently? Sure. But I'm not talking about right now, I'm talking about what happened under Western guidance (especially Boris Jordan and Jeffrey Sachs) in the 1990s. It's not about who owns things but rather about why those things happened and who had a hand in it.

None of Russia's business.

Don't be silly. What an alliance against you does to nations with which you share close relations is always your business

Putin wanted to join the alliance built to counter attacks from Russia. ==> Brillant. Any idea why it failed? LOL =))

What's wrong with enlarging NATO? Especialy prior agressive Russian action?

Something contradictory going on here. If NATO is an alliance against Russia it's expansion is a threat to Russia. It really doesn't matter whether NATO calls itself defensive or not, Russia does not perceive it as such and that's all that matters to their response. Why should Russia view an anti-Russian alliance as defensive? No country in history has been that foolish.

What's wrong with buildong anti-ballistic missile defense systems?

The security dilemma. The entire reason for the anti-ballistic missile treaty in the first place.

What's wrong with the CIA* helping Ukraine getting out of Russian sphere of influence?
Ukraine is a sovereign country with the right to chose which sphere of influence they are in.

*:It was not the CIA but diplomats and sometimes head of states meeting and calling directly, officially and openly with Ukrainian politicians.

I won't argue the facts, but Russian perception is that the CIA funded groups that agitated for reform and eventually had a direct hand in the coup. Whether or not that happened matters little to the Russian response. They believe it did

And what's wrong with it is exactly what the US would find wrong with a Chinese funded coup toppling the Mexican government and replacing it with a China-aligned government. Sovereignty doesn't mean much to the US or Russia

 

[seaspear]

I did post something similar on the Ukraine Russia war ,this article suggests an extra half a million Russian males on disability pensions in a little over a year , trying to find if Russia has budgeted for increased services for this seems dubious when claims are that the health system like other sectors would not have their budgets increased , there have previously been discussions even before this war of Russia's demographic concerns

The UK Defense Intelligence: Over Half a Million russian Men Aged 31-59 Classified as Disabled | Defense Express

Analysis suggests a 30% increase in disabled men linked to military casualties in Ukraine

en.defence-ua.com

 

[vikingatespam]

You assert that "any rational examination" of NATO's history and policy results in the "inevitable conclusion" that NATO presents no threat to Russia. However, you don't explain why any conclusion to the contrary is impossible. From where I am sitting it seems quite easy to present an arguable case that NATO is a threat to Russia. NATO has presented Russia as its primary adversary since it was created.

NATO was in itself a response to RU expansionism.

Again, any discussion of the NATO "threat" to RU has to examine the clear facts that:

- NATO is not forced on anyone, unlike the Soviet Union/Russia
- NATO was dying by 2020 with less and less spent on military budgets - it was beginning to seem like NATO had no real mission
- If Putin was afraid of "NATO expansion", why is he trying to expand into UKR, and bring that part of the RU border closer to.... NATO countries ?
- If Putin feared NATO, then why did he work so hard to push SWE and FIN into NATO ? Seriously, all he had to do was make nice, make a few trade deals, and those 2 countries would probably still be neutral.
- If Putin feared NATO, he wouldnt of stripped forces from borders of NATO countries (are there any RU forces left in Kaliningrad ?)
- If NATO was a threat to RU, where are the NATO standing forces on the RU border, ready to invade ? There are none.

"NATO expansion" is a Putin political point.

 

[Redshift]

NATO was in itself a response to RU expansionism.

Again, any discussion of the NATO "threat" to RU has to examine the clear facts that:

- NATO is not forced on anyone, unlike the Soviet Union/Russia
- NATO was dying by 2020 with less and less spent on military budgets - it was beginning to seem like NATO had no real mission
- If Putin was afraid of "NATO expansion", why is he trying to expand into UKR, and bring that part of the RU border closer to.... NATO countries ?
- If Putin feared NATO, then why did he work so hard to push SWE and FIN into NATO ? Seriously, all he had to do was make nice, make a few trade deals, and those 2 countries would probably still be neutral.
- If Putin feared NATO, he wouldnt of stripped forces from borders of NATO countries (are there any RU forces left in Kaliningrad ?)
- If NATO was a threat to RU, where are the NATO standing forces on the RU border, ready to invade ? There are none.

"NATO expansion" is a Putin political point.

You are wasting your breath.

Those with the entrenched idea that NATO was an existential threat to Russia's existence are totally happy to ignore :

1) The total underfunding of the military in almost all Western European countries.

2) that not a single leader of any NATO country has ever threatened Russia, nor have leading politicians, or media outlets.

3) units such as the British Army on the Rhine have been withdrawn and don't even exist anymore.

4) that NATO has no ability to actually do anything (other than exercises) without the members agreement and cooperation (see 3 above).

They will also cite the fantasy of NATO missiles and bio warfare labs in Ukraine.

Generally speaking the completely militarised and occupied exclave of Kaliningrad is an example of Russian friendliness ....... Well say no more.

In the other hand they will praise Putin's steely wiliness and his ability to understand geopolitical issues better than anyone and will still believe that he saw NATO and the almost demilitarised countries of Western Europe as an enemy just waiting to pounce.

They will also ignore the constant Russian announcements of super tanks, nuclear armed and powered torpedoes and cruise missiles, because none of those are at all provocative are they?

Anyone living in somewhere like the UK find the idea that we are prepared to go along and invade Russian because the USA orders us to utterly laughable.

 

[benignstrategicenvironment]

NATO was in itself a response to RU expansionism.

Again, any discussion of the NATO "threat" to RU has to examine the clear facts that:

- NATO is not forced on anyone, unlike the Soviet Union/Russia
- NATO was dying by 2020 with less and less spent on military budgets - it was beginning to seem like NATO had no real mission
- If Putin was afraid of "NATO expansion", why is he trying to expand into UKR, and bring that part of the RU border closer to.... NATO countries ?
- If Putin feared NATO, then why did he work so hard to push SWE and FIN into NATO ? Seriously, all he had to do was make nice, make a few trade deals, and those 2 countries would probably still be neutral.
- If Putin feared NATO, he wouldnt of stripped forces from borders of NATO countries (are there any RU forces left in Kaliningrad ?)
- If NATO was a threat to RU, where are the NATO standing forces on the RU border, ready to invade ? There are none.

"NATO expansion" is a Putin political point.

You seemed to have missed the point I was making so I will make it again. My argument is not that NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather that there are reasonable grounds for someone to conclude that NATO is a threat to Russia, in particular that it could have played a role in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.

Your post doesn't really address what i'm arguing rather it just makes arguments that NATO isn't a threat to Russia (which is a reasonable position) without addressing the opposing view. I will try to address that opposing view now.

It's true that NATO membership is not forced on any country. But this has no relevance to the question at hand. The Axis was a voluntary pact, this had no bearing on the fact that the Axis posed a threat to its neighbours. The same is true of NATO, assuming NATO is a threat to Russia what difference would it make to Russia whether its members are being compelled to act or acting voluntarily.

Your point that NATO was in decline and lacked purpose is a fair one. I suppose the opposing view is to wonder why it still exists? If you were born and raised in a security establishment that view NATO as an existential threat your confirmation bias might see NATO's continued existence as proof that it was not defensive in nature. I don't think this point is very strong but I am not trying to justify the invasion, rather I am trying to understand what actually motivated it.

Regarding NATO expansion, I think its clear the invasion was designed to achieve, if not complete annexation of Ukraine, political control over its territory. I guess it was seen as preferable to have the NATO-Russia border at the Polish-Ukrainian border rather than at the Russo-Ukrainian border should Ukraine have joined the alliance.

I will admit the point that if Russia view NATO as a threat why would it risk pushing finland and sweden to join NATO is hard to counter. I guess Putin could have believed neither of them would join (it would hardly be his first miscalculation), did he prioritise denying Ukrainian membership over denying Swedish or Finnish membership? However, I don't think the lack of a satisfactory answer to this question is enough to rule out there being a reasonable view that NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather I think it illustrates the immense strategic risk that Putin undertook by invading Ukraine.

Regarding the removal of forces. This occurred after the invasion went FUBAR and they were needed in Ukraine. At this point the threat of a Ukrainian military victory was real and had to be addressed regardless of any perceived threat from NATO. Regardless, using Russia's actions post 24/2/22 to argue that the invasion wasn't motivated by a perceived threat from NATO is anachronistic and thus defective reasoning.

I'll close by saying that i'm not trying to argue with you on the merits of whether NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather that I am saying reasoning grounds for the belief exist, particularly for someone standing in Putin's shoes, and that we cannot rule out that Putin had a good faith belief (I know that sounds weird) that NATO was a threat to Russia which played a role in his decision to launch a brutal war in Ukraine.

 

[Feanor]

You seemed to have missed the point I was making so I will make it again. My argument is not that NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather that there are reasonable grounds for someone to conclude that NATO is a threat to Russia, in particular that it could have played a role in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.

Your post doesn't really address what i'm arguing rather it just makes arguments that NATO isn't a threat to Russia (which is a reasonable position) without addressing the opposing view. I will try to address that opposing view now.

It's true that NATO membership is not forced on any country. But this has no relevance to the question at hand. The Axis was a voluntary pact, this had no bearing on the fact that the Axis posed a threat to its neighbours. The same is true of NATO, assuming NATO is a threat to Russia what difference would it make to Russia whether its members are being compelled to act or acting voluntarily.

Your point that NATO was in decline and lacked purpose is a fair one. I suppose the opposing view is to wonder why it still exists? If you were born and raised in a security establishment that view NATO as an existential threat your confirmation bias might see NATO's continued existence as proof that it was not defensive in nature. I don't think this point is very strong but I am not trying to justify the invasion, rather I am trying to understand what actually motivated it.

Regarding NATO expansion, I think its clear the invasion was designed to achieve, if not complete annexation of Ukraine, political control over its territory. I guess it was seen as preferable to have the NATO-Russia border at the Polish-Ukrainian border rather than at the Russo-Ukrainian border should Ukraine have joined the alliance.

I will admit the point that if Russia view NATO as a threat why would it risk pushing finland and sweden to join NATO is hard to counter. I guess Putin could have believed neither of them would join (it would hardly be his first miscalculation), did he prioritise denying Ukrainian membership over denying Swedish or Finnish membership? However, I don't think the lack of a satisfactory answer to this question is enough to rule out there being a reasonable view that NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather I think it illustrates the immense strategic risk that Putin undertook by invading Ukraine.

Regarding the removal of forces. This occurred after the invasion went FUBAR and they were needed in Ukraine. At this point the threat of a Ukrainian military victory was real and had to be addressed regardless of any perceived threat from NATO. Regardless, using Russia's actions post 24/2/22 to argue that the invasion wasn't motivated by a perceived threat from NATO is anachronistic and thus defective reasoning.

I'll close by saying that i'm not trying to argue with you on the merits of whether NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather that I am saying reasoning grounds for the belief exist, particularly for someone standing in Putin's shoes, and that we cannot rule out that Putin had a good faith belief (I know that sounds weird) that NATO was a threat to Russia which played a role in his decision to launch a brutal war in Ukraine.

I'm not Putin, and I have a good faith belief that NATO is a threat to Russia. I think anyone who argues otherwise is intentionally leaving out a whole bunch of unstated assumptions, like the idea that NATO is not a threat to Russia as long as Russia behaves in a manner NATO doesn't find particularly objectionable.

 

[Ananda]

like the idea that NATO is not a threat to Russia as long as Russia behaves in a manner NATO doesn't find particularly objectionable.

Straight to the base point. NATO is not a threat to Russia, if Russia behave as what NATO wants. It is an arrogance idea that shown NATO value is the value that Russia (or anyone outside Collective West/NATO) must behave.

Still many in West perplexed why Global South condemn Russia invasion in UN, but continues engaging Russia in trade and diplomatic relationships. That kind of NATO/Collective West idea that's make many in Global South decided to sit in fence.

 

[Redshift]

You seemed to have missed the point I was making so I will make it again. My argument is not that NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather that there are reasonable grounds for someone to conclude that NATO is a threat to Russia, in particular that it could have played a role in Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.

Your post doesn't really address what i'm arguing rather it just makes arguments that NATO isn't a threat to Russia (which is a reasonable position) without addressing the opposing view. I will try to address that opposing view now.

It's true that NATO membership is not forced on any country. But this has no relevance to the question at hand. The Axis was a voluntary pact, this had no bearing on the fact that the Axis posed a threat to its neighbours. The same is true of NATO, assuming NATO is a threat to Russia what difference would it make to Russia whether its members are being compelled to act or acting voluntarily.

Your point that NATO was in decline and lacked purpose is a fair one. I suppose the opposing view is to wonder why it still exists? If you were born and raised in a security establishment that view NATO as an existential threat your confirmation bias might see NATO's continued existence as proof that it was not defensive in nature. I don't think this point is very strong but I am not trying to justify the invasion, rather I am trying to understand what actually motivated it.

Regarding NATO expansion, I think its clear the invasion was designed to achieve, if not complete annexation of Ukraine, political control over its territory. I guess it was seen as preferable to have the NATO-Russia border at the Polish-Ukrainian border rather than at the Russo-Ukrainian border should Ukraine have joined the alliance.

I will admit the point that if Russia view NATO as a threat why would it risk pushing finland and sweden to join NATO is hard to counter. I guess Putin could have believed neither of them would join (it would hardly be his first miscalculation), did he prioritise denying Ukrainian membership over denying Swedish or Finnish membership? However, I don't think the lack of a satisfactory answer to this question is enough to rule out there being a reasonable view that NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather I think it illustrates the immense strategic risk that Putin undertook by invading Ukraine.

Regarding the removal of forces. This occurred after the invasion went FUBAR and they were needed in Ukraine. At this point the threat of a Ukrainian military victory was real and had to be addressed regardless of any perceived threat from NATO. Regardless, using Russia's actions post 24/2/22 to argue that the invasion wasn't motivated by a perceived threat from NATO is anachronistic and thus defective reasoning.

I'll close by saying that i'm not trying to argue with you on the merits of whether NATO is a threat to Russia. Rather that I am saying reasoning grounds for the belief exist, particularly for someone standing in Putin's shoes, and that we cannot rule out that Putin had a good faith belief (I know that sounds weird) that NATO was a threat to Russia which played a role in his decision to launch a brutal war in Ukraine.

Then you must think that Putin and the rest of those in charge of Russia are gibbering idiots for believing something which 10 minutes of analysis from Vikingspam and yourself shows that NATO isn't a threat.

 

[Redshift]

I'm not Putin, and I have a good faith belief that NATO is a threat to Russia. I think anyone who argues otherwise is intentionally leaving out a whole bunch of unstated assumptions, like the idea that NATO is not a threat to Russia as long as Russia behaves in a manner NATO doesn't find particularly objectionable.

On that basis Russia isn't a threat to NATO as long as NATO behaves in a manner Russia doesn't find particularly objectionable.

 

[benignstrategicenvironment]

Then you must think that Putin and the rest of those in charge of Russia are gibbering idiots for believing something which 10 minutes of analysis from Vikingspam and yourself shows that NATO isn't a threat.

A fascinating interpretation of my post

My view is that both NATO and Russia pursue their objectives above anything else. The other side sees the actions of the other as threatening and the cycle continues.

Man those realists were on to something with the security dilemma

 

[Feanor]

On that basis Russia isn't a threat to NATO as long as NATO behaves in a manner Russia doesn't find particularly objectionable.

You're not wrong. I believe Russia and NATO are mutual threats. There is however a power disparity. NATO has a much larger economy and population. They're simply more powerful then Russia. But in principle, from a planning standpoint, you're not wrong.

 

[TheRealist]

I'm not Putin, and I have a good faith belief that NATO is a threat to Russia. I think anyone who argues otherwise is intentionally leaving out a whole bunch of unstated assumptions, like the idea that NATO is not a threat to Russia as long as Russia behaves in a manner NATO doesn't find particularly objectionable.

I don't think NATO really asks that much of Russia or any other country not a part of NATO. I'm pretty sure asking Russia to not deploy a full scale invasion of a relatively peaceful, democratic country is too much to ask. This is the 2020's not the 1930's or even 1990's. I would hope any member of this forum would agree. If not, perhaps they should find a different forum.