SinisterMinister said:
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
You said:
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.
The grabbing of most of Russian industrial and petroleum wealth didn't happened under
Western Guidance.
Western guidance was only telling Russia what to do to secure IMF loans or other loans. Among these guidance were disastrous recommendations, totally inadapted to the reality. But they were not the cause of massive and systematic looting.
Most of Russian wealth were stolen at that time by people close to the Party, who distributed this wealth among each others. They were received the opportunity to buy large stake in mainly petroleum, steel, real estate and a few other potentially profitable state businesses. They paid a ridiculous price for it. Like 100x cheaper than they should have paid. if not 1000x cheaper. Western guidance had nothing to do with this.
On the contrary: Most Western investors in Russia at that time lost most of their money.
Bosnia: No, it wasn't Russia's business. Yes, Russia saw it as an ally against NATO or the West. But why did they need an ally against us?
You said:
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?
I agree that Russia doesn't believe that NATO is a purely defensive alliance. They simply can't imagine it can be so.
Yet, you can turn it the way you want, that's what it is. if Russians are idiots, it's not our fault.
Fighting against Russian expansion is not a threat to Russia. Russia just has not to expand by force. It can expand with peaceful, economical means thought. But they are intellectually unable to do that. Saudis can do that. Chinese can do that. Not Russians. Go figure.
You said:
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
No they just use the word "CIA" to scare people and to make it look like some illegal, covert operation we would not be aware of.
In fact, as I said, you don;t need the CIA when diplomats talk directly and openly with Ukrainian opposition politicians and everything is related in the press.
You said:
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.
There were no coup in Ukraine. Only election advanced by two month by decision of the Parliament.
If Mexico decided to start new elections and a pro-Chinese government is elected, the US has no legal or moral right to intervene. It just has the right to shut up. No matter how much money the Chinese or, in the case of Ukraine, Western donors have given to the opposition parties.
If it was only a question of money Russia could have bought them largely. And that's what they did up to some point.
So the West funding opposition groups is fair game since Russia, and everybody, does the same.
But it's not only a question of money.
benignstrategicenvironment said:
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.
The rumour that Ukraine could ask to join NATO in a foreseeable future certainly played a role in the decision to invade, but it was not the primary reason. The main reason was to control Ukraine, its economy, its industry, its sea ports and national waters, keep military bases and allow free movement of Russian troops inside the country, nuclear power plants, agricultural land, banks and monetary policy etc. Just as they do with Belarussia.
NATO membership would only be the ultimate consecration of the failure by Russia to keep Ukraine under its sphere of control. But only after it already lost it totaly.
Feanor said:
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.
Indeed, under this angle, NATO is potentially a threat to Russia.
For example if Russia invades another country (i.e. Ukraine) and this is considered as behaving in a inappropriate manner, then NATO may take actions against Russia.
If Russia's behaviour involves bombing or entering a NATO member, NATO will most certainly becomes a treat to Russia.
But why would Russia decide to undertake objectionable actions?
It just has not to and everything will be fine.
