Russia - General Discussion.

[Musashi_kenshin]

NATO has the rights to not accept any new East European admission, however continue to expand despite they know it will create negative reaction from Russia sooner or later.

Any organisation has the right not to admit new members. But there was no reason to refuse to admit countries from Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Their security situation was weak, and it was in Europe's interests that they have stability.

Russia doesn't have some sort of moral or historic right to those countries. It only had dominion over Eastern Europe during the Cold War because it refused to allow free and fair elections. Even the Baltics weren't always part of Russia and had their own independence for centuries. So it had no standing to demand they not join NATO. Rather it should have reflected inward and accepted its own exploitation and persecution of those regions during the Cold War was the reason they wanted to move out of Russia's orbit.

If bullies are incapable of realising and accepting they can be in the wrong, there's no dealing with them other than via force.

 

[Todjaeger]

NATO has the rights to not accept any new East European admission, however continue to expand despite they know it will create negative reaction from Russia sooner or later.

Everything is two side, just like a coin. Can't just take NATO and Western point of view alone. So both side take similar responsibility to not let this thing goes hot.

I would argue that a coin actually has three sides not two, and that third side, the edge, is what many seem to keep ignoring or dismissing. The edge being the countries caught between NATO/the West and Russia. NATO of course could have declined to permit any/all of the current members that were formerly Warsaw Pact and/or ex-Soviet states and sought to join NATO. Not being from any of those nations, I cannot state with personal knowledge and certainty that the desire to join NATO on the part of those former Soviet or Soviet-satellite states was to gain some measure of security from a resurgent Russian or Soviet state, but it does seem like a reasonable assumption.

It would also be worth considering what the implications would have been, had NATO flatly rejected requests to join. As others have mentioned, such an approach could be viewed as similar to the attempts at appeasement in the period immediately prior to the start of WWII. That period is also worth mentioning given that Russia has claimed to have an interest in and concern for ethnic Russians living outside of Russia in ex-Soviet states, as well as when Russia extended citizenship to residents of Georgia. Some uncomfortable parallels can be drawn to what led up to the annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938.

 

[SABRE]

Any organisation has the right not to admit new members. But there was no reason to refuse to admit countries from Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Their security situation was weak, and it was in Europe's interests that they have stability.

Russia doesn't have some sort of moral or historic right to those countries. It only had dominion over Eastern Europe during the Cold War because it refused to allow free and fair elections. Even the Baltics weren't always part of Russia and had their own independence for centuries. So it had no standing to demand they not join NATO. Rather it should have reflected inward and accepted its own exploitation and persecution of those regions during the Cold War was the reason they wanted to move out of Russia's orbit.

If bullies are incapable of realising and accepting they can be in the wrong, there's no dealing with them other than via force.

The bold point sort of goes into the "security dilemma" theory. The means by which the West tries to assuage the security situation of some of the former Soviet Socialist Republics in Eastern Europe - i.e., by incorporating them into NATO - decreases the security of Russia, which then takes measures to correct the status quo, resulting in the decreased security of former Eastern Europe rather than an increase. Ukraine today is more allied to the West but is facing a decreased security not increased. If the present situation remains congruent to the security dilemma theory it's going to get worse, especially for Ukraine.

 

[STURM]

The Soviet collapse should not have, and did not, create an atmosphere where everything's now fine and dandy, and there's no more beef

As part of the so called peace dividends it should have done way with the decades long hostility between the West and Russia by ushering in a new era of stability and cooperation . The break up of the Soviet Union was a traumatic blow to the Russian leadership but they did look and were initially enthusiastic about the possibility of closer integration to the West.

As it turns this didn't happen due to variou factors but it wasn't because the Russians got off the wrong side of the bed one morning and decided that they would adopt a policy of confrontation with the West. How the West perceived the end of the Cold War and how the West perceived it was slightly different - excuse the understatement. Also despite what it said in pubic was NATO really intent on treating Russia as an.equal partner or was it unofficial.policy to ensure their Russia remained weak?

If bullies are incapable of realising and accepting they can be in the wrong, there's no dealing with them other than via force

In.principle yes but in actual reality this bully is nuclear armed [not a 3rd world Arab country punching above its weight] and would resort to.tactical nukes if it was forced to. That would lead to a wider nuclear exchange which would devastate not only Russia and eastern Europe but eventually the whole continent. Eventually the effects of the nuclear fallout would be felt by the rest of the world.
.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

In.principle yes but in actual reality this bully is nuclear armed [not a 3rd world Arab country punching above its weight] and would resort to.tactical nukes if it was forced to.

When I say force I include crippling sanctions. There comes a point where the endless talking serves no point except to allow countries like Russia to grab what they want.

Anyway, fear of nuclear war is no longer a reason to stand idly by. Putin won't stop at Ukraine, if he's successful there he'll go for the Baltics. He sees NATO as weak and willing to sacrifice places like Lithuania.

 

[STURM]

When I say force I include crippling sanctions. There comes a point where the endless talking serves no point except to allow countries like Russia to grab what they want.

For Putin, ''crippling sancuins'' are a penalty well worth paying in the event he has to resort to drastic means to safeguard Russia's core interests. He has long factored in all the consequences resulting from an invasio

if he's successful there he'll go for the Baltics. He sees NATO as weak and willing to sacrifice places like Lithuania.

Going for the Bsltics would lead to a conflict with NATO and that would be counter productive to what Putin intends on achieving. We keep hearing this,talk about him going for the Baltics but why would he want a war with NATO. The Ukraine is also of far more strategic interest for Russia and resonates in a,way which the Baltics doesn't. Everything he has done, from the war with Georgia to the intervention in Syria to the taking of the Crimea was, done after much deliberation and the knowledge of what his Western opponents would or would not do.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

why would he want a war with NATO

Because he wouldn't declare war on NATO. In fact he might not declare war on anyone, just do what he did in Ukraine by sending in the "little green men" and claim it was Russian-speaking locals fighting for their rights. Then send in "peacekeepers" to help "protect" them.

It's easy to respond when the usual rules of warfare are followed, but when countries like Russia refuse to play by them it makes it harder.

Besides, even if NATO did respond, if Russia was able to take the Baltics swiftly would NATO really try to retake them against entrenched Russian forces? What happened if Putin threatened nuclear retaliation if NATO didn't recognise Russian control - do we call his bluff? If so, why wouldn't we call his bluff over Ukraine?

This is the thing, if you refuse to engage another country in a military conflict due to the risk of nuclear weapons being used, you lose credibility because the thing you want to avoid is still there - use of nuclear weapons. Sure, if the rest of NATO stood back to let Russia occupy Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia the alliance would lose more credibility. But Putin doesn't care, he already thinks the alliance is weak.

So far NATO has not stood up to Russia once with military force since the end of the Cold War despite Russia doing many things we said they mustn't do. In 2008, all the usual Russian experts will have told you the idea of Russia invading Ukraine was unthinkable. Yet here we are.

As to the why of conquering them, the Baltics are seen as historically Russian in much the same way Ukraine is, even if not precisely the same way. The line that Putin will be satisfied with Ukraine engages the same thinking as was used to justify appeasement in 1938. It's heavily flawed and based on dealing with a reasonable person (who wouldn't invade Ukraine in the first place). Sure, it may be that Putin thinks that the Ukraine is more strategically important, but if he achieves his objectives in Ukraine he may decide the Baltics are worth invading to recreate the "Greater Russia" he apparently laments the passing of.

 

[the concerned]

So couldn't NATO at the beginning of this crisis kept whatever forces it had in Ukraine. They could have made it clear to Russia that these assets were there at the invitation of Ukraine and any action that threatened their lives would still be considered am act of aggression against NATO. They still are not there to defend UKRAINE but their not moving. I feel this could have been a better answer.

 

[swerve]

What forces? A few people assisting training on new equipment, AFAIK.

 

[swerve]

As well as Central Asia and the Caucasus.At one point during the 'Great Game' period the Russians even contemplated driving onto India.

Indeed. I limited myself to countries conquered by Russian which are in or on the fringes of Europe.

 

[Vivendi]

I have no idea about him being the smartest politician but he certainly understands how far he can push things and what he can and can't get away with. He holds the initiative with NATO being forced to react to his moves. I doubt that anything which has happened so far has taken him by surprise, every move he's made and every NATO reaction having been factored in.

I disagree, I think Putin has made several mistakes, at least if we take his demands and complaints to NATO at face value. He may still de-escalate and go for a diplomatic solution, but even in such a case I suspect Russia will get much less than what they could have achieved, had Putin played his cards differently, with fewer soldiers, less aggression, and more diplomacy at an earlier stage. Consider: the last few years NATO has been in crisis, in 2019 French president declared NATO "brain-dead"; Trump caused a lot of damage to NATO, as did Turkey, etc. etc. However, Russia's actions the last few weeks has managed to unite NATO in a way that Biden never could do by himself. Also EU has been able to show a united front. Furthermore, the collaboration between EU and NATO has developed in a manner that few would have expected to see, just a few months ago: Vladimir Putin has succeeded in uniting his opponents - CNN

Furthermore, I expect to see in the coming years that the actions by Russia this winter will motivate European NATO countries to invest more in defense, and become more supportive of NATO. I also expect some Eastern European countries (in particular the Baltics) to put pressure on NATO to have permanent, significant NATO forces. And European non-NATO countries are becoming more interested in joining NATO (e.g., Sweden, Finland, etc.)

If Putin decides to take military action, the relationship between EU/NATO and Russia will deteriorate even further.

Putin wanted to stop Ukraine from joining NATO -- a useless demand, since Ukraine in any case would not be able to join, at least not for some decades. His recent actions convinced even more Ukrainians that the only way to be safe is to join NATO, thus they will work even harder to get in.

Putin wanted NATO to remove troops and heavy equipment from Eastern Europe. As mentioned above, the opposite will now happen.

Putin also wanted to divide and weaken both NATO and EU. So far, his actions had the opposite effect, it made them more united and demonstrated to many NATO and EU sceptics the value of both organizations.

It's interesting to read what Ukraines chief negotiator of the "nuclear deal" says today: Ukraine’s nuclear lesson: Don’t trust Russia’s security ‘guarantees’ – POLITICO

In retrospect, he said, Ukraine should have managed its own nuclear disarmament and held out until it had more ironclad protections from Western allies, such as NATO membership, instead of trading short-term concessions for pledges of peace and security.

 

[the concerned]

What forces? A few people assisting training on new equipment, AFAIK. What I mean is its not the amount of forces that matter or what they are assigned to do. Its the fact that NATO could have made it clear their own red lines.

 

[STURM]

Because he wouldn't declare war on NATO.

He wouldn't need to. Taking the Baltics would effectively result in a state of war between NATO and Russia. NATO would be left with no choice but to react.

But Putin doesn't care, he already thinks the alliance is weak

On the contrary I don't think he does. He knows NATO will not fight for the Ukraine and is divided but he fully understands that an invasion of the Baltics would see a united NATO which would respond. He has read the situation correctly.

If so, why wouldn't we call his bluff over Ukraine?

Because the Ukraine is not NATO territory and there is no political will to defend it as doing would result in an open state of conflict with Russia. Public opinion in.NATO countries would be supportive of the need to use military force to defend or retake the Baltics.

In 2008, all the usual Russian experts will have told you the idea of Russia invading Ukraine was unthinkable. Yet here we are.

Maybe but they would probably also have told you that the political circumstances that would lead to the Russians deciding they had to invade were also absent.

The line that Putin will be satisfied with Ukraine engages the same thinking as was used to justify appeasement in 1938.

Slightly different factors/circumstances at play. Hitler was gambling that Britain.and France had no stomach for war and was correct in that he retook the Ruhr, launched a major rearnament programme and took the rest of Czeckoslavakia without Britain and France reacting. He was under the impression they'd do the same over Poland and we know from recorded eyewitness accounts that he was shocked when told that both countries had declared war.

Putin in sharp contrast has read the situation correctly and knows fully well how far he can push things before getting a response from NATO.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

He wouldn't need to. Taking the Baltics would effectively result in a state of war between NATO and Russia. NATO would be left with no choice but to react.

So if you were the deciding vote in how NATO would respond, and Putin said "my finger is on the nuclear launch button if you intervene militarily", you're going to roll the dice and call his bluff? You prefer the risk of nuclear war to accepting NATO in its current form is obsolete? That sounds like pride rather than objective thinking.

Why not just re-arm Europe and create a fortified line along the Polish, Hungarian, Slovakian and Romanian borders, accepting NATO over-extended? Yes Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians would scream betrayal, but they haven't exactly boosted defence spending to 5% of GDP either. How can the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans, Canadians and Americans be deemed no more important than a few million people living in "far away countr[ies], .... people of whom we know nothing"?

I can understand the positions of people who think we should not stand up to Russia over Ukraine, but they have no credibility when they say we should draw the line and risk a nuclear war over the Baltics. Ukraine is much bigger it would be possible to bog Russia down around the outer areas away from Kiev. A conflict could also potentially be mostly limited to Ukrainian territory.

Whereas the Baltics are small and would be hard to defend if Russia went all in, as there's only a small land corridor that Russia could easily occupy. It would be very easy for Russia to flood such a small area with men and equipment. Retaking them would almost certainly mean attacking Russia itself, which would mean all-out war across most of mainland Europe, devastating the global economy for decades.

Because the Ukraine is not NATO territory

So? Poland wasn't part of any military alliance with France or the UK in 1939, nor was Kuwait in 1990 with NATO states. History is filled with examples of countries intervening to support another that they have no formal alliance with.

In contrast if the majority of NATO stands by and allows the Baltics to be invaded, there's no legal mechanism to force a military response. The US Supreme Court isn't going to take command of the US military, nor is it going to appoint someone to order them in. The best that could happen would be the President being impeached, but that's not something that would happen in the short window before Russia won.

Slightly different factors/circumstances at play.

It's the same attitude regarding the "reasonable dictator", the idea that someone who is so unreasonable as to brutalise his people and invade a neighbour that was not acting in a threatening way is still reasonable enough not to cross a different red line. There's no reason in principle that Putin could not miscalculate as Hitler did other than we really, really hope he wouldn't because we don't want to die in a nuclear holocaust.

In short I am not saying we should send soldiers and equipment into Ukraine to defend it directly, but I do think there are risks in not doing so if Putin believes it shows we're weak rather than being prudent.

 

[Arji]

The line that Putin will be satisfied with Ukraine engages the same thinking as was used to justify appeasement in 1938. It's heavily flawed and based on dealing with a reasonable person (who wouldn't invade Ukraine in the first place).

Slightly different factors/circumstances at play. Hitler was gambling that Britain.and France had no stomach for war and was correct in that he retook the Ruhr, launched a major rearnament programme and took the rest of Czeckoslavakia without Britain and France reacting. He was under the impression they'd do the same over Poland and we know from recorded eyewitness accounts that he was shocked when told that both countries had declared war.

I would agree on that Russia is no Nazi Germany. German's aggression was a product of the Nazi ideology, which necessitates the acquirement of living space for the German people. That's the ideological motives, in reality, Hitler has no choice as he basically sold the future of the nation, using few precious resources for the rearmament of the Wehrmacht and his social program. The economy of Nazi Germany is unsustainable and will probably collapse if not for the war.

Whilst Russia's economy is stagnating, I don't think it's at the point where the only alternative is if they simply took other country's resources to save their economy. I personally think it's dangerous to just assume your adversary is 'literally Hitler', as that's basically undermines all effort of diplomacy. It's never good to limit your options, and I suspect NATO leadership thought the same. Otherwise they would simply expedite Ukraine's entry into NATO.

Then again, I'm non-western observers. If there is ever a war between Ukraine and Russia, I doubt my country would be involved.

 

[STURM]

That sounds like pride rather than objective thinking.

On the contrary it's solely intended to avoid the possibility of a nuclear war with Russia over a non NATO country, plus the fact that there is no will within NATO to adopt a different policy. It's about asessing the risks and gains, in line with established policy and viewing things in totality.

So? Poland wasn't part of any military alliance with France or the UK in 1939, nor was Kuwait in 1990 with NATO states.

Britain and France both made a firm and binding commitment to.guarantee Poland's territorial integrity against a German invasion... Not against the Soviets though which is why both countries were silent when the Soviets invaded but that's a different story.

That's the difference ...

As for Kuwait, we both know the political reasons why the West could not sit back and do nothing. This is in contrast with the situation with the Ukraine in which the West supports the Ukraine in various ways but can't and won't guarantee its territorial integrity.

There's no reason in principle that Putin could not miscalculate as Hitler did other than we really, really hope he wouldn't because we don't want a nuclear holocaust.

I did say point out that in contrast to Hitler, Putin has a better reading of the situation and knows how far he can push things... We've seen this in Syria, Georgia, Kazakhstan and in the Ukraine. It's also my opinion that nothing which has happened so far has taken Putin by surprise.

I can understand the positions of people who think we should not stand up to Russia over Ukraine, but they have no credibility when they say we should draw the line and risk a nuclear war

Then by your reasoning NATO should declare that it's willing to defend the Ukraine should the Russians invade irrespective that the country is not a NATO member and that public opinion in various or most NATO countries would be against it. What is NATO waiting for? The time to stop Russian aggression is now. After all the common narrative after taking the Ujtsine they'll go for the Baltics and while they're at it also grab Finland and Sweden. Who knows where they'll go after that.

In contrast if the majority of NATO stands by and allows the Baltics to be invaded

I get the point you re making but this is unlikely as Chad suddenly deciding it wants to invade South Africa. If Russia goes,for the Baltics and managed to get away with, NATO must as well disband. Time and time again NATO has stressed that It will defend NATO territory.

there are risks in not doing so if Putin believes it shows we're weak

There are also clear risks in doing so, precisely why NATO has limited itself to threatening sanctions, sending troops and gear to certain.countries, exposing an alleged false flag op in the hope it would discourage the Russians, issuing warning after warning and declaring that Russia has made a decision to invade.

 

[Ananda]

So it had no standing to demand they not join NATO. Rather it should have reflected inward and accepted its own exploitation and persecution of those regions during the Cold War was the reason they wanted to move out of Russia's orbit.

That the Western thinking, While the Russian always see NATO end game is to contain Russia and find excuse by expansion to reduce Russia strategic reaction time.

Like I said as long as both side of the coin does not want to bridge the gap, the some negative reaction will come sooner or later. If that happen, well is just the time has come as both side already creating the momentum for that to happen.

would also be worth considering what the implications would have been, had NATO flatly rejected requests to join. As others have mentioned, such an approach could be viewed as similar to the attempts at appeasement in the period immediately prior to the start of WWII.

I wouldn't say it is similar appeasement as in start of WW2. The momentum is different. Germany after lost in WW1 bind by the 'surrender' agreement to be disarmed and never claim their lost teritory.

While Russia never lost a war, but feeling cheated by the claim 'guarantee' by the west, that NATO will not move closer to Russia proper, if Russia pulling back from Warsaw Pact and ex USSR nations (when USSR break up).

Yes those nations are independent and they have rights to be in NATO. Question is the Russia feel cheated because it's not what they understand being told by West, if they move out back to Russia proper.

West can be argue otherwise, as there are no legal agreement on that. However seems in Russian thinking West should understand that those nations should be a neutral barrier ground between NATO and Russia proper.

Now expecting NATO to pull back toward Pre 1997 membership is unreasonable demand. However guarantee Russia NATO will stop on current membership is still reasonable (if NATO wants to give Russia middle ground). I don't think the second one is appeasement, it's appeasement if NATO agree to pull back to pre 1997 membership.

However West don't want to give in to all demand, thus it is not giving Russia (in here Putin) much choice. He has to make sure in the end he can give Russia some barrier with encroaching NATO in Ukraine (which Russian think it will come sooner or later). Afterall he is must be thinkin the timing now or never, before Ukraine become full NATO member.

 

[Feanor]

Those former Warsaw pact states have been aware of Russian aggression decades before '91. The Soviet collapse should not have, and did not, create an atmosphere where everything's now fine and dandy, and there's no more beef.

Their desire to get western protection was unchanged by the collapse, and was and still is overwhelming.

They are independent countries after all - sovereign. It is their decision to join NATO. Unlike the days of the Soviet Union, you don't see American tanks rolling in Baltic streets days before admission. And those who chose not to join (not Baltic but European in general), did not face any threats of sanctions or anything else.

This is a recurring theme for Russia - Those from whom its control slips away, sprint to the west for protection.

Except for the part where Crimea rejoined Russia voluntarily. And Abkhazia and S. Ossetia fought bloody wars and preferred to side with Russia then be part of a Georgia, west-leaning or otherwise. These patterns play out on long historic scales and have to do with what a given side has to offer and with what's happening in a particular locale. The Chechens were filling to fight and die to break away, but the Dags were willing to fight and die to stay. If region by region referendums were conducted at the fall of the Soviet Union, the maps would look very different today. To be clear, you're not wrong, just not completely right either. It's more complex then that.

 

[Feanor]

The bold point sort of goes into the "security dilemma" theory. The means by which the West tries to assuage the security situation of some of the former Soviet Socialist Republics in Eastern Europe - i.e., by incorporating them into NATO - decreases the security of Russia, which then takes measures to correct the status quo, resulting in the decreased security of former Eastern Europe rather than an increase. Ukraine today is more allied to the West but is facing a decreased security not increased. If the present situation remains congruent to the security dilemma theory it's going to get worse, especially for Ukraine.

I think this goes to the crux of the issue. The solution would be to work on generating mutual trust and transparency but of course this requires some sort of mutual basis on which this can be settled. It also requires compromise. And at this point, I'm not sold that a solution is what all players desire.

 

[SABRE]

I think this goes to the crux of the issue. The solution would be to work on generating mutual trust and transparency but of course this requires some sort of mutual basis on which this can be settled. It also requires compromise. And at this point, I'm not sold that a solution is what all players desire.

If we go by the security dilemma theory then there possibly is no end except for a downward spiral into war. But that generalization is basically applied to the arms race phenomenon. However, war cannot be ruled out in this case. Problem is that Russia is technically laying a partial siege on Ukrain and the longer the siege the more problematic it is the forces and countries laying the siege. It has now become a chicken game. If Russia withdraws it damages its ego and bolsters that of the US, Western Europe, and NATO, and will probably make Ukraine cockier. If Russia maintains the status quo it will keep raising the cost for itself, and if it invades it opens up a whole new can of worms. The same goes for the West. I do not think the West/NATO would actually immediately intervene if Russia invades. They'll first apply crippling economic sanctions. Once Russia is drained of its power then they'll send in the forces. There is, however, no guarantee that this will work since Russia would also cut off the oil and gas supply for Europe, causing economic problems there. In short, everyone is sitting between the rock and a hard place.

There are no good solutions but perhaps creating a NATO-Russia buffer zone in Ukraine might be helpful. In fact, declare the entire Ukrain a hands-off buffer zone. No NATO or Western troops should be deployed there and Russia should maintain its troops to peacetime locations at all times. The Ukraine-Russia border should be secured by paramilitary forces that are not equipped to trigger any major military crisis or conflict. External observers, acceptable to all parties, should be stationed to observe the situation at the borders. No military aircraft fly zone should be created 30kms on both sides and 10kms of the vertical fly zone only after those 30kms.