[danbruc]

This didn't start in 2014, this started in 1990, when it was informally agreed that there would be no eastwards NATO expansion. Then NATO expanded eastwards anyway, after all there was no formal agreement, and Russia kind of accepted it. In 2008 with the Bucharest declaration Ukraine and Georgia started the process of becoming NATO members. Russia attacked Georgia. Until 2014 under Yanukovych Ukraine no longer pursued a NATO membership, after that this again became more and more a priority and Russia annexed Crimea, intervened in eastern Ukraine and finally now this war.

[guntars]

It's not wrong, but it's not the whole story. Why would these typically small countries bordering Russia want to join a military alliance in the first place? It's because of the experience with their large autocratic and unstable neighbor and they are, of course, once again proven right.

[danbruc]

Can you point me in a more specific direction? Are you referring to events before, during or after the dissolution of the USSR? I already read the Wikipedia article on Estonia-Russia relations [1] but nothing really stood out between their separation from the USSR and 2004. Some back and forth over the treatment of the Russians remaining in Estonia. I will also check the other Baltic countries.

The other thing I would argue is that you can not use the current war in Ukraine as a reason why the Ukraine should become a NATO member if it is indeed true that Russia attacked primarily because Ukraine wanted to become a NATO member.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia%E2%80%93Russia_relatio...

[yucky]

Although everything you're saying is correct, you're being downvoted. And then people will just throw up their hands and wonder why Putin would do this lol

[danbruc]

I am absolutely no expert in politics, I just spend two days reading and watching stuff to learn how we ended up in this situation. I am now writing this comments to share what I learned but also to be challenged and corrected in case I got things wrong. So I don't mind downvotes, especially if it is because I got things wrong and people correct me and I gain a better understanding. And I am also willing to take a few downvotes because people just don't like what I say, even though it is a bit annoying as my comments end up further down and are probably less likely to receive comments pointing out my mistakes.

[prox]

Russia not being a democracy is the real problem. From early 2000 on Putin has solidified his power through shady means. Look up the various killings, from journalists and others.

After that, he has used all of his “Active Measures” (look that up too) to divide the West. Also I sincerely doubt we would be in this mess if Russia was a functioning democracy.

Basically you have one guy who can damage the world, answering to no one. Russia and Russians was never the problem, just one man and his cronies.

There were a ton of alternatives that would have made Russia more powerful and respected without resorting to Soviet tactics.

[danbruc]

Russia not being a democracy is the real problem. From early 2000 on Putin has solidified his power through shady means. Look up the various killings, from journalists and others.

Of course, I will not argue with that, Russia is no democracy and Putin an autocrat who is willing to kill for his power. But this doesn't necessarily make any implications about his foreign policy, you can run an autocratic country without desiring to conquer the rest of the world.

After that, he has used all of his “Active Measures” (look that up too) to divide the West.

I am aware of the term but not much more and I will do some further reading. But interestingly the Wikipedia article [1] in the section »1991 to present« starts with 2014, which is well passed 2008 and aligns with Ukraine's renewed desire to become a NATO member.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures

[prox]

This NYT opinion piece can fill some gaps : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_6dibpDfo

From there you can search up some terms and periods mentioned in that video.

[danbruc]

I have skipped through it and it mirrors my first impression from Wikipedia - the first part talks about the time before the dissolution of the USSR, then it jumps to the time after 2008 and mostly after 2014.

[monetus]

Putin apparently considered joining NATO around 2000. It is hard to argue one definitive beginning outside of a narrow sense.

[danbruc]

I can give you the sense in which I consider this the beginning, even though it is mostly restating what I already said. I think the primary reason for this war is that Putin does not want NATO at his borders. That this would not happen was informally agreed in 1990 but unfortunately did not make it into any official documents. After that each eastward expansion of NATO was seen by Russia as the violation of a promise. When in 2008 Ukraine and Georgia started their way to become NATO members this was the final straw and Putin attacked Georgia and eventually Ukraine.

Sure, we can now argue whether the promise (1990), the first NATO expansion afterwards (1999), the Bucharest declaration that Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members (2008) or Ukraine changing its stance from remaining unaligned to seeking a NATO membership (2014) should be labeled the beginning of the current situation, but I think it is fair to pick 1990 as this is where the situation that Russia does not want was laid out.

There are most likely also other interest such as oil and gas in Ukraine but I don't think they are the primary reasons, even though they might have tipped the calculations. And I consequently think that this could have been avoided if the Ukraine would not have pursued a NATO membership or if Russia would also have joined.

[monetus]

NATO expansion is definitely one of the primary viewpoints. There are convincing rebuttals against those viewpoints as well though. Geopolitics is messy and chaotic. There probably were mustache twirling strategists hellbent on pursuing an anti-ussr agenda despite the USSR no longer existing. I've never heard anyone argue they are the architects of NATO's expansion. I'm curious. European and african commentators I've been checking have very much emphasized that the states themselves decided to join NATO, that they weren't solicited or coerced by NATO itself. Considering lukashenko implied Moldova is next, it doesn't seem like they were unreasonable to try to pursue NATO as a means of assuring continued sovereignty. I think for most of the general public, the beginning was last week. Put to people working in state departments all around the world, off the record and unpublished, I wonder what their answers would be.

I feel like it changes a lot depending on how you feel about hegemony.

Edit: If north and south Korea were about to unify, but China invaded to reconstitute a north Korean buffer state, where was the beginning and what could have been done? Should the south have refused the north because it didn't want to be seen as expanding? Should the north have? China definitely wouldn't be invaded by a unified Korea, maybe they would argue that how they are positioned in international trade justifies it. I'm trying to think of parallels and this is what I've come up with.

[danbruc]

Nobody forced anyone to join NATO, at least as far as I can tell. The problem is Putin does not trust NATO, he does not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance that will do nothing unless you poke it, he perceives NATO as an ever expanding organization that accumulates power and influence for the west and the USA in particular. And while the west argues that sovereign countries can decide on their own whether or not they want to join NATO, Putin made it very clear that he considers this unacceptable.

The most similar situation is in my opinion the Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR could argue that Cuba is free to decide whether or not they want nuclear missiles stationed in their country, the USA argues that it is an unacceptable security thread to have those missiles so close to their border. What would have happened of the USSR had not backed down? Would the USA have tolerated the missiles or would the USA have attacked Cuba or at least the launch sites? What would the USA do today, say if China agreed with Mexico to place military assets in Mexico?

[todorus]

The US stationed missiles in Turkey and as a response the USSR stationed missiles in Cuba. The crisis ended when the USSR publicly deconstructed their sites and the US agreed to do the same to theirs privately. This all because Kennedy needed to save face and have the USSR be the agressor.

So if NATO would decide to invade Belarus right now, then it might be similar to the Cuban missile crisis. Until then, it is just a gross oversimplification of a conflict that is the result of complex relations between countries.

[monetus]

tangent: I don't know if you have ever seen Noam Chomsky discuss Kennedy's decisions at that point, but I think it is the only topic I've ever seen him visibly furious over.

[danbruc]

I am not sure if you understood my analogy, let me try to be more explicit. The USSR tried to put nuclear missiles next to US borders, the USA did not like this. Ukraine wants to become a NATO member, Putin views this as NATO - maybe as a proxy for the USA - eventually putting military assets - potentially nuclear missiles or whatever he is most concerned about - next to Russian borders, Putin does not like this.

In case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the actions of the USSR were only a response but still not tolerated. You could maybe find an equivalent, something that Russia did first and that then caused Ukraine to seek a NATO membership, but I don't think this is important for the analogy. The equivalent of Russia backing down and not stationing missiles in Cuba for Cuba's protection would be Ukraine not joining NATO.

But I have to admit that I don't get your analogy either, would you mind elaborating?