[tsimionescu]

No one was about to invade Russia, not today. But NATO is by definition an alliance created against Russia, and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.

You have to remember that Russia is a federation, one with much deeper internal divides than the USA. The closer we are to Russia, the easier it is for us to fund, train, and arm Russia's separatist elements.

If NATO was officially present if Georgia, do you think it would ignore any pleas for help from chechen separatists trying to defend themselves from the butcher running them? Or would we actively work to try to make Chechenia an independent country, over the next 10-20 years?

And Chechenia is far from the only vulnerable place.

Note that I am not saying this would be a bad thing for the people of Chechenia. It is quite likely what a lot of them want. But if Russia were funding, arming, and training the IRA, or Texas's secessionist fringe, would the USA or UK be happy to allow this? No, empires are fundamentally built out of people who try to maintain their empire.

[ChatGTP]

and it has a long history of trying to initiate regime changes in its enemies.

1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin. Maybe that's why he panicked or something, but if one man has the power to take a country on an idiotic war like that, then maybe a regime change is a good idea.

2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?

3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?

Regardless it’s all failing spectacularly if the goal was to create distance between Russia and NATO. Finland is now in NATO and is on the border.

[tsimionescu]

> 1. A regime change would not be existential for Russia, it would be existential for Putin.

Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country. It is an existential threat for the whole state, even if it would be better for the populace.

When the USA suspected Russia of influencing their elections, no one said (and rightfully so) "that is only existential for Hillary, not for America, why should we care?".

> 2. You’re not really presenting a lot of evidence there was a by real risk of this actually happening?

The constant talk of the necessity of changing Putin and the EU and US support for Navalnyi make it obvious that NATO powers want regime change in Russia.

Whether they would actually spend resources to actually work for it is not something I could possibly bring evidence for. But several EU countries and the USA have often initiated or supported regime change in smaller countries when they were able to. Quite recently unsuccessfully in Venezuela and Syria. And more saliently, they did so in Ukraine in 2008, helping the Ukrianian people get rid of Yanukovich.

> 3. How does anything you’ve said justify invading Ukraine?

Invading Ukraine prevents it from joining NATO, which it was on a very clear path towards (they had had joint military exercises just one year prior, with NATO troups in Ukraine). The same happened with Georgia, but they Georgia acceeded to the Russian demands more readily.

Even if they fail to conquer Ukraine, they will keep it in a state of frozen conflict that will likely delay any further rapproachment for a decade or two.

Also, none of this makes what Russia did any less monstrous and detrimental to the Ukrianian people (nor to their own soldiers). There is no question whatsoever that it is highly immoral and a condemnable act, and a clear case of breaking international law, a clear act of aggression, the international crime for which most of the nazi leadership was hanged.

I'm just arguing it was a rational calculated decision, not some insane power play motivated by historical revisionism.

[tim333]

>Regime change means your enemies controlling who runs your country

Not really. The push has been towards democracy where who runs the country would be decided by the Russian people.

[ChatGTP]

I thought that comment was off too.

[tsimionescu]

So if a more radical nationalist imperialist than Putin were to win open free elections, do you think NATO would be happy?

Not to mention, by all accounts, Putin would probably win fully free elections even today. The opponents he's suppressing or killing are not extremely popular today, they are people who he fears might become popular if left unchecked.

[tim333]

Well, NATO is a defensive alliance and so not too worried if no one is invading anyone. But I think if Russia had a normal democratic situation with freeish press and lack of jailing or killing opponents they would be unlikely to continue the present kind of war which is a terrible deal for ordinary Russians. I remember the faces of the other Russians in the room when Putin announced the invasion and everyone looked horrified but scared to say anything.