[mschuster91]

It's not like NATO did any major nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq, at least nowhere near close to post-WW2 Germany... so in that point he did keep his promise. The entire world lost out as a result of that - there is a direct link from the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Russian invasion into Ukraine.

[dragonwriter]

There's a whole lot more direct link between the appeasement of Russia at the 2008 NATO summit to the invasions of Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014), but I suppose Iraq and Afghanistan are distantly relevant.

[mschuster91]

I'd argue for the following chain: the failure of NATO in Afghanistan and US+allies in Iraq to (re)build a democratic nation led to a rise of radical Islamism. That in turn led to the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war, causing not just a truckload of effort for Europe to deal with the refugees on top of those we already had from Afghanistan, but especially Assad was left free to ignore any and all "red lines", especially the 2012 warning of Obama against chemical weapons usage [1], and Russia itself was allowed to act with impunity as well.

Then came the 2014 invasion of Russia in Crimea - IMHO a direct "test bed" to see if the Western nations were willing to step up this time, and they didn't despite Russia literally shooting a passenger plane out of the sky. Syria completely exploded, and Russia slowly kept increasing the pressure on Ukraine. Had covid not happened, Russia would have invaded some time in 2020 to take over Ukraine, but the pandemic derailed their plans.

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

[dragonwriter]

See, that's much too complicated.

Russia, sometime in or before 2008: “by infiltration or by force, we are going to force Georgia and then Ukraine to submit. But there is talk of NATO admitting them, starting with MAPs potentially as early as the 2008 summit, so step one is get NATO not do that.”

Russia (to NATO, in advance of 2008 summit): “Don't offer Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, it would, um, destabilize the region and, uh, make it more likely that we'd feel it necessary to invade.”

NATO: “Seems a little paranoid, but, sure, we like stability. Georgia and Ukraine, we really like the idea of you guys joining some day, but no membership action plan or security commitments for now.”

Russia: (invades Georgia almost immediately).

Russia: (Gets friendly leadership in Ukraine in 2010)

Russia: (loses friendly leadership in Ukraine 2014)

Russia: (invades Ukraine immediately)

> Then came the 2014 invasion of Russia in Crimea - IMHO a direct "test bed" to see if the Western nations were willing to step up this time, and they didn't despite Russia literally shooting a passenger plane out of the sky.

I mean, they actually did, which is a big reasons why Ukrainr's forces were in a better condition when Russia launched the wider invasion in 2022 than they had been in 2014 (Ukraine made a lot of its own investment, but they also got a lot of Western aid, both material and training, throughout the war starting not long after the 2014 invasion, though not much lethal aid was sent before 2021.)

[mschuster91]

> See, that's much too complicated.

I agree my explanation is more expansive and complex than yours - but that doesn't make either of our theories less valid IMHO. You're focused on the direct links with Russia, while I focus more on the interconnectedness of geopolitics - there would have been ample cheap opportunities in the past to prevent expensive and deadly disasters in the future.

[lossolo]

> NATO: “Seems a little paranoid, but, sure, we like stability. Georgia and Ukraine, we really like the idea of you guys joining some day, but no membership action plan or security commitments for now.”

I think you missed in your summary that NATO promised to review their decision in December 2008 [1]. Summit was in April 2008, Russia invaded in August 2008.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Bucharest_summit

[airstrike]

This is spot on. Very well said and in just two paragraphs...

[roenxi]

The "appeasement" of Russia is just following international norms, set in the 2000s when the world adopted a policy of acceptance towards the US's rampages through the middle east. The US is hip deep in a swamp of hypocrisy on this topic.

It'd be better if we had a consistent "no invasions" policy around the globe; but that would involve leading global powers holding themselves to that standard.

[bart_spoon]

The did an enormous amount of nation-building. Billions and billions and billions of dollars over multiple decades. It was just a complete and utter failire.

The book “The Afghanistan Papers” covers the US’s misguided efforts there well.

[mschuster91]

Most of that money went to "military contractors" and walled garden boroughs for army outposts and embassies.

The average people, especially outside of Kabul and Bagdad, didn't see much of the trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money.

[keybored]

When second- and third-world countries invade and enrich their military sectors: corrupt government enriching their oligarch class. When the US does it: aww shucks, tried our best but failed to build a democracy again.

[alephknoll]

> It's not like NATO did any major nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq, at least nowhere near close to post-WW2 Germany... so in that point he did keep his promise.

What? So he carried out nation building in 2 countries rather than 1 and that means he kept his 'no nation building' promise? What kind of logic is that?

> The entire world lost out as a result of that - there is a direct link from the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Russian invasion into Ukraine.

I don't think most of the world cares one bit if europe burns or not. Heck if we had a vote, most of the world would vote for europe buring given europe's monstrous treatment of 'most of the world'.

[mschuster91]

> What? So he carried out nation building in 2 countries rather than 1 and that means he kept his 'no nation building' promise?

He didn't carry out "nation building". Blasted both countries to pieces and left them mostly alone with reconstruction, didn't install any oversight mechanism against corruption or other issues (such as the "military" serially raping young local boys in Afghanistan) by the local sham governments, and instead funneled insane amounts of money into military "contractors". Zero perspective for the people to make a living, zero incentive to not just go to the Taliban or whatever other warlord.

I don't even have anything against the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq per se, freeing people from dictatorships is a worthy goal in itself, but come on, if you want something sustainable you have to invest into more than guns, ammo and fortress walled gardens for Western embassies and army outposts.

Want to see what "nation building" looks like, look at post-WW2 Germany. A decades long occupation, with serious oversight to make sure that what caused the war never appears again.

> I don't think most of the world cares one bit if europe burns or not.

Skyrocketing prices for food and fuel affect everyone.