[mppm]

I'm not sure why this got downvoted. The point is not to bow to Putin in all matters, but to treat the matter with extreme seriousness: Take time to do proper background research, evaluate your sources, give serious consideration to the Russian narrative -- without necessarily agreeing of course, allow for a margin of error both in your own judgement and for stray missiles entering the detection radius, etc. If it still seems like a good idea to take a stand afterwards, OK. But let's please not cause a nuclear war over Facebook likes and political brownie points.

[nrml_amnt]

What is the Russian narrative? How to give consideration for something that is not even meant to be sensical?

[mppm]

Ah... NATO expansion? Alleged discrimination against the Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine? Alleged foreign interference in the Maidan revolution? Not that I'm trying to start a discussion here, but dismissing the other side's arguments as "not even meant to be sensical" is exactly what I was arguing against.

[wk_end]

None of this is a legitimate casus belli in any sense of the term. You’re suggesting we ought to take seriously the geopolitical equivalent of “he looked at me funny”.

[mc32]

I would you say the Cuban missile crisis was made up by the Kennedy admin? The establishment was ready to war if the missiles were not removed. Being in our “backyard” and sphere of influence (LatAm) we didn’t take to it too kindly.

[wk_end]

I would say that the Cuban Missile Crisis, indeed, would not have constituted a good reason to invade Cuba. US foreign policy during the Cold War was often pretty indefensible.

But there’s still a number of things about this situation that make the comparison flimsy. The relationship between the west and Russia was - and actually still is - significantly less tense than the relationship between the Soviets and the west during the Cold War, for one.

But moreover, the way everything went down was very different.

In the CMC, the Soviets installed their missiles, the US caught wind of this, and pursued a diplomatic solution. The public was, generally, made aware of what was going on and what was at stake.

Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn’t even applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres, offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy. Russia built up its forces along the border in secret and launched a surprise invasion. From the jump they’ve been offering shifting explanations for the “special military operation” - is it about NATO expansion or “de-Nazification”? - which is one reason why we shouldn’t take any of those explanations especially seriously.

[js8]

> Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn’t even applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres, offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy.

I don't think you're paying attention. Bush's invite of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO in 2007 (against the opinion of France and Germany) was probably a cause of Russian invasion into South Ossetia.

And just about recently a newly chosen top NATO chief has been promoting path for Ukraine to enter NATO (and so-called "West Germany model"), despite that Putin clearly demanded Ukraine neutrality and NATO's own rule about not admitting members with an ongoing territorial disputes.

I can hardly imagine how could Russians be clearer about opposing NATO expansion.

[ultimafan]

>Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn’t even applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres, offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy.

To be fair, without saying that their position is a defensible one- they've been pretty vocal about Ukraine not becoming aligned with the West for almost 20 years now if not longer, and politicians in the West have been vocal about the exact opposite for at least as long. I see people saying online that what's happening now was completely irrational and unexpected but that's not really true. We know it's a sore point for them and have been goading them with a "will we won't we" over a clear red line they've drawn for a long while now. https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html

[libertine]

That's a good list of Russian-fueled narratives that have little to no grounds in reality - as a kind way of saying they're lies and conspiracy theories.

> NATO expansion?

You seem to have forgotten all the agreements, charters, and memorandums the Soviet Union and Russia signed stating that Sovereign Countries are entitled to their own alliances and strategic partnerships. You also seem to have forgotten that even Putin hinted at Clinton the idea of Russia joining NATO. Regarding Ukraine, the population only started to care to join NATO after 2014, but started to trend since the invasion of Georgia.

Even Gorbachev himself - the man who was allegedly involved in that so-called "no NATO expansion" myth said it was a lie and a myth[0]. I didn't even make logical sense to have such a red line.

> Alleged discrimination against the Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine?

So you invaded and annex a country in a genocidal war based on "alleged discrimination"? Who did something similar to this... ah yeah... Nazi Germany also made up some discrimination stories about ethnic germans being under threat by polish people.

> Alleged foreign interference in the Maidan revolution?

Another conspiracy theory and lie... God forbid Ukrainians having the capacity to revolt against a president who turned his back on Ukrainians will to join the EU, in exchange for a deal under the table with Russia that no one knew the terms of.

Oh and by the way, the US wanted Yanukovich to remain president - it was the overwhelming majority of the parliament that didn't want the corrupt fellow in power any longer.

At least get your facts straight, with a little bit of research you can get access to this information.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rPnAlbYfa7E

[thereisnospork]

Being non-sensical is the point of that school of rhetoric.

Briefly summarized: Power is being able to say something false, that the audience knows is false, that the speaker knows the audience knows is false, and that the audience knows that the speaker knows the audience knows is false -- but the audience can't/wont speak up.

[seabass-labrax]

I haven't downvoted it, but one issue with parent's post is that it applies double standards to our nations' responses to those of the Cold War. During the 20th century, the public impression of diplomacy was the very same 'wild west of bluster and provocation' - only nowadays, we get to see more behind the scenes of the Cold War as files are declassified and then-current affairs become history. The propaganda from the American and Soviet leadership was no more nuanced historically than it is now from contemporary leaders like Putin and Trump (and since parent mentioned the EU, we could include European figures such as von der Leyen here as well).

I predict that future history books will observe a certain amount of care and diplomatic engagement in our era that isn't visible from the press releases and the ways in which politicians want to be seen.