If someone breaks into your house and destroys all the furniture and shoots anybody who resists, what is the point of wondering if they meant to wreak complete destruction or were only hoping to get a snack? — Paine

Only that it's important to understand why something is happening. I was hoping not to get into history, but it was raised and so I continued with it. Before that we were discussing possible solutions/negotiations. But it's all relevant.

It is important to understand why something is happening. And if there is any kind of resolution possible through dialogue, it will have to start from a shared point of departure. If Putin did anything that remotely resembled that sort of language, there would be more options.

I would like to be proven wrong on this.

Since 2014, Donetsk + Luhansk (≈ Donbas) have been an organized Russian staging area, and Crimea was grabbed.
By 2022, with Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, five Ukrainian regions were annexed.
Net result is that a fifth of Ukraine has been declared part of Russia (none independent, either) by Putin.
I wouldn't try a linear regression here (like extrapolating another 8 years), but Putin's moves and actions point in one direction: take-over.
That's the geography; check the map; factual tangible evidence is in.
Look at the "re-culturation" efforts (since mid-2021); more evidence (no NATO here): take-over.
You can't hang this on Putin's "lines"; you might be able to hang it on larger ambitions.

None of that is logically absurd, or paranoid, or wrong. It's just the facts. — Mikie

And yet, your interpretation of these facts is absurd and paranoid. Just because a guy said something to another in a 2008 meeting, doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians should die today. Try and maintain a sense of proportion, if you can.

Just because a guy said something to another in a 2008 meeting, ... — Olivier5

Except that these are official statements made directly in an international context on behalf of NATO, and thus on behalf of the United States, and thus reflect official policy.

If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you'll need to take into consideration the historical facts and context, instead of trying to ignore or downplay them.

The last thing I would want is to be taken seriously by people who take seriously a criminal's excuses for his crimes.

Did you believed Bush Junior when he said Iraq had WMD? :-)

Did you believed Bush Junior when he said Iraq had WMD? — Olivier5

I think he did believe that. It's a little easier to tell what GW Bush thought versus Putin, though.

Ukraine and Russia could have had a splendid relationship like for example we Finns enjoy with Sweden, a country we belonged to earlier and whose language a minority of Finns speak. Russia and Ukraine could have enjoyed that kind of relationship, but then Russia would have had to be totally different.

But just like a man can have a nice relationship with a woman, violently raping her will ruin that. Yes, you can call it a tragedy, of course.

Putin has been really poison for the universal slavophile movement. Of course, in Russia being a slavophile has meant actually to be a russophile, a disguise for Russian imperialists. Russia sees itself as a Great power, which should subjugate smaller and weaker nations. Hence the relationship between an Imperialist and it's colonies cannot be built on equality as a warm friendly relationship.

So what did the West get wrong with Russia? I think our former prime minister describes it well:



The error was in thinking that Russia wanted to be a part of Europe when it still craved for the Empire it had lost. Or to be more specific, those that got into power wanted to get back that Empire and those who wanted Russia to be part of the West were either fired or even killed. Hence in the Slavophile way, any integration to the West was seen as this sinister plan to make Russia weak (a conspiracy promoted even on this thread).

I admittedly expanded ssu's comment to a broader cultural thing.

Mariupol elementary schools must reportedly now call their home "Russia", and have introduced books in Russian. In Crimea, someone singing Oi u luzi chervona kalyna at a wedding were targeted.
The machine has been rolled out, apparently part of the agenda. — jorndoe

And the actions on the occupied territories just make it more obvious just how existential this fight is for Ukrainians. And when this isn't only limited to Ukraine, but goes on in Russia (starting with that you cannot call it a war, but a special military operation), the dictatorial rule that promotes Slavophile jingoism will likely be detrimental in the long run for the ideology. Especially if the war goes bad.

The issue is whether or not it's true, and to weigh alternative explanations against the evidence. I've done so, and I'm of the opinion that Putin wasn't lying about Russia believing NATO involvement in Ukraine was a threat. Please note -- and this is very important -- that this doesn't mean it actually WAS a threat -- simply that he actually believed it. After saying so consistently for 14 years -- reiterated by others in the Russian government, by experts, by foreign leaders (including Angela Merkel), we should at least consider the possibility that he really believed it. — “Mikie

You are convinced that the issue is whether or not Putin is lying b/c probably your line of reasoning looks something like this: since Putin honestly believed and repeatedly declared that US/NATO expansion was a threat (no matter if it really was) and US/NATO kept provoking Russia, then the US/NATO should be blamed for the beginning of this war. And since the US/NATO is to be blamed for the beginning of the war, then it has to both take the negotiation initiative and make all the necessary concessions to restore Putin’s sense of security. This is what can be done to reach peace, and peace is what we all should pursue. And if I don’t acknowledge the validity and truthfulness of this reasoning it’s because I’m biased or fell for the lies spread by the US/NATO propaganda, like the Western noble/harmless intention of supporting Ukraine, or Putin is Hitler’s reincarnation. And if I try to talk about something else, I’m missing the point.
Now, I’ve heard this argument several times on this thread. But it’s not here that I’ve heard it (or at least the first part of it) for the first time, since I’m very much interested in geopolitics and knew Mearsheimer’s views (often reported as a source for such arguments) well enough prior to even reading posts in this thread.
However, if that’s your line of reasoning and that’s all you’ve got to question my views, then you totally missed the target. Indeed, read carefully, I do not question the plausibility of your premises (Putin warned the US/NATO several times and he should have been taken seriously) nor the conclusion you care so much about (the US/NATO provoked Russia into this war) nor the fact that many experts blamed the US/NATO enlargement for that reason (after all, if the US/NATO didn’t provoke Russia, Russia wouldn’t have felt pushed to wage war) nor the fact that Putin’s concerns bear some strategic plausibility (having US/NATO so close to the Russian borders was too risky, even if NATO is a self-proclaimed defensive alliance). What I question is the idea that that’s all there is to say: on the contrary, until all these points are properly understood in geopolitics terms, as precondition to form rational expectations about geopolitical agents (i.e. Russia, Ukraine, US, NATO, etc.), your line of reasoning is deeply misleading. Here is why:

• You are analysing historical events as a function of 2 results: peace (which you like) and war (which you do not like). Now in geopolitics the endgame is neither peace nor war, it’s power (even for Mearsheimer!!!), so what one should expect from geopolitical agents (US/NATO or Russia) is a course of action that in given circumstances is, at least, perceived to maximise power or minimise loss of power (so peace and war must be assessed as a function of power)
• You candidly admit that Putin’s perception of the threat was honestly felt (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s not justified), but that’s pointless to the extent that all geopolitical agents (not only Russia) as geopolitical agent reason strategically. And strategic reasoning comprises threat perception, signalling and management , so if one must acknowledge that Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified).
• You are claiming that Putin warned the West so many times since 2008, suggesting the idea that US/NATO didn’t take him seriously, but you are completely wrong: the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously very early since the collapse of Soviet Union [1], and even more so with Putin since 2008 [2] (hope you know who Brzezinski is!). Russian revanchist nationalism after soviet era and concerns for NATO's presence in Europe were among the motivations of NATO expansionism.
• Your analysis doesn’t offer any relevant insights about the timing of Putin’s decision to wage war against Ukraine. This would allow a better assessment of Putin’s posture wrt alleged US/NATO threat. If US/NATO were warned for such a long time and Putin felt repeatedly provoked by US/NATO meddling in Ukraine, why did he wait so long to wage war against Ukraine? Or why didn’t he wait longer? After all Ukrainians’ NATO membership wasn’t imminent? From a geopolitical point of view, the timing of Putin’s gamble is clear: US/NATO was perceived at its weakest point! Indeed, EU was deeply divided (conflicting national interests, populist movements, Brexit), France was declaring NATO brain-dead, Germany was economically deeply dependent on Russia and reluctant to invest for its security or to confront Russia (e.g. by welcoming Ukraine inside NATO), the US was on the brink of a civil war, focused on the long term challenge against China, tired of an endless war against terrorism (which ended badly in Afghanistan), tempted by the isolationist siren songs, and led by a senile president while other global problems (pandemic, recession, climate change) seemed deplete whatever Western residual reactivity. Add to that A) Putin’s successful military operations within Russia (against Chechens and Georgians), in the middle east and in Africa, and most of all the easy-peasy annexation of Crimea. B) The success of the pro-Russian propaganda at home and in the West (with the support of western populist movements) C) the strong economic ties or partnerships in Asia and the rest of the world. All winds were blowing in the right directions. D) Russian intel convinced him he could obtain regime change in Ukraine in one week or so, the Americans too didn’t expect the Ukrainian would have resisted as they did (Biden even expressly said the US won't put troops on the ground even if Russia invades Ukraine!), and Zelensky didn’t even believe Putin could really start a war (bombing and invading a brother country?!). E) He didn’t even need to sacrifice Russians (ethnic minorities and mercenaries would have been enough for a blitzkrieg). Putin’s conclusion: so let’s go for it, fellas, because US/NATO is reeeeeeeeally threatening, but… well not to the point of scaring me, head of the most nuclear power state with the second strongest army on Earth, out of waging war against little Ukraine, not now anyways, so better to profit, right? And since the US/NATO power is declining, let's even make everybody clear that that's a New World Order challenge led by Russia (that's how much he felt threatened by US/NATO you know!). Implication: what does that mean if Putin succeeds? That indeed US/NATO is weak and incapable to deter, right? Right China? Right Iran? Right ISIS terrorists? Right European populist movements? Right anti-Western-Capitalist-Colonialist-Multinationals-Freemason-Zionist activists? Right MAGA activists? Coz that's why Putin wanted so badly to brand his reasons for this war on world stage. Punish the West and take everybody else hostile to the West on board to punish the West naked king. Now that’s roughly, what is at stake from a geopolitical perspective, and your narrow-minded blaming game totally fails to acknowledge.

A last remark: WE ALL (me and you included) are in the same predicament here. Despite our best intentions and the best of our knowledge, we must deal with the prospect that our claims may very well be or sound instrumental to some evil propaganda as well as indirectly complicit to past/present/future crimes of evil forces. So don’t waste your time convincing me that I’m a dumb partisan while you are an enlightened impartial observer, just because you want peace&love for everybody and everybody for peace&love.


[1]
Dr. Brzezinski, some critics of NATO enlargement are alarmed by the negative reaction of Russia to this policy. If, as we are led to believe by those critics, Russia has no designs on the territory of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, how does the membership of those countries in NATO impact Russian interests?
Dr. Brzezinski. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that it impacts on Russian interests adversely at all unless Russia is of the view that NATO is an enemy and that the United States is an enemy. If that is the Russian view, then we have a very serious problem, in which case we ought to expand NATO for that reason as well.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm

[2]
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/twq08springbrzezinski.pdf

I understand it’s tiresome if you’ve been through this with several other people on this thread. But if you’re not interested in discussion — again, I repeat: don’t bother with me.

If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you'll need to take into consideration the historical facts and context, instead of trying to ignore or downplay them. — Tzeentch

Yes.

excuses — Olivier5

Not excuses.

Did you believed Bush Junior when he said Iraq had WMD? — Olivier5

No, so why would you believe a US president when they say Ukraine is about Russian expansionism?

Speaking of Bush, you understand that what we're looking at today is a direct result of his administration's policy, starting in 2008? Since you don't seem to hold a high opinion of the man, perhaps it is time to reconsider this idea of the United States' pure intentions surrounding Ukraine.

You are convinced that the issue is whether or not Putin is lying b/c probably your line of reasoning looks something like this: since Putin honestly believed and repeatedly declared that US/NATO expansion was a threat (no matter if it really was) and US/NATO kept provoking Russia, then the US/NATO should be blamed for the beginning of this war. — neomac

No. I never said the US or NATO should be blamed for the war. Putin is to blame for the war. Why? Because it was his decision to invade Ukraine. I think it’s on par with the US invasion of Iraq.

And since the US/NATO is to be blamed for the beginning of the war, then it has to both take the negotiation initiative and make all the necessary concessions to restore Putin’s sense of security. — neomac

No.

I appreciate the attempt to reflect what I’ve said, but you’ve now made it clear you don’t understand my position. That itself is interesting, because I feel I’ve been quite clear. Nevertheless:

* I’m not blaming the US or NATO.
* I’m not saying the US needs to be the one to initiate negotiations and make concessions.
* I’m not making excuses for Russia.

By all means attack what I’m arguing. But make sure it indeed is what I’m arguing.

Now in geopolitics the endgame is neither peace nor war, it’s power — neomac

I never said otherwise.

Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified). — neomac

Of course.

suggesting the idea that US/NATO didn’t take him seriously — neomac

I’m wrong to suggest this because:

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.

If US/NATO were warned for such a long time and Putin felt repeatedly provoked by US/NATO meddling in Ukraine, why did he wait so long to wage war against Ukraine? Or why didn’t he wait longer? — neomac

I wouldn’t have predicted an exact date, of course, but things had escalated in 2021 after Biden took over. The Biden administration made it quite clear what its intentions were. So from the statements by NATO in June of 2021, to the joint statement by the White House on September 1st, to statements made by Blinken in December ‘21 and January ‘22 — yes, there was a shift. It wasn’t out of the blue.

There are many other factors involved in the decision for the exact timing I’m sure.

So don’t waste your time convincing me that I’m a dumb partisan — neomac

I don’t recall doing so.

Your mileage may vary, (taking) control is a special theme among autocrats:

Vladimir Putin: Experts reveal reason why the Russian President declared martial law (Oct 21, 2022)

Roughly 10 years ago, Christmas 2012:

United Russia proposes to resettle 7 million Ukrainians in Siberia to create a "cordon against the Chinese influx" (Korrespondent; Dec 24, 2012)

(United Russia is the large Russian political party.)

:up:

Finland-Sweden relations, Poland-Ukraine relations, ..., regardless of whatever history.

With Putin at the helm, it seems genuinely difficult to build trusting relations with Russia. :meh: Many would otherwise stand in line to do so, is my guess, which also would be beneficial for Russia.

Speaking of Bush, you understand that what we're looking at today is a direct result of his administration's policy, starting in 2008? Since you don't seem to hold a high opinion of the man, perhaps it is time to reconsider this idea of the United States' pure intentions surrounding Ukraine. — Tzeentch

Of course the US doesn't have pure intentions, but this discussion was about are the intentions of Russia, not the US. And evidently those intentions are about land and people grabbing.

The main crime assignable to Bush is the invasion if Iraq in 2003. This alienated the whole world, and provided a precedent for the invasion of Crimea.

With Putin at the helm, it seems genuinely difficult to build trusting relations with Russia. :meh: Many would otherwise stand in line to do so, is my guess, which also would be beneficial for Russia. — jorndoe

Putin has basically cut the relations. For example, the relations are so bad with Finland that the Finnish President doesn't see any reason to be in contact with the Russia leadership. There is nothing to talk about. Hence the relationship is something like in the 1920's. And this is the same President who hoped that bringing Trump and Putin together would be beneficial.

I think the West has had enough of "resets" and the only reset would happen after a regime change. Even if Putin would die tomorrow (or five years from now), that wouldn't change things. Some diplomatic interactions would be done and some rogue entrepreneurs would seek to improve the relations. But I don't think there's no appetite for example German strategy of Wandel durch Handel. I think that the way how Eastern Europe countries looked at Russia will prevail now for a long time.

The main crime assignable to Bush is the invasion if Iraq in 2003. This alienated the whole world, and provided a precedent for the invasion of Crimea. — Olivier5

Well, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary? Has now Afghanistan turned into a terrorist safe haven? That was the main reason given to have US and Western troops in Afghanistan. I think there's far more than just Iraq to be criticized.

Likely the Kosovo War was real game changer, not Iraq. That really spoiled the relations and created the first confrontation between NATO and Russian. It maybe one reason why Putin's siloviks won over the "Westernizers".



Yet to understand the war in Ukraine, one has to look at other issues than NATO - Russia confontration. The bromance between Putin and Bush during 9/11 was a temporary thing. Yet then Russia did wait and successfully got the US out of Central Asia.

, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary? — ssu

It was legit I think, and it started really nicely. I travelled all over the country in 2002 and a lot of people were upbeat. It started to go sour when most US forces left for Iraq in 2003.

it doesn't appear that the US has any interest in encouraging negotiations -- nor does Putin — Mikie

It was argued earlier in the thread that the US and the UK should stay out of such efforts. (You?)

Maybe talks could be held under the auspices of the EU? The UN? China? More direct Zelenskyy-Putin channels? It all just seems a (long) longshot, especially with the widespread ongoing bombing.

As an aside, Putin raised some concerns about Iran years back. That seems to be a thing of the past these days. I guess priorities change.

It was legit I think, and it started really nicely. I travelled all over the country in 2002 and a lot of people were upbeat. It started to go sour when most US forces left for Iraq in 2003. — Olivier5

I think it was not. Afghanistan had as much to do with the 9/11 as basically Sudan. Both countries had given refuge for Osama bin Laden. And just where was Osama bin Laden then found?

The perpetrators of the first Twin Tower bombing were found in Pakistan. By the FBI. It was a police matter. And the perpetrators were sentenced to jail. In the US.

As usually terrorists should be confronted by: the police and the legal system.

But of course, when you have something like the US armed forces and a popular need for revenge, those cruise missiles and armed forces feels so good.

So better to have the longest war in US history, tens of thousands of killed and a humiliating defeat? Of course! Having the FBI to do a police investigation would have been so "weak dick" response.

So better to have the longest war in US history, tens of thousands of killed and a humiliating defeat? Of course! Having the FBI to do a police investigation would have been so "weak dick" response. — ssu

Supposedly the best way to invite more of the same was to look weak.

Of course the US doesn't have pure intentions, but this discussion was about are the intentions of Russia, not the US. And evidently those intentions are about land and people grabbing. — Olivier5

No, they were about power - like virtually ever other geopolitical decision that was ever made, western or otherwise.

Supposedly the best way to invite more of the same was to look weak. — frank

That's the myth that those promoted War-on-Terror told us.

Deterring terrorist attack hasn't happened by fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan. It's been by tightening the laughable pre-9/11 security and basic police & intelligence work. Not fighting an insurgency in one of the poorest countries in the World.

Terrorist groups have been destroyed by police through the legal system in various countries. But who cares about how terrorist group are really dealt.

That's the myth that those promoted War-on-Terror told us. — ssu

It's purported to have been from an analysis of the middle eastern society, and it's also a little wisdom garnered from the American Revolution. Societies vary in the lessons they learn. :grin:

Deterring terrorist attack hasn't happened by fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan. — ssu

How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball to see what would have happened if the US military would have just stayed home?

Terrorist groups have been destroyed by police through the legal system in various countries. But who cares about how terrorist group are really dealt. — ssu

You're sounding a little bitter about the whole thing. What would you say Al Qaeda wanted most of all?

Before 911, Al Qaeda was split on whether to force the 'far war' to be brought into the 'near war.' The die was cast and the response surely wiped-out AQ. The result has advanced some of their aims, however. The triumphant bugles of the neocons have fallen silent.

It was not a matter of doing nothing or projecting maximum force. The Bush National Security Doctrine specifically discounted international instruments that would have treated AQ as a criminal gang. Whatever one thinks about that choice, it was an expensive one.

I believe that the Taliban wanted the US to come after them, that it was part of the plan, which would be why they did not surrender Osama Ben Laden.

You may be right that a police operation would have been appropriate and might have worked better in the end. But IMO, you cannot compare 9/11 with prior terrorist attacks. Close to 3000 people burnt alive in downtown Manhattan.

In any case, the war in Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN Security Council, including China and Russia. It did not make a mockery of our collective security system, and did not create a precedent for Crimea or other land grabs. The war in Iraq did that.

they were about power — Tzeentch

Power over land and people. So we agree that this is just a land grab.

So we agree that this is just a land grab. — Olivier5

No, clearly we don't agree.

It was not a matter of doing nothing or projecting maximum force. The Bush National Security Doctrine specifically discounted international instruments that would have treated AQ as a criminal gang. Whatever one thinks about that choice, it was an expensive one. — Paine

The US participates in undermining terrorist plans around the world. I think the use of the military wrt Afghanistan was to get to terrorists who were being protected. Iraq was about locking down sources of radioactive material and democratizing the Middle East. That's the conclusions I came to, anyway.

"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russia’s military leadership has withdrawn its officers in the Russian-annexed city of Kherson across the Dnieper River in anticipation of an advance of Ukrainian troops, the Institute for the Study of War think tank said Sunday.

"To delay the Ukrainian counteroffensive as the Russians complete their retreat, Moscow has left newly mobilized, inexperienced forces on the other side of the wide river, it added."

wtf?