You ask me how NATO antagonised Russia and then you don't want to know how Russia perceives itself to be antagonized by NATO. What?

As for this:

"In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems", despite Russian protests. In
— Baden

Wasn't this because of Iran?

Eh, this was a mistake. You're just pissing me off. I need the information without any spin. I'll find it. — frank

So funny accusing me of spin while spinning the Iran angle.

I'll try Wiki but I guess you don't want answers just your own biases confirmed.

"Putin said that in trying to persuade Russia to accept US withdrawal from the treaty, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had tried, without evidence, to convince him of an emerging nuclear threat from Iran."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty#United_States_withdrawal

You may blindly accept the word of your ex-presidents but Putin can be forgiven for being a bit more sceptical.

Now what exactly about:

"In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems"

is spin?

↪boethius Thanks, I appreciate that. But yes, I remember being shocked to """learn - not long ago either - that it was Russia that destroyed 80% of the wehrmacht in WWII, but in literally any narrative ever, it's the US that gets all of the credit. — StreetlightX

... And West only really invaded Europe after Russia had already turned the tide.

However, Villepin has another really good analysis that follows, that's only partly transcribed, so I've put bellow the whole thing:

"""
Villepin: And there is another factor, above that humiliation, is the sentiment of Western hypocrisy.

We ignore that factor.

For Vladimir Putin we are liars.

News anchor: But on what? [in a tone of clueless, innocent honest perplexion]

Villepin: 1999, the Kosovo, we talked of a military intervention, without authorization of the security council. [can't quite make out the word], the term we used at the time, and Vladimir Putin would hold it against us even today, in us [creating or crediting] a genocide on the part of-on the - on the [can't make it out, I assume Albanians] from the part of the Serbs.

Second step of the lie, and the occidental hypocrisy, the United States in Iraq, where they are evidently [expression I've never heard before], and how many times the Russian foreign minister at the time told us: you did nothing to judge for the monstrous War Crimes, hundreds of thousands dead, not George Bush nor Tony Blair.

Third step, Lybian crisis, where we made a deal with the Russians, since the supported the revolution 1973, and we largely exceeded the mandate.

And when they tell you that, the Russians, what do they add: we stretched out our hands to you, and it's that in 2001, 911, made a considerable gesture, vis-a-vis the United States--

New anchor: that does not permit to explain what is currently happening

Villepin: But, it doesn't expla - it doesn't justify it, but it allows to understand the software of a man who, hates humiliation and hypocrisy, adds to that, and I think we would ignore it in favour of the crisis, we would ignore - if we don't take it into consideration, we would make a colossal mistake, it's the immense feeling of injustice and the desire for revenge, Eastward, yes in the Orient, but also in the South.

And when we see, skipping some steps to save time, where at the general assembly, there are 35 states who abstain, and a few states, not so important, who voted against. But among the 35 states, there's delegations like Senegal, so we need to understand why, why these African states, why these South-American states, feel necessary to send us this message; which is: you have the habit of crushing us, which is from where comes the argument ["masu" not sure what it means; edit: likely means a "sledge hammer"] of Vladimir Putin, that not only he wants to put into question [i.e. challenge] the European order, but he wants to put into question the occidental domination. And thus-

Interviewer: [interrupts]

Villepin: And thus, I finish, as it's a point, a major point. And thus, the whole game, is to know if Russia will stay relatively alone, and the embargo against China will become more and more important, all the way to China taking distance from Russia, or if, as Vladimir Putin puts into question the European order, well then, at the same moment, the President Xi feels the need to put into question the Indo-Pacific order and the World order and then the junction, between those two revindications would happen, and there, the risk - I do not say a World War - but a world confrontation would be, verily, then, current affairs.
"""

It's the opposite of politicial nihilism to look beyond propaganda to actual real people and how they are affected by real things like bombs and suchlike and make their welfare the priority rather than some nationalistic ideal that is antithetical to their interests. — Baden

Let me guess: you think that I am not doing precisely that? That @ssu isn't looking beyond propaganda? That @frank behaves as a valet of US imperialism? That we don't care for the fate of ordinary Ukrainians and Russians? That we are the pro-NATO folks?

Think again. You're not the only one with his eyes open.

I wasn't evaluating Olivier's comment as a response to you. I was merely highlighting the fact that, in the Cold War, there were good guys and bad guys. The bad guys built walls to keep their own people from leaving. Russians are the bad guys in this war too. We shouldn't lose sight of that fact.

No, I was responding to the odd accusation of political nihilism. If I want to say anything about any of the posters mentioned, I'll say it.

Nothing I've said should suggest I'm not aware that Putin has the morals of a snake, that the invasion was morally unjustified, and that he is committing horrible crimes in Ukraine, just as he did in Syria, Chechnya and so on.

You ask me how NATO antagonised Russia and then you don't want to know how Russia perceives itself to be antagonized by NATO. What? — Baden

I guess I'm more interested in the ways NATO actually threatened Russia. If NATO threatened some Russian's dreams of empire, that doesn't constitute a threat to Russia.

At this time, China is threatening the vision of some Americans as having a divine mission to rule the world. Only a fucking moron would say: "Look! That's evidence that China is antagonizing America! (Not that you're a fucking moron, I don't think that).

Everybody has some responsibility to look at the world objectively, including Putin.

So, funny accusing me of spin while spinning the Iran angle. — Baden

Is it spin? The problem I have is that it makes sense that the US would ready itself to bomb Iran. Iran has been hostile toward the whole region. It's a sectarian issue.

Why would the US prepare to attack Russia? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?

:up:

I guess I'm more interested in the ways NATO actually threatened Russia. If NATO threatened some Russian's dreams of empire, that doesn't constitute a threat to Russia. — frank

I'm not making normative judgements about whether Russia should feel threatened or not. I'm simply trying to help lay out an explanatory framework for their actions/reactions. That's all that's important to me. If you want to get into should Russia feel threatened or not, then you're required to look deep into the heart of NATO and see if there really is a cuddly care-bear sitting there ready to give Putin a big sloppy kiss. That's rather pointless in my view.

Why would the US prepare to attack Russia? What missing facts would allow that to make sense? — frank

And this from a Russian angle could read as:

"Why would Russia prepare to attack the U.S.? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?"

So, why did NATO expand, why plant missiles in Eastern Europe?

Simply invert your perspective and you answer your own questions.

I'm not making normative judgements about whether Russia should feel threatened or not. I'm simply trying to help lay out an explanatory framework for their actions/reactions — Baden

So your point is that Russians in general have felt threatened by American missile placement? Or is it just the Russian govt?

If so, we can probably drop "NATO" here, right? It's mostly just the US.

And the present invasion of Ukraine is related to this apparent aggression.

I think there's probably a kernal of truth in there, in that, without the USA or EU, Putin wouldn't need to invade. He could just send in his drushina and kill Zelensky.

So your point is that Russians in general have felt threatened by American missile placement? Or is it just the Russian govt? — frank

Would you feel threatened if Russia became friendly enough with Mexico to allow it to place missiles there? I suppose most, if not all, Americans would. And your government certainly would and would act correspondingly.

And this from a Russian angle could read as:

"Why would Russia prepare to attack the U.S.? What missing facts would allow that to make sense?"

So, why did NATO expand, why plant missiles in Eastern Europe?

Simply invert your perspective and you answer your own questions. — Baden

No. If the US placed missiles in Eastern Europe to threaten Russia, there has to be a reason for it.

Villepin — boethius

I can't get out of my mind Villepin's caricature in Quai d'Orsay, a graphic novel on the French foreign ministry under Villepin during the build up to the Iraq war. Written by the guy to whom it happened. He was hired to write Villepin's speeches but cannot follow the guy's thoughts, Villepin goes way too fast and changes constantly and switches from the highest concepts to the most trivial details all the time -- as transcribed in a post upthread, his elocution is that of a scatterbrain. Not stupid by far, but a poet more than a mathematician.

The whole life of this poor speech writer becomes a rollercoaster between New York, Paris, Berlin, while the diplomatic push and shove happens. An English translation was released, under the name Weapons of Mass Diplomacy. Highly recommended.

https://www.selfmadehero.com/books/weapons-of-mass-diplomacy

Would you feel threatened if Russia became friendly enough with Mexico to allow it to place missiles there? I suppose most, if not all, Americans would. And your government certainly would and would act correspondingly. — Baden

So your point is that Russians in general feel threatened by the US?

Do you happen to have some data that shows that?

The reason is to increase its military dominance, obviously. And if you can abnegate completely a country's nuclear deterrence e.g. through placing techincally advanced anti-missile systems near their territory then you really can dominate them and threaten their interests. Putin would not so easily have been able to invade Ukraine if he didn't still have a nuclear option. So, the threat doesn't have to be directly military. It's just the guy with the biggest gun calls the shots on the global stage. Putin wants to maintain his big gun.

Putin wants to maintain his big gun. — Baden

Of course.

So your point is that Russians in general feel threatened by the US? — frank

No, my point was to ask you the same question. I suppose if you would feel threatened they might. I don't know of any studies that specific. We can apply common sense here. Or look to the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis where America risked nuclear war rather than allowing such an eventuality. I presume y'all felt a bit threatened.

Again, my goal was to understand your statement that NATO sees Russia as an adversary.

I think the missile placement issue is more about Putin's objections to American foreign policy decisions. He has bemoaned the way Americans leave instability and cell-structured terrorism in their wake, which happens to be his backyard.

He believes he would deal more effectively with turmoil in the middle east, and I think he's probably right. American efforts to install democracy have been disastrous.

The war isn't contributing to Russian socio-economic organisation. It was a fascist military oligarchy before the war started.

Ukraine was a democracy in name only. Riven with corruption. — Benkei

The totalitarian screw is tightening in Russia, and the economy will suffer. I am truly worried about the aftermath in Russia as well, not pretending. Their cities weren't bombed, it's true.

Ukraine is a democracy. No need to treat people with contempt. No democracy is perfect. There is corruption in France, the US, Germany, everywhere.

The missle placement is clearly a direct threat to Russian power. You can add layers to that if you like, but there is no fundamental reason for Russians to be happier about having American missiles piled up along their borders than Americans would be having Russian missiles piled up along their borders. Again, there are lots of other layers and nuances you can add, but I don't know why that basic fact is hard to grasp or agree on.

The missle placement is clearly a direct threat to Russian power. You can add layers to that if you like, but there is no fundamental reason for Russians to be happier about having American missiles piled up along their borders than Americans would be having Russian missiles piled up along their borders. Again, there are lots of other layers and nuances you can add, but I don't know why that basic fact is hard to grasp or agree on. — Baden

The problem is: this presupposes conflict instead of explaining it.

Obviously the UK doesn't feel threatened by American missile placement. If Russia does, then what is the basis of the conflict?

No, I was responding to the odd accusation of political nihilism. — Baden

Apologies if that was a miss.

A lot of the arguments against NATO here boil down to: the US is worse. Or: the West is worse. Or: there are many other wars why do you care for this one? The general impression is of westerners doubting the west. Of people living in democracies (I suppose) whining on social media about the social media (built by democracies) and doubting whether democracy means anything. It's a form of First World navel gazing political nihilism.

Once again, sorry if I misunderstood you.

Written by the guy to whom it happened. He was hired to write Villepin's speeches but cannot follow the guy's thoughts, Villepin goes way too fast and changes constantly and switches from the highest concepts to the most trivial details all the time -- as transcribed in a post upthread, his elocution is that of a scatterbrain. Not stupid by far, but a poet more than a mathematician. — Olivier5

Of for sure, I definitely don't have any totally precise idea of Villepin's general political philosophy.

However, this could easily be by design (or then a sort of survivor bias in that only his kind of personality can persists in politics, doesn't get immediately taken down by the press).

For his way of packing everything together, highest principles and trivial details, sort of overwhelms interviewers and news anchors and he can make his point.

If you try to really get into the mechanics of the argument, there's all sorts of missing pieces, but the point and structure of the argument is clear; you can easily fill in the blanks ... and certainly "sounds" smart. But this might be just his personality.

The next part, for sure by design, is that he waits his moment. He certainly has had these idea of Western hypocrisy and and the affect on the world since a while--conversations with his Russian counterparts are literally decades in the past. But he waits the right political moment to speak his mind.

Lot's to debate and disagree with, but certainly not a coward in any case.

The problem is: this presupposes conflict instead of explaining it. — frank

It's not a problem to recognize the obvious that the relationship between allies like the US and the UK is not the same as between non-allies and traditional adversaries such as the US and Russia. That doesn't mean you can't also explain it, just like you can acknowledge that India and Pakistan are a threat to each other in a way that India and the UK aren't, but that it would be facile to argue that India and Pakistan weren't a mutual threat or that that fact was in some doubt on the basis that the entire history of their relationship had to be explained first. It would be even more facile if you were Indian and considered Pakistani missiles on your border a threat to wonder why Pakistanis found Indian missiles on their border equally a threat or to demand data to prove it, etc. Basic reasoning can deal with this up to a point.

Once again, sorry if I misunderstood you. — Olivier5

No worries. :up:

traditional adversaries such as the US and Russia. — Baden

I think this tells me all I needed to glean from your perspective. Thanks for the discussion.

The US wants a unipolar world order. It wants a unipolar world order because (1) it's used to it, (2) it's profitable for capitalists who rely on it to secure and expand its markets, and who in turn sponsor the American state. Russian leverage, which includes European reliance on its oil and gas, as well as nuclear arms and billionaire investment money - among other things - threatens that unipolarity. It's also the case that Russian crony capitalism means that corporate profits are cut into by rents to the state, which is very inconvenient for Western capitalists who are quite used to having the state fuck right off except in the case of destroying workers' rights, bailing out their debts, and privatizing literally everything. The US, as guarantor of the 'rules based international order' - i.e. neoliberal capitalism - has never not looked for any opportunity to demolish any barriers to the system which it acts as a patron to. Russia remains one such barrier (China is another). NATO, a de facto American institutional agent, has been working for decades to dismantle said barrier, mostly by eating away at Russia's sphere of influence and threatening it's business model - which includes not adhering to trade standards that annoying institutions like the EU would like to place upon it. Ukraine right now is one more round in that ongoing saga. Ta da.

I think this tells me all I needed to glean from your perspective. Thanks for the discussion. — frank

If you don't think Russia and the US can be described as 'traditional adversaries', you may very well be alone in this discussion. It's not a controversial statement by any means.

For his way of packing everything together, highest principles and trivial details, sort of overwhelms interviewers and news anchors and he can make his point.

If you try to really get into the mechanics of the argument, there's all sorts of missing pieces, but the point and structure of the argument is clear; you can easily fill in the blanks ... and certainly "sounds" smart. — boethius

Definitely so. He is convincing. He believes in what he says. His aura in France is that of a looser magnifique, a flibustering poet-diplomat. A bit passé now of course.

The book above is a good one, if you are interested in diplomacy. Respectful of Villepin, and also disrespectful in a light way. Same with the US. This is not a brutal caricature, it's a soft, very smart one, including with emotional intelligence. Artistic intelligence I should say, truly. Real, but funnier.

I should try and read some of his poems...