Nah.

NATO's a threat to Putin's ambitions, a threat to free Kremlin movements/actions, to Putin's Russia bulging. Should be clear to anyone. NATO isn't an existential threat to Russia, cultural or otherwise. Well, except (ironically perhaps) Putin's moves have put Russians in danger. (Nov 6, 2014; May 19, 2021; Feb 14, 2022; Feb 22, 2022.)

Russia's a direct and present, tangible threat to Ukraine (and perhaps some neighbors). Including cultural: Jul 12, 2021; Mar 17, 2022; Mar 18, 2022; Mar 22, 2022; Mar 25, 2022; Apr 5, 2022; Apr 12, 2022; May 6, 2022; Sep 6, 2022; Sep 9, 2022; Sep 13, 2022; Sep 14, 2022; Oct 17, 2022. No wonder the Ukrainians sought NATO protection.

Keep up. (Long thread.)

But, granted, NATO might a factor somewhere. — jorndoe

I think in this case making the most obvious and clear case doesn't matter to some members here.

Concerning your last statement, your type of arguments are hardly new either, it's not as if there are twenty different end games here. I see your point, and think you are wrong.

How do you actually talk to a criminal like Putin who over and over breaks deals, lie and does whatever he wants. There is no peace talk that works with such people so thinking the war can end by giving a criminal what he wants thinking that's the end of it is naive to the extreme.

The resistance, the sanctions and opposition towards Putin seems by all measurements to actually work, regardless of what many have said in this thread. If this leads to getting rid of Putin, then it was all worth it. — Christoffer

The same way we deal with other criminal leaders, many "our allies": Israel, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and so on down the line this illustrious list of known liars, criminals, thieves and barbarians.

You talk with them, because they are the one you are dealing with. Iraq had to talk to the US after the invasion did it not? That war was pretty ugly but nobody in the West ever said it was a bad idea for Iraq to talk with the US, as they should and did.

That's the world we live in. You don't like it, I don't like it, but we deal with what we have not what we want. That's politics.

How would you reduce the number of Ukrainians being killed when they seek to defend themselves against those killings? We should, by your argument, give Putin some land where Ukrainians grew up and lives on after they conducted genocide. And what happens when he makes a move again? Give more land? Give up the whole of Ukraine? What about the respect for the Ukrainian people and what they want? Do you think they fight in this war just for the sake of it? You think they don't know they're dying on the battlefield? — Christoffer

As I've said many times, you negotiate. What makes you think he will move again? This war was a total disaster from his perspective, NATO got larger, they've been sanctioned like no country on Earth (with the possible exception of North Korea), not to mention the many Russians who have fled the country and those who are in jail for protesting.

And will continue dying, unless this war stops short. The Ukranian people are not a monolith, nor should they be treated as such. Some want negotiations, others want to defeat Russia. Some have argued that WWIII has already started.

Not all these views are correct: WWIII has not started. If it did, there would be no Ukrainians left on Earth, not to mention the rest of the world.

I believe sensible people should understand that giving up pieces of illegally, criminally obtained land (and this is what the borders of ALL nation states are, regardless of the state) would prefer to give a bit of land, for thousands of lives.

Will this be good news for those in the annexed territories? Of course not. How can you satisfy all the people in a country that large? It's impossible. So you try to find the least worst option, and make a case for it.

The expansion of Nato has been because of nations fearing what Putin might do and seeking security in an alliance that blocks such aggressions. I know, I live in a nation who wants this security. Any notion that Nato is an existential threat to Russia is a delusional idea promoted by Russian propaganda in order to give justification for Russias actions. And at the end of the day, Putin is responsible for all of this and any delusional idea that Nato forced him to do so is just buying into his narrative. — Christoffer

You are seriously misinformed and confuse the symptom with the cause. And stop with the hypocritical holier than thou attitude.

Plenty of criminals in the US and Europe, many of them far worse than Putin (Bush, Blair, Sarkozy, etc.). But if you can't see that because of some strange notion that we are better because we have more freedoms, then yes, we do well to stop here.

Putin is a criminal, a horrible one. One from a long list of criminals from powerful states.

And yet I have to say it yet again, that Putin is a criminal. Again. Ok, fine. — Manuel

It's not just you. Everyone here has had to say things that should go without saying. I find myself stating the glaringly obvious again and again.

Why is that so? Perhaps because we think of ourselves as philosophers, able to challenge anything no matter how common-sensical. Or perhaps because we need to build trust, as a group. Trust that we share at least SOME common ground.

We agree that the war is a crime, that civilians should not be killed, that nuclear war should be averted, that Putin is a thug, that Europe will have a very rough winter.

That's quite a lot. What we seem to disagree with is how to proceed to end this and to what extent was the West a cause of the invasion.

I think we have more in common than what we disagree, but where we disagree is admittedly very important, so it's not as if we're discussing against flat-Earthers on the other side.

What we seem to disagree with is how to proceed to end this and to what extent was the West a cause of the invasion. — Manuel

If you had to apportion blame to Putin and to 'the West', what would be your estimate?

It's very hard to put an estimate on these things, it's not like physics.

Overwhelmingly I think the evidence shows that NATO encroachment was the main issue for Putin's invasion, though I do not doubt that are other, less important factors involved.

This in no case validates or gives a green light, legally or morally, for Putin to do what he did and is doing. But once we get to this level, I really believe we have to analyze things using realpoltik, not wishing that something was otherwise.

We can wish many, many things to be better or different, but this isn't how the world works. Which is sad and frustrating, no doubt, but it's what we have to deal with.

Let's set aside what caused Putin to invade, it matters less now, because the war is going on. The important question now, is what are the next steps that could be taken to end this war as quickly as possible.

Overwhelmingly I think the evidence shows that NATO encroachment was the main issue for Putin's invasion — Manuel

What evidence is there for this, overwhelming or not?

Let's set aside what caused Putin to invade, it matters less now, because the war is going on. The important question now, is what are the next steps that could be taken to end this war as quickly as possible. — Manuel

I think this is a good idea. Our assessments of how we got here won't agree. You can criticize the West for supporting Ukraine, but that's not going to stop as long as Biden is in office. The situation is pretty entrenched at this point. More caskets will be filled.

I think @Mikie has covered this pretty well, with the sources he's given. But this article gives an outline, for instance:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

What Russia is referring to is that the agreement given to Russia was "verbal only", so it shouldn't be taken as legally binding. The rest you can imagine how Russia would view this.

Chomsky gives a good account here too, and before people begin to call him an apologist for Russia, he also said that Russia invasion of Ukraine is on par with the US' Invasion of Iraq and Hitler's Invasion of Poland, so, I think that's pretty clear:

https://chomsky.info/20220616/

That's the issue, the question now is what situation is that in which the least amount of people will be killed? Because they're already dying.

The current situation looks dire.

The current situation looks dire. — Manuel

Lots of death, yes.

All this amounts to believing some of Putin's account about some of his motivations. It's not going anywhere close to overwhelming. In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. As a matter of fact, your own linked article debunks the claim that NATO ever promised anything to Russia.

He was given a gentleman agreement, which is now easy to deny.

Here is the testimony of John Matlock, the last US diplomat in the USSR:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-the-ukraine-crisis-and-how-conflict-can-be-avoided/

If that's not a good source, I literally can't think of a better one. Cause he called this since 1991. A Republican to boot, so a real patriot, not a wimpy Democrat, though this view has now changed a bit.

Also this:

https://natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2018/how-gorbachev-was-misled-over-assurances-against-nato-expansion

He was led to "believe" NATO would not expand an inch to the East. Why not state it outright? It would undermine the belief that Putin wants to conquer not only Ukraine, but large swaths of Europe.

"Gentlemen's agreements" are rare in International politics, and transient.

Even if the story is true, that promise would have been made to a very different Russia, one that was led by Gorbachev, was decolonizing and becoming a democracy.

As for Gorbatchev:

"It's not just the (special military) operation that started on Feb. 24, but the entire evolution of relations between Russia and Ukraine over the past years that was really, really a big blow to him. It really crushed him emotionally and psychologically," Palazhchenko told Reuters in an interview.

"It was very obvious to us in our conversations with him that he was shocked and bewildered by what was happening (after Russian troops entered Ukraine in February) for all kinds of reasons. He believed not just in the closeness of the Russian and Ukrainian people, he believed that those two nations were intermingled."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/gorbachev-died-shocked-bewildered-by-ukraine-conflict-interpreter-2022-09-01/

I'm sure he did. And it was a different Russia, no doubt.

But why expand NATO, if Russia was so different then? It was NATO's goal to be the balance against the Soviet Union, so when it fell, why keep it around? What's the threat?

But it went on expanding, despite Russia warning about red lines, not unlike what China has said about Taiwan, and when the line was crossed, what, we forget the history?

You may reply that what's happening now only proves that NATO's expansion was necessary, because of what Russia is doing to Ukraine. I'd say to you that Russia wouldn't have invaded if NATO did not expand, because there was no threat from Ukraine.

But now that's over.

What now?

Now, Putin has annexed his territorial conquests to Russia. That to me is ample evidence that his motives are 1) land grab, 2) people grab, and 3) power grab. This is about land lust and Russian nationalism.

A new form of fascism is rising in Europe.

Now what?

Those are consequences of wars, they first proclaimed Luhansk and Donetsk as part of Russia, then they launched an assault which they thought would be easy for them but turned into a nightmare.

He has been stating as have Russian leaders, that Ukraine is a "red line" for them for over twenty years, why is this not taken seriously?

It's not Russia alone, China has stated Taiwan is a red line for them, look at the reaction they had to Pelosi's visit, which looks to be getting worse.

Does that mean that China should invade Taiwan and get rid of the government there? Of course not. But China has been warning, it would be a mistake to ignore this, I think.

From Wikipedia:

At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the MAP as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy, of course without outside interference.[11] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO "as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what smaller ones should do."[12] Before further actions on NATO membership were taken, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

That was in 2021. By then Russia was already preparing for the war, but waited to the last instance to launch the war, see this article:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-us-nato-talks-so-far-unsuccessful-2022-01-13/

If this doesn't at least indicate that NATO was a big factor for them, because why talk at all instead of just invading?

But the question I meant to ask, wasn't about the cause of the war, it's how to go about ending it.

With all the shifting accounts given by Putin stating the goal of the operation, the consistent message given through the process is that each set back he suffers will be answered by escalation.

For argument's sake, let's say that any result that would make it impossible for Ukraine to align with the west would have satisfied Putin's requirements. At a minimum, that would require a different administration in Kyiv and a consolidation of the gains made in 2014. By that measure, nothing has changed. Both elements are needed to stop the country from becoming more 'western.'

Giving Putin territories in exchange for letting the rest of Ukraine live will not give him the neutrality he demands. It will accelerate the change he has been fighting against. So, he keeps escalating.

The choice is a partial capitulation to buy both sides temporary relief from the war or to continue the incremental form of escalation Biden has been using to answer each emerging threat as least aggressively as possible. With the attacks on the cities on the rise, it is time for lots of missile defense and contractors to maintain them.

He has been stating as have Russian leaders, that Ukraine is a "red line" for them for over twenty years, why is this not taken seriously? — Manuel

You are right, we should have smelled the coffee a long time ago, and responded much more aggressively to the Crimea land grab. We were fools not to take his threats seriously. But now we know.

At the time the Amnesty report on Ukraine came out I was dismayed by the reactions from Ukrainian officials and others. Here is Zelensky, for example (speaking in the aftermath of the latest Russian atrocity):



This statement contains at least two falsehoods. Amnesty has issued numerous reports, news items and statements regarding Russia's war crimes and human rights abuses in Ukraine. And the report does not excuse Russian war crimes - quite the opposite:

The Ukrainian military’s practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks. All parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes. — Amnesty International

Nevertheless, these slanders have been endlessly reproduced online, such as in the comments to this Twitter post about an alleged Russian war atrocity:

According to @amnesty and @AgnesCallamard this is not happening.

It's OK, @AgnesCallamard says it's all fine.

A few critics have actually taken issue with the allegations in the report, but they tend to speak in generalities, giving the impression that they are reacting to headlines and media blurbs, rather than addressing anything in the report itself. Even Oksana Pokalchuk, former head of Amnesty's Ukrainian branch who resigned in protest over the report, misrepresents it in her criticism:

First of all, International Humanitarian Law does not impose a blanket prohibition on establishing military bases in proximity to civilian infrastructure. Instead, the military should, to the maximum extent possible, avoid locating military objectives near populated areas and should seek to protect civilians from the dangers resulting from military operations. This warrants an assessment of each situation on a case-by-case basis, not just from a legal perspective, but also in terms of the military realities on the ground. — Oksana Pokalchuk

Here is what the report actually says:

Most residential areas where soldiers located themselves were kilometres away from front lines. Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas. In the cases it documented, Amnesty International is not aware that the Ukrainian military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas asked or assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians.

It should be said, however, that the report - a press release, really - is brief and presents only the conclusions of an investigation. As far as I know, Amnesty does not make its data, methods and analysis public, which makes it difficult to verify the accuracy of its conclusions.

That aspect of their work can be problematic: the accused side can (and usually does) deny the accusations, and the only thing weighing on the opposite scale is the authority of the organization releasing the report. When the public opinion is on the side of the accused (and every side enjoys at least some public support) it becomes a popularity contest.

And, she told The Associated Press, even the most conservative model suggests 50,000 men dead in Ukraine. — Associated Press

I don't think this is accurate. I suspect that either de Bendern or the AP reporter makes the common mistake of conflating losses and deaths. The former also includes injured, captured and MIA, and it is usually 3-4 times the number of killed (in the case of Russia the ratio appears to be about 1:3).

Tx, this is all very useful.

For the record, I have much respect for Amnesty, and would not want to slander anyone. I just reported on the reactions to this press release coming from within Amnesty itself, and related to due process.

The report may well be correct, factually, and pointing to issues important to address. But in context, here on TPF, it came up in the discussion branded as a proof that Ukrainians commit war crimes. Which is absolutely not the case. The report does not qualify anything reportedly done by the Ukrainian forces as a war crime.

:up:

By Tjeerd Royaards, the Netherlands

I also think that AI mishandled this case. On the one hand, their duty as a human rights advocate is to the people whose rights they seek to protect, not to countries and other such entities. But in view of the combined effect of this report, they failed badly. Their conclusions were overwhelmingly rejected and ignored (for mostly bad reasons, but that doesn't make any difference to the victims), and they have damaged their own standing, which will hurt their future work (including their reports on Russia's human rights abuses in Ukraine).

:up:

The concept “anti-American” is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet.” That’s a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as “anti-Italian.” It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.

Chomsky -- after 9/11, when he was accused of being "anti-American" because he talked about the motivations behind the attack. Emphasis mine.

It's not atypical. I don't really blame people for it -- it's a tough thing to talk about factually when people are being killed.

Putin is a war criminal and tyrant and I have no desire to live in Russia. I don't support or defend him any more than I support or defend Israel's atrocities or the US's atrocities or Al Qaeda's. It's good to understand the history and the context.

Clearly not everyone can do so without emotion.

Yeah, I remember reading that. And it's true, though sadly, we can now see a literal fascist in Italy gaining power, so now Anti-Italian will be a thing again, perhaps.

I understand the emotion, absolutely and more so if you are close to Russia and Ukraine. If my family members were killed by Russians, I wouldn't give a crap about anything other than carpet bombing Russia.

But most of us here are not inside Ukraine, and so we have the privilege to analyze the information as carefully as possible, looking for solutions.

A portion of the audience believes that the bad guy should lose, no matter what. Well, I think this is highly irrational given the context of this war.

Also, I don't recall anyone arguing against the War in Iraq that those who did not want a war or wanted the massacres to stop being labeled Saddam sympathizers, but I'm there must have been cases.

Because if you do not believe or cannot say clearly that Putin is a criminal, then there's a possibility that you may be an accomplice of his crimes, or a supporter. — Olivier5

I actually agree with this. I myself have tried -- maybe failed -- to communicate that. I wonder at what point do we get past it to the point where it's no longer a "possibility"? The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward.

It’s like me saying: I can enjoy pizza and still recognise the awful amount of calories it contains. — neomac

OK, I guess so -- sure.

In other words, there might be a strong link between a regime of human rights under a certain government and the awful foreign policy of that government which is undeniably hard to swallow once you realise it. — neomac

They may exist simultaneously, yes. Here in the US, for example, we're a wealthy country and enjoy many freedoms. We have public education, social security, freedom of speech, a fairly clean environment, and (from what I see) generally friendly, hard working, loyal people. Yet the foreign policy of our government (not to mention domestic policy) is often horrendous. That's not a condemnation of the people of the US. These things exist side-by-side.

Now I imagine somebody like you at that time saying: “I condemn the Confederates for this war, and I also condemn my federal government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of ‘picking a side’ is strange”. — neomac

We can get into the civil war another time if you like -- there's a lot to be said about it. But I see your point. However, the issue here isn't one of slavery. It's one of geopolitics.

Notice I don't condemn the US for helping Ukraine defend itself from invasion -- or Germany, or Britain. If I pick a side, I pick the side of the Ukrainian people being murdered and displaced. No question. I'm against war, nuclear weapons, NATO, the Warsaw Pact (when it existed), etc.

But let me ask you: do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training? I'm pretty sure you do think he would have. Fine. So what would be the rationale for doing so? To win back the territory of the Soviet Union? Putin himself said he thought it was a stupid idea. But what evidence convinces you of it?

This is simply trolling. — ssu

Not really. As I cited before:

To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”

To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.

To say nothing of the fact that to conquer and incorporate all of Ukraine would have required far more troops and a much more aggressive strategy, which he had to know he couldn't do.

Perhaps the best indicator that Putin is not bent on conquering and absorbing Ukraine is the military strategy Moscow has employed from the start of the campaign. The Russian military did not attempt to conquer all of Ukraine. That would have required a classic blitzkrieg strategy that aimed at quickly overrunning all of Ukraine with armored forces supported by tactical airpower. That strategy was not feasible, however, because there were only 190,000 soldiers in Russia’s invading army, which is far too small a force to vanquish and occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population over 40 million. Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy, which focused on either capturing or threatening Kiev and conquering a large swath of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine. In short, Russia did not have the capability to subdue all of Ukraine, much less conquer other countries in eastern Europe.

Anyway -- I'm getting the hint that you're not up for this discussion. Fair enough.

All this amounts to believing some of Putin's account about some of his motivations. It's not going anywhere close to overwhelming. In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

No, what's weak is simply projecting motives to someone you dislike. I dislike Putin too; I also disliked Bin Laden. The latter's reasons for attacking the US I think should be taken seriously -- I believe his stated motives were true. By no means does it justify what was done, but there's little reason to doubt those were the reasons in the mind of someone like Bin Laden. I suppose we could just say "They hate us for our freedom," or that Bin Laden was just insane...OK, that's an answer too. But we don't take that seriously, do we?

Putin was pretty clear about what was happening:

Putin made numerous public statements during this period that left no doubt that he viewed NATO expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat. Speaking to the Defense Ministry Board on December 21, 2021, he stated: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?” Two months later at a press conference on February 22, 2022, just days before the war started, Putin said: “We are categorically opposed to Ukraine joining NATO because this poses a threat to us, and we have arguments to support this. I have repeatedly spoken about it in this hall.” He then made it clear that he recognized that Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. The United States and its allies, he said, “continue to pump the current Kiev authorities full of modern types of weapons.” He went on to say that if this was not stopped, Moscow “would be left with an ‘anti-Russia’ armed to the teeth. This is totally unacceptable.”

Putin’s logic should make perfect sense to Americans, who have long been committed to the Monroe Doctrine, which stipulates that no distant great power is allowed to place any of its military forces in the Western Hemisphere.

The onus is on those who have an alternative explanation. That it was just the sudden capricious act of an evil lunatic; that it was a long-planned action of an imperialist -- etc. The evidence really just does not support this. It's extremely weak. Despite being almost "common sense" to so many.

I think Putin's own statements are true, yet they do not justify what was done. Just as the US's backing of Israel didn't justify 9/11, despite those actually being Bin Laden's reasons.

--

I wish the US would eventually learn that not every country will simply passively accept anything they do. We didn't learn it in Vietnam, or in Iraq. We haven't learned from Israel. Next we will be testing China. Should anyone be surprised by the future actions of China if they continue to be provoked? I don't think so.

I don't think the US war in Afghanistan was right -- I condemned it. But was anyone surprised by the fact that there was a reaction to 9/11? No, of course not.