I think for the East European countries and the Baltic States wanting to join NATO had the membership everything to do with the threat of Russia. Which now also Sweden and Finland have seen, thanks to February 24th 2022.Exactly. NATO enlargement had nothing to do with a threat from Russia, but the United States jealously guarding its position at the top. — Tzeentch
This means that the United States will remain the primary supplier of LNG to Europe for at least 2023. This will likely generate even greater revenue for U.S exporters after a record 2022, which totaled $35 billion through September, compared to $8.3 billion over the same period in 2021, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data shows. — Reuters
forgettingdisagreeing totally [about] the motivation and agenda of the European countries themselves. — ssu
In 2020, almost three quarters of the extra-EU crude oil imports came from Russia (29 %), the United States (9 %), Norway (8 %), Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom (both 7 %) as well as Kazakhstan and Nigeria (both 6 %). A similar analysis shows that over three quarters of the EU's imports of natural gas came from Russia (43 %), Norway (21 %), Algeria (8 %) and Qatar (5 %), while more than half of solid fossil fuel (mostly coal) imports originated from Russia (54 %), followed by the United States (16 %) and Australia (14 %).
Yes, it was Trump that was against this.So can you explain for us why the US pushed to the point of diplomatic crisis against Nordstream2, if they had so little to gain? — Isaac
Yeah sure, you know better what Finns and Swedes think. :roll: — ssu
Of course in your logic you forget what and why that changed, just like why Sweden left it's foreign policy stance that had been the same since Napoleons times. — ssu
What's more, while Ukrainians identify and select their targets for precision rocket strikes on their own, their NATO partners basically have a veto power. — SophistiCat
As obviously things are kept out of public, it naturally begs the question who did it? Hence the US is totally one candidate in this.Of course, no evidence yet doesn't mean there isn't any but I think, once again, we really don't know who's done it and we need to wait it out. I do think the hypothesis the US did it needs to be considered and investigated. If they didn't do it and give full cooperation then disculpatory evidence should be relatively easy to find. — Benkei
But the reasons, arguments and agenda of the politicians and the military are.The internal motives and beliefs of the entire population of Sweden and Finland is neither empirically demonstrable, nor agreed upon by all experts in the field. — Isaac
And simply sidelining them here is simply wrong. It's you who is counting 1+1=1, when you argue that everything evolves around the US and the security issues of European countries don't matter in the equation when they have applied to NATO. — ssu
Exactly. NATO enlargement had nothing to do with a threat from Russia, but the United States jealously guarding its position at the top. — Tzeentch
This is further supported by the fact NATO enlargement received a great deal of criticism over the years, precisely because there was no Russian threat - in the end, NATO enlargement turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Tzeentch
This conflict was initiated by the U.S. when it sought to change Ukrainian neutrality, which was obviously a prerequisite for a robust peace. — Tzeentch
Further, Brzezinski is a terrible source to quote in favor of your position, since he basically laid out how U.S. domination of the globe works and how to maintain it, and it fits perfectly into the picture of U.S. hubris. — Tzeentch
You can not say that NATO enlargement doesn’t have to do with threat from Russia, because I brought you evidence that that’s the case. — neomac
However the accusation about “the United States jealously guarding its position at the top” sounds like a moral judgement which presupposes your moral assumptions (which I might not share). — neomac
So American “jealousy for being on the top” seems perfectly in line with what Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” predicts. — neomac
The criticisms were out of fear of Russian reaction in case of NATO enlargement. But why would a superpower like the US fear Russia for NATO enlargement? Russia is no threat to the US right? — neomac
Maybe it’s because NATO was interfering with the Russian sphere of influence (euphemistically called “Russia’s backyard”)? — neomac
Why should the US (or neighbouring countries or Ukraine for that matter) care for Russia to have a sphere of influence at their expense exactly? — neomac
Does Russia have a moral or legal right to have a sphere of influence? — neomac
Or is it convenient to the US, neighbouring countries or Ukraine for that matter to let Russia have a sphere of influence at their expense? How so? — neomac
Or maybe the “conflict was initiated” by Russia when it sought to forcefully preserve the “alleged” Ukrainian neutrality? — neomac
What if Ukraine didn’t want any of that? — neomac
At best, they can appease some avg dude’s sense of moral entitlement which on the internet is very cheap and verges on virtue signalling, right? — neomac
On the other side Mearsheimer is an armchair academic... — neomac
Of course, no evidence yet doesn't mean there isn't any but I think, once again, we really don't know who's done it and we need to wait it out. — Benkei
So NATO is monitoring their targeting systems and won't allow them to strike the Russian interior? — frank
One thing though that makes it easier to buy the Russia theory is that the risk threshold is much lower for Russia than for any other plausible actor — SophistiCat
They have little to lose, since their relationships with Europe are at their lowest point since theBolshevik revolutioncold war. — SophistiCat
European diplomats privately admit transatlantic relations are at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War, including during the 2003 Iraq War — https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/05/06/trump-has-irrevocably-changed-american-relations-with-europe-and-biden-probably-can-t-fix-it-pub-81739
they will just deny everything, like they always do, not caring at all whether they are believed. — SophistiCat
the scope and the scale of such operations have been enormous — https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/pitfalls-us-covert-operations#
doubt it. They know full well that Americans would not agree to that. And those systems don't have the range to strike deep in the interior anyway. More likely the Americans are second-guessing the Ukrainians, trying to conserve their expensive munitions. — SophistiCat
You can not say that NATO enlargement doesn’t have to do with threat from Russia, because I brought you evidence that that’s the case. — neomac
And what evidence would that be? The Budapest Memorandum? — Tzeentch
However the accusation about “the United States jealously guarding its position at the top” sounds like a moral judgement which presupposes your moral assumptions (which I might not share). — neomac
Certainly. This is a philosophy forum after all, and realism is one lens through which I might view current events - not the only one.
So American “jealousy for being on the top” seems perfectly in line with what Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” predicts. — neomac
Indeed. Which is why I've been making the argument that that is the core of why things in Ukraine happened the way they did. — Tzeentch
Let's be frank. Russia accepted most of NATO's enlargement. Ukraine was simply a bridge too far. That has more to do with the way Russia views Ukraine with regards to its vital interests, and less with its sphere of influence, though it would stand to reason Russia would prefer to have Ukraine in its sphere of influence for this reason. — Tzeentch
For such a position as yours to make sense, you would have to provide some evidence that Russia viewed the ex-Soviet republics in Eastern Europe as part of its ("rightful") sphere of influence. I don't think you'll find much of the sort. — Tzeentch
.Neither of those (moral or legal) are particularly useful lenses to view the current situation through. International law is entirely ignored, and Russia is not a moral actor — Tzeentch
.From a perspective of how nations can best coexist peacefully and war can be avoided, it is of vital importance that countries' security concerns are taken into consideration — Tzeentch
Or is it convenient to the US, neighbouring countries or Ukraine for that matter to let Russia have a sphere of influence at their expense? How so? — neomac
It certainly would have been convenient for the Ukrainians had Russian security concerns been taken more seriously. If they had been, many would not have lost their lives and homes. — Tzeentch
.I view this conflict as having started in 2008, with war becoming extremely likely after the U.S. backed coup — Tzeentch
What the Russians demanded was Ukrainian neutrality, not puppetization or Russification.
If they were willing to have their country wrecked as a consequence of not wanting to meet the Russian concerns in any way, fair enough. — Tzeentch
I think you're letting a little personal animosity bleed into your realism yourself.
On the other side Mearsheimer is an armchair academic... — neomac
Said what I assume is also "some avg dude on the internet"?
A bit of self-awareness would suit you well, I think. — Tzeentch
I’m an avg dude (not en expert), we are reasoning under uncertainties of many relevant facts, and exchange in a philosophy forum from our armchair during leisure time. Didn’t we explicitly factor in all that in our claims many times already? Yet I care about the clarity/logic of my arguments and the evidences available to me to assess them (including the input from all sorts of news/stats/reports/experts of course). Since I take such arguments and evidence assessment to be affordable also by other avg dudes in a philosophy forum post format, I expect such avg dudes to reciprocate in intellectually honest and challenging ways — neomac
as an avg dude, I’m far from assuming to know better or enough how to play the game to “propose” or “recommend” anything to anybody about geopolitical issues, or to have any significant impact on this war directly or indirectly through my posts here — neomac
nobody and certainly not avg dudes like me and you can figure out a reliable plan to grant an optimal military victory — neomac
As an avg dude, I would rely more on geopolitical speculation and historical analogies for guidance. — neomac
I agree, and I never said otherwise. There are arguments in favor of the Russia-did-it theory (e.g. this), and I could buy some of them, but not with real money. — SophistiCat
The Budapest Memorandum, the hearings entitled “Debate about NATO enlargement”. Mersheimer’s article "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent” (1993). Russia starting a territorial dispute over Crimea practically immediately after recognising Ukrainian independence. — neomac
That’s also why you are trapped in a cognitive dissonance, because you seem to hold realist expectations in geopolitics that systematically frustrate your idealistic moral standards or your relatable desire for peace. — neomac
First, that Ukraine was “a bridge too far” wasn’t always so obvious as you seem to believe. Here is an interview with Sergej Lavrov by the German business newspaper Handelsblatt (02.01.2005):
Question: Does the right to sovereignty also mean for Georgia and Ukraine, for example, that Russia would have nothing against their accession to the EU and NATO?
Lavrov: That is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners, to decide for itself which organization to join. We assume that they will consider for themselves how they develop their politics and economy and which partners and allies they rely on
(Source: https://amp2.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/handelsblatt-interview-mit-aussenminister-lawrow-russland-oeffnet-ukraine-den-weg-in-die-nato/2460820.html)
Although that conciliatory response by Lavrov was questioned by Putin himself, especially in the case of Ukraine, a few months later: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x88b9ii — neomac
Second, what would be the difference between vital interests and sphere of influence in the case of Ukraine? I see the letter as a desirable condition to ensure the former. — neomac
... Russia could still keep its access to the Mediterranean through the Port of Novorossiysk. — neomac
Besides it’s also up to Russia’s signalling good intentions by acts and words, [...] Unfortunately Russia (especially under Putin) didn’t send the right signals most of the time. — neomac
What do you mean by "Russia is not a moral actor"? Is the US a moral actor? — neomac
I see at least 2 issues: 1. How can democratic countries best deal with security concerns of non-democratic countries, especially if driven by hegemonic ambitions (imagine a nazi regime, isis, soviet union, etc.)? Appeasement might be a very risky game 2. Your idea would sound more plausible if every geopolitical agent had a full understanding about the security concerns of its peers, yet any defensive move can be perceived as hostile (NATO enlargement was defensive for the ex-Soviet Republic but perceived as hostile by Russia, but also Russian perceiving NATO enlargement as hostile was perceived as hostile by ex-Soviet Republic, etc.). — neomac
Security concerns were taken seriously, that’s the reason why Ukraine felt safer under NATO. What is implicitly suggested by that claim is that Ukraine should have surrendered to Russian demands... — neomac
Not sure what you are referring to. Is any of such trivia on wikipedia? Do you have links? — neomac
"... [Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO."
It’s a bit naive to think that Russia would have explicitly demanded the puppetization or Russification of Ukraine in these terms (e.g. “denazification” is Putin’s ersatz for puppetization and Russification). — neomac
Brzezinski was a National Security Advisor and participated to the official “the debate on NATO enlargement” (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/pdf/CHRG-105shrg46832.pdf). Mearsheimer has always been just an academic. — neomac
it’s just that I’m more pugnacious when I suspect intellectual dishonesty. — neomac
Concerning my “bit of self-awareness”, is the following enough? — neomac
You are either forgetting or simply denying (which is likely) that these "vital interests" meant also obtaining territories from Ukraine and Ukraine to be tightly under Russian control... not just being neutral.Russian vital interests were protected with a neutral Ukraine. — Tzeentch
Seems that you don't know much about post-soviet era history of Russo-Ukrainian relations. Russia wanted to have Ukraine under it's influence, even if it was actually neutral, as actually the country was in the 1990's and the 2000's, before the current war. (Wanting to join NATO, by one Ukrainian president, and getting vague promises of something in the future doesn't make the country a NATO member.)There'd be little to gain and much to lose for them to change that status quo, so incorporating it into their sphere of influence would not have been desirable at all. — Tzeentch
Seems that you don't know much about post-soviet era history of Russo-Ukrainian relations. Russia wanted to have Ukraine under it's influence, even if it was actually neutral, as actually the country was in the 1990's and the 2000's, before the current war. — ssu
In a diverse plural democracy like India, you don't really have to agree on everything all the time, so long as you agree on the ground rules of how you will disagree.
I think that "opinion" is quite well shown from the actions and the reasons given to those actions by the leaders of Russia. Putin's article Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“ shows perfectly what he thought of the Ukrainian state. Among the multitude of other obvious examples.What Russia wanted is not a fact of history, it's an opinion. — Isaac
Now for your strawman that we cannot talk about countries and obviously mean their leadership. But somehow you talk about the US having an agenda.Not s single historian in the world would claim that a nation's intentions are facts of history. — Isaac
People disagree about the World being round shaped. Some say it's flat.People are disagreeing. — Isaac
“We couldn’t retreat without orders because if we don’t comply with the order, we will be killed,” said one of the prisoners.
“One man stayed at a position, he was really scared, it was his first assault. We received an order to run forward. But the man hid under a tree and refused. This was reported to the command and that was it. He was taken 50 meters away from the base. He was digging his own grave and then was shot.”
The other fighter reported a similar situation: “Our commander was told that if anyone gets cold feet, he would have to be eliminated. And if we failed to eliminate him, we would be eliminated for failing to eliminate him.”
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.