How Odd Is Putin's Russia?

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps read the treaty. Then you'll know.
That's up to Ukraine to decide. And their decision for now clearly is to resist the foreign aggressor and they are begging the world for aide in doing so.

Are treaties worth the paper they are written on?
Yeah, it is for Ukraine to decide. Yeah, the West is more than happy to supply weapons. Their soldiers are not fighting the war.

 

[Revoltingest]

Their historical past experience would suggest that their concerns for their western borders are well-founded and go back for centuries.

It makes no sense that merely extending its
border westward would make them safer.
They'd be that much closer to NATO countries.

Russian history shows that it is generally the
aggressor. This includes WW2, when it conspired
with Hitler to take over the continent....resulting
in the need to defend its western border.
The best path to Russian security would be to
cease attacking its neighbors. Just ask Finland.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are wiser (than Ukraine).

Doesn't that claim support my contention
that Russia is not encircled by foes?

 

[libre]

NATO didn't encircle Russia.

Disagree.
Encirclement is a natural consequence of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This conflict might have ended in a messy stalemate two years ago (and so might this thread) if NATO hadn’t signaled it’s willingness to sponsor Ukraine’s drive for total victory. Which total victory will almost certainly never materialise.

 

[The Hammer]

Disagree.
Encirclement is a natural consequence of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.

Ok?

 

[Stevicus]

They will always have a western border, unless they move in and conquer Europe entirely so that their western border is in fact the atlantic ocean.

Having said that, there is absolutely zero reason to be worried about bordering a defensive alliance. Unless you want the freedom to attack neighbors without pushback from others.

We're talking about the West here, and if we're including Turkey, there have been numerous times throughout history when Russia has been invaded from these countries. Turkey, Poland, Germany, France, and Sweden (just to name a few) have all made incursions into Russia. Even the U.S. and U.K. were involved in the Allied intervention during the Russian Civil War, so they invaded Russia, too. Westerners might forget these things, but the Russians haven't. (Westerners might also have forgotten our track record in China 100-150 years ago, but the Chinese haven't forgotten. Perhaps the West thinks that all of its historical victims should simply "forget" about what was done in the past.)

Your point about NATO being a "defensive alliance" is a red herring, since a "defensive" war can be justified in numerous ways. Pretexts can be invented, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, WMDs in Iraq, the destruction of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor. A country set on war with clever operators can have a war started and make it look like the other side started it.

 

[Stevicus]

It makes no sense that merely extending its
border westward would make them safer.
They'd be that much closer to NATO countries.

The question was about why they might worry about their western borders, not about how close they are to NATO countries. As I've said, given the history of the region in question, they might have good reason to be concerned.

Russian history shows that it is generally the
aggressor.

Sometimes they have been, but many times not. You're making an extremely broad claim covering 1000 years.

This includes WW2, when it conspired
with Hitler to take over the continent....resulting
in the need to defend its western border.

They conspired with Hitler because the Western Allies appeased Hitler the previous year. Stalin probably thought the West was weak and was likely hoping for a war between Germany and the West, which did happen, of course. Also, in 1939, memories of the previous war with Germany would still have been relatively fresh in people's minds, when the Germans initiated hostilities back then as well. A little over a century prior, it was the French invading Russia.

Russian aggression, which I'm not denying, was mainly directed towards the south and east, not really against the west (unless the west attacked them first).

The best path to Russian security would be to
cease attacking its neighbors. Just ask Finland.

Their leadership and government appear highly corrupted and possibly unbalanced. They're surviving at the moment, but I would guess that they may consider their best bet for Russian security to be an alliance with China. The relationship between Russia and the West may be irrevocably broken.

 

[Revoltingest]

The question was about why they might worry about their western borders, not about how close they are to NATO countries.

No, that's just one of many possible questions.

As I've said, given the history of the region in question, they might have good reason to be concerned.

It's ridiculous that Russia would
fear invasion by NATO.
Are you siding with our Italian
friend about NATO "elites" trying
to steal all Russian resources?

They conspired with Hitler because the Western Allies appeased Hitler the previous year.

USA & allies are responsible for USSR siding with Hitler?
I don't think so, komrade.

 

[Stevicus]

No, that's just one of many possible questions.

It's ridiculous that Russia would
fear invasion by NATO.
Are you siding with our Italian
friend about NATO "elites" trying
to steal all Russian resources?

You might think it's ridiculous, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be an "invasion by NATO." I don't think NATO would invade Russia, just as Russia won't invade NATO. The fear of nuclear war and the nuclear balance of power has kept things relatively peaceful between us for the past 8 decades.

I'm not sure what the NATO "elites" actually want, but it would likely vary from nation to nation. That's the thing about NATO; it's not a monolithic organization with a single leader. It's a political coalition with many random elements. Similar political divides exist in multiple nations.

USA & allies are responsible for USSR siding with Hitler?
I don't think so, komrade.

Not the USA, but the Munich agreement was undoubtedly a factor in their decision to sign a ten-year non-aggression pact with Hitler. That, and Hitler's apparent sense of urgency in wanting to invade Poland. He also wanted Russia, since Germany was starved for resources. He might have still gone in anyway and taken his chance against the USSR. But the British guarantee to Poland complicated things for the Germans, since the last thing they wanted was a two-front war. Hitler couldn't placate the British anymore, so he tried his luck at making a bargain with Stalin. It wasn't so much about "siding with Hitler" as much as it was buying time and avoiding war with each other until they were ready to fight.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are treaties worth the paper they are written on?

???

The treaty is the treaty. It's like a contract.
No member can use the clauses of the treaty to make it mean something it doesn't.
And members are contractually obligated to live up to the agreements they agreed to.

Meaning, if a member is attacked, article 5 is activated and all other members must come to its aid.
Meaning also, if a member decides to attack a country, not article provides any contractual obligation of any member to come to its aid and join in the aggression.

This makes the treaty fundamentally a defensive alliance.

Not sure what else you want me to say about this.... Did you read the treaty? It sounds like you didn't.

Yeah, it is for Ukraine to decide.

And they did.

Yeah, the West is more than happy to supply weapons.

Are they? It doesn't look like it. Ukraine doesn't even get a fraction of what they would want to have.
Every western country has big internal debates on what to donate, if anything.
2 years on and still there is much reluctancy and internal discussion on sending for example F16's, which Ukraine has been begging for since day 1.

Their soldiers are not fighting the war.

Indeed, they are not. If it were up to Ukraine, they would be though.

People tend to act as if all this is on the initiative of "the west". It isn't. Ukraine is the demanding party here and it's not even getting a fraction of what they are asking for. Ukraine has been BEGGING the world since day 1.

If it were up to Ukraine, NATO would have send in armies and enforced no-fly zones on day 1 of the invasion.
We are more then 2 years on now and none of that has happened.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We're talking about the West here, and if we're including Turkey, there have been numerous times throughout history when Russia has been invaded from these countries. Turkey, Poland, Germany, France, and Sweden (just to name a few) have all made incursions into Russia. Even the U.S. and U.K. were involved in the Allied intervention during the Russian Civil War, so they invaded Russia, too. Westerners might forget these things, but the Russians haven't. (Westerners might also have forgotten our track record in China 100-150 years ago, but the Chinese haven't forgotten. Perhaps the West thinks that all of its historical victims should simply "forget" about what was done in the past.)

Belgium could say the exact same thing about Germany, France, etc.
Most countries in Europe have been invaded by their neighbours at one point or another.
France and Brittain have a particularly violent history also.

So what?

Your point about NATO being a "defensive alliance" is a red herring

It really, really isn't.

, since a "defensive" war can be justified in numerous ways.

No. NATO's treaty is extremely clear about that. You should read it.
Preëmptive strikes aren't covered.

Pretexts can be invented, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, WMDs in Iraq, the destruction of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor. A country set on war with clever operators can have a war started and make it look like the other side started it.

None of those examples you gave triggered article 5.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question was about why they might worry about their western borders, not about how close they are to NATO countries. As I've said, given the history of the region in question, they might have good reason to be concerned.

Be serious.
There is no reason at all to be worried about another Napoleon or Hitler at this point.
There is no threat to their border whatsoever.

 

[Stevicus]

Belgium could say the exact same thing about Germany, France, etc.
Most countries in Europe have been invaded by their neighbours at one point or another.
France and Brittain have a particularly violent history also.

So what?

So you shouldn't be surprised if some countries aren't quite so trusting and naive about the West as you seem to think they should be.

It really, really isn't.

Yes, it is.

No. NATO's treaty is extremely clear about that. You should read it.
Preëmptive strikes aren't covered.

Does that even matter?

None of those examples you gave triggered article 5.

That's beside the point.

 

[Stevicus]

Be serious.

You first.

There is no reason at all to be worried about another Napoleon or Hitler at this point.
There is no threat to their border whatsoever.

And we're all supposed to take your word for it? We have your ironclad guarantee, do we?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You first.

I am.

And we're all supposed to take your word for it? We have your ironclad guarantee, do we?

Take the evidence for it.
Note, the evidence. Not the Russian propaganda.

Any threat to that border comes exclusively from the eastern part of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you shouldn't be surprised if some countries aren't quite so trusting and naive about the West as you seem to think they should be.

One should base relations with other countries based on the evidence, not on what happened a century ago with people that are long gone.
At present, there is zero, ZERO, reasons for Russians to be worried about any sort of invasion or attack from the western side of there border.

Au contraire in fact. There was economic interdependence, what with all the gas imports etc.

Yes, it is.

No it's not.
You don't need to fear an attack or act of aggression from a defensive alliance.

You only need to fear such an alliance if you yourself plan on attacking members of it.

Does that even matter?

It matters when the point of discussion is if they need to be worried about the border with that alliance.

That's beside the point.

It is exactly on-point, since the point of discussion is if Russia needs to be worried about being attacked by NATO

NATO's raison d'être is DEFENSE in case of BEING attacked.
There is NOTHING in the treaty / manifesto which warrants any kind of attack / first strike. At all.
It is all about what happens when a member is attacked and nothing else.

Well, no...to be exact, there is also some stuff about criteria that must be fulfilled for a country to be able to become a member...

The point is, there is nothing there that would warrant any kind of attack / act of aggression.
In fact, suppose Ukraine was a member.
Suppose Ukraine mounts an attack on Russia as an act of aggression.
Suppose Russia then responds with a counter-attack.

This attack would not warrant an activation of article 5, because Ukraine would be the aggressor.

The treaty protects members against aggressors. It does not protect members that are the aggressors themselves.

 

[Stevicus]

I am.

So am I.

Take the evidence for it.
Note, the evidence. Not the Russian propaganda.

Any threat to that border comes exclusively from the eastern part of it.

The evidence comes from the historical record. I see a great deal of propaganda coming from both sides in this. (Even your insinuation that I'm using Russian propaganda is a reflection of Western propaganda.)

What's interesting about the Western position on all of this is that, while many Westerners freely acknowledge the dark, checkered past of our nations and governments, it's coupled with this modern liberal perspective that the West has changed and become more enlightened than we were previously. The modern perception is that the West has turned over a new leaf, and now, all we want to do is good in the world - "freedom," "democracy," and all that jazz. This message has been pounded home in American schools and throughout the country since WW2. I would consider that overall message to be propaganda, and this is also what feeds into the typical Western perspective on the world as a whole, along with Westerners' evaluations and judgements of other nations.

This doesn't change or mitigate anything the Russians are doing at present. But the question here is why the Russians might have misgivings about the West or believe that the West may threaten them. This question carries the implied belief that the Western governments are just a bunch of nice guys who would never act aggressively and would never hurt a fly. That's what I'm challenging here. It has nothing to do with Russian propaganda or even the Russians, but mainly an arrogant, overconfident Western perception which is way too full of itself to be believed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So am I.



The evidence comes from the historical record. I see a great deal of propaganda coming from both sides in this. (Even your insinuation that I'm using Russian propaganda is a reflection of Western propaganda.)

What's interesting about the Western position on all of this is that, while many Westerners freely acknowledge the dark, checkered past of our nations and governments, it's coupled with this modern liberal perspective that the West has changed and become more enlightened than we were previously. The modern perception is that the West has turned over a new leaf, and now, all we want to do is good in the world - "freedom," "democracy," and all that jazz. This message has been pounded home in American schools and throughout the country since WW2. I would consider that overall message to be propaganda, and this is also what feeds into the typical Western perspective on the world as a whole, along with Westerners' evaluations and judgements of other nations.

This doesn't change or mitigate anything the Russians are doing at present. But the question here is why the Russians might have misgivings about the West or believe that the West may threaten them. This question carries the implied belief that the Western governments are just a bunch of nice guys who would never act aggressively and would never hurt a fly. That's what I'm challenging here. It has nothing to do with Russian propaganda or even the Russians, but mainly an arrogant, overconfident Western perception which is way too full of itself to be believed.

Give me one piece of evidence that there is any force anywhere in NATO contemplating even invading an inch of Russian territory.

The fact is that there is no iota of evidence of this. NOT EVEN TODAY, with current Russian aggression.
Even IF NATO would move into Ukraine to help them fight the Russians, they'ld drive them back to behind their border and halt there.

 

[Revoltingest]

You might think it's ridiculous, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be an "invasion by NATO." I don't think NATO would invade Russia, just as Russia won't invade NATO. The fear of nuclear war and the nuclear balance of power has kept things relatively peaceful between us for the past 8 decades.

I'm not sure what the NATO "elites" actually want, but it would likely vary from nation to nation. That's the thing about NATO; it's not a monolithic organization with a single leader. It's a political coalition with many random elements. Similar political divides exist in multiple nations.

Does this mean that you believe there's no
existential threat to Russia posed by NATO?
Do you think Russia believes this too?

Not the USA, but the Munich agreement was undoubtedly a factor in their decision to sign a ten-year non-aggression pact with Hitler. That, and Hitler's apparent sense of urgency in wanting to invade Poland. He also wanted Russia, since Germany was starved for resources. He might have still gone in anyway and taken his chance against the USSR. But the British guarantee to Poland complicated things for the Germans, since the last thing they wanted was a two-front war. Hitler couldn't placate the British anymore, so he tried his luck at making a bargain with Stalin. It wasn't so much about "siding with Hitler" as much as it was buying time and avoiding war with each other until they were ready to fight.

Russia didn't seek just non-aggression with Germany.
They divided up Europe based on mutually conquering it.

Soviets Confirm Nazi Pacts Dividing Europe (Published 1989)

www.nytimes.com

Goodness gracious, man....you state things
in a manner to make USSR appear benign
or even positive. You can understand why
I see you as very pro-Russia.