Jeffrey Sachs on Nato

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, you're proving it right now. These were internal conflicts,

Ah yes, the Russian invasion of Georgia was an "internal conflict".

Do you have a bridge to sell me?

caused by a chaotic situation. The point was about allegations of Russian aggression,

According to you, being involved in separatist overthrows of governments, annexing and occupying foreign territory, and outright invading a sovereign country are not "aggression".

Forgive me if I don't use your definition of "aggression".

and merely listing off some internal or border conflicts doesn't prove that.

They were conflicts Russia either participated in or outright instigated.

Transnistria War​

A war fought by the newly independent forces of Moldova against separatists backed by the Russian 14th army in 1990, which resulted in the establishing of the independent state of Transnistria lead by a Russian General. Since 2022, Transnitria has been officially declared as territory of Moldova that has been under Russian military occupation since the war.
Sources: Oazu Nantoi: „Conflictul nu este intern. Pacificatorii ruși au menirea de a nu admite rezolvarea acestui conflict”

Council of Europe Designates Transnistria ‘Russian Occupied Territory’

The Council of Europe on Tuesday for the first time designated Moldova's breakaway region 'occupied territory' as opposed to territory 'under the effective control of the Russian Federation'.

balkaninsight.com

War in Abkhazia​

Sometimes also referred to as the "Rusiant-Georgian War", it was a direct result of Russia backing Georgian separatists in 1992. Russia also supplied separatists with weapons and soldiers from the Russian Federation were directly involved in the conflict. The conflict resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Abkhazia. The state was declared Russian-occupied territory by Georgia and most of the UN.
Sources: Georgia/Russia, Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in South Ossetia | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook

Rusiant-Georgian War 1992-93

First Chechen War​

A war fought between the independence by the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria against the Russian Federation from 1994-1996, which was initiated by a Russian attempt to overthrow the newly established government in 1994 by directly attacking the capital city of Grorzny. Russian forces were repelled.
Sources: The War That Continues to Shape Russia, 25 Years Later (Published 2019)

Moscow-backed Chechen opposition launches attack on capital

Oppositon forces in the rebel region of Chechenia have launched a full-scale attack on the local capital, Grozny, according to Russian media reports.

www.theguardian.com

Second Chechen War​

Fought in 1999, when Russian authorities blamed Chechens for bombings carried out by rogue Islamists, using that as a pretext to invade and eventually size the Ichkerian capital of Grozny and established direct rule over the region. The conflict was eventually brought to a definitive end in 2009 when Russia ended the operation of the official Chechnyan government.
Sources: BBC News - Russia 'ends Chechnya operation'

1999 Russian apartment bombings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Russo-Georgian War​

Russian armed forces invaded Georgia, with the aid of Russian separatists, in 2008. Using resistance against separatist bombings of Georgian villages as a pretext, seizing most of the major cities and taking part in multiple atrocities including the displacement of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Georgians. Russia has remained in control of several regions by using separatists back by their own military.
Sources: Strasbourg court rules Russia has 'direct control' over Abkhazia, South Ossetia

Georgia calls on EU for independent inquiry into war

Move follows Kremlin's claims that western media now accepts Georgia was aggressor in conflict

www.theguardian.com

So, with the above in mind, please consider the claim "Russia has done nothing remotely aggressive between 1990 and 2014".

The new Russian government at the time had a lot on their plate and inherited a huge mess from the last regime.

So it's totally fine when they invade foreign territories and you get to spin them as "internal conflicts"?

I don't think anyone expected it to go smoothly, and sometimes conflicts break out under such chaos and disorganization.

Despite the fact that you earlier said that Russia weren't involved in anything "remotely aggressive", while deliberately omitting all the wars they started and engaged in.

*I* am stooping so low? Balderdash.

Yes. What you said about Russia was a lie, and now you're engaging in semantics and denial to avoid admitting that fact.

So, please tell me why the Russian invasion of Georgia was an "internal conflict" and not "remotely aggressive". Explain that to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Yeah, we know, the problem exactly.

If you're using some cheap shot to imply that I'm not informed or that I didn't live during that time or didn't visit the USSR during those years, then you're giving me nothing more than hot air.

But if you have any books or titles you wish to recommend, please do. I'd love to read the story about the unicorns on fluffy pillows you mentioned earlier.

You're a grown up with access to the interwebs, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Bottom line: the collapse of the USSR was inevitable. All of the overreach, problematic economic situation, political turmoil, discontent in the oppresses satellite states, etc put together were such that its collapse was simply inevitable.

The notion that this was some arbitrary free choice by the leadership, is simply ridiculous.

 

[F1fan]

I think they did at first. I think when they disbanded the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, they did so in good faith. Otherwise, why would they do that? There was no pressure on them or anyone putting a gun to their head. I think that action, in and of itself, showed they could be trusted. Indeed, it was the U.S. leadership who showed that they could not be trusted. U.S. militarism expanded, while theirs contracted. It wasn't until more than 20 years later that Russia did anything even remotely aggressive, when they took Crimea in 2014.

putin did try to become a partner to the rest of Europe and the world. They hosted the winter Olympics in 2014 after a massive investment in Socci. It was a facility that attracted world championship events as well. And part of the facility was a Formula 1 track and they hosted F1 racing for many years. F1 and the sporting wolrd condemned Russia for occupying the Crimea, but they kept having races there. F1 ended in 2021 when Russia invaded Ukraine. The only Russian driven was dropved from his team. Russia wasn't allowed in the Olympics after that, and Russian athletes has to compete without any national affiliation. putin ruined all that work. And for what, some land? It's resources?

This is why citizens need to take their leadership seriously and not elect corrupt authoritarians.

 

[Kathryn]

Quick question: if NATO expansion was all part of a US-backed plan to weaken and surround Russia, then why was Ukraine denied NATO membership in 2008 (despite US support)?

I am always irritated when these kinds of analysts talk about NATO like an expansionist force rather than a voluntary treaty organisation. Never once asking WHY these countries choose to join, and refusing to analyse how Russia's CONSTANT MILITARY AGGRESSION, ELECTION MEDDLING AND OUTRIGHT ANNEXATION OF THEIR NEIGHBOURS might be a significant contributing factor.

Nah, it's all part of America deliberately undermining Russia, who are nothing but an innocent victim of international politics who never do anything wrong, ever. And again the old lie of "they totally promised not to expand eastwards!" despite no such thing being in any treaty, ever. Meanwhile, the treaties and mandates that Russia has broken by INVADING AND ANNEXING SOVEREIGN TERRITORY ON ITS BORDERS is somehow a lesser concern. Apparently, one thing said in a meeting once but never agreed upon as a conditional requirement in any treaty means more than both international law and actual, written agreements Russia itself signed and agreed to abide by. But when they break those agreements, nobody has any right to do anything about it, apparently.

Get this propaganda out of here.

I don't know anything about 2008 (and can't find anything) and you didn't source anything but in 2010 Ukraine voted NOT to join NATO.

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Since 2014 though, coinciding with aggression from Russia, Ukraine has been more determined to join NATO.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

putin did try to become a partner to the rest of Europe and the world. They hosted the winter Olympics in 2014 after a massive investment in Socci. It was a facility that attracted world championship events as well. And part of the facility was a Formula 1 track and they hosted F1 racing for many years. F1 and the sporting wolrd condemned Russia for occupying the Crimea, but they kept having races there. F1 ended in 2021 when Russia invaded Ukraine. The only Russian driven was dropved from his team. Russia wasn't allowed in the Olympics after that, and Russian athletes has to compete without any national affiliation. putin ruined all that work. And for what, some land? It's resources?

This is why citizens need to take their leadership seriously and not elect corrupt authoritarians.

Those Sochi Olympics were another fine example of the money grabbing corruption in Russia.
It is estimated that around 30 billion dollars of the supposed total cost simply disappeared into pockets of oligarchs and Putin associates.

It is the largest money grabbing scam in the history of the Olympics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know anything about 2008 (and can't find anything) and you didn't source anything but in 2010 Ukraine voted NOT to join NATO.

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Correction. "Ukraine" didn't vote for that.
The pro-Russian muppet Yanukovych's corrupt government voted for that.

When this muppet was ousted (who subsequently move to Russia -where else), Russia was quick to invade and occupy Crimea. A move as direct response to them losing control and influence over Ukraine politics now that Yanukovych wasn't there anymore.

Following this attack, the goal of eventual NATO membership was not only voted on, but enshrined into the Ukrainian constitution.

 

[Kathryn]

Correction. "Ukraine" didn't vote for that.
The pro-Russian muppet Yanukovych's corrupt government voted for that.

When this muppet was ousted (who subsequently move to Russia -where else), Russia was quick to invade and occupy Crimea. A move as direct response to them losing control and influence over Ukraine politics now that Yanukovych wasn't there anymore.

Following this attack, the goal of eventual NATO membership was not only voted on, but enshrined into the Ukrainian constitution.

Please see my edited post. Thanks.

By the way, coming from a central region of Ukraine, Zelenskyy only spoke Russian till very recently. Russian and Ukrainian though are very similar.

 

[F1fan]

Those Sochi Olympics were another fine example of the money grabbing corruption in Russia.
It is estimated that around 30 billion dollars of the supposed total cost simply disappeared into pockets of oligarchs and Putin associates.

It is the largest money grabbing scam in the history of the Olympics.

Trump says "Hold my beer" as the USA has the World Cup in 2026, and the LA Olympics in 2028. I'm sure there will be plenty of graft that Trump and his rich friends will take for those two events. And to really put to disgusting taste in our mouths, the 250 year anniversary of the USA will be in 2026, and Trump will be president. Yes, we all just puked in our mouths at the thought of a corrupt piece of sh*t being elected by an ignorant voter base.

The rest of the rational world just shakes its head. There's work to do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't know anything about 2008 (and can't find anything) and you didn't source anything

BBC NEWS | Europe | Nato denies Georgia and Ukraine

news.bbc.co.uk

2008 Bucharest summit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but in 2010 Ukraine voted NOT to join NATO.

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Actually, what your source says (as well as confirming what I wrote about 2008) is that the Ukrainian PARLIAMENT voted to "abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status, while continuing its co-operation with NATO". Not quite the same thing as saying "Ukraine voted not to join NATO", considering membership for NATO had popular support at that time.

In any case, that's irrelevant to what I wrote. The point is that if Ukraine joining NATO was some sort of nefarious plan to surround Russia with NATO countries, why would they deny Ukraine membership in 2008?

 

[Kathryn]

BBC NEWS | Europe | Nato denies Georgia and Ukraine

news.bbc.co.uk

2008 Bucharest summit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Actually, what your source says (as well as confirming what I wrote about 2008) is that the Ukrainian PARLIAMENT voted to "abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status, while continuing its co-operation with NATO". Not quite the same thing as saying "Ukraine voted not to join NATO", considering membership for NATO had popular support at that time.

In any case, that's irrelevant to what I wrote. The point is that if Ukraine joining NATO was some sort of nefarious plan to surround Russia with NATO countries, why would they deny Ukraine membership in 2008?

Oh I don't think that Ukraine joining NATO has ever been some sort of nefarious plan to surround Russia with NATO countries. Let's take a look at Russia for a minute:

I don't even know how that would work.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh I don't think that Ukraine joining NATO has ever been some sort of nefarious plan to surround Russia with NATO countries.

Sorry, I didn't mean to attribute that claim to you. It was the claim in the OP I was responding to with my original post.

Let's take a look at Russia for a minute:
View attachment 100259
I don't even know how that would work.

It would take an awful lot of Ukrainian expansion, to be sure. It would have to become the world's longest and slimmest country.

We could call it "Russia's belt"!

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, "former". As in: not internal to the russian federation. As in: in territories that constitute(d) independent sovereign nations.

Not in the case of Chechnya.

Look, the USSR was comprised over more than 100 different nationalities and language groups. They aren't/weren't all Russians. Sometimes, they didn't all get along very well, and the breakup of the USSR clearly left some loose ends which were the obvious causes of these conflicts in question. It wasn't necessarily the result of some master conspiracy in the Kremlin or plan towards global domination. It just happened. It's not evidence of "Russian aggression," not just by itself.

There have been other examples where ethnic groups were under the same government and then separated, which also led to a period of instability and violence. It wasn't just in the former USSR, but also in the former Yugoslavia. Likewise, when India and Pakistan were partitioned after the British pulled out, that was also rather chaotic and violent. The British also partitioned Palestine when they pulled out of that territory, and they're still fighting over it today. Most of the fighting in Africa is from a similar cause, mainly because the borders were drawn up in haphazard fashion.

"alleged"? There's nothing "alleged" here. Tanks physically and factually rolled across the border into neighboring sovereign countries in military invasions resulting in occupations and annexation / puppet installment of regimes.

What year and event are you referring to? As I said, these are/were complex situations which have complicated causes. It wasn't due to some "evil plot" that you're insinuating here.

Sheesh man, it's like talking to a Russian state TV channel.

You sound like you have a lot of experience in that area. I don't.

No. I just feel no need to lie about it.

I won't say that you're lying, but I think your interpretations of the facts are flawed and full of holes.

I'm not blaming slipping on a banana peel on "russian aggression".
I'm just calling actual russian aggression what it is: russian aggression.

And I'm saying that they did not show any signs of true "aggression," at least not until 2014 (and even then, that was also a complex situation). So, at least from around 1990 to 2014, there was essentially no reason for NATO to have existed. Unless someone is claiming that they had a crystal ball back in 1990 and could predict events 30-40 years into the future.

Ow please, I could never convince you. You're already far to deep into the Russian propaganda mill.

Look, man, if anyone is too deep in a propaganda mill, it's you, not me. I look at a variety of sources of information, and what I know about Russia comes from my studies of their history and culture, decades ago. Of course, I've kept up on current events and followed these developments and make my own interpretations of what is being presented in terms of information available to the public. I have seen some propaganda, but unlike you, I don't go into some kind of panic over it. It's just words and ideas.

What I found from talking with them was that they just had different perceptions and views on the world which weren't in line with what was being propagated in the West. They didn't outright lie, but they just had different interpretations of known, agreed-upon facts. They never said anything so outlandish as "2+2=5." For them 2+2 equals the same as it does for us.

This wasn't out of "free will". Again, I advice you to read up on what was going on in the USSR and its satellite states from 1986 onwards. And pick an independent source - not more Russian propaganda.

I was there back then. I could see it for myself. I'm reasonably aware of what was going on. I was aware of Gorbachev's reforms and that the country was becoming more open and showing signs of wanting to change and move on from the Cold War. The people I encountered wanted an end to all the madness of the arms race and the international tensions, just as many Westerners shared those sentiments. Popular sentiment was turning against Communist/Soviet rule in Eastern Europe, so the winds of change were already in the air.

I don't have time to go into a long list of events and occurrences at the moment, if that's what you're getting at. Nevertheless, in the end, the breakup of the USSR occurred when the Russian Federation (RSFSR) itself chose to secede from the Soviet Union, which was perfectly legal under the Soviet Constitution at the time, just as it was for the other Soviet Republics which seceded. If that's what their people wanted, then that's what they wanted. What's wrong with a government doing what their people want? Of course, the people may not always make the best choices, and that's one of the pitfalls of politics, but I think it was still of their own free will.

It's whataboutisms in the context of the point being made here.
Regardless of what the US or anyone else did, the idea that Russia didn't engage in any aggression from 1991 to 2014 is beyond absurd!

What's absurd is you trying to paint these events as evidence of Russian aggression to such a degree that it necessitates the continued existence and expansion of NATO. I'm not saying that I condone anything they do in Chechnya (just as I don't condone many of the activities of my own government, so at least I'm consistent). But I just don't see it as a cause for any of the NATO countries to feel threatened, nor do I see this as evidence that any of those countries would be threatened if NATO did not exist.

If they feel threatened by Russia now, then it could be because Russia feels threatened by the West. Why would they think that? Have you given much thought to that? Are you suggesting that Russian propaganda is just so diabolical and insidious that people are being brainwashed en masse? Don't you think it's remotely possible that they might have some reasons for being mistrustful of the West? Are you really so blind that you can't, just once, try to look at things from another point of view?

The reign of Putin especially since he rose to power in the 90s has been especially bloody, both abroad as well as internally (go look for his political opponents... they are all either dead, banished or in prison).

Sure, he's a corrupt gangster who wiped out his enemies. A despicable murderer, just as we see in countless other governments around the world. But what do Putin's political opponents have to do with NATO? Yeltsin was in power through most of the 90s. Putin came to power in '99, the same year the US military bombed Belgrade, an incident which didn't set well with the Russian people. That's not fake propaganda; that really did happen, and I think a lot of Russians became disillusioned about the US at that point.

Whatever aggression the US did or didn't engage in, has nothing to do with what the Russians were up to for the past 30 years.

You clearly have no understanding of cause-and-effect.

You made a claim: that the didn't engage in aggression from 1991 to 2014.
This claim is simply not correct. It's either a bold faced lie or an extreme show of honest ignorance.
No amount of misdeeds by the US, or any other western nation, are relevant to this falsehood.

As I said, these were just border skirmishes and internal incidents in the context of a discussion about whether NATO should have been disbanded at the same time the Warsaw Pact was disbanded. I do not consider any of the aforementioned to have anything remotely threatening to the countries of NATO or even the Eastern European states which were previously members of the Warsaw Pact. Nor were the Baltics threatened by any of this, so the idea that the Baltics joined NATO because they were scared of Russia because of the Chechen War or something far off is preposterous.

Stop pretending as if you're some kind of authority with the qualifications to judge me or claim that I'm lying or showing ignorance. It's the height of arrogance and it's a disingenuous tactic to take. "This claim is simply not correct." As if you know what you're talking about. That's cute.

LOL

Says the guy who tries to play down the atrocities Russia committed in Georgie, Moldova, Chechnya, etc.


What's next? Ukraine is not a war but just an insignificant "special military operation" which is to be seen as "internal affairs" of Russia?
puh-lease!