At end of the day, the US made commitments with NATO and to Ukraine. The merits and deeper reasons for those are certainly up for debate… but leaving an ally hanging would have other consequences…
It also could be the case that Putin is trying to get something and is using the build up as a bargaining chip, which is not uncommon in these kinds of relations. But then again, one of his ministers (I think it was) invoked the Cuban missile crisis today, so, that’s pretty fucking terrifying… Although I think at the very least that Biden could deal with that far better than Kennedy did.
True enough, but the US has kept nukes in Turkey since 1959, and I frankly don’t trust Erdoğan with the launch codes either. Probably time for us to pack up and leave.
Obviously USA doesn’t want war with a nuclear power, but the military love to scare people to justify increasing budgets. It’s more likely that Iran is next, depending on the outcome of the current nuclear talks.
Russia already got their warm harbor by taking Crimea-
I think Putin is more worried that NATO will continue its expansion east than has any real interest in taking Ukraine. Finlandization probably suits him a lot better than conquest.
No one is forcing former Eastern bloc countries to JOIN NATO and/or the EU at gun point. Someone forced many of those countries to join a certain bloc by force in the past but it wasn’t NATO doing that. Since Putin is very much an old school KGB type, and many former warsaw pact countries worked hard to break out of the Russian orbit in the first place, I can see why many would consider his actions, especially in Ukraine threatening and would turn to the historic counter-balancing force as a result. These countries aren’t just pawns with no agency here. They can make choices about their own self-defense.
Putin wants to be the Tsar of the Soviet Union. He wants the Divine Right of the Emperor of All The Russias, and he wants it from the Baltic to the Pacific, from the Black Sea to the Arctic Sea. He’ll accept satrapies, with consuls and governors who can do what they want so long as they do what they’re told, but he’s the one doing the telling.
Never say they did. From the Russian perspective it’s still seen as a threat that the world’s by far largest military alliance step by step get closer to Russia. Supposedly, NATO was created to contain the Soviet Union, yet, when the Soviet Union collapsed it just grew larger and more aggressive.
Russia have bad experiences of invasions from the West throughout history. Sweden, France, Germany etc. Americans tend to forget USA invaded Russia in 1918 along with a whole bunch of other countries.
You don’t have to agree with Russia, but it’s still valuable to understand how they are thinking. Push too far, and war is very likely, and then saying it’s Russias fault is little comfort.
I’m aware of all that history. I did take a history class or two in the decade in grad school for history… But at what point was NATO actively invading post-Cold War Russia? Putin is very much looking to rebuild the foot print of the Soviet empire but on a Tsarist model. That’s not purely defensive and it’s disingenuous to imagine that it is in some way. The threat of form Soviet states joining NATO or the EU provides a nice pretext for their attempted hostile take over of those former states.
At what point was Russia actively invading the Baltic states post-Cold War? Is that a good argument for them not having to be even a bit worried that Russia might do so inte future?
I presume you are aware that there is a risk that USA turns into a fascist dictatorship in the not too far future. How do you think the rest of the world should consider how that might change risks of war? Russia isn’t planning for what will happen tomorrow, but what could happen decades in the future.
I have no illusions about Russia, but just like for USA it’s more convenient to have client states than to invade and face a long, costly occupation and deteriorating foreign relations. (Assuming they have any foreign relations to lose, if those have already gotten bad enough that’s no deterrent).
The difference is that Russia has more regional ambitions while USA mess around all over the globe.
You really think that there isn’t shenanigans happening with like Belarus since the mid-1990s? Really?
Yes. I’m aware of that. Which Putin would very much like to see, as it proves that liberal democracy is a failure.
No one is defending US imperialism (I’m not at least). I am pointing out that this is and always has been in the interests of BOTH sides to keep tensions high. To ignore that Putin is willing to subjugate other countries in his ambitions is to ignore half the story.
That worked fine (for Russia) in Ukraine until it didn’t, so Putin resorted to more direct intervention; i.e. invade the part of the country he really needed and support regional separatists to weaken and destabilise the rest.
Either we’re against interventionism or we’re for it… If we’re against it for the US, we should be against it for other countries too. The problem, broadly speaking, is powerful nations (whether the US, Russia, China, etc) intervening in the affairs of less powerful nations. None of it is really excusable, no matter who does it.
I’ll also note that previous invasions of Russia/Soviet Union is being used as justification for Russia intervening in the affairs of her neighbors. The specific set of circumstances that existed in the 18th, 19th, or 20th century doesn’t exist today. Context matters and France or Germany aren’t poised to stage an overland invasion of Russia right now. Russia is using former Soviet republics seeking to join NATO and the EU as a pretext to stage a “preemptive” war (Thanks W!).
