There was zero chance Ukraine would have ever been admitted to NATO. Everybody understood that, including Putin and his generals. And while NATO and the U.S. maintained the official position (perhaps better characterized as a non-position) that any country, including Ukraine, remained free to apply to NATO, member states like Germany would have vetoed and almost certainly privately gave such assurances to Putin. Moreover, the last decade of shenanigans from Turkey and then Hungary have soured even the U.S.'s appetite for future NATO admissions of any country outside Western and Central Europe.
Ukraine missed its window for NATO membership by about 20 years. Today the U.S. wouldn't even seriously imply Ukraine had a chance at membership. Russian apologists would point out that Ukraine already entered quasi-formal "dialogue", but fail to mention that such such dialogue has been frozen for nearly 20 years. The status quo (which has no actual substance, anyhow) is for all intents and purposes permanently frozen. One might reasonably criticize NATO and the U.S. for leaving things as they are--to fester. The counter argument is that by making a formal concession it would only embolden Russia, which would never change their tune even if NATO formally renounced the possibility of Ukraine joining. Perhaps more importantly, it would be a huge loss for Ukrainian reformists. (There was a similar motivation behind the EU's long refusal to state the obvious regarding Turkey's membership in the EU.)
Beyond Putin's general revanchist sentiments, what he and other Russian leaders really worry about is de facto Ukrainian-EU economic integration, not NATO. There's little chance (but perhaps non-zero, and greater than Turkey's) Ukraine could ever join the EU anytime soon. But there's an infinite number of intermediate relationships, all of which disfavor Russia--at least from the Russian perspective.
This was always the case. Turkey needed to help in Korea (1950) to get into NATO (1952). With annexation of half the Cyprus, and the tensions with Greece and buying NATO-incompatible S400 defense missiles from Russia, it kept being a problem-child. It weirdly remains also the only member which recently had armed conflict against Russia.
It's still a member though because of geopolitics. It's risky business but it has its rewards.
I don't see the same situation in Ukraine.
Disclosure: I'm from Turkey but I despise some of the acts I named above. I won't name which because I still want to go there and see my parents every once in a while.
Turkey was completely blackhanded as a military ally by NATO, long before Erdogun. NATO made an extremely costly error of accommodating the Greek junta, and later closing eyes on Cyprus.
By all reasonable judgement, NATO should've backed Turkey, and not Greece, but they did it the other way around.
If not for that, it wouldn't have set seeds of doubt which lead to the situation you see now, and probably would've averted the 1980 coup.
Turkey has NATO's most powerful conventional military on this side of the Atlantic, second NATO army by size, and conventional firepower after the USA.
Macaron trying to intimidate Turkey, and marginalise Turkey's NATO role in this day, and age is absurd, and suicidal. Turkey leaving NATO = say bye bye half of NATO's conventional force on this side of the Atlantic. Turkey's troops could not be replaced by ANY NATO member since USA is already overstretched.
I could've added much more strong words.
Are you sure you are being neutral here? I'm pretty sure the Turkish army was the oppressor, at least in this case... and what Greek junta?
> Turkey has NATO's most powerful conventional military on this side of the Atlantic
Conventional military means nothing. Turkey can't even close the Bosporus in these times of war because of Russian pressure. Just read the news.
By the way I sound like a typical "reformed former citizen who hates their roots", I know. But I actually love the country, just not the politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_junta
It collapsed just 3 months after the Cyprus events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Greek_legislative_electio...
The junta was gone, but NATO countries, and Turkish state had to live together ever since.
"NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
Assuming Russia did nothing it would have happened eventually.
The reason NATO exists is because small countries in europe were afaid of USSR, and nowdays Russia.
Nato is defensive pact, as such there is no threat coming from nato to any non nato country.
Now a independent neighbor of Russia is trying to join nato to not be bullied by russia. Russia is not liking it because they will not be able to fuck with Ukraine any more and not because they are afraid of anything.
This war is a proof why Ukraine was 100% justified to seek nato membership not other way around.
We should stop victim blaming Ukraine.
I dont see any reason why NATO working to destabilize Libya that passes muster that doesnt apply equally well to Russia. The idea that it was acting defensively is a farce. A conservative assessment is that Libya is a model for what they are aiming for in Russia in the long term.
Ukraine is the victim and Russia is the aggressor but the west essentially gave a stick to a child and encouraged it to poke the bear before running away and hiding behind a rock.
We could have prevented this.
Russia claims its a democratic country with highest standards of freedoms, why would they feel threatened?
> "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians"
Anyone claiming NATO was an aggressor akin to what Russia is doing now is a fool.
Russia feels threatened because NATO was set up specifically to oppose them and is not all that interested in democracy that doesnt threaten western hegemonic interests.
You dont exactly see NATO threatening Mohammed bin Salman for invading Yemen do you?
And if democracy is so important why is it official policy that the crimean referendum be annulled rather than re-held?
>Anyone claiming NATO was an aggressor akin to what Russia is doing now is a fool.
NATO destroyed Libya. The fact it did it at arms length is immaterial.
To pretend it is not a threat to Russia is farcical.
By west you mean US? Its not like europe was active in any of those, bar illegal invasion of Iraq and Afganistan lead by US forces.
> Russia feels threatened because NATO was set up specifically to oppose them
Hmm I wonder why? Why nato was not set up to stop those dangerous Turkish people, or blood thirsty Ukrainians, but peaceful USSR, and then Russian Federation lead by exKGB spies... hmmm I wonder why anyone would be concerned.
> official policy that the crimean referendum be annulled rather than re-held?
LOL, ok you are a troll at this point. Fighting with 'whataboutism' is pointless
If you and putin love democracy so much why dont you setup referendum for Chechnya people? Lets see how that vote goes.
> NATO destroyed Libya. The fact it did it at arms length is immaterial.
Nato targeted and destroyed Libyan army, know your facts. There was no ground forces ever deployed.
To pretend NATO ever threaten any aggression to Russia, Russian civilians or Russian soil is a farce bigger then you.
Why is this often mentioned? What is Germany’s rationale and is this still a certainty? Perhaps these comments were more closely related to Schröder (because gas pipeline) but certainly a different generation now.
edit: France and Germany were the two opposed countries.
I mean, i can understand some controversy around the actions of Turkey because of a variety of reasons, but Germany?
Two reasons:
1. Germany depends on Russia for gas, and the two countries have business and economic ties
2. Germany and France are the main 'providers' in the EU, kinda like California, Texas, New York in the US. They have to pay more if they admit a big poor country like Ukraine (44m pop., and would be second poorest in EU after Greece. Pop. of Germany and France: 83m, 67m respectively).
It was about NATO, not EU membership.
First of all is the close history that the Social Democrats have with Russia, dating back to former Chancellor Willy Brandt and the Neue Ostpolitik, and renewed by the 1998-2006 former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder who initiated the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline and infamously worked as a high-profile lobbyist for Gazprom after his period and is rumored to be a close personal friend of Vladimir Putin for years now.
Then we have the history of the 1968-era hippies, the peace movement and large parts of the radical left, which has to this day strong ties to the Green Party, the Left Party (which is the successor of the former GDR's ruling SED) and partially also to the Social Democrat Party. Many of my comrades are still stuck in the Cold War anti-imperialist mindset (where only the Western / NATO sphere is seen as an aggressor) and fail to see that both modern China and Russia are imperialist agents on their own. Hopefully the events of the last few days will wake up some of them, though.
And finally, the entire gas clusterfuck.
1) A lot of residential heating - not just in Germany by the way, but also across wide parts of Eastern Europe and Italy - depends on either gas or oil, as electric heating is ridiculously expensive (at >30 ct/kWh!).
2) electricity. The Conservative/Christian Democrat CDU, whose Chancellor Merkel ruled for the last 16 years before finally getting booted out of office last year, took pride in demolishing the domestic solar and wind turbine industry (the former by cutting subsidies which was followed by Chinese dumping taking over the market, the latter by imposing ridiculous zoning requirements [1]) and was happily accepting "donations" (aka legal bribery) from the fossil fuel industry, and their Bavarian sister party CSU (as well as a number of various local NIMBY movements, called "Bürgerinitiativen") keeps throwing impediments against high-power electric lines to expand the electric grid so that it can distribute Nothern German-generated wind power to the South (Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg). Combined with the phase-out of coal-fired plants and nuclear plants, gas peakers have risen in importance [2].
3) We don't have many alternatives as a continent to source gas from, other than pipelines. There are no LNG import terminals in Germany [3], we have to rely on the import capacity of the Netherlands, France and Belgium [4]. At the same time, the Dutch gas field at Groningen is suffering from earthquakes following the gas extraction [5], Norway doesn't have much spare capacity [6] and the UK only has enough gas reserves to make 42% of their own demand [7], not to mention the Brexit aftermath which included the UK getting booted off the EU energy market.
4) We have a lot of industry (especially petro-chemical and metal) relying on gas for energy and as a raw material. About a third of industrial energy consumption is gas-based [8].
We are in a "perfect storm" situation, and now over 40 years of lackluster politics across the board are crashing down on our head.
[1]: https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/landespolitik/windraeder-abs...
[2]: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/deutschland-braucht-neu...
[3]: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/knappe-gaslieferungen...
[4]: https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/lng-termina...
[5]: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/gasfoerderung-in-den-niederla...
[6]: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/norwegen-regierungsch...
[7]: https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2021-09/gaspreis-grossbritann...
[8]: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/12...
What used to be East Germany then is Germany now. It's not exactly a crazy development.
But there are indeed some nostalgics here, who like Putin and the eastern empire.
Also take into account that until recently, Russia has been considered a reliable business partner in Germany, to the point that many Germans considered a russo-german partnership to be more advantageous than the current transatlantic one. While support for that idea waned in popularity a little after the Crimea takeover, some, now more on the political fringes, still do today.
"On February 25, 1994, Putin was also in attendance. One distinguished guest, then-President of Estonia Lennart Meri, gave a speech. Putin did something that has never happened at this ceremony: he got up and left. "With his legs straight [ed.: in a marching stance], throwing a contemptuous glance at the host, he left the hall, every step accompanied by the creaking of the parquet," according to a correspondent for the German magazine Zeit. "His exit was followed by whispers. Who is he? What's his problem?"
What exactly did Meri say that so annoyed Putin? The speech reads like a prophecy of what happened 20 years later in Crimea. And Putin's reaction shows that he sent a clear signal to the West.
The Estonian president referred to a paper from the foreign ministry in Moscow: "It notes that the problem of ethnic Russian groups in countries neighboring Russia cannot be solved by diplomatic means alone." Other means were conceivable for Moscow, Meri concluded. He warned against Russia's "neo-imperialist policy" and appealed to integrate Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, into the "democratic world."
Lennart Meri was a former filmmaker, literary translator, writer and IMO a world class intellectual with excellent speeches. For anyone interested, I google-translated this Hamburg 1994 speech to English [2]. The original source in Estonian is also present on the homepage of President's Office [3].
1: https://www.dw.com/en/vladimir-putins-infamous-history-in-ha...
2: https://zerobin.net/?5938a7875752194a#kVyn/9uj46bUH+M1z7rk+w...
3: https://vp1992-2001.president.ee/est/k6ned/K6ne.asp?ID=4236
If after ~30 years after break-up of USSR you have not gone back to russia (because quality of life in Estonia or Latvia is probably better), or have not learned the language or do not want to pledge loyalty to the country - then such person is a problem to itself. My social anecdotal bubble tells me that most of such people are very pro-soviet-union, but somehow idea of moving back to "mother russia" scares them.
Also in most post-soviet states russian communities can live all their lives without learning local language, i.e. there are native-russian kindergartens, schools, even university programs, russian entertainment and they can expect and be able to communicate almost everywhere in russian. So where's the bad treatment?
Putin's propaganda machine will make shit up on the spot - treatment of russian speaking communities is one of them. Maybe you also believe that there's fascist junta in Ukraine or Estonia? russian troll industry are masters of fake news - that will flood everything with multiple bullshit statements.
No, that is a statement that I consider false. I do personally live in a country that has a sizeable ethnic minority (Hungarians/Szekely, depending on the particular region of the country where they live [1]), and many of them do not know the local/national language, which is Romanian. Many of my fellow citizens regard that as almost blasphemy, I (and the law itself) actually have the contrary view, those people have the same right to Romanian citizenship as I do, even if they don't/can't speak the Romanian language.
While statelessness in the Baltic countries is a very controversial issue, I don't believe it'sas bad as people are making it out to be.
The absolute vast majority of those people don't care about the situation: they can work, they can travel through the EU and other countries, and they can play the victim card.
As a good example, Nils Ušakovs was the mayor of Riga, and his parents were stateless (and hi mother probably still is [1]). So its not like statelessness affects people other than the actual person (and the degree to which it affects them is very debatable).
https://twitter.com/rikardjozwiak/status/1496913193360400387
https://twitter.com/ger_osce/status/1496917994559066117?s=21
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had nuclear weapons but gave them up because Russia agreed not to invade them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur...
The title comes from Pakistani leaders' declaration that they would acquire nuclear weapons capability even if it meant their citizens would have to eat grass. Every government with a viable nuclear weapons program that has abandoned it has come to regret that decision. The nuclear weapons states have utterly failed to make the NPT an attractive bargain for the non-nuclear weapons states, which has completely undermined the goal of non-proliferation.
They had a choice, they just chose the one that didn't lead to war.
Putin is insane, but his record of recklessness and betrayal simply doesn’t come close to the mischief of the United States on the global stage.
It is a minor miracle when voters can get their own government to follow through on an inconvenient promise. Promises mean nothing when foreign armies are involved.
ICBM launch silos and hypersonic missiles would be icing on the cake.
I cannot believe there actual proponents of nuclear armament and proliferation in 2022.
There will be more in the years to come if thanks to the current events. Plenty of people here and else where are quick to point out that Ukraine is in NATO and that Russia would not dare attack a nato country so this is all fine but at the end of the day NATO, like any treaty, is just a promise not inherently like the promise the Ukraine was made when they gave up their nuclear weapons. An attack on a NATO country will not mean an automatic response from all other NATO countries but instead prompt a decision from each of the leaders of those countries what would be better for their citizens at that point. Retaining their own protection via NATO is going to be a big influence of that decision but it is never going to be the only factor.
you may say that the threats of nuclear aggression were thinly veiled but not technically apply because the word nuclear has not been used. but if you applied an honest interpretation of what is happening you would say that point 4 does apply.
> 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
nobody wants a nuclear war so it's better if the US stays out of it at this point, but just I'm pointing out that got screwed by more than one signer on that treaty.
The big lesson that the US and Russia are teaching Ukraine here is that they should have never given up their nuclear weapon. This whole event is terrible for the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
Its a joke, because once the Ukrainian population is psychologically motivated into guerrilla warfare against the Russians, it would be over in a day or two.
This invasion with media complicity, is just project fear or govt's around the world enjoying their population's desire to be governed. Russia is doing each and every govt around the world a favour by reinforcing the govt form of control instead of self determination.
Now if Russia went in with 1million troops, then it would be something to worry about, but this is all just psychological reinforcement of hierarchical control systems on populations.
Really? Has Putin actually said anything about nuclear weapons in the context of this war?
This is wildly incorrect. The US actually had a defense agreement with Taiwan at one point, but dropped the defense provision in the 70's for rapprochement with China. However, Taiwan has been a US ally since WW2, and has at times stationed many troops there. This is not even close to true about Ukraine.
Not to mention a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be almost trivially easy for the US to stop. It's an island, and the US has naval and air supremacy.
This was maybe true in 1996, but less so today (at least from what I've heard).
China is rapidly approaching naval parity with the US, and they have enough land-based anti-ship missiles to deny most surface vessels access to the Taiwan straight.
That's not even considering the logistical aspects of it all. Taiwan is 150km from the coast of China and 10,000km away from the coast of the US...
That's one of the great innovations of the US military model. Ensuring air domination allows them to effectively expand control by simply placing bases. Britain had done that in the past with naval forces but their logistic challenges are more complicated when it comes to defending supply lines.
What if they Putined their way into Taiwan? "We are going to invade, if you stop us it's nuke time". Would the US risk a nuke on their head for Taiwan?
That's what is commonly believed, but that belief is actually wrong - other NATO members are obligated to - and I quote directly from Article 5 here - "(...) assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, (...)"
The keywords here are "as it deems necessary" and "including the use of armed forces". There is no automatic need to send troops - if you as the attacked party think a strongly worded letter is all that is necessary, you just ask for that letter. Of course you can demand military support, but doing so takes time, and it is easy to consider a situation in which you do not have that time anymore.
For an application of that principle, see 9/11, when the US invoked Article 5, but which did not result in military action from all NATO members (several of which refused to take part in "pointless military adventures"). The US obstracized those countries, but ultimately (had to?) accept.
Note that Russia not only have to contend with sanctions: They also need to remain domestically on high alert for sabotage and terrorism.
Unfortunate reality is that the west collectively lost their balls post 9/11 due to the needless wars sapping the spirit. They would wait till its too late and by then its too late. The politician with actual brains and balls and who has kept europe whole and safe so far has recently retired and the rest are just good for press releases.
I also thought this. Would other NATO members really step in to defend Poland? I know the treaty obliges them to, but in reality would they?
My guess is that Putin just wanted to scare a few people and may be annex the rebel areas. But the weak response has encouraged him to see how far this can be taken. When will the current DefCon change? He would continue till that happens. It's not because he is stupid or crazy. It's a decent strategy to see where the opponents limits for patience are. He would turn around the moment there is some ground action or strict measures like announcing a no fly zone over Ukraine enforced by NATO. Till, then the smart move would be to push forward in Ukraine.
We lived once thru this in 1939. NO one will join in to defend Poland. Germany might even make another deal with Russia to "save EU".
Also most Russian don't seem to be even close to being as enthusiastic as the majority of Nazi Germans were when their tanks rolled into Paris. Russians seem to be mostly apathetic, they don't really support the war but also are not willing to actually stand up and do anything about it. That might change if there is not quick victory/large amounts of civilians start being killed/sanctions actually start working.
Once the coffins start to come back to mother Russia domestic support for occupation will plummet even further locally in Russia.
Even in USSR, with censorship and active repression USSR was still bringing back afghan war coffins in the dead of the night.
The situations in 1939 and 2022 are only similar insofar as we are talking about the same country. Everything else is different.
Czechoslovakia would probably be a much better example (however NATO did not exactly agree to recognize the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas just to appease Putin).
More than that, I think reading between the lines it's quite likely Putin and Xi Jinping have already agreed to back each other in the security council so that Russia can take Ukraine and China can take Taiwan without issue. This may have been planned for years, even, though it is right to point out that hinting at adding Ukraine to NATO without any real intentions to do so has had disastrous consequences.
The Russian forces in Chernobyl came from Belarus...
That is not correct afaik.
Besides that the downsides associated with all this far outweigh the upside of where NATO's borders are.
Usual disclaimer, I don't consider any of the above a valid reason to start a war ot interfere in othet countries.
And so he starts the invasion which will effectively push every bordering country into running towards NATO?
> If Russia attacks a member of NATO then all members of NATO are obligated to join in defence militarily
And? They can't actually respond militarily because MAD.
NATO is useless if the enemy knows you won't initiate MAD, but they can (democracy vs dictatorship).
Why? Of course they would. And yes we would all die. It's the other way around - a NATO country wouldn't be attacked by Russia because yes, NATO would attack back.
In fact Republicans are already saying that even sanctions aren't acceptable. Going to war... not a chance!
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1497033251424190466
That's what it says on paper, yes. That's the theory.
Removing Putin would be massive relief for most of Russia I think, and most of the world at this point. The man is unhinged
By the way Germany also has nukes, not their own ones, but they are not just there for fun.
Of course they would respond. MAD is just a mad possibility we all have to accept. As soon as russia attacks NATO with conventional weapons it will fight back with conventional weapons. But if Putin starts nukes, well than there is obviously only one answers to it (nukes).
Just all sad to see that the interests of a few shed blood of many.
Talk of Ukraine joining NATO may well have been what triggered this war. Russia probably had plans to absorb Ukraine eventually, but if Ukraine had joined NATO it would have required a war with NATO to absorb even a small part of Ukraine, such as Dunbas. So, when talk of joining NATO heated up, Putin had to invade quickly or lose the opportunity to take Ukraine without a much larger war.
It now appears that any of Russia's neighbours who are not currently members of a military alliance with a nuclear power have three options:
1. Join NATO, ally with China, or find somebody else with nuclear weapons to ally with.
2. Develop nuclear weapons.
3. Do nothing in order to avoid an immediate invasion, but start brushing up on your Russian because you'll need it eventually.
It is now abundantly clear that remaining on good terms with NATO countries is not sufficient in itself to ensure security from invasion by Russia. Economic sanctions and harsh language will not stop Putin.
It's worth noting that Taiwan is in a similar situation with respect to China. They are being threatened with invasion, but have no formal military alliances with nuclear powers. Judging from the U.S.'s reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. would do little more than apply sanctions if China invaded Taiwan. Not unless the U.S. has special feelings for Taiwan that it does not have for Ukraine at any rate.