Although I agree that Trump's desire to end the war without any Russian concessions is foolhardy, Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons on its borders. Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse. None other than George Kennan, the Russian-speaking architect of Cold War containment, wrote an op-ed about it then...

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h... https://archive.ph/7qYtE

>Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons for Ukraine.

Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded Ukraine.

>Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse.

There was no such promise. There was a quick comment in a meeting, which was quickly retracted seconds later in that same meeting, not turned into any official agreement, and by the way that was before the USSR had collapsed and not after. So the non-promise was made to an entity which also no longer existed.

Also, like, what exactly do you think would have happened to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. if they were not in NATO.

Fair enough: promise is too strong a word. But hints to that effect were given during diplomacy to ensure German reunification...

https://archive.ph/hyDhA

My point is that Russia taking Crimea and invading Ukraine are a consequence of NATO expansion to Russia's borders. The Baltic republics joined in 2004, while Ukraine and Georgia's "aspirant" status was declared in 2002 and 2004...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring...

And recall that Putin took Crimea in 2014 right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

To say Russia's aggression was entirely unprovoked represents an ignorance of recent history.

You make a good point. The EU/NATO expansion was deliberately intended to hem Russia in, and Russia's actions are at least partly in response to that.

However, there's a big difference between expanding your sphere of influence through "soft power" whereby those countries voluntarily join you, and expanding it through military invasion, as Russia is doing.

The two are not at all comparable.

Appreciate the props, I was starting to question my rhetorical chops. ;)

Regarding the distinction between soft and hard power, however, I think both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would disagree:

"Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to fight."

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

The almost unescapable conclusion is that the Neocons' soft power forced Putin's hand, perhaps by design.

This is all total sophistry.

Realists try to wrap Putin's decisionmaking in layers of geopolitical reasoning, when the dude literally compares himself to Peter the Great and uses 17th century maps to claim that Ukraine is an illegitimate nation. This is bog-standard nationalist stuff.

Tucker Carlson literally sat down with Putin and did everything he could to tee up this nonsense about NATO that Westerners want to hear and believe was the real reason, and instead Putin dropped 45 minutes worth of nationalist pseudohistory on him that had nothing to do with NATO. Nobody in Russia pretends the war is about NATO. It's just not really part of their narrative at all.

In summary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9...

Please clarify how NATO encroachment is non-threatening to a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age.

And I would appreciate backing evidence beyond Office memes.

Please explain how a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age is not a legitimate threat to all of Europe but especially Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Ukraine, such that NATO expansion is fully legitimated.

You can't blame NATO expansion for Russian aggression (and call it "threatening") while at the same time literally admitting that Russia is strongly nationalist and would love to reclaim all of its former territories (which is why all of those countries desperately wanted to join NATO).

Fuck dude, Russia is the largest country on earth (see: expansionism) and has the first or second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. They have no right to feel "threatened" by their smaller neighbors banding together.

Europe is as much Russia’s historical sphere of influence as the western hemisphere is ours. From the time of the Monroe Doctrine to the Cuban missle crisis and beyond, we have not tolerated any foreign incursion in North or South America—even to the point of removing democratically-elected socialists and installing pro-US dictators such as Chile’s Salvador Allende and Augusto Pinochet. Don’t be fooled by our own propaganda.

Seen in that light, a US strategy of overt and steady NATO encroachment combined with covert action to foment rebellion in multiple ex-Soviet states isn’t far fetched. And even if we didn’t secretly fund the latter, a paranoid Putin certainly wouldn’t doubt it and would react accordingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

The attempt to rewrite history into "foreign encroachment" is either utterly ignorant of the actual facts, or just bad faith trolling.

The reasons why Eastern Europe was very passionate about joining NATO are clear from their history. And getting accepted into the organization was a major and very widely documented struggle. The Polish government went as far as threatening to sink Bill Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996 by urging Polish-Americans to vote for Republicans unless Clinton agreed to admitting Poland into NATO.

Now, people like you are trying to depict this as some sort of grand anti-Russian masterplan laid out in Washington. Nobody, not even Russians from that era, support this fringe story.

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

― Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Here are the facts of NATO encroachment from the fall of the Berlin wall to the annexation of Crimea:

1. Feb 1990: The US, through West German chancellor Helmut Kohl, hints at freezing NATO’s borders in order to secure German reunification.

"Kohl thus found himself in a complicated position as he prepared to meet with Gorbachev on February 10, 1990. He had received two letters, one on either end of his flight from West Germany to the Soviet Union, the first from Bush and the second from Baker, and the two contained different wording on the same issue. Bush’s letter suggested that NATO’s border would begin moving eastward; Baker’s suggested that it would not.

According to records from Kohl’s office, the chancellor chose to echo Baker, not Bush, since Baker’s softer line was more likely to produce the results that Kohl wanted: permission from Moscow to start reunifying Germany.”

https://archive.ph/hyDhA

Outcome: the former Warsaw-Pact East Germany joins NATO as part of unified Germany.

2. Partnership for Peace membership (NATO program for creating trust and cooperation between member states and other states mostly in Europe)

Ukraine Feb 8, 1994

Georgia Mar 23, 1994

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace#Member...

3. Official NATO expansion

Poland Mar 12, 1999

Estonia Mar 29, 2004

Latvia “

Lithuania "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring...

Outcome: NATO is now on Russia's borders on multiple flanks.

4. Feb/Mar 2014: Putin takes Crimea right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is ousted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_...

---

European motivations for joining NATO are obvious and beyond debate: what formerly war-torn nation wouldn't want shelter under our nuclear umbrella?

But while whether or not gradual, but deliberate NATO encroachment was a Neocon stratagem may be debatable to you and me, I doubt Putin, a paranoid autocrat who considers the fall of the USSR one of history's great calamaties, looking at these facts, would have the least question whatsoever.

And here are three different generations of Soviet and Russian high officials directly refuting your narrative: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43149963

Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking this was obvious, but... their opinion is utterly irrelevant; only one person's opinion matters here and that's Putin's.

Exactly my point: this is the story that the current dictator is spinning to justify his crimes.

It's also funny how Putin now lies about how invading Ukraine is all about NATO, when in the first few years of the war, Russia denied any involvement and claimed that the tens of thousands of unmarked soldiers with Russian tanks, artillery and anti-air systems capable of shooting down high-altitude airliners were just disgruntled secessionist Ukrainians fighting against nazis in Kyiv with weapons from military surplus stores. According to Putin, it was a civil war in Ukraine, and Russia had nothing to do with it.

  Please clarify how NATO encroachment is non-threatening to a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age.

That's exactly the point: almost all of Eastern Europe rushed into NATO to prevent becoming unwilling participants in another "golden age of the Russian empire". NATO is a massive pain in the ass for those who dream of enslaving the peoples of Europe, and not a problem at all for those who are free from this sick desire.

One of the pre-Putin foreign ministers of Russia has maintained for decades that NATO offers free security on Russia's western border. Its rules, especially those related to civilian oversight of military affairs, ensure that NATO members remain stable and predictable. The mutual defense guarantee acts as a moderating force that reduces the likelihood of unexpected moves by a single country. What normal country wouldn't want to border a military alliance dominated by overly cautious pacifists?

Sure, the mutual-defense guarantee can be a moderating force, or it can be a ticket to rapid escalation (case in point WW1) and, potentially therefore, nuclear war.

The fact that the Cold War ended peacefully, and with the USSR‘s dissolution to boot, is one of history’s great miracles. With the world’s return to its default multi-polar state, we really shouldn’t press our luck.

Give Russia and China their spheres of influence while we protect our own. The tail risk of nuclear war just isn’t worth whatever gains Neocons promise. After all, how did their Iraqi and Afghan experiments in democracy turn out?

Russia already has its sphere of influence, but it is rapidly shrinking because aligning with Russia offers neither peace nor prosperity nor anything else of value. Politically, economically, scientifically, and culturally, it is a dead end. Russia is not the first country to slip into irrelevance and struggle to accept the loss of its influence, and no amount of temper tantrums has ever changed that for anyone.

The UK, France, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Mongolia, and many others were vast empires at some point in history. They have all had to adopt a self-image that reflects their true political, cultural, and economic weight in the present world. Russian ambitions are too detached from reality, given that they account for only a percentage or two of global GDP and population, and are in a downward trend.

I don't disagree about Russia's prospects. China, too, is facing a demographic collapse it will take generations to mend. But the nuclear arsenal of both countries makes this irrelevant for policy now.

I don’t agree much with Machiavelli for one, but more importantly he and Sun Tzu lived during a time when war was very common and just happened all the time with little provocation. In the post WW2 world the goal should be to avoid war at all costs and achieve goals by other means.

I'd argue war is as common now as in the times of Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. Even after WW2 and only considering US boots on the ground, how many military conflicts have there been?

There are five major ones:

Korean War (1950-1953) Vietnam War (1955-1975) Persian Gulf War (1990-1991) War in Afghanistan (2001-2021) Iraq War (2003-2011)

If you count proxy wars, it wouldn't be such a stretch to say we've been fighting almost continuously since we dropped the bomb.

The only reason for them to not accept NATO membership of a neighbor is if they're planning to invade that neighbor.

Russia's desire to not have NATO neighbors rather makes the point of why there can be no peace between Ukraine and Russia - Ukraine understands that without real guarantees of security, any 'peace' with Russia is a farce that only lets them prepare for the next invasion, except this one will start closer to home and be better planned.

Russia already had, and even created more NATO membership on its borders(Finland just recently). That excuse is clearly false.

What relevance does Ukraine joining NATO, a defensive alliance, have to Russia? (Unless they are planning to attack again, which would mean the "peace deal" isn't actually worth the paper it's signed on, and is just a way for Russia to regroup for their next invasion.)

Whether you call it "defensive" or not, NATO—and the arms race it and the Warsaw Pact fostered—directly led to the Soviet Union's collapse. Recall that JFK almost started WW3 when the Soviets sent nukes to Cuba. NATO on Russia's borders isn't all that different to them.

Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an end. We basically have a WW1 situation where both sides are grinding themselves down and the only thing the left can bring themselves to support is continuing the conflict.

Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney. This is a good hint that you MIGHT not be on the good guys team as much as you think you are.

Russia broke the last ceasefire. Another ceasefire without material guarantees of security for Ukraine is pointless for Ukraine to sign, as there's no reason to believe it'll "bring the meat grinder to an end".

Which is exactly what Zelenskyy was trying to say, when they kept shouting over him. And what at least one reporter asked about, which question Trump then dodged.

The position "any compromise that ends the war is acceptable" is a nonsensical idea that gives agressors the ability to take any territory they want from weaker nations. Invade weaker nation, take some land, then force them to surrender to 'save lives'. Do you not see where this absolutist idea leads?

If the only thing that matters is saving lives, you can have whatever you want by taking lives. The end result is that people who are willing to kill for profit win.

If you don't want the world to be ruled by people willing to kill for profit, you have to take action to make that behavior unprofitable.

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time

We did appeasement in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. Totally solved the problem didn't it. Just like Chamberlain prevented the meat grinder of WWII.

> Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney.

That's a fallacy.

It might be true if Dick Cheney said or did something controversial that everybody disagrees with, like initiate a completely unnecessary war with Iraq. But in this case, everybody across the political spectrum who understands the situation and its context, agrees that it is vital to defend Ukraine.

Answer me this: do you think that in WW2, everybody should just have surrendered to Germany and Japan in order to bring the war to a quick end? Would that have been better than 5 years of destruction?

I don’t think it’s a fallacy at all. Being on the same team as a famous warmonger when it comes to choosing whether or not to continue funding an endless war is a decent HINT. It should make you take a step back and really examine all the evidence about whether you’re actually on the right side of history (you’re probably not).

This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2. In that conflict both sides basically came to standstill, lines were drawn in the dirt and millions on lives were lost for literally no reason. If the leaders of the countries involved had been able to recognize that years of slaughter had bought them nothing and negotiate a peaceful compromise then so many lives could have been saved. PLUS that likely would have prevented WW2 from even happening.

This is also a proxy war between the US and Russia, Ukraine would have been conquered immediately by Russia without US aid. We have the ability to force a peace and we should be trying to do so not only because we’re spending a lot of money on it but because we are perpetuating a horrific slaughter of millions of people.

No, it's still a fallacy.

Sure, taking a step back and examining the evidence is always a good idea, but the evidence is pretty damn clear here.

> This conflict is much more analogous to WW1 instead of WW2.

Only tactically. Both WW2 and this war were initiated by a single aggressor starting multiple wars in a row. WW1 by contrast had lots of countries equally itching for a fight, even countries that had nothing to do with the initial trigger. And assassination in Sarajevo should not logically lead to endless trench warfare in Flanders. But in Russia's invasion, everybody else is really careful to keep the fighting contained to just Ukraine.

> Just think for a sec, you are on the same side as Dick Cheney.

Just think for a sec, if AOC and Dick Cheney can agree "person X is horrible", there's a good chance that person is horrible.

> Any compromise at all which brings the meat grinder to an end.

Which would entail trusting the US and Russia.

Under Trump the US signed a trade deal with MX and CA and is now going after them. So why trust Trump?

And why would you trust Russia when their goal is to wipe UA from the map?

This also puts you on the same side as Neville Chamberlain, so.

There are a lot of bad people who espoused war in the past. There are also a lot of bad people who ran from war and appeased the Hitlers of the world, although many of their names did not survive because they weren't around afterward to write the histories.

Star Trek DS9 episode 6x05

“What could be better? An ally and an enemy both telling him the same thing; he'll have no other choice but to agree!”

If both Dick Cheney and Bernie Sanders are allied against someone, they’re probably bad news.

I appreciate I’m oversimplifying and ignoring the realpolitik, but the fastest way to end the war is to mercilessly crush the aggressor state that invaded and annexed a sovereign nation twice. The mistake of both the US and the EU was to be far, far too timid in their responses to an obvious existential threat.

How do you stop the Russians continuing a one sided murder campaign after the surrender?

Give them whatever they want, again, I suppose! That's the only conclusion possible from a policy of "any compromise to end the killing".

Bingo. The only way to stop Russia killing people is for them to lose the war.

I'm not sure ad hominem is as convincing as you think it is. "Any compromise at all" is a very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets.

Ad hominem: “Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument.”

I said aligning yourself with a famous war monger is a good hint that you may not be a good guy and that it is a good reason for reflection. I did not attack OP’s character or motivations.

>very easy thing to say when it isn't your blood in the streets.

Likewise it is even more easy to be cavalier about continuing to fund a war and depopulating entire nations when you’re not the one being conscripted to fight and die.

It’s easy to be a war monger when you’re not the one doing the dying.