War in Ukraine

Not nuked and I sincerely hope that I am wrong but there is a good chance that Russia will use chemical munitions in Ukraine. They or the Syrians with their consent used chemicals against civilians in Syria and considering that Putin's obvious objective is force Ukraine into submission through the infliction of pain the use of chemical weapons against civilian targets wouldn't be surprising.

 

I mean, the main reason not to do any of those things is not the risk of nuclear war (but you cant dismiss it), but simply the escalation of the conflict to where it spins out of control.

 

If your neighbor installed a sweet alarm system wouldn't that make you want to burglarize them?

 

I agree with your premise, 100%. However, Putin’s position is that NATO actions in the Balkans, Middle East, and Afghanistan “prove” that NATO is more than a defensive alliance. Of course, that’s all BS, too. The real issue is that any member of NATO can’t be quickly gobbled up by a new Russian Empire, which is the ultimate goal.

 

You and your older brother share a room. Ever so slowly he starts leaving his toys on your side of the room. Pretty soon, you cant even step out of your bed without stepping on them. You rightly see this a display of his dominance and power over you. You feel anger and humiliation because of this, and know he is stronger in a fight, but plot ways to strike back at him and assert your own dominance, probably against a younger, weaker sibling in another room.

 

By “backed Yeltzin” Did the U.S. elevate him over other people? I have absolutely no idea. Some Russia historian could probably look into what other decisions could have been made internally to Russia in the 80’s/90’s (and if the U.S. should have “backed” some other direction). I know Putin was Yeltzin’s chosen guy. So yeah, this obviously doesn’t reflect well on any of it. Too many former KGB types obviously ended up in power right away. Too much corruption. Yeltzin himself staged a coup at one point, so this retrenchment seems to have been their destiny right from the start.

 

We did, because he introduced radical liberalization measures and backed large scale privatization of the economy. Not to mention, he was a main player in the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

 

No.. Who do you think I am, the Lockpicking Lawyer?

 

No, but I think if he had top of the line security cameras pointing at your bedroom you might be a bit alarmed lol

 

Yes. That’s obviously what WE wanted. Maybe Yeltzin was just telling us what we wanted to hear. But then again, literally any other person would have been doing the same sort of messaging - so it would be difficult to parse out.

I doubt there was any serious guy in the early 90’s going “bring back the iron curtain, Make the U.S.S.R great again” right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Everyone would have been promising major reform and a market economy. Unfortunately in practical terms, all the levers of their economy stayed in the the same hands. Except THEIR wealth became privatized to the tune of billions per individual.

 

Russia was always planning to take back Ukraine and potentially invade other countries. NATO membership would trigger automatic participation from the other members in a conflict, and therefore there would be no ability for Putin to threaten consequences if the USA or others got involved. He, and the world, would already know what is going to happen if he invaded, so it’s a huge deterrent. Putin doesn’t want that deterrent in place, because he can’t feign ignorance or play the victim.

 

In the '91 election, the Gorbachev backed communist candidate essentially wanted a socialist economy and basically a more "open" Soviet Union (so basically an heir to Gorbachev himself). He finished second, but it wasn't particularly close. I dont think the levers stayed in the same hands, there were certainly choices and options, but people in positions of power already were certainly well-positioned to take advantage of a radical restructuring of the economy and sell off of state assets, with ordinary people mostly losing out. Which of course created a certain amount of nostalgia for the USSR after some time, or interest in Russia's imperial past. Capitalism made some promises, and of course, as always they were being sold a bill of goods.

 

I have been thinking a lot about this question. You can see from the different analogies provided, that there are different possible perspectives here.

The closest that I can get to an analogy that makes sense to me is to first keep in mind that Russia and the US believe they have rather different interests, more so than say the US and Germany. Next, imagine a reverse scenario, where the US is mostly alone. And say Russia, China, Japan, Iran, and others formed a binding military pact, NETO. Since the US is worried about the actions of these actors, a pact between all of them is a bit frightening. Then NETO starts to court Mexico and Canada into their pact, perhaps paving the way for Russian weapons along the border of the US.

Now in each of the cases outlined above, the NETO agreements were consensual and defensive, and therefore the US doesn’t have a clear moral justification for intervention. But I would understand if US was concerned about these developments nonetheless. Of course being nice to Canada and Mexico and courting them into a consensual agreement would be the far preferred to the US just invading them. Frankly, I don’t really even see how invading is supposed to help anything, since it just pushes your border closer to the rival faction. Regardless, I can see how NATO might make Russia nervous even if NATO’s explicit agreement is a “defensive” one.

 

This isn't complicated.

The West sees NATO as a necessary defensive alliance to protect western liberal democracy from a demonstrably and historically aggressive and oppressive Mafia state that is unafraid to invade sovereign people unwanting of their rule. When states want to join NATO for their protection, this is good for Western democratic ideals, the people of that state, and the world in general until such time as Russia becomes a liberal democracy.

The Russians (would like you to think that they) view the demonstrably and historically defensive NATO as a threat to their homeland and domestic interests. They also (would like you to) think their military incursions are to free their Slavic brethren - even though those very people don't want their "safety".

Pick a side.

 

It's a fun hobby.

 

Post Soviet Russia has never really had a capitalist economy, they had an oligarchy. The people were sold a bill of goods only in the sense that they were given the superficial promise of one. Capitalism never materialized in Russia, and obviously in recent years even that superficial veneer eroded. Particularly with Putin cracking down on free press and dissent against the state. With the response to the Ukraine invasion, any pretense of free markets and freedom inside Russia has collapsed entirely.

 

The added advantage of this analogy is that really is the maturity level of Putin’s position.

 

Okay. Now I really want to learn this. lol

 

You might as well say we never really had a capitalist economy. Robber barons, billionaires, we have a different name for the same type of guys. Insanely corrupt politics. Cracking down on dissent, rampant nationalism, we have it all too. Liberal democracy is in a bad state almost everywhere. Driven mostly by the same sort of neoliberal market reforms and selling off of public interests to private hands. That whole "shock doctrine" thing.

 

Strike military targets only. Create supply chain disruptions. Upset air support for Russian troops. Playing defense only isn't the best strategy. Jmo