Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[fresh_42]

It's been 60 years(not that i concede relevant parallels). Does Putin really believe that's relevant today? Heck, our change in posture is largely what enabled Putin's advance.

It needed two great politicians (de Gaulle and Adenauer) to overcome the French-German hostility and the EU to end a history of centuries of war. Nothing similar has been done between Russia and "the West". IKEA and Mercedes alone don't heal such deep wounds.

I am not claiming that this position is right in an objective sense. But I do claim that the Russian majority still considers NATO as a threat, maybe not so much of the younger generation.

 

[fresh_42]

We're supposed to be looking to the future; not digging up grudges from the past. I don't believe modern Russians generally think like that. This is the work of an isolated dictator.

And here I think you are wrong. This might be looking so from the far west, but it doesn't look so after more than a century of political indoctrination for Russians.

Edit: You are right that Putin very likely considers the EU, not NATO, as a threat for his, let's say it as is, dictatorship. But he uses old adversaries that are still in Russians' minds. I would stress another historic parallel when a dictator used already given adversaries for his purpose, but I know you do not like those arguments (I recommend Hegel).

 

[WWGD]

This is a bit of a biased view. Cuba could well justify a Russian military basis on its soil by the threat of the US. a) They have already landed in Cuba. b) They have massive sanctions in place against their current government.

Russia has been severely attacked twice in its younger history. They even had by far the most civilian casualties in WW II. To say NATO is no threat ignores these facts.

Sanctions against cuba exist mostly in paper. Cuba has a healthy amount of trade with several countries

 

[WWGD]

Above is a list of countries that export to cuba.There are also several dollar-only stores that are chock full of everything you'd want. How do they supply themselves through sanctions? Cuba does not engage in more commerce because it does not pay its debts. Helms-Burton exists mostly on paper.

 

[PeroK]

It needed two great politicians (de Gaulle and Adenauer) to overcome the French-German hostility and the EU to end a history of centuries of war.

I can't keep up with your romp through the history of the 20th Century. Roosevelt, for example, thought de Gaulle was crazy. Europe held together despite de Gaulle. I will point out also that it was the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Germany!

 

[fresh_42]

Cuba isn't the topic here. I only drew a parallel as we were talking about buffer states. Does the US still occupy parts of Cuba or not? It is simply unfair to name Transnistria and request a different assessment for Cuba.

Someone has to speak for Russian people. They surely do not want this war. But not to compare Russia's buffers with Chinese or American buffers is simply one-sided and stubborn.

 

[russ_watters]

It needed two great politicians (de Gaulle and Adenauer) to overcome the French-German hostility and the EU to end a history of centuries of war. Nothing similar has been done between Russia and "the West". IKEA and Mercedes alone don't heal such deep wounds.

You don't need an alliance to end hostilities, you just need to...end hostilities. What did the US do when the USSR collapsed? Did we take the opportunity to invade while they were weakened? No, we packed up our tanks and went home from Europe because the threat was gone.

I am not claiming that this position is right in an objective sense. But I do claim that the Russian majority still considers NATO as a threat, maybe not so much of the younger generation.

I don't believe that, but nor do I believe their will even matters.

[Edit] And let's not kid ourselves here: Germany, France, the EU? They have never been a threat to the USSR since the new world order post-WWII. The only "threat" is the US.

 

[fresh_42]

I can't keep up with your romp through the history of the 20th Century. Roosevelt, for example, thought de Gaulle was crazy. Europe held together despite de Gaulle. I will point out also that it was the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Germany!

Have you read what I said at all?

... to overcome the French-German hostility ...

The Marshall plan or Roosevelt haven't the least to do with it. Who is bending facts? And that is what you all do if you want to understand the Russian (not Putin's) mindset. It is the biased view of the West.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't believe that

I wish I had you at my side during dozens of such discussions (with my nonacademic Russian (ex-) girlfriend and her friends when it came to politics) ...

 

[PeroK]

The Marshall plan or Roosevelt haven't the least to do with it.

They have as much to do with this thread as Adenauer and de Gaulle.

 

[fresh_42]

They have as much to do with this thread as Adenauer and de Gaulle.

This is not true, simple as that. Until then the two called themselves 'hereditary enemy'. This was the position that had been to overcome.

Nobody ever did the same with the Russian population. Their indoctrination lasts for more than 100 years now, and they do not have a 'free press'. They are all only consuming the equivalence to the station with the three letters.

 

[snorkack]

Edit: You are right that Putin very likely considers the EU, not NATO, as a threat for his, let's say it as is, dictatorship. But he uses old adversaries that are still in Russians' minds. I would stress another historic parallel where dictators used already given adversaries for their purpose, but I know you do not like those arguments (I recommend Hegel).

What was the source of the crisis, to recall? In 2013, the negotiations were for EU association treaty. EU was pressuring Ukraine for a lot of concessions in Ukraine domestic politics as a price for EU associations. While Russia pressured Ukraine to pick Russia over Ukraine. In November 2013, Yanukovych picked the Russian terms... and Euromaidan followed. In three months, Yanukovych was overthrown by domestic violent uprising, inside his term... Russia perceives the action of EU in 2013...2014 as inciting internal subversion. And acts threatened.

 

[fresh_42]

Russia perceives the action of EU in 2013...2014 as inciting internal subversion. And acts threatened.

You could also say that Maidan has been originally against corruption and oligarchs. And now it is revisiting from the east.

 

[PeroK]

I wish I had you at my side during dozens of such discussions (with my nonacademic Russian (ex-) girlfriend and her friends) ...

The key question is whether Putin's position is unassailable. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I interpret what you're saying is that he is? He, the Russian Parliament, the leaders of the Russian Military, the leaders of the Russian industries and a majority of the Russian people believe that, as he says, they have no choice but to attack Ukraine? If so, then, I guess, we have either WWIII or another Cold War.

I don't believe that. That was true in the USSR. There was a genuine division along a fundamental political divide: Capitalism versus Communism.

But, Russian industries depend on the global ecomony and I can't believe that they believe that their country must make war against the west. If they thought they could overrun all of Europe, then of course, perhaps a pan-European Russian empire would have considerable appeal. But, they must know that this invasion of Ukraine is a monumental gamble and that domination of Eastern Europe as it was under the USSR is impossible. (As long as the USA stays loyal to NATO at least!)

The world is fundamentally different from the 1950s to 1980s. I don't believe that Putin is internally unassailable, the way the Politburo was.

 

[fresh_42]

He, the Russian Parliament, the leaders of the Russian Military, the leaders of the Russian industries and a majority of the Russian people believe that, as he says, they have no choice but to attack Ukraine?

This is not what I have said anywhere or anywhen.

I said that he probably considers Ukraine's attempt to join the EU as a threat to his autocracy.
I said that he uses common (within the Russian society, not the Russian elite) enemy images like NATO, fascism, drug addicts (and I'm waiting for gays) to justify his in my mind personal war.
And I said that there haven't been any attempts from the West other than IKEA and Mercedes to overcome those old prejudices.

 

[BWV]

From the POV of the US and Western Europe’s national interest, it should have been clear that NATO membership should only be extended to the countries absorbed by the USSR in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - I.e yes on the Baltics but no on Ukraine and Caucuses (although the border of Ukraine changed considerably with the invasion of Poland in 39 so it’s not quite so neat)

It’s a geopolitical reality that certain old imperial spheres of influence need to be shown some respect - China re Taiwan and Tibet is another example. Thought it was reckless of McCain to agitate for Georgian NATO membership, for example. The problem is regimes change - we admit Ukraine it Georgia to NATO, what happens if they get some dictator who starts agitating for more Russian territory?

That said, this current war is 100% on Putin and hopefully will lead to his end as the war appears to be turning into a bloody quagmire.

 

[morrobay]

But why does he need a buffer zone? "I need a buffer zone" is not a complete thought. The point of a buffer zone, presumably, is to protect against something. Protect against what?

As I said before, this reason is nonsense.

Why does he need a buffer zone. Maybe you should ask @fresh_42 post #285

 

[BillTre]

All these arguments about about Russia needing some kind of buffer region to protect itself from invasion from other countries is BS subterfuge to rationalize their (Putin's actually) expansionist dreams.
Yeah they have a history with being invaded in WWII, but there is no threat of that now.
Anyone who believes Putin's transparent rationalizations is a fool. Its all for PR, internal and international.

Rather they are the threat to their neighbors. Ther neighbors need a buffer from Russia.

 

[Mike S.]

All these arguments about about Russia needing some kind of buffer region to protect itself from invasion from other countries is BS subterfuge to rationalize their (Putin's actually) expansionist dreams.

May be, but we're not singing Imagine here. Russia wants a buffer zone, and the question is, do we need to be pushing to put NATO troops in every single country in the region? Or would an agreement for their independence and peace be sufficient? Especially since we could always sign them up anyway if Russia doesn't keep to the agreement, and not even feel guilty about it. The worst that could happen is that Russia could invade the "buffer" countries while they're defenseless -- and that differs from the current situation how exactly?

 

[snorkack]

All these arguments about about Russia needing some kind of buffer region to protect itself from invasion from other countries is BS subterfuge to rationalize their (Putin's actually) expansionist dreams.
Yeah they have a history with being invaded in WWII, but there is no threat of that now.
Anyone who believes Putin's transparent rationalizations is a fool. Its all for PR, internal and international.

Rather they are the threat to their neighbors. Ther neighbors need a buffer from Russia.

It was not implausible that there was a threat to Russia and Russia was not a threat.
The issue is the difference between a stationary bandit and a roving bandit. The public face was to pretend to be a stationary bandit, but Putin ended up behaving like a roving bandit.

 

[BillTre]

It was not implausible that there was a threat to Russia and Russia was not a threat.

Yes it is implausible. The only real threats to Russia come from their own actions.

Or would an agreement for their independence and peace be sufficient?

There already is such an agreement (signed by Russia). Its worthless.

we could always sign them up anyway if Russia doesn't keep to the agreement

How's that working out now?

The current type of responses to Russia's blatant aggression are way too slow, which probably has to do with why Putin is doing what he's doing.

 

[fresh_42]

Ther neighbors need a buffer from Russia.

This is a Western point of view. The Eastern one is different.

 

[BillTre]

This is a Western point of view. The Eastern one is different.

What about the eastern view from within Russia's little (easternly located) neighbors.
Russia is not the only view of interest here. They just want people to forget about their victims.

 

[fresh_42]

What about the eastern view from within Russia's little (easternly located) neighbors.
Russia is not the only view of interest here. They just want people to forget about their victims.

I agree, and certainly with the facts. I've said twice that Russia is currently proving right why they all want to join NATO. However, Putin justifies his war that is in my opinion solely undertaken to create a czar-like image of himself in history books by certain arguments. And these arguments use the given prejudices and year-long indoctrination that is available in Russian society. Come on, every warlord does exactly this! This is not even new. Heck, I was afraid of NATO, too, not so long ago!

And it is also a fact that we did little to change those prejudices.

 

[artis]

I wanted to do a quote-reply type of thing but since so much has been posted let me just make some short (yes I know I usually expand too much... somewhat like Russia) answers, if anyone is interested given @PeroK took my one mistake earlier and said he then questions everything I have said so far.

@russ_watters let me answer you since you raised the point multiple times here,

The buffer zone idea is simple, nobody , at least not me, is saying that Russia needs buffer zones because NATO will attack it, truth be told I don't even think Putin believes that. But this is not the issue don't you understand? The issue is simple, take a map, (I already somewhat explained this in detail previously but it seems few took me seriously) now look at the countries bordering Russia from all western side, almost all European countries, now include Ukraine in them also and suppose all these countries have weapons systems within them near the border, systems that you don't control!
This is not about whether someone will use those systems or not, it's simply about the FACT that they are there and that's it.
Russians , not just Putin by the way , there is quite a percentage of people in Russia who don't exactly like that. It's not about the threat it's about the fact that you have less and less control over your backyard.

Now do these political and military wishes and interests of Russia coincide with the interests of the small republics that border Russia? Of course not , but they have never coincided , never!
It's not like we border Russia for the first year , we live here for more than 1000 years, arguably even more.
We have had disputes over the border and who will control who and what since that time.

Now, so what is the solution?
Here is my take , arguably a rational one. Especially given this is my direct interest and area of concern, I'm literally sitting next to Russian thermonuclear missiles! (which might be a good thing, given the yield you wouldn't want to drop them so close to home...)You cannot have a scenario where Russia is completely buffered up and surrounded from all sides with weapons even if nobody attacks, that simply will never work, it has never worked for any large country, truth be told not even US. Another factor is the enemy close by archetype, especially if you are not all that successful like Russia was in the 90's, look at Germany, one of the reasons Hitler was successful is because Germans felt betrayed and ridiculed after WW1, so came WW2. Remember dictators are not exactly lone wolf players, you have to have a large support in order to make ordinary people with a family of 3 children take up uniforms and murder Jews by day while read children's books to their kids by evening...

NATO already expanded much further than it could have ever dreamed off, no American president before 1990 would ever even in their wildest dreams think that one day NATO will be 300 miles from Moscow!
The problem with world powers often (both Russian and US) is they don't know when enough is enough!

You reach the balance point and then you keep it, balance in international politics is a fine tuning thing, you have to be careful, just because something looks right doesn't mean it has to be done.
We had an almost balance like state so far, before the Ukrainians started revolting in 2014 we had I'd say he most peace we have ever had here.
Teasing Ukraine with the option of NATO and telling Putin he will have to be ok with US tanks within Ukraine which apart from Russian propaganda is indeed the historical seat and cultural center of the Russian empire was a bit too much, it's sort of like meeting your new girlfriend and then pushing her into sexual relationship the next day, you can't move that fast or that far.I know this sounds bit selfish, one could say "yes you got NATO and now when others want the same you say - no for you" but this is a political reality.My own idea is that Ukraine should have been given guarantees that it will be able to join EU but not NATO, while Russia should have been told to keep out of Ukraine , so as long as they keep out of Ukraine NATO doesn't step in but if Russian interferes with Ukraine then NATO will help them.

Instead what happened is this. NATO dangled the option for Ukraine to join, Zelensky being a smart and young man spent much time traveling abroad pushing everyone to accept Ukraine in both EU and NATO, meanwhile Russia was somewhat left out of the dialogue , and now Putin is in Ukraine with force.And please respect my opinion, I am not pro anybody here I'm trying to be as neutral as one can be, but bad politics is bad politics I have to call it out.
My former driving instructor said once "if you make the right choices you can avoid any accident" at first I kind of thought his nuts, but then it settled to me, indeed just like in chess, you make a couple of bad moves from the start and you lose at the end.

This in no way or form "whitewashes" Russian imperialist past nor their current aggression, but every coin has two sides. My take is this could have been avoided.

 

[wrobel]

However, Putin justifies his war

God bless you for this bold font

 

[PeroK]

NATO already expanded much further than it could have ever dreamed off, no American president before 1990 would ever even in their wildest dreams think that one day NATO will be 300 miles from Moscow!
The problem with world powers often (both Russian and US) is they don't know when enough is enough!

In other words, you just don't get the idea that every nation gets to decide for itself. It's the difference between coercion and military domination and peaceable unions of nations.

It seems to me that Ukraine a) did not join NATO; b) did not join the EU; and c) Russia invaded in any case.

 

[fresh_42]

God bless you for this bold font

I can't say anything negative about the Russian people I have met, except for their homophobia perhaps. But I am sure that the vast majority do not want this war for a minute, not just the thousands of protesters and the 2,000+ they have already arrested.

 

[artis]

Another comment, NATO if it only wants to serve it's original goal, doesn't need every country in Europe and the middle east to join it, originally it was just fine even without half of what it has today.
Ukraine could have joined EU and Had some deals with Putin and NATO could have simply said ,we will not go into Ukraine and you won't too.

IIRC back in the Cold war days NATO only had western Europe and Soviet ICBM, loads of them, were sitting right next on the border lines, American ICBM's were stationed in west Germany, Italy IIRC, and other parts.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-.../us-nuclear-presence-western-europe-1954-1962
And all was fine. We had balance. We also had it post 1990, even in the face of NATO expansion.

Now it;'s no secret that European NATO allies have nuclear weapons stored on site

The current numbers of nuclear bombs and their locations is an official secret, although it is widely understood that about 100 to 150 bombs are kept at air bases in Belgium, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey.[1] Before the early 1990s, however, the U.S. had thousands of nuclear weapons in NATO Europe, with the late 1960s a peak in the range of 8,000

Now if Ukraine joined NATO it would mean Ukraine would also have nukes on it;'s border, it has a vast border that stretches deep into Russian territory, a border that is arguably the most sensitive of any land border Russia has in Europe.
Also Russia's exit to Black sea.

In other words, you just don't get the idea that every nation gets to decide for itself. It's the difference between coercion and military domination and peaceable unions of nations.

I'm sorry Perok but it seems to me you are the one who is stubborn here.
I "get" every idea, I live in a country where we voted for NATO, I did too.
But it seems to me you don't get geopolitics and military strategy,
Ukraine in NATO is not just a single issue deal, it's not just about whether Ukraine wants it or not, it;'s much more complicated.

If my next door neighbor wants a higher paid job that is fine, but when my next door neighbor starts storing tons of gunpowder at his house I might have an issue with that...

US lived through the Cuban missile Crisis, did you not learn anything from that experience?
Kennedy I bet was up all night and day in those stressful days until it was resolved.
Cuba does not even have a land border with the US, and back then those were R12 Dvina missiles, with a range of 2000km or just bit over 1200 miles, so posed a threat to only the US south, IIRC the max payload was a 4Mt single bomb.

Europe effectively still has much more than that with a land border contact with Russia, once you see it in this light it makes more sense.

 

[Astronuc]

It seems to me that Ukraine a) did not join NATO; b) did not join the EU; and c) Russia invaded in any case.

a) and b) were pending, and c) happened as a preventative measure of a) and b).