Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[PeroK]

Well that is a true point, damn I entirely forgot about WW1, yes truth be told I made a mistake I wrote west while actually thinking USA and North America, so my bad, let me change that

You're also forgetting the US Civil War (160 years ago). You can't just "forget" WWI and expect us to take what you say seriously. Your analysis pays no attention to historical facts.

 

[Mike S.]

I see people have focused on religion here, and there is certainly some interesting material to consider. For Putin to call a Jew a Nazi is at once utterly absurd and false, but also not as fundamentally implausible as you might think. Look up the Continuation War between Finland and Russia. There were patriotic Jewish soldiers honorably defending their country ... for the Axis... against a Russian invasion conducted under the blind eye of the Allies ... and some of them were actually nominated for the Iron Cross! Yes, there were functioning synagogues behind Axis lines. If there's a moral to take from that, it's that war doesn't make sense, and if you can find the place where all logic and reason have broken down completely, that spot is the dead moral center of the war.

We should also see how things play out involving the Russian Orthodox Church and its apparent subservience to Putin's will, and how that all works in terms of ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Canonical_Communion_with_the_Moscow_Patriarchate The U.S. has never been very comfortable with such issues - I remember even one of the recent Supreme Court nominees was being attacked for potentially being under the influence of the Pope, and this is a more 'interesting' case.

 

[fresh_42]

all dictatorships are similar and commit similar crimes

I am less referring to autocracies in general, more to the faintness of the observers allowing things to develop and sometimes end up in an absolute catastrophe.

For short: appeasement was and is never a valid means to stop a war.

 

[snorkack]

Yes, the USSR under the rule of Stalin implemented collectivization policy which was to take away food from those that resisted being incorporated within the "Kolhoz" aka Collective farm system, this led to mass starvation. NKVD aka "cheka" agents seized grains and all food and shot those who resisted. Bodies of dead people were across streets and corners, people just crawled up and died wherever.
This led to what is known as "Holodomor" or Great famine,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Truly one of the most extreme human suffering (both in scope as well as cruelty) in the entire history of this planet.

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side - which means, townspeople and soldiers, the people who were not directly involved in growing food but who were dependent on peasants growing food and parting with it, and who stood to starve if the peasants would not or could not, as they had during Civil War - were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants, and thought that the peasants would refuse to give food away if the peasants were not getting enough immediate reward, would hide food, make false claims about natural conditions causing bad harvest, and refuse to work hard and enjoy leisure if they thought their harvest would be taken without compensation. In the first years of collectivization, people survived, because the harvests were decent, but this set the expectations/norms. In 1932, weather was bad, but the townsfolk was unwilling to make as much allowance for it as necessary, and trigger-happy to accuse the peasants of cheating and exaggerating their losses.
So when people did starve, the townsfolk viewed them as deadbeats who were themselves at fault for not working well enough to feed the towns and themselves.
The effects of the famine seem to have been patchy - depending on how far the harvest ended up falling below expectations. Ukraine had largest number of dead, but not all regions of Ukraine equally. Kazakhstan had larger proportion of population dead, though fewer total than Ukraine. Russia was not safe - several regions of Volga, South Urals and South Siberia were affected.

 

[Mike S.]

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side ... were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants...

I think you need to go deeper. The USSR made bad decisions due to lack of information, but the lack of information was due to censorship. Wherever people are prevented from sharing their opinions as a free and open society, death follows. This occurs even when the deficit goes unnoticed or seems to have an explanation, like your workplace not telling you which people had Covid yesterday. But for a totalitarian state or a totalitarian planet, death is the mercy and the hope.

 

[fresh_42]

Please keep in mind that this thread is about current events. Try not to go into speculations, politics, or religion.

Whenever it is about Europe, history is automatically included. We appreciate those comments particularly from our Baltic members because they have insights and knowledge due to their own history. It is less meaningful if such comments come from corners of the world that did not have had similar history lessons at school like the ones who are concerned.

So please, keep in mind that we cannot reteach the entire European history, not even since the Crusades and the Knights Templar. But this is approximately the time window that must be considered to understand the present.

 

[artis]

And how do you justify that he is openly threatening to start a nuclear war? This alone is insane.

Just to make one point clear, I am not justifying anything nor anyone here. I am completely open to your diagnosis, all I said is that it seems to me there are lots of rational though cruel points he is trying to score that is merely it. I mean we both have more or less the same overall information I think, from there on it;s opinion.

You're also forgetting the US Civil War (160 years ago). You can't just "forget" WWI and expect us to take what you say seriously.

I did not "forget" WW1 as such, it would be hard for me to know the stuff before and after and then miss something like a 20 million death war in between don't you think?
I also am pretty informed about US Civil war and the reasons for it, I just made a error in my remark and I don't believe that is the reason to doubt the majority of what I have said for which I can provide ample references. You are more than welcome to take me up on anything I've said from history so far and I will give you references need be.

Your analysis pays no attention to historical facts.

I accept your statement but I myself would disagree.

I see people have focused on religion here, and there is certainly some interesting material to consider. For Putin to call a Jew a Nazi is at once utterly absurd and false

Not sure where is the focus here , I made a single post wishing to better describe what I think is less known about the state of affairs of religion and state in Russia as well as Ukraine.
That being said I agree with you, Zelensky is most definitely not a Nazi.
There have been elements within Ukraine's nationalist movement that are far right and would indeed fall under the "suspicion" and I already gave links to such instances.
The simple truth is you can find evidence for both in all countries including and especially so in former republics of the USSR. We have both far right as well as far left, it;s just that even if the majority of Ukrainians are not far right and I do think they are not (they just want a decent life and their own nation) some that are always get picked out and used for propaganda purposes by Kremlin.

The problem with collectivization policy was that the people on the red side - which means, townspeople and soldiers, the people who were not directly involved in growing food but who were dependent on peasants growing food and parting with it, and who stood to starve if the peasants would not or could not, as they had during Civil War - were suspicious and distrustful of the peasants, and thought that the peasants would refuse to give food away if the peasants were not getting enough immediate reward, would hide food, make false claims about natural conditions causing bad harvest, and refuse to work hard and enjoy leisure if they thought their harvest would be taken without compensation. In the first years of collectivization, people survived, because the harvests were decent, but this set the expectations/norms. In 1932, weather was bad, but the townsfolk was unwilling to make as much allowance for it as necessary, and trigger-happy to accuse the peasants of cheating and exaggerating their losses.
So when people did starve, the townsfolk viewed them as deadbeats who were themselves at fault for not working well enough to feed the towns and themselves.
The effects of the famine seem to have been patchy - depending on how far the harvest ended up falling below expectations. Ukraine had largest number of dead, but not all regions of Ukraine equally. Kazakhstan had larger proportion of population dead, though fewer total than Ukraine. Russia was not safe - several regions of Volga, South Urals and South Siberia were affected.

Well I'm not saying that this wasn't an issue, sure the history is complicated, but I am saying that essentially it was the Soviet policy that created this mess,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932–1933
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor

According to Simon Payaslian, a tentative scholarly consensus classifies the Soviet famine (at least in Ukraine) as a genocide,[20] whereas John Archibald Getty states that the scholarly consensus classifies the Holodomor as a policy blunder that affected many nationalities, rather than some genocidal plan.[21] Scholars say that it remains a significant issue in modern politics and dispute whether Soviet policies would fall under the legal definition of genocide

You see we can speculate all day about whether it was direct genocide or nature assisted genocide or else. I know a bunch of simple facts and one of them is far stronger than all others.
My own grandfather owned a rather large farm, he produced grain, meat and milk. He wasn't exactly a "Rockefeller" but he had decent income and was wealthy for all practical considerations. Many farmers that had been farming for many generations had acquired land resources and produced and sold goods.
When the Soviet collectivization came all such farmers were labeled "enemies of the state" or "kulaks"
Their land was taken from them and "nationalized" , as you would expect people robbed of their life's work at gunpoint had no real incentive to work or produce anything for anyone.
Without these policies even with bad weather there would be no such famine as there was I'm sure.
Truth be told the Soviet agriculture (of which Ukraine was a major part due to it's good large lands) really only ever picked up speed after WW2 with more modern equipment and lots of struggle before.
That is how I see it , given I have a somewhat personal "family" experience with Collective farms, at least their beginnings.
My father never got back the lands that were taken from my grandfather, I regained some of them but after 70+ years instead of farmland it had become a forest.
If you came here every other family could tell you a story of how something that they had was taken from them if they happened to be "above average" in terms of owning a property or having land.

 

[russ_watters]

Because with Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO , Putin then has no buffer zone. I don't question these three in NATO . I am imagining it is a problem for Putin. Especially since they were former USSR. I recall an earlier post of yours where you said this also.

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.

 

[fresh_42]

Note: I removed two posts because neither separation of state and church nor communism is the topic here.

 

[russ_watters]

It is indeed hypocritical what NATO and the involved governments practice here.

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

 

[russ_watters]

I think it's a conflation of wants and needs, unwarrated in any way. Putin wants Nato to provide a buffer. Thus he attacks.

I would argue that it's not a buffer that he wants, since attacking removes the buffer. He wants Ukraine. The risk for NATO in Ukraine isn't losing the buffer its losing the opportunity to invade and seize.

He says "buffer" but means "places left unprotected so I cam invade them."

 

[PeroK]

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

Precisely. The EU grows by countries applying to join! Not by being invaded! The EU didn't invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic countries - they applied to join the EU! Whereas, Ukraine did not apply to join Russia in an alliance. It was invaded to force it to comply with Russia's wishes by military force. This is the fundamental difference.

PS this was supposed to be the new world order post-1990. Voluntary alliances of nations; not empires.

 

[fresh_42]

No it isn't. Again, one is a threat and the other is a defense against the threat.

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.

 

[PeroK]

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.

Sorry, I can't get my head round this way of thinking.

 

[geordief]

Is Putin going to seal Belarus ' fate?

Any support for the regime there will have to have diminished surely with their close up and engaged view of events

Is their time coming ?

 

[fresh_42]

Sorry, I can't get my head round this way of thinking.

I tried to describe the Russian position, and I know it is common there. I do not consider NATO a threat myself, but I have a totally different point of view. Russians have a different one, and I have no good argument why my assessment is more valid than theirs. They can always refer to 20,000,000 deads in the last century.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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.

 

[Mike S.]

The facts on the ground seemed meaningful here, but I never really understood. Russia had established "frozen war" and "passportization" in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (Abkhazia, Ossetia, Transnistria). It was obvious that Russia wouldn't attack NATO because that would be World War III and NATO wouldn't allow any of the frozen-war countries to join for the same reason. So the no-brainer would have been for NATO to publicly encourage those countries to negotiate for a "Finland-like status" where they would not have any foreign alliances and not have any foreign troops on their soil. I don't know if the Russians would have been willing to give up their toeholds for a deal, but why didn't NATO at least push for that idea? A buffer is no less convenient for NATO than for Russia - it's one less place for fighter jets to scrape the paint off each other - and Finland was still free to join the EU and be a Generally Nice Place To Live. Better than a lot of others in this world.

 

[snorkack]

Sorry if you feel that the explanation of the basis of communism was off-topic.
But while a lot of Ukrainians feel themselves as independent people, a large part of Russians feel them about like a civil war.
This means that the propaganda on the Russian side is effectively like a propaganda for Russians to go to a civil war. And the objections of a lot of Russian people to the war are much like objections to a civil war - they regard Ukrainians as their own people, therefore they are opposed to attacking.

 

[PeroK]

I tried to describe the Russian position, and I know it is common there. I do not consider NATO a threat myself, but I have a totally different point of view. Russians have a different one, and I have no good argument why my assessment is more valid than theirs. They can always refer to 20,000,000 deads in the last century.

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.

The simple truth is that Putin is relying on the cowardice of the EU and NATO not to act. He can hardly rely on that and also think the same nations would contemplate an invasion of Russia.

 

[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).