The State of Affairs in Russia

[Sheilbh]

Hey did you know Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro recently joined NATO? I had no idea. Well at least none of those countries border to Russia. We have so many Albanian Bunkers to wage war against Russia with now.

North Macedonia, please. No-one wants to accidentally re-start the world's most tedious, pointless and bafflingly long-running international dispute

[Zoupa]

You have to accept that using military force to resolve a dispute is, mostly, no longer on the table, *especially within the order itself*. When the game of influencing who Ukraine wants to align with doesn't go your way, you don't get to use violence to settle the argument. When you think the Crimea really ought to be part of your country, you don't get to simply take it if the political debate doesn't end how you like, IF you want to be part of the internal liberal order that is characterized by NATO and the EU.

I guess all that weaponry is purely defensive, being bordered by the warmongering Canada and Mexico.

The US and other NATO countries do use force to further their national objectives, and have done so repeatedly ever since its inception. I don't think that's even disputed.

[Duque de Bragança]

Hey did you know Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro recently joined NATO? I had no idea. Well at least none of those countries border to Russia. We have so many Albanian Bunkers to wage war against Russia with now.

North Macedonia, please. No-one wants to accidentally re-start the world's most tedious, pointless and bafflingly long-running international dispute

I thought about it but was sure some Languish nerd would do it for me. 

[Valmy]

Yeah and I would rather we stop doing that.

But have we or any NATO country done so against Russia or even in Eastern Europe? The only exceptions even in Europe I can think of is that damn fool thing in the Balkans in the 1990s and even that was a dark comedy rather than a fearful show of force. Yeah so the US is going to do counter-productive and stupid blockades of Cuba and Venezuela and invade Afghanistan and Iraq but only one of those things was done by NATO.

And at the time Russia's response was more 'Afghanistan eh? Good luck with that" rather than shaking in fear at this anti-Russian aggression IIRC.

Russia's nukes ensure that even if NATO was evil we would never mess with it. I bet Ukraine wishes they had kept theirs. The US typically only bullies little countries that are unlikely to put up much of a fight and with only the small exception of France, the rest of the NATO countries are unlikely to even do that.

[Valmy]

And I guess it goes without saying that the reason for our military spending is domestic politics and economic interests. A terrible legacy of WWII and the Cold War we just cannot shake off.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah and I would rather we stop doing that.

But have we or any NATO country done so against Russia or even in Eastern Europe? The only exceptions even in Europe I can think of is that damn fool thing in the Balkans in the 1990s and even that was a dark comedy rather than a fearful show of force. Yeah so the US is going to do counter-productive and stupid blockades of Cuba and Venezuela and invade Afghanistan and Iraq but only one of those things was done by NATO.

Bosnia, Kosovo, support in Afghanistan, Libya - off the top of my head.

I think the argument that NATO is a purely defensive organisation works better in the cold war - though even then it was partly designed (at least from a British/European perspective) primarily to keep the US in Europe. The big fear was that the US would withdraw into isolationism again so, certainly from London, NATO was a strategy to stop that happening (and we also wanted the US to step into our shoes in places like Greece).

In the 90s and the early 00s I think there's a debate about the role of NATO and what it's "for" in the world. I think the view - to an extent pushed by Blair - was basically that it was there to enforce the will of the "international community" and things like "responsibility to protect". It is worth noting that Blair's concept of the "international community" was not the same as the UN because that would give Russia and China a veto. So it was NATO as the tool or perhaps just a cover for the decisions taken by Western leaders - basically do we want to do this generally (or is it Iraq) and will the US do it. There were critics of that approach at the time who thought that NATO was being distracted/misused, but I think it reflects an organisation looking for purpose during that unipolar moment.

Since then in 2007 Putin gave his Munich speech which absolutely laid out the Russian objection to the "Western liberal order" and intent to try to overturn or create space for its opponents - I think this has since been expanded by China who are echoing a lot of that but also focusing more on the world's ecoonomic "order". Arguably Western leaders should have taken that speeh more seriously and thought about what it would mean for Europe and that NATO might, once again, be needed as a defensive alliance which is where I think we are now.

At the same time as that you have the 2008 Bucharest declaration - and I think this reflects the West and Bush at its most deluded in my view. There'd been colour revolutions. Despite Iraq I think there was an overly strong belief in "progress" and that it was all just an inevitable march which Putin (then alone) might grouch about. So the Bush administration with support from the UK and others pressured more reluctant, defence-minded countries into supporting the statement that Georgia and Ukraine would join NATO.

Then the Georgia conflict happens. Yanukovych comes back, there's Maidan and the Russian invasion. I think those expose that while NATO might be a defensive alliance there was practical desire or view that NATO should actually defend Georgia or Ukraine - would we really go to WW3 or risk a war with Russia over Georgia and Ukraine? Which I think gets how confused the purpose of NATO had become, because if it's defensive you should only allow new members if you actually to defend them which wasn't the policy at the time - and it reflects that it's right as a matter of principle to say there are no spheres of influence and defend the sovereignty of Ukraine etc, but in reality there is and it's in Russia's. We can help support the government of Ukraine in defending its sovereignty etc - but it's not Poland or the Baltics and we didn't treat an invasion of UKraine in that way and we won't if one happens tomorrow.

Edit:

But have we or any NATO country done so against Russia or even in Eastern Europe? The only exceptions even in Europe I can think of is that damn fool thing in the Balkans in the 1990s and even that was a dark comedy rather than a fearful show of force. Yeah so the US is going to do counter-productive and stupid blockades of Cuba and Venezuela and invade Afghanistan and Iraq but only one of those things was done by NATO.

And at the time Russia's response was more 'Afghanistan eh? Good luck with that" rather than shaking in fear at this anti-Russian aggression IIRC.

Just on this point specifically about the 90s and Afghanistan - the economics matters here. In the late 90s Russia had to go to the UN to request food aid. That's how bad things were.

Now because the 2000 and 2010s were generally a very good time to be an oil and gas producer Russia not in that situation. Also, unlike most other states like that - and this is down to Putin - Russia used that wealth to build up enormous foreign reserves (I think only Japan has bigger) and to cauterise exposed bits of the economy to the US which is why Russia is generally in a position and has the headroom to be recklesss/more aggressive in foreign policy. If Russia was still in the position it was in the 90s and 00s we wouldn't hear about this.

[Valmy]

Bosnia, Kosovo, support in Afghanistan, Libya - off the top of my head.

Yeah Libya. Another embarrassing shitshow. Are you sure these pathetic and ineffectual military campaigns should give anybody with a pulse cause for concern?

[Sheilbh]

Yeah Libya. Another embarrassing shitshow. Are you sure these pathetic and ineffectual military campaigns should give anybody with a pulse cause for concern?

The point is they are military campaigns. NATO was at its most active in terms of military campaigns after the cold war precisely because it stopped being purely defensive which, in the 90s and 00s, people felt was redundant in a post-cold war Europe.

At that point we do start using NATO to meet Western objectives - it's not just sitting there with huge tank divisions to stop the Warsaw Pact from invading.

[Valmy]

I suppose but you have to admit it is a big of a joke. Those operations would have been carried out by the US NATO or no NATO and the extent that the alliance participated was just just whomever felt like showing up. That doesn't require an alliance. I have seen no evidence that NATO is some kind of military threat that is capable of big operations including the united force of its members. If NATO was disbanded tomorrow it would make no difference at all for those kinds of operations because at the end of the day the operations the US has the desire and capability of carrying out will be carried out. These have all been coalitions of the willing type deals whatever their branding. And last I checked the actual physical location of NATO had little impact on any of them and they have all been mostly air campaigns, and the one that wasn't, Afghanistan, is no where near NATO members. So whether or not Poland or some tiny insignificant Eastern European country like NORTHERN MACEDONIA is in the alliance doesn't really matter. If the United States went insane and decided it wanted to risk nuclear war by bombing Russia like Kosovo well what difference would it make if Lithuania is in NATO? None at all.

The things that Russia doesn't like: military bases and NATO members near its territory would still be a thing even if Libya was never bombed by "NATO".

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong if Germany and France are not in the same military alliance. 

[Berkut]

You have to accept that using military force to resolve a dispute is, mostly, no longer on the table, *especially within the order itself*. When the game of influencing who Ukraine wants to align with doesn't go your way, you don't get to use violence to settle the argument. When you think the Crimea really ought to be part of your country, you don't get to simply take it if the political debate doesn't end how you like, IF you want to be part of the internal liberal order that is characterized by NATO and the EU.

I guess all that weaponry is purely defensive, being bordered by the warmongering Canada and Mexico.

The US and other NATO countries do use force to further their national objectives, and have done so repeatedly ever since its inception. I don't think that's even disputed.

When was the last time a NATO country attacked another NATO country?

It isn't disputed, and isn't my point.

[Berkut]

Yeah Libya. Another embarrassing shitshow. Are you sure these pathetic and ineffectual military campaigns should give anybody with a pulse cause for concern?

The point is they are military campaigns. NATO was at its most active in terms of military campaigns after the cold war precisely because it stopped being purely defensive which, in the 90s and 00s, people felt was redundant in a post-cold war Europe.

At that point we do start using NATO to meet Western objectives - it's not just sitting there with huge tank divisions to stop the Warsaw Pact from invading.

This is why the West is likely to fail. This goes right back to the previou argument about why liberalism will fail - the willingness of people within our own societies to engage in this kind of sophistry *against* ourselves.

The context of the debate is the claim that Russia should be worried about NATO fucking invading Russia, and you trot out the example of NATO trying to keep Libya from turning into an even larger shitshow then it was to counter the claim that NATO is not looking to INVADE RUSSIA????

Are you freaking kidding me Shelf?

Gaijan is arguing that Russia has a legitimate national security concern that NATO is going to send armored divisions driving on Moscow, and hence is justified in keeping this huge military that they just so happen to be massing on Ukraine's border (with the claim that it is apparently their to protect Russia) because they have to stop NATO from inflicting its will on poor Russia, and you respond with "Yep, they are right! Just look at what happened in Libya where NATO inflicted its will on Libya!"

Yeah, Libya is now a vassal puppet state of the NATO empire. Obviously. All those NATO armored division led by zombie Monty into Tripoli.

The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.

[Berkut]

You have to accept that using military force to resolve a dispute is, mostly, no longer on the table, *especially within the order itself*. When the game of influencing who Ukraine wants to align with doesn't go your way, you don't get to use violence to settle the argument. When you think the Crimea really ought to be part of your country, you don't get to simply take it if the political debate doesn't end how you like, IF you want to be part of the internal liberal order that is characterized by NATO and the EU.

I guess all that weaponry is purely defensive, being bordered by the warmongering Canada and Mexico.

And actually Zoupa...yes, in point of fact, the vast majority of US military spending IS in fact defensive.

There is more to be defended, more to be valued, on our globe then just protecting our own borders.

[Sheilbh]

This is why the West is likely to fail. This goes right back to the previou argument about why liberalism will fail - the willingness of people within our own societies to engage in this kind of sophistry *against* ourselves.

The context of the debate is the claim that Russia should be worried about NATO fucking invading Russia, and you trot out the example of NATO trying to keep Libya from turning into an even larger shitshow then it was to counter the claim that NATO is not looking to INVADE RUSSIA????

Are you freaking kidding me Shelf?

The point we made was in response to your claim that NATO doesn't use force against other countries to resolve issues. That has been the purpose of the NATO since the cold war - there was lots of soul searching etc about what the point of NATO was and where it came out was as an active, armed tool of the international community. The shift was being talked about actively (and broadly as a good thing) by policy makers as a way of NATO maintaining relevance - we can't pretend that away just because it doesn't fit our current rhetoric.

Of course, that happened at a point when there was no serious challenge to Western/US hegemony because China was still too poor and Russia was on the edge of collapse. Now that no longer holds it's probably best to pivot back to a primarily defensive role - especially if the US is less interested in Europe.

Gaijan is arguing that Russia has a legitimate concern that NATO is going to send armored divisions driving on Moscow, and hence is justified in keeping this huge military that they just so happen to be massing on Ukraine's border (with the claim that it is apparently their to protect Russia) because they have to stop NATO from inflicting its will on poor Russia, and you respond with "Yep, they are right! Just look at what happened in Libya!"

Yeah, Libya is now a vassal puppet state of the NATO empire. Obviously.

The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.

You can see what I think on Ukraine all through this thread including just a few posts up where I posted the Defence Secretary's (in my view very solid) article on Ukraine. I've said I think the UK's policy on this is absolutely right which is rushing arms and material to Ukraine, committing to helping them re-build their navy, helping train the military (I belive UK's trained over 20k Ukrainian soldiers since 2014) and supporting their right to defend their sovereignty. I also think it's really important - and helpful - that we re-emphasise ties with allies in the region (especially Poland and the Baltics - there was a joint UK-Poland-Ukraine meeting just today) and that we do our work domestically to shut down London's roll in facilitating money laundering from Russia and Ukraine. I think literally nothing we've spoken about is relevant to what policy we should have or what we should do.

At the same time I think at this stage we should still be open for talks - there's been Chief of the Defence Staff talks to his Russian equivalent, the Secretary of Defence has invited Shoigu for talks. I think it should still operate below the head of government/state level.

And we absolutely shouldn't make over-promises or declarations that we're not going to keep. Ukraine's not an ally, practically not going to become one and we're not going to go to war over this.

We are competitors with Russia - and with China for that matter. Of course they are concerned with our presence in bordering states - as we're concerned with missiles they places in their own territory in Kaliningrad, near the Baltics or in Belarus or Ukraine. Or, for example, if China starts posting military vessels on the Atlantic through the development in Equatorial Guinea.

[mongers]

Somewhat ironic that some are complaining about Ukraine being treated as an annex to Russia, typing about it within the 'State of affairs in Russia' thread, when we have a dedicated thread for the conflict here:

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11775.1750.html