I’m not very well-versed in history so I would appreciate some thoughts from people here who may know more than I. Two questions:
While it seems to be the general consensus that Putin’s invasion is largely founded on his ‘unfair’ desire to reestablish the glory of the Soviet Union, a few people I know argue that much of this invasion is more the consequence of other nations’ failures. Primarily, they focus on Ukraine’s failure to respect the Minsk agreements, and NATO’s expansion eastwards despite their implications/direct statements (not sure which one, I’m hearing different things) that they wouldn’t. Any thoughts on the likelihood of Putin still invading Ukraine had those not happened?
Is the United State’s condemnation of this invasion hypocritical to many of their actions? I’ve heard the United States actions in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia brought up as points to support this.
a few people I know argue that much of this invasion is more the consequence of other nations’ failures. Primarily, they focus on Ukraine’s failure to respect the Minsk agreements, and NATO’s expansion eastwards despite their implications/direct statements (not sure which one, I’m hearing different things) that they wouldn’t. Any thoughts on the likelihood of Putin still invading Ukraine had those not happened?
My understanding is that many of these talking points are unfairly slanted in Russia’s favor, and that the situation seems manufactured by the Russian government in order to justify an invasion. [For example, the breakaway republics to the east are in regions where opinion polls are not in favor of secession from the Ukraine, but fighting has been ongoing for years in part because of Russian support of the separatist groups.]
My sense of the situation is that, given Russia thinks it could win a war, what treaty could have been offered that would seem superior to them? [Especially given that part of the benefit of fighting the war is the practice for future wars.]
Is the United State’s condemnation of this invasion hypocritical to many of their actions? I’ve heard the United States actions in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia brought up as points to support this.
The American Government says lots of hypocritical things about regime change and interfering with elections and so on; I think this is bad and wish they wouldn’t do it.
The American Government says lots of hypocritical things about regime change and interfering with elections and so on; I think this is bad and wish they wouldn’t do it.
Imagine if reaction to this war was like reaction to Iraq. That is scary even for me—as ethnically Russian I feel measure of personal responsibility for this. I did not want Russia to become the second US. But at the same time the difference is striking.
UPD: I am talking about reaction in West, here in Kyrgyzstan reactions are about the same—yeah,”wish they wouldn’t do it” (careful, low confidence, it is hard to judge general public opinion by few datapoints)
Putin can’t win hearts and minds, so NATO is to blame for not delivering those things to him on a silver platter?
Although I agree with you, other perspectives are also possible, where this expectation seems less absurd. For example, Stalin got delivered a lot on silver platter in Yalta 1945; and Ukraine was just a small part of it. Why does the West suddenly have a problem with that?
I can imagine that from Putin’s perspective it may seem like: “why the fuck does NATO intervene in internal affairs of the former Soviet Union?”
Not sure if this would be a good analogy, but imagine USA during the Civil War. If another country started providing military support to Confederacy, I suppose the leaders of the Union would perceive it as interfering in American internal affairs, regardless of the fact that technically at that moment the Confederacy was a separate country. -- Try to imagine Putin as a “Lincoln of Soviet Union”, kind of, liberating Ukraine against its will from the “slavery” of the decadent Western civilization.
For example, Stalin got delivered a lot on silver platter in Yalta 1945; and Ukraine was just a small part of it.
We didn’t deliver any of it to Stalin, the red army took Eastern Europe by force.
I can imagine that from Putin’s perspective it may seem like: “why the fuck does NATO intervene in internal affairs of the former Soviet Union?”
Sure, Putin may think that. In other news, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi thought that half the world rightfully belonged to his Islamic Caliphate.
In my (arguably naive, but who knows) view, the West’s policy with regard to Russia over the last 20 years has been based on the fallacy of “we shouldn’t do X because X might offend Russia”. As if international politics was like a family gathering at the dinner table, arguing but ultimately not wanting to hurt each other’s feelings too much. This analogy may work to an extent within a community of democratic countries where public dissent has an influence on policymakers at every moment.
But with autocratic countries, past favors, principles, values and public opinion don’t matter as long as it doesn’t boil over to the point of overthrowing the government outright. There are people in western governments who believe we must maintain good relations with Russia to counterbalance China. That is just absolutely bonkers to me.
“Good relations” is not a thing with dictatorships. It can do a 180°-turn at the whim of the supreme leader. Today’s brother-in-arms are tomorrow’s mortal enemies. There are rumors that Belarus might join the invasion of Ukraine. Is anyone even asking the question of “Do Belarusians support a war with their neighbor”, or “What do Belarusians think of Ukrainians”, or “Do these countries have common cultural heritage”? We all know it doesn’t matter.
This is not the beginning of a new Cold War. The Cold War was never over in the first place.
We didn’t deliver any of it to Stalin, the red army took Eastern Europe by force.
I think Putin could also take Ukraine by force if all the big players agreed to stay away and let him do it (just like they let Stalin take Eastern Europe).
Otherwise, I agree with what you wrote.
Sure, Putin may think that. In other news, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi thought that half the world rightfully belonged to his Islamic Caliphate.
Yeah, I am not saying that we should take their side. But it may be instrumentally useful to understand the mental model of your opponent.
The Cold War was never over in the first place.
The Soviet Union collapsed, but Cheka/GPU/OGPU/NKGB/NKVD/MGB/KGB/FSB merely rebranded.
I’m not very well-versed in history so I would appreciate some thoughts from people here who may know more than I. Two questions:
While it seems to be the general consensus that Putin’s invasion is largely founded on his ‘unfair’ desire to reestablish the glory of the Soviet Union, a few people I know argue that much of this invasion is more the consequence of other nations’ failures. Primarily, they focus on Ukraine’s failure to respect the Minsk agreements, and NATO’s expansion eastwards despite their implications/direct statements (not sure which one, I’m hearing different things) that they wouldn’t. Any thoughts on the likelihood of Putin still invading Ukraine had those not happened?
Is the United State’s condemnation of this invasion hypocritical to many of their actions? I’ve heard the United States actions in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia brought up as points to support this.
My understanding is that many of these talking points are unfairly slanted in Russia’s favor, and that the situation seems manufactured by the Russian government in order to justify an invasion. [For example, the breakaway republics to the east are in regions where opinion polls are not in favor of secession from the Ukraine, but fighting has been ongoing for years in part because of Russian support of the separatist groups.]
My sense of the situation is that, given Russia thinks it could win a war, what treaty could have been offered that would seem superior to them? [Especially given that part of the benefit of fighting the war is the practice for future wars.]
The American Government says lots of hypocritical things about regime change and interfering with elections and so on; I think this is bad and wish they wouldn’t do it.
Imagine if reaction to this war was like reaction to Iraq. That is scary even for me—as ethnically Russian I feel measure of personal responsibility for this. I did not want Russia to become the second US. But at the same time the difference is striking.
UPD: I am talking about reaction in West, here in Kyrgyzstan reactions are about the same—yeah,”wish they wouldn’t do it” (careful, low confidence, it is hard to judge general public opinion by few datapoints)
Failure? Putin can’t win hearts and minds, so NATO is to blame for not delivering those things to him on a silver platter?
Damn straight the US is being hypocritical. No one cares any more, years of Russian whataboutism-propaganda has seen to that.
Although I agree with you, other perspectives are also possible, where this expectation seems less absurd. For example, Stalin got delivered a lot on silver platter in Yalta 1945; and Ukraine was just a small part of it. Why does the West suddenly have a problem with that?
I can imagine that from Putin’s perspective it may seem like: “why the fuck does NATO intervene in internal affairs of the former Soviet Union?”
Not sure if this would be a good analogy, but imagine USA during the Civil War. If another country started providing military support to Confederacy, I suppose the leaders of the Union would perceive it as interfering in American internal affairs, regardless of the fact that technically at that moment the Confederacy was a separate country. -- Try to imagine Putin as a “Lincoln of Soviet Union”, kind of, liberating Ukraine against its will from the “slavery” of the decadent Western civilization.
We didn’t deliver any of it to Stalin, the red army took Eastern Europe by force.
Sure, Putin may think that. In other news, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi thought that half the world rightfully belonged to his Islamic Caliphate.
In my (arguably naive, but who knows) view, the West’s policy with regard to Russia over the last 20 years has been based on the fallacy of “we shouldn’t do X because X might offend Russia”. As if international politics was like a family gathering at the dinner table, arguing but ultimately not wanting to hurt each other’s feelings too much. This analogy may work to an extent within a community of democratic countries where public dissent has an influence on policymakers at every moment.
But with autocratic countries, past favors, principles, values and public opinion don’t matter as long as it doesn’t boil over to the point of overthrowing the government outright. There are people in western governments who believe we must maintain good relations with Russia to counterbalance China. That is just absolutely bonkers to me.
“Good relations” is not a thing with dictatorships. It can do a 180°-turn at the whim of the supreme leader. Today’s brother-in-arms are tomorrow’s mortal enemies. There are rumors that Belarus might join the invasion of Ukraine. Is anyone even asking the question of “Do Belarusians support a war with their neighbor”, or “What do Belarusians think of Ukrainians”, or “Do these countries have common cultural heritage”? We all know it doesn’t matter.
This is not the beginning of a new Cold War. The Cold War was never over in the first place.
I think Putin could also take Ukraine by force if all the big players agreed to stay away and let him do it (just like they let Stalin take Eastern Europe).
Otherwise, I agree with what you wrote.
Yeah, I am not saying that we should take their side. But it may be instrumentally useful to understand the mental model of your opponent.
The Soviet Union collapsed, but Cheka/GPU/OGPU/NKGB/NKVD/MGB/KGB/FSB merely rebranded.
After studying the situation of Ukraine’s economy after 1991 in recent days, I am not surprised by those who think so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine
I add that the precedent for Russia’s actions in eastern Ukraine and Crimea was called the independence and international recognition of Kosovo.
Kind of. “Why can they, but we can’t?”
The autonomy of Kosovo was approved by the UN Security Council, including Russia.
The mentioned resolution didn’t say anything about Kosovo independence.
Crimea was also an autonomy, but its independence and the referendum on joining the Russian Federation was not recognized in the world.