LogFAQs > #964765165

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, Database 10 ( 02.17.2022-12-01-2022 ), DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Sweden and Finland agree to apply for NATO membership at the same time.
Ruvan22 05/03/22 4:52:29 PM #231:	scar the 1 posted... Kissinger agrees with s leading realist academic, John Mearsheimer, in that US foreign policy is (at least partly) responsible for the situation in Ukraine, which is along the same lines that Joel was arguing. It isn't a pro-Putin point of view, it's a geopolitical analysis of the situation. Putin regards the former Soviet states as Russia's "sphere of influence", and NATO as anti Russia. And for that in particular, it's hard to blame him. NATO is anti Russia. After the Soviet Union fell, the US even promised that they wouldn't expand NATO further eastward, but they did. For a long time this was just a hearsay thing, but the minutes of the meeting where it happened have been declassified. IIRC Yeltsin was promised this by US officials. Of course, when the US then keeps expanding the alliance that was formed to oppose Russia (then Soviet), it shouldn't be hard to understand that it can be seen as a threat. Now, of course, I don't think that this is the whole story. I think it's naive to argue that Russia being threatened is the only aspect of this. Again, Putin is obviously interested in controlling his sphere of influence, and there's more to that than feeling threatened by a NATO military presence. EU membership as well as just Ukraine being more interested in cooperating with the west than with Russia is a serious economic concern for him. Naturally that plays into this as well. About if Putin was provoked? I think that term depends on your point of view. I agree that framing it like that makes it sound like he has less agency than he did. I can't speak for Joel's intent there. I think there's been escalating tensions for a long time from both sides, which I suppose you could say includes provocations. But there's this tendency among a lot of people to view any sort of attempt at nuance as being a shill for Putin. On top of that, people are predisposed to dismiss Joel in particular as a tankie. Which, fine, go ahead, but in this topic he's been arguing along pretty typical realist lines rather than tankie lines. A tankie, by contrast, would view the US as the only imperialist threat in the world and wholeheartedly embrace Russian efforts to "stick it to the man". @scar_the_1 Sorry, coming back to this days later- A) While Kissinger and Mearsheimer's analysis makes sense, my initial point in highlighting the disconnect was that many others didn't arrive at that same analysis (it is perfectly reasonable for Russia to feel threatened). As with many things, this is a matter of percentages, while US foreign policy/NATO plays a role in everything, I'm having trouble seeing how it's a major factor in what's happening right now, given that other experts haven't allocated as much "weight" onto it. B) Taking NATO out of the equation, is "Ukraine was a part of us" a reasonable reason (or part of the reason) for Russia to feel threatened? C) To be clear, I didn't state Joel was being a "Putin shill" or a tankie D) And still curious how you believe Gladius was stating Kissinger was a tankie? <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:964765165] in Sweden and... [t:80003006]...</cite> <quote>scar the 1 posted... </cite> <quote>Kissinger agrees with s leading realist academic, John Mearsheimer, in that US foreign policy is (at least partly) responsible for the situation in Ukraine, which is along the same lines that Joel was arguing. It isn't a pro-Putin point of view, it's a geopolitical analysis of the situation. Putin regards the former Soviet states as Russia's "sphere of influence", and NATO as anti Russia. And for that in particular, it's hard to blame him. NATO is anti Russia. After the Soviet Union fell, the US even promised that they wouldn't expand NATO further eastward, but they did. For a long time this was just a hearsay thing, but the minutes of the meeting where it happened have been declassified. IIRC Yeltsin was promised this by US officials. Of course, when the US then keeps expanding the alliance that was formed to oppose Russia (then Soviet), it shouldn't be hard to understand that it can be seen as a threat. Now, of course, I don't think that this is the whole story. I think it's naive to argue that Russia being threatened is the only aspect of this. Again, Putin is obviously interested in controlling his sphere of influence, and there's more to that than feeling threatened by a NATO military presence. EU membership as well as just Ukraine being more interested in cooperating with the west than with Russia is a serious economic concern for him. Naturally that plays into this as well. About if Putin was provoked? I think that term depends on your point of view. I agree that framing it like that makes it sound like he has less agency than he did. I can't speak for Joel's intent there. I think there's been escalating tensions for a long time from both sides, which I suppose you could say includes provocations. But there's this tendency among a lot of people to view any sort of attempt at nuance as being a shill for Putin. On top of that, people are predisposed to dismiss Joel in particular as a tankie. Which, fine, go ahead, but in this topic he's been arguing along pretty typical realist lines rather than tankie lines. A tankie, by contrast, would view the US as the only imperialist threat in the world and wholeheartedly embrace Russian efforts to "stick it to the man".</quote> @scar_the_1 Sorry, coming back to this days later- A) While Kissinger and Mearsheimer's analysis makes sense, my initial point in highlighting the disconnect was that many others didn't arrive at that same analysis (it is perfectly reasonable for Russia to feel threatened). As with many things, this is a matter of percentages, while US foreign policy/NATO plays a role in everything, I'm having trouble seeing how it's a major factor in what's happening right now, given that other experts haven't allocated as much "weight" onto it. B) Taking NATO out of the equation, is "Ukraine was a part of us" a reasonable reason (or part of the reason) for Russia to feel threatened? C) To be clear, I didn't state Joel was being a "Putin shill" or a tankie D) And still curious how you believe Gladius was stating Kissinger was a tankie? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1