Reply to US has no good options in Ukraine

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "US has no good options in Ukraine"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]NATO expansion is one of the causes of the conflict. It was expanded recklessly
I do not think NATO will be able to stand up for the small member states, should the need arise[/quote]

NATO expansion was not reckless.  Europe remembers WW2.  Putin forgot why he is no longer the USSR and it wasn't NATO.  Putin is doing to the Ukraine what Germany did in Operation Barbarossa to eastern Europe and the USSR.  
The  Quinnipiac University National Poll, release date 3/7/22, is at https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3838

Hume put it on twitter.  Question 14 was "14. Would you compare Vladimir Putin's actions against Ukraine to Adolph Hitler's actions against Austria and Czechoslovakia before the outbreak of World War II or do you think that is too strong a comparison or do you not know enough about that history?"

UK, France, Czechoslovakia conceded on Sudetenland-Neville Chamberlain.  Sudetenland was presented  by Germany [many ethnic Germans there] as the last territorial grab by Nazi Germany.  Then came Poland and France [quickly overpowered by Germany], Dunkirk,[b] Germany blitz bombing London which is where Putin is today on Ukraine cities.  Level of resistance by Ukraine huge.[/b]

France taken quickly so no blitz on Paris- a cush appointment spot for Germans compared to the eastern front.

[/quote]

NP.  I agree that the cause of this war isn't NATO expansion and want to expand on this.  NATO expansion did not cause this war, despite what Putin claims.  Each of the countries of the former Warsaw Pact which decided to join NATO did so because they had experienced a long history of conflict with Russia, whether Tsarist Russia, the USSR or post-Soviet Russia.  Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary experienced Soviet invasions.  The Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) had their cultural expression and religion crushed.  Each of these countries threw off by democratic non-violent means the USSR in terms of turning toward democracy as the USSR disintegrated -- large protests, union movements, etc.  Each country made it clear that it no longer wanted to be under Russia's thumb.  The principle of sovereignty means that each country gets to choose it's own direction, and is not to be carved up into some major power's sphere of influence.

Russia lost its relationship with these countries because it provided neither a working economy offering the same level of goods as the West, nor security, nor rule of law.

Prior to NATO membership, these countries feared that they were vulnerable to re-invasion or pressure to remain in the Russian influence, which they did not want.  The only alternative for these countries to secure themselves was to acquire or retain nuclear weapons or join a protective alliance like NATO.

NATO expanded to these countries because these countries sought NATO membership to protect themselves.  NATO was not imposed on them.  At the time, NATOs choice was to leave these countries in a security vacuum, thus pretty much ensuring that Russia would try to re-take them in some way OR to incorporate them into NATO.

Russia cries that this was against their wishes, but, frankly, they needed a lot of support from the west to transition from USSR to a more open Russian economy, so they had to choose which to prioritize -- getting help from the West to enter the open economy or limiting NATO.  And, frankly, they were offered by NATO, a structure in which Russia could have a productive relationship with NATO - through the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which offered regular communication and consultation and joint activities with Russia.  It was through this document that Russia actually worked with Europe and the US in Bosnia to end the war.  I have many memories of Russian colleagues and Russian troops in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Putin has manufactured this a-historical argument about NATO being the cause of his invasion.  He is doing so to cement his own power within Russia because he faces elections in a couple of years and it is no longer clear, with the advent of Navalny's organization, that Putin can continue to rig elections in his favor and retain his veneer of democratic legitimacy.

As for NATO being able to stand up for small member states, it must or the alliance will cease to exist.  I think it is true that, right now, NATO does not have sufficient troops in place in the former Warsaw Pact states to stop an invasion from, say, Belarus -- where Russian and Belarussian troops have recently been repositioned to, possibly, close the Suwalki gap, either through Poland or Lithuania. This lack of NATO boots on the ground in the Baltics, was to show that NATO was not an offensive threat to Russia but the maintenance of this tripwire of troops was to deter a Russian invasion.  But, NATO troops are being moved in swiftly to address that. In addition, both Lithuania and Poland have strong, modern armies and a population which will, like Ukraine, never give in to being in the Russian sphere again, neither if occupied by troops nor by threats. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics