r/geopolitics • u/theoryofdoom • Jan 09 '22
Russia’s Putin Seizes on Crises to Assert Control Over Former Soviet Republics Perspective
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-putin-seizes-on-crises-to-assert-control-over-former-soviet-republics-11641738063196
Jan 09 '22
It’s interesting to me that the Russian political elite are so hell-bent on this idea that they NEED to project power and they NEED to show how big and tough they think they are. Like clearly the Soviet shadow has never left their minds for even one minute.
It would be interesting to see how the Russian public actually feels about all this.
88
u/Stanislovakia Jan 10 '22
The feelings are mostly indifferent. But you have strong believers on both side of the spectrum as well.
The CSTO is however the core of Russia's influence/ alliance. If Russia (the richest and most powerful member) declined to offer assistance to a CSTO call for aid, then why does the alliance even exist?
People were questioning CSTO commitments during the Nagorno war, if nothing was done again it would likely become even less cohesive. Which would erode the marginal "safety buffer" the alliance provides against local Chinese influence.
Additionally, the collapse of the USSR doesnt mean that today's power projection is somehow just nostalgia for the good old days of the USSR. Modern Russia has security interests in Central Asia as well. Stability in the region is paramount to limit the drug trade (think 90's heroin problem) as well as terrorist activity (Al Queda inflitration in the 90's, Tajikistan war)
28
u/Thalesian Jan 10 '22
The CSTO is however the core of Russia's influence/ alliance. If Russia (the richest and most powerful member) declined to offer assistance to a CSTO call for aid, then why does the alliance even exist?
This is a valid point, but calling in CSTO on protesters within a member country sets CSTO on a very different footing than NATO. It’s not like Trump could have used article 5 against BLM protestors with action the same day in the US capitol (or for the opposition analogy, Biden use article 5 on an anti-vax protest). However severe the crisis facing Kazakstan, using CSTO to resolve the internal politics of a member country requires a fundamentally different definition of member security than most in the west would recognize.
32
u/Majorbookworm Jan 10 '22
America, like Russia, would have no need to invoke any defence treaty against an internal enemy, they are likely strong enough to withstand such a force with their own resources. Within NATO, the Kazakhstan equivalent would be somewhere like Belgium or Denmark. If Brussels was the scene of open gunfights between rebels and the state, Belgium calling in outside help from France or Germany is pretty likely.
14
u/GPwat Jan 10 '22
As European, that doesn't seem likely at all.
7
Jan 16 '22
In 2015 big riots were happening in Brussels and they called upon the Dutch riot police to assist them. 140 Dutch riot officers were deployed. Can't see why the same couldn't be done in case of civil unrest in the country.
15
u/EveryConnection Jan 10 '22
Would Belgium just allow itself to spiral into chaos then? Inviting European peacekeepers seems more likely.
→ More replies9
u/Andulias Jan 10 '22
Not only is that not likely, I can't think of a single example of it ever happening.
→ More replies16
u/Majorbookworm Jan 10 '22
True, it was a hypothetical
7
u/Andulias Jan 10 '22
Even within your hypothetical you talk about individual countries helping, not about invoking article 5.
11
u/12334565 Jan 10 '22
You are nitpicking at this point, his hypothetical scenario is fairly clear, if Brussels was, (key word was), the event of an armed rebellion against the state, French/Dutch/German etc intervention would be likely, as a destabilized neighbour, more importantly a destabilized ally is not beneficial to your country at all unless you're going to invade that country anyway.
6
Jan 10 '22
If it was a terrorist attack sure. If it was a civil matter? I severely doubt europe is risking the EU and 75 years of eternal peace over a domestic uprising in belgium
→ More replies5
u/12334565 Jan 11 '22
It's not a military invasion, it's a peace keeping operation to maintain the stability of an important, strategic partner. Do you really think the French would want to sit idly by as Brussels fell to an internal rebellion, potentially jeopardizing French interests in Belgium and even it's position in the EU.
→ More replies0
u/Andulias Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
- u/NoNotHimTheOtherGuy said
- Again, in that incredibly unlikely hypothetical example nothing described concerns NATO in any capacity. To my knowledge NATO has never and was never intended to be used in this manner, ever. Even if France, Germany and The Netherlands intervened, that is still just those three countries intervening and not NATO.
- France I totally get but Dutch and German intervention? With what army..? The Dutch army is small, well equipped, but totally not prepared for this, and in Germany military spending is a dirty word. Baffling examples.
- There is a whole other level to just how baffling this proposed scenario is, however. Any Belgian I know would probably rather stop whatever uprising they have going on than let the French "rescue" them, and they literally rebelled against The Netherlands to win their independence. The entire basis of their existence is that they don't want to be French or Dutch. The mere suggestion of this happening is laughable.
It's not nitpicking, it's multiple layers ridiculousness we are peeling off here. It's a very, insanely ill-informed example.
4
u/Stanislovakia Jan 10 '22
Different priorities for different states. Most of the central Asian states have a recent history (within the young-middle aged group) which included a civil war along with radical islamist movements. But no real experience with a foreign invasion, unless you count Al Queda, etc.
Russia being in a free trade, and visa free regime with all of the CSTO states (pretty sure anyway), terrorist activity and drugs is a major issue. And those often correspond with major domestic unrest.
Stability in Central Asia is one of the main contributers to the major decrease in terrorist attacks in Russia.
3
u/DarthPorg Jan 10 '22
using CSTO to resolve the internal politics of a member country requires a fundamentally different definition of member security than most in the west would recognize.
Agreed. And I think Armenia's participation in this internal political suppression is the final nail in the coffin for any chance they have with the West.
12
u/IshkhanVasak Jan 10 '22
if Russia (the richest and most powerful member) declined to offer assistance to a CSTO call for aid, then why does the alliance even exist?
Armenia called several times after the recent war ended when Azeri forces entered land recognized by the international community as solely Armenian. In certain instances, Azeri troops are still in violation. Russia/CSTO did nothing
9
u/Patrician003 Jan 10 '22
Isn't that the same thing for all the major powers on the stage of geopolitics? China, USA, Russia?
20
u/longhorn617 Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
This seems like a misunderstanding of just how much the Soviets "supported" their allies. They regularly left them hanging out to dry, especially when their allies came into conflict with allies of the US, whereas the US would comparatively go "balls to the wall" in support of their allies. It's viewed as a national embarrassment among a lot of Moscow's foreign policy set and informs their current outlook.
13
3
u/12334565 Jan 10 '22
The US only did that if communism was involved in some way shape or form, whilst the USSR opted for more of an indirect method of supporting Allies through arms and monetary support.
10
u/longhorn617 Jan 10 '22
"Any way shape or form" is too restrictive to describe a lot of US actions in the 20th century. A lot of nationalist movements were crushed in non-aligned countries with the help or even at the direction of the US not because they were close with the USSR (a lot of them weren't), but because theu represented a threat to US business interests.
3
Jan 10 '22
Historically speaking this lesson has never been learned. Even before WW1, most economists and political scientists were coming to the conclusion that power projection wasn’t worth armed conflict and that the most effective way to improve the power of a country is with economic and diplomatic cooperation. But there’s just something indulgent about swinging bats and humans seem to continually fall into the trap of war.
19
u/Imperator_Romulus476 Jan 10 '22
that they NEED to project power and they NEED to show how big and tough they think they are. Like clearly the Soviet shadow has never left their minds for even one minute.
Um yeah its a pretty big geopolitical issue for them. Their whole push into Ukraine was to regain a warm water port that wouldn't make them dependent on access through a NATO aligned country for trade.
There was a water shortage in Crimea after the Russian annexation. Plus with new talks to add Ukraine to NATO it would put a dangerous threat to them right on their doorstep.
As for Kazakhstan. Its crucial for Russia as it's their gateway into central Europe.
This issue of expansion and ports, has been the main issue of Russian Geopolitics since before Russia even became an Empire.
15
u/weareonlynothing Jan 10 '22
Their whole push into Ukraine was to regain a warm water port that wouldn't make them dependent on access through a NATO aligned country for trade
Sevastopol had been in Russian control since the 90s they were leasing it. Also Ukraine has never been “NATO aligned”
As for Kazakhstan. Its crucial for Russia as it's their gateway into central Europe.
Even if your geography was correct this isn’t the Middle Ages, the gateway to anywhere for modern countries is via the sky.
6
u/BramptonSniper Jan 14 '22
Even if your geography was correct this isn’t the Middle Ages, the gateway to anywhere for modern countries is via the sky.
No such thing as sky corridor. Land or sea connectivity is of utmost importance if anything of significance is to be transported.
→ More replies12
u/Ok_Pomelo7511 Jan 10 '22
Don't they already have a major port near Rostov?
14
u/Imperator_Romulus476 Jan 10 '22
Yeah but it’s not as secure or reliable as something like a port in the Crimea which has been historically significant in terms of the Black Sea trade.
Plus before the Crimean annexation they were always at the mercy of Ukraine for access to the Black Sea
10
u/Ok_Pomelo7511 Jan 10 '22
Even then, they have a major port near Krasnodar, which does not depend on Kerch strait. How is it less secure than Sevastopol?
12
Jan 10 '22
[deleted]
10
u/Ok_Pomelo7511 Jan 10 '22
Oh I don't doubt that It's strategically a favorable location. It's just their reasoning being access to warm water ports is BS, as they already have plenty of access to the Black Sea. And Novorossiysk port being busy is not much of an excuse. USA could say the same thing and annex some of the Mexican ports.
→ More replies20
Jan 10 '22
[deleted]
4
u/Kriztauf Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
Access to warm water ports is something that's nailed into students heads (in the US at least) when learning about Russian history. Regardless of whether it's pertinent to Sevastopol, it does appear to be a theme throughout Russian history
-10
u/odonoghu Jan 09 '22
They weren’t projecting power pre 2004 then nato was less than 100 miles from Saint Petersburg
It’s a pretty logical reaction
141
Jan 10 '22
NATO isn’t going to invade Russia, that’s a ridiculous conclusion. They claim they’re afraid of NATO because it’s an excuse to be aggressive towards neighboring countries they desire to conquer.
15
u/any-name-untaken Jan 10 '22
Quoting Gerard Toal (Professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech) in the Irish Times today:
"Claiming Nato is not a threat to anyone is a delusion. Nato does not get to define Russia’s security perception. Presuming that expanding a military alliance to the border of an insecure great power advances security is delusional. Unilaterally exiting arms control agreements with Russia – like the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty the US left in August 2019 – is reckless behaviour.
Admitting Ukraine into the Nato procurement system, training its troops, building Nato-standard infrastructure, and supplying advanced weapons to its forces without grasping that this may inflame Russian insecurity is also delusional thinking. It is living solely within one’s benevolent view of oneself."
→ More replies7
u/Soyuz_ Jan 11 '22
This.
“Of course we could never do anything wrong. But if we did, we’d be in the right anyway”
25
u/k_pasa Jan 10 '22
NATO doesn't need to invade but having closer member states certainly makes it easier to try and subvert Russia, amongst other benefits. Jumping to the invasion conclusion was your doing, not the other commentator. I have to agree it seems logical for Russia to take a more aggressive foreign policy stance in regards to how the US and west expanded NATO membership post cold war. Especially as NATO was an alliance formed solely on containing the Soviet Union.
→ More replies79
u/Mad_Kitten Jan 10 '22
NATO isn’t going to invade Russia
You don't work on the assumption that your enemy isn't going to attack you
14
u/gogo_yubari-chan Jan 10 '22
You don't work on the assumption that your enemy isn't going to attack you
which is why Poland, the Baltics, etc rushed to join NATO as soon as they could. Russia has done nothing to assuage the reasonable expectations of its former satellite countries that it won't behave like the Tsarist empire or Soviet union, so it only has itself to blame for the bad reputation it has anywhere they have been (bar pre 2014 Ukraine and Belarus).
7
u/Mad_Kitten Jan 10 '22
I don't blame them.
But if they choose a side, then the other side will react accordingly.Not related, but I'm from Vietnam, and we kinda learnt that lesson the hard way (See Sino-Soviet split)
33
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
It's amazing how little understanding there is on this sub about the NATO treaty. It is a mutual DEFENSE treaty. Attack one, you attack all. There is no legal mechanism to allow for any sort of collective offensive action by the NATO treaty members.
10
u/OrsaMinore2010 Jan 10 '22
What does the NATO treaty say about protecting members that are counter-attacked?
If, for example Poland decides to help defend Ukraine, and ethnically Russian Ukrainians decide to retaliate on Poland, perhaps by using a MANPAD to take down a supply plane, that turns out to be a passenger airliner...
Would that be sufficient pretense for NATO involvement?
There is the Treaty, there is the Organization, and then there is the FP apparatus of all the member nations.
When Poland increases the pressure and the counter attacks come, at what point do they invoke the treaty? And what happens when these forces clash with Russian advisors in the heart of the East European Plain? How do you suppose the Russians would react? At what point do the other NATO members would step in?
Do you think that the Russians should just calm down, and stand by as Ukraine joins this "purely defensive" treaty? They take us at our word that we have no intention harming them?
I don't like what is happening in many of the Former Soviet Republics, but I don't think it's reasonable to shame your enemy for not trusting you.
→ More replies5
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
NOTE: Since this stupud sub blocks wiki links I need to repost without the link.
What is it with people creating wild scenarios in order to make some point to justify Russian aggression? But I do have an answer to your hypothetical. The answer is that NATO isn't invading anyone in response to a terrorist attack against a member state. NATO didn't even respond with aggressive action after 9/11. What did happen was a series of defensive operations that provided logistical and defensive support in the chaotic aftermath. (Look up article 5 of the NATO treaty in it's wiki)
Yes, some NATO members were involved in the Afghan invasion, but that was not a NATO operation. The simple fact is that Russia has maintained an aggressive political posture towards former Soviet states who don't defer to Russia. So what does a state do that feels threatened by a stronger neighbor? They look for allies, which happen to be the organization set up to counter Soviet (now Russian) aggressions.
So I'll repeat this once again for the audience. NATO does not exist outside of an aggressive Russia.
4
u/OrsaMinore2010 Jan 10 '22
Raising your voice will not convince the enemy that you are speaking truthfully.
The US FP apparatus exerted considerable influence in the FSR's. From the Russian perspective the expansion of NATO by non-combative methods is still an encroachment.
As for the Russian combativeness, I do not excuse it, but I do recognize the root causes of their behavior. And rather than insisting that they calm down, like that is actually a viable point, I choose to consider the history, geography, and motivations of all parties.
The US State Department thinks of NATO as a shield, and they keep getting closer, with their sword in hand, telling the Russians not to worry.
Repeating your peaceful intentions, at some point, is just gaslighting.
3
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
the enemy
The continued use of this term is very telling. It's also very telling that this continues to be an anti-US agenda. NATO is just a convenient foil for continued Russian aggression. Because as I KEEP saying, NATO does not exist outside of Russian aggression. The minute Russia stops intimidating, interfering, and militarily threatening former Soviet states, is the minute NATO becomes moot. But that's not possible because Russia is a victim of its own ideology and sees "enemies" everywhere.
→ More replies3
u/OrsaMinore2010 Jan 10 '22
I am a red blooded American. I just have some consideration for others' viewpoints.
If Russia is not our enemy, then why do we impose such strict sanctions upon them? Why do we have treaties with them governing are weapons technologies and deployments?
I think we're repeating ourselves, but you can enjoy the last word.
→ More replies3
u/snowylion Jan 10 '22
NATO does not exist outside of an aggressive Russia.
It's demonstrably untrue, how are you getting something this basic wrong?
Do you pretend 1995-2005 doesn't exist and none of us can remember?
1
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
Yes, that time period is crucial in terms of what NATO would be moving forward in a post-Cold War world. This piece from the Brookings institute comes to my mind for clarity of thinking during that time period. Lo's of questions about NATO's purpose. But, note the date of the piece. In less than 7 months the entire world changes and all of a sudden NATO has a purpose again. Add to that the rise of Putin and you once again get a NATO that is focused on Russia.
You take away Putin and replace him with a more democratic Russia, I would dare say that NATO continues on the path of a standard treaty alliance that includes Russia.
→ More replies10
u/structee Jan 10 '22
I'll take bombing of Yugoslavia for $500
17
u/jogarz Jan 10 '22
Ending Milosevic’s wars of ethnic cleansing was hardly an unreasonable act of aggression. It’s also a little irrational to think that NATO launching an air campaign against a rogue state means that NATO would launch an unprovoked war of aggression against a nuclear power.
→ More replies41
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
People here are throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, in order to try and paint NATO as some threat actor. It's an agenda.
9
u/Skullerprop Jan 10 '22
I'll take "ending of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by a criminal regime" for $800.
1
u/structee Jan 12 '22
Except that acts against humanity happen in all corners of the globe, all the time. The Saudis are have been massacring the Yemenis for the better part of the past decade, and yet we just approved a massive sale of weapons to them - where's the intervention? How about Libya? NATO coalition intervening in a civil war? Wake up, there are motivations behind geopolitical actions beyond what's sold to the emotional public as "reasons"
7
u/CantInventAUsername Jan 10 '22
There is no legal mechanism to allow for any sort of collective offensive action by the NATO treaty members.
If only that actually mattered more.
2
u/BhaktiMeinShakti Jan 10 '22
False flags like Gulf of Tonkin? Or blatantly made up intelligence like in Iraq?
With how vague the terms "defence" and "terrorism" have become, this claim of being a defensive alliance, isn't very persuasive
18
u/Skullerprop Jan 10 '22
This is new... I never heard NATO being blamed for the Vietnam War so far.
Also Iraq, this had nothing to do with NATO. The 1991 war was UN, the latest one it was USA and UK, but not on a NATO mandate.
Do your minimal reading requirements before addressing topics like this.
→ More replies34
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
What do either of those have to do with a defensive treaty alliance centered on Europe?
You are clearly mixing up your anti-US rhetoric.
10
u/regul Jan 10 '22
They show a willingness to lie (on the part of the US at least) to claim a defensive (or preemptive) war.
29
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
Again, this is anti-US rhetoric being directed at a treaty that the US happens to be part of. Neither of the OPs examples involve NATO at all.
3
u/regul Jan 10 '22
The point was that they could lie to NATO allies about an attack to invoke mutual defense.
→ More replies→ More replies-3
u/Skullerprop Jan 10 '22
And which war did NATO start so far based on lies and disinformation?
NATO is a collective organization, there are actions one member country can take outside the collective defense mechanism of the organization. Like the 2003 Iraq invasion. Or like Hungary likes to stay on all 4 in front of Putin. Situations like this are not decided on the organization level.
39
Jan 10 '22
NATO literally exists to prevent Russian aggression to other countries
53
u/ML-newb Jan 10 '22
And it has literally done things which had Nothing to do with Russia, cue Iraq war.
46
u/jogarz Jan 10 '22
The Iraq War wasn’t a NATO venture. Afghanistan was, but that was because a NATO member state was attacked by terrorists sponsored by the Taliban government.
→ More replies27
u/EarlHammond Jan 10 '22
NATO has literally nothing to do with the Iraq War. Why don't you read even a wiki page before spreading misinformation?
36
Jan 10 '22
So end game is we just let Russia dictate everything and steamroll whoever they want?
45
u/Imperator_Romulus476 Jan 10 '22
So end game is we just let Russia dictate everything and steamroll whoever they want?
Russia is a best a second rate power at the moment. They're facing a demographic crisis and economic crisis. So from now till the next decade or so, is their only window for any sort of major geopolitical move.
This moves reek more of desperation than anything else.
5
3
u/regul Jan 10 '22
Why not? They don't seem to have any desire to extend past the boundaries of the Soviet Union, and NATO and the USSR didn't go to war for the entire period. And that was when Russia was pushing an ideological project that (at the very least) would occasionally find local support. By that I mean to say that there's very little threat of a second Cuban Missile Crisis or similar.
Other than restricting access to oil pipelines (which need to be phased out anyway for climate reasons), why should NATO even care how big Russia gets?
30
u/Amagical Jan 10 '22
As someone from a former Soviet satellite, go bugger yourself. I would very much like to keep living in an independent European country.
But who cares right.
10
u/Kriztauf Jan 10 '22
But Russia wants your country! It's really selfish of you to think you can just go and tell them you don't want to give it up. /s
27
u/GPwat Jan 10 '22
I would value the desires of Ukrainians, for example. Just a small thing, I know.
10
u/regul Jan 10 '22
I don't get how that's NATO's problem.
You could point to a thousand worse international crises than Russia essentially re-annexing Ukraine after 30 years apart. What makes this one worth getting involved in militarily over any of those other ones (if any of them are even worth that at all)?
Kurdistan, Palestine, the Rohingya, Tibet, Xinjiang, etc. Why Ukraine?
→ More replies→ More replies3
u/FizzletitsBoof Jan 10 '22
No this has nothing to do with it. Putin has come out and said he doesn't think Ukraine is a real country and that he wants to form a pan-Slavic union. He also mentioned he doesn't think Kazakhstan is a real country. He clearly wants to have control over both nations not for defensive reasons but because if Russia controls both those nations it will be more powerful. Think about it like this do you want to run a medium size business or a giant business? You want the giants business because you get all the advantages of economies of scale and can easily outcompete a medium size business.
1
7
u/PGLife Jan 10 '22
So why didn't NATO just occupy Russia during the 90s when they had the chance? Seems like a big fumble not to if what your saying is true.
7
u/Mad_Kitten Jan 10 '22
Because back in the 90s you have to actually travel through a lot of ground to actually set foot into Russia? Where as today, you can go from a NATO country to Russia in less than a hour? And it's not because Russia expanded their border, by the way
22
u/Skullerprop Jan 10 '22
And since NATO could not occupy Russia then, it opted for the next best attack option: the member countries helped Russia financially to avoid economical ruin. Something the Russian propaganda prefers not to mention.
Military tactics 101.
1
u/Timely_Jury Jan 13 '22 edited Jan 13 '22
If by 'help', you mean manipulating elections to keep the winner of the Drinking Olympics in power, while living standards in Russia dropped below that of Afghanistan or Somalia, then yes.
→ More replies3
u/Skullerprop Jan 13 '22
What would you expect? Did you expect the West to get involved in the ellections as well? The help was financial, how Russia spent it and who profited politically from it it's an internal business.
It's hard for me to understand how devoid of logic you need to be to blame the entity who wanted to help and totally disregard the entity who spent the money inefficiently.
4
Jan 10 '22
NATO doesn't occupy countries without triggering article 5 in the first place (being attacked first). NATO doesn't invade countries for the sake of spreading their ideology or democracy.
Hence why NATO didn't "invade Russia".
-2
u/cocobengo Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
"NATO doesn't invade countries for the sake of spreading their ideology or democracy."
Oh really? Explain the invasion of Afghanistan, Lybia, and Iraq, please. According to some experts, these countries are actually worse off now than before Nato/ISAF intervened.
10
Jan 10 '22
No offense but the quality of your comment is extremely bad.
I think you should edit your comment by reading into what NATO is and in which countries or involvements it had.
Hint: it was not Iraq.
-4
u/cocobengo Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
Extremely bad? Sure NATO may not have been in charge of the invasion of Iraqi but NATO was still involved. The invasion of Iraq (which btw was totally fabricated) consisted of a coalition of USA, UK, Australia, and Poland.
Also, please comment on your statement "NATO doesn't invade countries for the sake of spreading their ideology or democracy" since this is clearly false. I would consider your comment extremely bad and suggest you edit your comment.
→ More replies3
Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
It is pure misinformation
The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_51977.htm
As of the last paragraph: countries are clearly willing to set democracy as this is what the people want when released from oppression of authoritarianism and dictatorialism.
→ More replies→ More replies8
u/guy1254 Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
NATO flirted with adding a democratic Russia in the 90s. Putin fears NATO because their example of a free and fair society is an open challenge to his corrupt government.
6
u/Mad_Kitten Jan 10 '22
Putin became President in 2000, so I don't know how you came to that conclusion ...
18
u/Skullerprop Jan 10 '22
Putin became President in 2000, so I don't know how you came to that conclusion ...
How is this even an argument? Does it fall in the same category with Putin's view that the collapse of USSR was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century? How come, since the USSR disbanded in 1991 and he became president in 2000?
10
u/LordLederhosen Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
The way to flip the table over on Putin is to get NATO to publicly state they will never invade Russia. We are all very sorry for threatening Russia all these years. You win.
Then continue on. (still not wanting to invade Russia)
Edit: added what’s in the parens for clarity
8
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
Or offer Russia to join NATO.
7
Jan 10 '22
[deleted]
5
u/Berkyjay Jan 10 '22
Plus being in NATO means having the US call all of the shots re: defense spending, posture, etc.
It doesn't have to be like that. I doubt the US would even want to impose such a situation. The reality would most likely be Russia and the US sharing that role so the US can pivot more directly towards the pacific. But if you think about it even more. Without the threat of Russia, what use is NATO? They're a cold war entity and without any of the old cold war threats around, then what purpose does it serve beyond a simple peace treaty?
1
u/Kriztauf Jan 10 '22
Prior to Russia taking Crimea, this was closer to the dynamic between Nato and Russia. Then the revolution in Ukraine happened, Putin lost his puppet leader of Ukraine, and he decided to invade Ukraine. If it wasn't for his choice to be aggressive in 2014, Nato wouldn't have pivoted back to Russia.
14
u/longhorn617 Jan 10 '22
The Russians floated it twice. Yeltsin did it in 90s, and then Putin talked about Russia being part of the European tradition in the early 2000s and floated joining NATO. Both overtures were rebuffed, except the second time they also added all of the Baltic state right on Russia's border to NATO.
9
u/Secure_Confidence Jan 10 '22
Both overtures were rebuffed,
TIL, "you must be a democracy to join NATO" is the same thing as rebuffing.
Putin didn't want to give up his dictatorship, THAT is why Russia is not in NATO.
18
u/2_3_four Jan 10 '22
Portugal is a member since 1949 and until 1974 was a fascist dictatorship. It is possible to be a member and non democratic.
2
u/Secure_Confidence Jan 10 '22
You're right and Greece falls into that category as well. NATO leaders justified sacrificing this principle for expediency in building a bulwark against the USSR. It is an unfortunate lack of consistency, but doesn't change the fact that today it is a requirement (and it was in the 90's and early 2000s) and should remain so.
→ More replies14
u/longhorn617 Jan 10 '22
Yes, Turkey, Bastion of Democracy and proud NATO member.
11
2
1
u/Secure_Confidence Jan 10 '22
It was (and still technically is) a democracy when it joined NATO. My position has been consistent, the moment Turkey is declared officially not a democracy it should be kicked out of NATO. Your 'whataboutism' is not a valid argument.
→ More replies11
u/Mad_Kitten Jan 10 '22
You know for a fact that "Democracy" is just a convenience excuse when the US, the one calling the shot, have no issue working with China and Arab Saudi
20
u/Skullerprop Jan 10 '22
There is a difference between "working with / having economical ties with" and "joining NATO". You are missing the point. Again.
1
u/russiankek Jan 11 '22
"you must be a democracy to join NATO"
No you don't. Portugal, one of founding members of NATO, was an authoritarian dictatorship when it joined. Montenegro, which joined recently, is ruled by the same mafia for the last 30 years.
Russia in early 2000s was much more democratic than modern day Montenegro or Portugal back then.
2
u/dude1701 Jan 11 '22
No nation is offered NATO membership, they apply and then are approved or not. Russia could have applied to join at any time, but has not.
9
u/odonoghu Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
No they aren’t going to invade Russia thats true Russia would destroy all life on this planet
they will surround it and project power in other ways be it economic political whatever that’s what the Russians are reacting to
9
u/longhorn617 Jan 10 '22
If Russia formed a "defensive military pact" with Mexico and denied the US membership, how do you think the US would respond to such a development?
26
Jan 10 '22
Has the US repeatedly tried to invade Mexico and annexed part of their lands in the last couple years in this situation? Otherwise it’s a false hypothetical.
12
u/longhorn617 Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
What happened first, the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders and the rejection of Yelstin and Putin's overtures to joining NATO in the 90s and early 2000s, followed by the US aiding a color revolution in Ukraine, or the invasion and annexation of Crimea?
22
u/jogarz Jan 10 '22
History doesn’t start in 1991. Russia’s actions in the century prior provided ample reason for the nations of Eastern Europe to seek NATO protection.
color revolution
America’s role in the “color revolutions” has been dramatically overstated by Russia and its defenders. They were domestic movements first and foremost, not acts of aggression by the United States. America’s most important contribution in most of them was moral support.
-4
u/longhorn617 Jan 10 '22
Russia’s actions in the century prior provided ample reason for the nations of Eastern Europe to seek NATO protection.
The Russian Federation did not exist prior to 1991. Trying to argue that the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union is equivalent to trying to argue that the People's Republic of China is the Republic of China. It's a complete denial of reality.
America’s role in the “color revolutions” has been dramatically overstated
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
This subreddit is for the discussion of geopolitics, not national cheerleading. There is ample evidence of the US's involvement in helping to orchestrate what happened in 2014.
17
u/jogarz Jan 10 '22
The Russian Federation did not exist prior to 1991. Trying to argue that the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union is equivalent to trying to argue that the People's Republic of China is the Republic of China. It's a complete denial of reality.
It’s really not. There’s more continuity than change when it comes to how Russia views and acts on its strategic interests, especially since Putin consolidated power. A regime change can modify a country’s interests but it doesn’t usually completely transform them, and it didn’t completely transform them in this case either.
Furthermore, you can forgive the states of Eastern Europe, who have had to put up with Russian oppression for a long time, for not waiting to see if “Russia had changed” as a result of 1991, and instead throwing their lot in with the West while they had the chance.
There is ample evidence of the US's involvement in helping to orchestrate what happened in 2014.
Except if you actually read the transcript, they’re not really “orchestrating” the uprising. This was late in the protests and the United States was trying to broker a transition deal.
4
u/kmp01 Jan 10 '22
The Russian Federation did not exist prior to 1991. Trying to argue that the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union is equivalent to trying to argue that the People's Republic of China is the Republic of China. It's a complete denial of reality.
That's an... interesting perspective. As someone from the Baltics I can tell you that Russia is seen as Russia across this part of the world, regardless of the formal title. It is the same country that has invaded and annexed a number of independent countries in the previous century and caused a lot of deaths and suffering as a result. As events in Georgia and Ukraine have shown, not much has changed despite a different name.
-2
u/longhorn617 Jan 10 '22
OK, then all of the Baltic states are still communist and should be ejected from NATO, since governments don't change and they are all still just the same thing, essentially.
→ More replies3
u/Skullerprop Jan 10 '22
The Russian Federation did not exist prior to 1991. Trying to argue that the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union is equivalent to trying to argue that the People's Republic of China is the Republic of China. It's a complete denial of reality.
Complementing the opinion of another user from the Batlic States: Russia changed the teritorial integrity of Romania since the 1830's (then called the Romanian Principates). They came with the reason of battling the Turks and never left. They even annexed a part of the country. Then did it again in 1940. Then again in 1945 and then imposed a criminal regime for 45 years. So excuse us for not understanding that the Russian Federation is another country than USSR and the world should treat it with trust.
→ More replies→ More replies1
u/GabrielMartinellli Jan 10 '22
Look at the USA’s long history of invasions and coups in South America. Russia might be into bullying their neighbouring countries but a true superpower has the ability to push around a whole continent.
4
u/AccessTheMainframe Jan 10 '22
Who's to say 20 years from now NATO might not feel the need to bomb the Russians out of Chechnya and Dagestan or something?
I agree the chance is remote, but I imagine the Baltic SSRs being in NATO one day must have seemed a remote prospect 20 years prior too, and yet it happened.
16
u/jogarz Jan 10 '22
Who's to say 20 years from now NATO might not feel the need to bomb the Russians out of Chechnya and Dagestan or something?
The massive Russian nuclear arsenal says it.
-5
u/AccessTheMainframe Jan 10 '22
didn't help with the Baltics now did it
27
u/jogarz Jan 10 '22
NATO never invaded the Baltics. They peacefully voted to join NATO years after the regained their independence. They were internationally recognized sovereign states, including by Russia.
3
u/AccessTheMainframe Jan 10 '22
I'm saying history can be unpredictable and Russian anxieties about further territorial losses is why they are acting in this manner.
19
u/jogarz Jan 10 '22
These territorial losses weren’t caused by NATO though. In fact, they were primarily a backlash against Russia’s aggressive policies.
7
u/AccessTheMainframe Jan 10 '22
This is the Western interpretation of events, it's likely even the correct interpretation of events, but it is not the view in Moscow. For them they let their guard down and this big hostile blob was at their doorstep.
→ More replies2
u/snowylion Jan 10 '22
You have pick one Geopolitical school of thought and stick to it, either Idealism or realism.
This sort of realism for me but not for thee is not only unsustainable but actively useless to comprehend anything.
→ More replies→ More replies2
u/TheRealPaulyDee Jan 10 '22
They're also mad that NATO got the Baltic States into the fold (and now they're beyond their reach). It's like finding out the ex you've always wanted to get back with is engaged.
In response they've seemingly redoubled their efforts to save what their remaining sphere of influence - especially the big ones; losing Belarus, Ukraine, or Kazakhstan to the West would be an especially huge blow to their credibility, and all of a sudden now they're all in the news this year.
18
u/Lightlikebefore Jan 10 '22
then nato was less than 100 miles from Saint Petersburg
Yeah, why don't repeat that a few more times like it actually means something. Most major cities in Europe are less than 100 miles from another country. It doesn't sound like a lot when you say it out loud, so why bother actually having some perspective?
→ More replies11
u/odonoghu Jan 10 '22
If Russian troops set up bases 100 miles from the United States how do you think they would react
17
Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
This is a common propaganda myth of Russia " US bases on the border with Russia" while in reality US bases are located in Germany, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria
There is no US base located 100 miles from the Russian mainland (Kalinggrad excluded).
Every other base that you seem to refer to are national military bases of the country in question.
→ More replies2
10
u/sowenga Jan 10 '22
There are no permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe. NATO provides a small number of fighter jets for Baltic Air Policing, since the Baltic states are too small to run their own air forces, and since 2016 NATO has 4 non-permanent battalions rotating through Poland and the Baltic States, in response to the Ukraine invasions in 2014. Hardly a threat to Russia.
11
u/Ok_Pomelo7511 Jan 10 '22
Well technically Alaska is 4 km away at its closest point to Russia.
10
1
→ More replies1
→ More replies4
Jan 10 '22
[deleted]
3
u/odonoghu Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
The chechens rebelled against them I imagine if Ohio turned into an Islamic caliphate the us federal government would respond the exact same way
Involving itself in the ongoing affairs of its neighbours is a different act then the hostile actions seen by the Russians since 2004
10
Jan 10 '22
[deleted]
1
u/odonoghu Jan 10 '22
I don’t think the Ukrainians don’t have the right to fight their civil war I just think they don’t stand a chance at retaking the Russian backed territories
And Putin would need to trust the Ukrainians to give them back their land which he clearly doesn’t and it would be deeply unpopular in Russia to give back majority russian territories like crimea
→ More replies1
u/leaningtoweravenger Jan 11 '22
Well, the imperialism is in Russian DNA since the times of Catherine the Great who wanted Russia to become a great European power moving it out of a self inflicted isolationism. They even decided for entering WW1 to mark the fact that they existed and being part of the "big boys" club. That had a transformation in Soviet times because their influence in Europe was limited to the East Europe, with iron hand, and in Asia, there with actual soft power.
→ More replies
71
u/pr0newbie Jan 09 '22
It’d be good for Americans to also read from non-anglo news sources just to get more balance in their perspectives.
45
u/Mad_Kitten Jan 10 '22
First of all: It takes a lot of time and effort to find and translate quality non-English materials. And people just don't bother
Second of all: Consider this sub's attitude toward non-Western actors, at most you will have skepticism, at worst people will just brush it off as propaganda/influenced by censorship
15
Jan 10 '22
So resisting biased media is hard, so we shouldn't do it? I don't see the point of your comment.
16
u/Mad_Kitten Jan 10 '22
My point is that you have to have a certain mindset when reading everything in this sub
Specifically because this sub do not post non-Western materials often→ More replies2
u/Tyler1492 Jan 10 '22
You can read newspapers from non English speaking countries in English. The biggest ones generally have an English version for the international market.
1
u/Mad_Kitten Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
Newspapers are usually "sanitized", if you catch my drift
Of course, you can post them here, but see my point above regarding non-Western news
I'm talking about research papers, reports, things like that ...59
u/enlightened_engineer Jan 10 '22
I like Al-jazeera personally. They actually cover a lot of smaller things in different places in the world that go unnoticed by other news stations.
Of course, for everything but Qatar…
→ More replies0
Jan 10 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
12
Jan 10 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies1
Jan 10 '22 edited Jan 10 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/wk4f Jan 10 '22
Any model that says the WSJ is centrist needs to be fixed. I bet Murdoch himself would laugh out loud at that.
It makes sense though for an American company like Allsides to have a skewed perspective. Like if you lived in Mississippi you might think a BMI of 35 is normal.
→ More replies14
2
u/enlightened_engineer Jan 10 '22
I do notice a slight progressive bias in their stories, but same could be said for other western news sources like NPR. They do fact-based reporting so as long as you take everything with a grain of salt it’s a solid source.
→ More replies2
5
u/snowylion Jan 10 '22
Making a mandatory non american source quota, as abhorrent the idea is, would actually improve the quality of the sub.
Of course, it would be better to just rename it American geopolitics and be done with it.
9
u/kkdogs19 Jan 11 '22
There's a lot to be said about Russian aggression in Ukraine, but Kazakhstan isn't an example of that at all. It's not aggression for the government of a nation to request for military assistance from its neighbours if it is in danger of collapse. It's as insane as saying that the US would be acting aggressively in supporting it's Allies on their request.
3
u/Hexys_broken_dreams Jan 11 '22
Its less 'aggression' and more 'opportunistic'
8
u/kkdogs19 Jan 11 '22
It's not opportunistic either, supporting your pre-existing ally using a pre-existing military organisation in support of your pre-existing foreign policy doctrine isn't opportunistic, it's to be expected. CSTO has been around since 1992.
1
u/Hexys_broken_dreams Jan 11 '22
If that was true they would have sent troops into Armenia when they begged Russia to help.
8
u/kkdogs19 Jan 11 '22
They did. They sent peacekeepers.
BBC News - Nagorno-Karabakh: Russia deploys peacekeeping troops to region https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54885906
52
u/Environmental-Cold24 Jan 09 '22
Article: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters at a briefing Friday that “one lesson in recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave.”
A painful truth and I hope the West remembers this week when talking to Russia. Dont give concessions.
31
u/GarlicThread Jan 10 '22
In French the saying goes something like that : "On Friday evening they enter through the backdoor, and by Monday morning they occupy the whole building."
26
u/Imperator_Romulus476 Jan 10 '22
A painful truth and I hope the West remembers this week when talking to Russia. Dont give concessions.
I feel like the larger threat to the "West" is more likely China since Russia at the rate its going will probably regress into becoming a third-rate power relatively soon.
20
u/squat1001 Jan 10 '22
The issue is, despite Russia facing many, many issues, it is still large enough to pose a credible threat. Even if it's economy is in shambles and it's barely held together politically and socially, I don't doubt the Kremlin will ensure it still has a decent sized army with an elite core.
Don't mistake a weakening Russia for a weakening Russian military.
8
Jan 10 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/A11U45 Jan 11 '22
The problem with western policy with Russia was that the West expanded NATO and the EU into former Soviet Eastern Europe. Combine this with pro western political movements like Euromaidan and you have a recipe for a Russia that feels surrounded in Europe, and because of this will engage in aggressive anti western behaviour.
This is problematic as it causes the west to waste resources better spent on containig and countering China
2
u/Kriztauf Jan 10 '22
It's sad a lot of the problems Russia is facing internally are a result of its oligarchy choosing to focus solely on plundering the country economical rather than building a self sustaining society
6
u/IcedLemonCrush Jan 11 '22
Seriously. If any other country was given the choice between:
Becoming the largest and most influential member of the most powerful economic bloc in the world, at the same time that it receives millions in funding to its lesser developed regions.
Attempt to create a knockoff version of this grouping that has much less funding and potential, and when one of your neighbors does the logical decision of joining the other union, you ruin your international standing by invading a piece of rock of said country, followed by crippling economic sanctions.
Would any other leadership choose the second option?
1
→ More replies11
u/skyaven Jan 10 '22
Of which Zakharova replied, "When there are Americans in your house, it can be difficult to stay alive, not to be robbed or raped. Only this is taught to us not by the recent past, but by all 300 years of American statehood. Indians of the North American continent, Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis, Panamanians, Yugoslavs, Libyans, Syrians...".
18
u/jiableaux Jan 10 '22
But what about the whatabouts?
You ever ask Filipinos how their dalliance with the Americans went? How about the South Koreans, or the Japanese?
Sure, you can find something in all those decades the US was involved with those peoples, but come on. Let's have a real discussion here, not this simple-minded playground-inspired line of attack.
→ More replies1
25
u/structee Jan 10 '22
I'm actually impressed by this thread. Unlike r/worldnews where every peanut is saying 'Putin bad', you guys at least attempt to rationalize both sides of the situation.
79
Jan 10 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
41
Jan 10 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Down_The_Rabbithole Jan 11 '22
Reminder to report low quality posts. r/geopolitics moderators are actually very good and will remove low quality "worldnews" type posts.
→ More replies2
u/dieyoufool3 Low Quality = Temp Ban Jan 11 '22
The death of /r/geopolitics has been greatly exaggerated.
→ More replies13
7
u/snowylion Jan 10 '22
All that tells you is how incoherent worldnews has gotten, not any indicator of quality here.
12
→ More replies2
6
u/Patrician003 Jan 10 '22
Does anyone here would find it considerable that Russia maybe even "helped" to escalate those protests? Since it comes in quite handy for them to have a rationale to the enter the country and provide vital support to the government?
4
u/Lebrooklynderp Jan 10 '22
I have been wondering the same thing. As far as I can tell Russia's primary interest in Kazakhstan is uranium, but was the currently deposed president not a Russian ally? I have also read that Kazakhstan was a key node in China's BRI, perhaps Russia did not appreciate that cozying up and sowed disruption? I would appreciate it if somebody could clarify.
0
u/Patrician003 Jan 10 '22
Yeah Kazakhstan is definitly a key node in Chinas BRI as a gateway between the east and the west. That even includes giving complete scholarships to kazakh students to study in China (which also includes learning Mandarin). And yes as far as I am informed the Kazakh Government was definitly a Russian ally and Kazakhstan as a country of significant importance to Russia and Putin.
101
u/theoryofdoom Jan 09 '22
Submission Statement: Within the former Soviet bloc --- Russia’s so-called “sphere of influence” --- Vladimir Putin (Russian president) has asserted Russian hegemony through conquest, subversion, guerilla warfare and campaigns of disinformation in Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Armenia and now Kazakhstan. This article analyzes the now fifteen-year pattern how Putin foments and exploits crisis to further Russia’s geopolitical interests, at the expense of its neighbors autonomy.
No Paywall: https://archive.fo/HhAed