#didn't mean to whitewash what's happened to Ukraine

[maan-is-done]

As an Iranian, i was almost SURE that we don't use tumblr in here at all. But posting about the tragedy that happened to Mahsa Amini proved me i was wrong. Guess how? The only ones who actually cared about the news were we ourselves, Iranians.

I remember when Taliban was back in Afghanistan and i was shocked by the world's ignorance. The world, which months later, was full of Ukraine flag everywhere. Not trying to ignore Ukrainians pain and trauma tho.

Favouritism is real, fellas.

[warsofasoiaf]

I appreciate your long response. But, I still don't see how it refutes a claim that today's crisis in Ukraine is a result of Nato's expansion.

To start with, in the article you linked, Gorbachev ends his answer by saying "The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed." The difference between violating a "tacit agreement" and violating "the spirit of assurances made to us" would seem to be a semantic one to me, but I'm ready to corrected if I'm missing something.

And earlier in the article, Gorbachev says "Today we need to admit that there is a crisis in European (and global) politics. One of the reasons, albeit not the only reason, is a lack of desire on the part of our Western partners to take Russia’s point of view and legal interests in security into consideration. They paid lip service to applauding Russia, especially during the Yeltsin years, but in deeds they didn’t consider it. I am referring primarily to NATO expansion, missile defense plans...I would advise Western leaders to thoroughly analyze all of this, instead of accusing Russia of everything."

Next, the Visegard and Vilnius groups being self-driven does not disprove the current crisis in Ukraine being a result of Nato's expansion eastward. Both can be true. And, I did not say anything about their actions not being self-driven, on the contrary I think that's one of the things to balance with the necessity of not having a war. The fact is, expanding a military alliance mostly run by the U.S. right up to Russia's border as far east as we can is a provocative act from Russia's POV, and it's easy to see why.

If I can speak frankly myself for a moment, I think what you're saying is parroting the imperialist talking points and apologies made by neocons. If one mentions how the U.S. constantly tries to expand its reach, encircling other countries with military alliances and bases, missiles, etc. and how this might be provocative, one is accused of repeating something cooked up by Putin, or omitting russian actions in Transnistria, Georgia, and Chechnya.

Let me be clear, I'm not excusing or whitewashing any Russian crimes or claiming Russia is a bastion of democracy or anything else. What I'm saying is very simple: it's a provocative act to expand a hostile military alliance up to Russia's borders, and it's obvious that the current crisis in Ukraine is a result of Russian desire not to let this last piece of their buffer zone fall into the hands of the west. As John Mearshimer says, Putin would rather wreck Ukraine than let the west have it.

"Simply put, the idea that Ukraine doesn't deserve its own say in its foreign policy because the Soviet Union was invaded in 1941 or Napoleon invaded in 1812..." I'm sorry, but I feel like that's just a strawman you've erected. I never advocated for removing Ukraine's sovereignty. What I'm saying is, the U.S. obsession with expanding Nato right up to Russia's borders and incorporating as many countries as possible into the U.S.'s globe-spanning empire of military alliances, is a rash and dangerous act. Russia (another nuclear power!) will feel more threatened when U.S. troops are everywhere along its border. The U.S. has never tried to protect Ukraine's neutrality through other means than incorporating it into Nato (which part of Ukraine doesn't even want).

For the last point: you don't buy that it's "certainly possible" for there to be large conflict between Ukraine and Russia due in part to ethnic Russians in Ukraine-- Isn't that part of what's happening now though? Estonia entered NATO during a period when Russia was much weaker and didn't have the means to resist effectively, and I actually still think it was provocative to bring Estonia in. The situation in Ukraine is different.

And that's a remarkably cavalier attitude to have about nuclear war-- "It hasn't happened yet, so we'll just keep on expanding NATO and ignore any risk of large-scale conflict". Even a small chance of war between the U.S. and Russia is too much and is something we should strive to avoid. The notion that our military alliances must constantly expand to encircle our enemies is going to lead to conflict sooner or later.

You seem content to risk it based on the fact that it hasn't happened yet.

I'm really not sure how to make it any clearer. An agreement is an agreement, it's something that's established when two sides come together and agree to do. And that's what you said happened, which Gorbachev refutes.

It's not a strawman argument, you had mentioned that Russia had "been invaded many times" as a significant contributor to their insecurity. My rebuttal is that every country has this problem in their history; the security dilemma is a widespread problem not just with Russia and NATO, but plenty of other countries. So I can't accept mere borders with enemy nations or alliances as a reason to treat this problem differently, it's a common problem. Now, if you want to say that Russian perspectives are not being considered, that's a perfectly acceptable argument. I even said that Russia had "valid concerns." It's a perfectly fine argument - I don't believe that Russia's concerns justify their actions nor do I think they are a greater influence than Russian aggression in its surrounding countries in the early 1990's, but there's nothing wrong with saying that Russian anxieties regarding NATO enlargement have gone unaddressed or underaddressed. There are actually systems that can address these issues, observation, arms control, even de-militarized zones, but the security dilemma is no reason to treat this as a unique problem because it isn't one.

A bit of unsolicited but friendly debate club-type advice: it's not enough just to say "I think you are doing this," you also have to make an argument as to how that is true. If I'm just "parroting the imperialist talking points," you have to say why that's the case, or why it's not just a conclusion I've reached after weighing the evidence. I understand the impulse, I just did it to you and so you attempt to do the same, although as a point of order I must mention that I accused Putin of rewriting history to omit Russian actions, not you. However, when I had said you were just "simply repeating..." I had explained that what you were saying was factually incorrect - there was no agreement as per Gorbachev. Just like later in this response, you mention that: "(t)he U.S. has never tried to protect Ukraine's neutrality through other means than incorporating it into Nato." That statement isn't true - the USA has attempted to maintain Ukrainian security without NATO membership. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum explicitly was meant to establish security assurances, fix Ukraine's borders and maintain their territorial integrity, and facilitate the turnover of the Soviet nuclear weapons that were in Ukraine's territory at the time of the Soviet Union's dissolution (a win for nuclear non-proliferation for both the USA and the Russian Federation), and Partnership for Peace program was established explicitly to establish a new security arrangement within Europe with Russian input, which had a framework established with Ukraine also in 1994. It's these things that you bring up that cause me this concern, because these are things that aren't factually true (the latter grievously so) but are frequently cited by Putin in an attempt to revise history.

But now on to the salient point, why I can't say that NATO enlargement caused the crisis in Ukraine - because the timeline doesn't sync up. Ukranian membership into NATO stalled out in 2008-2010. When Yanukovych came to power, he opted not to pursue membership in favor of the "partnership" arrangement, establishing bilateral security arrangements. Public polling at the time supported this change of posture, Ukrainians were decisively supportive of not joining NATO, with unpopularity figures typically ranging from 30 to 50 points underwater. So as far as this time period is concerned, NATO isn't expanding into Ukraine. Following the Euromaidan protests and Yanukovych's ouster, Yatseniuk had announced no change in the NATO-Ukraine relationship was intended by the government - they would continue the partnership. It was only in August 2014, after the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, that the Yatseniuk government announced a change in its policy direction. Polling also matches this change in posture - pro-NATO sentiment in polling rose only after the Russian annexation of Crimea. If NATO enlargement had caused the Ukranian crisis, then changes regarding NATO membership would happen before Russian action, not after. A far more likely scenario for Ukraine's change in posture places the onus on Russia - Crimea was annexed by Russia and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum was broken, so Ukraine sought to renew the stalled out NATO talks because they think it would provide a stronger deterrent.

And no, I was countering your claim re: Estonia. Your argument was "Ukraine has a large Russian population and large-scale conflict between Ukraine and Russia is certainly possible" as a reason to avoid NATO membership because it might cause a war between Russia and NATO. which I counter by saying "No, Estonia fulfills these criteria in a much greater degree and their membership in NATO has not caused war between Russia and NATO." It's not being cavalier, I'm just demanding more evidence than an assertion which has not proven true in the past. You've countered by saying that the situation is different, that Russia is stronger and more likely to intervene. That's almost certainly true, but why should Russia be permitted to intercede in Ukraine because of its ethnic Russian minority? There aren't any anti-Russian pogroms to provoke humanitarian intervention. Doesn't Ukraine have the right to seek out methods by which they can maintain their territorial integrity? Why does Russia get to provoke insecurity in Ukraine to promote its own?

-SLAL