How the West tempted Putin.

[Geronimo]

Last summer:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-new-ukraine-essay-reflects-imperial-ambitions/

I don't see how NATO fits into this historic "Ukraine is essentially Russia" POV. If his historic perspective is correct, it could not be different without NATO even existing.

By making him more confident that nobody outside the bloc and its integral allies would act to stop him.

[Geronimo]

Irrelevant. All countries had the right to (wage) war in the 18th century, that *was intl law back then, as everybody saw war as legitimate means to solve conflicts. This is not the case today. Violations of intl law, Iraq, whatnot - all fine and argued back and forth in this place. It does not justify anything Putin does now, still.

The problem isn't that the misdeeds "justify" other misdeeds, it is that it undermines responses to them.

[BeBMan]

The problem isn't that the misdeeds "justify" other misdeeds, it is that it undermines responses to them.

Putin's narrative is that he's justified because:

- Ukraine is/belongs to Russia
- They're all Nazi/Drug folks
- Russia's threatened from outside/NATO
- maybe more that blames anyone but him/Russia

All of it is bull. The only rare moments of truth is stuff like his essay, or his Peter the Great comments, as they reveal that all of the above lines are just propaganda lies to hide the simple fact that he wants Ukraine back under Russian rule like 18th century rulers could do if they liked. Talk of intl law being undermined etc serves him nicely, as he basically does not accept any limits posed by intl law, so talking it down for whatever reason is great from his POV.

[Proteus_MST]

I agree with Bebro.
I guess, even if neither Poland nor the baltic states had become members of NATO, Putin would have attacked Ukraina nevertheless.
And maybe the Baltic States also would have been already taken Heim into Putins Reich, so that Putin would have his Land Corridor to Eastern Prussia/Kaliningrad
(why do I have to think about Danzig now? )

[Geronimo]

Putin's narrative is that he's justified because:

- Ukraine is/belongs to Russia
- They're all Nazi/Drug folks
- Russia's threatened from outside/NATO
- maybe more that blames anyone but him/Russia

All of it is bull. The only rare moments of truth is stuff like his essay, or his Peter the Great comments, as they reveal that all of the above lines are just propaganda lies to hide the simple fact that he wants Ukraine back under Russian rule like 18th century rulers could do if they liked. Talk of intl law being undermined etc serves him nicely, as he basically does not accept any limits posed by intl law, so talking it down for whatever reason is great from his POV.

I am not posting to justify Putin. I am posting to draw attention to the desperate need for some of the powers that be to stand up for international law without hypocrisy or future efforts to do so will never gain more traction than whichever country or bloc of counties interests are directly served by doing so. If Russia succeeds in gaining territory it will in large measure be the result of huge gaps in the sanctions regime that was meant to force them to consider backing down.

Russia's exports remain at a very high level. It's economy is clearly outperforming ukraine.

[Geronimo]

I agree with Bebro.
I guess, even if neither Poland nor the baltic states had become members of NATO, Putin would have attacked Ukraina nevertheless.
And maybe the Baltic States also would have been already taken Heim into Putins Reich, so that Putin would have his Land Corridor to Eastern Prussia/Kaliningrad
(why do I have to think about Danzig now? )

If NATO had expanded but there had been no acts of NATO aggression I think Putin would have been far more hesitant to set that precedent himself.

If NATO had not expanded but had been just as aggressive I agree Putin, far from being less tempted, would probably feel emboldened to do even more and Ukraine would have been much worse off at this stage.

stop focusing on the straw man of NATO expansion. It was US and NATO aggression that really undermined the deterrence of international law.

[BeBMan]

stop focusing on the way red herring of NATO expansion.

Funny, after you brought it up in the OP, and it's been a central talking point of Russian propaganda.

[Geronimo]

Funny, after you brought it up in the OP, and it's been a central talking point of Russian propaganda.

I only referred to it in the OP to dismiss it as a flimsy defence (and I should have said strawman instead of red herring, sorry).

[PLATO]

Geronimo's OP looks to be logical on the surface, but the situations he describes are not as clear cut as those statements make them seem.

WRT Serbia...There was overwhelming evidence of true genocide taking place in the heart of Europe. The evidence then and later was clear and The International Court has upheld it by numerous convictions. Genocide is a crime against humanity and therefore an attack on humanity. Since NATO was the prevailing power in the region, they were justified under international law intervening to stop the genocide.

WRT to Iraq...UN resolutions could be interpreted to give authorization for military action in Iraq. This has been debated hotly not only here but in the real world as well. The point that there is a debate at all among major countries gives some cover, regardless of if you think it large or small, to the invasion. IF the invasion was a good idea is a completely different question.

Russia's claims of genocide against the rebels in the Donbas is likely based, in part, on it being a real justification for involvement in Serbia as they sought to legitimize their invasion through the exact same rationale. The difference is that there was, and is, no evidence that genocide was happening. They used a legal justification from a previous act to try and justify an illegal act. Clearly, it was Russian desire to rule Ukraine and not a "threat" that initiated their invasion.

Russia possesses the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Having a defensive alliance on its boarders should be expected when you have the history of being a violent belligerent as Russia does. ALL of the countries that boarder Russia in NATO have been attacked by Russia at one point or another...and usually it was nothing more than a land grab.

The West as done nothing to threaten Russia. Nothing. The fact that this gets any traction at all is simply due to the effectiveness of a major power having a worldwide audience for its ill conceived comments AND the fact that the West is willing to constantly question itself in the name of fairness.

There was absolutely no justification for Russia's actions in Ukraine and a united West should certainly remember that.

[Bereta_Eder]

After WW2 there were breaches of international law.

1. Turkey invading and capturing 1/3 of cyprus (because the tehn greek dictatorship treachourosly had taken off the guns at the shores of cyprus)
2. Kosovo getting independent
3. Crimea going to Russia and consequently Russian invasion.

These are all international alw breaches. They can be justified in part but when confronted in an international court they are indefensible.

But let's get to Ukraine.


Nice, orthodox people.

Two roads.

One to europe, propserity democracy, pride parades

The other to Russia, putin, botox, gulags.


They chose europe.

they are paying for it.

yes US "kindled the flame" so to say, but it changes nothing

[Geronimo]

Thanks for the detailed well thought out response Plato. I disagree, however, that the international law could work effectively if we accepted those excuses. The UN security council is supposed to be the forum to judge such matters and if it cannot do so due to vetoes, then proceeding without it's blessing will invite the same cynical behavior by any other state who can secure such a veto.

Ultimately, who got to decide that the genocide campaigns of the Serbian state were real and what the appropriate response would be?

Who decided that the original UN resolution allowed for another war?

For credibility sake it can't be the would-be aggressor surely?

[pchang]

Sure it can. Especially when there is no one else.

[Geronimo]

Sure it can. Especially when there is no one else.

Which will kill respect for international law in general and constraints on aggression in particular.

[Dauphin]

I think international law is a fiction. It's all about what a state can achieve through might or diplomacy. The rest is just window dressing for domestic politics.

I don't think the West enticed Putin by their past behaviour. Putin would do what he wanted and could get away with. He gambled that he could take Crimea. He gambled he could take Ukraine. I don't think Serbia or Iraq has anything to do with it, beyond reinforcing the notion that if no-one can or will stop you, you can do what you like.

[pchang]

Which will kill respect for international law in general and constraints on aggression in particular.

There was never respect for International law. Just take a look at the reactions of anyone who lost a ruling in an International court or the refusal of countries to even recognize the jurisdiction of international courts.