NATO May Halt Eastward Expansion in Europe

IMHO,

That’s what caused this war in the first place.

We thought we could just force our will on them. F- what Russia thinks.

This caused a war: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/

That was our call.

There was no immediate / necessary security need requiring this.

It’s not Russia that is pushing us around, it’s us pushing them around. May that be along their border and NATO expansion into Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia (2004), attempted NATO expansion into the Republic of Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014 and 2021). Our attempts at stripping away Russian oil producing states such as Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (2014), and Venezuela (2020). All nations which we attacked (Libya and Syria), invaded (Iraq and Syria), occupy (Iraq) or sponsored coups (Venezuela) in and where someone CANNOT construct a viable national security argument. Finally, us canning the Ballistic Missile Treaty, grossly violating the Conventional Forces Europe Treaty, violating Minsk even though we never signed to it, and breaking the promise of no NATO East expansion... Who is pushing on who, it’s self evident.

By the numbers: Russia had 55% our ground forces, 47% our air force, 43% our navy before the war. They have 44% our population, 40% the number of men reaching military age. Russia has 1/10 our economic volume (PPP), spends 1/10 what we do on defense, has less high tech, and 1/7 our manufacturing base. If you throw in our and their allies, things get even more skewed in our favor since we have many and very powerful allies (UK, France), whereas Russia has few, all of them weaker, and most mired down with internal (Chechnya) or external (Armenia) security threats which prevent them from really being much help.

—It is us that pushed NATO Eastward, not Russia pushing their military Westward.

—It is us that is the big guy, not Russia that only has parity with us in terms of it’s nuclear deterrence.

The Ukraine war is a result of us no longer seeing Russia as a near peer (conventional military), seeing them weak (military / economic / political) to the point where we can push them around and do as we please. We armed Ukraine post 2014 to the point where we thought we could just ram the NATO issue down Russia’s throat and they would acquiesce since military intervention would be to costly.

The rest, all that babble about democracy, human rights, Russia invading others in Europe unless we stop them now, Ukraine being sovereign and able to do what they want... all just dumb talk intended to rationalize us doing what we want and ignoring Russia’s position on the issue entirely.

Some in Finland have always wanted to be in NATO, but others who wanted a more neutral / balanced Finland opposed this. This was simply the right time (political opportunism) and took advantage of the Russian WEAKNESS and scare mongering. If Russia actually were the military threat we pretend them to be (why Finland CHOSE to stay more neutral in the past), those forces pushing for Finish NATO membership would get muted. It's the opposite of what you claim.

Russia can barely get control over Ukraine. Going into NATO territory and all that garbage which was floated out there was ridiculous, fantastical junk which played on Cold War cliche's and was not even remotely feasible: “If we don't stop Russia now they will keep going.”

We have more tanks, fighter, bombers, nukes, subs, transport planes, attack helicopters, transport helicopters, soldiers in uniform, a bigger intel service, more intel / military satellites, more carriers, more transport ships, MLRS systems, armored personnel carriers, naval combat surface vessels, and our stuff is newer and more advanced... So Russia is going to “attack and invade” someone more than twice their size, that has a professional volunteer military and a technological advantage? LOL What are you smoking?

Every country has a “sphere of influence.” So does Russia. Sovereignty is nice, but when a puppet leader like Mr. Z (we installed him: post 2014 revolution which we sponsored we basically took over Ukraine) gets his marching orders to accept NATO membership we so graciously offer (Pure economic motivation in reality: what Western big corporations, financial institutions, asset holding companies, and some oligarchs wanted) we are doing something which affects Russia's security posture.

This is an issue where Western economic interests collided with Russian security interests.

We, the US, fly off the handle when China manages the operations of the Panama canal. That to us is already an unacceptable situation since this can be used as leverage both militarily and economic: https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/07/china/panama-canal-china-trump-explainer-intl-hnk/

We behind the scene threaten and bully Pacific Islands (Solomon Islands aren't the only ones) that get offers from the Chinese to host naval bases. We tell them to back off from those ideas: https://www.newsweek.com/china-solomon-pacific-islands-military-base-manasseh-sogavare-1724482

When the Soviets wanted to station missiles in Cuba, we almost went to nuclear war over that issue and there is 90 miles of water separating us, unlike Ukraine which is land connected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

When one nation is impacted by the decisions of another, hiding behind some notion of “sovereignty” is an insincere argument.

If for example, Ethiopia decides to cut off the water flow for the Nile, and this threatens the economic existence of Egypt, of course there will be conflict, and claiming Ethiopia is “sovereign” and can do what they want is a BS argument: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3dgx36gn5o

Likewise: NATO building bases along Russia's border is a threat to Russia.

Contrary to your feelings of how we are the good guys automatically simply because it is us, NATO post Cold War has become offensive (Serbia, Libya), expeditionary and expansionist, showing a low threshold for the use of force and willingness to use force for what are economically motivated campaigns.

NATO moving into Ukraine has serious implications for Russia since:

—Nuclear: This would impact Russia's nuclear deterrent capabilities (first strike advantage for us) since Russia has no reaction time (3 minutes with modern hyper-sonic missiles) and we can base missile defense there to target the boost phases where ICBMs are most vulnerable. This is also why out withdrawal from the Ballistic Missile Treaty plays a role in this crisis today.

—Conventionally: Ukraine has rail and hardball roads connecting to Russia, the same rail gauge, major airfields and seaports which can support strategic assets (bombers, big ships, heavy lift). Ukraine is land connected to other NATO nations: Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. Not only can we move a lot into Ukraine quickly, we can also easily support it moving into Russia (on roads and rail). The economy of Ukraine is large enough to support a permanent basing of troops there and be supported by the local economy (no need for a military logistical bridge to sustain a force), example Germany in the Cold War. There are large open maneuver corridors between Russia and Ukraine, where an armored and mechanized force can easily move into Russia. Ukraine is very large with cities and forested areas. Keeping track of what is there and is hidden is difficult. Ukraine has a huge nationalist element which we decided to back and align ourselves with post 2014. This nationalist element (the Bandera movement) is vehemently anti-Russian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera (Why the Russians talk about Nazi's, which we of course know about but at least pretend isn't real)

Your argument uses the national sovereignty angle. Of course when one nation is impacted by the decisions of another, sovereignty has it's limits.

NATO and EU membership is what many Western top level economic interests seek.

These organizations provide for a regulatory framework and stability (no local leader that pops up and nationalizes things), harmonization of policies and industrial standards, market access, physical security to where our (Western) big corporations and oligarchs feel comfortable investing billions and moving capital machinery there.

EU membership was well in reach before the war and Russia was going along with this. That has fallen apart because it's the EU that won't want Ukraine today (an economic basket case, dictatorship, internal stability issues, damaged infrastructure). Ironically, the push for NATO membership and war that ensued will cause Ukraine to lose both NATO and EU membership (at least for several years for the EU).

The problem is that NATO is a military organization. Ukraine in NATO carries with it serious security implications for Russia.

And we have (factually) shown a willingness to use force against Russia in pursuit of our interests may that be Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Iraq...

We have lied about NATO expansion, we withdrew from the Ballistic Missile Treaty, we cheated on the Conventional Forces Europe Treaty. Because we are the big-boy, we do what we want, and that shows. Do you really think there is a high degree of trust?

I know in your mind we're automatically the good guys simply because it's us. We can't be wrong. But Russia does not share that “nice guy” image of us.

We are a threat to them, and now we want to bring a neighboring nation into NATO and ultimately base whatever weapon system in any quantity, any number of troops, for as long as we want, conducting any sort of mission, without any sort of observation/inspection/limitations on Russia's border. That might not scare you, because obviously we're the good guys, but it scares Russia.

This is not Russia invading a sovereign democracy, unprovoked, and wanting to conquer Europe unless we stop them (LOL).

This is us driving Russia into a corner. Thinking that they will simply acquiesce to our demands while completely ignoring their concerns, because they won't be willing to pay the price in stopping us.

Putin went into Crimea AFTER we sponsored our coups in Ukraine starting 2013 and began installing our folks.

That's called “cutting your losses.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine

Putin sees the interests of Ukraine and Russia as intrinsically tied, being one people (same history / culture), and you are taking what Putin wrote out of context. Did you even read the essay or are you simply quoting what someone else interpreted it to mean and you liked that version of the truth?

There is nothing bad in what he wrote (try reading): https://ia802207.us.archive.org/15/items/vladimir-putin-on-the-historical-unity-of-russians-and-ukrainians/Vladimir%20Putin%20-%20On%20the%20Historical%20Unity%20of%20Russians%20and%20Ukrainians.pdf

But that doesn't stop idiots from “interpreting” what it all means, and then other geniuses to quote the idiots: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-new-ukraine-essay-reflects-imperial-ambitions/

—

1.) What you CANNOT do is explain to an average American how this war has made them more wealthy (it's costing them)

2.) How it made the average American safer (it's made the world more dangerous)

3.) Or how it improved the average Americans freedom and liberty (as Western government now mass censors and conduct psyop/propaganda campaigns on their own people - framework for that was put in place 2013 under Obama when they changed the Smith Mundt Act).

This is a stupid war because it was unnecessary. There was no immediate national security need for pushing the NATO East expansion issue.

It's a stupid war because it was 100% avoidable (October, November, December 2021) we could have changed course but we weren't even willing to negotiate in earnest with the Russians. We basically said how it's going to be (Ukraine is coming into NATO) and then gave the Russians the middle finger while trying to fast track Ukraine into NATO.

It's a stupid war because it was predictable. Russia was pissed about the Baltic states in 2004 and that was not going to happen again. We did lie about NATO East expansion, and Russia consistently has expressed their concerns. Indeed, they blocked us in 2008 Republic of Georgia, and in 2014 Ukraine where we also wanted to bring NATO in. So it wasn't a surprise what happened in 2022.

It's a stupid war because “WE” would do the same thing if in their shoes. We would NEVER accept what we expect Russia to accept regards their security posture if Ukraine comes into NATO. Total hypocrisy on this issue.

Finally, it's a stupid war because the outcome was predictable. When you stick your finger in the eye of some kid on the playground that's much bigger than you, you're going to get an @ss beating. Just because you have a friend (the US) that's also a big kid isn't going to save you in this case because that friend doesn't want to bleed for you.

This war is the result of us gambling (Russia won't be willing to pay the price to stop us) and underestimating the Russians (they still have the ability to push back).

The amount of death, destruction of wealth, suffering by the refugees and cripples created, the damage to infrastructure making people lives more difficult and also long term damaging wealth generation, the families separated, men forced to fight... none of this had to be. This is a Biden legacy which needs to be pinned on him. Un-(F)ing this mess is going to prove difficult.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.