I think is a way oversimplification of geopolitical situation in Ukraine and Russian motives.
Just my two cents
IMO it's an oversimplification to do otherwise.
Indeed, not all but some of the attackers instead want to kill the men and rape the women in Ukraine -- rather than caring that much about their own tribe.
Some double digit percentage of the male population whether you are, starts doing that, if they have the chance.
It's reproduction, evolution, been going on for hundreds of thousands of years
"Star man"
To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise. Ukraine, a previous warsaw pact country, is a prospective NATO member who not only represents a convenient corridor into Russia but also controls a large stretch of coast (Russia wants this) and has massive plains for food production and tank conveyance.
Under this interpretation, Russia seeks to resist expansion of a european alliance composed of several former enemies and retain access to key strategic locations outside its borders. Russia’s motives are much more tangible under this perspective, and who knows maybe there’s a solution we’re not seeing from that perspective than one that places outsized emphasis on individual atrocities. It’s a war, after all, and doesn’t appear to be stopping despite the upset faces of spectators.
Some of Russia’s individual politicians and news outlets no doubt have genuine nationalistic motivations surrounding Ukraine, but it is not clear to me that these are the predominant motives for spending Russian lives and risking Russian security by engaging their forces in an armed conflict. The rhetoric and actions you cite is probably believed and condoned by an increasingly nonzero percentage of the population, but I’m personally not convinced these are much more than pretexts useful to the state in providing political cover to what is ultimately a sovereign chess move (prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, demotivate it and others from future attempts). Russia benefited massively by their previous USSR-era relationship with the surrounding baltic states, and Putin, a former USSR man, has said [1] that the breakup of the warsaw pact was one of Russia’s greatest geopolitical tragedies. I believe his greatest defensive focus is on re-establishing a buffer zone between it and western powers, and likely it’s longer term goals include acquisition of warm water ports and influence over the oil trade.
This does, of course, not justify any of Russia’s actions on a moral basis. I expect many Russian officials will be tried and convicted of war crimes. It merely provides a basis by which european leaders/armchair presidents (me) can ground Russia’s actions and plot countermoves.
> Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border.
Not even a year ago Russia implied a military consequence if Finland was to join NATO [2]. A few months after this statement was given Russia invaded Ukraine, though this ironically emboldened Finlanders into being majority in favor of joining NATO.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Ag... (can’t find a source for the exact quote, but cited in chapter 2).
[2]: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-incl...
Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time.
Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war.
BTW Russia no longer keeps up the pretense that what occured in the eastern occupied territories was spontaneous, but admits in obituaries online that soldiers killed in the current conflict are being 'honored' for their service in the '2014 Ukraine' operation and '2014 Maiden' operation. What prompted that Russian sponsored uprising? Ukraine coming closer to the EU, then at the last minute having their corrupt politicians trying to switch to a Russian economic block, nothing to with NATO. Also, autonomy for Russian speakers.
So 2014 actual Russian military involvement in taking control of 10% of Ukraine? Not in response to NATO but to Russia losing their Ukrainian puppet leader.
Verbally stated current reasons, only partially related to NATO. Just as much stemming from a desire to continue the 2014 actual conflict (in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands) which was not related to NATO.
You also ignore Russian aggression in Transistria (A war, that Russia supported, that Russia sent troops to maintain post conflict) where again NATO was not raised as the issue, but ethnic Russians = Russian interest.
Russia calls Ukraine Little Russia. Russia says Ukraine is not a real country, does not have a real culture. Russia says anywhere Russians live is Russia. But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it.
Your argument is nothing but whitewashing an authoritarian rulers decision to go to war.
If you enjoy Putin quotes here's a good one...
"Don't believe those who try to frighten you with Russia and who scream that other regions will follow after Crimea," said Putin on Tuesday, going some way to allaying those fears. "We do not want a partition of Ukraine. We do not need this." The Guardian March 18 2014. Notice this was after the 2008 NATO application from Ukraine. Putin does not say 'Unless Ukraine continues down a path towards NATO alignment'.
Henry A. Kissinger is pushing the same narrative. Would you call HAK poorly informed on the matter?
One notes that Russia is a great power only because of its nuclear arsenal; that is, in fact, what separates the great powers from weak countries that have any independence only at the pleasure of the nearest great power. That should concern you if you are fan of nuclear non-proliferation, by the way.
I would take Kissinger's view on the topic seriously, same way I'd take Knuth's opinion on typesetting seriously - to make analogy. The fact that I might agree or not should not cloud my judgement or yours.
Calling Kissinger biased is smokescreen: everybody is biased.
Never underestimate Kissinger's inability to consider what Mearsheimer calls 'the moral dimension'. That's more than a bias. That he holds an ammoral, great-power world view to back up his psychopathically immoral actions over the years should surprise no one - millions of needless deaths can arguably be laid at his feet.
Maybe keep those limitations in mind if you intend to defer to him on Ukraine/Russia.
I disagree with the Great Power reasoning mostly because it is explicitly amoral and moral standing is important (at least from a morale viewpoint :-) if nothing else). That's completely unimportant. On the other hand, all of the honest-to-gosh International Relations people I've heard from (at least those under 70) also disagree with it, for a variety of reasons, and I take that seriously too.
I further believe your last sentence is a gratuitous misreading of what I wrote.
Firstly we disagree here on the blame being on the west. The blame is not on the west for expanding NATO, the blame is on Putin for choosing to attack yet another sovereign nation for its own national policy goals. Since you also accuse me of "whitewashing an authoritarian ruler's decision" I'll also state explicitly I think Putin is a callous, paranoid relic of the cold war and should be removed from power for this and his many other stains on the world. He should not be in Ukraine, Ukraine is morally rigeous in fighting back, and I expect more countries will join NATO as a result of Putin's actions. The only reason I'm focusing on Russia's rational basis for invading is because we'll be doomed to keep repeating this same dance with Russia until we incapacitate it (I don't really want to die via thermonuclar warhead) or find some other solution grounded in the actual concerns that seem to motivate their behavior.
> Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time
I want to see Putin fail miserably and face justice. He is not justified, only paranoid and warped. He will continue to act this way until NATO finds a way to make him stop, which won't be by frowning intensely at him and hitting him with sanctions. Russia's power comes from things like its oil & gas exports, and nationally it wants things like a warm water ports (i.e. one that doesn't freeze 1/3 of the year) which it currents gets by leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It furthermore wants these things on its own terms, and does not want a NATO-aligned Ukraine suddenly deciding that it cannot access them. Why do you think Putin was so anxious to specifically annex Crimea?
It's not really a secret btw that NATO wants Ukraine to join [1] (section 69), and Ukraine is of great strategic interest to Russia for the reasons I've outlined in my above comments and many more. Certainly we can at least agree on that, morals of Russia outright imposing its will on Ukraine aside. Obviously it's wrong, but Russia doesn't care if it's wrong.
> But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it.
Because geography dictates it. Ukraine provides easy and wide passage to Russia and provides a place for NATO (US) to install military equipment, bases, anti-missile systems (yes I know what you're going to say, but yes Putin has bitched incessantly about these [2] despite being nominally "defensive"). Ukraine hosts one of Russia's only viable warm-water ports. Ukraine joining NATO means that Putin can no longer bully smaller states into serving its needs and instead would need to risk a war against an alliance of nuclear powers if it wants to achieve policy by other means. NATO controlling Ukraine means that NATO has actual leverage over Russia beyond sanctions, which Russia does not want.
I think allowing Ukraine to join NATO and deploying a peacekeeping force would either force Putin to back down or escalate us to a nuclear war if Putin decides Ukraine is strategically worth a first strike. No idea honestly, maybe it stays conventional and then Russia leaves with its tail tucked between its legs. Maybe China, who does not seem to be a fan of Russia's maneuvering, does not get involved. Maybe it does, and Ukraine's civilian casualties pale in comparison to what could follow.
My hope is that NATO can find a peaceful solution. There could be a diplomatic solution involving giving Russia Crimea as a condition to Ukraine joining NATO, which might avoid full-scale conflict and kick the can down the road for when Putin decides it cannot trust NATO to honor its word. Likely there are far better solutions that leverage geopolitical realities I have not thought of, as I am not a politician, historian, military expert, or geographer. Or the world can strongly condemn them in the media and send Ukrainians guns, because that seems to be working so well.
> Russia's many comments that they are protecting ethnic Russian speakers
This is a pretext to justify entry into conflicts that benefit Russia's national interests. I don't think we disagree there based on the rest of your paragaphs so I won't bother justifying that statement, merely confirm we're on the same page. This is especially true...
> in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands
...for Ukraine. I am incredibly skeptical that Putin gives a shit about any group of Russians unless he has a national interest in doing so.
> Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war.
They no doubt do what Putin wants when ordered but have their own thoughts and opinions. Some, like the oligarchs who own Russia's business interests privatized after the collapse of the USSR, likely do have the power to influence Putin by force and every account I've read of this dynamic asserts that Putin's relationship them is akin to a neo-feudalistic court more than god commanding his disciples. Not really sure why you reacted so strongly to my original "some", but I guess more clarification on my personal stance since you think I'm a Putin apologist.
Did I forget to stress that I hate Putin and will celebrate when he is no longer in power?
[1]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm
[2]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile...
This is a lie. 'not one inch eastward' never referred to NATO expansion to other countries. At least according to the man who received it, Gorbachev.
If interference in a neighbours affairs and then threatening the very existence of that neighbour are undesirable then I'm sure you'll agree there is no more apt example of the silliness of starmanning some Russians who support its present expansionist actions.
You can seek all the interpretations your want. The example wa to illustrate my point that there's no rhetorical solution to find between an imperialist wanting some land and the sovereign nation holding it. Not between the adversarial geopolitical leaders and not between victims' families and war criminals.
Between Napoleon and the present day Russia has only been invaded twice. By countries trying to liberate themselves in WW1 from the Russian Empire, and by Germany and others in WW2 (also partially a liberation, e.g. Romania tried to liberate the territories which Russia annexed at the start of the war).
> Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs.
Russia has constantly tried to annex everybody (even Putin jokes about this) and you cry about "meddling". Nobody would be meddling in Russian affairs if Russia was broken up like Austria (the previous Jail of Nations).
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-it-true-1918-amer...
And wasn't that Romanian land given to the USSR by Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? So the Nazis were "liberating" land they had already agreed to give to someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
These are two minor points. They both, though, serve to show that you're lacking a grounding in the very history you're trying to swat aside.
From what I heard, they do this because their whole way of fighting was designed around land wars with neighbors which is where huge quantities of artillary and "dumb" rockets are cheap enough to transport by land but have to flatten large areas to be effective. In contrast, the US fights mostly overseas so they want more mobile weapons which also means more efficiently targetted. And now we have a convenient "moral" idea that precision weapons are good and broad-desctruction weapons are "bad". That moral just happens to favor the west, today. It wasn't like that back in WWI and WWII so back then, westeners didn't care about such morality - they wouldn't be able to place themselves on top.
Whenever people start making moral judgements based on ideas like war crimes, human rights, or terrorism, I feel they're blinded by the fact that these concepts conveniently favor western countries and their capabilities so it suits us to think they're what makes a country "good".
Second, of course bombing civilians was immoral during the great wars. The fact that they're TARGETTING population centres at all is evil, regardless of technology, antagonist or time on history.
Third, if people in Western countries did subsequently develop a distaste for such immorality, that's to their credit. It doesn't make them hypocrites, it puts them further down the road of human development than those who didn't.
Fourth, it's not only Westerners that value human rights, deplore war crimes and terrorism and those that do are often the first to publicly criticise their own countries records and hypocrisies. The fact they can do that made their countries "better", it's what helps make them "good" today.
You almost seem to dislike modernity.
No, it's Putin. He's an existential threat to the people in Russia.
Whilst NATO is not and he knows it. (Except for replying if Putin starts firing nukes.)
> if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars
That's not how people think. "Let's attack Ukraine because Napoleon ..."
I doubt you seriously believe in those things yourself, and the other things you wrote.