He does not consider that regardless or how nato expanded the kremlin under Putin would be invading to recreate the empire.
The background factor he gets more right but doesn’t spend much time on is the lack of credibility and burnt political capital caused by events such as the second Iraq war, the Iran nuclear deal, pulling out of treaties and various credibility damaging things trump did.
Not only that, he doesn’t seem able to extrapolate his own points about Iraq and America being blind when it’s on the “right side” aka winning side of history to how Russians and the kremlin will see Ukraine conflict.
Overall he makes some good points of view but also is naive and in accurate in other which for someone trying to sound like an expert is a very bad hit to credibility.
His title is okay, having an objective conversation at a time when even scientific fact during a deadly pandemic turned into a partisan political matter, then the always more political topic of Foreign policy has little hope of having a objective debate. That angle was left out.
The endless attempts to cast Russia as the victim in any way are ridiculous. Nobody in NATO really wants Georgia or Kosovo or Ukraine in the alliance. NATO was ambivalent about many of the Eastern European countries and many in the West wondered (even up until the invasion of Ukraine) whether NATO still had a purpose.
No, they begged to be let into the castle because they feared that Russia would invade them, a fear validated over and over and over and over by how Russia treats its militarily weaker neighbors. Under both Trump and Biden (and probably even before that), Poland has been offering the United States billions of dollars if it would be willing to build a military base there. Nobody is pressuring former Soviet nations into NATO. They are desperate to get in to avoid getting mauled.
Can confirm. I still remember we had a party when it was announced Poland will be in NATO.
Let's not mention those countries involved in assaults on Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Lebanon and others though, will we?
As somebody once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Such hypocrisy. But that's our usual way of life.
Your logic is basically "Alice murdered Bob and you said nothing, therefore you can't say anything when Dave murders Eve". If I knew Eve and didn't knew Bob it's pretty obvious I will care more. There's nothing wrong with this.
What is wrong is silencing people who speak out against aggressive wars. It's a common tactic called whataboutism. And it's exactly what you are doing.
"Can We Have an Intelligent Adult Conversation About Russia?"
AKA
"Stop disagreeing with me, you juvenile ignoramuses, and pay attention to my mature wisdom."
Yuval Noah Harari: Why Vladimir Putin has already lost this war
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/vladim...
In the spirit of adult conversation: 1990s enlargement of NATO was and is 90%+ popular in these countries. Exactly because we knew Russia will at some point try to recreate USSR/Tzar Russia/whatever the new name is. Russian elites think they have "the right" to govern these lands (go read Dugin if you disagree). And Russian government after fall of USSR means limited democracy at best, authoritarian government most likely, totalitarianism at worst.
These fears were portrayed by western Europe and even USA as "russophobia" and "eastern post-communist paranoia". Germans even a month ago treated them as such. I think this opinion should be reevaluated in the light of 3 wars Russia started since 2008 and especially this invasion of Ukraine. It's not paranoia. It's realism.
It was the west that was mistaken. There should be admission. And reevaluation of many conclusions based on that wrong opinion. I think it is happening, but this article makes me doubt that.
The hope that Russia will reform itself into a proper democracy, or even that it will become a rational authoritarian country you can make business with - it's not realistic. It could be possible if Russia went through the same thing that Germany and Japan did after WW2. Occupation, division, reeducation, economic miracle, business as usual.
But Russia didn't. USSR fell by itself and we just moved on straight to business as usual. So they predictably made a whole mythology about betrayal, decadent liberal west, traditional values, holy purpose of Russia, revenge and creating conservative heaven on earth. West made Hitler 2.0. But not because it "provoked" Russia. Provocation wasn't needed. Fall of the USSR was all the provocation necessary. The opposite - the mistake was letting the hate and misfortune after cold war loss fester without dealing with it.
I understand that USA might not want to defend post-communist countries from Russia. But there's a difference between saying "we don't want to defend you" and "defending you is a mistake because it provokes Russia". The mistake was the opposite.
PS if you take anything from this wall of text - go read Dugin. And compare to Main Kampf. Elites of Russia all read Dugin.
Russia thinks it owns this land. Anything that isn't Warsaw Pact 2.0 will "provoke them". They aren't hiding this BTW. If "the west" thinks that we should just give up independence to let them avoid WW3 - sorry but that's not going to happen. Nobody who experienced real democracy wants back into "ruskiy mir".
It's kind of interesting that a lot of young western politicians and intellectuals don't realize that the elites and rulers of Russia didn't magically disappear after the collapse of the USSR. They were still there, under different official names and titles. Which is why everyone was so fucking skeptical.
I don't see how that conversation can happen in our environment.
