Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me. America's no saint but if you're equating its shenanigans with Russia's you have no clue what you're talking about. I grew up behind the iron curtain so I experienced the "Russian Mir" first hand. NATO is not encroaching on Russia. It's the countries bordering Russia that are running the fuck away from its awful embrace. No country that joined NATO after 1989 did it because they were being coerced. They all _begged_ to be admitted and made a lot of sacrifices to get in. Dwell on that before you give credence to any Russia apologetics.
It wasn't a Russian dictate, it was an agreement. Russia didn't want a strong NATO presence in eastern Europe. NATO of course has to be able to defend its members. But the best defense is if they don't get attacked at all, so if Russia promises not to threaten or attack, then NATO an promise not to commit a large defense there.
But it's been pretty clear that this has been woefully outdated for some time now. Russia does attack its neighbours, takes land from them, and threatens NATO members.
The commitments made sense when Yeltsin was president of Russia. Yeltsin had honestly no interest in conquering, threatening or coercing Russian neighbours. It's a good idea to formalise that so NATO can reduce its military presence. But Putin is very different, and has been very threatening and aggressive. In violation of the treaty, and clearly making NATO presence necessary.
Russia can dictate whatever they want- free countries need to tell them to jump in a lake.
Which says a lot about YOU as a neighbour...
https://www.nytimes.com/search?dropmab=false&endDate=1998123...
I've yet to read through those (or others elsewhere), but at the time, there was much being made of the peaceful transition of the former Soviet bloc to democratic and independent rule, including the former states of the Soviet Union, some of which remained within Russia, others, including Ukraine, which did not. There was a delicate balance of diplomacy, military concerns, economics, and internal politics in seeking a successful path forward. Committments to ease Russian concerns were all but certainly made under those considerations.
The general principle of spheres of influence or concern are old and long-standing. The US Monroe Doctrine held that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas was a potentially hostile act against the United States. It was first articulated in 1823 and goverened US policy through the early 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine
See also the Carter Doctrine, which put a specific emphasis on oil:
The notion of a sphere of influence dates to ancient times, though most typically refers to the 19th century and following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence
Put simply: a state's interests and concerns extend past its borders. That does not give unlimited licence to act beyond borders, though this has of course occurred frequently throughout history by any number of parties: Russian and its precursor state the Soviet Union, the United States, the UK and its precursor England, Germany, Japan, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, Pakistan, and more. Whether acting unilaterally and without reasonable provocation or expressing interests and concerns, any major state will have such concerns, and will likely have some history of action.
That said, a defensive alliance to which states seek membership on a voluntary basis without coercion from the alliance itself, and in paritcular under a credible hostile external threat, as seems to be the present case with Russia, would be hard to argue against under even the broadest of Sphere of Influence / external concerns constructions.
This is political reality and what Merkel really meant with Realpolitik. It was very well known that NATO involvement in these countries is seen as aggression and that makes the reaction of Putin almost predictable. Most did not believe he would do the last step and he certainly surprised with that. But Ukraine has to have a relation to Russia too. If they want to associate with former enemies of the Russia, the result might also be a war.
Without context this question is almost comical because western nation more often than any other group of countries to intervene in other countries. Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, ... It is simply a question of political will, power and interests. Ukraine suffers from that aggression. It was no secret that it is seen as nothing else. Does it ever justify an invasion? Of course not but that also is of no relevance.
> Also in case you're going to pull out some kind of whataboutism with regards to America's behaviour on the world stage, please spare me.
I probably did just that in your opinion, but "whataboutism" is of no relevance. Geopolitics isn't about morals or justifications for foreign interventions.
You and millions of others. So that gives you some sort of privilege to tell everyone about America and NATO? Also, Russia is not the USSR.
Russia is a direct inheritor of the legacy of USSR. Culturally as well as legally. But I digress.
My personal experience is but one data point for you and other westerners. Just be aware that sometimes a spade really is a spade and when I and millions like me tell you that Russia is a piece of shit neighbour then maybe just maybe we are on to something more so than American born, basement dwelling teenage edgelords who tell you otherwise?
NATO (Stoltenberg, Geoană etc.) will act strictly the way America wants them to act. For now it seems America prefers escalation, so the war will go on...
I don't get this narrative - what escalation? What's there to be escalated?
Russia will invade more countries? Russia will start a war with NATO?
It's find to support turning a border conflict into WWIII, but pretending like sending $40 billion of arms to Ukraine isn't an escalation is beyond the pale. Russia's yearly military budget is only $70 billion.
Continually moving a hostile presence closer, and performing strategic encirclement, with missiles, is part of Russia's argument. This is an old argument too, and well known.
The well-known late Stephen F Cohen (2010) https://www.youtube.com/embed/mciLyG9iexE
The eminent John Mearsheimer (2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r4Oo-5vDvo
You were saying?
...until Russia stops invading Ukraine, or successfully conquers it.
Do you think going back and bringing the polish army at the border in August 1939 should also be classified as "escalation"? Or, better, the Dutch army at the border of The Netherlands in April 1940?
1938 has athing to say, too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
Whether this is good or bad from your perspective depends on many, many factors. But that is the truth.
Edit: That being said, Sweden and Finland were already quite integrated as NATO partners. It's unclear to me, a layman, how much is really changing vs. just being formally declared.
Honestly I suspect that's just a momentary bout of mass irrationality (to put it politely). Both countries are completely safe, de-facto NATO members. Russia has no stated or implied interest in invading either. More importantly, Russia has no capacity to do so - they can barely push 50 km into Ukraine as it is.
America, otoh, has a lot to gain in extra weapons sales (remember NATO comes with a 2% of GDP spending target).
I guess I should have known I was poking the dragon with this one, sorry for that.
Just to clarify things a bit, here's my general position:
1. I have complete sympathy and respect for the Ukrainian cause. They are fighting heroically to defend their country against imperialist aggression. I think my country (Romania) should continue to help refugees as much as possible and should offer military support, with the caveat that this support should be sized appropriately.
2. While in the relation Ukraine-Russia it's clear who's the aggressor and who the victim, there's a second dimension to this war, namely the US-Russia conflict.
For decades the US has extended NATO towards Russian borders and into what Russia considers its sphere of influence. Does Russia have a right to have a sphere of influence? No, no country does. Nevertheless, this is how the world works. America knows this full well (see the fuss it makes over developments in Equatorial Guinea [1] and the Solomon Islands [2]). They have decided to expand NATO not because of some great love for Eastern Europe, but because they're playing great power politics.
This cynical game has now reached the hot war phase. If it wanted to, America could force the sides to start peace negotiations - it's vastly more economically and militarily powerful than Russia; and by now I think even Putin understands how badly he miscalculated this invasion. Alas, that's not what America wants - its stated goal is that of weakening Russia [3], not of reaching peace. The subtext here is that they're willing to let Ukrainians die, as long as more Russians die as well.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-aims-to-thwart-chinas-plan-...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-o...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/russia-weakede...
