Both narratives are false. While it is true that some NATO members were underspending on defense, other countries such as France and Poland continued to invest in their own domestic military capabilities, because they were unwilling to put their safety in the hands of an ally a whole ocean away from their home soil. Both Western Europe and Russia massively cut military spending after the Cold War. If Western Europe was left weak after the Cold War due to lack of spending, then so was Russia. NATO has always possessed a massive military advantage over Russia, but there was no political will to bring the fight to Russia until AFTER Putin invaded Ukraine. The blame for this war begins and ends with the modern day Tsar ruling from Moscow.
8 months ago | 64
Prior to the 2014 invasion, NATO member France was in the process of selling two Mistral helicopter carriers to Russia. They were also slated to sell them one or two more that would be built in Russian shipyards. So not only was there gonna be a transfer of very sophisticated ships to Russia, they were going to learn how to build them. Billions of NATO military sales were happening for Russia and more were on the horizon if they've behaved. Call me crazy but it is not typical behavior to arm an opponent in anticipation of a conflict. NATO had zero problems with Russia. There was some distrust but that's about it. NATO's top players were hoping to get along buy oil/gas, sell military gear, get some cheaper labor for car production from them. Oh and sell luxury goods to their oligarchs and let them buy soccer teams. Maybe spy on each other every now and then and butt heads in some geopolitics while still doing business. That was NATO's long-term plan until Putin screwed it up with fantasies about being a conqueror, which he is not.
8 months ago | 137
I think it was Perun who pointed out that NATO is not, and has never been a threat to Russia itself, but is a threat to Russias power and influence. The war in Ukraine is mostly about that - power and influence.
8 months ago | 44
Both are BS. The only thing NATO presence in Eastern Europe did was curtail Russian imperial expansion. This war would have happened irrespective of anything NATO did short of extending membership to Ukraine (which would have been a bad idea pre 2014).
8 months ago | 22
"We've always been at war with Eura—I mean Easta—I mean Eura—ah, nevermind."
8 months ago | 16
Putin probably thought that since NATO was fading, and falling into disuse, that there would be minimal repercussions. What he did succeed in doing however, was causing NATO's resurgence. Such is Putin's "Verschlimmbesserung".
8 months ago (edited) | 58
NATO was seen as weak by Russia and Putin gambled that the EU and US would not intervene.
8 months ago | 9
The answer is neither. NATO expanded because of the Ukraine war, not the other way around. Rusdia invaded because they thought Europe wouldn't want to do anything other than diplomatic gestures/rebukes. They had good reason to believe this; not much happened after the annexation of Crimea. That's not a question of military might, that's a question of political will, and Russia assumed Europe didn't have much.
8 months ago | 19
Standard Russian info operations- create doubt or confusion about what is real
8 months ago | 12
I feel the first one has more truth behind it. The second is just nonsense. Before Ukraine, Europe was leaning into Russia and America for fuel and protection, under the notion that they could use them to fuel their growing service sectors as Europe deindustrialized (Britain has been closing steel mills that could maintain the Royal Navy). Ukraine has basically changed everything with their refusal to buckle under the Horde. The EU now has a common enemy in Moscow to help glue it back together. Poland and the Baltic are poised for a fight, with the Baltic states even cutting all the ties they can with Russia while Poland is digging a canal to bypass Kaliningrad. Moreover, the curtain has been raised on Russia's true state. It can't manufacture to the same level as NATO, even after all of NATO's loss of industry, it has no raw material that other countries can't get somewhere else, and most importantly, they've destroyed their reputation and what little trust they had left. NATO might be in not the best state of you look into the details, but Russia meanwhile is practically little more than a corpse of the USSR once you step outside Moscow and St. Petersburg.
8 months ago | 3
That’s an easy one: as Russia is running more and more out of soldiers, they nearly emptied their military bases that are close to NATO territory. THAT dangerously aggressive NATO cannot be in Russias eyes…
8 months ago | 25
russia = paper tiger. we see them for what they are. the second best military in russia.
8 months ago | 7
The Ukraine war has shown that nations should not rely on the US as the US regardless of which president or politically party is in power, may well provide you with weapons, but they will expect you to fight with one arm behind your back, and not allow you to use certain weapons in a defensive capacity to protect yourself. This is why Ukraine and other allies the UK included must develop and use their own weapons and rely less on US weapons manufacturers
8 months ago | 1
I think there’s a third possibility that combines both. NATO is overly reliant on the us and with the decay of peer to peer capacity and perceived weaknesses on the political side of the us things he saw an opportunity to extend his energy dominance. On the other hand, he never forgave the us expanding east(which the nations desperately wanted). He probably thought if he preempted Ukraine, he could have a second Belarus. Strategicly, it was a risky strategy with high potential upside. The utter incompetence of the Russian army, complete infiltration of Russia’s intelligence by the us and Ukrainian resistance turned an easy win into a slugfest. This is Russia’s last real war for decades.
8 months ago | 11
Most NATO members did grossly under-spend on their defense, planning to have daddy America save them if some bully stole their lunch money. This is absolutely true. Euro nations couldn't afford mass immigration from unskilled middle eastern people and govt healthcare and a proper military budget simultaneously. So, they cut back on military defense spending whilst getting in bed with Russia for cheap fuel. Russia saw NATO as weak and therefore calculated that NATO wouldn't do a damn thing, especially if the war was over in a couple weeks. The only reason any nations really stood up to help is because of the Ukrainians dedication to defending their country. The 2nd option is clearly absurd.
8 months ago (edited) | 0
Why would either have to have a shred of truth to them? Genocide apologists don't require truth or logic to be present in their arguments whatsoever.
8 months ago | 0
Neither is true. The Baltic states joined NATO to protect themselves from Russian aggression having seen how Russia behaved in Chechnya and Georgia. Putin knew that Ukraine could be next and he knew once they joined there would be no chance of bringing Ukraine back into the Russian zone of influence. So he invaded whilst he had the chance thinking it would be an easy victory.
8 months ago | 1
Basic psychology: first as a perennial victim, the other is always a threat or doing too much of something; second as the superior person the other is always inferior in some way, and at fault for not measuring up. Instead, analyze the active element first, Putin and russia, then the larger picture. And thank you for your help on the last part.
8 months ago | 0
I can see how 1 might be true. I do think NATO has been/was complacent, if nothing else. 2, however, doesn’t make sense. Assuming it’s true, and NATO was provocative, then Ukraine makes no sense as a target, being outside of NATO, not aligned with NATO and most countries being openly opposed to its’ joining because of their complacency… I could see, if 2 were true, Russia going after EU gas supplies and ripping them off, or doing something to push back in NATO itself… but attacking a third party “because NATO is mean”, just doesn’t make sense.
8 months ago | 1
The Icarus Project
There are two competing narratives that I have seen spreading since Russia's invasion of Ukraine:
1. NATO wasn't investing enough to defend itself, and was relying on the U.S. for military support. They were weak, and that's why Russia invaded.
2. NATO provoked Russia to war by overmilitarizing. Russia had no choice but to invade Ukraine to protect itself.
Both narratives are being spread by the same people, trying to argue for the same points. But logically, they can't both be true.
So, what do you make of this?
This is your daily reminder about the need for strong critical thinking skills when it comes to analyzing geopolitics.
Emotionalism wins the headlines, rationalism wins the conflict.
Have a great week, everyone!
8 months ago | [YT] | 779