"the fact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong"- stopped reading there.
I guess you think Ukraine/US violating the 2014 Minsk Accords by murdering thousands of Russians and provocatively threatening to move missiles on the Russian border wasn't "wrong" as well. It's not like Putin specifically called these two actions out as "red lines" and cited them as a pretext for invading </sarcasm>. Someone like you should be privy to this knowledge, so posting otherwise is very irresponsible. You should probably stop writing this awful blog then.
I also see you called McFaul a "scholar". I wouldn't refer to our russophobe ex-Ambassador to Russia who openly bragged about not knowing Russian on Twitter as a "scholar" but that's just me. Imagine publicly declaring you aren't qualified for you job in an angry Twitter rant lol. Isn't there anyone in the American government that knows Russian?
I couldn't stand Richard Hannania's dumb takes on geopolitics, so I unsubscribed. However I see I forgot to unsubscribe here too. Don't worry, you won't hear from me again. I recommend everyone here unsubscribe and get their geopolitics from honest sources like Multipolarista or Andrew Korykbo's substack.
Civilian casualties from both sides are nearing 3 thousands including the plane, and the majority of civilian casualties happened before Minsk I. Starting a war that will kill far more civilian and military personal and lead to a massive suffering is wrong, you need really good reason for it, which Russia didn't have.
The points about McFaul's misleading Putin quotes, taken out of context, are well made. That said, it's worth distinguishing Russia's reasonable security concerns, such as the numbers, types, and locations of NATO nuclear weapons and other offensive weapons/troops in proximity to Russia, from the illegitimate concerns, such as NATO expansion. A sovereign nation joining NATO is like a person having a burglar alarm installed in their house. A neighbor complaining about the installation of the burglar alarm is unreasonable. That part really is straightforward. When that complaining neighbor subsequently commits burglaries (e.g., Georgia in 2008, Crimea/Donbas in 2014, the rest of Ukraine in 2022), it brings that point home even more clearly. No reasonable person would look at such a string of burglaries and suggest that the problem was the alarm company installing all of those alarms in the other, non-burglarized houses.
By all appearances, the US and NATO have been willing to engage in discussions about the legitimate Russian concerns, but quite rightly refuse on the issue of NATO expansion. I find Lemoine's point about Putin and some others truly seeing NATO expansion as a threat to be plausible. The problem is that this irrational belief inescapably flows from Putin's belief that Russian imperialism continues to be justified. It's not clear, therefore, that the US or NATO could have productive conversations with Russia on the subject until he (or whoever rules the country) drops those imperial ambitions.
Well this "installing an alarm" analogy has been circulating widely but it is grossly misleading. Countries have spheres of influence and they tend to protect it. They want to keep it because it may potentially come handy one day (or already today) for having economic, political or military leverage. Especially stronger or bigger countries over smaller or weaker countries. It's another discussion how fair this is but this is how it goes. For example France still has this sphere in Africa (and they wish to keep it) and British still in the Middleeast and Egypt and US over all other countries, over the world and especially from the US example we know how nasty they can be when they tend to lose their influence in certain areas, most prominent example being Latin America. So some countries need to follow more orderly foreign relations than the others and "a sovereign nation can do whatever they want" just looks good only on heated political speeches. When we come to Ukraine, they needed to continue functioning as a buffer state between west and Russia and it was best for their country. But joining to Nato is not installing an alarm system, sorry, this is almost childish if not intended for deception. From Russia's perspective Ukraine joining to Nato is 1) losing the sphere of influence there 2) moreover losing it against the rival camp 3) worse is losing it probably forever with a very heavy threat 4) and forever losing the most natural military ally due to historic bonds, which might be needed one day 5) a lot of Russians are living there with strong conviction to keep strong ties with the motherland. A better analogy is that, in a neighbor house along which you have been living along for centuries a new generation emerges and makes friend with some big guys from the other town you're suspicious of and installs an arms display stand with big guys bringing in some guns and rifles and they time to time come together for regular shooting practices and occasionally they stare at you not with friendly eyes and they behave disrespectfully to the old grandma living in the house to whom you have respect because she was friends with your older generation.
You're badly wrong here. The nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America don't join defensive alliances because they know it's highly unlikely they'd be invaded, let alone annexed by the US or European powers. Annexation is simply not an action within the consideration of Western nations anymore. Defensive alliances, if formed, might be viewed as insulting, but not provocative because Western nations know that they have no intention of invading for the purpose of conquest. That sort of "spheres of influence" doctrine is a 19th century way of thinking.
You espouse a sentimental view of the Russian-Ukranian relationship. I think the more recent history that's relevant is that Russia intervened in Ukranian politics in 2004 and again in 2014 - very much NOT in the interest of the Ukrainian people. Putin prevented economic integration with Europe by coercing Yanukovic into betraying his promises to the people who elected him. If Russia wanted friendly relations with Ukraine maybe they should've treated them like a friend, rather than a slave.
Of course, that's all quite minor next to invading Ukraine, deliberately targeting civilians and critical infrastructure with artillery, missiles, and drone strikes. And torturing and killing thousands of civilians. And deporting tens of thousands against their will, including children now being trafficked in Russia. If any of that sounds like the actions of a friend, I'm glad that you don't count me as one.
It should be indication of how powerful western ideological dominance is that makes you imply it was only Russia who interfered with Ukrainian internal politics. I'm aware of one phone leak out of probably many between a US official and an ambassador in Ukraine where she was dictating which guy to place as the foreign minister of Ukraine just after 2014. Already widely public Trump leaks on US aid to Ukraine should be regarded as the tip of the iceberg regarding the size and depth of the US involvement in Ukrainian politics. Ukraine was a battleground long ago and the west was doing everything they could in order to get Ukraine out of Russian influence. And spheres of influence is still a relevant concept. In 19th century and until the world wars outright colonialism the fashion was. As you consider Nato a mere a defence pact, I would like to point your attention to the remarks by Stoltenberg just a few days ago, saying "cannot give authoritarian regimes any chance to exploit our vulnerabilities and undermine us" referring to Chinese economic expansion (a gross invasion of civil political space) and I would like you to imagine a situation where China, Russia, Iran and some other countries established a "defence" pact and the general secretary of that pact would make similar remarks against the US. Would the US response and headlines of major newspapers be anything short of framing these remarks as 'casus belli'?
Jan, most countries from Eastern Europe have tried a buffer state/neutrality strategy in the past and it has always ended with invasion from Russia. It has a very bad rep in Eastern Europe and is not taken seriously anymore.
Also, Russia has very limited soft power capacities. In the 19th century, if you were living in Russian Empire, you could genuinely look up to Petersburg or Moscow as world class metropolis, Russia could claim high culture and civilization and even offer some carrots to colonized nations. In the 19th century, Paris and London were so far away, that people from Russian Empire did not even know that these places existed.
Not anymore. Today, Russia is a relatively weak, poor, and poorly managed country - it has very little to offer. And if you are Georgian or Ukrainian, how do you want to live - like in Russia or like in Germany or France? This shift moves through society on many levels (young people learn English, not Russian; people want to study in western universities, not Russian; they want to travel to the West, not Russia, and so on and so, etc.).
Ukrainian society has slowly and surely drifted to the west. It has happened naturally and thats why it is very hard to stop.
Then two questions: 1) why wasn't becoming an EU member a bigger topic for Ukrainian politicians than becoming a Nato member 2) why was west more eager to accept Ukraine into the military club rather than the socioeconomic club? Ukraine is economically backwarded but if Romania and Bulgaria could became members, Ukraine could also become a member given the circumstances. During the heated first weeks of the invasion when European leaders embraced Ukraine as the immediate new member of the union tomorrow, Russia didn't seem to have any problem with that (it's a question if EUs urgency waned just because of that).
Then there comes the question of politicians, Ukrainian politicians: why to push that much for Nato membership, why not to follow a more balanced path? Obviously it's better business for the west to accept Ukraine as a military outpost rather than an economic burden. You just need blinded or stupid politicians without a sense of how power works to play along. Because people just want. Who doesn't want to be a westerner? Probably a vast majority of the world population today would love to pursue western lifestyles. But it should politicians that need to realistically moderate. I think this is what happened in Ukraine.
If NATO was purely the defensive alliance it purports to be the burglar alarm analogy would be more defensible. The adventurism in Bosnia and Libya gives lie to that pretense, and in fact was a big and legitimate cause of Russia's concerns.
"The problem is that this irrational belief inescapably flows from Putin's belief that Russian imperialism continues to be justified. It's not clear, therefore, that the US or NATO could have productive conversations with Russia on the subject until he (or whoever rules the country) drops those imperial ambitions."
I agree. I would also point out that no sane individual could believe that NATO harboured any plans to invade Russia either in 2022 or 2014.
Illuminating essay, which opens up balanced viewpoints far from the Western narrative. Yes, you said it right—“…avoiding simplistic narratives is not only important because truth is intrinsically valuable, but also because it could help bring the conflict to a faster conclusion.”
The broad thrust of this article is arguing against a strawman. Nobody really disagrees that Russians might have said NATO was a threat. Anyone in the West can point that out freely and openly without fear of reproach. The issue is that NATO wasn't actually a threat in any plausible scenario in the way that Russians were describing it. Russians (or Putin specifically) typically alluded to NATO aggression either from a ground invasion or a nuclear first-strike, both of which were never in the cards given it would start World War 3 and mean a huge portion of the Earth's population from both sides being wiped out in an instant. Some Russians may have drank the propaganda koolaid and genuinely believed the West was willing to eliminate Russia in a geopolitical equivalent of a murder-suicide, but they were mostly relegated to the fringes.
What Russians/Putin were actually worried about was one of three things:
* Western cultural and economic hegemony. NATO expansion doesn't really directly impact this, but NATO expansion serves as a barometer that the West is still triumphing over the former Soviet Union.
* The West fomenting pro-democracy movements in Russia, similar to the Color Revolutions. Much of Russian society and Putin in particular have a deep antipathy for democracy, seeing it as not only a personal threat but as an invasive, enemy ideology and incorrectly blaming it for the turmoil of the Yeltsin years. Again, this doesn't really have anything directly to do with NATO expansion, but the fact that NATO is expanding at all means the West is robust enough to possibly try something like a pro-democracy coup in the future.
* Loss of their sphere of influence. Many Russians still see their country as a Great Power, and the fact that NATO even has the possibility of being extended to Ukraine is deeply insulting.
So yes, many Russians say "NATO is a threat". But no, no reasonable Russian thinks NATO is a threat in a conventional sense since Russia still has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world. Instead, saying "NATO is a threat" is used as a dogwhistle to stoke generalized anti-Western sentiment or to appeal to delusions of grandeur, i.e. that Russia should reassemble the borders of the Soviet Union.
"The issue is that NATO wasn't actually a threat"... stopped there. Maybe not to you! Have you ever played "Risk"? Nothing is a direct threat, until opponents eat all your controlled territories, one by one, encircle you and you then figure out you lost... NATO is a threat to anything NOT in NATO - though there are reasons to state NATO is a threat even to anybody inside NATO, except US - even if it was truly a defensive alliance, that the last 30 years have amply dimostrated it is not.
While you may have a point that Russia opposes/fears NATO expansion I think the implication (perhaps not intended but part of the public interpretation) that somehow those fears are reasonable or that NATO expansion is to blame is unjustified, or at least unpoven in that argument..
I mean, I could equally point out that Russia believes that Ukraine belongs to Russia and arguably sees an independent Ukraine as a threat to their interests.
Generally speaking Russia has a view of it's rightful place in the world that involves getting to interfere with the freedom and self-determination of countries in it's neighborhood. So sure, NATO expansion certainly threatened that but it was correct and good to threaten that ability. Also, one needs to distinguish the legitimate concerns of the Russian people from the illegitimate concerns of elites (who may convince the ppl to have illegitimate concerns) that various organizations will threaten their ability to retain control of a country via repressive violence (this isn't very plausible but I can see Russian elites fearing it).
"It’s ironic that many people who 20 years ago were convinced that Iraq posed such an imminent threat to the US that it had to be taken out immediately can’t even fathom the possibility that Russian elites might have a similarly inflated perception of the threat posed by NATO expansion."
Its disingenuous to pretend that the rationale for invading Iraq was purely rooted in national security arguments. Humanitarian arguments pointing to the brutality of Saddam's regime and the necessity of "building democracy" in the Middle East also played a pivotal role, especially when it came to selling the war to liberals. I also believe that one could legitimately argue that Saddam's Iraq posed a greater threat to regional stability in the ME than Zelensky's Ukraine posed to regional stability in Europe (not that that justifies the 2003 invasion).
Similarly, with Russia in Ukraine, its clear that hard-headed national security concerns are (at best) only part of the explanation. Putin's deluded belief that Ukrainians are really Russians who need liberation from Neo-Nazis is at least as important. Not least because Ukraine was never going to join NATO while the conflict in Donbas was still ongoing (NATO doesn't admit countries with border disputes), and anyone who claims that NATO was planning on invading Russia needs their brain examined.
Great work and looking forward to more. One can only hope this era of deliberate obfuscation will end someday. Right now we’re in the "not only false but preposterous” stage of narrative control. A bet there are a few ex Soviets around who still remember what that’s like.
"the fact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong"- stopped reading there.
I guess you think Ukraine/US violating the 2014 Minsk Accords by murdering thousands of Russians and provocatively threatening to move missiles on the Russian border wasn't "wrong" as well. It's not like Putin specifically called these two actions out as "red lines" and cited them as a pretext for invading </sarcasm>. Someone like you should be privy to this knowledge, so posting otherwise is very irresponsible. You should probably stop writing this awful blog then.
I also see you called McFaul a "scholar". I wouldn't refer to our russophobe ex-Ambassador to Russia who openly bragged about not knowing Russian on Twitter as a "scholar" but that's just me. Imagine publicly declaring you aren't qualified for you job in an angry Twitter rant lol. Isn't there anyone in the American government that knows Russian?
I couldn't stand Richard Hannania's dumb takes on geopolitics, so I unsubscribed. However I see I forgot to unsubscribe here too. Don't worry, you won't hear from me again. I recommend everyone here unsubscribe and get their geopolitics from honest sources like Multipolarista or Andrew Korykbo's substack.
“I guess you think Ukraine/US violating the 2014 Minsk Accords by murdering thousands of Russians”
Stopped reading here. Well, not really. But I should have, and you lied about stopping reading as well, so we’re even.
So it's ok for Ukraine to violate an international treaty and murder over 8,000 innocent civilians? I'm not sure what could justify that but ok.
Civilian casualties from both sides are nearing 3 thousands including the plane, and the majority of civilian casualties happened before Minsk I. Starting a war that will kill far more civilian and military personal and lead to a massive suffering is wrong, you need really good reason for it, which Russia didn't have.
Aren’t you supposed to be gone? There’s a market for stupid lies like yours, but it isn’t here.
The points about McFaul's misleading Putin quotes, taken out of context, are well made. That said, it's worth distinguishing Russia's reasonable security concerns, such as the numbers, types, and locations of NATO nuclear weapons and other offensive weapons/troops in proximity to Russia, from the illegitimate concerns, such as NATO expansion. A sovereign nation joining NATO is like a person having a burglar alarm installed in their house. A neighbor complaining about the installation of the burglar alarm is unreasonable. That part really is straightforward. When that complaining neighbor subsequently commits burglaries (e.g., Georgia in 2008, Crimea/Donbas in 2014, the rest of Ukraine in 2022), it brings that point home even more clearly. No reasonable person would look at such a string of burglaries and suggest that the problem was the alarm company installing all of those alarms in the other, non-burglarized houses.
By all appearances, the US and NATO have been willing to engage in discussions about the legitimate Russian concerns, but quite rightly refuse on the issue of NATO expansion. I find Lemoine's point about Putin and some others truly seeing NATO expansion as a threat to be plausible. The problem is that this irrational belief inescapably flows from Putin's belief that Russian imperialism continues to be justified. It's not clear, therefore, that the US or NATO could have productive conversations with Russia on the subject until he (or whoever rules the country) drops those imperial ambitions.
Well this "installing an alarm" analogy has been circulating widely but it is grossly misleading. Countries have spheres of influence and they tend to protect it. They want to keep it because it may potentially come handy one day (or already today) for having economic, political or military leverage. Especially stronger or bigger countries over smaller or weaker countries. It's another discussion how fair this is but this is how it goes. For example France still has this sphere in Africa (and they wish to keep it) and British still in the Middleeast and Egypt and US over all other countries, over the world and especially from the US example we know how nasty they can be when they tend to lose their influence in certain areas, most prominent example being Latin America. So some countries need to follow more orderly foreign relations than the others and "a sovereign nation can do whatever they want" just looks good only on heated political speeches. When we come to Ukraine, they needed to continue functioning as a buffer state between west and Russia and it was best for their country. But joining to Nato is not installing an alarm system, sorry, this is almost childish if not intended for deception. From Russia's perspective Ukraine joining to Nato is 1) losing the sphere of influence there 2) moreover losing it against the rival camp 3) worse is losing it probably forever with a very heavy threat 4) and forever losing the most natural military ally due to historic bonds, which might be needed one day 5) a lot of Russians are living there with strong conviction to keep strong ties with the motherland. A better analogy is that, in a neighbor house along which you have been living along for centuries a new generation emerges and makes friend with some big guys from the other town you're suspicious of and installs an arms display stand with big guys bringing in some guns and rifles and they time to time come together for regular shooting practices and occasionally they stare at you not with friendly eyes and they behave disrespectfully to the old grandma living in the house to whom you have respect because she was friends with your older generation.
You're badly wrong here. The nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America don't join defensive alliances because they know it's highly unlikely they'd be invaded, let alone annexed by the US or European powers. Annexation is simply not an action within the consideration of Western nations anymore. Defensive alliances, if formed, might be viewed as insulting, but not provocative because Western nations know that they have no intention of invading for the purpose of conquest. That sort of "spheres of influence" doctrine is a 19th century way of thinking.
You espouse a sentimental view of the Russian-Ukranian relationship. I think the more recent history that's relevant is that Russia intervened in Ukranian politics in 2004 and again in 2014 - very much NOT in the interest of the Ukrainian people. Putin prevented economic integration with Europe by coercing Yanukovic into betraying his promises to the people who elected him. If Russia wanted friendly relations with Ukraine maybe they should've treated them like a friend, rather than a slave.
Of course, that's all quite minor next to invading Ukraine, deliberately targeting civilians and critical infrastructure with artillery, missiles, and drone strikes. And torturing and killing thousands of civilians. And deporting tens of thousands against their will, including children now being trafficked in Russia. If any of that sounds like the actions of a friend, I'm glad that you don't count me as one.
It should be indication of how powerful western ideological dominance is that makes you imply it was only Russia who interfered with Ukrainian internal politics. I'm aware of one phone leak out of probably many between a US official and an ambassador in Ukraine where she was dictating which guy to place as the foreign minister of Ukraine just after 2014. Already widely public Trump leaks on US aid to Ukraine should be regarded as the tip of the iceberg regarding the size and depth of the US involvement in Ukrainian politics. Ukraine was a battleground long ago and the west was doing everything they could in order to get Ukraine out of Russian influence. And spheres of influence is still a relevant concept. In 19th century and until the world wars outright colonialism the fashion was. As you consider Nato a mere a defence pact, I would like to point your attention to the remarks by Stoltenberg just a few days ago, saying "cannot give authoritarian regimes any chance to exploit our vulnerabilities and undermine us" referring to Chinese economic expansion (a gross invasion of civil political space) and I would like you to imagine a situation where China, Russia, Iran and some other countries established a "defence" pact and the general secretary of that pact would make similar remarks against the US. Would the US response and headlines of major newspapers be anything short of framing these remarks as 'casus belli'?
Jan, most countries from Eastern Europe have tried a buffer state/neutrality strategy in the past and it has always ended with invasion from Russia. It has a very bad rep in Eastern Europe and is not taken seriously anymore.
Also, Russia has very limited soft power capacities. In the 19th century, if you were living in Russian Empire, you could genuinely look up to Petersburg or Moscow as world class metropolis, Russia could claim high culture and civilization and even offer some carrots to colonized nations. In the 19th century, Paris and London were so far away, that people from Russian Empire did not even know that these places existed.
Not anymore. Today, Russia is a relatively weak, poor, and poorly managed country - it has very little to offer. And if you are Georgian or Ukrainian, how do you want to live - like in Russia or like in Germany or France? This shift moves through society on many levels (young people learn English, not Russian; people want to study in western universities, not Russian; they want to travel to the West, not Russia, and so on and so, etc.).
Ukrainian society has slowly and surely drifted to the west. It has happened naturally and thats why it is very hard to stop.
Then two questions: 1) why wasn't becoming an EU member a bigger topic for Ukrainian politicians than becoming a Nato member 2) why was west more eager to accept Ukraine into the military club rather than the socioeconomic club? Ukraine is economically backwarded but if Romania and Bulgaria could became members, Ukraine could also become a member given the circumstances. During the heated first weeks of the invasion when European leaders embraced Ukraine as the immediate new member of the union tomorrow, Russia didn't seem to have any problem with that (it's a question if EUs urgency waned just because of that).
Then there comes the question of politicians, Ukrainian politicians: why to push that much for Nato membership, why not to follow a more balanced path? Obviously it's better business for the west to accept Ukraine as a military outpost rather than an economic burden. You just need blinded or stupid politicians without a sense of how power works to play along. Because people just want. Who doesn't want to be a westerner? Probably a vast majority of the world population today would love to pursue western lifestyles. But it should politicians that need to realistically moderate. I think this is what happened in Ukraine.
If NATO was purely the defensive alliance it purports to be the burglar alarm analogy would be more defensible. The adventurism in Bosnia and Libya gives lie to that pretense, and in fact was a big and legitimate cause of Russia's concerns.
"The problem is that this irrational belief inescapably flows from Putin's belief that Russian imperialism continues to be justified. It's not clear, therefore, that the US or NATO could have productive conversations with Russia on the subject until he (or whoever rules the country) drops those imperial ambitions."
I agree. I would also point out that no sane individual could believe that NATO harboured any plans to invade Russia either in 2022 or 2014.
Illuminating essay, which opens up balanced viewpoints far from the Western narrative. Yes, you said it right—“…avoiding simplistic narratives is not only important because truth is intrinsically valuable, but also because it could help bring the conflict to a faster conclusion.”
The broad thrust of this article is arguing against a strawman. Nobody really disagrees that Russians might have said NATO was a threat. Anyone in the West can point that out freely and openly without fear of reproach. The issue is that NATO wasn't actually a threat in any plausible scenario in the way that Russians were describing it. Russians (or Putin specifically) typically alluded to NATO aggression either from a ground invasion or a nuclear first-strike, both of which were never in the cards given it would start World War 3 and mean a huge portion of the Earth's population from both sides being wiped out in an instant. Some Russians may have drank the propaganda koolaid and genuinely believed the West was willing to eliminate Russia in a geopolitical equivalent of a murder-suicide, but they were mostly relegated to the fringes.
What Russians/Putin were actually worried about was one of three things:
* Western cultural and economic hegemony. NATO expansion doesn't really directly impact this, but NATO expansion serves as a barometer that the West is still triumphing over the former Soviet Union.
* The West fomenting pro-democracy movements in Russia, similar to the Color Revolutions. Much of Russian society and Putin in particular have a deep antipathy for democracy, seeing it as not only a personal threat but as an invasive, enemy ideology and incorrectly blaming it for the turmoil of the Yeltsin years. Again, this doesn't really have anything directly to do with NATO expansion, but the fact that NATO is expanding at all means the West is robust enough to possibly try something like a pro-democracy coup in the future.
* Loss of their sphere of influence. Many Russians still see their country as a Great Power, and the fact that NATO even has the possibility of being extended to Ukraine is deeply insulting.
So yes, many Russians say "NATO is a threat". But no, no reasonable Russian thinks NATO is a threat in a conventional sense since Russia still has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world. Instead, saying "NATO is a threat" is used as a dogwhistle to stoke generalized anti-Western sentiment or to appeal to delusions of grandeur, i.e. that Russia should reassemble the borders of the Soviet Union.
"The issue is that NATO wasn't actually a threat"... stopped there. Maybe not to you! Have you ever played "Risk"? Nothing is a direct threat, until opponents eat all your controlled territories, one by one, encircle you and you then figure out you lost... NATO is a threat to anything NOT in NATO - though there are reasons to state NATO is a threat even to anybody inside NATO, except US - even if it was truly a defensive alliance, that the last 30 years have amply dimostrated it is not.
While you may have a point that Russia opposes/fears NATO expansion I think the implication (perhaps not intended but part of the public interpretation) that somehow those fears are reasonable or that NATO expansion is to blame is unjustified, or at least unpoven in that argument..
I mean, I could equally point out that Russia believes that Ukraine belongs to Russia and arguably sees an independent Ukraine as a threat to their interests.
Generally speaking Russia has a view of it's rightful place in the world that involves getting to interfere with the freedom and self-determination of countries in it's neighborhood. So sure, NATO expansion certainly threatened that but it was correct and good to threaten that ability. Also, one needs to distinguish the legitimate concerns of the Russian people from the illegitimate concerns of elites (who may convince the ppl to have illegitimate concerns) that various organizations will threaten their ability to retain control of a country via repressive violence (this isn't very plausible but I can see Russian elites fearing it).
"It’s ironic that many people who 20 years ago were convinced that Iraq posed such an imminent threat to the US that it had to be taken out immediately can’t even fathom the possibility that Russian elites might have a similarly inflated perception of the threat posed by NATO expansion."
Its disingenuous to pretend that the rationale for invading Iraq was purely rooted in national security arguments. Humanitarian arguments pointing to the brutality of Saddam's regime and the necessity of "building democracy" in the Middle East also played a pivotal role, especially when it came to selling the war to liberals. I also believe that one could legitimately argue that Saddam's Iraq posed a greater threat to regional stability in the ME than Zelensky's Ukraine posed to regional stability in Europe (not that that justifies the 2003 invasion).
Similarly, with Russia in Ukraine, its clear that hard-headed national security concerns are (at best) only part of the explanation. Putin's deluded belief that Ukrainians are really Russians who need liberation from Neo-Nazis is at least as important. Not least because Ukraine was never going to join NATO while the conflict in Donbas was still ongoing (NATO doesn't admit countries with border disputes), and anyone who claims that NATO was planning on invading Russia needs their brain examined.
Great work and looking forward to more. One can only hope this era of deliberate obfuscation will end someday. Right now we’re in the "not only false but preposterous” stage of narrative control. A bet there are a few ex Soviets around who still remember what that’s like.
"Right now we’re in the "not only false but preposterous” stage of narrative control."
Sounds like Kremlin TV.
Just dropping a thank you for this carefully explained and persuasive perspective.