I and some others were responding to the assertion that Russian leadership genuinely fears an invasion from the West. I don’t believe a word of that.
Yes, I agree that to a Russian nationalist autocracy or oligarchy, NATO presents political threats. Any Russian nationalist who wants to reverse the decline of empire will obviously see the expansion of NATO as a loss for Russia. Both in the zero-sum thinking that if they’re stronger then we must be weaker, and also in taking former imperial possessions permanently out of play. e.g. while NATO remains cohesive, Russia will never reacquire the Baltic States. Similarly, if NATO membership had been an option for Ukraine, then the seizure of the Crimea and the insurgency in the Donbass would have not been options.
And I take your point that Russian leadership might genuinely fear NATO meddling if Russia itself destabilizes. There are recent examples, even though I don’t see NATO political leadership being likely to want any part of something as risky as that.
And, as you’ve said before, the EU can be perceived as a threat by anyone tied to a zero-sum view of trade and economics. Any east European nation with a trading relationship with the EU is a nation that’s no longer properly in the Russian sphere of influence.
But all of those are entirely different to the other assertion.
Which parts of Iraq or Afghanistan did the USA annex?
We only break things, we don’t fix them (typically).
KevinC
2063
To clarify, I don’t think the US would outright annex territory in Mexico. We don’t want it or need it. And it’s just not something Western democracies do these days.
That being said, the way I think we would do it would be to invade militarily and then install a puppet government as a buffer state to accomplish the same thing.
EDIT: I shouldn’t use words like “would”. Replace with “I think it’s plausible, if we felt like we faced a threat on the border”.
You could make an argument that the neoconservatives planned a sort of “ideological annex” for Iraq. Not the same as Russia seizing Crimea, of course, but still very different from the situation in the Gulf War and Afghanistan.
I’m not disagreeing with your point at all, and I’m glad you’re making it as I think it’s very important in the context of this discussion. But I did want to point out that the plan for Iraq wasn’t just a little light regime change and then we go home. That was a long-term proposition by the neoconservatives under the Bush Administration to secure, entrench, and perpetuate our interests and ideology in the Middle East. (And contrary, I feel, to @KevinC’s “no discernible reason” comment; the invasion of Iraq was colossally dumb and tragically mishandled, but it was not for no reason.)
-Tom
But surely that was Timex’s point, right? The implicit comparison was to Russia, Crimea and the Ukraine. Your post was equating US to Russian behavior, when both the objectives and the results were different.
Again, while that has happened in the historical past, it isn’t a fair characterization of Iraq or Afghanistan or any recent US intervention. The local governments were often elected, and always represented local interests who were willing to put up with / saw benefits in the US presence but were only co-operative in as much as co-operation suited their own interests.
Hypothetical US intervention in Mexico? I can see it. But not the rest.
KevinC
2066
Do we know that Russia plans to annex Ukraine? In a scenario where they did actually roll tanks into Kyiv and instead installed a friendly dictator to serve as a buffer state I don’t see that making any difference to the West or Ukrainians.
I don’t get the fixation on the annexation part. Even if we agree that bombing the country is more moral than capturing it it doesn’t make much difference for Russian decision makers. NATO is a threat to their rule. Even if they’d turn countries into paradise on Earth it would mean the change of elites or at the very least coercion of said elites into less profitable course of actions.
Timex
2068
But it literally wasn’t real, right? The FSB literally blew up appartment buildings to frame Chechen rebels.
Seems like Putin’s a bigger threat to the people than the rebels are.
I mean… Russia has already annexed part of Ukraine.
My point, and I think his, was that they have already annexed Crimea.
Whether they think annexing Ukraine is possible is super doubtful - I hope. But given Ukraine’s and Kievan Rus’ importance to the imperial view of Russian history, I think they would like to in theory.
Also, really? You don’t see it making any difference to Ukrainians?
ShivaX
2070
They might be fine with a puppet government.
That’s not any better really.
At the time when Putin came into power there were still armed rebels in Caucasus. Second Chechen war was still going. Those apartments you talk about might have been a false flag situation but it doesn’t change the fact that the local nationalists are ticking time bombs. Putin doesn’t try to solve the issue. Like in every other area he doesn’t seem to have a long-term plan, he’s trying to not let it blow today.
There was also relatively recent (and for now relatively peaceful) conflict over borders between Chechnya and Ingushetia recently.
KevinC
2072
I understand regarding Crimea, but I’m talking about this current standoff. The question was sincere, has Russia threatened that they will make Ukraine part of Russia proper or just install a government they want?
I think we’re getting hung up on details that I don’t think ultimately matter. Whether or not Putin puts out a map with “Russia” stretched over the territory or not doesn’t make any sort or tangible difference either politically or to the people affected, at least not that I can see. The West is going to respond to either with sanctions or whatever else they have planned. I’m not really seeing the distinction in terms of the question of how the US might respond to a perceived threat on our borders. If we’re hung up on “invade and annex” vs “invade and install a government that will do what we say”, as far as I’m aware we don’t know what Russia would do if they did go into Ukraine.
Timex
2073
Is the suggestion that the US went into Iraq and Afghanistan and installed puppet governments?
Because… I don’t think that’s what happened, right?
Thrag
2074
Yes, yes we did. Not quite in the soviet iron fisted way and Iraq didn’t stay a total puppet for long but we so did. The Afghan government was a total puppet propped up by the US.
Installing friendly regimes is kinda what we do. We just normally try to do it without a full scale invasion.
The government of Afghanistan basically crumbled the moment we left. If that isn’t a sign of a puppet government propped up only by occupying forces then I don’t know what is.
They vaguely express hopes. Putin has asserted that Russians and Ukrainians were “one people”. He apparently published an essay last year on the historical unity of Russia and Ukraine. What their real intentions are is obviously deliberately obscured.
Putin denied that Russia wanted to invade the Crimea. He initially denied that the “Little Green Men” were Russian. He denied that Russia was going to annex Crimea. It’s unlikely that we can expect him to tell us what he’s going to do before he does it.
Dave47
2077
“Yes, the FSB may have planted ticking time bombs in those apartments and murdered all those Russian citizens, but they only did so because Chechnyas are the true ticking time bombs!”
If you don’t believe the FSB planted those bombs, say so. This take is incredibly gross.
It’s sad that anything apart from joking about how Putin is actually Hitler will be perceived by someone as an apologism.
And in general I have seen this discussion too often. Russia fears NATO - But the NATO doesn’t invade people - Yes they do - But they only invade bad people so Russia just shouldn’t be bad.
I have to say that, given climate change trends and current American governing trends, it isn’t at all hard for me to imagine the future invasion of Canada. When invading and conquering and keeping territory made ‘sense’ to those in power, the US did it. When it makes ‘sense’ to them again, they’ll do it again.
