Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NATO need not have been a threat to Russia. In fact, in the 90's there was discussion about Russia joining NATO.
Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.
George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.
The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’” https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...on-in-his-rule
This is inconsistent with the U.S. foreign policy establishment's attitude of arrogance, condescension, and broken promises to Russia from the time the USSR collapsed.
Additionally, entry into NATO means that Russia would have had to listen to Washington's input on its foreign policy. Russia chose not to do this for obvious reasons, the main one being Russia does not consider it necessary to listen to a faraway country concerning what to do in the region it considers its sphere of influence.
Since that article is censored in China, I'll believe the opposite of what it says.
Which would be that China will back Putin.
The Chinese people are split on this issue and the Chinese have enough problems as it is, so yea they banned it in China. It's informative because it comes from China, so this is being discussed in Beijing. This is on the front page of "liberal" CNN but right now it seems to corroborate this view. Putin screwed the pooch with Ukraine....why would China want to be associated with a psychopath that made an historical military blunder and turned his country into an international pariah....that's bad for business for China. China is Russia's largest trading partner but only represents 2% of Chinese trade, far less than it has with the west. It's strictly business.
4 ways China is quietly making life harder for Russia
Biden's sanctions do not apply to the entire world.
Countries not at war trade.
Yea, but countries who do trade with Russia run the risk of reputational damage at this point....especially China.
Quote:
Fears that Chinese companies could face US sanctions over ties with Russia had contributed to an epic sell-off in Chinese stocks recent days. That slump was reversed Wednesday when Beijing promised it would pursue policies to boost its sputtering economy and keep financial markets stable.
The Chinese people are split on this issue and the Chinese have enough problems as it is, so yea they banned it in China. It's informative because it comes from China, so this is being discussed in Beijing. This is on the front page of "liberal" CNN but right now it seems to corroborate this view. Putin screwed the pooch with Ukraine....why would China want to be associated with a psychopath that made an historical military blunder and turned his country into an international pariah....that's bad for business for China. China is Russia's largest trading partner but only represents 2% of Chinese trade, far less than it has with the west. It's strictly business.
4 ways China is quietly making life harder for Russia
An article written by a Chinese scholar went viral on social media over the weekend due to the author’s urging of the People’s Republic to “cut off” Russia as soon as possible. Titled “Possible Outcomes Of The Russo-Ukrainian War And China’s Choice”, it was written by Hu Wei, who’s described as “the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor.” Perhaps because of his titles, plenty influential Western accounts that are critical of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine shared his article, with a significant share of them falsely implying or claiming that he represents the Chinese state.
This is inconsistent with the U.S. foreign policy establishment's attitude of arrogance, condescension, and broken promises to Russia from the time the USSR collapsed.
Additionally, entry into NATO means that Russia would have had to listen to Washington's input on its foreign policy. Russia chose not to do this for obvious reasons, the main one being Russia does not consider it necessary to listen to a faraway country concerning what to do in the region it considers its sphere of influence.
Putin in his Feb. 21 speech made public he brought up Russia joining NATO to Bill Clinton. Complaining he only received a noncommittal nod in response. With the benefit of hindsight, the continued instability of the Russian governmental system - the despotism factor - would have had to be a barrier. It's recent history in Eastern Europe. For a less militarized, non-nuclear country like Montenegro any future governmental instability would be less of a concern.
More this invasion reinforces that NATO geography is not a direct military threat to Russia the country. NATO is geographically relevant against Russian aggression. If Poland were not a NATO member supplying Ukraine with weapons would, of course, be more difficult.
You keep citing analysts who rely on a political realist approach. But what we keep hearing from all players, certainly including Putin himself as he emotionally recounts his grievances is the relevance of other factors.
Stephan Kotkin called it, per a link provided earlier. Again hindsight allows for better analysis. Also, remember, Mearsheimer did not anticipate outright Russian aggression - an invasion. Clearly his analysis missed key factors that probably fall within Putin the man but allowed by Russia the state.
Quote:
The Weakness of the Despot
An expert on Stalin discusses Putin, Russia, and the West.
Stephen Kotkin [Princeton] is one of our most profound and prodigious scholars of Russian history. ...
"[INTERVIEWER] We’ve been hearing voices both past and present saying that the reason for what has happened is, as George Kennan put it, the strategic blunder of the eastward expansion of nato. The great-power realist-school historian John Mearsheimer insists that a great deal of the blame for what we’re witnessing must go to the United States. I thought we’d begin with your analysis of that argument."
"[KOTKIN]. Way before nato existed—in the nineteenth century—Russia looked like this: it had an autocrat. It had repression. It had militarism. It had suspicion of foreigners and the West. This is a Russia that we know, and it’s not a Russia that arrived yesterday or in the nineteen-nineties. It’s not a response to the actions of the West. There are internal processes in Russia that account for where we are today. ... "
"The worst part of this dynamic in Russian history is the conflation of the Russian state with a personal ruler. Instead of getting the strong state that they want, to manage the gulf with the West and push and force Russia up to the highest level, they instead get a personalist regime. They get a dictatorship, which usually becomes a despotism. "
Can anyone deny Putin is that despot who now plays on essential Russian mistrust of the West aided, of course, by internal processes like censorship. Of course if given what he thought his due and what he thought was Russia's due there might have been a different outcome. Still, that the outcome for not receiving it is a nuclear power invading their neighbor speaks to Kotkin's point. Inherent and problematic "internal processes" within the Russian state.
This is inconsistent with the U.S. foreign policy establishment's attitude of arrogance, condescension, and broken promises to Russia from the time the USSR collapsed.
Update on March 13, 2022: The following article was submitted by the author to the Chinese-language edition of the US-China Perception Monitor. The article was not commissioned by the US-China Perception Monitor, nor is the author affiliated with the Carter Center or the US-China Perception Monitor.
LOL at that one. Don't you all hate China anyway ? China is a "favored nation" and will not suffer any reputation damage.
All of America will continue to import from China because we just don't make that stuff here anymore.
China owns us financially...US Treasuries.
And the EU and US are China's largest markets....do you **** off your largest customers over an international pariah that represents 2% of your trade??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ss, dd