The Russian Narrative

Social Forums Current Events
1

I another thread, a couple of people have suggested that Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine, that it was provoked by NATO, NATO broke a promise, and/or NATO members interfered in earlier peace negotiations. Further allegations include that NATO is running a propaganda campaign against the Russia (I am not sure to what end).

To my (American) ears, this sounds like Russian propaganda, but I’m interested to hear more because it’s suddenly quite relevant.

The current fighting in Ukraine is older than the the 2022 and 2014 Russian invasions. It should include the collapse of the Yanukovych government as a result of the Maidan Revolution, and arguably also the earlier Orange Revolution and the assassination attempt against Yanukovych’s rival Yuschenko (particularly as Yanukovych sparked the Euromaidan by withdrawing from trade negotiations with the EU and is now living in exile in Russia). @Jakob argues, plausibly, that it goes back to the end of the Cold War during conversations about German reunification. In truth, it goes back much farther: Wikipedia lists a baker’s dozen conflicts between Russia and Ukraine, under various regimes, dating back to the 17th century.

The history is relevant. As far as I can tell, there are no broken promises between NATO and Russia (or even NATO and the Soviet Union) with respect to relations with Ukraine. Russia’s suggestion that there was a specific agreement is based on things that were said during the discussion of reuniting Germany, but nothing to that effect made it into any final treaty. In fact Ukraine has had various formal relation with NATO since shortly after its creation.

In contrast, Russia and Ukraine (and the US and UK) did have a formal non-aggression agreement, the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the other signatories. That agreement was signed in December of 1994, nine months after Ukraine joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace initiative, which increased military cooperation and laid the groundwork for future NATO membership (and Russia was also a member of that initiative, but their membership has been suspended because of the 2014 invasion).

Given that intervening agreement, signed in the midst of expanding formal cooperation between eastern Europe and NATO, it’s absurd to appeal to statements made during a negotiation and not included in the resulting treaty. Not only are those statements not equivalent to a treaty, the intervening treaty makes clear that pre-Putin there was no expectation that NATO would stay out of Eastern Europe.

But the real lie in Putin’s use of NATO as a justification is that he simultaneously denies that Ukraine is a real state. These justifications are incommensurable.

Russia violated multiple treaties when it invaded the Ukraine, and has violated multiple ceasefires during the war. Russia lied to its own fucking army when the war started, telling them it was a military exercise (and undermining their combat readiness as a result).

For at least the last decade, Russia has been using social media to spread propaganda to undermine the governing institutions of NATO countries. Trying to blame their invasion on NATO, and to blame Ukraine for not ending the conflict, is part of that effort.

2 Likes
2

This may be presumptuous for me to mention a glowing charted process, which parallels such point by point observations, that is, itrespective of the Budapest memorandum, just at the time frame mentioned within which it was drawn up, that Russia applied for membership into NATO. After that was denied, there followed a process of denigrating objections by Russia which at first was affirmed by various succeeding administration, not to offer NATO membership to various Eastern European countries formerly under iron curtain , Warsaw Pact nations.

US presidents invariably screeded, but as the flowchartrd process can be shown to indicate, these promises were not kept, with the result we see today, the very contested areas final bastion, Ukraine got this last carrot stick thrown by the wayside, and if there is a red flag, this is one that’ doesen’t seem negotiable.

The frames of reference have been exposed in the flow, just like in old soundless black and white film, the bulb enlightening the then more naively lit flow, burned the frame for all the world to see, and only the kid dare do.

THE battle ground state Wisconsin is the place to watch , for naive realists can overturn the Supreme Court there, and remap the state for the dems advantage.

According to some, this may become via a legislative effort, and the thin margin may just go to a Democrat , which in turn by a sort of domino effect, turn the whole gravytrain around. April 1 is the date , and according to the same source, it’s a critical test for what’s gonna happen in the biannual national
election, which in turn will build up momentum to the presidential election in four years.

This presumption must be justified along the lines of naively held realistic approximated minority views.?

)( ). (()(. )()(

1 Like
3

Russia did explore the possibility of joining NATO on multiple occasions, particularly in the 1990s and early 2000s, but it never formally applied. The idea was discussed at various points, especially under Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, but political and strategic differences prevented it from materializing.

NATO leaders were skeptical, and Russia was not invited to apply because membership requires a commitment to democratic governance, which Russia was moving away from. However, In 2002, NATO and Russia established the NATO-Russia Council, aiming for cooperation on security issues.

So, Russia feared NATO expansion, while NATO doubted Russia’s commitment to democracy and peaceful relations. Russia opposed NATO interventions (e.g., Kosovo 1999, Libya 2011) and NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, with many Eastern European countries joining specifically to protect themselves from Russia.

1 Like
4

Yes ,Bob and the point was that Gorbachev really thought that Comminism was finished in Russia, but the leaders after Gorbachev did not anticipate the economic battles ahead that would conflict with the social optimism they had to deliver, to the people.’mThat was the sticker in the formula, and the social expectation of better times ahead did not measure up to expectation flouted by western propaganda, rock and tole, andchollywood fantasies.

()

added:

This reply is not up to your observation, wanted to delete it, but this forum is a progressive learning experience, so I will leave it as is, and instead will add to your observation, if it needs it, thanks for your continued patience.

1 Like
5

Bob, the added point I was trying to make, is, that it could have been a sensible thing for NATO to do, to apply for membership, and that addition underlies the actions you pointed out with the Kosovo and other actions.

What I tried to point out, is that on part of Russia such intent to join would have been more then an apparent gesture, for Russia was allied with the Western powers against the Axis powers, and Yeltsin perhaps thought, why not re-join an alliance which is still honored within that time span.

So in a sense, a NATO membership would mean a return to allie to a status quo.

1 Like
6

.
…a one-minute watch…

.
The British -and European- peoples don’t want to get involved, but the EU warmongers want to.

…but for what? …the resources, no doubt.

7

I really shouldn’t mention it but I must to recall the dire warnings coming out of the mediums/prophets of the new age for those who may go back that far.

That the message being, was that in the end days, the European Union, (for that was described as such but not in those terms) would descend upon Gaza, and others to in compliant alliance or not with Russia , US, and members of commonwealth nations, to exert their own sense of justice, ….

Just thinking back via a simulated conscience, may nothing really come of it, and in some measure effect a countered position…

8

Wow great link to a youtube video! Who is this grounbreaking journalist? Oh, a t-shirt saleman? Well, lovely, I hope he sells some t-shirts to the rubes who think this counts as information.

Apropos of nothing: Epistemic Hygiene

9

.

Thanks…
.

The European people have spoken, regardless… any thoughts on that, in us not wanting anymore propagating of anymore warring regarding Ukraine?

11

.
You need a link to answer that @Carleas? That is not a t-shirt selling channel but a political podcast channel that just happens to sell t-shirts… not liberal enough for you, is that the problem?

You can’t respond to an inquiry without a link? I’d appreciate a decent response from you, if you can? …so get over your evident liberal biases and respond to the actual argument I set.

12

This appears to be a claim of fact, but it isn’t clear what the claim is. Which people? What have they said? How do we know?

I can’t respond to vague claims of fact. I hoped a link would state the claimed fact clearly, or that the lack of a link would make clear that there is no fact.

Earlier you said this:

But what does this mean? Ukraine didn’t want to get involved either, but then Russia unilaterally invaded, and is unilaterally keeping the war going. Is your claim that Europeans would like to see Russia withdraw? It’s consistent to say that you both don’t want “anymore propagating of anymore warring” and also that the best way to prevent war from propagating is to defend the international order, punish the aggressor, and fulfill the security guarantees you’ve made to your allies (the UK was a party to the Budapest Memorandum, and France made separate security guarantees to Ukraine at that time).

NATO’s mutual security assurances created peace for a generation. I’d argue that US failure to back up its guarantees to Ukraine in 2014 led us to the current war. Failure to backup guarantees now will embolden Russia (and China and others) to wage further wars of territorial conquest.

1 Like
13

But those agreements did create tangible unilateral stability from the point of view of the Western alliance-NATO, but did little to offer the same feeling to a chaotic post communist Eastern organization, The Warsaw Pact.

It looks like the two organizations have been playing the game of excluding any middle solution Ifor a long time because they always were in a sense, mutually exclusive social organizations, ideologically incompatible from the get go.

The Marx-Hegel transformation will simply not agree to any progressive terms. Even before the Soviets were baited (Regan/Gorbachev) the appeal of popular American culture could not outweigh the supposed truism of the former’s suggestion that Communist leaders in the Soviet Union lived in more luxury than any Capitalist counterpart.