War in Ukraine

[silvertop]

This argument was predicted by analysts critical of the expansion east decades ago.

'George F. Kennan was the analyst who, decades ago, warned that NATO's eastward expansion would provoke a hostile Russian reaction—and that Western leaders would then point to that reaction as proof of inherent Russian aggression to justify the policy.

In a 1998 New York Times interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate ratified the first wave of NATO enlargement (adding Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic), Kennan—a key architect of the U.S. Cold War containment strategy against the Soviet Union—called the move "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post–Cold War era." He explained: "Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong."

He predicted it would inflame Russian nationalism, empower hardliners, and restart Cold War tensions, while dismissing the idea that Russia's response would validate the expansion.Kennan's warnings came in 1997–1998, over 25 years before Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which many now see as fulfilling his prophecy.

He argued the policy ignored Russia's security concerns and historical sensitivities, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of confrontation. Other experts like John Mearsheimer and Ted Galen Carpenter echoed similar views, but Kennan's statement most directly matches the "look, we were right" dynamic you described.'

This is all compelling stuff. However, it throws some issues into the debate.

If accepting those countries was "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post–Cold War era" should NATO have refused Poland, the Baltic states, Finland et al based on this risk?

What status does Kennan state those countries should have adopted? We wanted to align with them and they wanted to align with us. What model would have satisfied all parties and avoided being where we are?

Those countries have not only joined NATO but they have spent a great deal on defence including buying stuff we make. Jobs, money...

Russia has had an MO for centuries. It is defensive based on bitter experience of attack after attack from the Mongols to the Axis powers. And they defend by buffer state, hence their anxiety over Ukraine (which enjoyed much of its history as part of Russia). NATO has pretty much done the same.

If the conflict spirals out of control and the button is pushed, Kennan was right.

If the conflict is contained by carving up Ukraine (like a mini Yalta) and letting Ukraine exist as some simmering but neutral DMZ with security pledges from NATO for one side and Russia for the Donbas, then Kennan overstated the risk.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

This argument was predicted by analysts critical of the expansion east decades ago.

'George F. Kennan was the analyst who, decades ago, warned that NATO's eastward expansion would provoke a hostile Russian reaction—and that Western leaders would then point to that reaction as proof of inherent Russian aggression to justify the policy.

In a 1998 New York Times interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate ratified the first wave of NATO enlargement (adding Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic), Kennan—a key architect of the U.S. Cold War containment strategy against the Soviet Union—called the move "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post–Cold War era." He explained: "Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong."

He predicted it would inflame Russian nationalism, empower hardliners, and restart Cold War tensions, while dismissing the idea that Russia's response would validate the expansion.Kennan's warnings came in 1997–1998, over 25 years before Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which many now see as fulfilling his prophecy.

He argued the policy ignored Russia's security concerns and historical sensitivities, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of confrontation. Other experts like John Mearsheimer and Ted Galen Carpenter echoed similar views, but Kennan's statement most directly matches the "look, we were right" dynamic you described.'

Having not heard of Kennan before I looked him up and came across this:-

“In a letter to his sister Jeannette in 1935, Kennan expressed his disenchantment with American life, writing: “I hate the rough and tumble of our political life. I hate democracy; I hate the press... I hate the ‘peepul’; I have become clearly un-American". it also said he had a high opinion of himself!

That quote could have been written by you!

Is it not possible that, with his attitude, he was as wrong as you are?

 

[Stirlingsays]

This is all compelling stuff. However, it throws some issues into the debate.

If accepting those countries was "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post–Cold War era" should NATO have refused Poland, the Baltic states, Finland et al based on this risk?

I think we have to consider the political environment at the time. The US was suddenly the only superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The policy of expanding Nato eastwards was taking advantage of that fact but it had a definite downside of which Kennan predicted.

What status does Kennan state those countries should have adopted? We wanted to align with them and they wanted to align with us. What model would have satisfied all parties and avoided being where we are?

I wouldn't have accepted them into Nato.....I would have disbanded Nato after the collaspe of the Soviet Union, just like the Soviets disbanded the Warsaw pact.

Instead I would have slowly integrated Poland and other western minded eastern states into Europe and encouraged them to develop their own militaries.

The other alternative pathway would have been to offer and accept Russia into Nato as Putin once suggested.....I think the rejection of that was extremely stupid....but I understand why it was done. The old boys wanted complete control and knew they could take advantage of a weak Russia and maybe break up that 'oil well with missiles country' later.

Those countries have not only joined NATO but they have spent a great deal on defence including buying stuff we make. Jobs, money...

Mostly for America and they don't need to be in Nato for that, but yeah, it helps.....but again, did we want the end of the Cold War or didn't we?

Russia has had an MO for centuries. It is defensive based on bitter experience of attack after attack from the Mongols to the Axis powers. And they defend by buffer state, hence their anxiety over Ukraine (which enjoyed much of its history as part of Russia). NATO has pretty much done the same.

If the conflict spirals out of control and the button is pushed, Kennan was right.

Well, I think Kennan has been proved right anyway.

If the conflict is contained by carving up Ukraine (like a mini Yalta) and letting Ukraine exist as some simmering but neutral DMZ with security pledges from NATO for one side and Russia for the Donbas, then Kennan overstated the risk.

The destruction of Ukraine is a disaster and I don't think it's anything like acceptable......I've said many times, we just have no real business in Ukraine. The country was divided and we ignored that completely.

 

[ASCPFC]

This is all compelling stuff. However, it throws some issues into the debate.

If accepting those countries was "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post–Cold War era" should NATO have refused Poland, the Baltic states, Finland et al based on this risk?

What status does Kennan state those countries should have adopted? We wanted to align with them and they wanted to align with us. What model would have satisfied all parties and avoided being where we are?

Those countries have not only joined NATO but they have spent a great deal on defence including buying stuff we make. Jobs, money...

Russia has had an MO for centuries. It is defensive based on bitter experience of attack after attack from the Mongols to the Axis powers. And they defend by buffer state, hence their anxiety over Ukraine (which enjoyed much of its history as part of Russia). NATO has pretty much done the same.

If the conflict spirals out of control and the button is pushed, Kennan was right.

If the conflict is contained by carving up Ukraine (like a mini Yalta) and letting Ukraine exist as some simmering but neutral DMZ with security pledges from NATO for one side and Russia for the Donbas, then Kennan overstated the risk.

I like coming back to the obvious and saying that NATO is a defence alliance. A military alliance, even call it a war alliance if you like. But it is not a nation state or a government. I'm not even fully convinced it has that much power any more. There have been many conflicts where NATO hasn't acted. Arguably, perhaps it should have done - depends on your perspective or your version of "winning" I guess. It's a bit hamstrung in that a large conglomerate of countries are always going to find it relatively hard to act. It has expanded - if you want to call it that. It has more members. But it's arguably weaker and more thinly spread. Where's its border now, who knows? Is it defendable? I doubt it ever was. I actually know that intelligence had said the USSR would overrun all borders initially and that the battles would be deep inside NATO territory. Whether that was right or wrong doesn't really matter but you can probably see what I mean. When there were millions of soldiers in Europe NATO was not massively strong.
Conversely and rather obviously, Russia is a nation state. Some will look at it as a wider Russia, it doesn't really matter. But a Nation state takes sovereign control of its territories. It starts an empire or colonies or some form of government union or federation.
I won't really accept that NATO is a federation of governments. It is a military alliance with varying degrees of political clout in its members. But it's not a territory taking, expansionist state. It's barely moving forces. Let alone massing huge forces to beat the new Russian threat. Russia is a country taking other countries. NATO isn't - it's becoming all a bit threadbare to be fair. Look at the UK military if you like. A shadow of their former selves but supposedly one of NATOs strongest. I think we need to be a bit more realistic.
Ukraine is a proxy war, to sell stuff, to test stuff, to weaken and explore 'our enemy' and their capabilities. I presume Russia expected something - but nobody expected NATO nor has it been NATO. I also suspect they knew Europe would not get their s*** together. And they had probably sounded out both US regimes if you want to consider that. It's not some kind of Russia gate or hoax. They've openly been in dialogue but we're clearly not privvy to what involvement was discussed. Frankly, there's probably a gentleman's agreement. Again, that's life - no judgement. Sorry for the long post.

 

[Spindle]

Well Chechnya was and is part of Russia. The war, was at least partly driven by Islamic extremism from the Chechens. But, hey ...lets all blame the Russians anyway.
<>

Georgia has a lot of parallels with Ukraine. It was the Georgians who started it by launching a large-scale military operation into the Russian region of South Ossetia.
They were emboldened to attack by burgeoning ties with, and encouragement from, NATO and the EU. Sound familiar?

No, it was part of USSR, and was originally invaded and absorbed but considered an autonomous region.

And "The Georgians started it", lol, you'd better update Wikipedia on that.

Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The August 2008 Russo-Georgian War, also known as the Russian invasion of Georgia, was a war waged against Georgia by the Russian Federation and the Russian-backed separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union in April 1991, following a referendum.

On 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages.....To put an end to these attacks, Georgian army units were sent into the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August and took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, within hours. Some Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Georgia–Russia border through the Roki Tunnel and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the Georgian military response. Russia falsely accused Georgia of committing "genocide" and launched a full-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia, including its undisputed territory, on 8 August

Familiar?

You're a sickening Russophile, absolutely untrustworthy as a British citizen, It's one thing like Stirling just believing in other diplomatic solutions but altogether another backing Putin? You're a traitor fella, I mean that.

 

[McAhuna]

The newbies all clamored to join NATO given the threat of the Bear and their collective experience under its control.

Is saying "yes" to eager applicants who required little or no persuasion the same as expansionism?

A lot of them (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia) also clamoured to join the Axis in WW2.

The Mongols had legions of willing puppets, too. Same with all the 'top dog' military empires since the dawn of time.

In the Early 2000s, even Vladimir Putin discussed the idea of Russia joining NATO with President Bill Clinton and other Western leaders. But existing NATO members were not unanimously in favor of the idea.
I wonder why the 'Defensive Alliance' didn't bite his hand off? They could have secured a lasting peace for Europe for all time. Answers on a postcard.

 

[Spindle]

The East of Ukraine has a heavy ethnically Russian speaking population, it mostly voted for the government that was overthrown in 2014. Ukrainian units in the east literally rebelled against the coup.

That's something the west, who backed and celebrated the coup that they paid for rarely if ever mention.

These were Ukrainian units in the east who rebelled, not Russian units and yes, Russia backed them once the tide turned against them, but the reality is that a civil war started because we were meddling where we don't belong.

Again you are incredibly sceptical of western governments but take Putin's claims at face value. I dunno, but even though we're fed shite over here, it's not a patch on the corruption there, or is it only Ukraine that is corrupt?

 

[Spindle]

This argument was predicted by analysts critical of the expansion east decades ago.

'George F. Kennan was the analyst who, decades ago, warned that NATO's eastward expansion would provoke a hostile Russian reaction—and that Western leaders would then point to that reaction as proof of inherent Russian aggression to justify the policy.

In a 1998 New York Times interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate ratified the first wave of NATO enlargement (adding Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic), Kennan—a key architect of the U.S. Cold War containment strategy against the Soviet Union—called the move "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post–Cold War era." He explained: "Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong."

He predicted it would inflame Russian nationalism, empower hardliners, and restart Cold War tensions, while dismissing the idea that Russia's response would validate the expansion.Kennan's warnings came in 1997–1998, over 25 years before Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which many now see as fulfilling his prophecy.

He argued the policy ignored Russia's security concerns and historical sensitivities, creating a self-fulfilling cycle of confrontation. Other experts like John Mearsheimer and Ted Galen Carpenter echoed similar views, but Kennan's statement most directly matches the "look, we were right" dynamic you described.'

Hardly genius. Look at the nations that didn't join? All of them invaded by Russia or sub states of Russia with puppet dictators in charge.

Do you really think that Putin would've stayed inside his borders if NATO hadn't have expanded? Get real.

 

[McAhuna]

No, it was part of USSR, and was originally invaded and absorbed but considered an autonomous region.

And "The Georgians started it", lol, you'd better update Wikipedia on that.

Russo-Georgian War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The August 2008 Russo-Georgian War, also known as the Russian invasion of Georgia, was a war waged against Georgia by the Russian Federation and the Russian-backed separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union in April 1991, following a referendum.

On 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages.....To put an end to these attacks, Georgian army units were sent into the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August and took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, within hours. Some Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Georgia–Russia border through the Roki Tunnel and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the Georgian military response. Russia falsely accused Georgia of committing "genocide" and launched a full-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia, including its undisputed territory, on 8 August

Familiar?

You're a sickening Russophile, absolutely untrustworthy as a British citizen, It's one thing like Stirling just believing in other diplomatic solutions but altogether another backing Putin? You're a traitor fella, I mean that.

Wait. You trust Wikipedia?
The George Soros and Bill Gates funded Wikipedia? What would your profile pic hero say about that? lol
The same George Soros who funds the NGOs to flood the UK with an invading dingy army?

You're betraying the people who fought two world wars with us as our allies, and instead siding with Nazis, Islamists and the worst of the worst .....because Ursula von der Leyen and the BBC told you to.

Seems like you're the traitor sunshine.

 

[McAhuna]

Why wouldn't people trust the EU and the BBC, and just give these people all our money and weapons?
It's so hard to fathom 😏

 

[McAhuna]

Again you are incredibly sceptical of western governments but take Putin's claims at face value. I dunno, but even though we're fed shite over here, it's not a patch on the corruption there, or is it only Ukraine that is corrupt?

In 2025, I worry about anyone who isn't 'incredibly sceptical' of Western governments.

Seriously. You can't be paying attention to what's going on around you.

 

[ASCPFC]

In 2025, I worry about anyone who isn't 'incredibly sceptical' of Western governments.

Seriously. You can't be paying attention to what's going on around you.

That could be true, but it also doesn't make Putin suddenly better. Or change him in any way really. I'd probably be more skeptical than anyone. Yet, there is no reason to be less skeptical of anyone else due to that. One wrong doesn't make a right, nor do two wrongs. This is one of the baffling things I find today. At the most there are least worst. There aren't really good guys hanging around. I find the love in with any type of politics a bit ridiculous. I mainly find Trump slightly better for the US than Biden, for instance. It doesn't make him great though does it? Although I get berated for not hating him, which is ultimately pointless. It's also not going to make any difference if you or I like or dislike anyone. It is what it is for us.
I have a MAGA friend who loves Trump and Putin - I put up with it. That's about it. But why love them? I don't remember this before.

 

[johnny the eagle]

No.
The point of your post was it was fine for Ukrainians to shell people, because the victims were in Ukrainian territory at the time.

You read your own post again.

Well, you should be getting in touch with those Ukrainians who did the shelling that you are so wound up about, and ask them why they did it.

 

[McAhuna]

That could be true, but it also doesn't make Putin suddenly better. Or change him in any way really. I'd probably be more skeptical than anyone. Yet, there is no reason to be less skeptical of anyone else due to that. One wrong doesn't make a right, nor do two wrongs. This is one of the baffling things I find today. At the most there are least worst. There aren't really good guys hanging around. I find the love in with any type of politics a bit ridiculous. I mainly find Trump slightly better for the US than Biden, for instance. It doesn't make him great though does it? Although I get berated for not hating him, which is ultimately pointless. It's also not going to make any difference if you or I like or dislike anyone. It is what it is for us.
I have a MAGA friend who loves Trump and Putin - I put up with it. That's about it. But why love them? I don't remember this before.

It's a false dialectic though, don't you think?

We're not being asked to fund Putin.

I think it's logical to ask much more critical questions of the people we are be asked to fund, especially when it appears they have a lot of blood on their hands and are almost certainly not telling the truth.

In these circumstances, I'd rather not fund either side. I'd rather not get involved. I'd rather not get swept along by a false patriotism that just leads to more young European conscripts getting blown apart on a freezing wasteland. All while the fat-cats of the trillion dollar arms industry get ever richer.

I'd rather there was a peace treaty as soon as possible.

 

[ASCPFC]

It's a false dialectic though, don't you think?

We're not being asked to fund Putin.

I think it's logical to ask much more critical questions of the people we are be asked to fund, especially when it appears they have a lot of blood on their hands and are almost certainly not telling the truth.

In these circumstances, I'd rather not fund either side. I'd rather not get involved. I'd rather not get swept along by a false patriotism that just leads to more young European conscripts getting blown apart on a freezing wasteland. All while the fat-cats of the trillion dollar arms industry get ever richer.

I'd rather there was a peace treaty as soon as possible.

Have you considered how much Europe does fund Putin? I would think this is more panto but for higher ups to gawk at. Wouldn't you? That is basically every war isn't it?
The deal has already been done. I think you probably can see that too. In that case, all that's left is the fat lady. You're right in many ways but there's more than a few billion in arms too.
Everything needs testing and pushing and waiting and seeing. Remember the Wagner group for example? Reports of North Koreans? Russia and China? There's always more. Yet we only see our European stuff. You can't fully blame us as we're obviously superior - aren't we?

 

[McAhuna]

Have you considered how much Europe does fund Putin? I would think this is more panto but for higher ups to gawk at. Wouldn't you? That is basically every war isn't it?
The deal has already been done. I think you probably can see that too. In that case, all that's left is the fat lady. You're right in many ways but there's more than a few billion in arms too.
Everything needs testing and pushing and waiting and seeing. Remember the Wagner group for example? Reports of North Koreans? Russia and China? There's always more. Yet we only see our European stuff. You can't fully blame us as we're obviously superior - aren't we?

Starmer agreed to fund Ukraine for the next 100 years.

But yes, all sides are using Ukraine as a military testing ground. Especially those who don't need to be involved and have no skin in the game, like North Korea and the UK.

 

[ASCPFC]

Starmer agreed to fund Ukraine for the next 100 years.

But yes, all sides are using Ukraine as a military testing ground. Especially those who don't need to be involved and have no skin in the game, like North Korea and the UK.

I just see it as largely a proxy war too. I don't agree with it but also we have to know it always is now. All of the conflicts we've seen are. I hope someone can tell me one which isn't. Maybe I've forgotten one. Or more? There's always something. You are right to criticise it. I'd say economically let's be American about it and Ukraine will pay us off in say fifty years or so. No writing it off. Again, somehow we both think we won't be getting the money back somehow. Yet somehow the US will gain, and Putin will gain - although I don't think he has hugely long to live. The UK will lose economically at least. I do hope we won't be putting boots on the ground. It seems pointless. Which, as a complete aside: Putin's probably got someone lined up. But imagine the secrecy: there's no way we can all know who that is can we? I guess a child of his. If we do think we know, it's a bluff. There'll be all kinds of scrambling for position when Putin goes. Funny stuff. The mind boggles at Russia's inner sanctum. It makes the Soviets look like Pearley Queens. The oops he had an accident stuff. If Putin takes a weak deal be very suspicious. There'll be a reason.

 

[McAhuna]

A jug-eared nonce who won't get within 1000 miles of the front, but will send working class youth off to die on his behalf.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I go out for a few hours and come back and another war has started on here. 😀

Trump wants you all to sign a peace deal.

 

[McAhuna]

Explains a lot...