• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • I get where youā€™re coming from, and I think youā€™re right that geopolitics isnā€™t driven by morality. But saying that morality ā€˜matters very littleā€™ is different from saying it doesnā€™t matter at all. Leaders donā€™t operate in a vacuum, but they also arenā€™t just passive reflections of material conditions. They make choicesā€”sometimes bad ones, sometimes catastrophic onesā€”and those choices have consequences beyond the abstract forces of history.

    The chain of cause and effect youā€™re talking about is real, but it doesnā€™t eliminate agency. If it did, thereā€™d be no point in trying to influence anything, because everything would already be preordained by material processes. Thatā€™s not how history actually plays out. Leaders make decisions within constraints, but they still make them. The idea that Russia had no other choice but to invade Ukraine ignores the fact that plenty of other post-Soviet states also experienced economic and political instability, yet Russia didnā€™t invade them all. Why? Because it wasnā€™t just about abstract ā€˜material processesā€™ā€”it was about specific decisions made by people with power.

    Youā€™re also implying that NATOā€™s role in this is straightforwardly imperialist, which oversimplifies the situation. NATO is a military alliance, and yes, it serves Western interests. But Ukraine wasnā€™t ā€˜forcedā€™ into NATOā€™s orbitā€”it actively sought security guarantees after watching what happened in Georgia, Crimea, and Donbas. If weā€™re doing a materialist analysis, Ukraineā€™s desire to align with NATO is as much a material reality as Russiaā€™s desire to stop it. So why treat one as natural and the other as Western manipulation?

    I donā€™t think we disagree that material conditions shape conflicts. But I do think dismissing leadership choices as secondary, or treating NATO as the sole driver of the conflict, is just as much of a simplification as ignoring material conditions entirely. The best analysisā€”whether practical or historicalā€”accounts for both.


  • I appreciate the depth of this discussion, and I think we might be closer in our views than it initially appears. I agree that material conditions matterā€”history, economics, and geopolitical realities all create the environment in which decisions are made. NATO expansion did change the security landscape in Eastern Europe, and the fallout from the Soviet collapse created complex dynamics weā€™re still witnessing today.

    Where I think we differ is in how we understand the decision to invade. Material conditions create contexts, but they donā€™t predetermine military aggression. Putinā€™s choice to invade has resulted in catastrophic humanitarian consequencesā€”tens of thousands dead, millions displaced, cities reduced to rubble, and countless lives shattered. These arenā€™t abstract policy outcomes but profound human tragedies that demand accountability.

    The material analysis also cuts both ways. If weā€™re talking about material interests, what about Ukraineā€™s? Their desire for security guarantees after watching Russiaā€™s actions in Georgia and Crimea represents a material reality too. Their concerns about Russian aggression werenā€™t imaginaryā€”they were based on observed patterns.

    I still maintain that Russiaā€™s actions reflect more than just defensive security concerns. The rhetoric about ā€œone people,ā€ the denial of Ukrainian identity, the installation of Russian educational systems in occupied territoriesā€” they are words and actions that point to imperial ambitions beyond simply keeping NATO at bay.

    Perhaps the most productive approach is to recognize both material conditions and leadership decisions as essential parts of the analysis, while never losing sight of the real human beings whose lives have been devastated by this war.


  • Iā€™m not ignoring Euromaidan or the broader post-Soviet falloutā€”I just donā€™t think they justify Russiaā€™s actions. If anything, they reinforce my argument.

    Euromaidan wasnā€™t some Western-orchestrated coup; it was a mass uprising driven by Ukrainians rejecting a corrupt, Russia-aligned government that tried to back out of closer ties with the EU. The response? Russia annexed Crimea and fueled a separatist war in Donbas. That wasnā€™t some inevitable ā€œmaterial consequenceā€ of Soviet dissolutionā€”it was a calculated move to punish Ukraine for stepping out of Russiaā€™s shadow.

    Yes, many Russians support the warā€”but why? Because Putin controls the media, suppresses opposition, and jails or kills dissenters. When you control the narrative, you control public opinion. That doesnā€™t make the war justifiedā€”it just means propaganda works. The idea that Russia had to invade due to ā€œmaterial reasonsā€ falls apart when you consider that no actual threat existed. NATO wasnā€™t invading. Ukraine wasnā€™t attacking Russia. The only ā€œthreatā€ was Ukraine choosing its own path, and Putin couldnā€™t tolerate that.

    Putinā€™s actions tell the real story. He has repeatedly stated that Ukraine is not a real country and that its independence was a mistake. That isnā€™t about NATO. That isnā€™t about self-defense. Thatā€™s about control. If NATO werenā€™t the excuse, something else would be.

    Youā€™re right that history is complicatedā€”but some things are simple. Invading a sovereign nation because you donā€™t like its direction isnā€™t a ā€œmaterial necessity.ā€ Itā€™s imperialism.


  • I see where youā€™re coming from, and Iā€™ll acknowledge that NATOā€™s history isnā€™t without controversy. The Cold War era was full of power struggles, covert operations, and actions taken under the banner of anti-communism that are fair to criticize. But historical context doesnā€™t automatically determine present reality. The NATO of today is not the NATO of 1950, and treating it as if it is ignores how global politics have evolved.

    Yes, NATO was formed as a counter to the USSR, but alliances donā€™t exist in a vacuumā€”they evolve based on the actions of those they were meant to counter. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but Putinā€™s government has actively revived expansionist policies that threaten its neighbors. That isnā€™t just Western propagandaā€”ask the people of Ukraine, Georgia, or Chechnya.

    More importantly, focusing on NATO as the reason for Russiaā€™s invasion ignores a fundamental fact: Ukraine wanted to join NATO precisely because of Russiaā€™s aggression. Ukraineā€™s sovereignty isnā€™t just a chess piece in some imperialist struggleā€”itā€™s a real country making real choices based on real threats. If this were purely a matter of NATOā€™s existence, why did Russia invade Ukraine in 2014, long before any serious NATO membership talks?

    As for ā€œGreat Man Theory,ā€ I agree that geopolitics isnā€™t just about individual leaders. But ignoring Putinā€™s role entirely is just as simplistic. Leaders shape policy, especially in authoritarian states like Russia, where power is heavily centralized. Putin isnā€™t acting alone, but his worldviewā€”his obsession with restoring Russiaā€™s sphere of influence, his belief that Ukraine isnā€™t a real country, his willingness to use force to achieve his goalsā€”does matter. Dismissing that as just ā€œcharacter analysisā€ misses the material reality that his decisions are shaping the lives of millions.

    So while I respect the historical perspective, I think the argument that NATO is the primary driver of this war is flawed. Ukraine wasnā€™t forced into conflict by some Western plotā€”it was attacked by a neighboring country that refuses to accept its independence. Thatā€™s not imperialist propaganda. Thatā€™s just reality.


  • I get what youā€™re saying about perspectives, and Iā€™ll take your question in good faith. Letā€™s establish some key points:

    NATO is a defensive alliance. NATOā€™s founding principle is collective defenseā€”Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, NATO has never preemptively attacked Russia or any other non-member state. The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11.

    If NATO were aggressive, weā€™d have seen it by now. NATO expanded eastward because former Soviet-controlled states wanted to join. If NATO were truly a threat to Russiaā€™s existence, why hasnā€™t it attacked Russia in the 30+ years since the USSR collapsed? There have been countless opportunities if that were NATOā€™s intent. But thatā€™s not what has happenedā€”because NATO isnā€™t an offensive force.

    Putinā€™s ā€œperspectiveā€ is selective and self-serving. Russia itself has attacked multiple neighboring countriesā€”Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine (multiple times), and intervened in Syria. Meanwhile, NATO has not attacked Russian territory, nor has it forced any nation to join. So when Putin claims NATO is the aggressor, he is projectingā€”using the idea of a NATO ā€œthreatā€ as an excuse to justify his own expansionist wars.

    Putin doesnā€™t recognize Ukraine as a real country. He has said outright that Ukrainians and Russians are ā€œone peopleā€ and that Ukraine exists only because of Soviet mistakes. That isnā€™t about NATOā€”itā€™s about his imperial ambitions. If NATO werenā€™t the excuse, heā€™d find another one.

    So yes, Russia might perceive NATO as aggressive, but that doesnā€™t make it true. A defensive alliance accepting new members isnā€™t aggression. An authoritarian leader launching wars to reclaim ā€œlostā€ lands is.


  • Of course, Russia/NATO relations predate the Russian Federationā€”just as imperialist ambitions in Russia predate Putin. But history isnā€™t an excuse for present-day aggression. Whatever the past, the reality now is that Putinā€™s actions are not about NATO; they are about control, power, and his own legacy. He isnā€™t reacting to a genuine security threatā€”he is manufacturing one to justify his war.

    NATO expansion didnā€™t force Russia to invade Ukraine. Ukraine wasnā€™t on the verge of joining NATO when the full-scale invasion began. Putin made that decision because he saw Ukraine slipping out of his influence, not because of any immediate NATO threat. His goal isnā€™t just to stop NATO expansion; itā€™s to erase Ukrainian sovereignty entirely.


  • The Kremlin says whatever suits its needs at any given moment. Of course, theyā€™ve called NATO membership for Ukraine a ā€œred lineā€ā€”just as theyā€™ve claimed Ukraine is full of Nazis, that the U.S. started the war, and that up is down and red is blue.

    Putin lies with every word he speaks. His statements are meaningless; his actions tell the real story. He is an imperialist obsessed with his own legacy, determined to be remembered as one of Russiaā€™s greatest leaders. His ambitions are monstrous, and he will stop at nothingā€”no matter the cost in human livesā€”to achieve them.