this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
477 points (97.0% liked)

Political Memes

5436 readers
3413 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 19 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

While Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault, pre-2014 Ukraine was hardly "neutral", having mulled both NATO and EU ascension discussions. The latter being the actual provocation rather than the former. (This isn't at all to say any of this is Ukraine's "fault", only to point out they were not "neutral")

In early 2013 the Ukrainian parliament agreed to make legal steps towards EU ascension (source 2014 pro Russia unrest in Ukraine)

Which is what Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of Nato, has stated was the start of the crisis:

"One theory, propounded by realists such as the academic John Mearsheimer, is that Nato expansion in eastern Europe was the reason that Putin invaded Ukraine. Robertson dismissed the idea. “I met Putin nine times during my time at Nato. He never mentioned Nato enlargement once.” What Robertson said next was interesting: “He’s not bothered about Nato, or Nato enlargement. He’s bothered by the European Union. The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014.

Putin fears countries on Russia’s border being “fundamentally and permanently” changed by EU accession. “Every aspect [of society is affected] – they woke up very late to it… I don’t think they ever fully understood the EU,” Robertson said, adding the caveat that the EU was not at fault because accession was what Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, wanted." [end quote]

Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2024/05/george-robertson-nato-why-russia-fears-european-union

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 25 minutes ago

In early 2013 the Ukrainian parliament agreed to make legal steps towards EU ascension

EU, unlike NATO, is not a military alliance.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014

I think the crisis technically started with a military invasion. If not that, then we could go back and forth on this to the founding of NATO and before.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago

Them saying that is like someone who beat their wife to death saying "it all began with her having glanced at a man who walked past."

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago

I think on this occasion I'll defer to how a secretary general of NATO chooses to phrase it

[–] wieson@feddit.org 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Literally leasing a very important port city (Sevastopol) to the Russian navy counts for nothing?

That's so much more cooperation than talking with NATO or "aiming to get closer ties with the EU". Not to say that Russia had tons of trade deals with the EU, so does Morocco and everyone who wants something in that region.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 2 points 35 minutes ago* (last edited 34 minutes ago)

If I had to guess if say Putin saw NATO expansion as a problem but rather slow and so not urgent. Whereas EU expansion could actually be a worse because of how quickly it spreads. Not least because countries seeking deeper trade ties with the EU are basically committing themselves to anti-corruption reforms and thereby slipping from his grasp long long before any serious talk of NATO is happening (see: Georgia, or my long summary elsewhere in these threads)...

[–] socsa@piefed.social 13 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It is allowed to make treaties with other sovereign nations.

Or do you believe the US should invade Brazil because it is part of BRICS?

I feel you've not read my first paragraph (or last quoted sentence) closely enough..

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That's a very interesting take I haven't heard of before. My understanding was that a primary reason Russia invaded Crimea was due to the oil reserves there that Russia wanted. I guess it extends beyond that.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 27 minutes ago)

Russia doesn't need the Crimean oil reserves, it's more than they wanted Ukraine to not have it. Even then, energy security wasn't as much a motivator as was securing access to Sevastopol, a critical warm water port and the only place capable of housing the black sea fleet. Although control of that port, in turn, is largely to do with projecting energy control over a wider region.

Russia was leasing Sevastopol from Ukraine (til 2042). It had become increasingly important to Russia's other objectives being a staging location for supporting the incursion into Georgia, and also Russia's involvement in Syria. Both of which are key to Russia's broader goal of region control and energy security (not Ukraine per se).

It may be that Russia was far more sensitive to EU membership than NATO because EU membership travelled much faster and was already outflanking them (see map at bottom)

In the early 2000's, increasing ineffectiveness of the old Soviet style leadership in Georgia was bankrupting the country and making corruption rife. This was increasingly apparent to international businesses there and a student population that enjoyed (somewhat miraculously) the relatively free press in the form of TV stations critical of the regime and its corruption.

Subsequently, foreign NGO presence helped organise and contribute to the peaceful 2003 Rose Revolution which saw the older soviet influence brushed away in favour of new democratic parties. (Put your favourite conspiracy / neocon / deepstate analysis hat on, a major financier of the NGOs was George Soros)

The new leadership sought to put Georgia on better economic footing and in 2006 together with the EU issued a statement on the 5 year Georgia-European Union Action Plan within the European Neighbourhood Policy which was a major snub to Russia.

Russia's desire to maintain a foothold within Georgia subsequently provoked the 2008 Russia Georgian War over Georgia's northern 'South Ossetia' region. Not only because Georgia is the gateway to projecting power into the Middle East, but more immediately because in 2006 Georgia opened the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline which cut Iran and Russia out of the picture and connected Azerbaijan oil fields up directly with EU friendly Turkey.

Russia failed to make anyway headway with their support of South Ossetia. Then in 2013, Georgia and the EU took the next step in closer alignment, an Association Agreement. With Russia's efforts to expand influence into the Caucasus region curtailed and weakening in power to project strength over energy producing regions, Putin saw the need to permanently secure Sevastopol as becoming critical.

The Ukrainian parliament had begun legal alignment with the EU the same year.

Hence in 2014, Russia took Crimea.

(If you look at the map of EU plus Georgia, you can see how close EU alignment could be seen to have 'provoked' Russia to act. Though very much only in the sense that they are anti democratic and imperialist)