Suraj wrote:Its not a buffer state if its actually incorporated as Russian territory.
Which is irrelevant because you're doing exactly what I knew you would do, and recommended not to - dissemble about definitions.
The baseline remains that since the early 1700s, Russia has always sought and maintained an eastern European buffer against western Europe.
Its silly to dismiss fundamental differences over meaning as 'dissembling.' I could just as easily do that when you refuse to see things the same way, but its not very good for dialogue is it? I might even get hauled up for trolling if I did that (BTW hello Rajiv Lather, nice to see you as well)
Its interesting that you think the difference between Russian territory (or its perceived adversary), and a a sovereign state is irrelevant.
Thats sort of like saying Nepal and Arunachal Pradesh are the same thing, or that Nepal and Chinese held Tibet are the same thing.
Russia historically tried to expand through conquest in every direction that it could. Not all were equally easy, and no one else in Europe is under obligation to make that direction extra easy for them.
This is a mistake the west often makes. Diplomacy is not the solution. It is merely the official acknowledgment of a new status quo once achieved. That status quo is never achieved through discussion, but by acknowledgement of the existence of a change on the ground by all parties.
Acknowledge this: Russia of 2014 is not the Russia of anytime between 1991 and mid 2000s. It's a different creature, trying to reclaim influence it lost after 1991. You're not going to be able to roll them back by sitting at a table with them. There will be a new status quo, not a status quo ante bellum that the west desires.
...EU expansion is territorial conquest in Russian eyes. I never see any European acknowledgement of that. Do you really expect Russia to believe it's 'just' a bureaucratic apparatus ? It doesn't matter if Eastern Europe is open to it - when you get upto Russia's borders, they will respond.
Great power diplomacy is a lot more than that. It allows for deals to be made where everyone gives up something.
Russia has no problems with Finland, which shares a border, is an EU member, but is also neutral and has not sought NATO membership.
A similar solution was, and still is possible for Ukraine. That country's accession has been stalled for over a decade in part because NATO-Russian dialogue made it clear that this was an especially sensitive issue. The West has offered Ukraine no military aid.
Why would you do that, and then get worked up when they predictably respond ?
There's no question that this caught almost everyone by surprise, and that worse than that there has been no contingency planning for this in Ukraine, the EU, NATO, or individual member countries. But that is in part because they were not seeking confrontation and escalation with Moscow. That can be called a massive failure.
But since you are in a questioning mood, ask yourself - when is the last time the Soviets invaded someone in Europe? Czechoslovakia, 1968. When is the last time they annexed territory without any sort of diplomatic agreement? The Baltic republics in 1945.
Its been a very long time since Moscow has acted like this - and we're not just talking about the Yeltsin years. There have been many European crises on its borders in between.
Well done Moscow for being so well prepared and still catching everyone by surprise. But then Moscow has always been good at strategic surprise. Long term, sustainable strategic victory.....not as much.
It always sounds odd when the west makes half-hearted claims of concern for Eastern Europe, i.e. 'poor Poland'. They're at the crossroads between the west and Russia, two powerful entities. They're usually hurt by both sides, and always have been. You can't change circumstances. It's like saying 'poor girl. She doesn't look as beautiful as Aishwarya Rai. Maybe we can achieve a diplomatic solution to it where everyone says she is.'
I believe thats the whole point of doing things differently - to allow Eastern European states to remain sovereign by allowing them the chance to be a full part of the West through full membership in institutions.
Also, consider that Germany didn't exist as a single nation state until the 19th century. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was on the other hand the most progressive and powerful state of central and Eastern Europe until the 17th century.The arrow of history is not really as straight as it seems.
Eastern Europe didn't need pity, it needed the right to participate.
Johann wrote:Eastern Europe is as the name suggests...part of Europe, and that means the lessons of history that led to the formation of the EU and NATO have had an impact.
Sharing a name doesn't provide any justification. A good part of Russia is in Europe as well.
Yes, well Russia has been welcome to integrate as well, and there's certainly hope they will one day. The Kremlin wants integration as well. But they are *very* different economic and political systems. No one in Europe wants to live in the Russian system, and judging from Russian emigration, there's plenty of Russians who agree.
In both world wars, it's western Europe trying to force its way east that triggered warfare. Happened with the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Balkans in 1914, and with Hitler in the late 1930s. Europe simply does not get this lesson. The repeated collective stupidity demonstrated by doing so all over again now is appalling.
First of all, nothing like the current system of collective security in Europe existed before either world war to deter expansion through conquest.
There were too many different major powers jostling for space and power, and willing to use force to get their way.
Incidentally Stalin eventually signed his pact with Hitler because he gave up on the UK and France getting their act together and hammering out a proper collective security pact that would guarantee the sovereignty of the buffer states of Poland and Czechoslovakia against Hitler.
Russia itself has enough soft power to hold sway over Eastern European minds to the extent it desires. Those who characterize it as Sovietization forget that Russia has had such influence well before Lenin was even born.
Actually I agree Russia has the capacity to exercise real soft power in the region, and to compete head to head with anyone else , both inside the EU and outside it.
Which is why I think its a matter of regret that they have chosen to respond to temporary setbacks in competition for influence with invasion and annexation
Again, you choose not to answer the specific question: if EU or the NATO can rationalize expanding into Eastern Europe, why is Russia doing so, threatening ?
You seem to interpret the lessons of history as 'Russia expanding into eastern Europe is dangerous'.
Well I think I've already answered that, and I'm sorry if you don't like the answer.
The lesson of European history is don't leave small states out in the cold. If they need security guarantees, give it to them early, and be serious about it. If they need membership in economic and political institutions for growth, let them have it.
I don't have a problem with the idea of Russian influence per se, if they're willing to play by the rules that have helped keep the peace.
NATO's growth came from countries chosing to join in search of security for themselves.
The EU growth came from those who wanted to benefit from the economic, technological and socio-political progress that it offered.
Russia's growth in regional influence is coming from military action against neighbours who have no territorial claims on Russia and no substantial military forces.
That's a stark contrast, and if you can't see the difference, then there's not much more to say on the subject.
