It doesn't seem to me that this is a very solid argument. First off, it's essentially just cherry picking people over history who have made the argument against expanding NATO. Whilst there were people making the argument against expanding Nato and some of them are respectable, it's far from some consensus among everyone who knows the topic. Even the people this thread claims oppose the expansion of Nato aren't wholy clear on it - Clinton's defence secretary was opposed to the timing not the principle for example.<p>Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO. There's just no merit to the claim that Nato was a proximate cause of the invasion. Notably it <i>is</i> however, a pretext that Russia used in the build up to the invasion, so what you have here is essentially people pushing a Russian propaganda line.<p>Finally, it's important to consider the counter-factual. If Nato hadn't expanded maybe the US would have more cordial relations with Russia, but it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia. Given a situation where Nato is far from Ukraine and the US is disinterested in the region it seems far <i>more</i> likely that Ukraine would be run over by Russia at the first opportunity. Maybe you can argue that the result of that would've been less likely to lead to Nuclear war, but it's hardly a great principled stance to decide to appease Russia, and at that point you have to ask yourself which countries in Europe are you willing to defend as sovereign nations? Or is the answer none?
I’m not one for continuing to believe that we have to coddle rogue states by buffer zones. 80 years since ww ii ended and I would have hoped the states changed. Obviously not. If Ukraine wants to be European, let it. We thought Russia did, finally accomplishing what Peter the great started. Guess not.<p>England spent centuries working on the balance of power and supporting small states vs. Large. It works.<p>If Russia is into “Ukraine used to be Russia” then they support “Kaliningrad used to be German”, right? Or is it more “Poland and Finland used to be Russian”? And it’s really bad form to break signed treaties for the hell of it.
I don't know how much was left but I stopped reading when everything I was seeing was essentially appeasement arguments.<p>That's fine, especially in a historical strategic argument context, but it's hardly balanced in terms of discussion of European security policy.<p>This is especially true given strong current evidence that Putin's stated concerns about NATO or the EU are a smokescreen. He has essentially said NATO is not a concern because of Russia's nuclear capability. And it's patently evident they are doing something to increase NATO involvement and strength, not weaken it.
Here is a post made to the site Less Wrong December 22 that begins, "Assume that you know with a high degree of confidence that Russia will invade Ukraine in February 2022," then asks for investment advice:<p><a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QEsqKFabffwKXAPso/" rel="nofollow">https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QEsqKFabffwKXAPso/</a><p>Same content with different web-site design decisions:<p><a href="https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/QEsqKFabffwKXAPso/" rel="nofollow">https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/QEsqKFabffwKXAPso/</a>
What was the alternative play out? Don't expand NATO and wait for Russia to come roaring back to life with the same authoritarianism but more money?<p>If anything these recent aggression towards Ukraine should drive other countries on its border to seek out the alliance, or else be invaded if your government doesn't cow-tow to Russia.<p>A great alternative I once heard was to let these former eastern block counties form their own alliance to counter Russia, but that may have just had the same outcome plus other unintended consequences.
I think a lot of this is not really under anyone's control; every country -esp those not under a strongman/autocrat, wants Western style benefits and democracy; if Russia wasn't going to provide it (since their modernization seems to have stalled), then the natural drift was going to be westward.<p>From what I know of Armenia from my colleagues, that same drift is happening there.
The sheer amount of damage Henry Kissinger inflicted on the sane functioning of Western politicians brains is staggering.<p>He is not a sagacious "strategic thinker," but a real world Grima Wormtongue, and should be treated as such.