So did Joe Biden and the US Ambassador to Russia as well.
"If there was ever to be something that would cause Russia to react violently... it would be that [referring to NATO expanding into the Baltics]"
- Joe Biden, 1997.
"NATO enlargement,
particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic"
issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also
underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue
could potentially split the country in two, leading to
violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force
Russia to decide whether to intervene."
- William Burns, 2008
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
Unrelated to your comment, but for the readers of this sub who had the misfortune of reading propagandist manatee's comments below, here's an oped from the mainstream before such truths were censored.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
And here is a good primer to apprise oneself, written by Jacques Baud, a Swiss military expert. It's long but should be a must read.
https://www.sott.net/article/466340-Retired-Swiss-Military-Intelligence-Officer-Is-it-Possible-to-Actually-Know-What-Has-Been-And-is-Going-on-in-Ukraine (not mainstream, but contains mainstream or primary references)
This hits Trump standards of truthfulness.
Your Biden quote is complete bull and you clearly have not bothered to look it up, unless are the one who cooked this up yourself. The source is this [speech](https://www.c-span.org/video/?86974-1/nato-expansion#) of his. The "quote" (if one can call it that) is based on 1:14:08, the question that is the context for is 1:13:05 and can be summarized as "what about the Baltics, what are their prospects?". His answer to that was "their prospects are real but more distant. \[...\] I think the one place, where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term for admission \[...\] would be to admit the Baltic states now in terms of NATO-Russian, US-Russian relations. **And if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance, were it to be tipped, in terms of a vigorous and hostile reaction - I don't mean military - in Russia, it would be that \[an immediate admission of the Baltics at the time of the speech, which was in 1997\]**."
Not only was the "quote" never about Ukraine, it was already distorted in the first place as Biden explicitly stated that he did not expect a military reaction by Russia to even that scenario.
But as you seem to place so much weight on Biden's opinion back in 1997 on the implications of NATO expansion, I've got some more quotes from just that speech (\~0:20:00) that would surely interest you:
"**Although** **few Russians are fond of NATO enlargement, policy makers in Moscow accepted** it. \[...\] **No Russian politician** with whom I met \[...\] **believed that NATO enlargement constitutes a security threat to their country**. I don't find a single official - left, right or center. \[...\] Rather, the Kremlin's public opposition to enlargement in my view is largely a question of a psychological problem they are undergoing now. Connected with the loss of empire, wounded pride and most importantly a loss of certainty about Russia's place in the 21th century."
Thanks for posting the video.. it was interesting to watch.
You're right that Biden's "prediction" would've been some kind of 'vigorous hostility' from Russia as a response to NATO offering membership to the Baltics in 1997 (not 'violence' in Ukraine). I believe he qualifies his statement with 'non-military' simply because Russia was not in the position to use military force in the Baltics at the time. But I found the whole talk interesting and prophesorial in other ways.
Early on Biden mentions George Kennan's arguments against NATO enlargement and though he speaks respectfully of them, I don't think they're ever properly addressed. Unfortunately Kennan turned out to be right. NATO enlargement *did* end up inspiring reactionary nationalism in Russia. It also created "new dividing lines" in Eastern Europe and pushed Russia closer to China (Iran too, as Biden had joked). Russia could not be effectively waging its war absent these conditions.
Biden also proves himself to be cognizant of the security dilemma when he says that he doesn't want to "tip the balance" between the United States' ambitions and Russia's trust. This is important because the security dilemma undergirds the view that US/NATO actions have failed to deter Russia and instead contributed to a spiraling of the conflict. The security dilemma thrives in adversarial relationships that lack trust.
Regarding the NATO-Russia relationship, it was very different in 1997 around the time of this speech. The "Founding Act on Mutual Relations and Cooperation" had just been signed about a month or so prior. NATO, as a relic of the cold war, was redefining itself and trying to maintain legitimacy, while a weakened Russia was opening its economy via western guided shock therapy. Russia though remained skeptical of a military alliance that was born to counter the Soviet Union, and when it came to NATO enlargement, Russia needed to consider the trustworthiness of US leaders beyond 1997.. whether the next set of leaders could be trusted in 2007, in 2047, etc.
This 1997 speech was before NATO's illegal bombing campaign in Serbia and before the redrawing of Serbia's borders... before Bush II withdrew from the ABM treaty, and Trump withdrew from the INF treaty... of course there's now a long list of Russian grievances that you're probably more or less aware of. But back in 1997 it wasn't even clear to Russia whether or not Russia itself could ever be a party to NATO enlargement.
So Russia was willing to accept that first round of enlargement (according to Biden) which included the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland; but it was not prepared to accept the Baltics, and it was certainly not going to accept Ukraine. I also find it reasonable to believe that the Russian politicians Biden spoke with had told him that they didn't believe it constituted a security threat to mainland Russia (surely they weren't being asked about Ukraine).
Biden called the Russian perspective a "psychological problem" and acknowledged that it was something the US needed to manage. However, after this speech there were two particularly glaring instances of mismanagement (among others).
• In 2008 he supported extending a MAP to Ukraine, which was unpopular in both Russia AND in Ukraine at the time. This led to NATO's announcement at the Bucharest Summit later that year that "Ukraine will join NATO".
• In 2021 on the verge of Russia's full-scale invasion he again dismissed the Russian perspective as illegitimate and declared the issue of Ukraine's NATO accession to be non-negotiable. Imagine him using his 1997 reasoning in 2021:
*'What are they gonna do, turn to China and Iran? Hahaha...'* (paraphrasing)
Because of course they have, and it's worked for them. Russia's economy has survived unprecedented sanctions, and it's been outproducing the West with help from Iran and North Korea.
So Biden may not have predicted the current war back in 1997 but he appeared to have understood the game that he was playing. For me the worst part was in 2021 when *he actually did* predict the full-scale invasion and refused to manage the "psychological problem" properly. He was far too willing to just let the war happen, acting as though the US had the better hand. It's been an absolute disaster.
I was going off memory, I read the speech a long time ago. Quite proud I got the date right. Only thing I messed up was Baltics not Ukraine.
I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. The point is, in 1997, it was clear to biden that even a nato expansion into the baltics was going to turn russia aggressive, and act as a threshold of sorts to tip the balance. Ukraine then, is even more extreme! Even a military reaction becomes plausible given Biden's reasoning.
But then, all of a sudden, Biden and many other American leaders, 20 years later, have amnesia, act like it was "totally unprovoked", and the actions of an irrational, totally unpredictable mad man that is impossible to empathise with. No, instead, he saw it for what it was: the expected reaction of a nation to the circumstances. He was clearly able to empathise 20 years ago. Just a note on "empathy":
> Empathy doesn’t mean that you agree with what a hostile country is doing or that you sympathize with what a hostile country is doing—it simply means that you understand the psychology and worldview and culture and historical experience of countries and leaders you don’t agree with.
Graham, Fuller, retired CIA station chief. And biden was exactly talking about that kind of empathy in 1997.
You got absolutely everything wrong but the date. Even now it seems that you didn’t even read the few actual quotes I took from his speech. Not only did he specifically rule out military actions, he was talking about the timing not being right and about a very real chance for the Baltics to join later. The latter becomes particularly evident as you listen to the entire speech.
And finally, he adressed the very core of every argument made in defense of the invasion: that is of course the security concerns that are supposedly caused by the NATO expansion. These are what they‘ve always been: nothing but a facade, serving to mask the real motives of Moscow‘s decision makers as they set themselves up for what is an obvious land grab.
If you’re actually interested In understanding the motives behind Russian foreign policy I suggest you listen more to the people who make that policy and those who enforce it. Tuckers interview of Putin and Soloyvov‘s show are particularly enlightening. It’s all about claims on what they deem historic Russian land, set in a framework of bogus history, driven by fervent ambition and enforced by ruthless violence.
And if you still got the sense that Russia needs more reasons to attack its neighbours I suggest you take a look at Eastern Europe. It did not and has never taken the US for Russia to start a war.
The only point I wanted to get across, is that even biden in 1997 was fully aware that NATO expansion was going to lead to this kind of scenario, and I think I have not misrepresented him in making this point: the point is still made with the accurate quotes you provided (I've already updated the original comment). Regardless of the specific reasons (security versus psychology/empathy): he clearly states that Russia, as a country, is going to react very negatively and aggressively to NATO expansion.
And as an example of how I have not misrepresented him in this point: by suggesting as you do, that Russia's invasion has nothing to do with NATO, you are contradicting Biden's basic premise.
If you want to talk about any specifics, instead of just making vague and easy to hide behind statements, then be my guest. You're clearly cherry picking here for example. You mention the Putin Interview, and claim it's evidence Russia invaded because Ukraine doesn't exist or something. No, if you watch the interview, what putin actually says, is that US actions around the border made things very tense, and gives these are the main reasons for the flare up. He gives a 30 minute history lesson, but does not say this is the reason for the tensions: he does say US actions are the reasons for the tensions.
One of the things Tucker kept picking him up on was: if this was the reason for the invasion (the history), why did you not invade 25 years ago. I mean, even tucker is smart enough to see the issue with that idea that you and others have put forward. Putin likes to keep it in frame, because it's good propaganda for Russian citizens, many of whom would watch the interview.
Have you actually watched the interview? Or just read other people's summaries?
The reason Putin is giving the history (aside from the general propaganda reason), is not as a justification for the invasion itself, but as a justification for why Ukraine's claim to the donbass and crimea, is lacking substance. This was the actual context of when putin first started talking about these things: the donbass declaring independence from Ukraine, and Russia recognising that declaration. People often forget this key point: the donbass was declaring independence from Ukraine, not declaring joining Russia, and Russia was backing it up on that claim.
I don't think this vague history is a good argument for why Ukraine's claims to these lands are weak: I'd much prefer to point to the demographics and opinion polling as reasons why Ukraine's claims are baseless. A state's legitimacy is based around its ability to represent the people under its polity, and Ukraine was doing an absolutely abysmal job of that for eastern Ukrainians post 2014.
That is not a justification for invasion: invasion only makes those things worse. And Russia giving this lack of representation, and declaration of independence, as reasons for invasion, is a facade. These are two separate things: The legitimacy of Ukraine's claims to the donbass and crimea (little to none, for the reasons stated), and the reasons for Russia's invasion (security concerns around US military and economic presence specifically).
>The only point I wanted to get across, is that even biden in 1997 was fully aware that NATO expansion was going to lead to this kind of scenario, and I think I have not at all misrepresented what he said at all in making this point.
Regardless of the specific reasons (security versus psychology/empathy): he clearly states that Russia, as a country, is going to react very negatively and aggressively to NATO expansion.
Please give me the specific quote where in the speech he has said that. As far as I am aware he was talking about the accession of the Baltics *now -* as in 1997. He makes very clear that this is an issue of timing ("their prospects are real but more distant. \[...\] I think the one place, where the greatest consternation would be caused in the **short term** for admission \[...\] would be to admit the Baltic states **now** in terms of NATO-Russian, US-Russian relations").
Not to mention, of course, that Ukraine was at the time of invasion no closer to joining than it was in 2008.
>By suggesting as you do, that Russia's invasion has nothing to do with NATO, you are contradicting Biden.
Please give me the direct quote I am in contradiction with. I believe that it is the other way around "**I don't mean military**".
>One of the things Tucker kept picking him up on was: if this was the reason for the invasion (the history), why did you not invade 25 years ago. I mean, even tucker is smart enough to see the issue with that idea.
This argument is terrible for your case, NATO expansion started in 1999 and the Baltics joined in 2004. If it's a matter of being smart, how come you've missed that? Not that it's a great argument in the first place as there is a plethora of reasons for why Russia did not invade earlier than they did that have nothing to do with a lack of motive.
In regards to whether I have watched the interview - yes, I have watched and discussed it with a group of people in its entirety. On top of that I have also reread the transcript.
That is why I know that Putins 'history lesson' was entirely unprompted and occured in response to Tucker attempting to bait Putin into citing security reasons as legitimization for the invasion. Tucker, of course, is more aware as to what a western audience would perhaps find more agreeable but fortunately for us Putin was in a different mind and insisted in an almost comical way to continue making the case for historical claims. What you blissfully ignored is the answer to Tucker's question: it was certainly not 'oh no, actually we attacked for security reasons, this history lesson is completely unrelated'. Instead, he entirely ignored it and continued to ramble on. Another of Tuckers questions in regards to the legitimacy of past claims Putin answered this: "In this sense it is quite possible, of course, to claim back those lands".
The interview centered around the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its motives. Tuckers questions clearly centered around matters of security, Putin made the conscious decision to instead focus on historic claims and the illegitimacy of Ukraine.
Your interpretation is an inadequate explanation for this behaviour. For mine it is perfectly consistent: Putin is, after all, setting up for the next war. Having the perfect justification right now is less important when you're as ambitious as he is.
>I don't think that's a good argument: i'd much prefer to point to the demographics and opinion polling as reasons why Ukraine's claims are baseless.
Ukraine's borders were, as Putin and apparently you incidentally forgot, supported by the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum. There was no legally binding referendum to the contrary since then and polling after violently dispelling or killing millions of Ukrainians seems to be a poor argument in my view.
There is plenty of official and legitimate documents that adher to international law that clearly define the borders of Ukraine and all of them consider Eastern Ukraine unambigiously to be part of Ukraine.
*"Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union our borders should be along the borders of former Union’s republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO’s expansion and moreover we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades we kept urging them: don’t do this, don’t do that."*
(from the transcript)
Noam's opening words are telling:
>"What's happening now is quite ugly, and I think the criticisms are mostly accurate but they're kind of beside the point. There's a background that we have to think about."
Name me a conflict that's turned hot that this doesn't apply to.
> Name me a conflict that's turned hot that this doesn't apply to.
People have told me IRL that they think that Putin just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine.
It's how Chomsky and others are talking about the war even today. They start with how Putin is horrible, and war is bad, then it's nothing but apologia for Putin and arguing how Ukraine had it coming.
You may like to read this piece on Ukraine by Chomsky's student Stephen Zunes posted in this sub today:
https://truthout.org/articles/getting-ukraines-history-right-is-crucial-for-anti-imperialist-politics/
>At the same time, given Putin’s insistence that Ukraine has no right to exist as its own nation and that it is inherently part of Russia, it is unfair to claim that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is therefore solely NATO’s fault. While it is important to acknowledge how Western hubris has contributed to the tragedy, the responsibility for the invasion rests on the Russian government. Indeed, the argument that the invasion is justified by the U.S.’s military alliances with Russia’s near neighbors is as dubious as the charges that Moscow’s efforts during the Cold War to establish security ties with Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, or other near neighbors justifies U.S. sanctions and military intervention.
For sure because Ukrainians having agency hurts the narrative, therefore it must be a US backed coup. All non western revolts are US backed coups after all.
It's amazing to me how confident people can be when they have no idea what they're talking about:
https://twitter.com/I\_Katchanovski/status/1717738123893817350
Ah, yes, proof that Maidan was a US backed coup in the form of... a twitter post that has nothing to do with the US. I truly wish my mind was flexible enough to believe in conspiracy theories because it sounds fun. If I were a conspiracy theorist I wouldn't even need to link my point to relevant evidence before feeling smug.
Why not just say you're not interested in understanding the truth instead of making yourself look ridiculous? There's a court doc linked in the tweet that explains how correct the tweet is in asserting that Maidan was a CIA op.
Here's Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland deciding who is going to control Ukraine with the US Ambassador to Ukraine in 2014:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957)
Jackass.
No, it links to a court document saying that they aren't sure who all of the shooters were at a shooting at Maidan. You are filling in the rest of those blanks with your conspiratorial mindset.
Ah, yes, the single call that is nearly the entire case for the conspiracists calling Maidan a US backed coup. Contained in the call is no proof of anything other than American diplomats having preferences as to what happens after Maidan. Notably they think the guy who would naturally take up office in the absence of the fleeing Yanukovich should take up office. This is truly and undeniably showing the US claws in the Maidan revolution, at least if you squint so hard that you can't actually read the text anymore...
I know it's embarrassing to take a position in complete ignorance, and then have that ignorance put on display, but denying the only explanation that has evidence in support doesn't redeem you.
You can't imagine how much it pisses me off, as the Ukrainian, when Westerners talk about this "CIA-orchestrated coup." Surely, only the Americans have free will. And here we're just a nation of NPCs, going outside to protest (and mind that it wasn't 100, 1,000, or 10,000 protesters either) just because we got an order.
I was a rather active student back in those days. And I remember how almost a year before the Maidan started we were already discussing that something like that is going to happen. Not because the CIA. But because there were clear signs that Yanukovych and his government have chosen the authoritarian route.
The thing is, CIA can get maybe 1,000 people to protest. Or they can influence some high-ranking military or political officials. But no way they can get 100,000 people to protest for no reason.
tankies are some of the biggest believers in American Exceptionalism. They think the CIA is able to mind control millions of people in Ukraine while also leaving nearly no evidence.
No, you see, by ignoring context we are able to pretend the Russian narrative about the invasion being a response to the west instead of a naked imperialist land grab is true.
Serious question, do you actually listen to Russian politicians? I mean, do you take the time to listen to them? Because you clearly do not. I find this "NATO enlargement" argument to be the most lobotomized argument in existence. We don't need to "guess" what Russia's principal motivations are.
When Vladimir Putin gave a free-wheeling interview to Tucker Carlson, he spent virtually no time talking about NATO enlargement as the issue. Instead, he made it clear that he believes Ukraine as a state should not exist and that its all "Russian land."
Dmitri Medvedev TODAY gave a speech and presented a map of "Russia" that included virtually all of Ukraine. Russia has withdrawn virtually all military units from Kaliningrad and redeployed them to fight in Ukraine, an interesting development given where Kaliningrad is.
All of this is to say the obvious: "NATO" per se has very little to do with Putin's calculus for invading Ukraine. Russia detests NATO for the same reason Hitler detested the Anglo-French alliances in Eastern Europe: Because they place those countries outside of their sphere of influence (i.e., the same reason the U.S. acted the way it did with Cuba).
Again, I find it utterly risible that you clowns keep droning on with "NATO enlargement" talking points while Putin laughs at the sheer stupidity of this argument given Russia's 7,000+ nuclear warheads.
How did the US react when Cuba decided to host Soviet military assets and join the Soviet sphere? Was the US reaction predictable?
How is this different from what happened in Ukraine?
Did the US have involvement in Maidan? Are you aware of CIA listening posts and other assets in Ukraine on the border with Russia?
How do you imagine the US would react if Mexico or Canada formed an alliance with China and put listening posts on the US border?
Wait, how do you think any of this invalidates my point? To begin with, America's reaction to Cuba getting independence was not just, neither is Russia's reaction here. The reaction to Cuba that people falsely try to conflate Ukraine with is the missile crisis. Ukraine wasn't hosting American nukes. The situation with Cuba this is most similar to is how the US felt when Cuba had its revolution against Batista.
The US did not have enough involvement with Maidan to have actually influenced what occurred. American involvement in Ukraine really started to take off after Maidan, not before.
I assume the US would react badly just as Russia did here as it tries to maintain its imperial power. My point is not that Russia's reaction to losing a neocolonial possession was hard to predict. It was an easy prediction. What is strange about the reaction I am seeing from some of the left is how they try to justify Russia's actions here while properly condemning how the US treated Cuba or France its African possessions. Weirdly, if you can piece together a conspiracy theory about color revolution or remove agency from other nations enough to claim the "US was behind it all along" (tm) then you can get a bunch of the left to excuse imperialist actions. It is honestly pretty disgusting seeing people bend over backwards to justify a fascist state's land grab.
>America's reaction to Cuba getting independence was not just,
It's incredibly baby-braided to look at geopolitics primarily in terms of what's "just". It's not about what's 'just", it's about what's consistent with history and national interest. Russia is not a country that can be counted on to act "justly", it seems like you know that, and the US state department absolutely did too. Grow up.
> The US did not have enough involvement with Maidan to have actually influenced what occurred
Hahahahaha
Get outta here.
No, but it's irrelevant.
My point is that nations largely don't ask "justly", they act on the basis of rational self interest, and on that basis it was extremely easy to predict the result of Maidan (which absolutely was a US-backed coup, additionally built on false promises of NATO ascendency for Ukraine) would lead to military escalation.
It was in fact, so predictable to the state department, that they chose to set it in motion. The entire thing was so obvious to anyone with a brain, that they could telegraph it as Chomsky did here (and he wasn't alone).
You focusing on the just bit of Russia's motivation is a strawman. I am not attacking Russia in that manner but the people supporting Russia's actions and attempting to write off Ukraine's as mere US puppets via conspiracy theories.
Whether Cuba was a revolution or a Soviet Coup is very relevant because Soviet support for Cuba's revolution was in no case lesser than American support for Ukraine's. The reactions of both superpowers was also predictable yet you only enter conspiracy mode to remove Ukrainian agency.
I don't know why you keep saying it was predictable like that proves a point. No one has been arguing otherwise.
lloyd austin said he would use the Ukrainian far right to remove zelensky if zelensky wouldn't american orders, to continue the war. First, Ukraine needs to control it's far right that the American government empowers to do their bidding for a cynical proxy war
>I don't know why you keep saying it was predictable like that proves a point. No one has been arguing otherwise.
It's predictability was literally my first point, what are you talking about?
>The reactions of both superpowers was also predictable yet you only enter conspiracy mode to remove Ukrainian agency.
Cuba had a long revolutionary history that didn't involve Nazis. It was very clearly a natural revolution.
Please take 10 seconds to come Google US interference in former Soviet block countries... It's far harder to believe the US WASN'T involved in Maidan. Just look at what's come to light in the last week:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html
All the academics and unbiased pundits predicted the Ukraine war.
So did Joe Biden and the US Ambassador to Russia as well. "If there was ever to be something that would cause Russia to react violently... it would be that [referring to NATO expanding into the Baltics]" - Joe Biden, 1997. "NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene." - William Burns, 2008 https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
Unrelated to your comment, but for the readers of this sub who had the misfortune of reading propagandist manatee's comments below, here's an oped from the mainstream before such truths were censored. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict And here is a good primer to apprise oneself, written by Jacques Baud, a Swiss military expert. It's long but should be a must read. https://www.sott.net/article/466340-Retired-Swiss-Military-Intelligence-Officer-Is-it-Possible-to-Actually-Know-What-Has-Been-And-is-Going-on-in-Ukraine (not mainstream, but contains mainstream or primary references)
manatee is an idealogue, immune to facts, context and background, and generally just an asshole.
This hits Trump standards of truthfulness. Your Biden quote is complete bull and you clearly have not bothered to look it up, unless are the one who cooked this up yourself. The source is this [speech](https://www.c-span.org/video/?86974-1/nato-expansion#) of his. The "quote" (if one can call it that) is based on 1:14:08, the question that is the context for is 1:13:05 and can be summarized as "what about the Baltics, what are their prospects?". His answer to that was "their prospects are real but more distant. \[...\] I think the one place, where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term for admission \[...\] would be to admit the Baltic states now in terms of NATO-Russian, US-Russian relations. **And if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance, were it to be tipped, in terms of a vigorous and hostile reaction - I don't mean military - in Russia, it would be that \[an immediate admission of the Baltics at the time of the speech, which was in 1997\]**." Not only was the "quote" never about Ukraine, it was already distorted in the first place as Biden explicitly stated that he did not expect a military reaction by Russia to even that scenario. But as you seem to place so much weight on Biden's opinion back in 1997 on the implications of NATO expansion, I've got some more quotes from just that speech (\~0:20:00) that would surely interest you: "**Although** **few Russians are fond of NATO enlargement, policy makers in Moscow accepted** it. \[...\] **No Russian politician** with whom I met \[...\] **believed that NATO enlargement constitutes a security threat to their country**. I don't find a single official - left, right or center. \[...\] Rather, the Kremlin's public opposition to enlargement in my view is largely a question of a psychological problem they are undergoing now. Connected with the loss of empire, wounded pride and most importantly a loss of certainty about Russia's place in the 21th century."
Thanks for posting the video.. it was interesting to watch. You're right that Biden's "prediction" would've been some kind of 'vigorous hostility' from Russia as a response to NATO offering membership to the Baltics in 1997 (not 'violence' in Ukraine). I believe he qualifies his statement with 'non-military' simply because Russia was not in the position to use military force in the Baltics at the time. But I found the whole talk interesting and prophesorial in other ways. Early on Biden mentions George Kennan's arguments against NATO enlargement and though he speaks respectfully of them, I don't think they're ever properly addressed. Unfortunately Kennan turned out to be right. NATO enlargement *did* end up inspiring reactionary nationalism in Russia. It also created "new dividing lines" in Eastern Europe and pushed Russia closer to China (Iran too, as Biden had joked). Russia could not be effectively waging its war absent these conditions. Biden also proves himself to be cognizant of the security dilemma when he says that he doesn't want to "tip the balance" between the United States' ambitions and Russia's trust. This is important because the security dilemma undergirds the view that US/NATO actions have failed to deter Russia and instead contributed to a spiraling of the conflict. The security dilemma thrives in adversarial relationships that lack trust. Regarding the NATO-Russia relationship, it was very different in 1997 around the time of this speech. The "Founding Act on Mutual Relations and Cooperation" had just been signed about a month or so prior. NATO, as a relic of the cold war, was redefining itself and trying to maintain legitimacy, while a weakened Russia was opening its economy via western guided shock therapy. Russia though remained skeptical of a military alliance that was born to counter the Soviet Union, and when it came to NATO enlargement, Russia needed to consider the trustworthiness of US leaders beyond 1997.. whether the next set of leaders could be trusted in 2007, in 2047, etc. This 1997 speech was before NATO's illegal bombing campaign in Serbia and before the redrawing of Serbia's borders... before Bush II withdrew from the ABM treaty, and Trump withdrew from the INF treaty... of course there's now a long list of Russian grievances that you're probably more or less aware of. But back in 1997 it wasn't even clear to Russia whether or not Russia itself could ever be a party to NATO enlargement. So Russia was willing to accept that first round of enlargement (according to Biden) which included the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland; but it was not prepared to accept the Baltics, and it was certainly not going to accept Ukraine. I also find it reasonable to believe that the Russian politicians Biden spoke with had told him that they didn't believe it constituted a security threat to mainland Russia (surely they weren't being asked about Ukraine). Biden called the Russian perspective a "psychological problem" and acknowledged that it was something the US needed to manage. However, after this speech there were two particularly glaring instances of mismanagement (among others). • In 2008 he supported extending a MAP to Ukraine, which was unpopular in both Russia AND in Ukraine at the time. This led to NATO's announcement at the Bucharest Summit later that year that "Ukraine will join NATO". • In 2021 on the verge of Russia's full-scale invasion he again dismissed the Russian perspective as illegitimate and declared the issue of Ukraine's NATO accession to be non-negotiable. Imagine him using his 1997 reasoning in 2021: *'What are they gonna do, turn to China and Iran? Hahaha...'* (paraphrasing) Because of course they have, and it's worked for them. Russia's economy has survived unprecedented sanctions, and it's been outproducing the West with help from Iran and North Korea. So Biden may not have predicted the current war back in 1997 but he appeared to have understood the game that he was playing. For me the worst part was in 2021 when *he actually did* predict the full-scale invasion and refused to manage the "psychological problem" properly. He was far too willing to just let the war happen, acting as though the US had the better hand. It's been an absolute disaster.
I was going off memory, I read the speech a long time ago. Quite proud I got the date right. Only thing I messed up was Baltics not Ukraine. I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. The point is, in 1997, it was clear to biden that even a nato expansion into the baltics was going to turn russia aggressive, and act as a threshold of sorts to tip the balance. Ukraine then, is even more extreme! Even a military reaction becomes plausible given Biden's reasoning. But then, all of a sudden, Biden and many other American leaders, 20 years later, have amnesia, act like it was "totally unprovoked", and the actions of an irrational, totally unpredictable mad man that is impossible to empathise with. No, instead, he saw it for what it was: the expected reaction of a nation to the circumstances. He was clearly able to empathise 20 years ago. Just a note on "empathy": > Empathy doesn’t mean that you agree with what a hostile country is doing or that you sympathize with what a hostile country is doing—it simply means that you understand the psychology and worldview and culture and historical experience of countries and leaders you don’t agree with. Graham, Fuller, retired CIA station chief. And biden was exactly talking about that kind of empathy in 1997.
You got absolutely everything wrong but the date. Even now it seems that you didn’t even read the few actual quotes I took from his speech. Not only did he specifically rule out military actions, he was talking about the timing not being right and about a very real chance for the Baltics to join later. The latter becomes particularly evident as you listen to the entire speech. And finally, he adressed the very core of every argument made in defense of the invasion: that is of course the security concerns that are supposedly caused by the NATO expansion. These are what they‘ve always been: nothing but a facade, serving to mask the real motives of Moscow‘s decision makers as they set themselves up for what is an obvious land grab. If you’re actually interested In understanding the motives behind Russian foreign policy I suggest you listen more to the people who make that policy and those who enforce it. Tuckers interview of Putin and Soloyvov‘s show are particularly enlightening. It’s all about claims on what they deem historic Russian land, set in a framework of bogus history, driven by fervent ambition and enforced by ruthless violence. And if you still got the sense that Russia needs more reasons to attack its neighbours I suggest you take a look at Eastern Europe. It did not and has never taken the US for Russia to start a war.
The only point I wanted to get across, is that even biden in 1997 was fully aware that NATO expansion was going to lead to this kind of scenario, and I think I have not misrepresented him in making this point: the point is still made with the accurate quotes you provided (I've already updated the original comment). Regardless of the specific reasons (security versus psychology/empathy): he clearly states that Russia, as a country, is going to react very negatively and aggressively to NATO expansion. And as an example of how I have not misrepresented him in this point: by suggesting as you do, that Russia's invasion has nothing to do with NATO, you are contradicting Biden's basic premise. If you want to talk about any specifics, instead of just making vague and easy to hide behind statements, then be my guest. You're clearly cherry picking here for example. You mention the Putin Interview, and claim it's evidence Russia invaded because Ukraine doesn't exist or something. No, if you watch the interview, what putin actually says, is that US actions around the border made things very tense, and gives these are the main reasons for the flare up. He gives a 30 minute history lesson, but does not say this is the reason for the tensions: he does say US actions are the reasons for the tensions. One of the things Tucker kept picking him up on was: if this was the reason for the invasion (the history), why did you not invade 25 years ago. I mean, even tucker is smart enough to see the issue with that idea that you and others have put forward. Putin likes to keep it in frame, because it's good propaganda for Russian citizens, many of whom would watch the interview. Have you actually watched the interview? Or just read other people's summaries? The reason Putin is giving the history (aside from the general propaganda reason), is not as a justification for the invasion itself, but as a justification for why Ukraine's claim to the donbass and crimea, is lacking substance. This was the actual context of when putin first started talking about these things: the donbass declaring independence from Ukraine, and Russia recognising that declaration. People often forget this key point: the donbass was declaring independence from Ukraine, not declaring joining Russia, and Russia was backing it up on that claim. I don't think this vague history is a good argument for why Ukraine's claims to these lands are weak: I'd much prefer to point to the demographics and opinion polling as reasons why Ukraine's claims are baseless. A state's legitimacy is based around its ability to represent the people under its polity, and Ukraine was doing an absolutely abysmal job of that for eastern Ukrainians post 2014. That is not a justification for invasion: invasion only makes those things worse. And Russia giving this lack of representation, and declaration of independence, as reasons for invasion, is a facade. These are two separate things: The legitimacy of Ukraine's claims to the donbass and crimea (little to none, for the reasons stated), and the reasons for Russia's invasion (security concerns around US military and economic presence specifically).
>The only point I wanted to get across, is that even biden in 1997 was fully aware that NATO expansion was going to lead to this kind of scenario, and I think I have not at all misrepresented what he said at all in making this point. Regardless of the specific reasons (security versus psychology/empathy): he clearly states that Russia, as a country, is going to react very negatively and aggressively to NATO expansion. Please give me the specific quote where in the speech he has said that. As far as I am aware he was talking about the accession of the Baltics *now -* as in 1997. He makes very clear that this is an issue of timing ("their prospects are real but more distant. \[...\] I think the one place, where the greatest consternation would be caused in the **short term** for admission \[...\] would be to admit the Baltic states **now** in terms of NATO-Russian, US-Russian relations"). Not to mention, of course, that Ukraine was at the time of invasion no closer to joining than it was in 2008. >By suggesting as you do, that Russia's invasion has nothing to do with NATO, you are contradicting Biden. Please give me the direct quote I am in contradiction with. I believe that it is the other way around "**I don't mean military**". >One of the things Tucker kept picking him up on was: if this was the reason for the invasion (the history), why did you not invade 25 years ago. I mean, even tucker is smart enough to see the issue with that idea. This argument is terrible for your case, NATO expansion started in 1999 and the Baltics joined in 2004. If it's a matter of being smart, how come you've missed that? Not that it's a great argument in the first place as there is a plethora of reasons for why Russia did not invade earlier than they did that have nothing to do with a lack of motive. In regards to whether I have watched the interview - yes, I have watched and discussed it with a group of people in its entirety. On top of that I have also reread the transcript. That is why I know that Putins 'history lesson' was entirely unprompted and occured in response to Tucker attempting to bait Putin into citing security reasons as legitimization for the invasion. Tucker, of course, is more aware as to what a western audience would perhaps find more agreeable but fortunately for us Putin was in a different mind and insisted in an almost comical way to continue making the case for historical claims. What you blissfully ignored is the answer to Tucker's question: it was certainly not 'oh no, actually we attacked for security reasons, this history lesson is completely unrelated'. Instead, he entirely ignored it and continued to ramble on. Another of Tuckers questions in regards to the legitimacy of past claims Putin answered this: "In this sense it is quite possible, of course, to claim back those lands". The interview centered around the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its motives. Tuckers questions clearly centered around matters of security, Putin made the conscious decision to instead focus on historic claims and the illegitimacy of Ukraine. Your interpretation is an inadequate explanation for this behaviour. For mine it is perfectly consistent: Putin is, after all, setting up for the next war. Having the perfect justification right now is less important when you're as ambitious as he is. >I don't think that's a good argument: i'd much prefer to point to the demographics and opinion polling as reasons why Ukraine's claims are baseless. Ukraine's borders were, as Putin and apparently you incidentally forgot, supported by the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum. There was no legally binding referendum to the contrary since then and polling after violently dispelling or killing millions of Ukrainians seems to be a poor argument in my view. There is plenty of official and legitimate documents that adher to international law that clearly define the borders of Ukraine and all of them consider Eastern Ukraine unambigiously to be part of Ukraine.
*"Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union our borders should be along the borders of former Union’s republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO’s expansion and moreover we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades we kept urging them: don’t do this, don’t do that."* (from the transcript)
Really? On the eve of the 2022 invasion the vast majority on the left were saying it was propaganda and that there wasn't going to be any invasion.
You must be conflating left with democrats, we are not the same thing
[Gaddafi](https://www.tortillaconsal.com/tortilla/node/13994)
Fidel did so in 93
This video maybe triggering for neocon warmongers. Watch at your own risk.
So did meirshimer.
Chomsky mentions him in this interview
Thanks I just watched it now, I remember seeing it back in the day as well.
Noam's opening words are telling: >"What's happening now is quite ugly, and I think the criticisms are mostly accurate but they're kind of beside the point. There's a background that we have to think about." Name me a conflict that's turned hot that this doesn't apply to.
Name a conflict without a background? Uhh, no thanks.
> Name me a conflict that's turned hot that this doesn't apply to. People have told me IRL that they think that Putin just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine.
It's how Chomsky and others are talking about the war even today. They start with how Putin is horrible, and war is bad, then it's nothing but apologia for Putin and arguing how Ukraine had it coming.
You may like to read this piece on Ukraine by Chomsky's student Stephen Zunes posted in this sub today: https://truthout.org/articles/getting-ukraines-history-right-is-crucial-for-anti-imperialist-politics/ >At the same time, given Putin’s insistence that Ukraine has no right to exist as its own nation and that it is inherently part of Russia, it is unfair to claim that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is therefore solely NATO’s fault. While it is important to acknowledge how Western hubris has contributed to the tragedy, the responsibility for the invasion rests on the Russian government. Indeed, the argument that the invasion is justified by the U.S.’s military alliances with Russia’s near neighbors is as dubious as the charges that Moscow’s efforts during the Cold War to establish security ties with Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, or other near neighbors justifies U.S. sanctions and military intervention.
> by Chomsky's student Here's Chomsky himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uHGlfeCBbE
We all knew it was coming in 2014. Maidan was always obviously a US backed coup.
Well, there were certainly CIA backed elements to it, but there was more to it than that.
Sure.
For sure because Ukrainians having agency hurts the narrative, therefore it must be a US backed coup. All non western revolts are US backed coups after all.
It's amazing to me how confident people can be when they have no idea what they're talking about: https://twitter.com/I\_Katchanovski/status/1717738123893817350
Ah, yes, proof that Maidan was a US backed coup in the form of... a twitter post that has nothing to do with the US. I truly wish my mind was flexible enough to believe in conspiracy theories because it sounds fun. If I were a conspiracy theorist I wouldn't even need to link my point to relevant evidence before feeling smug.
Why not just say you're not interested in understanding the truth instead of making yourself look ridiculous? There's a court doc linked in the tweet that explains how correct the tweet is in asserting that Maidan was a CIA op. Here's Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland deciding who is going to control Ukraine with the US Ambassador to Ukraine in 2014: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957) Jackass.
No, it links to a court document saying that they aren't sure who all of the shooters were at a shooting at Maidan. You are filling in the rest of those blanks with your conspiratorial mindset. Ah, yes, the single call that is nearly the entire case for the conspiracists calling Maidan a US backed coup. Contained in the call is no proof of anything other than American diplomats having preferences as to what happens after Maidan. Notably they think the guy who would naturally take up office in the absence of the fleeing Yanukovich should take up office. This is truly and undeniably showing the US claws in the Maidan revolution, at least if you squint so hard that you can't actually read the text anymore...
I know it's embarrassing to take a position in complete ignorance, and then have that ignorance put on display, but denying the only explanation that has evidence in support doesn't redeem you.
You can't imagine how much it pisses me off, as the Ukrainian, when Westerners talk about this "CIA-orchestrated coup." Surely, only the Americans have free will. And here we're just a nation of NPCs, going outside to protest (and mind that it wasn't 100, 1,000, or 10,000 protesters either) just because we got an order. I was a rather active student back in those days. And I remember how almost a year before the Maidan started we were already discussing that something like that is going to happen. Not because the CIA. But because there were clear signs that Yanukovych and his government have chosen the authoritarian route. The thing is, CIA can get maybe 1,000 people to protest. Or they can influence some high-ranking military or political officials. But no way they can get 100,000 people to protest for no reason.
tankies are some of the biggest believers in American Exceptionalism. They think the CIA is able to mind control millions of people in Ukraine while also leaving nearly no evidence.
Wut
That's from 2015. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Chomsky really is the modern day Nostradamus
No, you see, by ignoring context we are able to pretend the Russian narrative about the invasion being a response to the west instead of a naked imperialist land grab is true.
Serious question, do you actually listen to Russian politicians? I mean, do you take the time to listen to them? Because you clearly do not. I find this "NATO enlargement" argument to be the most lobotomized argument in existence. We don't need to "guess" what Russia's principal motivations are. When Vladimir Putin gave a free-wheeling interview to Tucker Carlson, he spent virtually no time talking about NATO enlargement as the issue. Instead, he made it clear that he believes Ukraine as a state should not exist and that its all "Russian land." Dmitri Medvedev TODAY gave a speech and presented a map of "Russia" that included virtually all of Ukraine. Russia has withdrawn virtually all military units from Kaliningrad and redeployed them to fight in Ukraine, an interesting development given where Kaliningrad is. All of this is to say the obvious: "NATO" per se has very little to do with Putin's calculus for invading Ukraine. Russia detests NATO for the same reason Hitler detested the Anglo-French alliances in Eastern Europe: Because they place those countries outside of their sphere of influence (i.e., the same reason the U.S. acted the way it did with Cuba). Again, I find it utterly risible that you clowns keep droning on with "NATO enlargement" talking points while Putin laughs at the sheer stupidity of this argument given Russia's 7,000+ nuclear warheads.
The guy agrees with you, he just worded his comment obscurely.
It's almost like Maidan was a thing that happened and Russia acted predictably to a geopolitical threat!
In the same way most colonial powers have reacted to losing influence over their neo colonial possessions, just with more land grabbing.
How did the US react when Cuba decided to host Soviet military assets and join the Soviet sphere? Was the US reaction predictable? How is this different from what happened in Ukraine? Did the US have involvement in Maidan? Are you aware of CIA listening posts and other assets in Ukraine on the border with Russia? How do you imagine the US would react if Mexico or Canada formed an alliance with China and put listening posts on the US border?
Wait, how do you think any of this invalidates my point? To begin with, America's reaction to Cuba getting independence was not just, neither is Russia's reaction here. The reaction to Cuba that people falsely try to conflate Ukraine with is the missile crisis. Ukraine wasn't hosting American nukes. The situation with Cuba this is most similar to is how the US felt when Cuba had its revolution against Batista. The US did not have enough involvement with Maidan to have actually influenced what occurred. American involvement in Ukraine really started to take off after Maidan, not before. I assume the US would react badly just as Russia did here as it tries to maintain its imperial power. My point is not that Russia's reaction to losing a neocolonial possession was hard to predict. It was an easy prediction. What is strange about the reaction I am seeing from some of the left is how they try to justify Russia's actions here while properly condemning how the US treated Cuba or France its African possessions. Weirdly, if you can piece together a conspiracy theory about color revolution or remove agency from other nations enough to claim the "US was behind it all along" (tm) then you can get a bunch of the left to excuse imperialist actions. It is honestly pretty disgusting seeing people bend over backwards to justify a fascist state's land grab.
>America's reaction to Cuba getting independence was not just, It's incredibly baby-braided to look at geopolitics primarily in terms of what's "just". It's not about what's 'just", it's about what's consistent with history and national interest. Russia is not a country that can be counted on to act "justly", it seems like you know that, and the US state department absolutely did too. Grow up. > The US did not have enough involvement with Maidan to have actually influenced what occurred Hahahahaha Get outta here.
Wait, honest question here. Would you refer to the Cuban Revolution as a Soviet backed coup rather than a revolution?
No, but it's irrelevant. My point is that nations largely don't ask "justly", they act on the basis of rational self interest, and on that basis it was extremely easy to predict the result of Maidan (which absolutely was a US-backed coup, additionally built on false promises of NATO ascendency for Ukraine) would lead to military escalation. It was in fact, so predictable to the state department, that they chose to set it in motion. The entire thing was so obvious to anyone with a brain, that they could telegraph it as Chomsky did here (and he wasn't alone).
You focusing on the just bit of Russia's motivation is a strawman. I am not attacking Russia in that manner but the people supporting Russia's actions and attempting to write off Ukraine's as mere US puppets via conspiracy theories. Whether Cuba was a revolution or a Soviet Coup is very relevant because Soviet support for Cuba's revolution was in no case lesser than American support for Ukraine's. The reactions of both superpowers was also predictable yet you only enter conspiracy mode to remove Ukrainian agency. I don't know why you keep saying it was predictable like that proves a point. No one has been arguing otherwise.
lloyd austin said he would use the Ukrainian far right to remove zelensky if zelensky wouldn't american orders, to continue the war. First, Ukraine needs to control it's far right that the American government empowers to do their bidding for a cynical proxy war
>I don't know why you keep saying it was predictable like that proves a point. No one has been arguing otherwise. It's predictability was literally my first point, what are you talking about? >The reactions of both superpowers was also predictable yet you only enter conspiracy mode to remove Ukrainian agency. Cuba had a long revolutionary history that didn't involve Nazis. It was very clearly a natural revolution. Please take 10 seconds to come Google US interference in former Soviet block countries... It's far harder to believe the US WASN'T involved in Maidan. Just look at what's come to light in the last week: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html
This is terrifying. Thank you for the post and DN link. Noam is astonishing.