Is Putin right?

[Workingman]

Since the fall of the Wall and the Soviet Union the West has moved eastwards. Former Soviet states have also moved westwards, some to the EU.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia, Poland and Hungary are now firmly in the West.

That eastward and westward movement breaks a promise given by US Secretary of State James Baker to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 about NATO expansion.

We are at Russia's border, so it has nowhere to go - cornered rat like - and it, in turn, has Kaliningrad, an enclave from where it could hit anywhere in Europe with its intermediate range (nuclear) weapons.

Let's sit down and talk, eh?

[cromwell]

Yes, Putin is right.
NATO has and is behaving provocatively.
Yes we should talk, but will we?

[Workingman]

I stood on the ramparts in Germany in the 70s and 80s when the clock was at 23:57+, we were nearly there. We did not want to go to war, but we were ready.

The Soviets had the arms and the will, but held off and did not come. I have no idea why.

We are now the equivalent of the Soviets. We are on their doorstep and, quite rightly, they do not like it.

When it comes to MAD, (Mutual Assured Destruction) the Soviets (Russians) fully bought in. Any attack on Moscow, and other places, would see the wholesale (pre-emptive) release of many Russian weapons on targets N. S. E. and W. even on non-combatants. That thinking has not changed.

[Suff]

I have been of the opinion, for some time, that Russia is like the US in the 1920's. Gangsters, tax issues, currency issues, law avoidance also an issue.

At the same time it is a country fully into the 21st century.

As a country, twice overrun by Germany and once by France, the race memory does not engender trust.

Talking is fine, but without trust, it is just that, talk.

The problem is that when someone is threatened, they react aggressively. To limit the scope of that aggression, there need to be consequences and for the likes of Ukraine, there needs support from NATO States.

Whilst countries have joined the EU and, as a result, NATO has expanded; NATO itself is essentially defensive. It is not expansive outside of independent nation states wishing to join.

NATO will never attack to gain territory. It will, however, attack to defend territory.

In the end it comes down to trust. Putin, with his overtures to Turkey, has struck at the south Eastern heart of NATO. He has then caused friction and aggression in South East Europe.

Great to talk, but both sides need to trust.

Today trust is lacking. That is the first thing to fix before asking if anyone is right.

[Workingman]

When trust is lacking then so much more the reason to talk.

NATO might not be intrinsically aggressive, but look at things from the Russian (Putin) point of view. NATO was essentially set up to stop old Russian (Soviet) expansion westward. At the time the Warsaw Pact countries provided a buffer between it (Russia) and NATO. They have now gone and NATO is on Russia's doorstep (border) and she has nowhere to go so pushes back.

In other arenas (Space Station, medical research, etc) both sides work well together, so it would be wise to talk and build trust is my opinion.

[Suff]

I'm not against talking. So long as it is not 1939 revisited.

Putin also needs political wins to stay in power and talking is not always what the people want to hear.

Russia will need another few decades before people start asking "why". Or a lot more body bags.

Certainly talk. But walk softly and carry a big stick, then the less "cultured" know where they stand.

NATO is the biggest leveller out there. So long as it exists Putin cannot unilaterally decide what he is going to do vi's a vi's foreign nations on his border.

It was NATO that finally settled the Balkan war.

NATO wasn't just about protecting against the USSR, it was about protecting Germany and stripping it of the ability to fight a war of aggression. The cost of peace if you see it that way. Much as the EU has done economically.

Most of Putin's issues with NATO are around the limits on his actions and his own knowledge of what he would use it for.

That does not make it a threat and we should not allow him to set that agenda when we do talk.

[cromwell]

NATO might not be intrinsically aggressive, but look at things from the Russian (Putin) point of view. NATO was essentially set up to stop old Russian (Soviet) expansion westward. At the time the Warsaw Pact countries provided a buffer between it (Russia) and NATO. They have now gone and NATO is on Russia's doorstep (border) and she has nowhere to go so pushes back.

Quite agree. The Russians see themselves as being surrounded by enemies.

[Suff]

What is the difference between being surrounded by enemies and surrounded by, at worst, trading partners and, at best, friends?

In this case it is more a matter of attitude and actions.

Firstly attitude, both suspicion and the belief that they are intrinsically "entitled" to their place in the world.

Actions in which they follow up on the "entitled" attitude and then get extremely surprised when others object.

No I am not blinding myself from the way the US acts, just stating that the ability to change that viewpoint needs more than one attitude change.

Also useful to remember that I have explained the situation Russia is in with the way the Ukraine treats born and bred Ukrainians who just happened to wind up with a Russian passport.

I'm not saying that Russia did not take advantage when they acted, but if you are going to be hung out to dry by the West, why just take a lamb.

[Workingman]

Suff, you are very hawkish abot this with your "You change your ways, then we'll talk" stance.

It is the very epitome of the definition of 'stupid': doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We have been doing it for decades, and so have they.

Some of us would like to give a chance to doing things the other way - talking first.

And let us not forget that when it comes to energy supplies Russia holds all the aces and most of the picture cards. It supplies Europe with about 30% of its petrol / oil imports, and 40% of gas imports. It will be decades before mainland Europe can break free of those bonds.

Attitudes need to change, on both sides, and some of us are prepared to give it a go.

[Suff]

No that wasn't my point so I put it over badly.

My view was that talking is fine, but Constructive talk will require a change of attitudes on both sides. But Russia has to come out of its silo before talk is constructive.