site banner
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The broad thrust of this article is arguing against a strawman. Nobody really disagrees that Russians might have said NATO was a threat. Anyone in the West can point that out freely and openly without fear of reproach. The issue is that NATO wasn't actually a threat in any plausible scenario in the way that Russians were describing it. Russians (or Putin specifically) typically alluded to NATO aggression either from a ground invasion or a nuclear first-strike, both of which were never in the cards given it would start World War 3 and mean a huge portion of the Earth's population from both sides being wiped out in an instant. Some Russians may have drank the propaganda koolaid and genuinely believed the West was willing to eliminate Russia in a geopolitical equivalent of a murder-suicide, but they were mostly relegated to the fringes.

What Russians/Putin were actually worried about was one of three things:

  • Western cultural and economic hegemony. NATO expansion doesn't really directly impact this, but NATO expansion serves as a barometer that the West is still triumphing over the former Soviet Union.

  • The West fomenting pro-democracy movements in Russia, similar to the Color Revolutions. Much of Russian society and Putin in particular have a deep antipathy for democracy, seeing it as not only a personal threat but as an invasive, enemy ideology and incorrectly blaming it for the turmoil of the Yeltsin years. Again, this doesn't really have anything directly to do with NATO expansion, but the fact that NATO is expanding at all means the West is robust enough to possibly try something like a pro-democracy coup in the future.

  • Loss of their sphere of influence. Many Russians still see their country as a Great Power, and the fact that NATO even has the possibility of being extended to Ukraine is deeply insulting.

So yes, many Russians say "NATO is a threat". But no, no reasonable Russian thinks NATO is a threat in a conventional sense since Russia still has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world. Instead, saying "NATO is a threat" is used as a dogwhistle to stoke generalized anti-Western sentiment or to appeal to delusions of grandeur, i.e. that Russia should reassemble the borders of the Soviet Union.

The issue is that NATO wasn't actually a threat in any plausible scenario in the way that Russians were describing it

Really?

Firstly, nuclear weapons are protection for today. Will it still be relevant in 20 or 30 years? Or will the development of missile defense systems make strategic missiles irrelevant? But the multiple numerical superiority of NATO and the territories of Ukraine convenient for the offensive will remain relevant much longer.

Second, proxy wars. Georgia is a perfect example. The creation of a supply and training base for Chechen fighters through the Caucasus mountains is a catastrophic threat that almost nothing can counter (the camps themselves are located on NATO territory, and it is almost impossible to effectively cut off supplies through the Caucasus mountains). The borders with Ukraine are not so obviously dangerous, but they can also be used to support the armed opposition (which still needs to be created, which is not easy, but makes sense with such a potential for supply through Ukraine). And the large length of these borders makes the supply cut much more difficult than for the borders with the Baltics or Finland.

And the restriction of access to markets and the loss of a sphere of influence are negative events in themselves, although not a military threat.

Second, proxy wars. Georgia is a perfect example. The creation of a supply and training base for Chechen fighters through the Caucasus mountains is a catastrophic threat that almost nothing can counter

You probably haven't heard about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Abkhazia_(1992–1993)

Russian meddling in affairs of its neighbors began long before 2008, or Chechen Wars. So it was really the other way around — fighters from North Caucasus (including Chechens) supported by RF invaded Georgia and fought against government forces, and eventually prevailed. Also they participated in cleansing of ethnic Georgians there. It really shows how disingenuous this argument is

we invade neighboring countries, incite instability there; oh how awful, now they hate us, we must invade them to secure our borders!

It has little to do with the topic of conversation.

Well, your view of the Ossetian-Georgian and Abkhaz-Georgian conflicts is slightly simplified. A country that bloodlessly gains independence from the USSR and a year later decides to use the army against the region that wanted independence from Georgia.

Basayev joined the conflict after the start of the war.

"Incite instability there" happened before him.

And it is rather difficult to call him and his forces supporting him Russian. (Although de jure they were.) But even then, Russia had little control over Chechnya.

Well, your view of the Ossetian-Georgian and Abkhaz-Georgian conflicts is slightly simplified.

Those are not "complicated" conflicts, just like Donbass War wasn't complicated. Without Russian involvement, most likely Georgia would have won. Basayev was supported by Russians back then (so you aren't correct that Chechens acted fully independently), but Russian support to Abkhaz separatist (both military and financial) was much more wider in scope. They even supported separatist with their air force.

the region that wanted independence from Georgia.

You do know that Abkhazia back then was 50% Georgian by population?

Basayev was supported by Russians back then

Was the dude who actively supported Dudayev's separatist government since 1991, hijacked a Russian plane with hostages in 1992, and actively participated in the struggle for the independence of Ichkeria, really a Russian proxy?

but Russian support to Abkhaz separatist

And also Russia evacuated Georgian military from Sukhumi and protect Shevardnadze in Poti. Perhaps the absence of a civil war in Georgia or refusal to use army against regions with separatist sentiments would help more than minor excesses and the supply of weapons in the interests of all parties to the conflict.

just like Donbass War

I understand that if in 2014 Ukrainian government had not used the army against Donbass, Ukraine would have peacefully lost all eastern territories. But I am not ready to justify desire of Ukrainian government to kill because they did not want to lose some of their power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamil_Basayev#Abkhaz%E2%80%93Georgian_conflict

In a July 2020 interview, the former Russian Federal Security Service chief Sergei Stepashin admitted that Basayev cooperated with military intelligence while fighting against Georgian government in Abkhazia


And also Russia evacuated Georgian military from Sukhumi and protect Shevardnadze in Poti. Perhaps the absence of a civil war in Georgia or refusal to use army against regions with separatist sentiments would help more than minor excesses and the supply of weapons in the interests of all parties to the conflict.

It were not "minor" excesses. Russian assistance to Abkhaz separatists was extensive and well documented.

But I am not ready to justify desire of Ukrainian government to kill because they did not want to lose some of their power.

Then don't. But if the Ukrainian government did not act on military activity by Russian proxies in Donbass, there would had been another Ukrainian government.