“NATO enlargement caused the war” is basically saying “I had to rob that house because he was buying an insurance policy and a burglar alarm”. It’s nonsense bollocks
It is nonsense. Householders shouldn't need to act aggressively when their neighbours take security precautions. Yet householders are not entirely free in these kinds of precautions: sometimes they must register their alarms. They can build fences, but not above a certain height or within a certain distance of the common boundary. They have maintenance obligations. Even householders are not entirely free to do what they want on their own land.
I'd like to draw your attention to two other articles of recent date. One is this: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/high-high-high-soci-high-society, which asks "Why can nation states not act like a society?" In a way, it anticipates the response to your remark. The conventions that apply to ordinary citizens just don't seem to apply to governments. This disproportionality of the Israeli response to the Hamas attack is one such instance. And, in this constellation, there is one government in particular that invites caution, and that is dealt with in the other article of recent date: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/why-should-mr-trump-obey-the-law.
America, like Russia, cannot be trusted to play by the rules. It makes rules, but it also breaks those rules. That's fine if you're America, or for that matter Russia, but it renders their actings in international diplomacy to something like those of two mob gangs. Effectively, what NATO expansion did was cock a snoot to Russia and implicitly crow, "Whadyagonnadoboutit?" Well, where we are now is what they did about it. And my contention is that smarty-pants America should have had the nouse to foresee that. And, who knows? Maybe they did.
I didn't say it "caused the war". I said it was a factor.
You and I see NATO differently, Graham. I see NATO as a group of protectionist allies, who, like the UN made the mistake of allowing single Country vetoes to destroy peaceful settlements. You mentioned the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These occurred because the United States (of which I am a loyal citizen) bamboozled NATO. It is a well known fact that the attackers on September 11, 2001 were primarily from Saudi Arabia with a very few from Yemen. There was not ONE single attacker from either Afghanistan or Iraq. BUT our business leaders had business dealings and alliances with Saudi Arabia so heaven forbid we should declare war, or even negotiate with the Saudi's to punish those who planned and/or financed the terrorist attack. Osama bin Laden was the son of an influential Saudi business man, so, my goodness, we couldn't ask him to hand over his asshole son for punishment.
We could possibly justify our attack on Afghanistan. since they had 'allowed' Osama bin Laden to train his troops on Afghanistan soil, but even that is stretching it - we should have negotiated with their government to turn over any members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization to us.
There was not even a shred of evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11 attack, BUT Iraq had oil, Saudi Arabia were our business buddies, and Afghanistan had nothing the George W Bush regime wanted.
Moving on to your condemnation of NATO for welcoming former members of the Soviet bloc; Russia for eons has been an authoritarian government, before Lenin and Trotsky, the Czars (or Tsars if you prefer) ruled Russia with iron fists. There was the ruling class and the serfs who into the 20th Century were treated like non-human beasts, hovering on the verge of starvation and ignorance. After the break up of the USSR, is it any wonder that those Countries within the Continent of Europe who had been under Russian domination now sought to join both NATO and the European Union? The EU even tolerates forms of authoritarianism - although I don't know why.
It was no surprise to me that Ukraine, under its newfound self government with Zelensky, wished to join both NATO and the EU.
Vladimir Putin has no legitimate claim to Ukraine. Yes, since 1922 they (Ukrainians) were willing parties in the USSR. But you have to also remember that Lenin and Trotsky truly believed they could form a true communist regime. They could not. And Stalin, a cruel authoritarian, like trump slime, organized an oligarchical dictatorship to the benefit of the handful of wealthy. Putin continues in Stalin's footsteps. He wants power and control, and I, for one will be happy to see him and his whole damned oligarchy DEAD.
We know "why" the East Bloc fled to NATO. That is not the question. The question is simply: did NATO's acceptance of their applications lead directly or indirectly to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
“NATO enlargement caused the war” is basically saying “I had to rob that house because he was buying an insurance policy and a burglar alarm”. It’s nonsense bollocks
It is nonsense. Householders shouldn't need to act aggressively when their neighbours take security precautions. Yet householders are not entirely free in these kinds of precautions: sometimes they must register their alarms. They can build fences, but not above a certain height or within a certain distance of the common boundary. They have maintenance obligations. Even householders are not entirely free to do what they want on their own land.
I'd like to draw your attention to two other articles of recent date. One is this: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/high-high-high-soci-high-society, which asks "Why can nation states not act like a society?" In a way, it anticipates the response to your remark. The conventions that apply to ordinary citizens just don't seem to apply to governments. This disproportionality of the Israeli response to the Hamas attack is one such instance. And, in this constellation, there is one government in particular that invites caution, and that is dealt with in the other article of recent date: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/why-should-mr-trump-obey-the-law.
America, like Russia, cannot be trusted to play by the rules. It makes rules, but it also breaks those rules. That's fine if you're America, or for that matter Russia, but it renders their actings in international diplomacy to something like those of two mob gangs. Effectively, what NATO expansion did was cock a snoot to Russia and implicitly crow, "Whadyagonnadoboutit?" Well, where we are now is what they did about it. And my contention is that smarty-pants America should have had the nouse to foresee that. And, who knows? Maybe they did.
I didn't say it "caused the war". I said it was a factor.
You and I see NATO differently, Graham. I see NATO as a group of protectionist allies, who, like the UN made the mistake of allowing single Country vetoes to destroy peaceful settlements. You mentioned the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These occurred because the United States (of which I am a loyal citizen) bamboozled NATO. It is a well known fact that the attackers on September 11, 2001 were primarily from Saudi Arabia with a very few from Yemen. There was not ONE single attacker from either Afghanistan or Iraq. BUT our business leaders had business dealings and alliances with Saudi Arabia so heaven forbid we should declare war, or even negotiate with the Saudi's to punish those who planned and/or financed the terrorist attack. Osama bin Laden was the son of an influential Saudi business man, so, my goodness, we couldn't ask him to hand over his asshole son for punishment.
We could possibly justify our attack on Afghanistan. since they had 'allowed' Osama bin Laden to train his troops on Afghanistan soil, but even that is stretching it - we should have negotiated with their government to turn over any members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization to us.
There was not even a shred of evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11 attack, BUT Iraq had oil, Saudi Arabia were our business buddies, and Afghanistan had nothing the George W Bush regime wanted.
Moving on to your condemnation of NATO for welcoming former members of the Soviet bloc; Russia for eons has been an authoritarian government, before Lenin and Trotsky, the Czars (or Tsars if you prefer) ruled Russia with iron fists. There was the ruling class and the serfs who into the 20th Century were treated like non-human beasts, hovering on the verge of starvation and ignorance. After the break up of the USSR, is it any wonder that those Countries within the Continent of Europe who had been under Russian domination now sought to join both NATO and the European Union? The EU even tolerates forms of authoritarianism - although I don't know why.
It was no surprise to me that Ukraine, under its newfound self government with Zelensky, wished to join both NATO and the EU.
Vladimir Putin has no legitimate claim to Ukraine. Yes, since 1922 they (Ukrainians) were willing parties in the USSR. But you have to also remember that Lenin and Trotsky truly believed they could form a true communist regime. They could not. And Stalin, a cruel authoritarian, like trump slime, organized an oligarchical dictatorship to the benefit of the handful of wealthy. Putin continues in Stalin's footsteps. He wants power and control, and I, for one will be happy to see him and his whole damned oligarchy DEAD.
You know that that's a whole article on its own?
We know "why" the East Bloc fled to NATO. That is not the question. The question is simply: did NATO's acceptance of their applications lead directly or indirectly to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?