From the logical point of view, let us consider the 2021 controversy between Russia and the US/NATO, leading to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The essence of Russia’s demands to both the US and NATO were:

  • NATO should stop expanding to the East (and to Russian borders).
  • NATO should not let Ukraine join NATO.
  • NATO should not deploy missiles, nuclear weapons, and other strategic weapons near Russian borders.

These were Russian demands motivated by the view that violation of these demands is a security threat to Russia and the whole of Europe. (The demand of “rolling back the NATO to its initial borders” was motivated by the different view that NATO had broken its promises to Russia.)

The negotiations ultimately failed as the US and NATO completely ignored the essential demands presented above. One of the main arguments of the US and NATO was the following:

Unlike the Warsaw pact, NATO never expanded by force. Countries petitioned to join freely. NATO has an open doors policy and it will never give up such policy.

Western politicians and Western media massively presented such arguments. The question of Russian security concerns was ignored altogether.

Intuitively, there is something fishy about the argument above as NATO is not a charity organization but a military block.

On social media, I have presented several times my objection to the argument above:

This argument is often used in Western propaganda but it is totally invalid in the context of the present Russia/NATO controversy.

First, the member states of NATO have to make a decision whether to accept the application of the new country. If they decide to accept it, it is NATO-s decision to enlarge.

Second, from the viewpoint of the security of Russia, it is largely irrelevant how did NATO enlarge. The only relevant thing is that it enlarged and came closer to Russian borders.

To my nasty surprise, I have always received feedback that I am a “Kremlin agent”, “Kremlin troll”, “influenced by Kremlin propaganda”, “a useful idiot”, etc. Even though in late Soviet Estonia, I was among those few who first supported the movement that Estonia should step out from the Soviet Union and the Estonian Republic should be reestablished.

My argument is purely logical indeed:

Suppose there are bordering countries A and B and a powerful military block with the codename MIL.

A wants to join the military block MIL. First, A has to decide to write an application letter. Then, the military block MIL declares that it has an open-door policy. Nevertheless, the applicant has to satisfy some prefixed criteria. Moreover, every member of the block MIL has to give its agreement. In sum, country A can join the block MIL only if MIL decides to accept A. This decision is made by the block MIL and not by country A, and it is MIL-s decision to extend.

The neighbouring country B regards the block MIL at its borders as dangerous. So B asks the block MIL not to extend and not to accept A’s application to avoid possible conflicts. But the block MIL answers that it is country A’s free decision. — It is demagoguery as the decision to accept A’s application must be made by the block MIL, not by country A.

If the block MIL forces A to join it, it is a problem for country A and not a direct problem for the neighbouring country B. On the other hand, if the block MIL extends to its border, country B has a security problem anyway, regardless of whether country A wrote an application letter or was occupied by MIL.

Much more can be said about the Russia/NATO controversy discussed above. For example, an argument can be invoked that NATO (the block MIL) is a purely defensive block. — The reply would be that it is up to Russia (country B) to evaluate its security risks. Moreover, the leading countries of NATO (the block MIL) have participated in many aggressive wars and occupied some other countries for tens of years.

It is evident that the US/NATO argument from the freedom of joining military blocks is fallacious as these blocks are not charity organizations. Perhaps the argument can be improved, but the conflict remains: one has the freedom to join, and the other has corresponding security concerns.

To my arguments, it has often been objected in such a manner as if the mere reference to Russia’s security concerns makes one a Russian proponent. Again: such an attitude is highly obscurant. It is the ABC of game theory that you have to know your opponent’s moves to calculate your best move. To predict your opponent’s actions, you have to know your opponent’s concerns, aims, values, and knowledge.

Let me finish this essay:

Completely ignoring Russia’s security concerns has led to the Ukrainian war.

I have been accused of spreading Russian propaganda merely for criticizing logically invalid arguments of NATO. In Soviet times, I was accused of spreading Western propaganda simply for criticizing logically invalid arguments of communists.

There is no difference.

Published by wrestlerblower

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: