by Царица Луна » Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:21 am
I see Russia's involvement in Ukraine to be justified because Ukraine is of significant geopolitical importance to Russia. Though I have an opinion on the legitimacy of the Crimean referendum, it's ultimately irrelevant because the ultimate goal is to maintain control of perhaps the most ideal location in the Black Sea for a naval base. Now what is being done is to exert as much influence in Ukraine especially in case it does eventually join NATO.
Historically, Russia's survival from Western invasion was largely due to a long buffer zone. In terms of terrain, Russia's western border isn't ideal because it's mostly flat land; no mountain lines that would serve as a natural defensive position so a long buffer zone is the best way to make do with the geography. But we know that by the end of the Cold War, Russia's western-most European buffer zone went from the border of East Germany to the border of Belarus (technically Kaliningrad but that's an exclave). I believe agreements have been made between Russia and the West to not expand NATO east of Germany, but obviously such an agreement has been broken as NATO has expanded increasingly close to Russian borders over two decades; a largely anti-Russian alliance approaching Russian borders would be seen as an aggressive move and so the country is geopolitically less secured. Also it doesn't help that American bases seem to essentially surround Russia. You may say that NATO has no intentions to, say, declare war on Russia but obviously the West has little trust in Russia. Why should Russia trust the West on this?
Hypothetically, if USSR survived and USA collapsed by the end of the Cold War, and if most of Europe became under Soviet influence... The thought of having, say, Mexico becoming a potential ally of the Soviets would pose a great geopolitical danger to the US; there would probably be a Mexico Crisis in that alternate universe.
People have compared Putin to Hitler. I would have to disagree with that because of the one key difference (there are others) in the reason for being militarily involved in other countries: Russia is playing defensively whereas Nazi Germany played offensively. Russia's international military involvement may be seen as an aggressive move but it's ultimately to be geopolitically secured. So I believe Russia must recreate the USSR in some form (more as a military alliance than something driven by ideology). I see Russia to be mostly satisfied if the following countries were under its influence. I'm less certain of the importance of Central Asia. I suppose as long as American influence there is not strong, Russia needs not to be concerned for that region.
Russia and the West seem to have many conflicting national interests. So it would greatly benefit the West if Russia collapsed, no longer being a rival. If Russia's collapse means ceding of states, the West would be able to take advantage of those states and extract resources.
So why do I take the position I have? Ultimately, my stance is not purely pro-Russia; my stance is anti-unipolarity. Unsure if believing above could actually happen is considered absurd, but no doubt would it please the West. If this happens, I would want China to become a superpower so that they could counter the West. However, I see their ability to do so to be notably less likely than that of Russia largely due to their economic dependence on the US. If the West manages to achieve unipolarity, I believe there is great potential to exploit the rest of the world without strong resistance. This isn't an inherent trait of the West; USSR would do the same if they won the Cold War (in which I would want the West to exert its power). I believe there must be a balance of power in the world; the farther away we can be from unipolarity, the better. As much as I would like peace in Ukraine, I have to say peace in Ukraine but in Russia's favour because I see Ukraine as being a small part of a much greater conflict.
Last edited by
Царица Луна on Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.