"Collisions: The Origins of the War in Ukraine and the New Global Instability," the latest book b...

On May 2, 2024, Maria sat down with Michael Kimmage and Mary Elise Sarotte to discuss Michael's newest book, "Collisions the Origins of the War in Ukraine, and the New Global Instability."
"Collisions" is available for purchase from Oxford University Press (global.oup.com/academic/produ...) .

[@erichert1001]

It all boils down to Russia being politically tied to a zero-sum way of thinking. This is common to most dictators/autocrats.

[@vitoroliveirajorge368]

People did not understand who Putin actually is. He will never stop if he is not stopped.

[@trogdortpennypacker6160]

He has always asked for negotiations and there was already a peace back deal back in 2022 that we know Boris Johnson killed. Before that he tried Minsk, he also submitted a written proposal for a security architecture before the conflict and asked for talks. It's a shame morons like you are so ignorant of the events. So laughable he wants to march on Europe, you have a childlike view of the world. Lol, Ukrainian bot.

[@mindbomb9341]

Great show. Absolutely HORRIBLE audio quality on some of the microphones. So bad that there are times I cannot understand them.

[@NathansHVAC]

Video summery: The invations has nothing to do with nayto.

[@davos1409]

You guys suggest a history completely at odds with the arguments suggested by a considerable cohort blaming NATO expansion and US aggression. Your arguments appear quite speculative whereas the Russian argument seems to align more accurately with what actually happened.

[@olgajoachimosmundsen4647]

I assume you might have heard John Mearsheimer's arguments which is of course based also on a certain view of how the world works. Have you seen his 1993 article where he defends why Ukraine should consider not to give away it's nuclear weapons, and the potential threat from Russia? This was written before Nato expanded east.

[@HotPinkst17]

NATO doesn't expand. Sovereign nations change their economics, politics, and military to be good enough to be considered for the accession process, entirely due to internal motivations, and then all the member states consider if it is in their interests to allow the applicant to join. To suggest NATO expands is to deny the reality of the internal politics of the countries that would rather not be a target of Russia and went to incredibly difficult lengths to achieve success in the accession process.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

@@HotPinkst17 "NATO doesn't expand" To my knowledge NATO has expanded largely. And this not only by the wish of countries, but also promoted by active invitation of NATO to certain countries as done 2008 towards Ukraine and Georgia, pushed by US against Germany/France warning. For the free will of countries there is the interesting case of Cuba who wanted to join the USSR atomic shield against US aggression. On this free will of Cuba the US threatened atomic war to USSR if it would continue to station their atomic shield on Cuba. Obviously there is some limitation to the free will of countries and this limitation was set by the US. In how far expanding NATO to the border of Russia must then be considered a threat by Russia similiar the the fact US considered expanded the USSR atomic shield a threat to itself, everybody can answer by itself.

[@HotPinkst17]

@@friedhelmschroter8124 An invitation can not change a nation into a form that can undergo the accession process, there must be internal popular self determination to make the changes and investments that would allow meeting the stringent requirements an option. The only thing that could possibly motivate a nation to make the changes necessary to be in a position where it was possible to be considered for acceptance into NATO is that nation not wanting to be invaded by Russia. Russia itself has provided the needed internal motivation in it's neighbors to feel safer joining NATO than to remain outside of NATO. You bringing up Cuba is a whataboutism designed to distract from the reality that Russia has engaged in 9 wars against its neighbors since the fall of the Soviet Union. This aggressive behavior is the start and finish of what made it feel like a rational decision for a nation to seek to join NATO.

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

@@HotPinkst17 Are you aware how strange statements you are doing? 1) "NATO doesn't expand": Please look at a map to see NATO strong expansion starting about 10 years after the fall of the USSR. Above statement is absolute nonsense! 2) Now you are claiming that the invitation to join NATO for countries bordering with Russia in its core area is no aggressive stance of NATO towards Russia, because ... (sorry I cannot really understand what relation your words have to above view). 3) Are you aware what kind of reaction by Georgia the invitation to NATO had? 4) Many people consider Russia = USSR, but I do not agree. However what has happend in the past is not eradicated with the fall of the USSR and the West showed ZERO interest to integrate Russia, which missed initially any kind of orientation (but got this orientation over time based on Western and other countries reaction). Quite to contrast to integrate Russia the West took control of one after the next former Warsaw Pact/USSR country (not by force, but by free will of these countries). As far as I am aware Russia has not acted on this until Ukraine run into a situation with no solution. Please note, Russia has not taken action against Ukraine when some of its people revolted against its democratically elected president, but only much later when the West had confirmed that it is not willing to accept the red line put by Russia (no NATO membership of Ukraine, Georgia or other countries on the Russian border). Even after Putin had amassed his army around Ukraine he made for a last time clear he doesn't want war. Do you remember the negotiation results on this last try? (In my memory Biden said THERE IS NOTHING TO NEGOTIATE and neither Scholz nor Macron offered Russia as a minimum no NATO membership of Ukraine/Georgia). What would you do as Russia's leader seeing this Western reaction on your red line? 5) For me the case of Cuba is important in the overall understanding, because it shows how US wants and has enforced the way when atomic powers approach the border of other atomic powers. 6) Have you counted the number of wars the US (by its domininance/power the NATO/NATO member) has started or was engaged in (a clear desaster was Iraq 2003, which was based on a lie, but also US engagement against Palestinian persons is quite clear in recent months, ...)? 7) The key point is not if Ukraine or Georgia do want to join NATO, the key point is how NATO thinks and acts on such wish (if one prefers peace one should accept a strongly drawn red line, especially when one was enforcing such line in case of Cuba). In case of Ukraine/Georgia NATO (with support of US/EU) has acted deliberately in a way that had to result in war. And in my understanding the war is not against Ukraine (Russia had accepted that Ukraine wants to target EU membership) but against the US who wants to destroy Russia.

[@Thesebjustseb]

The speakers' attempt to portray NATO expansion as a complete non-factor in Russia's decision to invade (and indeed, flipping the script to suggest a deterrent effect instead) borders on contortionism. That said, I appreciate their alternative perspective and find it valuable in and of itself. Nonetheless, let us remember that the troubles started when we issued a NATO membership action plan for Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 (Georgia was invaded several months later). Later, US actions in 2014 were a slap in the face of the diplomatic efforts conducted at the time by EU foreign ministers, Russia and the Ukrainian opposition - so much so that the ascension of Yatseniuk to the office of Prime Minister could indeed be construed as an anti-democratic coup. The fact that the US foreign policy establishment continues to deny these events as triggers for the Ukraine invasion is a testament to its willful ignorance.

[@markn8535]

LOL the EU spends basically nothing on Defense. Nothing about the EU or NATO is an actual threat to Russia. Stop with the nonsense.

[@ayoungethan]

You are mixing up correlation amd causation. The NATO membership consideration arose from ongoing and unrelenting Russian hybrid aggression. Russia considers NATO morally equivalent to its imperial ambitions and doesn't understand (or admit that it understands) that membership is voluntary. In effect, it was too little too late to prevent another eg Chechnya. Arguing NATO membership caused the war is like arguing that a bystander offering to help a kid fend off a bully is what actually started the fight with the bully. In reality, it is Russia saying "This doesn't concern you, stay out of it and let me have my way."

[@friedhelmschroter8124]

@@ayoungethan Yes, the wish to become a NATO member is understandable, as is the wish to become a member of USSR/Russia/China/.... protection shield when under aggression from for example US as happened to Cuba in the 1960's and is happening to quite some countries. However, compared to the parents country wish (atomic powers like US, USSR/Russia, China), the wish of children countries is not really free. Cuba/USSR were forced by a threat of atomic war issued by US to refrain from their "free" wish to establish an atomic protection against the obvious US aggression. US/NATO has decided NOT TO LISTEN to repeated and ever stronger warnings of Russia against continued expansion directly to Russia's border (in contrast to USSR which obviously listened to the extreme warnings of US in case of Cuba). The result is now a war where US/NATO fights via the proxy Ukraine the war for dominance against Russia. For me it is very unclear how people can speak about imperial ambitions of Russia. The fact is that the US/NATO is expanding imperially while Russia is losing part by part of its influence hemisphere. And this losing is continuing with EU push towards Moldovia and Georgia.