What do poverty rates or liberal democracy have to do with NATO expansion?
Russians will be sensitive to what happens in their frontier regardless of who sits in the Kremlin, or which party dominates the Duma. They don't want to see an alien military alliance straddle their borderlands. That's the story. That's the WHOLE story. And it won't change even if Putin drops dead today, and Navalny is elected president tomorrow.
Why? So far Russia invaded only neighbors which weren't in NATO, so apparently joining NATO was (and still is) right way to protect your country from Russian aggression.
I was addressing two separate points, the effect of liberal democracy on Russia and the NATO expansion being treated as a threat. I probably should have made that more clear.
We made a genuine attempt to integrate with the West. We were rebuffed. That seems, just like you say, pretty obvious to me.
Sure, it was all good and dandy for a while, especially in the context of economic cooperation and dismantling communism. But when you look at deeper issues like national security, you can't deny that Russia got completely tuned out by the West. I still don't understand what the US was thinking when they tried to expand NATO into Georgia and Ukraine, two critical security frontiers for Moscow (even as they said they wouldn't do it [1]).
And in case you missed it, we voiced our opposition to NATO expansion loudly, bitterly, and repeatedly over the last two decades. You just chose to ignore it. And now the West collectively acts like the resulting conflict is some kind of unexpected flare-up of Russian paranoia/empire syndrome/general wickedness. John Mearsheimer put it best [2], so I don't want to keep beating a dead horse.
In the end, if you are trying to build a more integrated and safer world, you have to take the interests and sensibilities of all major stakeholders into into account. That's how you build mutual trust. If you don't thread carefully you risk signaling disingenuousness and opportunism. So you get what you get.
PS
As a side note, I do find the cartoonization of this conflict very bizarre. Russian are the orcs, completely alien and wicked, Putin is the omnipotent Sauron, US is the noble and selfless Aragon, Trump is turncoat Saruman, and Europe and the wider world in general are apparently hobbits, plucky but completely clueless on their own. It's like an echo chamber.
That's entirely not true. The link specifically discusses promises made regarding areas outside of Germany. Directly from the link:
>The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory.
And that's like the second paragraph in the link. So apparently you didn't read the link (?).
edit:
You make one good point. The promises were made to Gorbachev in his capacity as leader of the USSR. And just few years later USSR blinked out of existence, so whatever promises were made to Gorbachev were non-binding in relation to Russia, technically a new state. The problem here, is that just 2 years later Yeltsin was made similar promises. Throughout the 1993-1996 period American officials went to great lengths to convince Yeltsin that direct NATO expansion was not on the table [1]:
>[In] a conversation that took place in Moscow in October 1993. U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher had traveled to Moscow to explain in advance of the January 1994 NATO summit that the United States would not support new members joining the alliance, but would rather develop a Partnership for Peace that would include all states of the former Warsaw Pact. Yeltsin’s relief was palpable. He thought he had dodged the NATO enlargement bullet at a time at which he was in a raging political battle against hardliners at home. A year later, when he discovered that enlargement was not only on the table but would in fact be proceeding, Yeltsin was apoplectic.
We can go back and forth with how non-binding and ambiguous these conversations were, but we can agree that Russians feel mislead. Furthermore, they now attribute active malice on the part of the West. Ultimately, this conflict didn't come to be in 2014 (or 2008), as some momentary caprice of Putin's. It was brewing since the late 1980s.
And your quote actually stated that promises were _not_ made there, author just tried to bring concerns of some anonymous 'multiple national leaders' as a confirmation.
>Unfortunately, they decided to commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things that made this relationship a lot less attractive than it could have been.
That describes US policy over the last 20 years. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
That isn't actually the tu quoque fallacy, although it does look quite similar at first glance.
A = [commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things]
B = [made this relationship a lot less attractive]
C = [it is wise to improve our relationship]
The original claim is A -> B, A(Russia) -> True.
The response is that A -> B, A(US) -> True. Therefore, if C(US), C(Russia) is also not ruled out. Logically sound.
This isn't claiming that rbanffy's argument is wrong because A(rbanffy). I suspect rbanffy is probably not even committing murders on foregin soil, le alone the other stuff, so it isn't a tu quoque fallacy. It is just pointing out that A isn't an international norm for cutting off productive relationships.
If you expect people to stop doing something disagreeable, you better make sure you are not deeply engaged in the same type of behavior. That seems fairly straight-forward.
As an individual American who is not involved in intelligence or military work, I can condemn such actions by any nation while maintaining moral consistency.
The point of that wiki article (tu quoque fallacy) is that the critic's moral character is irrelevant. The whole point is that you don't need 'moral consistency' to critique bad behavior.
So then why do you feel the need to justify yourself by saying that you don't work in defense? :) You basically stepped into the same trap you warmed me against :) Maintaining moral high ground seems to be a vital need, something on the level of instinct it seems. 'Tu quoque' or no 'tu quoque' we like to feel morally justified.
I just came off of finishing Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' and I couldn't tell who they were talking about. It sounded far too benign to be US foreign policy even!
Look up "Ancient Aliens debunked" on youtube. It's essentially a three-hour long feature about ancient technology and what could be done with it. Very cool.
edit: and yeah, they go into great detail when discussing ancient masonry. Basically, the ancients used sand (as an abrasive) and wooden saws to cut hard stone like granite.
The OP has a very strong point when it comes to money.
If they offer you a $800 wage, when your unemployment is $400, your effective earning rate for the work you are doing is just $400/mo. Cost-benefit analysis isn't in favor of working. The employers either have to offer something on top of the starting wage (like clear path to advancement), or raise the wage. Otherwise it's a fairly logical choice for people to stay home and draw unemployment.
What value does a bachelor’s degree have if some kid can just learn ruby and JavaScript on his own and go make $100k/yr at some startup? Of course a degree has value but it is possible to provide value without one. This is especially true in 2018 when anyone can learn pretty much anything online, and download whatever papers they want online and read them. Your mistake is in thinking that somehow a degree makes you special. It doesn’t. It just means you paid for a head start. Anyone can learn anything you already know and they can surpass your skill, whether or not you have a piece of paper certifying your knowledge.
Thats a pretty ignorant statement. I'd wager that there aren't many people who could/would put the same effort into self studying that would be required to pass a CS degree with decent grades. They also would probably not learn a lot of stuff that is not interesting to them, while CS students have no choice than to go through the materials. As an employer this also tells a story about who is taking the easy route vs working through a complete program over the span of years.
Obviously there are exceptions, but when there are a lot of applicants for a position, it's just an easy filter for employers.
You assume that everyone can teach themselves with the same efficiency and effectiveness as quality guided instruction from real teachers they can directly interact with. Some can, but most cannot. Education is not a waste.
When Snowden revealed the extent of NSA activities, it caused a momentary uproar but the people moved on pretty quickly after that. As far as I know (and let me know if I am wrong!!), there was no fallout for the government, and business continues as before.
So I am not sure if people will care this time either.
Snowdens' revelations had a massive effect on the tech. sector.
It provided security people with ammunition to push things like encryption of data over "private" network connections, which prevented their misuse by governments (or at least made it harder)
It also pushed tech. companies to publicly take positions on government spying, in general by insisting they wouldn't co-operate.
Snowden's revelations arguably were a significant factor in EU privacy law, including GDPR. In the U.S., government has been unable to regulate big business for awhile, about privacy or anything else.
Pretty sure that until recently, the preferred mode of trash disposal in NY was to tug it into the ocean and let it loose.
edit: Yep, see [1]
> Through most of its history until the mid-1900s, New York’s primary method for disposing of its waste was simply to dump it into the ocean. At one point, as much as 80% of New York’s garbage ended up out at sea.
I don't think Western-exported goods contribute massively to pollution in Asia. Local consumption drives most of it. You can't really blame disposable chopsticks or plastic bags in the Yellow River on Western consumers.
That being said, I disagree with the spirit of your comment. When ABC corp relocated to underdeveloped country so they can avoid regulatory burden (be it pollution, or labor laws), the end goal is to achieve competitive product pricing back home. A portion of the $$ they save in Asia is passed down to the Western consumer.
Whether you want to feel guilty about it ("they only make 50 cents an hour making my Nikes, outrageous!"), or proud ("they make a whole 50 cents thanks to me!") is up to you I guess, but the link is there.
You have hit the crux of the matter, it's almost entirely outside our control at the local level. Not using plastic as much has no effect on whether or not an Asian man throws his garbage in the river in China, or if the company contracted to deal with the waste does, but lies about it to us.
What you are proposing ends up as "don't do business with Asian countries because they can't be trusted to deal with the trash properly."
It's really easy to find photos of waterways all over the world, and it's abundantly clear which countries and cultures value clean water ways over cost/time to deal with the garbage. Where it comes from seems to be irrelevant.
I think all cultures value nature to one degree or another. Once developing countries accrete enough wealth, they will probably invest some of it into proper waste disposal. It's hard to justify diverting resources into waste disposal now, when you are still poor and hungry and in the midst of industrialization.
Western societies went through the same process. They polluted heavily through much of the XX century, while building up their own industrial economies, and didn't start cleaning up until the 1970s and 80s.
I am hopeful developing countries follow the same trajectory. China, for example, has been successful at tackling its air pollution. And googling shows that they began rolling out programs to combat river pollution as well. Eventually, we'll get there. Not soon, but eventually.
Imagine in XYZ years, when the technology advances, and these things come equipped with fur, articulated joints, and lifelike facial expressions. And an AI that mimics a real dog's behavior. Woofwoof. Not sure if I am excited or creeped out.
Russians will be sensitive to what happens in their frontier regardless of who sits in the Kremlin, or which party dominates the Duma. They don't want to see an alien military alliance straddle their borderlands. That's the story. That's the WHOLE story. And it won't change even if Putin drops dead today, and Navalny is elected president tomorrow.