Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Cope]

What's Really Going on Here

There are a number of users here who are Russian sympathizers and aren't receptive to any argument that puts the US & NATO on the "good" side, even when there's such an obliviously moral and strategic benefit to protecting Ukraine.

Everything about what's going on positions Russia as the aggressor state, and yet there is a strange attempt to make it seem as if the US and NATO are to blame, or at least equally so. As if the Ukrainian people are just pawns that should be denied the agency to join whatever economic and military institutions are best for their country's wellbeing.

Western Europe imports almost 200 bn m³ of natural gas from Russia annually. As the chart below indicates, this volume rose after the annexation of Crimea. Conflict with Russia threatens EU energy stability. Biden tacitly endorsed this greater dependency on Russian fossil energy when he refused to sanction NS2 under the theory that it would cause divisions in NATO (which have come to fruition anyway).

Equally, there is little appetite to risk open war with a nuclear power over a country which is neither part of NATO or the EU and is expected, due to proximity and historic ties, to be within the Russian sphere of influence.

[Basilius]

No one is talking about a war with Russia. Selling arms to Ukraine, increased (but not extreme) sanctioning, and supporting insurgents are not war-worthy actions. Conversely, if Russia ends gas exports, it would be mutually devastating harm.

and is expected, due to proximity and historic ties, to be within the Russian sphere of influence.

Russians expect this, and literally no one else. This is exactly what I mean. Even if you were to rationalize this with some armchair realpolitik, Russia has neither the power nor the influence to maintain a SoI in Ukraine. They can barely hold onto Belarus.

I heard and remember "No Nato Expansion eastwards" being in the news 1991/1992.

Pro-American media, as in Gorbachev himself? But by all means, provide even a shred of evidence to support your "memory."

And you can lie as much as you want, that Ukrainian population wants to join Nato.

This and the rest of your post is just silly. Ukraine may or may not apply for NATO membership. What on Earth does this have to do with the US? There seems to be a consistent willful ignorance about these two facts:

1.) No one is advocating for war.

2.) Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can join whatever treaties it likes.

[Cope]

No one is talking about a war with Russia. Selling arms to Ukraine, increased (but not extreme) sanctioning, and supporting insurgents are not war-worthy actions. Conversely, if Russia ends gas exports, it would be mutually devastating harm.

Arming Ukraine isn't a meaningful obstacle to a Russian invasion - something which Biden allegedly claimed was "imminent". Germany in particular stands to achieve little from "supporting insurgents" other than souring relations with a country it is increasingly reliant on.

Russians expect this, and literally no one else. This is exactly what I mean. Even if you were to rationalize this with some armchair realpolitik, Russia has neither the power nor the influence to maintain a SoI in Ukraine. They can barely hold onto Belarus.

I expect it, and I am not Russian. Ukraine borders, and shares significant historical ties with, Russia. It's entirely predictable that Moscow treats Ukraine as a foreign policy priority. As for the US, it's not a significant security interest.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Pro-American media, as in Gorbachev himself? But by all means, provide even a shred of evidence to support your "memory."

I don't need this to prove to you, i know this and many Germans aged 40+ too.

supporting insurgents

We don't support fascist like the Azov Battalion.

We are not the US, which did this with far right Contras in Nicaragua or with far right death squads in El Salvador.

Or with far right Batista supporters at the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can join whatever treaties it likes.

Hasn't prevented a US invasion in Grenada in 1982, as they allied with Cuba and Cuba began to build a airfield there and didn't prevented the US blockade against Cuba because of Soviet missiles in 1962.

[Mithradates]

I expect it, and I am not Russian. Ukraine borders, and shares significant historical ties with, Russia. It's entirely predictable that Moscow treats Ukraine as a foreign policy priority. As for the US, it's not a significant security interest.

Russia is a glorified gas station, nothing more. They dont have the capacity to invade Ukraine, they are on the brink of falling apart.
Of course, you will find many germans simping for Putler, some things never change.

[Basilius]

Arming Ukraine isn't a meaningful obstacle to a Russian invasion

Nothing done in the short term would prevent an invasion, of whatever scale. Russia is using these forces to force a political concession, and if no concession if forthcoming, will invade to the extent the proportional response can be tolerated compared to the territorial gains. That isn't the point. If Putin doesn't invade, arms sales will help Ukraine grow more indigestible over time, which in 5-10 years will be so high as to make invasion not worth the cost.

Also, I don't know why you bothered mentioning Biden. Do you have an axe to grind?

Germany in particular stands to achieve little from "supporting insurgents" other than souring relations with a country it is increasingly reliant on.

It's difficult to rebut such a wildly nonsensical claim such as this in an online forum post, in particular how much Germany has gained from the recession of Russian power in central Europe, but to put it briefly, the whole reason the Eastern Europeans are going gaga over Russia is because it's clear its ambitions are not limited to Ukraine and Belarus, but in achieving as much if its old Soviet influence as it can. This includes Germany's neighbors and Germany itself. Germany's own military planning recognize this, with varying degrees of tolerance.

This is in addition to the destabilizing effect it has in Europe more broadly, including refugees, energy, and future invasions.

I expect it, and I am not Russian. Ukraine borders, and shares significant historical ties with, Russia. It's entirely predictable that Moscow treats Ukraine as a foreign policy priority.

That Ukraine is a security priority for Moscow is a fatuous statement and doesn't answer oughts. You're lamely enunciating Putin's imperatives as if they're self-justifying. Yes, Ukraine joining NATO is a huge problem for Russian imperialism. Care to actually give your thoughts on what Ukraine and the rest of the world should do?

As for the US, it's not a significant security interest.

Conflict in Ukraine is absolutely a significant security interest: Ukraine has strategic importance for NATO. I think you mean to say it is not critical security interest, requiring boots on the ground or threatening strategic or critical resources. This is true, which is why no one is calling for war, compared to something like Taiwan.

EDIT:

Re Morticia: You didn't engage with a single one of my points, so I will not be engaging with you further. Also, your last point ironically implies super-power interference with sovereign nations is wrong, which goes against what you've been arguing.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

super-power interference with sovereign nations

Which had the US also no problem with, as they bombarded the Ho-Chi-Minh-Path in Laos and Cambodia in the 70s.

Sovereign Nations are only a important international principle, when they serve US interests.

[Cope]

Nothing done in the short term would prevent an invasion, of whatever scale. Russia is using these forces to force a political concession, and if no concession if forthcoming, will invade to the extent the proportional response can be tolerated compared to the territorial gains. That isn't the point. If Putin doesn't invade, arms sales will help Ukraine grow more indigestible over time, which in 5-10 years will be so high as to make invasion not worth the cost.

Also, I don't know why you bothered mentioning Biden. Do you have an axe to grind?

Biden is the president. It's his administration which is arming Ukraine while appearing to believe that a near-term invasion is probable. If true, this largely undermines the purpose of the scheme, which would more than likely result in the military aid being captured (as was the case Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.)

It's difficult to rebut such a wildly nonsensical claim such as this in an online forum post, in particular how much Germany has gained from the recession of Russian power in central Europe, but to put it briefly, the whole reason the Eastern Europeans are going gaga over Russia is because it's clear its ambitions are not limited to Ukraine and Belarus, but in achieving as much if its old Soviet influence as it can. This includes Germany's neighbors and Germany itself. Germany's own military planning revognize this, with varying degrees of tolerance.

This is in addition to the destabilizing effect it has in Europe more broadly. including refugees, energy, and future invasions.

The argument is not that Germany is apathetic to the situation in Ukraine. It's that from a German perspective, whatever difference arming Ukraine/insurgents makes can be achieved by the US unilaterally. The German govt won't risk getting its hands dirty when the US has already volunteered for the job (and has been since 1991).

That Ukraine is a security priority for Moscow is a fatuous statement and doesn't answer oughts. You're lamely enunciating Putin's imperatives as if they're self-justifying. Yes, Ukraine joining NATO is a huge problem for Russian imperialism. Care to actually give your thoughts on what Ukraine and the rest of the world should do?

"Self-justifying" isn't the same as predictable/inevitable. Geopolitics is about material interests, not morality.

Conflict in Ukraine is absolutely a significant security interest: Ukraine has strategic importance for NATO. I think you mean to say it is not critical security interest, requiring boots on the ground or threatening strategic or critical resources. This is true, which is why no one is calling for war, compared to something like Taiwan.

It does threaten "strategic/critical resources", only not for the US. This is why Germany is less enthusiastic about adding fuel to the fire by shipping weapons into Ukraine.

[EmperorBatman999]

That Ukraine is a security priority for Moscow is a fatuous statement and doesn't answer oughts. You're lamely enunciating Putin's imperatives as if they're self-justifying. Yes, Ukraine joining NATO is a huge problem for Russian imperialism. Care to actually give your thoughts on what Ukraine and the rest of the world should do?

...

Conflict in Ukraine is absolutely a significant security interest: Ukraine has strategic importance for NATO. I think you mean to say it is not critical security interest, requiring boots on the ground or threatening strategic or critical resources. This is true, which is why no one is calling for war, compared to something like Taiwan.

I think we can understand Russia's perspective with a comparative point, in this case regarding the United States. When Fidel Castro seized Cuba and invited the Soviets to put ground forces and nuclear weapons on the island nation, 90 miles from the US mainland, it created an intolerable situation for the American government which was akin to placing a dagger against America's throat. The United States government has since tried ferociously to undermine the communist regime on the island to relieve the pressure point that a hostile Cuba presented. I'm sure the US would act similarly if Mexico formed an alliance with China. It would leave a gaping border that impinges on national security and the US zone of political, economic, and military influence in its own backyard. America has gone to war before over the very concern that a potentially hostile power was going to induce America's southerly neighbor to join their alliance bloc. Does/would America receive this much serious mainstream critique like Russia does for behaving in a similar manner when it tries to retain strategic security over its immediate geographic vicinity? I am not counting the general community of Cuba-sympathizers among the American and international Left, of course, as their position is generally hostile to anything the US does beyond its border, and much of what it does inside of it.

Now Russia finds itself in a similar position. Why does NATO need Ukraine in the alliance, or at least aligned to the alliance, beyond idealistic well-wishes about another country joining the community of western democracies? What benefit does NATO receive by further goading a highly dangerous, but unnecessary, enemy in Russia? Wouldn't it be better to cooperate with Russia to pressure China, whose growing sphere of influence also impinges on Russia's own natural and historical sphere in Central Asia and Siberia?

Nothing about the human condition has changed dramatically to the point where we have moved beyond nineteenth- and twentieth-century foreign policy thinking and diplomatic priorities. Great power rivalries still exist and have meaning on the international stage, and as a result, there is also a concern for when those great powers' zones of influence begin to touch one another, or one when great power's zone of influence touches a core border of another great power.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I have posted this in the past:



There is a strong pro-russian faction in the Ukraine, still we are doing so as if Ukraine was a unified state standing together against evil Russia.

And the Ukrainian Army has problematic units in its ranks:

Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting, unlawful detention, and torture.^[75][76] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the organisation had

collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February 2015.^[75]

Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and torture, writing:

A man with a mental disability was subject to cruel treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence by 8 to 10 members of the 'Azov' and 'Donbas' (another Ukrainian battalion) battalions in August–September 2014. The victim's health subsequently deteriorated and he was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital.^[76]

A report from January 2015 stated that a Donetsk Republic supporter was detained and tortured with electricity and waterboarding, which resulted in his confessing spying for pro-Russian militants.^[76]
Ideology

Neo-Nazism


Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun, two symbols associated with Nazism


The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia^[33] with connections to neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia and expressing neo-Nazi views.^[77][78] The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel^{[52][79][78][80][81]} and the Black Sun,^[79][82][83] two neo-Nazi symbols.
Azov soldiers have been observed wearing Nazi-associated symbols on their uniforms.^[84] In 2014, the German ZDF television network showed images of Azov fighters wearing helmets with swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps".^[85] In 2015, Marcin Ogdowski, a Polish war correspondent, gained access to one of Azov's bases located in the former holiday resort Majak; Azov fighters showed to him Nazi tattoos as well as Nazi emblems on their uniforms.^[86] Shaun Walker writes in The Guardian that "many of [Azov's] members have links with neo-Nazi groups, and even those who laughed off the idea that they are neo-Nazis did not give the most convincing denials", citing swastika tattoos among the fighters and one who claimed to be a "national socialist".^[78] According to The Daily Beast, some of the group's members are "neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and avowed anti-Semites",^[56] and

numerous swastika tattoos of different members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias drawn on their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to plausibly deny any neo-Nazi affiliations.^[87]

Lev Golinkin writes in The Nation that "Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world's only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces."^[88] Michael Colborne of Foreign Policy has called it "a dangerous neo-Nazi-friendly extremist movement" with "global ambitions", citing similarities between the group's ideology and symbolism and that of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooter, along with efforts by the group to recruit American right-wing extremists.^[57]
A spokesman for the unit has said "only 10–20%" of its recruits are neo-Nazis, with one commander attributing neo-Nazi ideology to misguided youth.^[16] Members of the unit have stated that the inverted Wolfsangel, rather than connected to Nazism, represents the Ukrainian words for "united nation"^[78][46] or "national idea" (Ukrainian: Ідея Nації, Ideya Natsii).^[78][81][a]
British political scientist Richard Sakwa writes that Azov's founding member Andryi Biletsky, leader of the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly (SNA) made statements about a "historic mission" to lead the "white races of the world in a final crusade for their survival ... a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen", an ideology he traces to the National Integralism of 1920s and '30s.^[89] Political scientist Ivan Katchanovski has compared the group's ideology to that of Patriot of Ukraine, saying,

The SNA/PU [Patriot of Ukraine] advocates a neo-Nazi ideology along with ultranationalism and racism. The same applies to [...] members of the Azov battalion and many football ultras and others who serve in this formation.^[90]

In June 2015, the Canadian defence minister declared that Canadian forces would not provide training or support to Azov Battalion.^[91] In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives also passed a provision blocking any training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi connections. The House had previously passed amendments banning support of Azov between 2014 and 2017, but due to pressure from The Pentagon, the amendments were quietly lifted.^[7][92][93] This was protested by the Simon Wiesenthal Center which stated that lifting the ban highlighted the danger of Holocaust distortion in Ukraine.<sup>[93]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Human_rights_violations_and_war_crimes</sup>


So honestly at least for me the danger is real, that this forces will commit war crimes with german arms against Russians, if we arm them.

So a solution can only be diplomacy and no daily threats with more and more sanctions or other options till we reach the point of no return.

[Basilius]

Biden is the president. It's his administration which is arming Ukraine while appearing to believe that a near-term invasion is probable. If true, this largely undermines the purpose of the scheme, which would more than likely result in the military aid being captured (as was the case Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.)

The US has been arming Ukraine for years: if the Biden administration wants to add immediacy to the process because there's 130k men of a hostile force on the country's doorstep, that's good politics. But I'm not going to defend it's short term efficacy, so no need to bring it up.

Geopolitics is about material interests, not morality.

You say this as if everyone here doesn't read the news and isn't aware of the interests of the countries involved. It fails to account for different choices (as if every country has one optimal geopolitical guidebook to follow), agency error, and unknowns. Smugly reading Stratfor and than going "well of course Germany isn't doing anything" is basically turning your brain off and defeats the whole purpose of debate.

To the extent Germany is trying not to rock the boat, and leave the US/UK and Eastern Europeans as the focus of Russian ire, it is both strategically and morally wrong to do so. Russia is only going to become more desperate and aggressive as it grows weaker over time, and there's a strong pan-European incentive to respond to aggression.

This is why Germany is less enthusiastic about adding fuel to the fire by shipping weapons into Ukraine.

"If only Ukraine were less well equipped, Putin wouldn't be tempted to invade."

Why does NATO need Ukraine in the alliance, or at least aligned to the alliance, beyond idealistic well-wishes about another country joining the community of western democracies?

Morticia touches on this above, but the argument fails at whatever perspective you take it from.

From a moral standpoint, the US's aggressive responses to their neighbor's shifting influences are wrong to the extent they include military action and internal interference. Sanctions, diplomatic, economic pressure is legitimate and justified, but nothing beyond that. Just as the US is wrong, Russia is wrong. That's the comparison and morally consistent position.

From a strategic standpoint, Ukraine has always been the end-point of NATO, the backbone of which is France - Germany - Poland - Ukraine. This makes Russian expansion all but impossible, which is why they're freaking out. If Europe holds strong, with US aid, they'd be in an even stronger security position. The risks basically boil down to Moscow cutting off gas. Neither side wants this, so the response will be proportionate to the degree of imperial annexation.

[EmperorBatman999]

From a strategic standpoint, Ukraine has always been the end-point of NATO, the backbone of which is France - Germany - Poland - Ukraine. This makes Russian expansion all but impossible, which is why they're freaking out. If Europe holds strong, with US aid, they'd be in an even stronger security position. The risks basically boil down to Moscow cutting off gas. Neither side wants this, so the response will be proportionate to the degree of imperial annexation.

Yet, it appears to me that Russia has taken such an expansionist stance to counter NATO's own outgrowth and to secure some breathing room. The egg is on NATO's face for making Russia what it is today.

Even with the fall of the Iron Curtain, NATO never modified its containment doctrine in relation to the new Russian state. The 90s were squandered by tightening the Cordon Sanitaire around Russia by integrating the Baltics and then gradually working Ukraine, rather than using our diplomatic capital to rehabilitate Russia back into the West once our ideological differences became immaterial. Instead, they further shrunk into political and economic isolation, drawing the Federation towards authoritarianism and its associated sentiments of nationalism and militarism. Russia could have been a useful asset in the War on Terror and the developing conflict with China. Instead, as the former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz remarked several times throughout his career, the West used its victory to push economic reforms onto Russia that ruined its economy and prospects of entering the modern global economy. Meanwhile, the US assumed Russia's policy areas in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus, further ringing Russia into an entrapped position. Now Russia is an outright opponent of the West, growing more authoritarian day-by-day, and increasingly tied into an alliance with China opposed to the United States, which was the worst outcome possible.

[Basilius]

The whole "Russia today is the West's fought" narrative is bad history and absolves Russia of it's own agency, as well as the role the KGB played in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's dissolution. This is not to say America's post-Soviet policy was without mistakes, but it was a contributing, and not predominant factor.

Further, I wish people would stop quoting Stiglitz (and by extension Piketty and Krugman) on everything, they are good economists turn public commentators, because the academic consensus no longer supports their claims.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

Why should NATO have ever amended its stance towards a regime that has never not been a hilariously corrupt oligopoly that acts in bad faith towards the rest of the world? Putin has been running the show for 20+ years and his rise to power has very little if anything to do with NATO and the relatively brief period between the USSR's fall and his rise to political power.

[Sir Adrian]

Yet, it appears to me that Russia has taken such an expansionist stance to counter NATO's own outgrowth and to secure some breathing room. The egg is on NATO's face for making Russia what it is today.

Even with the fall of the Iron Curtain, NATO never modified its containment doctrine in relation to the new Russian state. The 90s were squandered by tightening the Cordon Sanitaire around Russia by integrating the Baltics and then gradually working Ukraine, rather than using our diplomatic capital to rehabilitate Russia back into the West once our ideological differences became immaterial. Instead, they further shrunk into political and economic isolation, drawing the Federation towards authoritarianism and its associated sentiments of nationalism and militarism. Russia could have been a useful asset in the War on Terror and the developing conflict with China. Instead, as the former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz remarked several times throughout his career, the West used its victory to push economic reforms onto Russia that ruined its economy and prospects of entering the modern global economy. Meanwhile, the US assumed Russia's policy areas in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus, further ringing Russia into an entrapped position. Now Russia is an outright opponent of the West, growing more authoritarian day-by-day, and increasingly tied into an alliance with China opposed to the United States, which was the worst outcome possible.

NATO did not make Russia what it is today. Putin always had imperial ambitions. And even if he didn't, the study of history in Russia has become so grotesquely deformed after 1990 that the people see the restoration of the soviet borders as their manifest destiny, so they'd elect someone who agrees with them.


EDIT:

A good article on the people who have been radicalizing Putin over the past decade and a half, and who are the architects of the current Ukraine situation. Article is in Romanian but google translate seems to do a decent job. I can provide assistance if necessary.

[antaeus]

the only ambitions Putin has are for power - for its own sake. the nation of Russia, imperialism, Soviet restorations, destinies, NATO and what ever else you might put in here are all incidental and at best, rhetorical tools to be used in the aid of power for its own sake.

Putin might seem to be changing or radicalising or what ever. But that's just the manifestation of the way that absolute power tends to require increasing volumes of rhetoric to maintain over time as people get used to it. Right now for example... we Putin needs an external enemy in order to keep people at home preoccupied and distracted.

Ukraine is a great external enemy from Putin's perspective, because they are a culturally related people who are living in a more open, more democratic society (relatively speaking). They're an example of how Russians could do-away with Putin's power. So for Putin they must be cast as an enemy at all costs. The more free Ukrains gets, the more Putin must increase the volume of rhetoric against them to ensure what Ukraine represents doesn't threaten his power at home.

[Heathen Hammer]

Nothing say open, democratic society like burning people alive in a building because they disagreed with le open, democratic government.

[Lord Thesaurian]

People are used to hearing Beijing’s historicism and nationalist rhetoric regarding Taiwan. Last year, Putin published an essay making a similar argument, claiming Ukraine and Russia are “one people” embroiled in a civil war of sorts due to western meddling.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial – divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.

I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

[Heathen Hammer]

Pretending that post-1991 former USSR bordergore is sacred and can't be changed is silly.
On itself, these borderlines are result of Bolshevik dictatorship (which was funded into power by Kaiser Germany and American banks so there's your Western meddling) re-carving Russian Empire into "socialist republics", they didn't reflect neither ethnic, nor religious nor cultural differences of people that lived there. Hence why Donbass was annexed to Ukraine with no consent from its population, same with Crimea. In a similar way, we saw colonial powers draw up Middle Eastern borders in just same disastrously and horrific way(since it led to inevitable wars in future).
So it makes perfect sense for Russian people to consider at least part of Ukraine their clay, if Ukrainians have a right for independence from Russia, then Novorussians should have a right to independence from Ukraine.

[Ludicus]

Good post, Morticia.
Opinion | Don't Humiliate Gorbachev - The New York Times
1989.

We must never underestimate Soviet concerns about national security and fears of national humiliation.

Twenty-two years later, I have the same opinion.Now that you mention the Winter Olympics, it is good to keep in mind that Formosa island (Chinese Taiwan), as we named it 400 years ago, will be present in the Olympics,Taiwan makes U-turn to let team attend Winter Olympics
Why is Taiwan competing in the Olympics under 'Chinese - The Conversation...

When the Beijing Olympics opens with a glitzy ceremony on Feb. 4, 2022, a tiny contingent of Taiwanese athletes will be in attendance. But they won’t be marching under the Taiwanese flag. And they will be announced as the team from “Chinese Taipei. On Feb. 1, at the behest of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), Taiwanese authorities reversed course.