5 ms·

> And before that you said that the US is 'splendid' compared to Russia. I've said no such thing. Why are you making quotes up now? > That is a paranoid menta

> And before that you said that the US is 'splendid' compared to Russia. I've said no such thing. Why are you making quotes up now? > That is a paranoid mentality stuck in the past. Many Ukrainians would disagree. Regardless, I'm not arguing that they should feel that way, only that they do as a matter of fact. > An American NATO general gave an order to attack Russian paratroopers in Serbia during NATO's illegal compaing there. NATO countries have been closing air space to Russian military planes and refusing refuelling to Russian warships under the pressure from Washington. A NATO member shot down a Russian bomber. Most importantly, if you have a loaded gun pointed to someone's head, you don't need to fire it to get complaince. And a British general countermanded that order, during events that took place far from Russian territory. There is no credible loaded gun pointed at Russia simply because it is apparent to all parties that a first strike on Russia would be utterly ruinous to the West. > Did the EU actually had to choose? The entire EU? No. The EU countries that border Russia? Yes, they did. And it is obvious by their actions that they want to get away from Russia's sphere of influence as quickly as possible. It's not hard to figure out why if you know a bit of history and look at the state of Russia today. > Was it in the EU's interest to antagonize Russia by trying to expand NATO into Georgia and Ukraine? In retrospect, probably not. This is now fairly widely regarded as a geopolitical mistake among EU policymakers and analysts. > There was an immense amount of good will in Russia of 1990's towards the West and the US and American elite choose to throw that away and go ahead with NATO expansion. That's a very simplified view of a complicated decade of international relations. You're not wrong, but you're also omitting a long list of things done by Russia that also squandered Western (particularly European) good will. Mistakes were made by both sides.

gdy 7y ago
"Why are you making quotes up now?" This quote is present in the first comment you've replied to. There is no need to attribute malice to me. "Many Ukrainians would disagree" This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Russia wasn't a threat, NATO expanded nonetheless, Russia reacted to this threat, you claim that this reaction is the proof that Russia was a threat. Ridiculous, isn't it? "events that took place far from Russian territory" These events happened even farther from American territory. And Serbia is a Russian ally, sort of. "that a first strike on Russia would be utterly ruinous to the West" Firstly, I'd recommend you to read "To win the nuclear war" by Kaku and Axelrod about Pentagon plans for first strike. It is a horrifying reading for a Russian, hopefully, it will be such for you too. Secondly, the US is working hard on increasing effectiveness of the first strike -- high-precision warheads[2] (no need for them in MAD concept - you cannot miss a city), ABM, etc. Thirdly, please google "salami tactics" and "escalation dominance" -- there is no need to use nuclear weapons even in conflict with nuclear-armed country. "The entire EU? No. The EU countries that border Russia? Yes, they did." But NATO is ruled by consensus and it was the choice of the Western European members. "In retrospect, probably not" Not in retrospect. Many people warned about that [1], including former American presidents and George Kennan [0] -- the man behind the "containment policy". This NY Times article from 1992 [3] might explain you why the expansion was the American goal. "you're also omitting a long list of things done by Russia that also squandered Western (particularly European) good will" That was remarkably unspecific. EDIT: added links [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-n... [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/nato-expansion-unwise-saying-so-isnt-treasonous https://www.cato.org/blog/nato-expansion-unwise-saying-so-is... [2] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-pentagon-s-plan-prevent-the-re-emergence-of-a-new-rival.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-penta...
- keldaris 7y ago
  > This quote is present in the first comment you've replied to. There is no need to attribute malice to me. You attributed a quote to me that isn't even remotely reminiscent of anything I've said in this discussion. There is no need to grossly distort my position. > This self-fulfilling prophecy. Russia wasn't a threat, NATO expanded nonetheless, Russia reacted to this threat, you claim that this reaction is the proof that Russia was a threat. Ridiculous, isn't it? Not really, since virtually all countries in the region consider the Russian response to be wildly disproportionate and in flagrant violation of international law. > Firstly, I'd recommend you to read "To win the nuclear war" by Kaku and Axelrod about Pentagon plans for first strike. It is a horrifying reading for a Russian, hopefully, it will be such for you too. You're referring to plans that predate the existence of the Soviet (and now Russian) nuclear arsenal and were specifically made obsolete by it. > Secondly, the US is working hard on increasing effectiveness of the first strike -- high-precision warheads[2] (no need for them in MAD concept - you cannot miss a city), ABM, etc. ABM is a joke. Its effectiveness is dubious even for its purported usecase (a limited attack by NK or Iran) and if the U.S. ever tried to seriously scale it, it would always be orders of magnitude more expensive than the effort required for Russia to defeat it. High-precision warheads are unnecessary in MAD, but do nothing to threaten or disrupt it. They exist because U.S. military doctrine is primarily concerned with adversaries other than Russia. > Thirdly, please google "salami tactics" and "escalation dominance" -- there is no need to use nuclear weapons even in conflict with nuclear-armed country. I don't have to google them. Russia is in a much better position to use escalation dominance against its EU neighbors than the U.S. is against Russia. In purely military terms, NATO's defensive posture across Eastern Europe and particularly in the Baltic States is still very weak, precisely out of fear of provoking hostilities. > But NATO is ruled by consensus and it was the choice of the all European countries. Whatever the formal rules are, NATO is ruled predominantly by the U.S. For the actual countries in question it was a simple trade - safety from Russia in exchange for U.S. influence, market penetration, etc. This arrangement was popular then and remains popular now. > Not in retrospect. Many people warned about that [1], including former American presidents and George Kennan [0] -- the man behind the "containment policy". They were in a minority then, now the consensus has shifted for the most part. > That was remarkably unspecific. An exhaustive list would be far too long, but it includes both Chechen wars (the first of which caused a significant disillusionment among Western populations), the tragicomically mismanaged economic reforms in the early 90s and the subsequent political instability in Russia, various trade and investor disputes (especially after the '98 crisis), Russian actions in the ex-Soviet republics and many others.

gdy 7y ago

"Why are you making quotes up now?" This quote is present in the first comment you've replied to. There is no need to attribute malice to me. "Many Ukrainians would disagree" This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Russia wasn't a threat, NATO expanded nonetheless, Russia reacted to this threat, you claim that this reaction is the proof that Russia was a threat. Ridiculous, isn't it? "events that took place far from Russian territory" These events happened even farther from American territory. And Serbia is a Russian ally, sort of. "that a first strike on Russia would be utterly ruinous to the West" Firstly, I'd recommend you to read "To win the nuclear war" by Kaku and Axelrod about Pentagon plans for first strike. It is a horrifying reading for a Russian, hopefully, it will be such for you too. Secondly, the US is working hard on increasing effectiveness of the first strike -- high-precision warheads[2] (no need for them in MAD concept - you cannot miss a city), ABM, etc. Thirdly, please google "salami tactics" and "escalation dominance" -- there is no need to use nuclear weapons even in conflict with nuclear-armed country. "The entire EU? No. The EU countries that border Russia? Yes, they did." But NATO is ruled by consensus and it was the choice of the Western European members. "In retrospect, probably not" Not in retrospect. Many people warned about that [1], including former American presidents and George Kennan [0] -- the man behind the "containment policy". This NY Times article from 1992 [3] might explain you why the expansion was the American goal. "you're also omitting a long list of things done by Russia that also squandered Western (particularly European) good will" That was remarkably unspecific. EDIT: added links [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-n... [1] https://www.cato.org/blog/nato-expansion-unwise-saying-so-isnt-treasonous https://www.cato.org/blog/nato-expansion-unwise-saying-so-is... [2] https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-pentagon-s-plan-prevent-the-re-emergence-of-a-new-rival.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-penta...

keldaris 7y ago
> This quote is present in the first comment you've replied to. There is no need to attribute malice to me. You attributed a quote to me that isn't even remotely reminiscent of anything I've said in this discussion. There is no need to grossly distort my position. > This self-fulfilling prophecy. Russia wasn't a threat, NATO expanded nonetheless, Russia reacted to this threat, you claim that this reaction is the proof that Russia was a threat. Ridiculous, isn't it? Not really, since virtually all countries in the region consider the Russian response to be wildly disproportionate and in flagrant violation of international law. > Firstly, I'd recommend you to read "To win the nuclear war" by Kaku and Axelrod about Pentagon plans for first strike. It is a horrifying reading for a Russian, hopefully, it will be such for you too. You're referring to plans that predate the existence of the Soviet (and now Russian) nuclear arsenal and were specifically made obsolete by it. > Secondly, the US is working hard on increasing effectiveness of the first strike -- high-precision warheads[2] (no need for them in MAD concept - you cannot miss a city), ABM, etc. ABM is a joke. Its effectiveness is dubious even for its purported usecase (a limited attack by NK or Iran) and if the U.S. ever tried to seriously scale it, it would always be orders of magnitude more expensive than the effort required for Russia to defeat it. High-precision warheads are unnecessary in MAD, but do nothing to threaten or disrupt it. They exist because U.S. military doctrine is primarily concerned with adversaries other than Russia. > Thirdly, please google "salami tactics" and "escalation dominance" -- there is no need to use nuclear weapons even in conflict with nuclear-armed country. I don't have to google them. Russia is in a much better position to use escalation dominance against its EU neighbors than the U.S. is against Russia. In purely military terms, NATO's defensive posture across Eastern Europe and particularly in the Baltic States is still very weak, precisely out of fear of provoking hostilities. > But NATO is ruled by consensus and it was the choice of the all European countries. Whatever the formal rules are, NATO is ruled predominantly by the U.S. For the actual countries in question it was a simple trade - safety from Russia in exchange for U.S. influence, market penetration, etc. This arrangement was popular then and remains popular now. > Not in retrospect. Many people warned about that [1], including former American presidents and George Kennan [0] -- the man behind the "containment policy". They were in a minority then, now the consensus has shifted for the most part. > That was remarkably unspecific. An exhaustive list would be far too long, but it includes both Chechen wars (the first of which caused a significant disillusionment among Western populations), the tragicomically mismanaged economic reforms in the early 90s and the subsequent political instability in Russia, various trade and investor disputes (especially after the '98 crisis), Russian actions in the ex-Soviet republics and many others.