4 ms·

That the NATO would invade Russia is a bizarre idea. They simply have no incentive, and even if they had any interest, they are lacking the troops and Russia is

by _ph_ 5y ago

That the NATO would invade Russia is a bizarre idea. They simply have no incentive, and even if they had any interest, they are lacking the troops and Russia is a nuclear power. If it were not, the west would probably have engaged more forcefully in Ukraine, especially as they had signed contracts to do so when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

pydry 5y ago
Seriously? NATO's entire existence was borne out of a desire to lock horns with Moscow. They didn't supply troops to Ukraine cos they don't want a direct fight with another nuclear power. This was a defining feature of the cold war. That's why it was called "cold". What makes you think this time is different? It's much lower risk and much cheaper to play the long game and stir up ethnic tensions along exposed borders and foment ethnic and cultural splits. This being famously effective at building and sustaining the British Empire and also something Russia is trying to do to the US with social media, although with limited success beyond sparking thanksgiving arguments.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  A nice term you are using, "lock horns". Nicely vague, says anything or nothing. Yes, the NATO was founded as a counterpart to the expanding Sovjet Union. Which was not a democratic state but had a de-factor dictator in control and prevented independent democracies in the states of the Warshaw Pact. Whereever there were democratic movements in those states, they even sent troups to help swish them. They also had a huge amount (many thousands) of battle tanks ready at the western border of the Warshaw Pact region. Whereas the NATO only had a much smaller tank force ready. So there was never the risk of a conventional attack of the NATO against the Warshaw Pact region. You are right, the NATO didn't support the Ukraine with military equipment or even troups, despite of the treaty, because of the fear of things going nuclear. That is also the reason any allegations about the NATO attacking Russia is pure sillyness. The only "danger" for Russia, or rather Putin, is, that more and more countries want to be independant, especially for improving economic ties to the west, as this brings economic prosperity. It is tragic, how the enourmeous wealth of Russia, thanks to its oil and gas, was wasted for fancy yachts instead of boosting the industrial upbuild of the country.

by _ph_ 5y ago

pydry 5y ago

Seriously? NATO's entire existence was borne out of a desire to lock horns with Moscow. They didn't supply troops to Ukraine cos they don't want a direct fight with another nuclear power. This was a defining feature of the cold war. That's why it was called "cold". What makes you think this time is different? It's much lower risk and much cheaper to play the long game and stir up ethnic tensions along exposed borders and foment ethnic and cultural splits. This being famously effective at building and sustaining the British Empire and also something Russia is trying to do to the US with social media, although with limited success beyond sparking thanksgiving arguments.

_ph_ 5y ago
A nice term you are using, "lock horns". Nicely vague, says anything or nothing. Yes, the NATO was founded as a counterpart to the expanding Sovjet Union. Which was not a democratic state but had a de-factor dictator in control and prevented independent democracies in the states of the Warshaw Pact. Whereever there were democratic movements in those states, they even sent troups to help swish them. They also had a huge amount (many thousands) of battle tanks ready at the western border of the Warshaw Pact region. Whereas the NATO only had a much smaller tank force ready. So there was never the risk of a conventional attack of the NATO against the Warshaw Pact region. You are right, the NATO didn't support the Ukraine with military equipment or even troups, despite of the treaty, because of the fear of things going nuclear. That is also the reason any allegations about the NATO attacking Russia is pure sillyness. The only "danger" for Russia, or rather Putin, is, that more and more countries want to be independant, especially for improving economic ties to the west, as this brings economic prosperity. It is tragic, how the enourmeous wealth of Russia, thanks to its oil and gas, was wasted for fancy yachts instead of boosting the industrial upbuild of the country.