5 ms·

And Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons.

0x737368 5y ago
Surely that changes when the government of a country has shifted to an aggressively anti-Russian one which will threaten one of your country's few naval ports and will likely welcome American military bases with open arms. Or should Russia just bend the knee to the US overlords and be a good lapdog?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Your position seems to be that Russia has the right to not respect another country's territorial integrity when that country elects a government that Russia doesn't like. And, yeah, Russia probably does in fact think that. But if you wonder why everybody in the neighborhood is scrambling for NATO membership, this attitude is exactly that. > Or should Russia just bend the knee to the US overlords and be a good lapdog? Funny, you seem to expect that Ukraine should bend the knee to the Russian overlords and be a good lapdog...
  - 0x737368 5y ago
    The reason everybody was scrambling for NATO membership was the threat of being taken over by USSR. The reason USSR was taking over neighbouring countries was, among other benefits, mainly to create a buffer zone so that in case of attack Russia's "heart", i.e. Moscow, St Petersburg, etc, would be more protected. Now with the coming of ICBMs, jets, and especially nuclear weapons it is no longer as vital for Russia to have these buffer zones. America on the other hand keeps purporting this outdated myth of scary Russia despite Russia barely even being a threat anymore so that it can keep members of NATO as effectively vassal states. This way it can control them - "you do as I say, or scary Russia will come and take you". Having American military bases and American influence around its border will only increase tensions between Russia and their neighbouring countries. That is precisely the reason Finland hasn't joined NATO and they and Russia have been getting along fine. Russian troops haven't rolled into Helsinki as of yet. It should also be noted that Russia's claim to join NATO was rejected in 1954, and Putin has stated that he has suggested Russia joining NATO to Clinton and was again rejected. Now I can see how USSR during Cold War would be rejected, but why was post-USSR crumbling and then Western-friendly Russia rejected? I'll suggest that it was because US would then lose its favourite boogeyman.
    - petre 5y ago
      Finland also beat the crap out of Russia in WW2. Russia's strategy in Eastern Europe and more recently in Crimea was not to fight, but send in little green men with rifles and organise elections. That's how the USSR has installed regimes of their choice in its vassal states which later formed the Warsaw Pact. NATO and thd US has a new bogeyman called China now. Russua has its own version of NATO called the CSTO and is part of the SCO or Shanghai Pact along with China and their satellite states.
      - 0x737368 5y ago
        > Finland also beat the crap out of Russia in WW2. Finland did very well in the Winter War, but it did not "beat the crap out of Russia" because that would be assuming that they have won. Instead they have lost, but Russia has achieved what's called a Pyrrhic victory and Finland has received favourable terms. > Russia's strategy in Eastern Europe and more recently in Crimea was not to fight, but send in little green men with rifles and organise elections. That's how the USSR has installed regimes of their choice in its vassal states which later formed the Warsaw Pact. Are you then claiming that Eastern Ukraine is not dominantly ethnic Russians? > NATO and thd US has a new bogeyman called China now. Russua has its own version of NATO called the CSTO and is part of the SCO or Shanghai Pact along with China and their satellite states. No, China is not the bogeyman because China doesn't go for hard-power like USSR did or in fact the USA does. Instead they go for soft-power by investing into countries and getting influence through financial means - look at Australia, Greece, and now increasingly the USA itself. Note how the USA didn't even squeak about the Wuhan lab leak theory until recently - would it be the same if a virus has appeared near a virology lab in Vladivostok?
        rualca 5y ago
        > Finland did very well in the Winter War, but it did not "beat the crap out of Russia" because that would be assuming that they have won. Well, Finland did unequivocally won it's war against Russia, didn't it? I mean, is there any possible room for any doubt whatsoever? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
wolverine876 5y ago
> Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons. Every country is obligated to respect territorial integrity of others. It's not something that you get in a deal.
- thinkcontext 5y ago
  Yet such a deal was indeed made. Do you feel you have sufficient historical understanding on why the parties chose to do that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Fuck you and your condescension. You're so informed about IR that you're citing Wikipedia? :D

Surely that changes when the government of a country has shifted to an aggressively anti-Russian one which will threaten one of your country's few naval ports and will likely welcome American military bases with open arms. Or should Russia just bend the knee to the US overlords and be a good lapdog?

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Your position seems to be that Russia has the right to not respect another country's territorial integrity when that country elects a government that Russia doesn't like. And, yeah, Russia probably does in fact think that. But if you wonder why everybody in the neighborhood is scrambling for NATO membership, this attitude is exactly that. > Or should Russia just bend the knee to the US overlords and be a good lapdog? Funny, you seem to expect that Ukraine should bend the knee to the Russian overlords and be a good lapdog...
- 0x737368 5y ago
  The reason everybody was scrambling for NATO membership was the threat of being taken over by USSR. The reason USSR was taking over neighbouring countries was, among other benefits, mainly to create a buffer zone so that in case of attack Russia's "heart", i.e. Moscow, St Petersburg, etc, would be more protected. Now with the coming of ICBMs, jets, and especially nuclear weapons it is no longer as vital for Russia to have these buffer zones. America on the other hand keeps purporting this outdated myth of scary Russia despite Russia barely even being a threat anymore so that it can keep members of NATO as effectively vassal states. This way it can control them - "you do as I say, or scary Russia will come and take you". Having American military bases and American influence around its border will only increase tensions between Russia and their neighbouring countries. That is precisely the reason Finland hasn't joined NATO and they and Russia have been getting along fine. Russian troops haven't rolled into Helsinki as of yet. It should also be noted that Russia's claim to join NATO was rejected in 1954, and Putin has stated that he has suggested Russia joining NATO to Clinton and was again rejected. Now I can see how USSR during Cold War would be rejected, but why was post-USSR crumbling and then Western-friendly Russia rejected? I'll suggest that it was because US would then lose its favourite boogeyman.
  - petre 5y ago
    Finland also beat the crap out of Russia in WW2. Russia's strategy in Eastern Europe and more recently in Crimea was not to fight, but send in little green men with rifles and organise elections. That's how the USSR has installed regimes of their choice in its vassal states which later formed the Warsaw Pact. NATO and thd US has a new bogeyman called China now. Russua has its own version of NATO called the CSTO and is part of the SCO or Shanghai Pact along with China and their satellite states.
    - 0x737368 5y ago
      > Finland also beat the crap out of Russia in WW2. Finland did very well in the Winter War, but it did not "beat the crap out of Russia" because that would be assuming that they have won. Instead they have lost, but Russia has achieved what's called a Pyrrhic victory and Finland has received favourable terms. > Russia's strategy in Eastern Europe and more recently in Crimea was not to fight, but send in little green men with rifles and organise elections. That's how the USSR has installed regimes of their choice in its vassal states which later formed the Warsaw Pact. Are you then claiming that Eastern Ukraine is not dominantly ethnic Russians? > NATO and thd US has a new bogeyman called China now. Russua has its own version of NATO called the CSTO and is part of the SCO or Shanghai Pact along with China and their satellite states. No, China is not the bogeyman because China doesn't go for hard-power like USSR did or in fact the USA does. Instead they go for soft-power by investing into countries and getting influence through financial means - look at Australia, Greece, and now increasingly the USA itself. Note how the USA didn't even squeak about the Wuhan lab leak theory until recently - would it be the same if a virus has appeared near a virology lab in Vladivostok?
      - rualca 5y ago
        > Finland did very well in the Winter War, but it did not "beat the crap out of Russia" because that would be assuming that they have won. Well, Finland did unequivocally won it's war against Russia, didn't it? I mean, is there any possible room for any doubt whatsoever? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

wolverine876 5y ago

> Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons. Every country is obligated to respect territorial integrity of others. It's not something that you get in a deal.

thinkcontext 5y ago
Yet such a deal was indeed made. Do you feel you have sufficient historical understanding on why the parties chose to do that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Fuck you and your condescension. You're so informed about IR that you're citing Wikipedia? :D