3 ms·

We could go on for a decade about this without convincing each other. Probably not productive. So I'll just say that if the situation were inverted -- if e.g.

We could go on for a decade about this without convincing each other. Probably not productive. So I'll just say that if the situation were inverted -- if e.g. Russia was sitting in Mexico "promoting democracy" -- we'd be engaging in "multiple unprovoked invasions" too. Reagan and NATO told Gorbachev pre-collapse that there'd be no NATO expansion in the future. They lied. We've forgotten that. You think the Russians have? Should they? Furthermore, the situation was inverted -- look at the Cuban missile crisis. Does anyone say that the US shouldn't have threatened to vaporize the island to get the Russians out of there? It's our backyard! Surely we were justified in feeling threatened. I don't care for the Russian regime whatsoever, and Putin's a little Napoleon-complex turd. A weak, insecure little man. But I'm sorry pal, we're the ones threatening these people in their neck of the woods. NATO should've disbanded the day the hammer and sickle stopped flying over the Kremlin. My claim is that you'd behave in the exact same way.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
NATO is a defensive alliance. It's not threatening Russia. It's not planning to invade Russia. Yes, it's moving eastward. (And yes, apparently we promised not to.) But why is it moving eastward? Because NATO invaded, say, Poland? No, because Poland desperately wanted into NATO. Why? Because they've had a taste (or a belly full) of Russian aggression, invasion, occupation, and even partition. They wanted into NATO because they're afraid of Russia. So how are we the ones threatening these people again? The only threat we pose to Russia is to not let them push other people around. And if that's a threat to them, well, it says more about Russia than it says about NATO.
- autosharp 5y ago
  Again, from the Russian side, it was first Poland that joined, then talk of Ukraine joining. So an ever east-ward expansion of NATO. Meanwhile economic sanctions and exclusion. When that happened, Russia simply reacted. Much like the U.S. reacted to Cuba. Russian aggression is reactive and the predictable outcome of the behavior of NATO and Western economies.
  - bserge 5y ago
    Well, as the joke goes, it's vodka's fault. Vodka made Russians take Crimea, but then again vodka is why Crimea was Ukrainian post-USSR.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > then again vodka is why Crimea was Ukrainian post-USSR. And for about half of the USSR's existence before it collapsed... Possibly more of it than it was Russian?
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, given what happened with Crimea? I'll make no judgment as to whether Crimea and its people are better off as a part of Russia or Ukraine (they very well might be better off a part of Russia), but invading and annexing is just not ok. (Same as if China decided to do the same to Taiwan.) I just don't see the problem with NATO expansion. As a parent poster pointed out, it's a defensive alliance; if Russia has a problem with other countries promising to defend each other in the case that Russia wants to get aggressive, that's, well... Russia's problem.
    - autosharp 5y ago
      > Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, given what happened with Crimea? You have the chronology exactly backwards.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Nope. "Is it any wonder that X, given Y?" says nothing about chronology. "Is it any wonder that she wanted to divorce him, given that he killed her?" would be an oxymoron under your erroneous reasoning; with your logic she would have to be dead before she could want a divorce. To reasonable people, the murder was obviously just the culmination of a long chain of events.
  - CRConrad 5y ago

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

NATO is a defensive alliance. It's not threatening Russia. It's not planning to invade Russia. Yes, it's moving eastward. (And yes, apparently we promised not to.) But why is it moving eastward? Because NATO invaded, say, Poland? No, because Poland desperately wanted into NATO. Why? Because they've had a taste (or a belly full) of Russian aggression, invasion, occupation, and even partition. They wanted into NATO because they're afraid of Russia. So how are we the ones threatening these people again? The only threat we pose to Russia is to not let them push other people around. And if that's a threat to them, well, it says more about Russia than it says about NATO.

autosharp 5y ago
Again, from the Russian side, it was first Poland that joined, then talk of Ukraine joining. So an ever east-ward expansion of NATO. Meanwhile economic sanctions and exclusion. When that happened, Russia simply reacted. Much like the U.S. reacted to Cuba. Russian aggression is reactive and the predictable outcome of the behavior of NATO and Western economies.
- bserge 5y ago
  Well, as the joke goes, it's vodka's fault. Vodka made Russians take Crimea, but then again vodka is why Crimea was Ukrainian post-USSR.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > then again vodka is why Crimea was Ukrainian post-USSR. And for about half of the USSR's existence before it collapsed... Possibly more of it than it was Russian?
- kelnos 5y ago
  Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, given what happened with Crimea? I'll make no judgment as to whether Crimea and its people are better off as a part of Russia or Ukraine (they very well might be better off a part of Russia), but invading and annexing is just not ok. (Same as if China decided to do the same to Taiwan.) I just don't see the problem with NATO expansion. As a parent poster pointed out, it's a defensive alliance; if Russia has a problem with other countries promising to defend each other in the case that Russia wants to get aggressive, that's, well... Russia's problem.
  - autosharp 5y ago
    > Is it any wonder that Ukraine wanted to join NATO, given what happened with Crimea? You have the chronology exactly backwards.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Nope. "Is it any wonder that X, given Y?" says nothing about chronology. "Is it any wonder that she wanted to divorce him, given that he killed her?" would be an oxymoron under your erroneous reasoning; with your logic she would have to be dead before she could want a divorce. To reasonable people, the murder was obviously just the culmination of a long chain of events.
- CRConrad 5y ago