5 ms·

from the Russian point of view, offering NATO membership to Ukraine is an act of agression and they've been wrecking Ukraine for this ever since.

by bsedlm 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> from the Russian point of view, offering NATO membership to Ukraine is an act of agression and they've been wrecking Ukraine for this ever since One, Ukraine hasn't been invited to join NATO. Two, even if NATO had never entertained the idea, I'm sure Putin would pitch the existence of hats and teacups as clear evidence of Western aggression against Russia.
- Ygg2 5y ago
  Ok. But reverse positions. Mexico and Canada join Russian federation and Russia start building bases there. And this is despite Russia promising not to do that. I can't imagine USA acting in cool and peaceful manner when sword of Damocles hangs near them.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Mexico and Canada join Russian federation and Russia start building bases there. And this is despite Russia promising not to do that. NATO members are not annexed by America. Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and has had no realistic path to membership for some time. And a good way to get American bases in Ukraine is to threaten to invade it.
    - Ygg2 5y ago
      From Russian POV there isn't much of a difference. You basically see your enemy build installation just outside of your backyard. Sure analogy, ain't perfect, and it's too late to edit. But say they join Russian led pact and Russian build basses there. I'm pretty sure America would throw as big hissy fit as Russia did. > And a good way to get American bases in Ukraine is to threaten to invade it. It's a great deterrent as well. NATO members have a policy, attack one, you attack us all, yes. But they also prohibit members that have problematic borders with non-NATO powers. Adding a member like Ukraine means essentially getting ready for (nuclear) war with Russia. And NATO is, and probably won't be ready. Seeing list of NATO's recent "victories" seems like a compilation of US greatest fails (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). So Russia is calling NATO/US bluff.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    But NATO already has land borders to Russia! In five (more?) countries. NATO has never made a formal “promise” or agreement not to expand. This is a myth that refuses to die it seems. But this is beside the point. Ukraine isn’t a member so can hardly be responsible for what NATO does. Nor is it offered membership. And they were invaded preemptively? This whole line of reasoning that NATO has anything to do with the invasion of Ukraine years ago is a fabrication.
    - Ygg2 5y ago
      US made deal with Russia in wake of German unification, not to expand NATO/US into Russia's (USSR) sphere of influence. They violated that treaty repeatedly. Now Russia is betting stirring shit in Ukraine is enough for US to decline. > or is it offered membership. And they were invaded preemptively? Kinda. A member with existing border dispute has little chance of being admitted.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        No such promise was made to not expand. That’s a myth. > Kinda Has it been formally invited to join, or formally applied? Otherwise they have not.
- arminiusreturns 5y ago
  See I listen to people who know what they are talking about on this topic, people like Ray McGovern the former head of the soviet desk for the CIA, and I find their comments refreshingly nuanced, explaining things like how we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato, etc. ...and then I see comments like yours that just seem to want to make Russia into this mustache twirling always evil villian and to me its people like you destroying hopes for good conversation that seem like the real villians.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > how we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato This purported promise is a myth, see my comments here [1]. (TL; DR No treaty or public comments. Russia, on the other hand, signed a treaty promising not to invade Ukraine when she denuclearised. Talk of broken promises is a red herring.) Russia has a realpolitik interest in creating buffer nations between it and the West. What it's doing--invading Crimea and now threatening to take the rest--doesn't further that goal. It does, however, serve Putin's political agenda. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Yeah maybe you should try listen to the people who lived in the countries under Russian influence and you'll find thing are a lot less nuanced here. We know exactly who the real villains were since we had friends and relatives who died at their hands. The scars are still here, the memories still alive, the monstrosity still visits us in our nightmares. We would do anything to prevent that from happening to us again. Sorry if I am destroying your good, nuanced conversation.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    > we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato, etc. This is what Russia is promoting but it's a gross exaggeration. When the Berlin Wall fell, The Secretary of State at the time, James Baker, threw this out there to Gorbachev in early treaty talks as a "what if?", but others in US gov. said absolutely not, it never made it in the treaty, and Gorbachev never pushed for it. Gorbachev himself said that no promise or treaty was violated, but it was against the "spirit" of the assurances. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...
nullifidian 5y ago
A foreign country joining an alliance could be an act of aggression only if you believe that that foreign country is yours, and shouldn't have the freedom to decide its associations or the way it secures itself. The Russians are talking about "spheres of influence", which is an entirely imperialistic concept, and demand to have their's respected, which is imperialistic behavior.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  How is this reconciled with the US not allowing Cuba to receive armaments from the USSR or goods from other countries due to sanctions? Is country A violating country B and C's sovereignty when A imposes sanctions on C preventing free trade between B and C?
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    Nothing asks for it to be reconciled. The US can be a bad guy too. One's crimes do not justify another's criminal actions
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    It is easily reconciled, both cases where wrong.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  While I agree with your point, it's not quite that simple. Putin remembers history, specifically WWII. The Germans launched their invasion from the middle of Poland, and they nearly broke the USSR. Being able to launch it from the eastern edge of Ukraine is a terrifying thought to him. Now, there is exactly zero appetite anywhere in NATO for invading Russia. But Putin doesn't understand that - doesn't understand that, when the leaders have to answer to the voters in elections that they could lose, the leaders have to be very wary of body counts. So Putin is terrified of a fantasy, but his terror is still at least somewhat real. It's not all bullying.
alkonaut 5y ago
How is it an act of aggression? Aren’t Ukraine sovereign in the sense that they are free to choose freely any alliance they please? Besides - Ukraine haven’t been offered NATO membership have they?

from the Russian point of view, offering NATO membership to Ukraine is an act of agression and they've been wrecking Ukraine for this ever since.

by bsedlm 5y ago

from the Russian point of view, offering NATO membership to Ukraine is an act of agression and they've been wrecking Ukraine for this ever since.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> from the Russian point of view, offering NATO membership to Ukraine is an act of agression and they've been wrecking Ukraine for this ever since One, Ukraine hasn't been invited to join NATO. Two, even if NATO had never entertained the idea, I'm sure Putin would pitch the existence of hats and teacups as clear evidence of Western aggression against Russia.

Ygg2 5y ago
Ok. But reverse positions. Mexico and Canada join Russian federation and Russia start building bases there. And this is despite Russia promising not to do that. I can't imagine USA acting in cool and peaceful manner when sword of Damocles hangs near them.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Mexico and Canada join Russian federation and Russia start building bases there. And this is despite Russia promising not to do that. NATO members are not annexed by America. Ukraine isn't part of NATO, and has had no realistic path to membership for some time. And a good way to get American bases in Ukraine is to threaten to invade it.
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    From Russian POV there isn't much of a difference. You basically see your enemy build installation just outside of your backyard. Sure analogy, ain't perfect, and it's too late to edit. But say they join Russian led pact and Russian build basses there. I'm pretty sure America would throw as big hissy fit as Russia did. > And a good way to get American bases in Ukraine is to threaten to invade it. It's a great deterrent as well. NATO members have a policy, attack one, you attack us all, yes. But they also prohibit members that have problematic borders with non-NATO powers. Adding a member like Ukraine means essentially getting ready for (nuclear) war with Russia. And NATO is, and probably won't be ready. Seeing list of NATO's recent "victories" seems like a compilation of US greatest fails (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya). So Russia is calling NATO/US bluff.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  But NATO already has land borders to Russia! In five (more?) countries. NATO has never made a formal “promise” or agreement not to expand. This is a myth that refuses to die it seems. But this is beside the point. Ukraine isn’t a member so can hardly be responsible for what NATO does. Nor is it offered membership. And they were invaded preemptively? This whole line of reasoning that NATO has anything to do with the invasion of Ukraine years ago is a fabrication.
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    US made deal with Russia in wake of German unification, not to expand NATO/US into Russia's (USSR) sphere of influence. They violated that treaty repeatedly. Now Russia is betting stirring shit in Ukraine is enough for US to decline. > or is it offered membership. And they were invaded preemptively? Kinda. A member with existing border dispute has little chance of being admitted.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      No such promise was made to not expand. That’s a myth. > Kinda Has it been formally invited to join, or formally applied? Otherwise they have not.
arminiusreturns 5y ago
See I listen to people who know what they are talking about on this topic, people like Ray McGovern the former head of the soviet desk for the CIA, and I find their comments refreshingly nuanced, explaining things like how we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato, etc. ...and then I see comments like yours that just seem to want to make Russia into this mustache twirling always evil villian and to me its people like you destroying hopes for good conversation that seem like the real villians.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > how we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato This purported promise is a myth, see my comments here [1]. (TL; DR No treaty or public comments. Russia, on the other hand, signed a treaty promising not to invade Ukraine when she denuclearised. Talk of broken promises is a red herring.) Russia has a realpolitik interest in creating buffer nations between it and the West. What it's doing--invading Crimea and now threatening to take the rest--doesn't further that goal. It does, however, serve Putin's political agenda. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836
- nickpp 5y ago
  Yeah maybe you should try listen to the people who lived in the countries under Russian influence and you'll find thing are a lot less nuanced here. We know exactly who the real villains were since we had friends and relatives who died at their hands. The scars are still here, the memories still alive, the monstrosity still visits us in our nightmares. We would do anything to prevent that from happening to us again. Sorry if I am destroying your good, nuanced conversation.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  > we promised Russia we wouldnt do an eastward expansion of nato, etc. This is what Russia is promoting but it's a gross exaggeration. When the Berlin Wall fell, The Secretary of State at the time, James Baker, threw this out there to Gorbachev in early treaty talks as a "what if?", but others in US gov. said absolutely not, it never made it in the treaty, and Gorbachev never pushed for it. Gorbachev himself said that no promise or treaty was violated, but it was against the "spirit" of the assurances. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...

nullifidian 5y ago

A foreign country joining an alliance could be an act of aggression only if you believe that that foreign country is yours, and shouldn't have the freedom to decide its associations or the way it secures itself. The Russians are talking about "spheres of influence", which is an entirely imperialistic concept, and demand to have their's respected, which is imperialistic behavior.

reducesuffering 5y ago
How is this reconciled with the US not allowing Cuba to receive armaments from the USSR or goods from other countries due to sanctions? Is country A violating country B and C's sovereignty when A imposes sanctions on C preventing free trade between B and C?
- mrguyorama 5y ago
  Nothing asks for it to be reconciled. The US can be a bad guy too. One's crimes do not justify another's criminal actions
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tomjen3 5y ago
  It is easily reconciled, both cases where wrong.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
While I agree with your point, it's not quite that simple. Putin remembers history, specifically WWII. The Germans launched their invasion from the middle of Poland, and they nearly broke the USSR. Being able to launch it from the eastern edge of Ukraine is a terrifying thought to him. Now, there is exactly zero appetite anywhere in NATO for invading Russia. But Putin doesn't understand that - doesn't understand that, when the leaders have to answer to the voters in elections that they could lose, the leaders have to be very wary of body counts. So Putin is terrified of a fantasy, but his terror is still at least somewhat real. It's not all bullying.

alkonaut 5y ago

How is it an act of aggression? Aren’t Ukraine sovereign in the sense that they are free to choose freely any alliance they please? Besides - Ukraine haven’t been offered NATO membership have they?