4 ms·

> Collective self-defense in the presence of indications of aggressive action by Russia Sure, but that's only true from the US's perspective. From the Russia's

> Collective self-defense in the presence of indications of aggressive action by Russia Sure, but that's only true from the US's perspective. From the Russia's perspective, NATO is trying to expand, which would also expand the US's military bases. And THAT can also be treated as aggression. Unless I'm missing something, but despite me being a Ukrainian, I kinda understand why Russia is doing what they do.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Sure, but that's only true from the US's perspective You asked what the US interest was, that is a question about the US perspective. > From the Russia's perspective, NATO is trying to expand, which would also expand the US's military bases. So? Even assuming that's true, trying to expand a defensive alliance isn't an aggressive act under international law. > And THAT can also be treated as aggression. That's true in the trivial sense that any nation can treat anything as anything else, ultimately constrained only by the willingness of other parties to use force to constrain that behavior and the willingness of its own subject population to obey the leadership, but there's not even the beginning of an argument from international law that that is valid. (The usual argument that it is even a cognizable wrong—and which still wouldn't make it actual or imminent aggression—is that it both violates a commitment the US made at the time of German unification not to expand NATO further East and that it would put Russia in an indefensible position and later be used to enable aggression against Russia. The first part of that, though, is just simply false: no such promise was ever made. The second part is speculative and distant.
me_me_me 5y ago
> Unless I'm missing something, but despite me being a Ukrainian Am I missing something, you are low-key justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its funny how you twisted the whole thing to 'show' this from russian point of view. Kremlin always was messing with Ukrainian democracy in the first place, but maybe you heard about Donbass region and all of those poor lost russian soldiers coerced into up helping Russian separatists for almost TEN YEARS! I wonder why would Ukraine want to join Nato... hmmm it makes no sense. It must be to spite Kremlin.
- andreygrehov 5y ago
  > Am I missing something, you are low-key justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yes, you are missing something. > Kremlin always was messing with Ukrainian democracy in the first place. That is simply not true. Messing with Ukrainian democracy has started on April 3, 2008, after the Bucharest Summit, with the NATO's Declaration that it welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Europe Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. That was a direct threat to Russia and they made it perfectly clear, same as the Monroe's Doctrine makes it perfectly clear that nobody, not a single country, is allowed to move military forces to the western hemisphere (say in Cuba), because it becomes a threat to the US. The decision at the Bucharest Summit led to a war in Georgia and Maidan in Ukraine. Prior to that, there was zero threat from Russia whatsoever. Since the west keeps pushing on the NATO's expansion (which is part of their strategy, along with promoting democracy and expanding the EU), Putin gives the US two choices: either Ukraine goes back to a pre-2014 state of being a neutral player OR Russia will wreck the country. So the root cause is not Putin being out of his mind, but the aggressive US's strategy to expand NATO. Once again, despite me being a Ukrainian, Putin's strategy is perfectly clear to me.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    > Messing with Ukrainian democracy has started on April 3, 2008, Aha, checks out. Welcome to HN Internet Research Agency employee
    - andreygrehov 5y ago
      I left Ukraine in 2013, but putting that aside, how else are you going to learn something without doing a research?

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Sure, but that's only true from the US's perspective You asked what the US interest was, that is a question about the US perspective. > From the Russia's perspective, NATO is trying to expand, which would also expand the US's military bases. So? Even assuming that's true, trying to expand a defensive alliance isn't an aggressive act under international law. > And THAT can also be treated as aggression. That's true in the trivial sense that any nation can treat anything as anything else, ultimately constrained only by the willingness of other parties to use force to constrain that behavior and the willingness of its own subject population to obey the leadership, but there's not even the beginning of an argument from international law that that is valid. (The usual argument that it is even a cognizable wrong—and which still wouldn't make it actual or imminent aggression—is that it both violates a commitment the US made at the time of German unification not to expand NATO further East and that it would put Russia in an indefensible position and later be used to enable aggression against Russia. The first part of that, though, is just simply false: no such promise was ever made. The second part is speculative and distant.

me_me_me 5y ago

> Unless I'm missing something, but despite me being a Ukrainian Am I missing something, you are low-key justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its funny how you twisted the whole thing to 'show' this from russian point of view. Kremlin always was messing with Ukrainian democracy in the first place, but maybe you heard about Donbass region and all of those poor lost russian soldiers coerced into up helping Russian separatists for almost TEN YEARS! I wonder why would Ukraine want to join Nato... hmmm it makes no sense. It must be to spite Kremlin.

andreygrehov 5y ago
> Am I missing something, you are low-key justifying Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yes, you are missing something. > Kremlin always was messing with Ukrainian democracy in the first place. That is simply not true. Messing with Ukrainian democracy has started on April 3, 2008, after the Bucharest Summit, with the NATO's Declaration that it welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Europe Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. That was a direct threat to Russia and they made it perfectly clear, same as the Monroe's Doctrine makes it perfectly clear that nobody, not a single country, is allowed to move military forces to the western hemisphere (say in Cuba), because it becomes a threat to the US. The decision at the Bucharest Summit led to a war in Georgia and Maidan in Ukraine. Prior to that, there was zero threat from Russia whatsoever. Since the west keeps pushing on the NATO's expansion (which is part of their strategy, along with promoting democracy and expanding the EU), Putin gives the US two choices: either Ukraine goes back to a pre-2014 state of being a neutral player OR Russia will wreck the country. So the root cause is not Putin being out of his mind, but the aggressive US's strategy to expand NATO. Once again, despite me being a Ukrainian, Putin's strategy is perfectly clear to me.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  > Messing with Ukrainian democracy has started on April 3, 2008, Aha, checks out. Welcome to HN Internet Research Agency employee
  - andreygrehov 5y ago
    I left Ukraine in 2013, but putting that aside, how else are you going to learn something without doing a research?