7 ms·

Much of the coverage i see of "Russia" in the west completely misses the following points that super crucial to the political debate: 1. NATO is a military coa

Much of the coverage i see of "Russia" in the west completely misses the following points that super crucial to the political debate: 1. NATO is a military coalition that sits outside the regular National framework of war making. 2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then? 3. The objectives that NATO seem to want have become largely aggressive extensions of one political sides policies rather than what is right for "keeping the peace in Europe" or the world. If you disagree with the statements above, i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. What would the United States consider such an act to be? Defensive? For all the dick waving that Putin has done, the threat of war with severe consequences has been initiated by and continues to be advertised as the only choice by the unelected bureaucrats at NATO. We are all supposed to sit here and watch while these morons pick a fight on the behalf of the world and then give us no choice but to send our kids off to die in another pointless battle?

ldiracdelta 5y ago
You got one thing wrong. Not gonna send my kids off to the next war that Washington starts up.
- awakeasleep 5y ago
  I think you’re simplifying. If nukes fly it doesn’t matter where your kid is. And the government can decide to take your kids to war with or without consent
  - mickotron 5y ago
    Nukes won't fly. Nukes are only useful for deterrence. MAD doctrine is legit.
    - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
      The history of war is littered with absolute lines that no one considered would be crossed as a certainty that later became distant laughable and naive thresholds.
mickotron 5y ago
Cuban Missile Crisis, anyone?
rowathay 5y ago
Invading and annexing the territory of another country is a it more than “dick waving.”
- jterrys 5y ago
  Especially when it violates a treaty you signed promising that if the country you invaded disarms itself that you would protect it.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Technically that was just a memorandum, not a formal treaty.
  - selivanovp 5y ago
    That memorandum was never ratified neither by USA, nor by Russia, not even by Ukraine. It never had any legal power.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  Okay, and compared to the myriad of other problems the world has right now and the US has right now. . .how is it our problem and what do you suggest we do about it? Should we nuke them? Surely not? Let Europe handle her political disagreements. We have no place there. The present breathless escalation of tensions only leads to one place and it's not good at all. Why is the United States taking the lead at all in a conflict between countries with a history of conflict longer than the US has been around? European powers routinely engage financially with Russia in the form of pipeline contracts, friendly coordination on multiple other areas such as environmental protection etc. This is all just a proxy fight for the natural resources (Oil) in Crimea and Ukraine and that's disgusting.
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    The US just can’t let go, and the EU is happy to have them foot the bill.
bvrmn 5y ago
Your points can be valid in alternative reality where Putin is not ruling poor country with 3% GDP and Russia is not hybrid regime for 20 years raw.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
scythe 5y ago
>2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then? Everyone talks about Article 5, but you can't forget about Article 1: >The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. A state in violation of Article 1 might not be granted Article 5 protections. The situation in Ukraine currently is that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances by fomenting a rebellion in Crimea in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Annexation_of_Crimea_by_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov basically admitted violating the Memorandum when he lied about its content: >In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes." https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/692321689254830080 https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/692321689254830080 Of course this is not consistent with the actual text: >The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine Now if Russia wanted to argue that admitting Ukraine into NATO would violate the BMSA, they might have a decent argument... if, that is, they hadn't flagrantly ignored it and denied that it even says anything about independence in the first place.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > A state in violation of Article 1 might not be granted Article 5 protections. Article 5 standing on its own only commits members to actions within the scope of individual and collective self-defense as permitted under Article 51 of the UN Charter, anyway.
- selivanovp 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
> NATO is a military coalition that sits outside the regular National framework of war making. False. > If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members Also false. > Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then? Sucks to be the rogue state, but assuming you meant for the rogue state to be a NATO member, I don't see even a theoretical problem for NATO, but perhaps instead of posing a question you’d like to actually make an argument that makes sense given the actual text of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the scope of the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. > The objectives that NATO seem to want Well, “seem to want” is rather amorphous and subjective, and so is your description, which doesn't even say what objectives you think NATO “seem to want”. > For all the dick waving that Putin has done, the threat of war with severe consequences has been initiated by ...Russia, each time they've actually invaded another section of Ukraine. Which isn't just a threat of war with severe consequences, but an actual war, and crime of aggression, with severe consequences. That’s not just “dick waving”, which is a better metaphorical description of the NATO response to date than the Russian action. > unelected bureaucrats at NATO. The top decision-makers at NATO are the heads of government of the members, who are, though indirectly in some cases, all elected.
alkonaut 5y ago
> i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. This would be seen as extremely destabilizing. But the key for me is: who agrees to uphold international law, respect borders? The reason Russian missiles in Mexico should worry Americans but NATO forces in Lithuania should not worry Russia is simple: NATO doesn’t have a history of annexing countries. This is no trivial difference. The dialog playing out is really Ru: promise to stop putting forces on our borders NATO: would you promise to never move a border by force in these neighbors? Ru: No. We don’t really recognize “borders” or “sovereignty” of other countries. No war is going to be started here until someone crosses a border.
calyth2018 5y ago
> If you disagree with the statements above, i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. What would the United States consider such an act to be? Defensive? We don't need to imagine it. Just look at the Cuban missile crisis, which can trace its roots by putting nuke-tipped missiles in Turkey and Italy, stone's throw from the USSR. When the USSR parked its nukes 90mi away from the US, US committed an act of war by blockading Cuba, wordsmithed it to a quarantine; dropped signalling depth charge on a Russian submarine in international waters, which had nuclear-tipped torpedoes. The world's lucky that someone senior on that boat vetoed the launch. I'm not saying one has to like Russia for its moves, but the west should at least look at itself in the mirror for once. Admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO amounts to blocking off the warm water port for Russia. That alone should explain why they would react against it.
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  Agreed. It is frankly ridiculous how much of our politicians time and effort goes toward picking and fermenting these personal vendettas over international issues that have no bearing or meaning to "US" - The country's interests, but suddenly get clumped into the "Foreign Policy established objectives" . . . Why?? Because some idiot picked a fight we have no part in. The Bush Dynasty and the endless wars of the middle east, The Clintons and Europe/Russia. Right now in the present, the bi partisan scum skirting the laws of our nation to send Troops and armaments to places like Syria and killing and displacing MILLIONS of people that we as a nation have to carry on our conscience. This should disgust everyone regardless of nationality, political affiliation or any form of "justification" they may have formed as being the international keeper of peace. Creating what is essentially a Shell Company in the form of NATO with ridiculous amounts of warmaking powers, whatever cosmetic protections there may be to guard against abuse, and then allowing that entity to run feuds and foreign policy of the United States WELL PAST THE POINT of an administrations tenure should never be allowed. International treaties should NEVER be allowed to derive in perpetuity, the constitutional powers and duties entrusted to National institutions. And this is precisely what is and has been happening so far.

ldiracdelta 5y ago

You got one thing wrong. Not gonna send my kids off to the next war that Washington starts up.

awakeasleep 5y ago
I think you’re simplifying. If nukes fly it doesn’t matter where your kid is. And the government can decide to take your kids to war with or without consent
- mickotron 5y ago
  Nukes won't fly. Nukes are only useful for deterrence. MAD doctrine is legit.
  - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    The history of war is littered with absolute lines that no one considered would be crossed as a certainty that later became distant laughable and naive thresholds.

mickotron 5y ago

Cuban Missile Crisis, anyone?

rowathay 5y ago

Invading and annexing the territory of another country is a it more than “dick waving.”

jterrys 5y ago
Especially when it violates a treaty you signed promising that if the country you invaded disarms itself that you would protect it.
- nradov 5y ago
  Technically that was just a memorandum, not a formal treaty.
- selivanovp 5y ago
  That memorandum was never ratified neither by USA, nor by Russia, not even by Ukraine. It never had any legal power.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Okay, and compared to the myriad of other problems the world has right now and the US has right now. . .how is it our problem and what do you suggest we do about it? Should we nuke them? Surely not? Let Europe handle her political disagreements. We have no place there. The present breathless escalation of tensions only leads to one place and it's not good at all. Why is the United States taking the lead at all in a conflict between countries with a history of conflict longer than the US has been around? European powers routinely engage financially with Russia in the form of pipeline contracts, friendly coordination on multiple other areas such as environmental protection etc. This is all just a proxy fight for the natural resources (Oil) in Crimea and Ukraine and that's disgusting.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  The US just can’t let go, and the EU is happy to have them foot the bill.

bvrmn 5y ago

Your points can be valid in alternative reality where Putin is not ruling poor country with 3% GDP and Russia is not hybrid regime for 20 years raw.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

scythe 5y ago

>2. NATO agreements are fair or ridiculous depending on the outcome one expects. If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members. Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then? Everyone talks about Article 5, but you can't forget about Article 1: >The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. A state in violation of Article 1 might not be granted Article 5 protections. The situation in Ukraine currently is that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances by fomenting a rebellion in Crimea in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances#Annexation_of_Crimea_by_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov basically admitted violating the Memorandum when he lied about its content: >In February 2016, Sergey Lavrov claimed, "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes." https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/692321689254830080 https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/692321689254830080 Of course this is not consistent with the actual text: >The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine Now if Russia wanted to argue that admitting Ukraine into NATO would violate the BMSA, they might have a decent argument... if, that is, they hadn't flagrantly ignored it and denied that it even says anything about independence in the first place.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> A state in violation of Article 1 might not be granted Article 5 protections. Article 5 standing on its own only commits members to actions within the scope of individual and collective self-defense as permitted under Article 51 of the UN Charter, anyway.
selivanovp 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> NATO is a military coalition that sits outside the regular National framework of war making. False. > If a member is attacked, that is a declaration of war on ALL members Also false. > Consider a rogue state/leader member picking war with a nuclear power and escalating to the point of no return. What then? Sucks to be the rogue state, but assuming you meant for the rogue state to be a NATO member, I don't see even a theoretical problem for NATO, but perhaps instead of posing a question you’d like to actually make an argument that makes sense given the actual text of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the scope of the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. > The objectives that NATO seem to want Well, “seem to want” is rather amorphous and subjective, and so is your description, which doesn't even say what objectives you think NATO “seem to want”. > For all the dick waving that Putin has done, the threat of war with severe consequences has been initiated by ...Russia, each time they've actually invaded another section of Ukraine. Which isn't just a threat of war with severe consequences, but an actual war, and crime of aggression, with severe consequences. That’s not just “dick waving”, which is a better metaphorical description of the NATO response to date than the Russian action. > unelected bureaucrats at NATO. The top decision-makers at NATO are the heads of government of the members, who are, though indirectly in some cases, all elected.

alkonaut 5y ago

> i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. This would be seen as extremely destabilizing. But the key for me is: who agrees to uphold international law, respect borders? The reason Russian missiles in Mexico should worry Americans but NATO forces in Lithuania should not worry Russia is simple: NATO doesn’t have a history of annexing countries. This is no trivial difference. The dialog playing out is really Ru: promise to stop putting forces on our borders NATO: would you promise to never move a border by force in these neighbors? Ru: No. We don’t really recognize “borders” or “sovereignty” of other countries. No war is going to be started here until someone crosses a border.

calyth2018 5y ago

> If you disagree with the statements above, i'd ask you to consider that China and her allies, Iran, Turkey, North Korea and Pakistan suddenly moved Radar equipment and denial of airspace missile batteries to Mexico, Canada and Cuba tomorrow. What would the United States consider such an act to be? Defensive? We don't need to imagine it. Just look at the Cuban missile crisis, which can trace its roots by putting nuke-tipped missiles in Turkey and Italy, stone's throw from the USSR. When the USSR parked its nukes 90mi away from the US, US committed an act of war by blockading Cuba, wordsmithed it to a quarantine; dropped signalling depth charge on a Russian submarine in international waters, which had nuclear-tipped torpedoes. The world's lucky that someone senior on that boat vetoed the launch. I'm not saying one has to like Russia for its moves, but the west should at least look at itself in the mirror for once. Admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO amounts to blocking off the warm water port for Russia. That alone should explain why they would react against it.

DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Agreed. It is frankly ridiculous how much of our politicians time and effort goes toward picking and fermenting these personal vendettas over international issues that have no bearing or meaning to "US" - The country's interests, but suddenly get clumped into the "Foreign Policy established objectives" . . . Why?? Because some idiot picked a fight we have no part in. The Bush Dynasty and the endless wars of the middle east, The Clintons and Europe/Russia. Right now in the present, the bi partisan scum skirting the laws of our nation to send Troops and armaments to places like Syria and killing and displacing MILLIONS of people that we as a nation have to carry on our conscience. This should disgust everyone regardless of nationality, political affiliation or any form of "justification" they may have formed as being the international keeper of peace. Creating what is essentially a Shell Company in the form of NATO with ridiculous amounts of warmaking powers, whatever cosmetic protections there may be to guard against abuse, and then allowing that entity to run feuds and foreign policy of the United States WELL PAST THE POINT of an administrations tenure should never be allowed. International treaties should NEVER be allowed to derive in perpetuity, the constitutional powers and duties entrusted to National institutions. And this is precisely what is and has been happening so far.