5 ms·

People in eastern Europe aren't eager to go to war, we're just vocal about doing something because we know we're next after Ukraine. If war starts, the sanctio

People in eastern Europe aren't eager to go to war, we're just vocal about doing something because we know we're next after Ukraine. If war starts, the sanctions need to be painful, whereas Germany is like "we're okay with sanctions so long as they don't affect us in any way whatsoever at all".

ivan_gammel 5y ago
You are not going to be next after Ukraine, that’s just irrational fear. Russia has no capabilities for invasion beyond ex-USSR borders (according to the assessment of DoD-affiliated American think tanks) and no incentives to invade Baltics. Baltic states are already in NATO, it’s a done deal and Russia got used to it long time ago. In any case existing NATO members have Article 5. Ukraine has not access to it yet.
- sccxy 5y ago
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  This feels like something an Englishman that was pro appeasement would have stated to a Pole right before it was invaded.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    When you feel something like that, it is better to do a reality check. There’s no reason to assume current situation is the same as in 1939. Historical traumas are subject for therapy, not basis for political decisions.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      Sounds like something the Englishman would follow up with except about 1914s geopolitical state vs 1939s
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > There’s no reason to assume current situation is the same as in 1939 A better example is that it's just like what lots of Americans were saying about Russia and Ukraine immediately before the invasions and occupations that are still ongoing began, but with “beyond Ukraine” replacing “Ukraine” now that facts on the ground have made the latter more obviously indefensible as a claim.
- jopsen 5y ago
  Posturing like gorillas beating their chests is the only mechanism for showing the Russian that we stand by article 5. Things only really get very dangerous, if the Russians got the idea that NATO wouldn't stand together. Deploying a few thousand troops from various NATO countries to eastern European NATO members is just posturing that serves to ensure that an attack on one is an attack on all. Besides, increasing troops in eastern European NATO countries is allows negotiators to offer a joint de-escalation. It carries little risk, and small cost.
  - medo-bear 5y ago
    > Posturing like gorillas beating their chests is the only mechanism for showing the Russian that we stand by article 5 or ... perhaps ... posturing like gorillas beating their chests in front of the home of a nuclear armed and scared ape can have catastrophic consequences
    - jopsen 5y ago
      MAD was always a bit mad. But not posturing could be worse. It's worse if Russia can't predict our response.
      - medo-bear 5y ago
        you see i can not make my mind up if russia wants to attack ukraine (why?) or if US wants russia to attack so that US gains the european gas market from russia
medo-bear 5y ago
i am from eastern europe eu nato country too, so please do not speak in my name. probably unlike most people i have seen what war looks like (as a child). it is definitely not something you want for people dearbto you. talking and taking into account everyone's concerns should definitely be the first approach. russia says that NATO encroaching on its borders is a huge security issue for them (remember that NATO promissed not to do this in the 90s). also stationing anti missile systems on its border is a security threat (it deminishes their deterrant). is it so hard to understand these are real concerns? it is hard to immagine US acting differently if a hostile alliance formed in South America
- windock 5y ago
  No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented. It was discussed, but that’s it. It is Russia-propagated myth.
  - medo-bear 5y ago
    it is certainly not a myth and it is not propagated by only russia [0]. russia was only stupid not to demand a written agreement [0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...
    - windock 5y ago
      Yes, it was discussed. But discussion and proposal is not an agreement, and not a promise. The article has no sources, and the most relevant part is “ U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”” That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.
      - medo-bear 5y ago
        the article does mention sources. read it. its an article not an essay. anyway i think it is very hard to argue that us and nato were honest. it is even harder to argue that nato is not a threat to russia. i find that in politics just as in life the simplest explanation is often the right one

ivan_gammel 5y ago

You are not going to be next after Ukraine, that’s just irrational fear. Russia has no capabilities for invasion beyond ex-USSR borders (according to the assessment of DoD-affiliated American think tanks) and no incentives to invade Baltics. Baltic states are already in NATO, it’s a done deal and Russia got used to it long time ago. In any case existing NATO members have Article 5. Ukraine has not access to it yet.

sccxy 5y ago
defaultprimate 5y ago
This feels like something an Englishman that was pro appeasement would have stated to a Pole right before it was invaded.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  When you feel something like that, it is better to do a reality check. There’s no reason to assume current situation is the same as in 1939. Historical traumas are subject for therapy, not basis for political decisions.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    Sounds like something the Englishman would follow up with except about 1914s geopolitical state vs 1939s
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > There’s no reason to assume current situation is the same as in 1939 A better example is that it's just like what lots of Americans were saying about Russia and Ukraine immediately before the invasions and occupations that are still ongoing began, but with “beyond Ukraine” replacing “Ukraine” now that facts on the ground have made the latter more obviously indefensible as a claim.
jopsen 5y ago
Posturing like gorillas beating their chests is the only mechanism for showing the Russian that we stand by article 5. Things only really get very dangerous, if the Russians got the idea that NATO wouldn't stand together. Deploying a few thousand troops from various NATO countries to eastern European NATO members is just posturing that serves to ensure that an attack on one is an attack on all. Besides, increasing troops in eastern European NATO countries is allows negotiators to offer a joint de-escalation. It carries little risk, and small cost.
- medo-bear 5y ago
  > Posturing like gorillas beating their chests is the only mechanism for showing the Russian that we stand by article 5 or ... perhaps ... posturing like gorillas beating their chests in front of the home of a nuclear armed and scared ape can have catastrophic consequences
  - jopsen 5y ago
    MAD was always a bit mad. But not posturing could be worse. It's worse if Russia can't predict our response.
    - medo-bear 5y ago
      you see i can not make my mind up if russia wants to attack ukraine (why?) or if US wants russia to attack so that US gains the european gas market from russia

medo-bear 5y ago

i am from eastern europe eu nato country too, so please do not speak in my name. probably unlike most people i have seen what war looks like (as a child). it is definitely not something you want for people dearbto you. talking and taking into account everyone's concerns should definitely be the first approach. russia says that NATO encroaching on its borders is a huge security issue for them (remember that NATO promissed not to do this in the 90s). also stationing anti missile systems on its border is a security threat (it deminishes their deterrant). is it so hard to understand these are real concerns? it is hard to immagine US acting differently if a hostile alliance formed in South America

windock 5y ago
No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented. It was discussed, but that’s it. It is Russia-propagated myth.
- medo-bear 5y ago
  it is certainly not a myth and it is not propagated by only russia [0]. russia was only stupid not to demand a written agreement [0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...
  - windock 5y ago
    Yes, it was discussed. But discussion and proposal is not an agreement, and not a promise. The article has no sources, and the most relevant part is “ U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”” That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.
    - medo-bear 5y ago
      the article does mention sources. read it. its an article not an essay. anyway i think it is very hard to argue that us and nato were honest. it is even harder to argue that nato is not a threat to russia. i find that in politics just as in life the simplest explanation is often the right one