5 ms·

Just to be crystal clear: NATO is a defensive coalition. The only aggressor in this conflict is Russia who can turn their troops back any time they like. We're

Just to be crystal clear: NATO is a defensive coalition. The only aggressor in this conflict is Russia who can turn their troops back any time they like. We're talking about a person who has less than 48 ours ago threatened nuclear Armageddon on the entire world. [1] You do not give in to the insane demands of such a person just as you do not give in to the tantrums of a child. [1] https://v.redd.it/whu6txat3wg81 https://v.redd.it/whu6txat3wg81

mytailorisrich 5y ago
I'm not trying to support either side here but I find a bit odd that Russia is depicted as the 'bad guy' for keeping troops within its borders while the US are depicted as the 'good guys' for moving troops abroad and next to Russia and for threatening a pipeline between Russia and Germany. It might also be worth pointing out that Ukraine is not in NATO. The whole situation feels strange to me and I can't help but thinking that a lot more is happening than we are told or made to believe. Edit: the US seem the most active and effectively are the ones warmongering and it's hard to imagine that they care so much about Ukraine. But looking at Russian pipelines and China's Belt and Road perhaps they actually aim at creating a clash and a new iron curtain to prevent growing links between Europe and Russia/China in order to keep control of Europe.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Holy cow. I have the same exact feelings. Just feels really strange.
- shrimp_emoji 5y ago
  >the US are depicted as the 'good guys' for moving troops abroad and next to Russia and for threatening a pipeline between Russia and Germany. NATO is a big alliance. Poland is in NATO. The U.S. is the strongest military power by a large margin. Russia is amassing troops next to a country they've already invaded (see Crimea). I don't see the dissonance here.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Russia is "keeping troops within its borders" only if you ignore the 30,000 Russian troops currently in Belarus. And "they're within Russia's borders", but there sure seem to be a large number of them really close to the border of Ukraine. That raises concerns. Like, it's really easy to go from "all these troops are within our borders" to "all these troops are halfway to Kiev" within 48 hours. It's a force posture from which the Russian troops could trivially launch an invasion, and it's unprecedented since the end of the Cold War. That's concerning, at a minimum.
- vanusa 5y ago
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I'm not trying to support either side here but I find a bit odd that Russia is depicted as the 'bad guy' for keeping troops within its borders Russian troops are occupying substantial parts of Ukraine, which is a key part of the context of Russia massing additional troops on the border of Ukraine, in other, Russia and Belarus (the latter of which is a cooperating partner of Russia, just as the NATO countries the US is deploying troops to are of the US, but definitely still not within Russia’s borders.) > while the US are depicted as the 'good guys' for moving troops abroad The US troops are all deployed with the permission of the host governments in NATO allies. Like Russia’s troops in Belarus (which are “abroad and next to Ukraine”, in much larger numbers than US troops are “abroad and next to Russia”), and unlike Russia’s troops in Ukraine, which are an actual (not potential imminent) invasion and occupation. But nice try.
sedan_baklazhan 5y ago
I still remember very well the defensive bormardment of Belgrad.
ComradePhil 5y ago
> NATO is a defensive coalition. It is an economic one more than anything. Germany, France and every European country wants Nord Stream 2 because it would greatly help their energy problems. The US doesn't, which is why it is pushing NATO to Ukraine, provoking Russia and looking for excuses to stop it: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-unified-front-against-any-russian-aggression-toward-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-u... A third of Ukraine (Russian speakers) don't want any part in the government operated by American allies in Ukraine and would rather be a part of Russia. They definitely do not want NATO there. If Russia did absolutely nothing, it would mean years of proxy war in Ukraine... which is to say there would definitely not be Nord Stream 2... which is exactly what the US wants and exactly what Russia doesn't. The US is clearly the aggressor here.
- sschueller 5y ago
  I believe the US will go as far as claiming an incursion has occurred without it actually having occurred. Like the movie wag the dog. They will then pressure Europe to enact sanctions which includes NS2 but will them selves not stop purchasing oil from Russia.
- rasz 5y ago
  every EU country indeed https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/seven-eu-countries-oppose-nord-stream/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/seven-eu-countr... including France https://www.dw.com/en/france-presses-germany-to-ditch-nord-stream-2-over-navalny/a-56411291 https://www.dw.com/en/france-presses-germany-to-ditch-nord-s...
vanusa 5y ago
We're talking about a person who has less than 48 ours ago threatened nuclear Armageddon on the entire world. [1] Strictly speaking, he said that bad things you're talking about would happen "if Ukraine joins NATO and tries to retake Crimea by military means." Not, as you seem to imply, just for the fun of it. The U.S. has also threatened, or considered first-strike nuclear attacks several times (albeit not publicly) numerous times, as recently as 1997. Usually against smaller countries (the usual suspects) but also against the Russians in the event of an attack on Berlin during the 1961 crisis: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-fir... So say what you want about the petulant madman - but really he was just pulling a move from Kennedy's playbook, essentially.
- rasz 5y ago
  Strictly strictly speaking, what he really meant was "if after Russian invasion happening in weeks time Ukraine joins NATO and tries to retake territories east of Dnieper by military means."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Could be.
- emptysongglass 5y ago
  Making idle threats of nuclear holocaust is inexcusable independent of context. I don't come into your house and idly drop threats of murdering your family, your family's extended family, and anyone who ever associated with your family but only if they join a club I don't like.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

I'm not trying to support either side here but I find a bit odd that Russia is depicted as the 'bad guy' for keeping troops within its borders while the US are depicted as the 'good guys' for moving troops abroad and next to Russia and for threatening a pipeline between Russia and Germany. It might also be worth pointing out that Ukraine is not in NATO. The whole situation feels strange to me and I can't help but thinking that a lot more is happening than we are told or made to believe. Edit: the US seem the most active and effectively are the ones warmongering and it's hard to imagine that they care so much about Ukraine. But looking at Russian pipelines and China's Belt and Road perhaps they actually aim at creating a clash and a new iron curtain to prevent growing links between Europe and Russia/China in order to keep control of Europe.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
Holy cow. I have the same exact feelings. Just feels really strange.
shrimp_emoji 5y ago
>the US are depicted as the 'good guys' for moving troops abroad and next to Russia and for threatening a pipeline between Russia and Germany. NATO is a big alliance. Poland is in NATO. The U.S. is the strongest military power by a large margin. Russia is amassing troops next to a country they've already invaded (see Crimea). I don't see the dissonance here.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Russia is "keeping troops within its borders" only if you ignore the 30,000 Russian troops currently in Belarus. And "they're within Russia's borders", but there sure seem to be a large number of them really close to the border of Ukraine. That raises concerns. Like, it's really easy to go from "all these troops are within our borders" to "all these troops are halfway to Kiev" within 48 hours. It's a force posture from which the Russian troops could trivially launch an invasion, and it's unprecedented since the end of the Cold War. That's concerning, at a minimum.
vanusa 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I'm not trying to support either side here but I find a bit odd that Russia is depicted as the 'bad guy' for keeping troops within its borders Russian troops are occupying substantial parts of Ukraine, which is a key part of the context of Russia massing additional troops on the border of Ukraine, in other, Russia and Belarus (the latter of which is a cooperating partner of Russia, just as the NATO countries the US is deploying troops to are of the US, but definitely still not within Russia’s borders.) > while the US are depicted as the 'good guys' for moving troops abroad The US troops are all deployed with the permission of the host governments in NATO allies. Like Russia’s troops in Belarus (which are “abroad and next to Ukraine”, in much larger numbers than US troops are “abroad and next to Russia”), and unlike Russia’s troops in Ukraine, which are an actual (not potential imminent) invasion and occupation. But nice try.

sedan_baklazhan 5y ago

I still remember very well the defensive bormardment of Belgrad.

ComradePhil 5y ago

> NATO is a defensive coalition. It is an economic one more than anything. Germany, France and every European country wants Nord Stream 2 because it would greatly help their energy problems. The US doesn't, which is why it is pushing NATO to Ukraine, provoking Russia and looking for excuses to stop it: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-unified-front-against-any-russian-aggression-toward-2022-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-u... A third of Ukraine (Russian speakers) don't want any part in the government operated by American allies in Ukraine and would rather be a part of Russia. They definitely do not want NATO there. If Russia did absolutely nothing, it would mean years of proxy war in Ukraine... which is to say there would definitely not be Nord Stream 2... which is exactly what the US wants and exactly what Russia doesn't. The US is clearly the aggressor here.

sschueller 5y ago
I believe the US will go as far as claiming an incursion has occurred without it actually having occurred. Like the movie wag the dog. They will then pressure Europe to enact sanctions which includes NS2 but will them selves not stop purchasing oil from Russia.
rasz 5y ago
every EU country indeed https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/seven-eu-countries-oppose-nord-stream/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/seven-eu-countr... including France https://www.dw.com/en/france-presses-germany-to-ditch-nord-stream-2-over-navalny/a-56411291 https://www.dw.com/en/france-presses-germany-to-ditch-nord-s...

vanusa 5y ago

We're talking about a person who has less than 48 ours ago threatened nuclear Armageddon on the entire world. [1] Strictly speaking, he said that bad things you're talking about would happen "if Ukraine joins NATO and tries to retake Crimea by military means." Not, as you seem to imply, just for the fun of it. The U.S. has also threatened, or considered first-strike nuclear attacks several times (albeit not publicly) numerous times, as recently as 1997. Usually against smaller countries (the usual suspects) but also against the Russians in the event of an attack on Berlin during the 1961 crisis: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-first-strike-plan/376432/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-fir... So say what you want about the petulant madman - but really he was just pulling a move from Kennedy's playbook, essentially.

rasz 5y ago
Strictly strictly speaking, what he really meant was "if after Russian invasion happening in weeks time Ukraine joins NATO and tries to retake territories east of Dnieper by military means."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vanusa 5y ago
  Could be.
emptysongglass 5y ago
Making idle threats of nuclear holocaust is inexcusable independent of context. I don't come into your house and idly drop threats of murdering your family, your family's extended family, and anyone who ever associated with your family but only if they join a club I don't like.