3 ms·

Negotiations are one thing, but Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is clos

Negotiations are one thing, but Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. Who gets to be a member of Nato is a delicate balance, and there’s a reason why countries like Finland and Sweden are not. Russia apparently wants a buffer between itself and Nato (there are some exceptions like Norway). Sending a lot of Nato troops to Ukraine would signal that Ukraine is a de facto Nato border. > Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule.

wolverine876 5y ago
> Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. This raises many issues: 1) Sending military resources isn't the only response. 2) What is the vicinity? NATO territory nearby (which is happening)? Ukraine itself (which isn't happening)? 3) Finland and Sweden are not members because they choose not to be; afaik NATO would accept them. 4) You say NATO 'can't' send military to the vicinity (though they are) because Russia is closer (which is a clear military risk), but you imply that NATO being closer to Russia is a reasonable concern for the latter. There's also a difference between a revanchist, violent power which has already annexed parts of two countries and threatens many more (Russia), and one which hasn't annexed anything (NATO). >> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity > To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule To find someone who makes replaces evidence and reason with mockery is not, unfortunately, uncommon these days. But regardless, that's all you've provided, which amounts to nothing. Do you have any evidence or reason, or even a clear assertion, or just mockery?

wolverine876 5y ago

> Nato countries can’t just ship out military to the vicinity because an attack on one country would then mean that Russia is closer to Nato member countries. This raises many issues: 1) Sending military resources isn't the only response. 2) What is the vicinity? NATO territory nearby (which is happening)? Ukraine itself (which isn't happening)? 3) Finland and Sweden are not members because they choose not to be; afaik NATO would accept them. 4) You say NATO 'can't' send military to the vicinity (though they are) because Russia is closer (which is a clear military risk), but you imply that NATO being closer to Russia is a reasonable concern for the latter. There's also a difference between a revanchist, violent power which has already annexed parts of two countries and threatens many more (Russia), and one which hasn't annexed anything (NATO). >> Also, the US has a different kind of 'obligation' to democracy, peace, prosperity > To find someone that still believes that line feels like finding a time capsule To find someone who makes replaces evidence and reason with mockery is not, unfortunately, uncommon these days. But regardless, that's all you've provided, which amounts to nothing. Do you have any evidence or reason, or even a clear assertion, or just mockery?