4 ms·

> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?) Ok, I have no "pro-Russia" bent at all, I

by brabel 5y ago

> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?) Ok, I have no "pro-Russia" bent at all, I think they are to blame in this whole story as their concerns could've been addressed by diplomacy like most European leaders have been trying to say... but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine and how it might think war is a justifiable way to stop that from happening? And if that's the case, how it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been (with Krimea and Eastern Ukraine in a war situation for several years)? It's hard to do so, but try to imagine yourself being a decision maker on the Russian side. Seeing an extremely important, historically aligned neighbour that has a very large, geographically un-obstructed border with you, and who can block your access to extremely important maritime routes, trying to join a military alliance who sees you as one of their main enemies. While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable and I can totally see how NATO nations should do everything it can to avoid this war, they have nothing to lose, while Russia has a lot at stake... sometimes, it's a wise move to back off your expansion to avoid loss of life and making the situation much, much worse (imagine a world with Russian-occupied Ukraine for years to come)... when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge). I highly recommend the Caspian Report channel on YT and its series on this conflict to understand the motivations on each side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNIU6TRsRzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNIU6TRsRzk

foogazi 5y ago
GP: >> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?) You: > but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it? > While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable Why? > it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been Sounds like appeasement to me > when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge). The why go to war over something symbolic?
- brabel 5y ago
  It's hard to communicate, it seems, when people seem to do all they can to not understand the other side. (talking not only about this exchange, by the way). Your quotes of me are disingenuous. OP asked why NATO shouldn't expand. I answered that doing so will surely trigger a war, as Russia made clear already. > Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it? I suppose you mean "wouldn't", and I would agree that they want to align with NATO as the current government is very anti-Russia (notice that Ukraine goes back and forth on this, it's not always the way it is now). But what a country wants is not always what they can do. I am sure Georgia would love to join NATO too and make sure Russia never invades it again... but is NATO willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia? Or over Ukraine? The answer is no. NATO already said so: they will not support Ukraine militarily if Russia invades. So the real question is whether it's worth letting Russia invade Ukraine simply because NATO cannot meet the Russian demands to say Ukraine will not join NATO. > The why go to war over something symbolic? You must've misread something... NATO meeting the Russian demands would be symbolic in my understanding (again, because NATO didn't have concrete plans to let Ukraine join it... Russia just wants NATO to make that official - a mostly symbolic act). But NATO not meeting this demand will cause a war for sure, which has nothing symbolic about it. Children will die (have you seen the faces of the soldiers on the front line, FFS they are children, 18 yos).
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  > The why go to war over something symbolic? They are not going to war. They just expand their presence on the borders to make a point. If NATO feels menace with those deployments, they are expected to understand that Russia feels the same. If NATO is not making commitment on paper not to expand and to scale down their current presence, Russia will not make commitments to stop those annual military exercises they have been doing for years.
  - AutumnCurtain 5y ago
    Have you rethought these comments at all, Ivan?
    - 5y ago

by brabel 5y ago

foogazi 5y ago

GP: >> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?) You: > but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it? > While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable Why? > it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been Sounds like appeasement to me > when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge). The why go to war over something symbolic?

brabel 5y ago
It's hard to communicate, it seems, when people seem to do all they can to not understand the other side. (talking not only about this exchange, by the way). Your quotes of me are disingenuous. OP asked why NATO shouldn't expand. I answered that doing so will surely trigger a war, as Russia made clear already. > Why would Ukraine want to align with NATO instead of the country that just invaded it? I suppose you mean "wouldn't", and I would agree that they want to align with NATO as the current government is very anti-Russia (notice that Ukraine goes back and forth on this, it's not always the way it is now). But what a country wants is not always what they can do. I am sure Georgia would love to join NATO too and make sure Russia never invades it again... but is NATO willing to go to war with Russia over Georgia? Or over Ukraine? The answer is no. NATO already said so: they will not support Ukraine militarily if Russia invades. So the real question is whether it's worth letting Russia invade Ukraine simply because NATO cannot meet the Russian demands to say Ukraine will not join NATO. > The why go to war over something symbolic? You must've misread something... NATO meeting the Russian demands would be symbolic in my understanding (again, because NATO didn't have concrete plans to let Ukraine join it... Russia just wants NATO to make that official - a mostly symbolic act). But NATO not meeting this demand will cause a war for sure, which has nothing symbolic about it. Children will die (have you seen the faces of the soldiers on the front line, FFS they are children, 18 yos).
ivan_gammel 5y ago
> The why go to war over something symbolic? They are not going to war. They just expand their presence on the borders to make a point. If NATO feels menace with those deployments, they are expected to understand that Russia feels the same. If NATO is not making commitment on paper not to expand and to scale down their current presence, Russia will not make commitments to stop those annual military exercises they have been doing for years.
- AutumnCurtain 5y ago
  Have you rethought these comments at all, Ivan?
  - 5y ago