8 ms·
Depends on where people live, how much do they make etc. The general sentiment in this country for the past few decades is "it's not for me to decide". Many p
by konart 5y ago
Depends on where people live, how much do they make etc.
The general sentiment in this country for the past few decades is "it's not for me to decide".
Many people do agree however that while this kind of solution is not really a great one and likely not in our best interest - something has to be done regarding the NATO problem.
- throwaway_4ever 5y agoYes, the "NATO problem". The "problem" that is actually defending countries from invasions instead of letting their people, in a country that is not even close to being in NATO, die at the hands of tyrants.
- p1esk 5y agoWhat would US do if Russia decided to build military bases in Mexico or Cuba?
- xyzzy_plugh 5y agoYou'll be happy to learn that you can find that answer in any number of history books.
- ethbr0 5y agoThe US tried to invade Cuba (with CIA-supported Cuban rebels). It's not a hypothetical.
- unilynx 5y agoLast time they set up a naval blockade.
- throwaway894345 5y agoFair enough. How many bases has the US built in Ukraine anyway?
- hef19898 5y agoUkraine? No idea. Poland, the Baltics, the southern former Soviet republics (most of which end at -stan) to support the invasion of Afghanistan, a lot.
- HWR_14 5y agoTo make the metaphor correct, what would the US do if Mexico or Cuba asked Russia to build a military base just after the US took some of their territory and Russia continually said no. Because Russia just took Crimea a few years ago and NATO refused to allow them to join. And Russia has agreed Crimea was part of Ukraine as recently as 1994.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- konart 5y agoThat's the view from one side of the fence, sorry.
- throwaway894345 5y agoThe side of the fence that’s being bombed for no reason. Good luck justifying that.
- konart 5y ago>no reason Again. Reason is something one has in this mind. You may find no reason where a different person sees one.
- avmich 5y agoYet the reason is an important subject, and in questions like that different reasoning lead to lost lives. So it's a serious, justifiable subject to discuss.
- michaelmrose 5y agoIf you can't supply one the logical conclusion is that there is no good reason and all the reasons that flow from simple observation are terribly unsupportable morally and legally. You know that. You are vague because giving a better answer is impossible and the actual answer is unpalatable.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI don’t find abstract philosophical arguments convincing.
- hef19898 5y agoEveryone bombs everyone, it seems. NATO bombed Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq,... Sent "peacekeepers" to loads of African countries (funny enough those countries sit on tons of raw materials). Russia bombed Georgia (not the US state of Georgia), Ukraine. China isn't bombing as much with actual bombs for now, money seems to work just fine it seems. Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, Israel is bombing Palestine, while Palestine is bombing Israel. No need to justify any of that, because it all sucks and is ultimately utterly pointless. It does help so, to understand the other side. Because it makes it easier to find a solution that doesn't lead to all out war between nuclear powers. And no, I don't consider just handing Ukraine to Putin to be that solution. Or Taiwan to China, as far as that is concerned.
- cdelsolar 5y agowhat is the NATO problem
- labster 5y agoNATO is too effective at ensuring peace in Europe, thus preventing Russia from becoming a great power again.
- chii 5y agoso the bottom line is that russia (or more correctly, putin) is unable to accept that their state cannot and would not be allowed by the west to become a superpower. I think the inevitable result is war. I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, and prevented this, but instead, the optimism that an autocratic state would not do so is the true reality. But of course, it doesn't have good optics at the time to do this. I guess the future will tell if this war escalates.
- rectang 5y ago> I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, That wouldn't have been feasible given military realities (nukes, the total impossibility of invading and occupying Russia), and even if it had been what would it have achieved? The age of imperialism is over. The west has won allies by respecting the right of their populations to self-determination. (And when it hasn't respected self-determination, it has often lost ground.)
- hef19898 5y agoThe West (I live in a Western country by the way) did not respect self determination of people when it didn't suit the Wests interests. Not before WW1 (when there was no West), not between WW1 and WW2 (Austria wanted to join Germany and wasn't allowed to, the whole former Russian Empire as engulfed in a civil war over that very question, not to mention the colonial empires) or after WW2 (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab Spring, Syria,...). The war that is on the horizon is not about the "good" vs. the "evil". It is about one revisionist, power hungry leader going toe-to-toe with another power-hungry block over territorial dominance. And about those people just wanting to live in peace caught in the middle.
- bryanrasmussen 5y agothanks, I suppose the NATO problem is that as the sole purpose of the forming of NATO was to act as a deterrent and implicit threat to the Soviet Union having a possible NATO country next to Russia itself, as opposed to having some buffer is seen as aggressive in itself?
- catlifeonmars 5y agoPure speculation, but maybe it’s calculated aggression based on an assumption that the west doesn’t have an appetite for war [with Russia] and will avoid doing so if possible.
- leobg 5y agoThat’s what Hitler counted on when he invaded Czechoslovakia.
- dotancohen 5y agoAnd it seems that both were not incorrect.
- leobg 5y agoHow so? Hitler got away with it. The Allies declared war on him only nine months later when he also invaded Poland. And even then, they only did it half-heartedly, and the French pretty much threw away their weapons when the first German panzers arrived. Hitler knew that he had the stronger will to fight. Had it not been for a few other factors (Churchill, Russian winter, and the Hitler's obsession with the jews), he could have taken the whole of Europe.
- dotancohen 5y agoExactly, Hitler was not incorrect in his assumption that the West did not have an appetite for war. He got away with it.
- rectang 5y agoA number of former Soviet satellite states joined NATO, but they chose to do so of their own volition. NATO does not prevent their self-determination. In contrast, Russia is denying self-determination to Ukraine.
- konart 5y agoSure, but what Russia was constantly telling NATO is that while Russia respects other countries' desire to join NATO - Russia believes that NATO should not allow those countries to join. Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.
- mopsi 5y ago> Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there. NATO does not have "systems". NATO is a cooperation office between militaries of member countries, despite relentless Russian propaganda that makes it sound as if tanks and missiles magically pop up after signing the membership agreement.
- throwaway894345 5y agoRussia can’t respect other countries’ desire to join NATO while holding the position that they shouldn’t be allowed to join NATO. That’s patent nonsense.
- reitanqild 5y agoIt is not about Nato I think. I think this Finnish guy writes it clearly: https://mobile.twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/1496047631969234944 https://mobile.twitter.com/jmkorhonen/status/149604763196923...
- konart 5y agoThis is very simplistic view. People often try to shrug it off as if Putin (or Hitler) "just wanted to grab more land". I don't really want to change anyone's mind and give a lecture. It's just that world is not as simple as it may seem.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI don’t understand “the NATO problem”. Even if Ukraine became part of NATO, all it would mean for Russia is that there will be consequences if they invade. How hard is it not to invade other countries, unprovoked?
- chefkoch 5y agoIt's the same reason why the US didn't want sowjet missiles in Cuba in the 60ies.
- beachy 5y agoThe US never invaded Cuba though. Well, not officially and certainly not effectively.
- hef19898 5y agoWell, they tried. And botched it. And almost started an nuclear war over a sea blockade of Cuba back then.
- woadwarrior01 5y agoUmm… Bay of Pigs? Which is what led to the Cuban missile crisis, along with the installation of nuclear capable ballistic missiles in Turkey. The US would have invaded Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, if Khrushchev hadn’t backed down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
- beachy 5y agoBay of pigs was not an official invasion and it certainly was not effective, hence my comment.
- 1024core 5y agoBut the US did put a blockade around Cuba. Any ships going to/from Cuba could be searched by the US.