5 ms·

Russia in NATO would by no means "literally eliminate a whole host of terrible scenarios". Putin would still be in power, in fact he'd probably have swallowed u

by roca 5y ago

Russia in NATO would by no means "literally eliminate a whole host of terrible scenarios". Putin would still be in power, in fact he'd probably have swallowed up more territory by now using his ability to paralyze NATO, and he'd be no less likely to use nukes than he is today.

EGreg 5y ago
I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory. Rather, I have seen them try to hold on to what they have, as more and more republics want to secede. We all know how USA dealt with secession… I honestly think Russia is motivated only by NATO being a long term geopolitical existential threat. And what it sees as the wresting of its allies by “the West”. Honestly, seeing how nations fare after trusting the USA (eg Kurds) I can’t really blame them for that. What I do blame them for is sucking at public dialogue and messaging and then lashing out militarily. I blame the USA and others for that last part too. But at least the USA is good at meesaging so people know what we are concerned about. Remember, after all, this is the prevailing sentiment around the world every year: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-democracy-russia-china-global-poll https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-demo... (I bet that poll will change this year, though)
- roca 5y ago
  South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donetsk, and Luhansk weren't part of Russia post-USSR. > And what it sees as the wresting of its allies by “the West”. Honestly, seeing how nations fare after trusting the USA (eg Kurds) I can’t really blame them for that. I think the USA treated the Kurds poorly, but how is that relevant to this? The Baltics were eager to join NATO and are very happy they did. Are you arguing that Russia invaded Ukraine so that they wouldn't join NATO and be treated badly by America in the future?
  - EGreg 5y ago
    Honestly I think it’s basically a combination of four things at once: Separatists overreacting to news of civil war in Odessa and moving to declare independence from Ukraine Kyiv blowing the separatists out of proportion and sending its army in a protracted siege war against them instead of sitting down based on Minsk agreements Putin blowing the “fascist Kyiv government genociding Russians” thing out of proportion and sending his army in a blitzkrieg to destroy Ukrainian capabilities instead of sitting down with Zelenskiy’s government at the highest levels NATO ignoring Russia’s repeated concerns over the years about expansion and surrounding it with the same kind of thing that made JFK ready to go to war during the Cuban missile crisis Basically on every level, sending an army backfires. Better to just not react with violence and use diplomacy. But seems that cooler heads do NOT prevail
    - lobocinza 5y ago
      [flagged]
    - roca 5y ago
      You're totally ignoring Putin's speech where he explicitly stated Ukraine always was and always should be part of a Russian empire.
- mongol 5y ago
  > I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory. How can you not have seen the invasion of Ukraine that started yesterday?
  - EGreg 5y ago
    Is that your only example? So the last 30 years Russia didn’t expand and now it finally took over Ukraine temporarily and will probably let them keep their government and stay relatively independent (but demilitarized) proves they love annexing things? That is like saying Israel took Golan Heights because of its ambitions to expand and take over as much Arab land as it can. Rather than limited strategic control for security guarantees. Every country wants to have a buffer against enemy troops so they can’t shoot as far into its main population centees. In my opinion this is not going to be a thing in the 21st century but it was a thing all throughout history before. USA is just “lucky” to be surrounded by two oceans because frankly they managed to either exterminate or ethnically cleanse and demilitarize all the previous inhabitants on the continent through war or disease. Otherwise it would act the same way. (The Monroe doctrine kind of declares the whole hemisphere to be under USA protectorate btw.)
    - mongol 5y ago
      I proved you wrong. I rest my case.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory. It might pay off to regain parity with current affairs then. And maybe read a bit about Chechnya while you're at it or any one of the pages linked from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-Soviet_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-Soviet_conflicts

by roca 5y ago

EGreg 5y ago

I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory. Rather, I have seen them try to hold on to what they have, as more and more republics want to secede. We all know how USA dealt with secession… I honestly think Russia is motivated only by NATO being a long term geopolitical existential threat. And what it sees as the wresting of its allies by “the West”. Honestly, seeing how nations fare after trusting the USA (eg Kurds) I can’t really blame them for that. What I do blame them for is sucking at public dialogue and messaging and then lashing out militarily. I blame the USA and others for that last part too. But at least the USA is good at meesaging so people know what we are concerned about. Remember, after all, this is the prevailing sentiment around the world every year: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-democracy-russia-china-global-poll https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-demo... (I bet that poll will change this year, though)

roca 5y ago
South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Donetsk, and Luhansk weren't part of Russia post-USSR. > And what it sees as the wresting of its allies by “the West”. Honestly, seeing how nations fare after trusting the USA (eg Kurds) I can’t really blame them for that. I think the USA treated the Kurds poorly, but how is that relevant to this? The Baltics were eager to join NATO and are very happy they did. Are you arguing that Russia invaded Ukraine so that they wouldn't join NATO and be treated badly by America in the future?
- EGreg 5y ago
  Honestly I think it’s basically a combination of four things at once: Separatists overreacting to news of civil war in Odessa and moving to declare independence from Ukraine Kyiv blowing the separatists out of proportion and sending its army in a protracted siege war against them instead of sitting down based on Minsk agreements Putin blowing the “fascist Kyiv government genociding Russians” thing out of proportion and sending his army in a blitzkrieg to destroy Ukrainian capabilities instead of sitting down with Zelenskiy’s government at the highest levels NATO ignoring Russia’s repeated concerns over the years about expansion and surrounding it with the same kind of thing that made JFK ready to go to war during the Cuban missile crisis Basically on every level, sending an army backfires. Better to just not react with violence and use diplomacy. But seems that cooler heads do NOT prevail
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - roca 5y ago
    You're totally ignoring Putin's speech where he explicitly stated Ukraine always was and always should be part of a Russian empire.
mongol 5y ago
> I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory. How can you not have seen the invasion of Ukraine that started yesterday?
- EGreg 5y ago
  Is that your only example? So the last 30 years Russia didn’t expand and now it finally took over Ukraine temporarily and will probably let them keep their government and stay relatively independent (but demilitarized) proves they love annexing things? That is like saying Israel took Golan Heights because of its ambitions to expand and take over as much Arab land as it can. Rather than limited strategic control for security guarantees. Every country wants to have a buffer against enemy troops so they can’t shoot as far into its main population centees. In my opinion this is not going to be a thing in the 21st century but it was a thing all throughout history before. USA is just “lucky” to be surrounded by two oceans because frankly they managed to either exterminate or ethnically cleanse and demilitarize all the previous inhabitants on the continent through war or disease. Otherwise it would act the same way. (The Monroe doctrine kind of declares the whole hemisphere to be under USA protectorate btw.)
  - mongol 5y ago
    I proved you wrong. I rest my case.
jacquesm 5y ago
> I have not seen Russia post-USSR be interested in expanding and swallowing territory. It might pay off to regain parity with current affairs then. And maybe read a bit about Chechnya while you're at it or any one of the pages linked from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-Soviet_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post-Soviet_conflicts