6 ms·

You mean so far you've lived a peaceful life and were skeptical of joining NATO but now that you've seen what Russia did to Ukraine, you're tempted to share the

You mean so far you've lived a peaceful life and were skeptical of joining NATO but now that you've seen what Russia did to Ukraine, you're tempted to share their fate?

bjoli 5y ago
Don't be stupid. You understand as well as anyone that there have been many good reasons not to join NATO. The other reply to my comment has a discussion about this that captures some aspects of it.
hnarn 5y ago
Ukraine is not a member of Nato. Reconsider the logic in your line of thought.
- pakitan 5y ago
  Maybe you should reconsider your logic? Ukraine wasn't attacked because it's a NATO member, it was attacked because (among other things) it wanted to become NATO member. There isn't a process where you just submit your wish to become a member and the next day, voila, you're accepted! It's a long process and that's when you'll be most vulnerable to attack.
  - hnarn 5y ago
    The logic is that attacking a country that attempts to join a defensive alliance (Ukraine) underlines the undeniable necessity of that alliance existing in the first place. There would not be a point in joining Nato if Russia was a paper tiger, but they're working very hard to prove that they are not. They are painting a picture of themselves as violent, unpredictable and hostile to democratic values that we (Swedes) value highly. By your logic, if Russia ever did invade Sweden, the "logical" thing to do would be to lay down arms immediately: after all, we all want to live a "peaceful life", right? Presumably the same would go for Russia making demands on the size of Sweden's military budget.
    - pakitan 5y ago
      > defensive alliance Yeah, right. Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq? Regarding the rest of your arguments, whether you want to support joining NATO is your own business. I'm just looking at it from a game theory perspective. As far as I remember, so far there haven't been threats from Russia against Sweden. Now you want to join and there is a threat. You may be indignant and think other countries have no right to choose for you but the reality may be different, as the Ukrainans are finding out. Now they will have to forget about joining NATO AND will get occupied, when they could have just admitted that they can't beat Russia and agreed to not join NATO.
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        >Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq? It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. :-) The Coalition invaded Iraq.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. NATO, as such (not just NATO members operating outside of the alliance) conducted a couple different (all non-combat, training and capacity development) military missions in Iraq. IIRC one from 2004-2011ish and one starting around 2018, maybe something in between.
      - iostream24 5y ago
        The reality is that swift decisive action in a coordinated fashion is the only way to stop an aggressor that suggest that everyone else needs to also lie down and shut up or they will get a thrashing too. Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” Multiple entities need to act with force in non economic ways that render collective bullying impossible. Game theory says “gang up now instead of letting your strongest get picked off first and your collective force diminished “ The old “first they came for the xyz but I wasn’t an xyz so I didn’t say anything “ story. Or surely Ukraine will not be the last victim. Putin has apparently and obviously thrown all caution and concern for domestic approval etc to the wind. What is his rush? He’s moving quickly. Best to act now. Nuclear war is a multifaceted weapon, hence the ‘M’ in MAD it’s not automatic or known what the trigger threshold is for this, and engagement has indeed occurred between nuclear powers is recent times…
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Then presumably Georgia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the rest were also attacked because they wanted to join NATO?
    - pakitan 5y ago
      Did I say that the only reason to get invaded by the Russians is wanting to join NATO?
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        In 2014 I believe it was joining the EU. Or perhaps it was electing a pro west government. Or perhaps it’s simply having free and fair elections that triggers Russian aggression. Who knows.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        So you're admitting Putler will use pretty much anything and everything as a pretext... And still advocating caving in to him on every pretext he can come up with?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Then presumably Georgia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the rest were also attacked because they wanted to join NATO? Georgia (of which South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part), yes, pretty explicitly. Chechnya is a different and long-running conflict (the Chechen Wars, in terms of their initiation, predate the late 1990s NATO expansion.) Georgia still wants to join NATO.
  - ynfnehf 5y ago
    The former Secretary General of NATO disagrees with you. For Sweden and Finland at least. Source in Finnish, but google translates it pretty well https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12268949 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12268949 https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12268949?_x_tr_sl=fi&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12268949?_x_tr_sl=fi... "Finland and Sweden meet the membership criteria and accession would be done quickly by NATO, even overnight."
  - watwut 5y ago
    No. Ukraine was attacked because Russia wants Ukraine territory a d is not accepting its right to exists as independent nation. The above is Russian goal with or without talk about NATO. The debate about maybe joining NATO sometimes in future might have speed up Russian plans. But Russia objection to Ukraine in NATO is basically "it would made it harder to annex them".
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > Maybe you should reconsider your logic? Ukraine wasn't attacked because it's a NATO member, it was attacked because (among other things) it wanted to become NATO member. IOW, it was attacked because it wasn't yet a NATO member. You seem to interpret that as "Better never try!", whereas a far more reasonable conclusion AFAICS is "Get it done ASAP!" Of all the countries Putler has so far invaded, exactly zero have so far been NATO members. Never trying to join NATO leaves a country indefinitely belonging to the high-risk group. If the fricking NATO had got off its butt and accepted Ukraine ASAP after the last time it applied (2008 IIRC), then Ukraine -- including Crimea! -- could have been a member well before 2014. You really think they'd be where they are now if they were a NATO member?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

You mean so far you've lived a peaceful life and were skeptical of joining NATO but now that you've seen what Russia did to Ukraine, you're tempted to share their fate?

bjoli 5y ago

Don't be stupid. You understand as well as anyone that there have been many good reasons not to join NATO. The other reply to my comment has a discussion about this that captures some aspects of it.

hnarn 5y ago

Ukraine is not a member of Nato. Reconsider the logic in your line of thought.

pakitan 5y ago
Maybe you should reconsider your logic? Ukraine wasn't attacked because it's a NATO member, it was attacked because (among other things) it wanted to become NATO member. There isn't a process where you just submit your wish to become a member and the next day, voila, you're accepted! It's a long process and that's when you'll be most vulnerable to attack.
- hnarn 5y ago
  The logic is that attacking a country that attempts to join a defensive alliance (Ukraine) underlines the undeniable necessity of that alliance existing in the first place. There would not be a point in joining Nato if Russia was a paper tiger, but they're working very hard to prove that they are not. They are painting a picture of themselves as violent, unpredictable and hostile to democratic values that we (Swedes) value highly. By your logic, if Russia ever did invade Sweden, the "logical" thing to do would be to lay down arms immediately: after all, we all want to live a "peaceful life", right? Presumably the same would go for Russia making demands on the size of Sweden's military budget.
  - pakitan 5y ago
    > defensive alliance Yeah, right. Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq? Regarding the rest of your arguments, whether you want to support joining NATO is your own business. I'm just looking at it from a game theory perspective. As far as I remember, so far there haven't been threats from Russia against Sweden. Now you want to join and there is a threat. You may be indignant and think other countries have no right to choose for you but the reality may be different, as the Ukrainans are finding out. Now they will have to forget about joining NATO AND will get occupied, when they could have just admitted that they can't beat Russia and agreed to not join NATO.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      >Remind me please who was NATO defending against during the military operation in Libya? Iraq? It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. :-) The Coalition invaded Iraq.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > It would be easier to explain why NATO invaded Iraq if it actually had. NATO, as such (not just NATO members operating outside of the alliance) conducted a couple different (all non-combat, training and capacity development) military missions in Iraq. IIRC one from 2004-2011ish and one starting around 2018, maybe something in between.
    - iostream24 5y ago
      The reality is that swift decisive action in a coordinated fashion is the only way to stop an aggressor that suggest that everyone else needs to also lie down and shut up or they will get a thrashing too. Game theory says “on three JUMP HIM!” Multiple entities need to act with force in non economic ways that render collective bullying impossible. Game theory says “gang up now instead of letting your strongest get picked off first and your collective force diminished “ The old “first they came for the xyz but I wasn’t an xyz so I didn’t say anything “ story. Or surely Ukraine will not be the last victim. Putin has apparently and obviously thrown all caution and concern for domestic approval etc to the wind. What is his rush? He’s moving quickly. Best to act now. Nuclear war is a multifaceted weapon, hence the ‘M’ in MAD it’s not automatic or known what the trigger threshold is for this, and engagement has indeed occurred between nuclear powers is recent times…
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Then presumably Georgia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the rest were also attacked because they wanted to join NATO?
  - pakitan 5y ago
    Did I say that the only reason to get invaded by the Russians is wanting to join NATO?
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      In 2014 I believe it was joining the EU. Or perhaps it was electing a pro west government. Or perhaps it’s simply having free and fair elections that triggers Russian aggression. Who knows.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      So you're admitting Putler will use pretty much anything and everything as a pretext... And still advocating caving in to him on every pretext he can come up with?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Then presumably Georgia, Chechnya, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the rest were also attacked because they wanted to join NATO? Georgia (of which South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part), yes, pretty explicitly. Chechnya is a different and long-running conflict (the Chechen Wars, in terms of their initiation, predate the late 1990s NATO expansion.) Georgia still wants to join NATO.
- ynfnehf 5y ago
  The former Secretary General of NATO disagrees with you. For Sweden and Finland at least. Source in Finnish, but google translates it pretty well https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12268949 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12268949 https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12268949?_x_tr_sl=fi&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://yle-fi.translate.goog/uutiset/3-12268949?_x_tr_sl=fi... "Finland and Sweden meet the membership criteria and accession would be done quickly by NATO, even overnight."
- watwut 5y ago
  No. Ukraine was attacked because Russia wants Ukraine territory a d is not accepting its right to exists as independent nation. The above is Russian goal with or without talk about NATO. The debate about maybe joining NATO sometimes in future might have speed up Russian plans. But Russia objection to Ukraine in NATO is basically "it would made it harder to annex them".
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Maybe you should reconsider your logic? Ukraine wasn't attacked because it's a NATO member, it was attacked because (among other things) it wanted to become NATO member. IOW, it was attacked because it wasn't yet a NATO member. You seem to interpret that as "Better never try!", whereas a far more reasonable conclusion AFAICS is "Get it done ASAP!" Of all the countries Putler has so far invaded, exactly zero have so far been NATO members. Never trying to join NATO leaves a country indefinitely belonging to the high-risk group. If the fricking NATO had got off its butt and accepted Ukraine ASAP after the last time it applied (2008 IIRC), then Ukraine -- including Crimea! -- could have been a member well before 2014. You really think they'd be where they are now if they were a NATO member?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]