5 ms·

It's a pity, but what else we can do to stop the agression? As an European, I'm ready to bear the costs if it will help to stop the agression and the war. Sprin

It's a pity, but what else we can do to stop the agression? As an European, I'm ready to bear the costs if it will help to stop the agression and the war. Spring is coming and it should be enough time to prepare for the next winter. edit: spelling

modzu 5y ago
- sharken 5y ago
  What expansion is that exactly, there are talks but no concrete plans although Putin would like us to think so. And besides that, NATO or the west should not refrain from having these talks no matter what Putin says. If Finland or Sweden wants in, they should be allowed to the same day they ask.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Every time this proposition comes up, I'm going to repost this comment (I apologize in advance for the repeat): This is valuable reading, from a military historian frequently posted on HN: https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the- https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-... Here's one of the many good bits: ---- Instead, the clearest understanding of Putin’s complaints about NATO is that they are reflections of his real fears, but that as diplomatic negotiating tools, they were red herrings, designed to create exactly the sort of smokescreen that some media personalities worked to create and exploit domestically. The ‘tell’ here in many ways were the initial demands, which amounted to rolling back NATO positions to pre-1997 status; such demands would be utterly unacceptable to NATO countries (like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland) who would thus be left outside NATO’s line of protection. Putin – and the Russian Foreign Ministry – knew those demands were obvious non-starters, that’s why they made them – presumably to generate that smokescreen and to try to divide NATO internally. But the demands themselves were never serious, as Putin’s actions this week prove. ---- The "promise Ukraine won't join NATO" demand was not made in good faith and conceding it would not have mattered.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Exactly.
  - modzu 5y ago
    this guy claims not to be an expert on the matter, admits his bias against russia, and then proceeds to talk as though he is an expert on russia and ukraine (there are significant factual mistakes and ommissions in the link above). i would be hesitant to cite this as the "clearest understanding"
    - breakingcups 5y ago
      It wouldn't hurt to point out the supposed "significant factual mistakes and ommissions" to strengthen your argument..
- nyadesu 5y ago
  Well, Russia could also pause its expansion
  - modzu 5y ago
    indeed. my point was that diplomacy has seriously failed here, all sides share in that responsibility. yes russia is inside ukraine, but there are broader answers to the question "what else can we do"
- ModernMech 5y ago
  This is called the appeasement option, and it notably historically hasn't worked on unhinged psychopaths with a proclivity for imperial conquest. Putin is conducting an invasion of a country on the basis (according to him) that they are Nazis and drug dealers who are effecting a genocide. Even if he doesn't actually believe this, the gaslighting evidences his psychopathy.
  - modzu 5y ago
    that reminds me of Canada, which was in a state of martial law over a nazi insurrection of its parliament. of course, they werent nazis, but theyre in jail now just the same. its just never been fashionable for the western media to demonize canada the way it has "the communists"
- CyberRage 5y ago
- Joeri 5y ago
  This argument makes no sense from a logical viewpoint. NATO is a defensive union. The only reason to fear it is if you’re planning to invade other nations. Putin ostensibly should have no reason to fear NATO expansion unless he has ill intent. And if the argument is: yes, it is defensive now, but it might turn offensive against Russia at some point. Well, for that you just need an alliance of countries, it does not need to be NATO. A group of countries comprised of NATO and non-NATO members can gang up against Russia any time they want, without any NATO involvement. I believe Putin only says this because he wants to keep invading other countries on the table as an option, and that is precisely the reason to keep expanding NATO.
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    If NATO is a defensive union please name one defensive war it was involved in. You’re right, none, s as opposed to 20+ aggressions NATO states have been involved in.
    - 3pt14159 5y ago
      Afganistan was the only time Article 5 was used and you can disagree, but yes that was a defensive war. One with an occupation that lasted way too long, but that's a different story.
      - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
        When and how Afghanistan Attacke any NATO member? Someone claiming it was defensive doesn’t make it so. If Afghanistan can be called a defensive war, Russian „demilitarisation“ of the Ukraine is purely humanitarian operation.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        ...way too long... Taliban weren't friendly with Al-Qaeda, and attempted to surrender in the first week of the war. In the first month of the war, its alleged target ObL decamped to Pakistan. After a decade, someone somewhat resembling ObL who had been living under close Pakistani military supervision a mile from PMA Kakul was allegedly murdered as a campaign event for BHO's reelection, although no corpse was ever examined. After another decade, NATO forces left Afghanistan with tails between legs, while experts assured us that the "government" they had installed would last several years. Realists assumed that meant it would last several months, but even we were surprised when that actually meant several hours. It seems "way too long" somewhat understates this. There is no sense in which this was a defensive war, and if this were as you say the only thing NATO ever did (perhaps something might have happened in Kosovo?) then that is a complete indictment of NATO.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > maybe NATO can agree to pause its expansion? i do think that would do the trick Nah. It might do the trick if NATO pulled back and let Russia reassert dominance over the old Warsaw Pact, again. There aren't easy answers here.
- rconti 5y ago
  I won't burn down your house if you let me have your car.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  No, that didn't do the trick. If you had paid attention you would have noticed that Ukraine did not join NATO and was not on track to join NATO. This is just a convenient excuse for Putin to be able to do what he wants to do anyway.
  - modzu 5y ago
    i suppose an apt analogy would be to ask saddam hussein to "give up his weapons of mass destruction"
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Yes. Hans Blix and David Kelly were on the money and US intelligence was full of shit.
AnonymousPlanet 5y ago
Half a year is not nearly enough time to prepare. It's not just heating and electricity. It's also chemical industry etc. You will have to be willing to do more than just turn down the heating a bit. How about job security? 20% inflation? There will be much anger. However, with Covid-19 there was no one really to blame, so people turned against local politicians imposing measures or people turned towards conspiracy theories for explanations and comfort. Here the culprit is clear and has one name.

modzu 5y ago

sharken 5y ago
What expansion is that exactly, there are talks but no concrete plans although Putin would like us to think so. And besides that, NATO or the west should not refrain from having these talks no matter what Putin says. If Finland or Sweden wants in, they should be allowed to the same day they ask.
stickfigure 5y ago
Every time this proposition comes up, I'm going to repost this comment (I apologize in advance for the repeat): This is valuable reading, from a military historian frequently posted on HN: https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the- https://acoup.blog/2022/02/25/miscellanea-understanding-the-... Here's one of the many good bits: ---- Instead, the clearest understanding of Putin’s complaints about NATO is that they are reflections of his real fears, but that as diplomatic negotiating tools, they were red herrings, designed to create exactly the sort of smokescreen that some media personalities worked to create and exploit domestically. The ‘tell’ here in many ways were the initial demands, which amounted to rolling back NATO positions to pre-1997 status; such demands would be utterly unacceptable to NATO countries (like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland) who would thus be left outside NATO’s line of protection. Putin – and the Russian Foreign Ministry – knew those demands were obvious non-starters, that’s why they made them – presumably to generate that smokescreen and to try to divide NATO internally. But the demands themselves were never serious, as Putin’s actions this week prove. ---- The "promise Ukraine won't join NATO" demand was not made in good faith and conceding it would not have mattered.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Exactly.
- modzu 5y ago
  this guy claims not to be an expert on the matter, admits his bias against russia, and then proceeds to talk as though he is an expert on russia and ukraine (there are significant factual mistakes and ommissions in the link above). i would be hesitant to cite this as the "clearest understanding"
  - breakingcups 5y ago
    It wouldn't hurt to point out the supposed "significant factual mistakes and ommissions" to strengthen your argument..
nyadesu 5y ago
Well, Russia could also pause its expansion
- modzu 5y ago
  indeed. my point was that diplomacy has seriously failed here, all sides share in that responsibility. yes russia is inside ukraine, but there are broader answers to the question "what else can we do"
ModernMech 5y ago
This is called the appeasement option, and it notably historically hasn't worked on unhinged psychopaths with a proclivity for imperial conquest. Putin is conducting an invasion of a country on the basis (according to him) that they are Nazis and drug dealers who are effecting a genocide. Even if he doesn't actually believe this, the gaslighting evidences his psychopathy.
- modzu 5y ago
  that reminds me of Canada, which was in a state of martial law over a nazi insurrection of its parliament. of course, they werent nazis, but theyre in jail now just the same. its just never been fashionable for the western media to demonize canada the way it has "the communists"
CyberRage 5y ago
Joeri 5y ago
This argument makes no sense from a logical viewpoint. NATO is a defensive union. The only reason to fear it is if you’re planning to invade other nations. Putin ostensibly should have no reason to fear NATO expansion unless he has ill intent. And if the argument is: yes, it is defensive now, but it might turn offensive against Russia at some point. Well, for that you just need an alliance of countries, it does not need to be NATO. A group of countries comprised of NATO and non-NATO members can gang up against Russia any time they want, without any NATO involvement. I believe Putin only says this because he wants to keep invading other countries on the table as an option, and that is precisely the reason to keep expanding NATO.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  If NATO is a defensive union please name one defensive war it was involved in. You’re right, none, s as opposed to 20+ aggressions NATO states have been involved in.
  - 3pt14159 5y ago
    Afganistan was the only time Article 5 was used and you can disagree, but yes that was a defensive war. One with an occupation that lasted way too long, but that's a different story.
    - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
      When and how Afghanistan Attacke any NATO member? Someone claiming it was defensive doesn’t make it so. If Afghanistan can be called a defensive war, Russian „demilitarisation“ of the Ukraine is purely humanitarian operation.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      ...way too long... Taliban weren't friendly with Al-Qaeda, and attempted to surrender in the first week of the war. In the first month of the war, its alleged target ObL decamped to Pakistan. After a decade, someone somewhat resembling ObL who had been living under close Pakistani military supervision a mile from PMA Kakul was allegedly murdered as a campaign event for BHO's reelection, although no corpse was ever examined. After another decade, NATO forces left Afghanistan with tails between legs, while experts assured us that the "government" they had installed would last several years. Realists assumed that meant it would last several months, but even we were surprised when that actually meant several hours. It seems "way too long" somewhat understates this. There is no sense in which this was a defensive war, and if this were as you say the only thing NATO ever did (perhaps something might have happened in Kosovo?) then that is a complete indictment of NATO.
tablespoon 5y ago
> maybe NATO can agree to pause its expansion? i do think that would do the trick Nah. It might do the trick if NATO pulled back and let Russia reassert dominance over the old Warsaw Pact, again. There aren't easy answers here.
rconti 5y ago
I won't burn down your house if you let me have your car.
jacquesm 5y ago
No, that didn't do the trick. If you had paid attention you would have noticed that Ukraine did not join NATO and was not on track to join NATO. This is just a convenient excuse for Putin to be able to do what he wants to do anyway.
- modzu 5y ago
  i suppose an apt analogy would be to ask saddam hussein to "give up his weapons of mass destruction"
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes. Hans Blix and David Kelly were on the money and US intelligence was full of shit.

AnonymousPlanet 5y ago

Half a year is not nearly enough time to prepare. It's not just heating and electricity. It's also chemical industry etc. You will have to be willing to do more than just turn down the heating a bit. How about job security? 20% inflation? There will be much anger. However, with Covid-19 there was no one really to blame, so people turned against local politicians imposing measures or people turned towards conspiracy theories for explanations and comfort. Here the culprit is clear and has one name.