7 ms·

Thank you for articulating this better than I could. You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " ci

Thank you for articulating this better than I could. You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city". That said, I think much of Russia's restraint is due to their end goal. Ukraine's Russian backed president was outted in a coup back in 2014. The new pro West leadership decided to go dancing with John McCain. This entire conflict could of been avoided if we didn't keep trying to expand NATO. I know I'm not enlisting if the Russians invade Poland tomorrow, but the existence of NATO implies I am. It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president. Now imagine China and Russia announcing plans for various military bases on Haiti. The Russians could finally have a warm water port. In no universe would America accept Haiti having a right to its own foreign policy. We don't want anyone else playing in our backyard. To be clear, this doesn't justify a stronger country imposing it's will upon a weaker one. This is worth a read. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars * CBS not CNN

vegai_ 5y ago
Does NATO membership imply that America owns the country? I haven't witnessed anything like that in any of the European NATO countries.
- 999900000999 5y ago
  >Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm Like I said, I'm not enlisting if the Russians invade Poland. If individual American citizens want to a join a Polish foreign legion, that's fine. Maybe the State Department can create a list of approved foreign legions American citizen can join. Then your free to sign up on your own accord.
  - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    Lol yes, history shows that aggressive dictators just want to conquer Poland, and if we give it to them they'll stop there.
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      He'd stop in East Germany though ...
  - mercutio2 5y ago
    Are you saying you would enlist if Germany, France, or the UK was invaded, but specifically Poland isn't worth enlisting for, because it's a former Warsaw Pact country? Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO? Poland and Hungary have done autocratic things I don't agree with, but their governments seem to come much closer to following the will of the people then they would if they were again inside Russia's sphere of influence, and I think bringing them inside NATO was good for them. I'm not sure whether it was a good maneuver strategically, but I'm also not sure it wasn't.
    - 999900000999 5y ago
      >Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO? I'm not enlisting for anything short of America actually getting invaded. During the Vietnam War anyone with a bit of money could get deferments. Those are what I call smart men. I feel absolutely no obligation to die in a foreign conflict. Providing logistic and selling arms is more than fine, but getting directly involved is a completely different matter.
      - vegai_ 5y ago
        If it becomes bad enough, there'll be a draft. But probably not since the US has plenty of soldiers without one.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> You had a CNN commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city". CBS News foreign correspondent Charlie D'Agata, actually. > It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president. Now imagine China and Russia announcing plans for various military bases on Haiti. The Russians could finally have a warm water port. > In no universe would America accept Haiti having a right to its own foreign policy. Uh, you know this actually happened in a different Caribbean island state and, while there was a bit of a dispute about nuclear weapons that resulted in both alliances pulling them back from each others borders in a quid pro quo, and a variety of covert and sponsored-third-party actions, the US never committed it's military to an all out assault to displace the Soviet-backed regime, which still exists and is still closely associated with Russia even after the fall of the USSR, a geopolitical alignment outlasting the notional ideological one.
- darkarmani 5y ago
  > Uh, you know this actually happened in a different Caribbean island state and, while there was a bit of a dispute about nuclear weapons that resulted in both alliances pulling them back from each others borders in a quid pro quo What nuclear weapons were being placed in Ukraine? Russia's only argument is that "someday maybe, perhaps, it could possibly happen".
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > What nuclear weapons were being placed in Ukraine? Ukraine is not the formerly-Soviet-backed and still Russia-friendly Caribbean island state being referenced in the piece you quote.
  - munificent 5y ago
    The parent comment is referring to Cuba.
  - truffdog 5y ago
    Putin's big speech listed out NATO compatible airbases he objected to as being a soft prelude to expansion, and one of the first things they did was bomb those airbases. The Russian state really was serious about that.
butlerm 5y ago
Haiti would not count as a warm water port for this purpose, because it would not serve the Russian mainland at all. Russia has plenty of foreign "warm water" ports it can use already. Other than the unfortunate Haitians, who have suffered enough already, it is hard to imagine why a vaguely democratic decision by Haiti to become a Russian ally would meet with more than a collective yawn unless Russia planned to station intermediate range nuclear missiles there or something. Russia has plenty of allies in the area already. The idea that the U.S. wouldn't "let" Haiti or Cuba or Venezuela have their own foreign policy is ridiculous. It does and they do.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  You mean the Cuba to which the US has a constant trade emabargo/blockade? The one whose leader they tried for years to kill in the most bizarre ways? Yes sure the US let's them have their own foreign policy. Have a look at what happened in Panama or Nicaragua or Guatemala when people elected leaders which had policies that the US didn't like. Edit: Just to make it clear, I actually do not believe that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is due to the expansion of Nato (and even if it was it would be completely unjustified) it is due to Putin's megalomania. That doesn't mean we should forget that the US has been extremely aggressive about protecting their interests even by force and by violating international law. There is a reason why they are the country which has been involved in the most wars since WWII
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  Latin American has pretty much NEVER been allowed to pursue it's political destiny without the US interfering.
qqqwerty 5y ago
Your Haiti analogy greatly oversimplifies the complexity of the situation. Europe and the West have been bending over backwards to help integrate Russia into the international economy. The entire point of those efforts were to build trade relationships and de-escalate security concerns. Russia has been taking full advantage of those economic relationships while maintaining an aggressive posture towards the buffer states. And as a result, those buffer states have been joining NATO. The only way your hypothetical analogy would make sense is if Russia/China spent decades trying to improve economic relationships with the US, and the US took advantage of those overtures while maintaining an aggressive military posture. At that point, I think most of the world we be sympathetic with installing a pro Russia/China regime in Haiti.
colinmhayes 5y ago
> This entire conflict could of been avoided if we didn't keep trying to expand NATO. This is really not a good take. Ukrainians didn't overthrow their government because of NATO expansion. They overthrew their government because it was a corrupt pile of shit that didn't credibly represent their interests. And make no mistake, Putin has always seen Ukraine as in integral and inseparable part of Russian culture. He was never going to allow them to govern themselves, NATO expansion or not.
rmah 5y ago
"It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president." Um... Cuba?
landemva 5y ago
McCain was giving speeches in Ukraine and Biden's son was installed on board of directors of Ukranian energy producer. Lots of USA meddling. When was eastern Ukraine (ethnic Russians) going to be voting on leaving Ukraine? Anyone wondering how Putin got into power may want to research how the New York bankers and Clintons tried to install Boris Berezovsky in Russia.
jwozn 5y ago
I'm not sure if the statement of "we didn't keep trying to expand NATO" is correct. Most of the expansion was a result of requests from former USSR states to join, which was then supported by the US and accepted by other member states. I don't think it's correct to we were trying, when it's more likely that former USSR states were trying to pull NATO toward them. I also am not sure that war would be avoided if NATO didn't expand. Putin and Russia have made statements that suggest a desire to grow their influence over former USSR countries, and those countries resisted by joining NATO or ousting Russian backed leadership.
selimthegrim 5y ago
Germans had a large role in the Haitian port system and economy, that's why the US intervened in the first place.
megous 5y ago
> You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city". Syrian cities were civilized, too.
- AlwaysRock 5y ago
  That is the point of the comment.
- 999900000999 5y ago
  I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his comment. A nations per capita income has nothing to do with how it's people deserve to be treated.

vegai_ 5y ago

Does NATO membership imply that America owns the country? I haven't witnessed anything like that in any of the European NATO countries.

999900000999 5y ago
>Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm Like I said, I'm not enlisting if the Russians invade Poland. If individual American citizens want to a join a Polish foreign legion, that's fine. Maybe the State Department can create a list of approved foreign legions American citizen can join. Then your free to sign up on your own accord.
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  Lol yes, history shows that aggressive dictators just want to conquer Poland, and if we give it to them they'll stop there.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    He'd stop in East Germany though ...
- mercutio2 5y ago
  Are you saying you would enlist if Germany, France, or the UK was invaded, but specifically Poland isn't worth enlisting for, because it's a former Warsaw Pact country? Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO? Poland and Hungary have done autocratic things I don't agree with, but their governments seem to come much closer to following the will of the people then they would if they were again inside Russia's sphere of influence, and I think bringing them inside NATO was good for them. I'm not sure whether it was a good maneuver strategically, but I'm also not sure it wasn't.
  - 999900000999 5y ago
    >Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO? I'm not enlisting for anything short of America actually getting invaded. During the Vietnam War anyone with a bit of money could get deferments. Those are what I call smart men. I feel absolutely no obligation to die in a foreign conflict. Providing logistic and selling arms is more than fine, but getting directly involved is a completely different matter.
    - vegai_ 5y ago
      If it becomes bad enough, there'll be a draft. But probably not since the US has plenty of soldiers without one.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> You had a CNN commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city". CBS News foreign correspondent Charlie D'Agata, actually. > It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president. Now imagine China and Russia announcing plans for various military bases on Haiti. The Russians could finally have a warm water port. > In no universe would America accept Haiti having a right to its own foreign policy. Uh, you know this actually happened in a different Caribbean island state and, while there was a bit of a dispute about nuclear weapons that resulted in both alliances pulling them back from each others borders in a quid pro quo, and a variety of covert and sponsored-third-party actions, the US never committed it's military to an all out assault to displace the Soviet-backed regime, which still exists and is still closely associated with Russia even after the fall of the USSR, a geopolitical alignment outlasting the notional ideological one.

darkarmani 5y ago
> Uh, you know this actually happened in a different Caribbean island state and, while there was a bit of a dispute about nuclear weapons that resulted in both alliances pulling them back from each others borders in a quid pro quo What nuclear weapons were being placed in Ukraine? Russia's only argument is that "someday maybe, perhaps, it could possibly happen".
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > What nuclear weapons were being placed in Ukraine? Ukraine is not the formerly-Soviet-backed and still Russia-friendly Caribbean island state being referenced in the piece you quote.
- munificent 5y ago
  The parent comment is referring to Cuba.
- truffdog 5y ago
  Putin's big speech listed out NATO compatible airbases he objected to as being a soft prelude to expansion, and one of the first things they did was bomb those airbases. The Russian state really was serious about that.

butlerm 5y ago

Haiti would not count as a warm water port for this purpose, because it would not serve the Russian mainland at all. Russia has plenty of foreign "warm water" ports it can use already. Other than the unfortunate Haitians, who have suffered enough already, it is hard to imagine why a vaguely democratic decision by Haiti to become a Russian ally would meet with more than a collective yawn unless Russia planned to station intermediate range nuclear missiles there or something. Russia has plenty of allies in the area already. The idea that the U.S. wouldn't "let" Haiti or Cuba or Venezuela have their own foreign policy is ridiculous. It does and they do.

cycomanic 5y ago
You mean the Cuba to which the US has a constant trade emabargo/blockade? The one whose leader they tried for years to kill in the most bizarre ways? Yes sure the US let's them have their own foreign policy. Have a look at what happened in Panama or Nicaragua or Guatemala when people elected leaders which had policies that the US didn't like. Edit: Just to make it clear, I actually do not believe that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is due to the expansion of Nato (and even if it was it would be completely unjustified) it is due to Putin's megalomania. That doesn't mean we should forget that the US has been extremely aggressive about protecting their interests even by force and by violating international law. There is a reason why they are the country which has been involved in the most wars since WWII
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
Latin American has pretty much NEVER been allowed to pursue it's political destiny without the US interfering.

qqqwerty 5y ago

Your Haiti analogy greatly oversimplifies the complexity of the situation. Europe and the West have been bending over backwards to help integrate Russia into the international economy. The entire point of those efforts were to build trade relationships and de-escalate security concerns. Russia has been taking full advantage of those economic relationships while maintaining an aggressive posture towards the buffer states. And as a result, those buffer states have been joining NATO. The only way your hypothetical analogy would make sense is if Russia/China spent decades trying to improve economic relationships with the US, and the US took advantage of those overtures while maintaining an aggressive military posture. At that point, I think most of the world we be sympathetic with installing a pro Russia/China regime in Haiti.

colinmhayes 5y ago

> This entire conflict could of been avoided if we didn't keep trying to expand NATO. This is really not a good take. Ukrainians didn't overthrow their government because of NATO expansion. They overthrew their government because it was a corrupt pile of shit that didn't credibly represent their interests. And make no mistake, Putin has always seen Ukraine as in integral and inseparable part of Russian culture. He was never going to allow them to govern themselves, NATO expansion or not.

rmah 5y ago

"It's not hard to imagine if Haiti had a US backed leader, who was removed in a coup and then replaced with a pro Russia / pro China president." Um... Cuba?

landemva 5y ago

McCain was giving speeches in Ukraine and Biden's son was installed on board of directors of Ukranian energy producer. Lots of USA meddling. When was eastern Ukraine (ethnic Russians) going to be voting on leaving Ukraine? Anyone wondering how Putin got into power may want to research how the New York bankers and Clintons tried to install Boris Berezovsky in Russia.

jwozn 5y ago

I'm not sure if the statement of "we didn't keep trying to expand NATO" is correct. Most of the expansion was a result of requests from former USSR states to join, which was then supported by the US and accepted by other member states. I don't think it's correct to we were trying, when it's more likely that former USSR states were trying to pull NATO toward them. I also am not sure that war would be avoided if NATO didn't expand. Putin and Russia have made statements that suggest a desire to grow their influence over former USSR countries, and those countries resisted by joining NATO or ousting Russian backed leadership.

selimthegrim 5y ago

Germans had a large role in the Haitian port system and economy, that's why the US intervened in the first place.

megous 5y ago

> You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city". Syrian cities were civilized, too.

AlwaysRock 5y ago
That is the point of the comment.
999900000999 5y ago
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his comment. A nations per capita income has nothing to do with how it's people deserve to be treated.