3 ms·

NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Ukraine isn't in NATO and has no claim to NATO suppo

NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Ukraine isn't in NATO and has no claim to NATO support. And yet, NATO is basically using the country to conduct a proxy war. From the Russian POV, everything here has been confirmed. NATO is an existential threat to russia. Imagine if the USA invaded cuba and russia sent massive arms/etc. to cuba, and destabalized the US economy. What would the USA think about Russia? That, exactly, it is very much the threat "it was always believed to be".

fabian2k 5y ago
That's just plain ridiculous. The economic sanctions are in direct response to the invasion of a sovereign country. You can't use them as justification for this very same invasion. And the arms shipments are not by NATO directly, though of course many countries here are also members of NATO. And those shipment only started when Russia started to threaten Ukraine, invaded the Krim and finally invaded the whole country.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Why did they decide to do all that?
- romwell 5y ago
  Sadly, the person you're asking the question to seems to be either arguing in bad faith, or has internalized circular logic, and won't be able to see the point you're making Thank you for highlighting it for everyone else reading the thread!
smcl 5y ago
So you're telling me that Putin ordered the invasion of Russia because NATO represented an existential threat to Russia. And this existential threat to Russia is demonstrated by an inflow of arms to Ukraine as a direct result of the invasion? Meaning that he could accurately predict the future reaction to his invasion, and used it as a justification for the invasion? We don't have to cheerlead a NATO or EU military response (and I'm certainly not for that), make stupid "Ghost of Kyiv" memes or display the sort of bloodlust that some in the media have ... but this is a really weird position you're taking. One mistake I think many are making is mapping this to different invasions/wars in the past - Germany/Poland, USSR/Agfhanistan, USA/Afghanistan etc - and assigning roles then picking sides accordingly. I do not think it is that simple and by the same token I do not know what the right course of action should be. But I know that "Putin is justified and acting rationally" is one of the wrongest takes of this war.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Russia regarded NATO as an existential threat, rightly or wrongly. If the west wanted to show that NATO wasnt a threat, it could have stopped trying to capture ukraine -- this is what russians explicitly said they didnt want. The USA didnt listen, europe (france, germany) did -- but the USA overruled them. That NATO is now conducting a proxy war in ukraine shows, after the fact, that russia's thinking here was actually just correct. Russia poses no existential threat to NATO, but NATO is now bent on destroying Russia. If NATO was not an enemy of Russia, why is it helping ukraine? China is not sending arms to ukraine, NATO is --- because NATO is an existential threat to russia.
stevesimmons 5y ago
How about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, USA and UK? In exchange for the first three countries giving up their nuclear weapons, the signatories offered them security assurances that included (using wording taken from [1]): * Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. * Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. * Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Agreements of this era also were that NATO wouldnt expand. It did so, twice, into former USSR countries. Agreements are meaningless. If the west wanted russia not to invade Ukraine, the answer was trivial. It was to completely hault NATO expansion. Too late now.
  - smcl 5y ago
    No this has been covered thousands of times since the invasion started and it’s getting boring having to repeat it. The commonly cited “agreement” not to expand wasn’t part of any treaties. To the extent that it is said to exist, it was part of some verbal/gentleman’s agreement between leaders who are now dead. I’m not sure what value such agreements would have now, if they ever happened at all.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      I'm not sure why you're set on not understanding geopolitics. Maybe the idea that the west could have done nothing to stop russia is comforting. Maybe the idea that we are blameless is comforting. Maybe russia needs to be evil, for you. You can persist in these delusions if you like. russia has been very clear, and avoiding this disaster was in the west's power, and esp. that of the USA. Germany and france warned the USA this was going to happen, and it insisted ukraine be part of NATO nevertheless. You still think things like "agreements" and "rights" and "soverignty" matter -- they dont. These are just games played amongst friends. When you arent dealing with friends, what matters is real stakes -- not made up things. The USA had the power to prevent this; and indeed, still does. In arming ukraine they are sentencing it to death. Russia will level the country. This was in our power to stop. You lot, in wanting to be Right in the stories you're telling yourselves will get ukraine destroyed. Russia is a rational actor with needs and objectives. We could've given it what it wanted. We still, to a large degree, can. But you have your nationalistic pride, your stories, and your delusions of agreements. This will not end well. Ukraine will be flattened. It is in the wests power to prevent it, instead, we're sending ukraine enough arms to get itself killed. We're not doing this to help ukraine win. It cannot win. It will be destoryed. We're sending arms to ukraine to punish russia and get them bogged down in a quagmire. We're goading ukraine into killing itself so we can punish the russians. These delusional stories you're telling, they cost lives. Ukrainian lives. Lives, no doubt, you're dead set on spending. Russians are pulling the trigger so you have no blood on your hands. I tell you: you do. We're sending the nerd out to the playground with a butter knife, and the big bully is going to send him to hospital.
rectang 5y ago
"NATO" is not doing any of those things. Individual member states are making choices, but not under the auspices of the alliance agreement. If Russia attacks one of the NATO member states, that will change and NATO will act.

fabian2k 5y ago

That's just plain ridiculous. The economic sanctions are in direct response to the invasion of a sovereign country. You can't use them as justification for this very same invasion. And the arms shipments are not by NATO directly, though of course many countries here are also members of NATO. And those shipment only started when Russia started to threaten Ukraine, invaded the Krim and finally invaded the whole country.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> NATO is presently sending massive amounts of arms to Ukraine and has tried to destroy the Russian economy. Why did they decide to do all that?

romwell 5y ago
Sadly, the person you're asking the question to seems to be either arguing in bad faith, or has internalized circular logic, and won't be able to see the point you're making Thank you for highlighting it for everyone else reading the thread!

smcl 5y ago

So you're telling me that Putin ordered the invasion of Russia because NATO represented an existential threat to Russia. And this existential threat to Russia is demonstrated by an inflow of arms to Ukraine as a direct result of the invasion? Meaning that he could accurately predict the future reaction to his invasion, and used it as a justification for the invasion? We don't have to cheerlead a NATO or EU military response (and I'm certainly not for that), make stupid "Ghost of Kyiv" memes or display the sort of bloodlust that some in the media have ... but this is a really weird position you're taking. One mistake I think many are making is mapping this to different invasions/wars in the past - Germany/Poland, USSR/Agfhanistan, USA/Afghanistan etc - and assigning roles then picking sides accordingly. I do not think it is that simple and by the same token I do not know what the right course of action should be. But I know that "Putin is justified and acting rationally" is one of the wrongest takes of this war.

mjburgess 5y ago
Russia regarded NATO as an existential threat, rightly or wrongly. If the west wanted to show that NATO wasnt a threat, it could have stopped trying to capture ukraine -- this is what russians explicitly said they didnt want. The USA didnt listen, europe (france, germany) did -- but the USA overruled them. That NATO is now conducting a proxy war in ukraine shows, after the fact, that russia's thinking here was actually just correct. Russia poses no existential threat to NATO, but NATO is now bent on destroying Russia. If NATO was not an enemy of Russia, why is it helping ukraine? China is not sending arms to ukraine, NATO is --- because NATO is an existential threat to russia.

stevesimmons 5y ago

How about the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, USA and UK? In exchange for the first three countries giving up their nuclear weapons, the signatories offered them security assurances that included (using wording taken from [1]): * Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. * Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. * Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to influence their politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

mjburgess 5y ago
Agreements of this era also were that NATO wouldnt expand. It did so, twice, into former USSR countries. Agreements are meaningless. If the west wanted russia not to invade Ukraine, the answer was trivial. It was to completely hault NATO expansion. Too late now.
- smcl 5y ago
  No this has been covered thousands of times since the invasion started and it’s getting boring having to repeat it. The commonly cited “agreement” not to expand wasn’t part of any treaties. To the extent that it is said to exist, it was part of some verbal/gentleman’s agreement between leaders who are now dead. I’m not sure what value such agreements would have now, if they ever happened at all.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    I'm not sure why you're set on not understanding geopolitics. Maybe the idea that the west could have done nothing to stop russia is comforting. Maybe the idea that we are blameless is comforting. Maybe russia needs to be evil, for you. You can persist in these delusions if you like. russia has been very clear, and avoiding this disaster was in the west's power, and esp. that of the USA. Germany and france warned the USA this was going to happen, and it insisted ukraine be part of NATO nevertheless. You still think things like "agreements" and "rights" and "soverignty" matter -- they dont. These are just games played amongst friends. When you arent dealing with friends, what matters is real stakes -- not made up things. The USA had the power to prevent this; and indeed, still does. In arming ukraine they are sentencing it to death. Russia will level the country. This was in our power to stop. You lot, in wanting to be Right in the stories you're telling yourselves will get ukraine destroyed. Russia is a rational actor with needs and objectives. We could've given it what it wanted. We still, to a large degree, can. But you have your nationalistic pride, your stories, and your delusions of agreements. This will not end well. Ukraine will be flattened. It is in the wests power to prevent it, instead, we're sending ukraine enough arms to get itself killed. We're not doing this to help ukraine win. It cannot win. It will be destoryed. We're sending arms to ukraine to punish russia and get them bogged down in a quagmire. We're goading ukraine into killing itself so we can punish the russians. These delusional stories you're telling, they cost lives. Ukrainian lives. Lives, no doubt, you're dead set on spending. Russians are pulling the trigger so you have no blood on your hands. I tell you: you do. We're sending the nerd out to the playground with a butter knife, and the big bully is going to send him to hospital.

rectang 5y ago

"NATO" is not doing any of those things. Individual member states are making choices, but not under the auspices of the alliance agreement. If Russia attacks one of the NATO member states, that will change and NATO will act.