2 ms·

The Soviets don't exist anymore. Russia was never meant to be our arch enemy like they were. In fact you can tell from the current lack of even minimal militar

The Soviets don't exist anymore. Russia was never meant to be our arch enemy like they were. In fact you can tell from the current lack of even minimal military spending below agreed NATO standards that Europe did not view Russia as the enemy. We simply didn't even consider it likely enough to have enough resources for an effective land defense, let alone an attack. Of course this invasion put Russia back on the villain map with increasing spending accordingly. Of course NATO will now reinforce the borders, probably Sweden and Finland will join... As it was Ukraine was not going to join NATO anyway. This whole thing had the opposite effect.

pydry 5y ago
>Of course this invasion put Russia back on the villain map It's been there for years. >As it was Ukraine was not going to join NATO anyway I really cant fathom why people say this when they said that they wanted to join & NATO said that they wanted them to join and they were taking concrete steps toward joining.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  > It's been there for years. Well, not really in geopolitical terms. Russia was a bad actor globally especially in the cyber sphere but they weren't considered a serious threat to Europe. If they had been we would have had more defense spending and more military personnel around the borders. Also, consider they have Koningsberg which is basically the equivalent of Cuba in the missile crisis days to Europe. And we didn't make a big point of that (and still don't) > I really cant fathom why people say this when they said that they wanted to join & NATO said that they wanted them to join and they were taking concrete steps toward joining. Well, first of all, the reason they wanted to join was protection against Russian agression. Russia has now proven this to be a very valid concern (and they already had in the eastern areas). Secondly, there was no real talk. Especially due to the unresolved situation in the east it was impossible for Ukraine to join anyway. A nation can't join NATO with unresolved military conflicts within their border. IMO the talk about Ukraine joining was more political flirting rather than serious talk. I do think Ukraine would have joined the EU eventually (after they cleaned up a lot of their corruption), but probably not NATO.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >Well, first of all, the reason they wanted to join was protection against Russian agression. Russia has now proven this to be a very valid concern Trying to join is exactly what provoked this invasion. Putin may br evil but the one thing you cant say is that he wasnt absolutely crystal clear on this being Russia's one red line. Zelensky announcing that he was hell bent on joining NATO as Russian troops pulled away was probably the final trigger. Putin is still being clear that renouncing NATO membership will stop the war. This is literally 100% what Ukrainians are dying for - the ability to join NATO. I hope they consider it worth it. Washington does. I dont. It seems fairly plausible that Libya is a model for what NATO wants to see happen to Russia as it creeps up to its most exposed border. Theyd rather mariupol be a smoking radioactive crater than be a host for NATO forces along their jugular. Zelensky is more right than he can imagine as he says that hes fighting our war. It is a geopolitical coup for the west to have a smaller weaker country on the border of foreign powers fight and die in our wars. It was the British Empire's main trick. >Secondly, there was no real talk. Especially due to the unresolved situation in the east it was impossible for Ukraine to join anyway. Ukraine was about to try and "resolve" the situation in the East and it had already started military cooperation. Frankly Russia would probably let them if it could get Ukraine to stay out of NATO. If it was impossible to join the cost of saying "we wont join" would be zero and it would have prevented the worst war in Europe since WW2. Either thats the biggest own goal ever or it isnt what happened at all. >IMO the talk about Ukraine joining was more political flirting rather than serious talk. I really hope that isnt the case because the result of that "flirting" is tens of thousands dead. Likewise Zelensky's "flirting" about getting nuclear weapons. If the goal was to provoke the sleeping bear into mauling the baby then mission accomplished.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      > Trying to join is exactly what provoked this invasion. Putin may br evil but the one thing you cant say is that he wasnt absolutely crystal clear on this being Russia's one red line. Zelensky announcing that he was hell bent on joining NATO as Russian troops pulled away was probably the final trigger. This didn't help but Putin does do the same to NATO (e.g. Koningsberg). Which is even said to host nuclear missiles. There was no talk of that in Ukraine at all and there aren't any in other CEE countries like Poland. Personally as a European I would not have approved of Ukraine joining NATO and I also voted against them joining the EU (the association treaty), though the latter was more because I felt they weren't ready. Ukraine in the early 2010s was just as much an oligarchy and corruption quagmire as Russia is today. We already have too many issues with emerging corporate oligarchy ourselves (aka neoliberalism). However, the Ukraine that will emerge out of this crisis will probably have a very different identity, I imagine. I would imagine a more united people more aligned with the EU. A bit like the Baltic states which are doing really well. Though I imagine this is also what prompts Putin to continue this war. When he leaves the situation for him will be worse than it was. > Putin is still being clear that renouncing NATO membership will stop the war. This is literally 100% what Ukrainians are dying for - the ability to join NATO. I hope they consider it worth it. Washington does. I dont. Personally I also think they should, though we should be careful at trusting Putin at his word. Remember him saying there was absolutely no preparation going on and forces were leaving the border? Why would his word on this count as much? Remember he has also said he's not happy until everything is reverted back to 1997 standards. There's a lot of Eastern European countries that have embraced democracy since then that will have very different feelings about that. However, having said that, if there is a way to set this in stone (Ukraine not joining NATO but getting some protection in case Russia change their minds) I would be all for it if it would make Russia pull back. I think they would be too, after all NATO is not a means to an end, it's the promise of protection that matters. > It seems fairly plausible that Libya is a model for what NATO wants to see happen to Russia as it creeps up to its most exposed border. Theyd rather mariupol be a smoking radioactive crater than be a host for NATO forces along their jugular. Well I think Libya is not much of a model for anything. I don't think civilians are a lot better off there as they were under Khadaffi. The Arab spring was a big failure and led to the emergence of things like ISIS. Same in Iraq and Afghanistan. I opposed my country's joining of those wars too. I'm not saying the west is perfect. > Zelensky is more right than he can imagine as he says that hes fighting our war. It is a geopolitical coup for the west to have a smaller weaker country on the border of foreign powers fight and die in our wars. It was the British Empire's main trick. In Europe we don't want any fighting. We just want peace and trade. And Zelensky would never get nukes. Most EU countries don't even have them. Some have some caches but they're owned and armed by the Americans. And they're all tactical weapons which are not permissible in NATO doctrine. They're more of symbolic value (and I wish they would just remove them as they do represent real contamination risk in case of accidents). But I feel in all this there is a lot more going on geopolitically behind the scenes. Similarly to the way I don't believe Putin's agression is only about Ukraine potentially joining NATO and nothing else, I'm sure the west's leadership has more interests than they are willing to admit. Just like with the middle-east invasions which like I said I didn't support.

pydry 5y ago

>Of course this invasion put Russia back on the villain map It's been there for years. >As it was Ukraine was not going to join NATO anyway I really cant fathom why people say this when they said that they wanted to join & NATO said that they wanted them to join and they were taking concrete steps toward joining.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
> It's been there for years. Well, not really in geopolitical terms. Russia was a bad actor globally especially in the cyber sphere but they weren't considered a serious threat to Europe. If they had been we would have had more defense spending and more military personnel around the borders. Also, consider they have Koningsberg which is basically the equivalent of Cuba in the missile crisis days to Europe. And we didn't make a big point of that (and still don't) > I really cant fathom why people say this when they said that they wanted to join & NATO said that they wanted them to join and they were taking concrete steps toward joining. Well, first of all, the reason they wanted to join was protection against Russian agression. Russia has now proven this to be a very valid concern (and they already had in the eastern areas). Secondly, there was no real talk. Especially due to the unresolved situation in the east it was impossible for Ukraine to join anyway. A nation can't join NATO with unresolved military conflicts within their border. IMO the talk about Ukraine joining was more political flirting rather than serious talk. I do think Ukraine would have joined the EU eventually (after they cleaned up a lot of their corruption), but probably not NATO.
- pydry 5y ago
  >Well, first of all, the reason they wanted to join was protection against Russian agression. Russia has now proven this to be a very valid concern Trying to join is exactly what provoked this invasion. Putin may br evil but the one thing you cant say is that he wasnt absolutely crystal clear on this being Russia's one red line. Zelensky announcing that he was hell bent on joining NATO as Russian troops pulled away was probably the final trigger. Putin is still being clear that renouncing NATO membership will stop the war. This is literally 100% what Ukrainians are dying for - the ability to join NATO. I hope they consider it worth it. Washington does. I dont. It seems fairly plausible that Libya is a model for what NATO wants to see happen to Russia as it creeps up to its most exposed border. Theyd rather mariupol be a smoking radioactive crater than be a host for NATO forces along their jugular. Zelensky is more right than he can imagine as he says that hes fighting our war. It is a geopolitical coup for the west to have a smaller weaker country on the border of foreign powers fight and die in our wars. It was the British Empire's main trick. >Secondly, there was no real talk. Especially due to the unresolved situation in the east it was impossible for Ukraine to join anyway. Ukraine was about to try and "resolve" the situation in the East and it had already started military cooperation. Frankly Russia would probably let them if it could get Ukraine to stay out of NATO. If it was impossible to join the cost of saying "we wont join" would be zero and it would have prevented the worst war in Europe since WW2. Either thats the biggest own goal ever or it isnt what happened at all. >IMO the talk about Ukraine joining was more political flirting rather than serious talk. I really hope that isnt the case because the result of that "flirting" is tens of thousands dead. Likewise Zelensky's "flirting" about getting nuclear weapons. If the goal was to provoke the sleeping bear into mauling the baby then mission accomplished.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    > Trying to join is exactly what provoked this invasion. Putin may br evil but the one thing you cant say is that he wasnt absolutely crystal clear on this being Russia's one red line. Zelensky announcing that he was hell bent on joining NATO as Russian troops pulled away was probably the final trigger. This didn't help but Putin does do the same to NATO (e.g. Koningsberg). Which is even said to host nuclear missiles. There was no talk of that in Ukraine at all and there aren't any in other CEE countries like Poland. Personally as a European I would not have approved of Ukraine joining NATO and I also voted against them joining the EU (the association treaty), though the latter was more because I felt they weren't ready. Ukraine in the early 2010s was just as much an oligarchy and corruption quagmire as Russia is today. We already have too many issues with emerging corporate oligarchy ourselves (aka neoliberalism). However, the Ukraine that will emerge out of this crisis will probably have a very different identity, I imagine. I would imagine a more united people more aligned with the EU. A bit like the Baltic states which are doing really well. Though I imagine this is also what prompts Putin to continue this war. When he leaves the situation for him will be worse than it was. > Putin is still being clear that renouncing NATO membership will stop the war. This is literally 100% what Ukrainians are dying for - the ability to join NATO. I hope they consider it worth it. Washington does. I dont. Personally I also think they should, though we should be careful at trusting Putin at his word. Remember him saying there was absolutely no preparation going on and forces were leaving the border? Why would his word on this count as much? Remember he has also said he's not happy until everything is reverted back to 1997 standards. There's a lot of Eastern European countries that have embraced democracy since then that will have very different feelings about that. However, having said that, if there is a way to set this in stone (Ukraine not joining NATO but getting some protection in case Russia change their minds) I would be all for it if it would make Russia pull back. I think they would be too, after all NATO is not a means to an end, it's the promise of protection that matters. > It seems fairly plausible that Libya is a model for what NATO wants to see happen to Russia as it creeps up to its most exposed border. Theyd rather mariupol be a smoking radioactive crater than be a host for NATO forces along their jugular. Well I think Libya is not much of a model for anything. I don't think civilians are a lot better off there as they were under Khadaffi. The Arab spring was a big failure and led to the emergence of things like ISIS. Same in Iraq and Afghanistan. I opposed my country's joining of those wars too. I'm not saying the west is perfect. > Zelensky is more right than he can imagine as he says that hes fighting our war. It is a geopolitical coup for the west to have a smaller weaker country on the border of foreign powers fight and die in our wars. It was the British Empire's main trick. In Europe we don't want any fighting. We just want peace and trade. And Zelensky would never get nukes. Most EU countries don't even have them. Some have some caches but they're owned and armed by the Americans. And they're all tactical weapons which are not permissible in NATO doctrine. They're more of symbolic value (and I wish they would just remove them as they do represent real contamination risk in case of accidents). But I feel in all this there is a lot more going on geopolitically behind the scenes. Similarly to the way I don't believe Putin's agression is only about Ukraine potentially joining NATO and nothing else, I'm sure the west's leadership has more interests than they are willing to admit. Just like with the middle-east invasions which like I said I didn't support.