4 ms·

> Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what i

> Don't forget that other countries, who supported sanctions against Russia (due to coercion or tight coupling with the Western World), are also watching what is unfolding. They are seeing the disparity between how NATO invaded Libya and none of the NATO countries faced any sanctions, while Russia invades Ukraine and faces massive sanctions. Libya hadn't threatened any NATO country nor had it invaded any non-NATO country. It was going through an internal civil war. Yet it was leveled and Gaddafi was dethroned, and lynched in public. So anyone who says NATO is a defensive alliance is just bullshitting. Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position.

throwaway_434 5y ago
> Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. Nope. NATO has no argument here. You can't invade a Sovereign State, destroy it, put it into chaos and then say you did it because you are "enforcing rule-based order". That is bullshit. The rule-based order is simple: Every Sovereign State is Sovereign. How it handles its mess, politics is its own. You do not interfere in there unless the Government of that State calls for help. Here there was no call for help. The people were already fighting the civil war. It is for Libyans to decide who they want, what they want. Who are you, me or anyone else to decide on their behalf? Either ways, NATO has no such mandate. If you can point me to an Article/Clause in NATO which says it can invade any Sovereign Country it chooses you can post it here. AFAIK, there is no such Article/Clause. > People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position. Which is exactly what the West is doing right now. Time to sit back and introspect.
- adventured 5y ago
  Libya wasn't a sovereign state. There's no such thing as a legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign. Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves. Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship. Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    Is Saudi Arabia a sovereign state? Or any other dictatorship that the US supports.
    - adventured 5y ago
      Saudi Arabia, as with Iran, is a theocracy that also enslaves its population. Saudi Arabia merely throws in a ruling family aspect to it. No, Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign state. Its people are not remotely close to being free, they are de facto slaves of the House of Saud. You seem to have missed a critical point. Free countries do not have a moral imperative to invade and free enslaved nations, they have a moral right to do so, at their choosing (insofar as it aligns with their national self-interest for example). > Or any other dictatorship that the US supports. Did you really think my answer would change because of US support or lack thereof as it pertains to a given dictatorship? I'm not in Russia, in the US I'm free to say what I actually believe about my own country, good or bad. I have no problem calling the US out for its negatives, most people are familiar with such already anyway. The US also made a pact with the devil in its alliance with Soviet Russia during WW2. Historically the US has held alliances with vile regimes from time to time for strategic reasons. Here are some of the primary US allies: Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia, Poland, Portugal Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel. And you can probably realistically add Finland and Sweden to the list. Just a large collection of the free, affluent nations of the world. Now show me Russia's allies. Then let's compare the levels of corruption and the style of government of each nation's allies. What do you suppose that says about the US and Russia? It's obvious and everyone - without exception - understands exactly what it says. It says the same thing it said 35, 50, 70 years ago: Russia is still on the wrong side of history.
pydry 5y ago
>Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. However you frame it, Libya was still destroyed by the NATO intervention on the side of the rebels and it is now a failed state. As Hillary said, "We came, we saw, he died". It's pretty clear why Putin was incandescent with rage over it. Putin now thinks (with some justification) that this is a template for Russia. As he eyes up tiny independence movements he has to wonder if they'll suddenly grow into NATO backed rebels with major firepower. In all likelihood the Ukrainian invasion wouldnt have happened without Libya.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > Putin now thinks (with some justification) that this is a template for Russia. As he eyes up tiny independence movements he has to wonder if they'll suddenly grow into NATO backed rebels with major firepower. World powers backing separatist groups with funding has a much, much older history that Libya in 2011. Heck, Russia is currently funding several.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Of course it does. It was a mainstay of the British Empire. America does it all over. Russia does it too, of course. NATO doing it isnt special. However, by doing it they do automatically become a hostile, aggressive alliance rather than a defensive alliance and that makes them a potential threat. It's the combination of Ukraine's ultra-strategic location (for threatening russia) and the threat of joining a hostile military alliance that provoked such a violent response from Putin.
    - adventured 5y ago
      The response from Putin is because the window to conquer Ukraine and force it back under the control of the Russian Empire that Putin dreams of, was closing. He knew that if Ukraine got too built-up militarily, or got too close to NATO, his opportunity would vanish. He similarly dreams of reclaiming Belarus formally. Putin hasn't been shy about any of this, he openly admits the lust for conquering former USSR territory and rebuilding the empire. Putin lied and claimed a big part of the core issue is not wanting NATO's borders moving any closer. So he attempts to annex Ukraine into the empire and move borders closer to NATO. Obvious lies are obvious.

throwaway_434 5y ago

> Yeah, invasions suck, but the war in Libya wasn't to seize Libya and integrate it into NATO. It was arguably enforcing, not violating, the rule-based order. At least NATO has a better argument for this invasion than Putin does for the invasion of Ukraine. Nope. NATO has no argument here. You can't invade a Sovereign State, destroy it, put it into chaos and then say you did it because you are "enforcing rule-based order". That is bullshit. The rule-based order is simple: Every Sovereign State is Sovereign. How it handles its mess, politics is its own. You do not interfere in there unless the Government of that State calls for help. Here there was no call for help. The people were already fighting the civil war. It is for Libyans to decide who they want, what they want. Who are you, me or anyone else to decide on their behalf? Either ways, NATO has no such mandate. If you can point me to an Article/Clause in NATO which says it can invade any Sovereign Country it chooses you can post it here. AFAIK, there is no such Article/Clause. > People have a tendency to break things down to maximalist, black-and-white, us versus them terms. This view is convenient for debate when one is defending a position. Which is exactly what the West is doing right now. Time to sit back and introspect.

adventured 5y ago
Libya wasn't a sovereign state. There's no such thing as a legitimate sovereign dictatorship, the notion of national sovereignty doesn't exist in the context of slavery: the people in question were not sovereign. Any free foreign nations had a moral right to invade the US south before the US Civil War and attempt to free the slaves. Any free foreign nations had a moral right (not a moral requirement) to invade Libya in an attempt to free its people from Gaddafi's dictatorship. Ukraine was a sovereign state and a burgeoning liberal democracy, which is why Russia had to try to destroy it.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Is Saudi Arabia a sovereign state? Or any other dictatorship that the US supports.
  - adventured 5y ago
    Saudi Arabia, as with Iran, is a theocracy that also enslaves its population. Saudi Arabia merely throws in a ruling family aspect to it. No, Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign state. Its people are not remotely close to being free, they are de facto slaves of the House of Saud. You seem to have missed a critical point. Free countries do not have a moral imperative to invade and free enslaved nations, they have a moral right to do so, at their choosing (insofar as it aligns with their national self-interest for example). > Or any other dictatorship that the US supports. Did you really think my answer would change because of US support or lack thereof as it pertains to a given dictatorship? I'm not in Russia, in the US I'm free to say what I actually believe about my own country, good or bad. I have no problem calling the US out for its negatives, most people are familiar with such already anyway. The US also made a pact with the devil in its alliance with Soviet Russia during WW2. Historically the US has held alliances with vile regimes from time to time for strategic reasons. Here are some of the primary US allies: Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Czech, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, Norway, Slovenia, Poland, Portugal Iceland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel. And you can probably realistically add Finland and Sweden to the list. Just a large collection of the free, affluent nations of the world. Now show me Russia's allies. Then let's compare the levels of corruption and the style of government of each nation's allies. What do you suppose that says about the US and Russia? It's obvious and everyone - without exception - understands exactly what it says. It says the same thing it said 35, 50, 70 years ago: Russia is still on the wrong side of history.

pydry 5y ago

mcphage 5y ago
> Putin now thinks (with some justification) that this is a template for Russia. As he eyes up tiny independence movements he has to wonder if they'll suddenly grow into NATO backed rebels with major firepower. World powers backing separatist groups with funding has a much, much older history that Libya in 2011. Heck, Russia is currently funding several.
- pydry 5y ago
  Of course it does. It was a mainstay of the British Empire. America does it all over. Russia does it too, of course. NATO doing it isnt special. However, by doing it they do automatically become a hostile, aggressive alliance rather than a defensive alliance and that makes them a potential threat. It's the combination of Ukraine's ultra-strategic location (for threatening russia) and the threat of joining a hostile military alliance that provoked such a violent response from Putin.
  - adventured 5y ago
    The response from Putin is because the window to conquer Ukraine and force it back under the control of the Russian Empire that Putin dreams of, was closing. He knew that if Ukraine got too built-up militarily, or got too close to NATO, his opportunity would vanish. He similarly dreams of reclaiming Belarus formally. Putin hasn't been shy about any of this, he openly admits the lust for conquering former USSR territory and rebuilding the empire. Putin lied and claimed a big part of the core issue is not wanting NATO's borders moving any closer. So he attempts to annex Ukraine into the empire and move borders closer to NATO. Obvious lies are obvious.