3 ms·

There really should not be a rational benefit, perhaps only a symbolic benefit (not letting an enemy alliance set up camp on your doorstep). On the flip side,

There really should not be a rational benefit, perhaps only a symbolic benefit (not letting an enemy alliance set up camp on your doorstep). On the flip side, it's ridiculous that the US and NATO leaders are willing to risk nuclear war over something symbolic with miniscule strategic value. If WW3 is started over something as foolish as this when all we had to say was 'Ukraine will never join NATO'. In a way it is hypercritical to say Russia is overreacting when the US was extremely close to escalating to all-out war over the missiles in Cuba.

timeon 5y ago
The problem is that Ukraine was not able to join NATO and is invaded anyway.
- aeternum 5y ago
  Ukraine joining NATO has been in the works for over a decade now and it is already closely involved with and cooperating with NATO including joint military drills. It's done everything short of being an official member: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Applying_for_Ukraine_to_join_the_NATO_Membership_Action_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations...
  - orwin 5y ago
    It couldn't join NATO until the war against Donetsk and the Dombass were over anyway. That mean recognition that this region seceded. Doesn't matter the formation/joint training, it wasn't legally possible for Ukraine to join.
jquery 5y ago
So the West is to blame for Putin’s irrationality now? What kind of a double-standard is that? How can we possibly negotiate rationally with a madman? Should we have just given him anything he said he wanted? Of course not. It was never about NATO, that was just a fig leaf to people with terminal “both sides” mentality. This has always been sold to Russia has returning to its rightful place as a glorious empire. That’s Putin’s personal motivations as well and he was damn clear about it in his invasion-eve speech. This is about liberal democracy versus ruthless authoritarianism, and if you repeat Kremlin talking points, you’ve chosen the side of ruthless authoritarianism. Russia faked evidence and used it as pretext for their invasion. This is a war of aggression based on misinformation.
- aeternum 5y ago
  Putin seems quite rational in the interviews I've seen. A much more rational clear-thinker in fact than the last couple US presidents. I think it is fair to call him a power-hungry, aggressive, ruthless authoritarian. Even if NATO is just a fig leaf, why give it to him? Why give him the chess piece that makes it easier to justify this war? One of the great things about a liberal democracy is that we can openly criticize the strategic choices our government has made. I sure hope that we can continue to do that without labeling those dissenters as supporting ruthless authoritarianism.
  - jquery 5y ago
    There’s nothing rational about his Ukraine invasion. Russian gains absolutely bubkis from this, and NATO has become stronger than ever. From what perspective was the invasion rational? Elites in Russia are in absolute disbelief. Putin lost all his cards the minute he actually invaded. So much for being a rational player. It’s great to be skeptical of our government. It’s not so great to repeat kremlin talking points nearly verbatim.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      Was the Bay of Pigs invasion rational? Are invasions and overthrow of governments somehow okay when they install a pro-democratic and/or US-friendly leader? What if it fails and that leader turns out to be worse than the previous one? Keep in mind that the US/NATO has been closely involved in many of these overthrows: Libya, Yemeni, Syria, Iraq, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada. Pretty much all of these involved lots of civilian death and collateral damage. These aren't kremlin talking points, this is history. It's important to try to break out of the filter bubble and consider alternative viewpoints. At least consider the possibility that NATO is abusing its power and taking actions that are far beyond its original charter/purpose.
      - jquery 5y ago
        I am not following your logic. Are you saying that the USA has done bad things in the past, therefore Russia should be allowed to indiscriminately murder Ukrainians? In my lifetime, I have never seen the USA do anything as evil as what Russia is doing right now.

timeon 5y ago

The problem is that Ukraine was not able to join NATO and is invaded anyway.

aeternum 5y ago
Ukraine joining NATO has been in the works for over a decade now and it is already closely involved with and cooperating with NATO including joint military drills. It's done everything short of being an official member: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Applying_for_Ukraine_to_join_the_NATO_Membership_Action_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations...
- orwin 5y ago
  It couldn't join NATO until the war against Donetsk and the Dombass were over anyway. That mean recognition that this region seceded. Doesn't matter the formation/joint training, it wasn't legally possible for Ukraine to join.

jquery 5y ago

So the West is to blame for Putin’s irrationality now? What kind of a double-standard is that? How can we possibly negotiate rationally with a madman? Should we have just given him anything he said he wanted? Of course not. It was never about NATO, that was just a fig leaf to people with terminal “both sides” mentality. This has always been sold to Russia has returning to its rightful place as a glorious empire. That’s Putin’s personal motivations as well and he was damn clear about it in his invasion-eve speech. This is about liberal democracy versus ruthless authoritarianism, and if you repeat Kremlin talking points, you’ve chosen the side of ruthless authoritarianism. Russia faked evidence and used it as pretext for their invasion. This is a war of aggression based on misinformation.

aeternum 5y ago
Putin seems quite rational in the interviews I've seen. A much more rational clear-thinker in fact than the last couple US presidents. I think it is fair to call him a power-hungry, aggressive, ruthless authoritarian. Even if NATO is just a fig leaf, why give it to him? Why give him the chess piece that makes it easier to justify this war? One of the great things about a liberal democracy is that we can openly criticize the strategic choices our government has made. I sure hope that we can continue to do that without labeling those dissenters as supporting ruthless authoritarianism.
- jquery 5y ago
  There’s nothing rational about his Ukraine invasion. Russian gains absolutely bubkis from this, and NATO has become stronger than ever. From what perspective was the invasion rational? Elites in Russia are in absolute disbelief. Putin lost all his cards the minute he actually invaded. So much for being a rational player. It’s great to be skeptical of our government. It’s not so great to repeat kremlin talking points nearly verbatim.
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Was the Bay of Pigs invasion rational? Are invasions and overthrow of governments somehow okay when they install a pro-democratic and/or US-friendly leader? What if it fails and that leader turns out to be worse than the previous one? Keep in mind that the US/NATO has been closely involved in many of these overthrows: Libya, Yemeni, Syria, Iraq, Uganda, Somalia, Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada. Pretty much all of these involved lots of civilian death and collateral damage. These aren't kremlin talking points, this is history. It's important to try to break out of the filter bubble and consider alternative viewpoints. At least consider the possibility that NATO is abusing its power and taking actions that are far beyond its original charter/purpose.
    - jquery 5y ago
      I am not following your logic. Are you saying that the USA has done bad things in the past, therefore Russia should be allowed to indiscriminately murder Ukrainians? In my lifetime, I have never seen the USA do anything as evil as what Russia is doing right now.