3 ms·

A nuclear power being "less safe" from an entity whose recent activity consists mostly of ignominious withdrawals from conflicts does tend to stretch credulity.

A nuclear power being "less safe" from an entity whose recent activity consists mostly of ignominious withdrawals from conflicts does tend to stretch credulity. Countries on Russia's borders aspire to join NATO because Russia has a habit of marching its armies into them to annex territory or back one faction or another, not the other way round. One thing which disadvantages the West is that some of same people who rightly dismissed the "pre-emptive self defence" arguments for Western regime change in Iraq fall over themselves to argue that of all the many propaganda arguments Russia has put forward for invading Ukraine including literal statements of imperial ambition as well as "chemical weapons", "Nazis" and NATO, the self-defence arguments make sense.

roenxi 5y ago
> ignominious withdrawals from conflicts Given that as far as I can recall, 0 NATO countries have been invaded in the history of NATO that leaves open the question - how did they get in to the conflict that they withdrew from? Given the US's application of best-defence-good-offence in the last 30 years, it is easy to see that Russia should be nervous.
- notahacker 5y ago
  If I recall, al-Qaeda and Islamic State weren't innocent victims of NATO's aggression, and Putin approved the action of some NATO countries in the first conflict and involved Russia in the second for the same reasons (but stuck around for longer to ensure his man won the civil war). Russia has been involved in more conflicts in recent years, whilst also having been invaded 0 times since WWII for obvious reasons. Even if it were possible for sane leadership to believe that invading a nuclear superpower would be a practical possibility for NATO if only enough neighbouring nations were members, it's pretty obvious that since Iraq totally discredited the idea of "pre-emptive defence" in Western eyes nearly two decades ago NATO hasnt had the slightest bit of interest in committing the ground troops to actually win wars against even its weakest rivals, whilst Russia has championed best-defence-good-offence by sending troops with various degrees of justification into several of its neighbours. Pretty sure they're the ones with cause to be nervous.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    >If I recall, al-Qaeda and Islamic State weren't innocent victims of NATO's aggression Al-Qaeda isn't a country, they can't get invaded. Eg, when the US took out bin Laden they managed to do it in an uncooperative country without launching a full scale invasion. Although technically the special ops team may have been an invasion. Islamic State got most of their mojo from continuous destabilisation of the middle east by aggressive NATO members. They may as well have been innocent victims of NATO aggression when you look at the relative scales of wrongdoing. At least they were fighting on their home turf. NATO was going a long way out - and many of them travelling past a bunch of rather brutal dictators to get to the middle east I might add - to fight them. This pretence that somehow Russia is violating political norms is hypocritical. They are behaving relatively routinely for a nuclear power. It isn't good but it isn't bad enough that NATO should be picking fights on a nuclear armed power's doorstep.
    - notahacker 5y ago
      The brutal dictators that NATO travelled past to fight the Islamic State hadn't declared holy war on the West or encouraged their adherents to bomb its cities. Do make your mind up whether it's all NATO's fault for past interventions against brutal dictatorships or all NATO's fault for not intervening more against brutal dictatorships. The idea that small nations seeking powerful allies due to Russia's habit of military intervention everywhere on its borders that isn't capable of retaliating by levelling Russia cities is NATO "picking fights" is the reductio ad absurdum version of the Russian preemptive defence doctrine. Make no mistake, the reason Russia picked a fight with Ukraine is because of NATO not being willing to attack Russia in response.

roenxi 5y ago

> ignominious withdrawals from conflicts Given that as far as I can recall, 0 NATO countries have been invaded in the history of NATO that leaves open the question - how did they get in to the conflict that they withdrew from? Given the US's application of best-defence-good-offence in the last 30 years, it is easy to see that Russia should be nervous.

notahacker 5y ago
If I recall, al-Qaeda and Islamic State weren't innocent victims of NATO's aggression, and Putin approved the action of some NATO countries in the first conflict and involved Russia in the second for the same reasons (but stuck around for longer to ensure his man won the civil war). Russia has been involved in more conflicts in recent years, whilst also having been invaded 0 times since WWII for obvious reasons. Even if it were possible for sane leadership to believe that invading a nuclear superpower would be a practical possibility for NATO if only enough neighbouring nations were members, it's pretty obvious that since Iraq totally discredited the idea of "pre-emptive defence" in Western eyes nearly two decades ago NATO hasnt had the slightest bit of interest in committing the ground troops to actually win wars against even its weakest rivals, whilst Russia has championed best-defence-good-offence by sending troops with various degrees of justification into several of its neighbours. Pretty sure they're the ones with cause to be nervous.
- roenxi 5y ago
  >If I recall, al-Qaeda and Islamic State weren't innocent victims of NATO's aggression Al-Qaeda isn't a country, they can't get invaded. Eg, when the US took out bin Laden they managed to do it in an uncooperative country without launching a full scale invasion. Although technically the special ops team may have been an invasion. Islamic State got most of their mojo from continuous destabilisation of the middle east by aggressive NATO members. They may as well have been innocent victims of NATO aggression when you look at the relative scales of wrongdoing. At least they were fighting on their home turf. NATO was going a long way out - and many of them travelling past a bunch of rather brutal dictators to get to the middle east I might add - to fight them. This pretence that somehow Russia is violating political norms is hypocritical. They are behaving relatively routinely for a nuclear power. It isn't good but it isn't bad enough that NATO should be picking fights on a nuclear armed power's doorstep.
  - notahacker 5y ago
    The brutal dictators that NATO travelled past to fight the Islamic State hadn't declared holy war on the West or encouraged their adherents to bomb its cities. Do make your mind up whether it's all NATO's fault for past interventions against brutal dictatorships or all NATO's fault for not intervening more against brutal dictatorships. The idea that small nations seeking powerful allies due to Russia's habit of military intervention everywhere on its borders that isn't capable of retaliating by levelling Russia cities is NATO "picking fights" is the reductio ad absurdum version of the Russian preemptive defence doctrine. Make no mistake, the reason Russia picked a fight with Ukraine is because of NATO not being willing to attack Russia in response.