9 ms·

It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made. NATO is a defensive alliance whose members join voluntarily, we don't go around planting flags wit

• VictorPath 5y ago
  > NATO is a defensive alliance Like bombing Libya? (there is more about Russia vis-a-vis Libya but no need for me to Tangent into that)
• causi 5y ago
  Indeed. Complaining about one lie from decades ago in view of the torrent of lies every day from the Russian government is like complaining about a grain of sand in an ocean of piss.
  • DaltonCoffee 5y ago
    Indeed. One teensy tiny little lie. NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia, and it makes sense they would view it as a longstanding insidious aggression.
    • scotty79 5y ago
      No, it isn't a legitimate concern. Even if Russia bordered with only NATO countries it wouldn't mean they are in any danger of getting invaded. Because NATO doesn't invade. NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.
      • DaltonCoffee 5y ago
        How is NATO (and it's minimal expansions) not a concern to Russia again? It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.
        • cuteboy19 5y ago
          Because there are already 4 NATO countries bordering Russia.
        • amalter 5y ago
          If this was the true concern of the Kremlin, why would they do the one thing that strengthens and enhances NATO in ways unthinkable even 6 months ago. The war in Ukraine is the rebirth of NATO; - Finland and Sweden on the fast path to joining. - Every member country making good on defense spending and more. - Eastern member countries inviting ever larger standing forces. - Renewed interest in Nuclear deterrents. - Reinforcement of other "NATO like" alliances like AUKUS. If the true reason for the war was US-NATO provocation, the it was the most successful, long term, multi-administration conspiracy of the century. Or - the Kremlin could simply be lying and have other ulterior motives for war (territory, hydrocarbons, empire, legacy, etc). They are either stupid, or liars. Fyiw - the only real "winners" here seem to be China.
      • giraffe_lady 5y ago
        Nato doesn't invade?? Do you think there is a difference for the people living there whether the bombs come from an official nato action, or from a country acting alone with the tacit approval or explicit support of other nato countries? This feels sorta how in the US only congress can declare war, so we don't declare war anymore. These technical distinctions may be compelling to you but they don't put people's legs back on, they don't pull children out of the grave. Nato countries acting together with the support of other nato countries do invade. Call that what you want I call it nato invading.
        • scotty79 5y ago
          Which country any NATO member attacked, occupied and annexed? Because that's what Russia does when it invades (like with Crimea). Let's keep the same meaning of the word 'invade' when we talk about Russia and NATO.
      • taylodl 5y ago
        > NATO doesn't invade But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia. Another NATO member state, the United States, along with the UK spent the latter half of the 20th century waging a cold war against Russia. I'm a Cold War kid and a U.S. Marine to boot but damn! Russia definitely has legitimate reasons to be concerned with NATO expansion. I know, I know - we believe we're the good guys. The problem is Russia doesn't believe that and they have credible concerns we can't simply hand-wave away. Understanding that is important to making international politics work.
        • scotty79 5y ago
          > But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia What? When? Should we be holding modern organisations accountable for Napolenic wars? That's absolutely hilarious statement. So when's USA going to take the revenge against the Brits? I'd like to adjust my vacation plans accordingly. On the other hand ... You being a marine explains a lot. Standards of US military industrial complex to what country has the right to have as legitimate interest and horrifying. It's not about being good guys or bad guys. It's about not poking your nose in the stuff of people who live outside of your borders without a firm invitation from global community.
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      > NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia A supposed commitment of NATO not to expand eastward wasn't a concern when they were demanding to be immediately admitted without having to meet readiness milestones like other states in Eastern Europe under President (checks) Putin.
    • BuckRogers 5y ago
      Another guy suggesting that now-justified western expansion of a defensive pact warrants this genocidal war on Ukraine. Just amazing. NATO = not invaded. Not NATO? Complete destruction. It didn't even warrant an invasion of Ukraine. Let alone this. Have you read the news? It's not fake. It's all very real- Russia denies and deflects in reaction to atrocities... Town by town, prosecutors build war crimes cases... Zelensky briefs UN on massacres... Swastika scratched on corpse... Soldiers cut out tongues... 15-year-old raped with mother...
• speeder 5y ago
  As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you. I am sure people in Iraq (that had nothing to do with 11 of September and had no mass destruction weapons), Libyan negros (that were hunted down and their city razed with NATO air support) and many, many others would agree with me. It is not even a matter of blaming only USA that drags the rest of NATO with them, Libya for example the country that started the shenanigans was France. Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in.
  • emptysongglass 5y ago
    > Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in. Those countries are doing it under their own auspices. You seem to be confusing a defensive alliance with a federalized government. > As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you. You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here.
    • giraffe_lady 5y ago
      > You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here. They absolutely do not. The military aggression of nato countries against weaker ones is well documented. They have killed, organized coups, waged war, and assassinated elected leaders for their own economic and political goals. If you're going to argue that every single one of these was merely a country that happened to be part of nato, acting independently, then do it. It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.
      • emptysongglass 5y ago
        A defensive alliance is what it says on the tin. If you want to take umbrage with the aggressions of any individual country, by all means do so. But don't turn NATO into your own personal bogeyman because one of its members did a thing you didn't like irrelevant to the mandate of the alliance. That's a bad faith argument. If I make a promise that I won't punch you and you go punch someone else, that doesn't reflect on my promise not to punch you. If that aircraft carrier was acting under NATO's auspices it is absolutely relevant to the argument. If it wasn't then it is a strawman and should be called out.
• WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  No one is hinting at moral equivalence. It’s just that the fact that modern Russia is an awful country waging a disgusting war on a neighbour which just wanted to be left alone doesn’t suddenly erase the history of the USA itself a trigger happy amoral and imperialist country with an history of furthering its own interests through acts of unspeakable violence abroad.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • soco 5y ago
    Some people happily mistake NATO for USA because it makes for a more personal/persuasive/convenient argument.
• vkou 5y ago
  NATO is just a mainly defensive alliance. So far, it has fought exactly zero defensive wars, but a number of offensive ones. I assume that means that the defensive part of it is working really, really well - nobody seems keen on attacking it. The problem here is that both sides are in the wrong, but for different reasons. NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world. Putin, meanwhile, is behaving like an utter savage, and is also scary and destabilizing, to both his immediate neighbours, and also to everyone in the world. Ukraine got burnt, badly from both directions - one pushed it under the bus, the other is in the middle of invading it. Are these the same level of wrongs? No. Does one excuse the other? Also no. Would I prefer everyone involved to have stopped escalating this, starting two decades ago? Yes. Did poor judgement in the past severely constrict our ability to reach better outcomes in the present? Also yes. Remember 9/11, and how poor ME policy lead to it? Remember what was in the short term, a reasonable response, in the long run resulted in self-inflicted damage that was orders of magnitude worse? NATO moving east may well be that short term win. We will see whether the long-term losers will be limited to former Soviet republics.
  • scotty79 5y ago
    > The problem here is that both sides are in the wrong, but for different reasons. NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world. I can't imagine how scary it would be for Polish people right now if we weren't in NATO, because Russians practiaclly mention us along with Ukraine on a single breath. It was called a Warsaw pact. Warsaw is Polish capital.
    • vkou 5y ago
      But that's the problem. Would Russia has gone on a saber-rattling course, starting in '08, had NATO not gone eastwards? We can't know, it's alt-history speculative wankery. But what we can know is that the latter left the former with very few options.
      • qsort 5y ago
        We can't know that hadn't Poland joined NATO Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine but we can definitively know that Poland joining NATO is certainly the cause of this war? You have very interesting priors, I must say.
• femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  This is a pretty naive view of the reality of NATO. In reality NATO is from its founding a U.S. lead mission that was created to suppress what was then the Soviet Union. This is explicitly stated by the first heads of NATO. To achieve that purpose the U.S. has done all sorts of nefarious things from recruiting former Nazi generals to invading and regime changing countries. Taking the propaganda of any world power as truth is a mistake, and I’m surprised about how many people on HN seem to be doing it. Learning about the history of NATO is the bare minimum that should be done before claiming to educate others about it.
  • colpabar 5y ago
    Can you recommend some good sources on NATO's history? Ideally sources that won't show up on the first page of google please.
    • femiagbabiaka 5y ago
      If I had to pick one, I would recommend the recent series by podcast TrueAnon on NATO. It's up to date and timely -- they discuss the context of Ukraine for example. Caveats are that it can be irreverent at times (if you can't tell by the name heh) and it has a severe left-wing tilt, although not to a delusional degree in my opinion. It's well sourced, and will give you the knowledge to follow up with your own research in those places you are skeptical.
      • tptacek 5y ago
        Getting analysis of Ukraine from Mark Ames is like getting analysis of Sandy Hook from Alex Jones. There are credible people with a skeptical take on the Ukraine situation --- Mearsheimer is a good example. TrueAnon is not.
        • femiagbabiaka 5y ago
          TrueAnon has Mark Ames on often -- well, twice, at least, but he is not a core member of the podcast, and was not featured on these episodes. EDIT: I do agree that Mearsheimer is another good person to learn from, but I don't know of an article or video from him that takes a holistic view at things
• taylodl 5y ago
  > It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made. That's true if your word means nothing and you have no honor. NATO is in control of their expansion, yes, the members join voluntarily but the existing members have to approve the new membership. NATO can't claim it has no control of its expansion. Now does any of this mean that Putin is justified in committing war crimes? No, of course not. But it is relevant that the West can't be trusted to keep their word. That makes negotiating a peaceful resolution to this conflict more difficult. It also provides our detractors plenty with which to create a credible alternate telling of the facts.