12 ms·

Russia has argued that having NATO on its borders is a threat. Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. But

Russia has argued that having NATO on its borders is a threat. Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. But Russian domestic politics is always using a narrative of being a victim and having risk of being invaded. The Second World War doesn’t exist in Russian storytelling. The great patriotic war on the other hand, conveniently started in the 40s. The Finnish border isn’t that much closer to any important parts of Russia than the Baltic states already were. The strategic difference is perhaps mostly in how difficult it might be for Russia to attempt what they did to Ukraine on a Baltic state. The scenario is a swift invasion and an annexation being fait accompli and a threat of Nuclear use if any NATO countries come to their defense under Article 5. That would have been a sticky situation for NATO in the past (at least we thought so until we saw their military performance lately) but will be less so with Finland in the alliance.

Archelaos 5y ago
NATO is a devensive alliance. It is no threat for a peaceful Russia at all. All else is propaganda. A really democratic Russia may even join NATO some day. (As Western Germany did ten years after the Nazis.)
- korantu 5y ago
  Putin actually did not mind joining NATO. [0]. It would make a lot of sense. Mind you, this is after Ugoslavia bombings by NATO. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
- mcv 5y ago
  There was actually some talk of Russia joining NATO 20 years ago. But then Putin wanted Russia to be fast-tracked without meeting the requirements while "unimportant countries" would be ignored, and I guess at that moment it became clear he didn't really get what NATO was about.
- desproges 5y ago
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  > NATO is a devensive alliance. I think Serbs may disagree on that. In the end, NATO is the US and it's dependent vassal states. With neighbors like these, I can sympathize with Russia not being too comfortable.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Serbs had a choice - they could have avoided starting a genocide, for example.
    - DocTomoe 5y ago
      You mean that genocide that UN courts later decided wasn't actually a genocide[1]? Yeah... I guess if you are convinced you're on the side of the good guys(tm), you really can't do wrong. [1] https://www.upi.com/Archives/2001/09/07/UN-court-rules-no-genocide-in-Kosovo/5224999835200/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/2001/09/07/UN-court-rules-no-ge...
      - trasz 4y ago
        No, I mean this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        ... which was not the reason given for the war of aggression initiated by NATO.
        trasz 4y ago
        Oh, so now the problem is that NATO stopped the wrong genocide? :-D
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        The one genocide you mentioned stopped by itself four years earlier.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  But, just like with Germany, it would take some "de-Nazification" (de-totalitarianization) first... And I'm not talking of Ukraine here.
aa-jv 5y ago
>Obviously these comments make no sense. Its not so obvious if you've been paying attention to NATO expansion, as compared to NATO promises. NATO bases have been being used to launch crimes against humanity and war crimes (with seeming impunity) for decades - the Russians have good reasons to want NATO to stand down. The West has a long and sordid history of committing war crimes, and then ignoring their war criminals - indeed, leaving them in charge with cart blanche to commit yet more wars. This fact seems easily ignored by those rooting for NATO's triumph, but for those of us who have been paying attention to the Wests' war crimes - for decades - the argument that 'there is nothing to worry about because NATO are innocent' falls very, very flat.
- mrep 5y ago
  So even if NATO completely surrounded Russia, do you think any of said war crimes would actually be committed against Russia directly because if so I want whatever you're smoking. They have 6000 nukes and US + EU combined have 25 times the GDP of Russia. We have everything to lose and practically nothing to gain from attacking Russias worthless economy.
  - aa-jv 5y ago
    Yes, I do believe that NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity that is bringing much death and destruction and turmoil to the world for the sake of special interests - political and commercial - who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built. But, I've been paying attention to NATO's war crimes over the last two decades, as well as the immensely evil crimes against humanity committed by the Wests' 5-eyes nations in their disgusting wars. Why haven't you?
    - gwd 5y ago
      You know what would be really helpful here? Links to sources to know what the heck you're talking about. Preferably Wikipedia pages or something like that. And no, "do your own research" is not a valid answer.
aiilns 5y ago
> Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. Why doesn't it make sense? I'm not for Russia nor for NATO, but what is the purpose of the alliance if not against Russia as a remnant of the cold war? Wasn't the same kind of reasoning used by the USA for Cuba resulting in its ~blockade~ "quarantine" and almost war/invasion? It seems to me there's a certain rhetoric meant to cast Putin as a crazy warmongering dictator who foolishly wishes to revive the Soviet Union. In part this may be true, but it seems to me that these arguments are meant to distract our gaze away from the US (and NATO in extension) as the global superpower it is, how historically it has moved against the USSR and Russia and its part in the world stage. *Obviously Putin/Russia is to blame for invading Ukraine. edit: Adding a few words because I think I have not been clear. I'm not arguing for Russia or against NATO. I'm arguing that from Putin's perspective it makes sense; an alliance historically against the USSR, now expanding near Russia's borders can be seen as a potential threat. The rhetoric is "I was watering my garden and some crazy guy attacked me", but that is removing the context. And that context exists even if you believe that NATO=good & Russia=bad.
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  1) NATO has no territorial desires on Russia. Eastern members do have bad historic experiences with Russia so they joined a defensive alliance 2) Cuba was "allowed" to stay in the Eastern block (but not to host nuclear weapons). Ukraine was not "allowed" to join NATO, by comparison 3) Russia has nuclear/nuclear capable weapons inside NATO (Kaliningrad), not the other way around. EDIT: Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave surrounded by NATO members + bordered by the Baltic
  - refurb 5y ago
    The problem is you’re using your own perspective to imagine how Russia is assessing the situation. That’s the big mistake. You could run the same analysis for the US involvement in Vietnam. 1) The US was anti colonial after WW2 (the US assumed colonial holdings would foment communist uprisings), and had given the Philippines it independence. 2) The US had no real strategic interest in Vietnam beyond a non-communist aligned country. it had negotiated a neutral policy towards Laos with the communist bloc. It wasn’t interested in resources or territory, at least not in anyway similar to what France had done. Why on earth would North Vietnam think that US was just replacing France as a colonial power? That’s absurd! No way they think that, it’s just rhetoric! ——- Of course after decades of being under the colonial yoke of France, Vietnam had a very different perspective. It was clear post-WW2 France was hell bent on restoring the colonial structure. And the only thing France understood was military defeat. So the North, very reasonably, thought the US was lying about any sort of “neutrality in IndoChina” and that Vietnam would have any sort of independence. So they held to a hardline and were willing to sacrifice 2M+ Vietnamese for the goal of total victory and independence. Think about it from Russia’s perspective. They had warned in 2015 about their "red line" for NATO expansion.
cycomanic 5y ago
RealLifeLore has an excellent analysis of the reasons for Russia's invasion [1], including the military motivations. I highly recommend watching it. In particular the reasoning around gas and oil reserves in the Black Sea have not been given the due attention in the media IMO. He doesn't talk about Finland, but I would imagine the fact that it would broaden the front for a land-based invasion is what motivates Russia's opposition. That and generally having gotten away with being a bully and getting what you want for so long. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
- twoquestions 5y ago
  There's never been a war that he didn't like, the excitement in his voice when he describes the Chechen or Georgian conflicts or the Chinese annexation of Tibet or Iraq's annexation of Kuwait really skeeves me out. Good info, but keep is frankly weird perspective in mind.
mcv 5y ago
It's vital for Russia to put the start of WW2 in 1941, because if they put it in 1939, like everybody else, then the USSR would have been just as much the aggressor as Nazi Germany, with invasions of Poland and Finland in 1939, and the Baltic states in 1940. Fortunately for them, at the time the West didn't care enough about Poland and the Baltics, and somehow cared more about the German invasion of Poland than the Russian one. But now they do care about Ukraine.
- xdennis 5y ago
  > with invasions of Poland and Finland in 1939, and the Baltic states in 1940 And Romania in 1940.

Archelaos 5y ago

NATO is a devensive alliance. It is no threat for a peaceful Russia at all. All else is propaganda. A really democratic Russia may even join NATO some day. (As Western Germany did ten years after the Nazis.)

korantu 5y ago
Putin actually did not mind joining NATO. [0]. It would make a lot of sense. Mind you, this is after Ugoslavia bombings by NATO. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-s...
mcv 5y ago
There was actually some talk of Russia joining NATO 20 years ago. But then Putin wanted Russia to be fast-tracked without meeting the requirements while "unimportant countries" would be ignored, and I guess at that moment it became clear he didn't really get what NATO was about.
desproges 5y ago
DocTomoe 5y ago
> NATO is a devensive alliance. I think Serbs may disagree on that. In the end, NATO is the US and it's dependent vassal states. With neighbors like these, I can sympathize with Russia not being too comfortable.
- trasz 5y ago
  Serbs had a choice - they could have avoided starting a genocide, for example.
  - DocTomoe 5y ago
    You mean that genocide that UN courts later decided wasn't actually a genocide[1]? Yeah... I guess if you are convinced you're on the side of the good guys(tm), you really can't do wrong. [1] https://www.upi.com/Archives/2001/09/07/UN-court-rules-no-genocide-in-Kosovo/5224999835200/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/2001/09/07/UN-court-rules-no-ge...
    - trasz 4y ago
      No, I mean this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide
      - DocTomoe 4y ago
        ... which was not the reason given for the war of aggression initiated by NATO.
        trasz 4y ago
        Oh, so now the problem is that NATO stopped the wrong genocide? :-D
        DocTomoe 4y ago
        The one genocide you mentioned stopped by itself four years earlier.
CRConrad 5y ago
But, just like with Germany, it would take some "de-Nazification" (de-totalitarianization) first... And I'm not talking of Ukraine here.

aa-jv 5y ago

>Obviously these comments make no sense. Its not so obvious if you've been paying attention to NATO expansion, as compared to NATO promises. NATO bases have been being used to launch crimes against humanity and war crimes (with seeming impunity) for decades - the Russians have good reasons to want NATO to stand down. The West has a long and sordid history of committing war crimes, and then ignoring their war criminals - indeed, leaving them in charge with cart blanche to commit yet more wars. This fact seems easily ignored by those rooting for NATO's triumph, but for those of us who have been paying attention to the Wests' war crimes - for decades - the argument that 'there is nothing to worry about because NATO are innocent' falls very, very flat.

mrep 5y ago
So even if NATO completely surrounded Russia, do you think any of said war crimes would actually be committed against Russia directly because if so I want whatever you're smoking. They have 6000 nukes and US + EU combined have 25 times the GDP of Russia. We have everything to lose and practically nothing to gain from attacking Russias worthless economy.
- aa-jv 5y ago
  Yes, I do believe that NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity that is bringing much death and destruction and turmoil to the world for the sake of special interests - political and commercial - who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built. But, I've been paying attention to NATO's war crimes over the last two decades, as well as the immensely evil crimes against humanity committed by the Wests' 5-eyes nations in their disgusting wars. Why haven't you?
  - gwd 5y ago
    You know what would be really helpful here? Links to sources to know what the heck you're talking about. Preferably Wikipedia pages or something like that. And no, "do your own research" is not a valid answer.

aiilns 5y ago

> Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. Why doesn't it make sense? I'm not for Russia nor for NATO, but what is the purpose of the alliance if not against Russia as a remnant of the cold war? Wasn't the same kind of reasoning used by the USA for Cuba resulting in its ~blockade~ "quarantine" and almost war/invasion? It seems to me there's a certain rhetoric meant to cast Putin as a crazy warmongering dictator who foolishly wishes to revive the Soviet Union. In part this may be true, but it seems to me that these arguments are meant to distract our gaze away from the US (and NATO in extension) as the global superpower it is, how historically it has moved against the USSR and Russia and its part in the world stage. *Obviously Putin/Russia is to blame for invading Ukraine. edit: Adding a few words because I think I have not been clear. I'm not arguing for Russia or against NATO. I'm arguing that from Putin's perspective it makes sense; an alliance historically against the USSR, now expanding near Russia's borders can be seen as a potential threat. The rhetoric is "I was watering my garden and some crazy guy attacked me", but that is removing the context. And that context exists even if you believe that NATO=good & Russia=bad.

RandomLensman 5y ago
1) NATO has no territorial desires on Russia. Eastern members do have bad historic experiences with Russia so they joined a defensive alliance 2) Cuba was "allowed" to stay in the Eastern block (but not to host nuclear weapons). Ukraine was not "allowed" to join NATO, by comparison 3) Russia has nuclear/nuclear capable weapons inside NATO (Kaliningrad), not the other way around. EDIT: Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave surrounded by NATO members + bordered by the Baltic
- refurb 5y ago
  The problem is you’re using your own perspective to imagine how Russia is assessing the situation. That’s the big mistake. You could run the same analysis for the US involvement in Vietnam. 1) The US was anti colonial after WW2 (the US assumed colonial holdings would foment communist uprisings), and had given the Philippines it independence. 2) The US had no real strategic interest in Vietnam beyond a non-communist aligned country. it had negotiated a neutral policy towards Laos with the communist bloc. It wasn’t interested in resources or territory, at least not in anyway similar to what France had done. Why on earth would North Vietnam think that US was just replacing France as a colonial power? That’s absurd! No way they think that, it’s just rhetoric! ——- Of course after decades of being under the colonial yoke of France, Vietnam had a very different perspective. It was clear post-WW2 France was hell bent on restoring the colonial structure. And the only thing France understood was military defeat. So the North, very reasonably, thought the US was lying about any sort of “neutrality in IndoChina” and that Vietnam would have any sort of independence. So they held to a hardline and were willing to sacrifice 2M+ Vietnamese for the goal of total victory and independence. Think about it from Russia’s perspective. They had warned in 2015 about their "red line" for NATO expansion.

cycomanic 5y ago

RealLifeLore has an excellent analysis of the reasons for Russia's invasion [1], including the military motivations. I highly recommend watching it. In particular the reasoning around gas and oil reserves in the Black Sea have not been given the due attention in the media IMO. He doesn't talk about Finland, but I would imagine the fact that it would broaden the front for a land-based invasion is what motivates Russia's opposition. That and generally having gotten away with being a bully and getting what you want for so long. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE

twoquestions 5y ago
There's never been a war that he didn't like, the excitement in his voice when he describes the Chechen or Georgian conflicts or the Chinese annexation of Tibet or Iraq's annexation of Kuwait really skeeves me out. Good info, but keep is frankly weird perspective in mind.

mcv 5y ago

It's vital for Russia to put the start of WW2 in 1941, because if they put it in 1939, like everybody else, then the USSR would have been just as much the aggressor as Nazi Germany, with invasions of Poland and Finland in 1939, and the Baltic states in 1940. Fortunately for them, at the time the West didn't care enough about Poland and the Baltics, and somehow cared more about the German invasion of Poland than the Russian one. But now they do care about Ukraine.

xdennis 5y ago
> with invasions of Poland and Finland in 1939, and the Baltic states in 1940 And Romania in 1940.