18 ms·

> 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

by aiilns 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
  - mcv 4y ago
    I don't think anyone is disputing that the US was wrong in Vietnam. And in Iraq (the second time at least) for that matter. Yet I often see people use these examples where the US was clearly wrong as reasons why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine.
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      When we argue for you to view things from Russia's perspective we aren't condoning their actions, we're trying to prevent an escalation in response to misinformed policy. No one here has stated that they should be allowed to invade Ukraine. What many are trying to do is tamp down the calls for further military engagement or even all out war with Russia. Diplomacy is the only way we get out of this without piling up more dead bodies on all sides.
      - mcv 4y ago
        I agree. The problem is that Putin is not interested in diplomacy. Putin has made it very clear that he only respects force. So the only way to convince him not to invade a country he wants to invade, is a hard guarantee that NATO will defend that country. That's the only way. And NATO didn't give that promise to Ukraine, which is why Putin felt he could invade it. NATO is now trying to prevent escalation while still trying to help Ukraine and prevent it from being conquered. The problem is that now there's a violent and bloody stalemate. It needs to stop, but the only way to stop is for Putin to pull his forces out of Ukraine, and he's not going to do that without some very strong arguments.
    - refurb 4y ago
      The argument isn't "we should let Russia invade Ukraine". The argument is "if the US could be so wrong about the best path forward in Vietnam and Iraq, why are we so sure we're right about Ukraine"? Instead of viewing everything from a US/Western European/NATO lens, take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?". The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries, then that seems like a good trade off versus what we have now. Of course the criticism is "Russia would have invaded anyways even if NATO hadn't expanded". And maybe that's right, but we'll never know at this point since that decision was never made.
- aiilns 4y ago
  1) Isn't NATO a product of the cold war, meant to stand as an alliance against the USSR? A defense alliance must be, by definition, against someone, be it Russia or China. And isn't it a tool for the US (mainly) to serve their interests & enforce their will around the world? See Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya. 2) "Allowed" yes, disregarding the sanctions/embargo in place these last 60 years. 3) My geography knowledge is a bit spotty, but isn't Kaliningrad part of the Russian Federation (even if an exclave, between Lithuania & Poland)? Also I don't know if indeed there are nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. I am not arguing that NATO is worse, my point is that NATO is the West's/USA's tool and regardless of whether you see it as an instrument for justice/good, historically it very much has been against Russia's interests and arguably still is. You may consider NATO a force for good and Putin/Russia evil, thus giving legitimacy to NATO's existence & operations, that does not mean that Putin/Russia perceiving NATO as a threat "makes no sense".
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    1) Of course, joining NATO is picking a side. 2) But still Cuba was permitted to stay within the Eastern block. Why did Russia not choose to just sanction Ukraine then but allow NATO membership (that would the comparison) 3) Yes, of course, but really surrounded by NATO members. Could you imagine Russia permitting a NATO exclave inside Russia? And Russia certainly makes it sound like they have nuclear weapons there (see their latest drill last? week) Russia/Russian government is allowed to perceive it any way he wants, but that might not dictate NATO policy.
    - pndy 4y ago
      3) Call it "Russian exclave that hosts missile systems" then, not "Russia has nuclear weapons inside NATO" because someone who's not familiar with European politics, borders might read it as "Russia installed missile systems inside NATO country" which is simply not true. It's quite important to be precise on this.
      - RandomLensman 4y ago
        I clearly state that I am referring to Kaliningrad.
simonh 4y ago
NATO is purely a defensive pact, nowhere in it's charter is there any provision for initiating hostilities and there is zero political support in the west for aggression against Russia or the acquisition of Russian territory. Until February the west was absolutely more than happy to funnel billions into Russia in return for oil and gas, and almost pathologically avoided any thought of taking any action that might affect trade with Russia. There's one problem with that statement above when I said this: >zero political support in the west for aggression against Russia or the acquisition of Russian territory The problem is the west and Russia have very different ideas about what constitutes Russian territory. Putin has been crystal clear, in numerous speeches and written statements, that he considers several other countries 'Russian territory' including Belarus, Georgia, the 'stans' and Ukraine. Ukraine joining the EU or NATO would forever take it out of the political and economic domination of Russia, and that's what he can't tolerate. In his mind that's a hostile takeover of territory that rightfully belongs to Russia and that's why he went to war. It's why in his opinion he had to go to war. He's not actually lying when he tells Russians that the west forced his hand and this is about the defence of Russia, because in his mind Ukraine is Russian territory in the same way that China considers Taiwan Chinese territory. When he says Russia, he doesn't mean the same thing that NATO leaders say when they use the same word. So those who say they agree with Putin or agree that NATO forced his hand, are signing up to the same view of the status of Ukraine and therefore the Ukrainian people.
- Wildgoose 4y ago
  NATO aggressively bombed Serbia over the issue of Kosovo. I don't know how anyone can seriously claim "NATO is purely a defensive pact" with a straight face. I think that bombing Serbia was probably the rupture that has led us to the terrible situation we have in Ukraine now.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Being a "defensive pact" does not exclude preventing genocide next to it's borders. The fact that you call it "the issue of Kosovo" is telling.
korantu 4y ago
Russian nuclear capabilities now allow complete destruction of any attacking state, even _after_ taking nuclear hit. One just can't invade Russia without complete and utter loss. This was not yet the case during Cuban missile crisis BTW.
CRConrad 4y ago
> > Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. > Why doesn't it make sense? Because Moscow has been in range of missiles for decades, Baltics and Finland and Ukraine in NATO or not.
- aiilns 4y ago
  So because the USA has advanced weapons and other bases close enough to reach Moscow, it doesn't make sense that Putin/Russia would be concerned by NATO expansion even closer to Moscow, right next to their borders?
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > right next to their borders? Having a state that you don't trust on your borders is not a justification for invasion. Hell, the UK trusts neither France nor Germany; both have attacked the UK, and planned to invade it, in the last 200 years. Lots of countries have neighbours they don't trust, but (on the whole) they don't launch unprovoked wars.

by aiilns 4y ago

RandomLensman 4y 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 4y 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.
- mcv 4y ago
  I don't think anyone is disputing that the US was wrong in Vietnam. And in Iraq (the second time at least) for that matter. Yet I often see people use these examples where the US was clearly wrong as reasons why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    When we argue for you to view things from Russia's perspective we aren't condoning their actions, we're trying to prevent an escalation in response to misinformed policy. No one here has stated that they should be allowed to invade Ukraine. What many are trying to do is tamp down the calls for further military engagement or even all out war with Russia. Diplomacy is the only way we get out of this without piling up more dead bodies on all sides.
    - mcv 4y ago
      I agree. The problem is that Putin is not interested in diplomacy. Putin has made it very clear that he only respects force. So the only way to convince him not to invade a country he wants to invade, is a hard guarantee that NATO will defend that country. That's the only way. And NATO didn't give that promise to Ukraine, which is why Putin felt he could invade it. NATO is now trying to prevent escalation while still trying to help Ukraine and prevent it from being conquered. The problem is that now there's a violent and bloody stalemate. It needs to stop, but the only way to stop is for Putin to pull his forces out of Ukraine, and he's not going to do that without some very strong arguments.
  - refurb 4y ago
    The argument isn't "we should let Russia invade Ukraine". The argument is "if the US could be so wrong about the best path forward in Vietnam and Iraq, why are we so sure we're right about Ukraine"? Instead of viewing everything from a US/Western European/NATO lens, take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?". The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries, then that seems like a good trade off versus what we have now. Of course the criticism is "Russia would have invaded anyways even if NATO hadn't expanded". And maybe that's right, but we'll never know at this point since that decision was never made.
aiilns 4y ago
1) Isn't NATO a product of the cold war, meant to stand as an alliance against the USSR? A defense alliance must be, by definition, against someone, be it Russia or China. And isn't it a tool for the US (mainly) to serve their interests & enforce their will around the world? See Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya. 2) "Allowed" yes, disregarding the sanctions/embargo in place these last 60 years. 3) My geography knowledge is a bit spotty, but isn't Kaliningrad part of the Russian Federation (even if an exclave, between Lithuania & Poland)? Also I don't know if indeed there are nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. I am not arguing that NATO is worse, my point is that NATO is the West's/USA's tool and regardless of whether you see it as an instrument for justice/good, historically it very much has been against Russia's interests and arguably still is. You may consider NATO a force for good and Putin/Russia evil, thus giving legitimacy to NATO's existence & operations, that does not mean that Putin/Russia perceiving NATO as a threat "makes no sense".
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  1) Of course, joining NATO is picking a side. 2) But still Cuba was permitted to stay within the Eastern block. Why did Russia not choose to just sanction Ukraine then but allow NATO membership (that would the comparison) 3) Yes, of course, but really surrounded by NATO members. Could you imagine Russia permitting a NATO exclave inside Russia? And Russia certainly makes it sound like they have nuclear weapons there (see their latest drill last? week) Russia/Russian government is allowed to perceive it any way he wants, but that might not dictate NATO policy.
  - pndy 4y ago
    3) Call it "Russian exclave that hosts missile systems" then, not "Russia has nuclear weapons inside NATO" because someone who's not familiar with European politics, borders might read it as "Russia installed missile systems inside NATO country" which is simply not true. It's quite important to be precise on this.
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      I clearly state that I am referring to Kaliningrad.

simonh 4y ago

NATO is purely a defensive pact, nowhere in it's charter is there any provision for initiating hostilities and there is zero political support in the west for aggression against Russia or the acquisition of Russian territory. Until February the west was absolutely more than happy to funnel billions into Russia in return for oil and gas, and almost pathologically avoided any thought of taking any action that might affect trade with Russia. There's one problem with that statement above when I said this: >zero political support in the west for aggression against Russia or the acquisition of Russian territory The problem is the west and Russia have very different ideas about what constitutes Russian territory. Putin has been crystal clear, in numerous speeches and written statements, that he considers several other countries 'Russian territory' including Belarus, Georgia, the 'stans' and Ukraine. Ukraine joining the EU or NATO would forever take it out of the political and economic domination of Russia, and that's what he can't tolerate. In his mind that's a hostile takeover of territory that rightfully belongs to Russia and that's why he went to war. It's why in his opinion he had to go to war. He's not actually lying when he tells Russians that the west forced his hand and this is about the defence of Russia, because in his mind Ukraine is Russian territory in the same way that China considers Taiwan Chinese territory. When he says Russia, he doesn't mean the same thing that NATO leaders say when they use the same word. So those who say they agree with Putin or agree that NATO forced his hand, are signing up to the same view of the status of Ukraine and therefore the Ukrainian people.

Wildgoose 4y ago
NATO aggressively bombed Serbia over the issue of Kosovo. I don't know how anyone can seriously claim "NATO is purely a defensive pact" with a straight face. I think that bombing Serbia was probably the rupture that has led us to the terrible situation we have in Ukraine now.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Being a "defensive pact" does not exclude preventing genocide next to it's borders. The fact that you call it "the issue of Kosovo" is telling.

korantu 4y ago

Russian nuclear capabilities now allow complete destruction of any attacking state, even _after_ taking nuclear hit. One just can't invade Russia without complete and utter loss. This was not yet the case during Cuban missile crisis BTW.

CRConrad 4y ago

> > Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. > Why doesn't it make sense? Because Moscow has been in range of missiles for decades, Baltics and Finland and Ukraine in NATO or not.

aiilns 4y ago
So because the USA has advanced weapons and other bases close enough to reach Moscow, it doesn't make sense that Putin/Russia would be concerned by NATO expansion even closer to Moscow, right next to their borders?
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > right next to their borders? Having a state that you don't trust on your borders is not a justification for invasion. Hell, the UK trusts neither France nor Germany; both have attacked the UK, and planned to invade it, in the last 200 years. Lots of countries have neighbours they don't trust, but (on the whole) they don't launch unprovoked wars.