4 ms·

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 a

by 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.
  - Wildgoose 4y ago
    What is really telling is your admission that NATO is also an Offensive Alliance, which is exactly the point I was making, and which has led directly to this tragedy.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      Preventing genocide next door is defense, not offense. Just like in Ukraine now. The most Offensive thing here is your defense of genocidal wars of aggression.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        > Preventing genocide next door is defense, not offense. If the way you choose to prevent genocide is by marching an army into a foreign country, that's called "offense". Your argument is sophistical.
        CRConrad 4y ago
        Yes, but that's what Putler is doing. I was talking about the West helping the victims thereof to defend their homeland.
        lostmsu 4y ago
        That's what he wants people to believe he is doing. But he actually started aggressive. Even if you don't take Crimea cause supposedly there was not much blood spilled, the invasion into Ukraine started on April 13, 2014 when Russian special forces killed a group of Ukrainian internal security officers deep into Ukrainian territory. There were no "victims" to defend at that point.
        CRConrad 4y ago
        Yeah, bad writing on my part. I meant what he's doing is offense, not "preventing genocide".
- simonh 4y ago
  Surely you mean the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Unless you're implying that was a sham political cover for naked Serbian self interest. Perish the thought. NATO was defending Kosovo from a war of aggression and ongoing genocide.
  - walrusfromspace 4y ago
    >NATO was defending Kosovo from a war of aggression and ongoing genocide. Except that Kosovo was not a part of NATO so you can't say that NATO is a defensive alliance unless you are going the Roman way of pre-emptive defence[1]. [1] All Roman wars were officially defensive because they believed gods would not support an offensive war
    - simonh 4y ago
      I have addressed this point in more detail across thread. Defending other people is still defence.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  How much credibility would NATO or EU have had with Turkey if a bunch of Muslim Bantustans were permitted to be made?
aiilns 4y ago
> 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. I don't have to agree with Putin to say that I can understand Russia's issues with Ukraine. Saying that Putin's/Russia's attitude makes sense, does not mean I agree with it. It's in Russia's interests that Ukraine should be under Russia's influence, and in USA's interests that Ukraine be away from this influence and under their own, NATO serving as a tool for this. Now would the Ukrainian people's lives be better if under the EU's/NATO's influence, instead of Russia's? Maybe. Right now though, there's a war. Would a pro-Russia regime in Ukraine (& not trying to join NATO) have resulted in no war? Is the war worth it? Time will tell.
- simonh 4y ago
  I don't agree with Putin either, but I also agree that his actions make sense within his own frame of reference. It's not just about whether the Ukrainian's lives would be better from any observer's opinion. Nor is it a matter of them 'being under ... influence' as though they have no agency and are simply chaff blown in the wind. This conflict is fundamentally not about influence over Ukrainians, but about the Ukrainian people's right to self determination. This whole situation is often framed as the power and influence of great powers over regional pawns. That is not at all what this is about. Until February this year the USA as a nation barely even registered that Ukraine existed, let alone whether they had any influence over it. Ukraine was a patch of land along the route of a Russian gas pipeline, and that's the only reason it was important at all. The USA couldn't have cared less. It was an addendum to a footnote in their foreign policy, hence the feeble and deliberately ineffectual response to the annexation of Crimea. What triggered the Russian annexation of Crimea, was it US foreign policy shifts? A buildup of NATO forces? No, it was the Maidan protests in Kyiv bringing down a pro-Kremlin regime, and free and fair elections in Ukraine clearly indicating the Ukrainian people wanted to turn west. It was action by the Ukrainian people that triggered that response, not NATO. They are the ones driving this shift, and that's why all of this is even more maddening for Putin because he sees this as a traitorous betrayal of Russia by Ukrainians, by daring to think that they have any right to do so. This is why I talked about "signing up to the same view of the status of Ukraine and therefore the Ukrainian people"
denton-scratch 4y ago
> 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. Don't know why you've been downvoted; Putin's MO is to openly support dissidents in neighbouring countries; declare that the dissidents are being persecuted or "genocided"; encourage the dissidents to declare a republic; and then move an army in, to defend the bogus republic. Declaring that Ukraine is part of Russia doesn't make it so.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  > Putin's MO is to openly support dissidents in neighbouring countries; declare that the dissidents are being persecuted or "genocided"; encourage them to declare a republic; and then move an army in, to defend the bogus republic. Is not confined to neighbors. It seems that Putin secretly offered 10.000 soldiers to the crooks in Cataluña to "defend" the new republic after the independence declaration. Has been playing the amoeba game for a long time: "During his visit (2017), Medoyev drew parallels between Catalonia and pro-Russian, theoretically independent republics such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia" https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/26/inenglish/1509011964_600939.html https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/26/inenglish/15090... Puigdemont talked with Russia the day before declaring the independence of Catalonia. https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/putins-envoy-allegedly-offered-500b-10000-soldiers-for-catalonia-to-break-away-from-spain-3595249 https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/putins-envoy-allegedly-of...
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Harrumph. I didn't know that Russia had offered troops to support Catalunya; it doesn't surprise me. Part of his approach has been to interfere anywhere he can, whatever the ideological situation is, to stir up chaos. I think his goal is to create dissent between western peoples and nations, and undermine their unity. It's not working very well just now. It's having the opposite effect. I've long thought that his "create as much chaos as possible" approach was childish - like, I don't like school, so I think I'll set fire to it. Or, you don't show me enough respect, so I'll throw stones through your windows. He wants to be treated as a serious world leader; but he behaves like an 8-year-old having a tantrum. Any parent knows that you don't negotiate with an enraged 8-year-old. It's a waste of time, if not counter-productive.

by simonh 4y ago

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.
- Wildgoose 4y ago
  What is really telling is your admission that NATO is also an Offensive Alliance, which is exactly the point I was making, and which has led directly to this tragedy.
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    Preventing genocide next door is defense, not offense. Just like in Ukraine now. The most Offensive thing here is your defense of genocidal wars of aggression.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > Preventing genocide next door is defense, not offense. If the way you choose to prevent genocide is by marching an army into a foreign country, that's called "offense". Your argument is sophistical.
      - CRConrad 4y ago
        Yes, but that's what Putler is doing. I was talking about the West helping the victims thereof to defend their homeland.
        lostmsu 4y ago
        That's what he wants people to believe he is doing. But he actually started aggressive. Even if you don't take Crimea cause supposedly there was not much blood spilled, the invasion into Ukraine started on April 13, 2014 when Russian special forces killed a group of Ukrainian internal security officers deep into Ukrainian territory. There were no "victims" to defend at that point.
        CRConrad 4y ago
        Yeah, bad writing on my part. I meant what he's doing is offense, not "preventing genocide".
simonh 4y ago
Surely you mean the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Unless you're implying that was a sham political cover for naked Serbian self interest. Perish the thought. NATO was defending Kosovo from a war of aggression and ongoing genocide.
- walrusfromspace 4y ago
  >NATO was defending Kosovo from a war of aggression and ongoing genocide. Except that Kosovo was not a part of NATO so you can't say that NATO is a defensive alliance unless you are going the Roman way of pre-emptive defence[1]. [1] All Roman wars were officially defensive because they believed gods would not support an offensive war
  - simonh 4y ago
    I have addressed this point in more detail across thread. Defending other people is still defence.
selimthegrim 4y ago
How much credibility would NATO or EU have had with Turkey if a bunch of Muslim Bantustans were permitted to be made?

aiilns 4y ago

> 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. I don't have to agree with Putin to say that I can understand Russia's issues with Ukraine. Saying that Putin's/Russia's attitude makes sense, does not mean I agree with it. It's in Russia's interests that Ukraine should be under Russia's influence, and in USA's interests that Ukraine be away from this influence and under their own, NATO serving as a tool for this. Now would the Ukrainian people's lives be better if under the EU's/NATO's influence, instead of Russia's? Maybe. Right now though, there's a war. Would a pro-Russia regime in Ukraine (& not trying to join NATO) have resulted in no war? Is the war worth it? Time will tell.

simonh 4y ago
I don't agree with Putin either, but I also agree that his actions make sense within his own frame of reference. It's not just about whether the Ukrainian's lives would be better from any observer's opinion. Nor is it a matter of them 'being under ... influence' as though they have no agency and are simply chaff blown in the wind. This conflict is fundamentally not about influence over Ukrainians, but about the Ukrainian people's right to self determination. This whole situation is often framed as the power and influence of great powers over regional pawns. That is not at all what this is about. Until February this year the USA as a nation barely even registered that Ukraine existed, let alone whether they had any influence over it. Ukraine was a patch of land along the route of a Russian gas pipeline, and that's the only reason it was important at all. The USA couldn't have cared less. It was an addendum to a footnote in their foreign policy, hence the feeble and deliberately ineffectual response to the annexation of Crimea. What triggered the Russian annexation of Crimea, was it US foreign policy shifts? A buildup of NATO forces? No, it was the Maidan protests in Kyiv bringing down a pro-Kremlin regime, and free and fair elections in Ukraine clearly indicating the Ukrainian people wanted to turn west. It was action by the Ukrainian people that triggered that response, not NATO. They are the ones driving this shift, and that's why all of this is even more maddening for Putin because he sees this as a traitorous betrayal of Russia by Ukrainians, by daring to think that they have any right to do so. This is why I talked about "signing up to the same view of the status of Ukraine and therefore the Ukrainian people"

denton-scratch 4y ago

> 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. Don't know why you've been downvoted; Putin's MO is to openly support dissidents in neighbouring countries; declare that the dissidents are being persecuted or "genocided"; encourage the dissidents to declare a republic; and then move an army in, to defend the bogus republic. Declaring that Ukraine is part of Russia doesn't make it so.

pvaldes 4y ago
> Putin's MO is to openly support dissidents in neighbouring countries; declare that the dissidents are being persecuted or "genocided"; encourage them to declare a republic; and then move an army in, to defend the bogus republic. Is not confined to neighbors. It seems that Putin secretly offered 10.000 soldiers to the crooks in Cataluña to "defend" the new republic after the independence declaration. Has been playing the amoeba game for a long time: "During his visit (2017), Medoyev drew parallels between Catalonia and pro-Russian, theoretically independent republics such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia" https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/26/inenglish/1509011964_600939.html https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2017/10/26/inenglish/15090... Puigdemont talked with Russia the day before declaring the independence of Catalonia. https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/putins-envoy-allegedly-offered-500b-10000-soldiers-for-catalonia-to-break-away-from-spain-3595249 https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/putins-envoy-allegedly-of...
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Harrumph. I didn't know that Russia had offered troops to support Catalunya; it doesn't surprise me. Part of his approach has been to interfere anywhere he can, whatever the ideological situation is, to stir up chaos. I think his goal is to create dissent between western peoples and nations, and undermine their unity. It's not working very well just now. It's having the opposite effect. I've long thought that his "create as much chaos as possible" approach was childish - like, I don't like school, so I think I'll set fire to it. Or, you don't show me enough respect, so I'll throw stones through your windows. He wants to be treated as a serious world leader; but he behaves like an 8-year-old having a tantrum. Any parent knows that you don't negotiate with an enraged 8-year-old. It's a waste of time, if not counter-productive.