3 ms·

There's already NATO bases in the Barents Sea (and Turkey via the Black Sea) in addition along their land borders via the baltic states (minus Belarus). Their a

There's already NATO bases in the Barents Sea (and Turkey via the Black Sea) in addition along their land borders via the baltic states (minus Belarus). Their actions have also pushed Finland and Sweden into the arms of NATO. The thing about the Cuban missile crisis is that Kennedy was able to get Russian missiles AWAY from the United States. Russia's actions are getting hardware placed closer. And why is that? Probably because Russia will tolerate it in exchange for territorial expansion. Even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea there was open talk about how NATO was obsolete and a waste of money and effort. Russia could've probably eliminated any NATO threat without firing a single shot. It was already seen as a relic of the cold war. Instead, Russia's actions have given a renewed justification for NATO's existence.

pydry 4y ago
>The thing about the Cuban missile crisis is that Kennedy was able to get Russian missiles AWAY from the United States. It only happened in the first place because the US put missiles in Turkey. Take them away and suddenly the soviet union is ok with removing the cuban nukes. In this case a simple "Ukraine wont be joining NATO" would have prevented this war. >Russia's actions are getting hardware placed closer. The strategic significance of the other locations is far less than the donbas. Note the whole "location where they almost lost ww2" thing. It's kind of important. The US/NATO wanted a base in Mariupol because its the perfect location to threaten Russia, and they almost got it. Finland was the consolation prize.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  It's amazing how many people just can't seem to see any reason for Russia's behavior other than making their leader into a cartoon who just wants to do evil things to be evil. Honestly, since the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO has only expanded and crept closer and closer to Russia. How are they supposed to feel? As for this particular thing - the areas they are want are mainly Russian anyways and recent Ukrainian pol's have done everything they can to marginalize the people and their Russian cultures in these regions. Russia isn't perfect but this is a nuanced thing and was preventable through diplomacy.
  - spamizbad 4y ago
    Boris Yeltsin wanted it to be a long-term goal of Russia to join NATO - a measure supported by the United States (source: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel... or https://archive.ph/31hkF https://archive.ph/31hkF) And they started down that road earnestly in the 1990s. But it required extensive military and certain Democratic reforms Russia didn't want to commit to so they abandoned it. And that's totally fine: nobody is required to join NATO. Ultimately, since the early 90s, Russia helped form the CSTO which serves a similar function. > recent Ukrainian pol's have done everything they can to marginalize the people and their Russian cultures in these regions. The current Ukrainian president is a native Russian speaker and was quite popular in Russia. They have spent the last 8 years dealing with a Russian-instigated (and supported) civil war with the so-called LPR and DPR. Is the southern United States oppressed because the Union didn't allow it to secede? That certainly was the argument people used to justify segregation! Anyway, the stated justification for this war is not NATO expansion but "denazification"
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      And then America interfered in their elections in the 90’s and trust began to erode. We literally sent agents there to install American style politics to get Boris re-elected. It’s no wonder they don’t trust anything!
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > In this case a simple "Ukraine wont be joining NATO" would have prevented this war. Given the myriad of non-NATO excuses, including outright restoration of Russian imperial territory, that have been cited by Putin since day one, if you pay attention to anything besides the message crafted by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Western audiences (and faithfully relayed by Russia’s useful idiots in the West), and Russia pattern of aggression against it's neighbors, that doesn't really seem likely. (It's more likely that simply letting Ukraine skip ahead straight to joining NATO would have stopped the war.)
  - pydry 4y ago
    The myriad of excuses were for domestic propaganda purposes. Russia wasnt about to sacrifice this much for language rights in the donbas or Putin's belief that Ukrainian identity is bullshit but selling the idea of nascent potential military threat of gradual military encroachment to Russian audiences isnt a winner despite how fundamentally critical it is. For the integrity of Russian borders theyd sacrifice 100,000 in the blink of an eye. And have to ensure Mariupol wont ever host a NATO base. If Putin simply wanted to invade only for territory he would have taken it years ago when it would have been militarily easier. He invaded because the military threat it posed was slowly growing as Ukraine formed ever closer links to NATO. >if you pay attention to anything besides the message crafted by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Western audiences I monitor all sides (neutral, russian, western), but the above analysis I read from a military analyst who hates Russia. Your idea of what constitutes Russian propaganda and "useful idiot" is comically out of whack. It's also pretty hard to get exposed to Russian propaganda accidentally despite what a bevy of Americans raised on 1950s red scare tactics seem to think. >It's more likely that simply letting Ukraine skip ahead straight to joining NATO would have stopped the war. Yep, but NATO doesnt actually give a fuck about any of the countries bordering Russia and isnt willing to start a hot war with Russia over any of them. The decades long drawn out application process is simply to let them gradually up the threat to Russia without having any real obligation until its certain that obligation wont have to be invoked. This is slowly starting to dawn on Zelensky, I think. He's pretty mad at us right now for providing restrained help against the onslaught.

pydry 4y ago

>The thing about the Cuban missile crisis is that Kennedy was able to get Russian missiles AWAY from the United States. It only happened in the first place because the US put missiles in Turkey. Take them away and suddenly the soviet union is ok with removing the cuban nukes. In this case a simple "Ukraine wont be joining NATO" would have prevented this war. >Russia's actions are getting hardware placed closer. The strategic significance of the other locations is far less than the donbas. Note the whole "location where they almost lost ww2" thing. It's kind of important. The US/NATO wanted a base in Mariupol because its the perfect location to threaten Russia, and they almost got it. Finland was the consolation prize.

nemo44x 4y ago
It's amazing how many people just can't seem to see any reason for Russia's behavior other than making their leader into a cartoon who just wants to do evil things to be evil. Honestly, since the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO has only expanded and crept closer and closer to Russia. How are they supposed to feel? As for this particular thing - the areas they are want are mainly Russian anyways and recent Ukrainian pol's have done everything they can to marginalize the people and their Russian cultures in these regions. Russia isn't perfect but this is a nuanced thing and was preventable through diplomacy.
- spamizbad 4y ago
  Boris Yeltsin wanted it to be a long-term goal of Russia to join NATO - a measure supported by the United States (source: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel... or https://archive.ph/31hkF https://archive.ph/31hkF) And they started down that road earnestly in the 1990s. But it required extensive military and certain Democratic reforms Russia didn't want to commit to so they abandoned it. And that's totally fine: nobody is required to join NATO. Ultimately, since the early 90s, Russia helped form the CSTO which serves a similar function. > recent Ukrainian pol's have done everything they can to marginalize the people and their Russian cultures in these regions. The current Ukrainian president is a native Russian speaker and was quite popular in Russia. They have spent the last 8 years dealing with a Russian-instigated (and supported) civil war with the so-called LPR and DPR. Is the southern United States oppressed because the Union didn't allow it to secede? That certainly was the argument people used to justify segregation! Anyway, the stated justification for this war is not NATO expansion but "denazification"
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    And then America interfered in their elections in the 90’s and trust began to erode. We literally sent agents there to install American style politics to get Boris re-elected. It’s no wonder they don’t trust anything!
dragonwriter 4y ago
> In this case a simple "Ukraine wont be joining NATO" would have prevented this war. Given the myriad of non-NATO excuses, including outright restoration of Russian imperial territory, that have been cited by Putin since day one, if you pay attention to anything besides the message crafted by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Western audiences (and faithfully relayed by Russia’s useful idiots in the West), and Russia pattern of aggression against it's neighbors, that doesn't really seem likely. (It's more likely that simply letting Ukraine skip ahead straight to joining NATO would have stopped the war.)
- pydry 4y ago
  The myriad of excuses were for domestic propaganda purposes. Russia wasnt about to sacrifice this much for language rights in the donbas or Putin's belief that Ukrainian identity is bullshit but selling the idea of nascent potential military threat of gradual military encroachment to Russian audiences isnt a winner despite how fundamentally critical it is. For the integrity of Russian borders theyd sacrifice 100,000 in the blink of an eye. And have to ensure Mariupol wont ever host a NATO base. If Putin simply wanted to invade only for territory he would have taken it years ago when it would have been militarily easier. He invaded because the military threat it posed was slowly growing as Ukraine formed ever closer links to NATO. >if you pay attention to anything besides the message crafted by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Western audiences I monitor all sides (neutral, russian, western), but the above analysis I read from a military analyst who hates Russia. Your idea of what constitutes Russian propaganda and "useful idiot" is comically out of whack. It's also pretty hard to get exposed to Russian propaganda accidentally despite what a bevy of Americans raised on 1950s red scare tactics seem to think. >It's more likely that simply letting Ukraine skip ahead straight to joining NATO would have stopped the war. Yep, but NATO doesnt actually give a fuck about any of the countries bordering Russia and isnt willing to start a hot war with Russia over any of them. The decades long drawn out application process is simply to let them gradually up the threat to Russia without having any real obligation until its certain that obligation wont have to be invoked. This is slowly starting to dawn on Zelensky, I think. He's pretty mad at us right now for providing restrained help against the onslaught.