5 ms·

Russia has been invading it's neighbors for centuries. Eastern Europeans do remember that. Joining NATO is not only about the conflict today, it's due to prett

Russia has been invading it's neighbors for centuries. Eastern Europeans do remember that. Joining NATO is not only about the conflict today, it's due to pretty much all generations in the area suffering due to their aggressive neighbor further to the east.

blub 4y ago
Nearly every country in Europe has been invading its neighbors for centuries, that’s what normal looks like in Europe. In fact some countries liked invasions so much, that they invaded countries all over the world. Joining NATO is not at all only up to the countries which apply. The US is more or less the game maker, with big countries like Germany, France, the UK etc. also having an important voice. It’s not unexpected that the former Warsaw Pact countries would want to join. It is surprising to see the US being so short-sighted to allow these expansions considering that several of its own diplomats and foreign policy experts were warning against it.
- stoltzmann 4y ago
  And that's why countries have to consider all of their neighbors when deciding on their foreign policy. There was a lot of bad blood for example against Germany, but since we have a very good economic partnership with them, there is no reason for being overly prepared for war with them. They haven't done anything to consider them hostile. Russia has consistently been a bad neighbor that keeps on threatening or playing weird tricks against other countries. They have invaded multiple neighbors in the last 100 years, where the rest of Europe has become more peaceful. There is a clear danger to peace in Europe, and that's why countries want to join NATO. Why do you think that letting Eastern European countries join NATO is misguided? So far, it has been the number one reason that Russia hasn't invaded any other countries in the region.
  - blub 4y ago
    Now you’ve scaled back from hundreds of years to a just as arbitrary 100 years. I assume you’ve led with Germany to address the very obvious WW2, when Germany turned the entire continent into a bloodbath. Ok, let’s skip that one :-) There were the Cod Wars, which were mostly boat ramming affairs, if it weren’t for the fact that Iceland threatened to leave NATO, expel US forces and broke diplomatic relations with the UK at some point. There was the Turkish Cypriot conflict, which continues to smolder until the present day. Quite a few civil wars and uprisings. Then the big Yugoslav war, where a defensive alliance oddly decided to go on the offensive. The next big war was the current one in Ukraine. Rather quiet given Europe’s bloody past. But if we look outside Europe, we see that the warfare just moved to other places. Falklands, Iraq twice, Syria, Libya. Not to mention the French and British colonial empires. Core NATO are no slouches at invading and making war. So what’s the point in trying to make Russia seem irredeemable? We measure with very different standards what we do vs. what they do. Makes it easier to justify militarization, spending enormous amounts on weapons, reducing civil liberties, etc if you have an evil enemy. Edit: forgot to answer your question about expansion. Because the likely outcome of not expanding would have been Belarus, Georgia or Ukraine in the 00’s, not invasions and war. This is not some far-fetched theory, Russian and ex-USSR leaders were repeatedly advocating for it and US and German/French politicians were obviously aware of it and in agreement. Post Bush the 1st the US changed its policy and went on a NATO expansion quest.
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  > Nearly every country in Europe has been invading its neighbors for centuries We don't need to go into that long history. Most of these CEE countries have been invaded by Russia in the last 100 years. > It’s not unexpected that the former Warsaw Pact countries would want to join. It is surprising to see the US being so short-sighted to allow these expansions considering that several of its own diplomats and foreign policy experts were warning against it. It actually worked out well. Not letting e.g. Baltics into NATO/EU would almost certainly mean they have been already absorbed back into Russia. The rest of CEE would be vassalized.
  - gdy 4y ago
    "Not letting e.g. Baltics into NATO/EU would almost certainly mean they have been already absorbed back into Russia. The rest of CEE would be vassalized." Why?
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Because Russia has a recent and current track record of behaving this way.
      - gdy 4y ago
        You too are trying to justify NATO expansion by Russian reaction to it.
        The_Colonel 4y ago
        Not necessarily. Most of the new members have been invaded by Russia in the past 100 years.
        gdy 4y ago
        And Russia has been invaded by most of the European countries in the same time period. Starting from the Intervention and Poland's invasion to the invasion by Germany and its allies.
- makomk 4y ago
  > Nearly every country in Europe has been invading its neighbors for centuries, Which was horrendously destructive, and the two World Wars fought using more modern weaponry were particularly awful. In fact, avoiding similar wars in Europe was part of the original justification for creating the EU, Europe has benefited tremenously from the almost a century of near-peace it's experienced, and this makes Russia's recent actions basically an existential threat to the rest of Europe.
  - blub 4y ago
    If the goal was to avoid war in Europe, then keeping a buffer of neutral countries between Russia and the EU/NATO would have been the logical course of action, when failing to integrate Russia in the European family. It seems to me that the EU and US didn’t know when to stop and only looked at the potential economical and respectively geopolitical gains, while not giving enough weight to the risk of conflict when it was known what Russia’s red lines were. This was a policy blunder. Looking at it from a moral or international law perspective is a dead end when the primary driver of the chain of events leading to today was geopolitics.
    - sidibe 4y ago
      You are ignoring the will of the people in a buffer state. In the EU they see prospering liberal democracies and on the other side it's permanent authoritarian kleptocracy, which by the way still sees them as part of a lost empire. Of course they are going to want a path to the EU.
      - blub 4y ago
        You seem to be assuming that countries may decide on their own freely who they associate with. This is the case in international law, but not in reality, as can be seen in many examples concerning Russia or the US or China. Realpolitik vs ideal-oriented policy. It wasn’t the buffer states driving the decision, it was the US and NATO. They had to choose between buffer states and expanding NATO. The developments in Ukraine were predictable and likely avoidable had they chosen differently - see the fate of Belarus or Georgia or Ukraine before 2004 and before 2014.
gdy 4y ago
And which neighbor hasn't invaded Russia? Russia remembers that too. In the 1990s there was a perfect chance to turn the page, but it was squandered by the West.
- stoltzmann 4y ago
  I agree, Russia should form or join an already existing defensive alliance to protect itself against what it considers to be aggressive neighbors. That sounds reasonable to me, just like the neighboring countries doing likewise - joining a pact to defend against Russia.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    This exists, its called the Организация Договора о коллективной безопасности or Collective Security Treaty Organization. Its member states include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. It used to include Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...
    - type0 4y ago
      That organization is functionally defunct

blub 4y ago

Nearly every country in Europe has been invading its neighbors for centuries, that’s what normal looks like in Europe. In fact some countries liked invasions so much, that they invaded countries all over the world. Joining NATO is not at all only up to the countries which apply. The US is more or less the game maker, with big countries like Germany, France, the UK etc. also having an important voice. It’s not unexpected that the former Warsaw Pact countries would want to join. It is surprising to see the US being so short-sighted to allow these expansions considering that several of its own diplomats and foreign policy experts were warning against it.

stoltzmann 4y ago
And that's why countries have to consider all of their neighbors when deciding on their foreign policy. There was a lot of bad blood for example against Germany, but since we have a very good economic partnership with them, there is no reason for being overly prepared for war with them. They haven't done anything to consider them hostile. Russia has consistently been a bad neighbor that keeps on threatening or playing weird tricks against other countries. They have invaded multiple neighbors in the last 100 years, where the rest of Europe has become more peaceful. There is a clear danger to peace in Europe, and that's why countries want to join NATO. Why do you think that letting Eastern European countries join NATO is misguided? So far, it has been the number one reason that Russia hasn't invaded any other countries in the region.
- blub 4y ago
  Now you’ve scaled back from hundreds of years to a just as arbitrary 100 years. I assume you’ve led with Germany to address the very obvious WW2, when Germany turned the entire continent into a bloodbath. Ok, let’s skip that one :-) There were the Cod Wars, which were mostly boat ramming affairs, if it weren’t for the fact that Iceland threatened to leave NATO, expel US forces and broke diplomatic relations with the UK at some point. There was the Turkish Cypriot conflict, which continues to smolder until the present day. Quite a few civil wars and uprisings. Then the big Yugoslav war, where a defensive alliance oddly decided to go on the offensive. The next big war was the current one in Ukraine. Rather quiet given Europe’s bloody past. But if we look outside Europe, we see that the warfare just moved to other places. Falklands, Iraq twice, Syria, Libya. Not to mention the French and British colonial empires. Core NATO are no slouches at invading and making war. So what’s the point in trying to make Russia seem irredeemable? We measure with very different standards what we do vs. what they do. Makes it easier to justify militarization, spending enormous amounts on weapons, reducing civil liberties, etc if you have an evil enemy. Edit: forgot to answer your question about expansion. Because the likely outcome of not expanding would have been Belarus, Georgia or Ukraine in the 00’s, not invasions and war. This is not some far-fetched theory, Russian and ex-USSR leaders were repeatedly advocating for it and US and German/French politicians were obviously aware of it and in agreement. Post Bush the 1st the US changed its policy and went on a NATO expansion quest.
The_Colonel 4y ago
> Nearly every country in Europe has been invading its neighbors for centuries We don't need to go into that long history. Most of these CEE countries have been invaded by Russia in the last 100 years. > It’s not unexpected that the former Warsaw Pact countries would want to join. It is surprising to see the US being so short-sighted to allow these expansions considering that several of its own diplomats and foreign policy experts were warning against it. It actually worked out well. Not letting e.g. Baltics into NATO/EU would almost certainly mean they have been already absorbed back into Russia. The rest of CEE would be vassalized.
- gdy 4y ago
  "Not letting e.g. Baltics into NATO/EU would almost certainly mean they have been already absorbed back into Russia. The rest of CEE would be vassalized." Why?
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Because Russia has a recent and current track record of behaving this way.
    - gdy 4y ago
      You too are trying to justify NATO expansion by Russian reaction to it.
      - The_Colonel 4y ago
        Not necessarily. Most of the new members have been invaded by Russia in the past 100 years.
        gdy 4y ago
        And Russia has been invaded by most of the European countries in the same time period. Starting from the Intervention and Poland's invasion to the invasion by Germany and its allies.
makomk 4y ago
> Nearly every country in Europe has been invading its neighbors for centuries, Which was horrendously destructive, and the two World Wars fought using more modern weaponry were particularly awful. In fact, avoiding similar wars in Europe was part of the original justification for creating the EU, Europe has benefited tremenously from the almost a century of near-peace it's experienced, and this makes Russia's recent actions basically an existential threat to the rest of Europe.
- blub 4y ago
  If the goal was to avoid war in Europe, then keeping a buffer of neutral countries between Russia and the EU/NATO would have been the logical course of action, when failing to integrate Russia in the European family. It seems to me that the EU and US didn’t know when to stop and only looked at the potential economical and respectively geopolitical gains, while not giving enough weight to the risk of conflict when it was known what Russia’s red lines were. This was a policy blunder. Looking at it from a moral or international law perspective is a dead end when the primary driver of the chain of events leading to today was geopolitics.
  - sidibe 4y ago
    You are ignoring the will of the people in a buffer state. In the EU they see prospering liberal democracies and on the other side it's permanent authoritarian kleptocracy, which by the way still sees them as part of a lost empire. Of course they are going to want a path to the EU.
    - blub 4y ago
      You seem to be assuming that countries may decide on their own freely who they associate with. This is the case in international law, but not in reality, as can be seen in many examples concerning Russia or the US or China. Realpolitik vs ideal-oriented policy. It wasn’t the buffer states driving the decision, it was the US and NATO. They had to choose between buffer states and expanding NATO. The developments in Ukraine were predictable and likely avoidable had they chosen differently - see the fate of Belarus or Georgia or Ukraine before 2004 and before 2014.

gdy 4y ago

And which neighbor hasn't invaded Russia? Russia remembers that too. In the 1990s there was a perfect chance to turn the page, but it was squandered by the West.

stoltzmann 4y ago
I agree, Russia should form or join an already existing defensive alliance to protect itself against what it considers to be aggressive neighbors. That sounds reasonable to me, just like the neighboring countries doing likewise - joining a pact to defend against Russia.
- vel0city 4y ago
  This exists, its called the Организация Договора о коллективной безопасности or Collective Security Treaty Organization. Its member states include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. It used to include Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Org...
  - type0 4y ago
    That organization is functionally defunct