5 ms·

What's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes?

d0mine 4y ago
The first step would be to not allow NATO puppet to control your country. Compare the NATO military capabilities vs. Russia, then tell me who is the aggressor (how much does NATO moved East since USSR collapse?) Don’t force the war for survival.
- kibwen 4y ago
  NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia, only to Russia's imperial ambitions. If Russia's neighbors did not feel threatened by Russia, then perhaps they would not feel the urge to join NATO. I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression". Is me locking my doors "aggression" against burglars?
  - D_Alex 4y ago
    >NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone. Think very carefully and tell me how is expanding NATO to the Russian borders in the interests of original NATO members?
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      > NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone. Can you elaborate how NATO is a threat to itself and everyone else? It would appear Putin is the greatest threat to Russia and everyone else. He is the one ignoring Russia's own territorial treaties. He is the aggressor invading sovereign states. NATO alliances are defense pacts that are entered into voluntarily by all parties.
      - azangru 4y ago
        I think what the parent is suggesting is that NATO's tango with Russia (it always takes two, remember?) puts the world closer to the brink of annihilation. In a context when, as the title article suggests, 70% of the world population (or maybe more? they say "almost everyone", so perhaps 5,34 billion is a conservative estimate?) may die a violent death, words like territorial treaties or sovereign states start to lose their meaning.
        kibwen 4y ago
        It is ludicrous to suggest that Putin threatening to nuke Ukraine is somehow the fault of NATO. If Putin launches nukes in aggression, it is Putin's fault. Stop wringing your hands in apologetic appeasement to madmen.
        azangru 4y ago
        When Putin announced that he was putting his nuclear forces on high alert back in February or March, it was not to threaten Ukraine, but to threaten NATO countries who might come to its assistance. I have not since then heard him threaten Ukraine with his nukes. Perhaps I missed his threats? Do you have a link to one? As for whose fault is what — honestly, would you care, if either Russia launches nukes or NATO does so preemptively, and then the other side inevitably retaliates, and our world dies in flames — would you really care whose fault it would have been? Would it really matter to you?
        choko 4y ago
        Yeah you definitely missed it. See the link below. Kadyrov is also one of the likely successors to Putin. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-troops-left-lyman-avoid-encirclement-2022-10-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-troops-...
        azangru 4y ago
        I checked out the link. Didn't the parent comment say that it was Putin — italicized — who threatened to nuke Ukraine? Wouldn't the evidence for that need to point at specific Putin's words to that effect?
  - foverzar 4y ago
    > It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression" Of course, that is why the most common pro-NATO shilling narrative is that it is merely "defensive". NATO is just another military organization, whose business is war. And just as any other military, it will be (and has been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations ) used as a political tool. NATO and Russia aren't allies (at best), which makes NATO a threat for Russia, simply by definition. Pinky-promising that NATO won't be used as a threat or a political tool obviously doesn't count, since there are quite enough precedents of the contrary. These are just boringly objective risk-management calculations and conclusions that any manager would reach. > I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. Do you really feel like Panama or Luxembourg are fair examples, instead of countries like the US, that actually has military capability? You wouldn't deny that there are quite a lot of instances of people trying to protect themselves from the US and NATO, would you? How come? Really, it all boils down to a dangerous supremacist idea that there is only one culture enlightened and wise enough to use its military capabilities, and it is widely accepted in the western bubble. This concept is just so desired, that it erases any kind of reflection on how one can pave the road to hell with good intentions. The conflict in Ukraine, for example, was born out of a public push (by the US, mostly) for it to join NATO, even before all the bad stuff started. Ironic, really, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    - kibwen 4y ago
      This is utter nonsense. Unlike Russia, NATO isn't invading members in order to force them to join. Countries are begging NATO to let them in so that they have some measure of protection against Russia. NATO is not some "supremacist idea" of who gets to use military force, it is a reaction to Russian aggression. Ukraine did not seek to join NATO due to the US asking it to, it sought to join NATO to defend against Russia after overthrowing Putin's puppet in 2014. Quit your bullshit.
      - digikazi 4y ago
        NATO was quite happy to bomb Serbia and Libya, to name but two.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  NATO didn't really move east. NATO is a security and industrial pact. You could accuse the EU of moving east as that is actually about giving up some sovereign control. Countries need to apply to join NATO. NATO doesn't try to get them in under any circumstances. Ukraine had been begging to join and NATO still hadn't let them. If NATO was an aggressive imperial force then Ukraine would have already been in it. The only real honest reason I can imagine Russia doesn't want countries to join NATO is because it wants the option left open to be able to attack them at some point.
azangru 4y ago
I am not sure this question describes the situation accurately, considering that the invaded country doesn't have nuclear weapons, and the invader wasn't threatening a nuclear attack against the invaded country. Your question might be rephrased to "what's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes, and you have nuclear weapons", or to "what's your response to a country that invades another country and threatens nuclear strikes if you come to its assistance". Which are both good questions, but different ones.
- kibwen 4y ago
  Not only have you avoided answering the parent's question, you have also avoided answering any of the alternative questions that you posed. Would you care to?
  - azangru 4y ago
    I don't know what value that would add to the conversation — surely you don't expect a random guy on a forum to propose a comprehensive military strategy? I can only share my personal preferences. If the choice is between living and not living, I would choose to live — unless it entails living in constant physical pain. If the choice is between living in a country taken by an aggressor and not living, I would choose to live. If the choice is between living somewhere in the world when another part of the world has been taken by an aggressor and not living, I would definitely choose to live. Therefore, while I don't quite know what I would do in the scenario outlined in the question above (run? hide? appease?), I know what I wouldn't do — I wouldn't agitate for a nuclear war. With a possible exception that there is an absolute certainty that the invader, when he comes, will kill or physically torture me, because then it's all the same.
    - zelphirkalt 4y ago
      > I don't know what value that would add to the conversation — surely you don't expect a random guy on a forum to propose a comprehensive military strategy? The problem with this approach is, that while you complain about or criticize made decisions, you are not offering alternatives. So as long as we do not see a better alternative, what are we supposed to do? Complaining is very OK and an important part of debate, but without providing a better way to act, I do not see how one can expect complains to change anything. Doing "nothing" is also an alternative, but here it comes into play, what kind of person dictates the aggressor's forces and what is known about them. If, merely hypothetically speaking, of course, the wanted to establish an empire under their rule, without regard for what others within that future empire want, what makes you think, that it will stop with that one country the aggressor is invading currently? Especially when history has proven, that further escalation is on the menu a few years later. I think the "doing nothing" or an appeasement strategy is quickly reduced to absurdity, if we look at the past and think about what would happen in the future. In fact, some people have warned about what is happening right now, at least since 2014. We have the choice to condition the dictator further, by giving in to every future demand, because he will learn he only needs to threaten with nuclear weapons (and he _will_ find a "reason" to be insulted, or simply make one himself, with lets say some false flag operations for example), or say no to that. We have made the mistake, of allowing this to go on for far too many years already, so that he felt too sure, that it would work this time as well. Good, that we put a stop to that. Maybe, if we had done so earlier, we would not be in this situation right now.
elenaferrantes 4y ago
Idk, maybe ask this to Japaneses or Panamanians.
- sixstringtheory 4y ago
  This is an absolutely ridiculous line of whataboutism that is historically ignorant and doesn’t deserve any serious response.
  - elenaferrantes 4y ago
    Yeah, sure. Like the song says : "do what I say, don’t do wha t I do" :-)
    - sixstringtheory 4y ago
      So you have a poor grasp of history and ethics, and, if you’re referencing the song I think you are, justify it with poorly understood song lyrics. I’m sure you are far from anything like a government official so I won’t lose sleep over it.

The first step would be to not allow NATO puppet to control your country. Compare the NATO military capabilities vs. Russia, then tell me who is the aggressor (how much does NATO moved East since USSR collapse?) Don’t force the war for survival.

kibwen 4y ago
NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia, only to Russia's imperial ambitions. If Russia's neighbors did not feel threatened by Russia, then perhaps they would not feel the urge to join NATO. I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression". Is me locking my doors "aggression" against burglars?
- D_Alex 4y ago
  >NATO is not a threat to the survival of Russia NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone. Think very carefully and tell me how is expanding NATO to the Russian borders in the interests of original NATO members?
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    > NATO has become a threat to survival of NATO. And Russia. And everyone. Can you elaborate how NATO is a threat to itself and everyone else? It would appear Putin is the greatest threat to Russia and everyone else. He is the one ignoring Russia's own territorial treaties. He is the aggressor invading sovereign states. NATO alliances are defense pacts that are entered into voluntarily by all parties.
    - azangru 4y ago
      I think what the parent is suggesting is that NATO's tango with Russia (it always takes two, remember?) puts the world closer to the brink of annihilation. In a context when, as the title article suggests, 70% of the world population (or maybe more? they say "almost everyone", so perhaps 5,34 billion is a conservative estimate?) may die a violent death, words like territorial treaties or sovereign states start to lose their meaning.
      - kibwen 4y ago
        It is ludicrous to suggest that Putin threatening to nuke Ukraine is somehow the fault of NATO. If Putin launches nukes in aggression, it is Putin's fault. Stop wringing your hands in apologetic appeasement to madmen.
        azangru 4y ago
        When Putin announced that he was putting his nuclear forces on high alert back in February or March, it was not to threaten Ukraine, but to threaten NATO countries who might come to its assistance. I have not since then heard him threaten Ukraine with his nukes. Perhaps I missed his threats? Do you have a link to one? As for whose fault is what — honestly, would you care, if either Russia launches nukes or NATO does so preemptively, and then the other side inevitably retaliates, and our world dies in flames — would you really care whose fault it would have been? Would it really matter to you?
        choko 4y ago
        Yeah you definitely missed it. See the link below. Kadyrov is also one of the likely successors to Putin. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-troops-left-lyman-avoid-encirclement-2022-10-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-its-troops-...
        azangru 4y ago
        I checked out the link. Didn't the parent comment say that it was Putin — italicized — who threatened to nuke Ukraine? Wouldn't the evidence for that need to point at specific Putin's words to that effect?
- foverzar 4y ago
  > It is a tactic of bullies to reframe "defense" as "aggression" Of course, that is why the most common pro-NATO shilling narrative is that it is merely "defensive". NATO is just another military organization, whose business is war. And just as any other military, it will be (and has been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations ) used as a political tool. NATO and Russia aren't allies (at best), which makes NATO a threat for Russia, simply by definition. Pinky-promising that NATO won't be used as a threat or a political tool obviously doesn't count, since there are quite enough precedents of the contrary. These are just boringly objective risk-management calculations and conclusions that any manager would reach. > I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg. Do you really feel like Panama or Luxembourg are fair examples, instead of countries like the US, that actually has military capability? You wouldn't deny that there are quite a lot of instances of people trying to protect themselves from the US and NATO, would you? How come? Really, it all boils down to a dangerous supremacist idea that there is only one culture enlightened and wise enough to use its military capabilities, and it is widely accepted in the western bubble. This concept is just so desired, that it erases any kind of reflection on how one can pave the road to hell with good intentions. The conflict in Ukraine, for example, was born out of a public push (by the US, mostly) for it to join NATO, even before all the bad stuff started. Ironic, really, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  - kibwen 4y ago
    This is utter nonsense. Unlike Russia, NATO isn't invading members in order to force them to join. Countries are begging NATO to let them in so that they have some measure of protection against Russia. NATO is not some "supremacist idea" of who gets to use military force, it is a reaction to Russian aggression. Ukraine did not seek to join NATO due to the US asking it to, it sought to join NATO to defend against Russia after overthrowing Putin's puppet in 2014. Quit your bullshit.
    - digikazi 4y ago
      NATO was quite happy to bomb Serbia and Libya, to name but two.
jemmyw 4y ago
NATO didn't really move east. NATO is a security and industrial pact. You could accuse the EU of moving east as that is actually about giving up some sovereign control. Countries need to apply to join NATO. NATO doesn't try to get them in under any circumstances. Ukraine had been begging to join and NATO still hadn't let them. If NATO was an aggressive imperial force then Ukraine would have already been in it. The only real honest reason I can imagine Russia doesn't want countries to join NATO is because it wants the option left open to be able to attack them at some point.

azangru 4y ago

I am not sure this question describes the situation accurately, considering that the invaded country doesn't have nuclear weapons, and the invader wasn't threatening a nuclear attack against the invaded country. Your question might be rephrased to "what's your response to a country that invades you and threatens nuclear strikes, and you have nuclear weapons", or to "what's your response to a country that invades another country and threatens nuclear strikes if you come to its assistance". Which are both good questions, but different ones.

kibwen 4y ago
Not only have you avoided answering the parent's question, you have also avoided answering any of the alternative questions that you posed. Would you care to?
- azangru 4y ago
  I don't know what value that would add to the conversation — surely you don't expect a random guy on a forum to propose a comprehensive military strategy? I can only share my personal preferences. If the choice is between living and not living, I would choose to live — unless it entails living in constant physical pain. If the choice is between living in a country taken by an aggressor and not living, I would choose to live. If the choice is between living somewhere in the world when another part of the world has been taken by an aggressor and not living, I would definitely choose to live. Therefore, while I don't quite know what I would do in the scenario outlined in the question above (run? hide? appease?), I know what I wouldn't do — I wouldn't agitate for a nuclear war. With a possible exception that there is an absolute certainty that the invader, when he comes, will kill or physically torture me, because then it's all the same.
  - zelphirkalt 4y ago
    > I don't know what value that would add to the conversation — surely you don't expect a random guy on a forum to propose a comprehensive military strategy? The problem with this approach is, that while you complain about or criticize made decisions, you are not offering alternatives. So as long as we do not see a better alternative, what are we supposed to do? Complaining is very OK and an important part of debate, but without providing a better way to act, I do not see how one can expect complains to change anything. Doing "nothing" is also an alternative, but here it comes into play, what kind of person dictates the aggressor's forces and what is known about them. If, merely hypothetically speaking, of course, the wanted to establish an empire under their rule, without regard for what others within that future empire want, what makes you think, that it will stop with that one country the aggressor is invading currently? Especially when history has proven, that further escalation is on the menu a few years later. I think the "doing nothing" or an appeasement strategy is quickly reduced to absurdity, if we look at the past and think about what would happen in the future. In fact, some people have warned about what is happening right now, at least since 2014. We have the choice to condition the dictator further, by giving in to every future demand, because he will learn he only needs to threaten with nuclear weapons (and he _will_ find a "reason" to be insulted, or simply make one himself, with lets say some false flag operations for example), or say no to that. We have made the mistake, of allowing this to go on for far too many years already, so that he felt too sure, that it would work this time as well. Good, that we put a stop to that. Maybe, if we had done so earlier, we would not be in this situation right now.

elenaferrantes 4y ago

Idk, maybe ask this to Japaneses or Panamanians.

sixstringtheory 4y ago
This is an absolutely ridiculous line of whataboutism that is historically ignorant and doesn’t deserve any serious response.
- elenaferrantes 4y ago
  Yeah, sure. Like the song says : "do what I say, don’t do wha t I do" :-)
  - sixstringtheory 4y ago
    So you have a poor grasp of history and ethics, and, if you’re referencing the song I think you are, justify it with poorly understood song lyrics. I’m sure you are far from anything like a government official so I won’t lose sleep over it.