6 ms·

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 (

by 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?
        choko 4y ago
        So other high officials, and Putin's likely successor making threats means nothing? You're really splitting hairs here man.
- 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.

by d0mine 4y ago

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?
        choko 4y ago
        So other high officials, and Putin's likely successor making threats means nothing? You're really splitting hairs here man.
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.