4 ms·

>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 i

by 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.
        azangru 4y ago
        What makes you think that Kadyrov is Putin's likely successor? Anything could happen, of course; but as a Chechen and a demonstratively, fervently devout Muslim, Kadyrov would be an even scarier figure for the outwardly Orthodox Russians than Stalin was.
        IAmGraydon 4y ago
        Kadyrov is certainly not a likely successor to Putin.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Wait, "it takes two" implies some consent of both parties. If someone is accosted we don't say they--as a victim--share half the fault. Does trying to hire a bodyguard because of your aggressive neighbor somehow make your neighbor's trespassing and destruction justified? Remember NATO is a defense alliance which must be invited in. And afterward doesn't grant the new inductee any power to threaten other sovereign states. Said another way, does Putin having nukes constitute a blank check to annex neighbors?
    - azangru 4y ago
      > Wait, "it takes two" implies some consent of both parties. Yes. In this case, both parties consent to threatening each other with their nuclear arsenals. They consent to gradually raising the stakes in this poker game, and eventually calling each other's bluff. It may very well turn out that one of the two is bluffing. Or it may not. I really don't care all that much to find out which. > If someone is accosted we don't say they--as a victim--share half the fault. > ... trespassing and destruction justified? > ... a blank check to annex neighbors? We are speaking different languages here. You are talking the language of ethics and apportioning the blame. I am talking the language of survival, which I think the article in the title post talks as well. If - following your metaphor — you live next door to a neighbor who has hired a bodyguard, and in the moment of intrusion the bodyguard and the intruder start firing at each other from a rocket launcher, explode a cistern full of gas, and as a result the intruder dies, the bodyguard dies, your neighbor dies, and you die — would you particularly care in those last terrifying moments whether it was the intruder's fault, the bodyguard's fault, or your neighbor's fault? I know I wouldn't. > Said another way, does Putin having nukes constitute a blank check to annex neighbors? Both no and yes, depending on which way you turn the question. It doesn't give him the right to do so, but it sure gives him the means.
      - paulryanrogers 4y ago
        > They consent to gradually raising the stakes in this poker game, and eventually calling each other's bluff. This is absurd. NATO is a defensive pact voluntarily entered into. Russia's neighbors want in not because of Western provocations but because of Putin. > If - following your metaphor — you live next door to a neighbor who has hired a bodyguard, and in the moment of intrusion... Framed this way I would be the intruder, the one deciding to escalate an already dangerous situation. And therefore I would be the foolish one, putting everyone's lives at risk for my own selfish goals. > would you particularly care in those last terrifying moments whether it was the intruder's fault, ... It's kind of irrelevant once the moment is reached. The world isn't there yet. And it's Putin with his foot on the gas accelerating toward destruction. > It doesn't give him the right to do so, but it sure gives him the means. Then every nation around Russia must have nukes or an alliance with a nuclear power. Putin is the one pushing them into doing so, and he's proven that any treaty with Russia is worthless. So there's no point trying to ally with them.

by D_Alex 4y ago

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.
        azangru 4y ago
        What makes you think that Kadyrov is Putin's likely successor? Anything could happen, of course; but as a Chechen and a demonstratively, fervently devout Muslim, Kadyrov would be an even scarier figure for the outwardly Orthodox Russians than Stalin was.
      - IAmGraydon 4y ago
        Kadyrov is certainly not a likely successor to Putin.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Wait, "it takes two" implies some consent of both parties. If someone is accosted we don't say they--as a victim--share half the fault. Does trying to hire a bodyguard because of your aggressive neighbor somehow make your neighbor's trespassing and destruction justified? Remember NATO is a defense alliance which must be invited in. And afterward doesn't grant the new inductee any power to threaten other sovereign states. Said another way, does Putin having nukes constitute a blank check to annex neighbors?
  - azangru 4y ago
    > Wait, "it takes two" implies some consent of both parties. Yes. In this case, both parties consent to threatening each other with their nuclear arsenals. They consent to gradually raising the stakes in this poker game, and eventually calling each other's bluff. It may very well turn out that one of the two is bluffing. Or it may not. I really don't care all that much to find out which. > If someone is accosted we don't say they--as a victim--share half the fault. > ... trespassing and destruction justified? > ... a blank check to annex neighbors? We are speaking different languages here. You are talking the language of ethics and apportioning the blame. I am talking the language of survival, which I think the article in the title post talks as well. If - following your metaphor — you live next door to a neighbor who has hired a bodyguard, and in the moment of intrusion the bodyguard and the intruder start firing at each other from a rocket launcher, explode a cistern full of gas, and as a result the intruder dies, the bodyguard dies, your neighbor dies, and you die — would you particularly care in those last terrifying moments whether it was the intruder's fault, the bodyguard's fault, or your neighbor's fault? I know I wouldn't. > Said another way, does Putin having nukes constitute a blank check to annex neighbors? Both no and yes, depending on which way you turn the question. It doesn't give him the right to do so, but it sure gives him the means.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      > They consent to gradually raising the stakes in this poker game, and eventually calling each other's bluff. This is absurd. NATO is a defensive pact voluntarily entered into. Russia's neighbors want in not because of Western provocations but because of Putin. > If - following your metaphor — you live next door to a neighbor who has hired a bodyguard, and in the moment of intrusion... Framed this way I would be the intruder, the one deciding to escalate an already dangerous situation. And therefore I would be the foolish one, putting everyone's lives at risk for my own selfish goals. > would you particularly care in those last terrifying moments whether it was the intruder's fault, ... It's kind of irrelevant once the moment is reached. The world isn't there yet. And it's Putin with his foot on the gas accelerating toward destruction. > It doesn't give him the right to do so, but it sure gives him the means. Then every nation around Russia must have nukes or an alliance with a nuclear power. Putin is the one pushing them into doing so, and he's proven that any treaty with Russia is worthless. So there's no point trying to ally with them.