3 ms·

>Peace would have prevailed if the west respected the sovreignity of non-democratic countries. The only country's soverignty that has not been respected is Ukr

>Peace would have prevailed if the west respected the sovreignity of non-democratic countries. The only country's soverignty that has not been respected is Ukraine's. You're providing cover for the regime of a genocidal lunatic

_8j50 4y ago
No, not the only. You make a claim without adressing my points to counter that claim. It is not politically practical to invade russia, so, america and western eurpe attempted to export their way of life by influencing the Russian people and going as far as having politicians publicly opposing internal matters of Russia as if they were a party that had a right to do so, like a man telling another man how he should treat his family without being asked. And it would be something else if the west stopped there, they moved wartime weapons closer to Russia and increased the size of an alliance specifically created to counteract a Russian threat. They refused to accept Russia and chose agression but were fine with installing Erdogan in Turkey. Not only did they undermine a dictator and initiated the agression but they did so hypocritically. Ukranian blood is on the hands of those you kept choosing to elect to represent you! There is no cover for Putin, no Cover for western politicans and no cover for westerners who continue to support them. Your support to have your leaders cease unneccesary hostility towards Russia and China is needed to stop further bloodshed. Your ways should not be exported at these high costs.
- mopsi 4y ago
  > And it would be something else if the west stopped there, they moved wartime weapons closer to Russia and increased the size of an alliance specifically created to counteract a Russian threat This is completely false. Becoming a member of NATO has always been the initiative of Eastern European countries, not "the west". Existing North American and Western European members were always hesitant at best, because they did not believe that EE had anything to fear from Russia (which is obviously false, as we can see now). Whatever illusions there were about post-1991 Russia in Eastern Europe, Chechen wars shattered them already in 1995. The same applies to weapons. NA and WEU countries have always been very hesitant to station any weapons in EE, even if there is an obvious gap, such as total lack of air force, which is the case in some smaller EE members who can't afford one, but need a few jets just for basic policing (to respond to events like hijacked or otherwise non-responsive airplanes). This changed only in 2022. HIMARS, PATRIOT and other advanced weapons arrived only now to protect Eastern Europe. Before, NA and WEU military presence in Eastern Europe was limited to infrantry, in small numbers, mostly for mutual training purposes. This was the so-called "tripwire concept", as any attack on American, British or French soldiers in EE could lead to nuclear escalation, which would hopefully deter from the attack in the first place. This concept was abandoned in 2022 in favor of establishing a much larger multinational force that could successfully counter a Russian invasion from day 1. Thanks to the stupid actions of Vladimir Vladimirovich, Russia will have hundreds of HIMARSes and other advanced weapons right on its border instead of light infrantry battalions with 4 tanks and 2 Apaches.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    > This is completely false. Becoming a member of NATO has always been the initiative of Eastern European countries, not "the west". You cannot even begin NATO application without an invitation. Regardless of the initiative of non-members any member could have blocked the expansion of the alliance simply because it was a time of peace and there are no agressions by Russia. As for the rest of what you said, it only applies to conventional warfare.
    - mopsi 4y ago
      > You cannot even begin NATO application without an invitation. That's a formality, which usually happens in the final stage of negotiations. EE countries that joined NATO got the invitation 1-2 years before officially becoming members, while negotiations usually took around 5-10 years. After everything has been negotiated, NATO sends a formal invitation, which is followed by signing the formal application, and the decision to accept that application is then ratified by parliaments of NATO countries (can take up to a year). It's dead wrong to depict this as existing members "expanding" NATO and dragging other countries in. > Regardless of the initiative of non-members any member could have blocked the expansion of the alliance simply because it was a time of peace and there are no agressions by Russia. If you saw Russia as a peaceful country, then there was no reason to oppose, because accepting EE wouldn't increase commitments in any significant way, while membership requirements like civilian oversight over armed forced made the new members more stable and contributed to peace in Europe. Opposing new members would've made more sense if you expected war from Russia, because mutual defense pact would drag you into the conflict too. So in a way, joining NATO was calling NA/WEU bluff: "If you think there's no threat from Russia, sign a mutual defense pact with us." > As for the rest of what you said, it only applies to conventional warfare. Nothing changed regarding nuclear weapons. In the 1997 founding treaty between NATO and Russia, it was agreed upon that NATO would not station nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and NATO has kept that promise. Given the technological edge of western weapons over Russian arsenal, I don't think there is any difference if nukes are a thousand miles more in one direction or the other. I believe stationing nuclear weapons in EE is important to Russia only because it would lead to very serious escalation if Russia invaded those countries and Russia took control of American, French or British nuclear weapons.
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  What does any of this have to do with Ukraine?

_8j50 4y ago

No, not the only. You make a claim without adressing my points to counter that claim. It is not politically practical to invade russia, so, america and western eurpe attempted to export their way of life by influencing the Russian people and going as far as having politicians publicly opposing internal matters of Russia as if they were a party that had a right to do so, like a man telling another man how he should treat his family without being asked. And it would be something else if the west stopped there, they moved wartime weapons closer to Russia and increased the size of an alliance specifically created to counteract a Russian threat. They refused to accept Russia and chose agression but were fine with installing Erdogan in Turkey. Not only did they undermine a dictator and initiated the agression but they did so hypocritically. Ukranian blood is on the hands of those you kept choosing to elect to represent you! There is no cover for Putin, no Cover for western politicans and no cover for westerners who continue to support them. Your support to have your leaders cease unneccesary hostility towards Russia and China is needed to stop further bloodshed. Your ways should not be exported at these high costs.

mopsi 4y ago
> And it would be something else if the west stopped there, they moved wartime weapons closer to Russia and increased the size of an alliance specifically created to counteract a Russian threat This is completely false. Becoming a member of NATO has always been the initiative of Eastern European countries, not "the west". Existing North American and Western European members were always hesitant at best, because they did not believe that EE had anything to fear from Russia (which is obviously false, as we can see now). Whatever illusions there were about post-1991 Russia in Eastern Europe, Chechen wars shattered them already in 1995. The same applies to weapons. NA and WEU countries have always been very hesitant to station any weapons in EE, even if there is an obvious gap, such as total lack of air force, which is the case in some smaller EE members who can't afford one, but need a few jets just for basic policing (to respond to events like hijacked or otherwise non-responsive airplanes). This changed only in 2022. HIMARS, PATRIOT and other advanced weapons arrived only now to protect Eastern Europe. Before, NA and WEU military presence in Eastern Europe was limited to infrantry, in small numbers, mostly for mutual training purposes. This was the so-called "tripwire concept", as any attack on American, British or French soldiers in EE could lead to nuclear escalation, which would hopefully deter from the attack in the first place. This concept was abandoned in 2022 in favor of establishing a much larger multinational force that could successfully counter a Russian invasion from day 1. Thanks to the stupid actions of Vladimir Vladimirovich, Russia will have hundreds of HIMARSes and other advanced weapons right on its border instead of light infrantry battalions with 4 tanks and 2 Apaches.
- _8j50 4y ago
  > This is completely false. Becoming a member of NATO has always been the initiative of Eastern European countries, not "the west". You cannot even begin NATO application without an invitation. Regardless of the initiative of non-members any member could have blocked the expansion of the alliance simply because it was a time of peace and there are no agressions by Russia. As for the rest of what you said, it only applies to conventional warfare.
  - mopsi 4y ago
    > You cannot even begin NATO application without an invitation. That's a formality, which usually happens in the final stage of negotiations. EE countries that joined NATO got the invitation 1-2 years before officially becoming members, while negotiations usually took around 5-10 years. After everything has been negotiated, NATO sends a formal invitation, which is followed by signing the formal application, and the decision to accept that application is then ratified by parliaments of NATO countries (can take up to a year). It's dead wrong to depict this as existing members "expanding" NATO and dragging other countries in. > Regardless of the initiative of non-members any member could have blocked the expansion of the alliance simply because it was a time of peace and there are no agressions by Russia. If you saw Russia as a peaceful country, then there was no reason to oppose, because accepting EE wouldn't increase commitments in any significant way, while membership requirements like civilian oversight over armed forced made the new members more stable and contributed to peace in Europe. Opposing new members would've made more sense if you expected war from Russia, because mutual defense pact would drag you into the conflict too. So in a way, joining NATO was calling NA/WEU bluff: "If you think there's no threat from Russia, sign a mutual defense pact with us." > As for the rest of what you said, it only applies to conventional warfare. Nothing changed regarding nuclear weapons. In the 1997 founding treaty between NATO and Russia, it was agreed upon that NATO would not station nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and NATO has kept that promise. Given the technological edge of western weapons over Russian arsenal, I don't think there is any difference if nukes are a thousand miles more in one direction or the other. I believe stationing nuclear weapons in EE is important to Russia only because it would lead to very serious escalation if Russia invaded those countries and Russia took control of American, French or British nuclear weapons.
throwaway6734 4y ago
What does any of this have to do with Ukraine?