3 ms·

What was the point of NATO, to attack Russia? If that's what you're implying I don't agree, as far as I know the treaty doesn't say anything about attacking oth

What was the point of NATO, to attack Russia? If that's what you're implying I don't agree, as far as I know the treaty doesn't say anything about attacking others, only about defending everyone that has signed the treaty if they get attacked. But I'm not part of NATO or very knowledgeable, maybe I'm wrong? My point is that it definitely is one-sided. It's only one of the sides that have invaded the other after years of threatening of doing so. Russia has also done similar things in Georgia and Moldova, and the Baltic countries that have a sizeable Russian population would have an even better reason to be scared right now if they weren't part of NATO. USA isn't feeding Ukrainian soldiers to anyone, that's again falling into the narrative that Russia wants to use that Russia is fighting the west. Ukrainian soldiers are protecting their country just as Finnish soldiers did less than 100 years ago, and they have asked for and received support from other countries sympathetic to the idea that invading countries to take their land by force is undemocratic, illegal, immoral, and worth defending against. Nobody has asked for an invasion of Russia, the win comes when the invaders leave where they don't belong. I agree that it is a very fucked situation, which is why Russia's aggression needs to be condemned and can't be allowed to succeed.

thriftwy 4y ago
Nobody in Crimea (and also very few people in e.g. Donetsk) has asked for Ukrainian state to return, but there it goes with Zelensky promising liberation (a.k.a. military invasion) to Crimea. So Russia now contains the war on not-quite-its turf to avoid the war on the turf it considers integral.
- sorenjan 4y ago
  What would you expect any national leader to say if their territory was invaded? And what about the rest of Ukraine, was the people in Kiev asking to be liberated by the Russian army last year? Russia is currently containing the war on not-at-all-its turf to stall while they're deporting or killing unfriendlies on their illegally annexed territory. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/11/ukraine-russias-unlawful-transfer-of-civilians-a-war-crime-and-likely-a-crime-against-humanity-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/11/ukraine-russi...
mhuffman 4y ago
>What was the point of NATO, to attack Russia? If that's what you're implying I don't agree No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked! >My point is that it definitely is one-sided. It's only one of the sides that have invaded the other after years of threatening of doing so. Russia has also done similar things in Georgia and Moldova, and the Baltic countries that have a sizeable Russian population would have an even better reason to be scared right now if they weren't part of NATO. All of this is Russia big-dicking its influence in that area. Just as I said before. >USA isn't feeding Ukrainian soldiers to anyone, that's again falling into the narrative that Russia wants to use that Russia is fighting the west. Ukrainian soldiers are protecting their country just as Finnish soldiers did less than 100 years ago Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war) >Nobody has asked for an invasion of Russia, the win comes when the invaders leave where they don't belong. How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then? >I agree that it is a very fucked situation, which is why Russia's aggression needs to be condemned and can't be allowed to succeed. I agree it is fucked. I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. These have been thought out. And there is no innocent country on Earth. That is propaganda as well. Russia is doing two things from my perspective. First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China.
- sorenjan 4y ago
  > No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked! It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion. NATO has never attacked Russia, and the economic downfall was of their own doing. The scars of Soviet rule are still present in eastern Europe, even in eastern Germany. > Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war) And others are returning to Ukraine from abroad. And are you suggesting that the US is forcing the conscription? > How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then? Not sure what the purpose of those scare quotes are, do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine? You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth. > I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. I never said they are, just that their reasons are wrong and should be opposed. Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy. > And there is no innocent country on Earth. Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day. > First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. NATO have no military bases in Ukraine, nor do they have any plans for any. As a direct result of this war Sweden and Finland have applied for NATO membership, giving Russia 1340 km extra border with NATO. According to Putin, this isn't an issue, and Russia has even moved a lot of their military units close to Finland to Ukraine instead. > Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China. Yes, it's the imperialistic failings of a dead super power that can't accept that the world has moved on.

thriftwy 4y ago

Nobody in Crimea (and also very few people in e.g. Donetsk) has asked for Ukrainian state to return, but there it goes with Zelensky promising liberation (a.k.a. military invasion) to Crimea. So Russia now contains the war on not-quite-its turf to avoid the war on the turf it considers integral.

sorenjan 4y ago
What would you expect any national leader to say if their territory was invaded? And what about the rest of Ukraine, was the people in Kiev asking to be liberated by the Russian army last year? Russia is currently containing the war on not-at-all-its turf to stall while they're deporting or killing unfriendlies on their illegally annexed territory. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/11/ukraine-russias-unlawful-transfer-of-civilians-a-war-crime-and-likely-a-crime-against-humanity-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/11/ukraine-russi...

mhuffman 4y ago

>What was the point of NATO, to attack Russia? If that's what you're implying I don't agree No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked! >My point is that it definitely is one-sided. It's only one of the sides that have invaded the other after years of threatening of doing so. Russia has also done similar things in Georgia and Moldova, and the Baltic countries that have a sizeable Russian population would have an even better reason to be scared right now if they weren't part of NATO. All of this is Russia big-dicking its influence in that area. Just as I said before. >USA isn't feeding Ukrainian soldiers to anyone, that's again falling into the narrative that Russia wants to use that Russia is fighting the west. Ukrainian soldiers are protecting their country just as Finnish soldiers did less than 100 years ago Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war) >Nobody has asked for an invasion of Russia, the win comes when the invaders leave where they don't belong. How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then? >I agree that it is a very fucked situation, which is why Russia's aggression needs to be condemned and can't be allowed to succeed. I agree it is fucked. I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. These have been thought out. And there is no innocent country on Earth. That is propaganda as well. Russia is doing two things from my perspective. First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China.

sorenjan 4y ago
> No. It was to destroy the Soviet Union. And it mostly worked! It was to defend western Europe against Soviet expansion. NATO has never attacked Russia, and the economic downfall was of their own doing. The scars of Soviet rule are still present in eastern Europe, even in eastern Germany. > Ukrainian soldiers are hauling ass out of the country and being conscripted into the war (just the other day a young man committed suicide rather than go to war) And others are returning to Ukraine from abroad. And are you suggesting that the US is forcing the conscription? > How do you stop the "invaders" from coming back again then? Not sure what the purpose of those scare quotes are, do you not agree Russia has invaded Ukraine? You stop future invasions with security guarantees from other countries, and using sanctions to make war cost more than it's worth. > I don't agree that Russia is a maniac country just doing crazy attacks willy-nilly. I never said they are, just that their reasons are wrong and should be opposed. Although a lot of their attacks lacks precision and are purposefully "erratic", killing civilians as part of their terror strategy. > And there is no innocent country on Earth. Does this mean that every country on the planet deserves to have their schools and hospitals bombed, or their territory occupied by rapists and murderers? There's a big difference between being faultless in all circumstances and being invaded by a cruel army firing thousands of artillery shells each day. > First, displaying that if NATO moves military bases close to them it is going to cost. NATO have no military bases in Ukraine, nor do they have any plans for any. As a direct result of this war Sweden and Finland have applied for NATO membership, giving Russia 1340 km extra border with NATO. According to Putin, this isn't an issue, and Russia has even moved a lot of their military units close to Finland to Ukraine instead. > Second, they are trying desperately to retain influence in that area that they used to have back when they were the 2nd super power on Earth, but have since been passed by China. Yes, it's the imperialistic failings of a dead super power that can't accept that the world has moved on.