4 ms·

Of what relevance is it what percentage wanted to join NATO in 2010? NATO expansion didn't force Russia to invade Ukraine. Nor did internal conflict over the di

Of what relevance is it what percentage wanted to join NATO in 2010? NATO expansion didn't force Russia to invade Ukraine. Nor did internal conflict over the disposition of Crimea force Russia to invade. You steadily bring up irrelevant complexities to paper over the simple truth. Russia is solely at fault and only Russia can end it. Until then let the western world continue to support Ukraine until Russia breaks.

EGreg 4y ago
I have been answering you point by point, showing you where you're wrong. If a solid majority of Ukrainians do not want to join NATO in the period 1990-2010, but Bush pushed for it in 2007, then a lot of questions arise: 1) Why does NATO push for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO? 2) Why did they not welcome Russia as well? Was it more corrupt than Ukraine, or less democratic than Turkey, an existing member? Most people outside the Western bubble know the real reason. The goal was always to gradually surround Russia with NATO bases. Russia needed to be the enemy. If Russia was part of NATO, then NATO wouldn't have an enemy to defend against. Also then Europe's security would be very strong, and there would be no need for USA's weapons to keep the peace. And the bases USA has around the world would have to be reduced, too. In doing so, US presidents ignored Russian presidents (including Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev.) They also ignored everyone's warnings, and even the original architects of the USSR containment strategy: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w... Clinton ignored 50 top foreign policy experts: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o... Bush ignored pretty much everybody, including his own ambassadors and experts: https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-prevent-war https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-preve... I hope this addresses what relevance NATO expansion has. Every expert knew the predictable outcome. They said it for DECADES. And even today, billions of people around the world think like me ... according to polls: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsible-for-ukraine-war-than-russia-survey https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib... https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vatican-pope-francis-russia-war-ukraine-nato/5711655218266/ https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vat... You can repeat the words "unprovoked and unjustified" many times but that's just a verbatim phrase that you've been taught to repeat, obviously it was provoked. NATO expansion was systematic provocation. As was buzzing airspace. As was the rhetoric and the drone warfare, which worked so well in Nagorno Karabakh against Armenia. And so on. Obviously if the shoe was on the other foot, USA would do the same. In fact, they did, and does often. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an example. USA takes far less provocation to attack. Sometimes none. Like in Laos, halfway around the world. No other country does that. You seem to operate on a complete double-standard. So no, Russia isn't solely at fault. Russia can surely end it, but the consequences will be that Russia will be surrounded in short order by NATO bases, and in a decade or so, nuclear weapons pointed straight at Moscow. Maybe even broken up. While as a libertarian, I don't have a horse in this race, I can tell you that no country (especially not USA) would ever allow anything close to that to happen. Russia does not want Ukraine to become a NATO member.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Nuclear weapons would have been enough of a detergent for the foreseeable future. Invading increased security not one whit nor was it expected to. It was expected to increase wealth and power at the expense of decreasing security. In fact invasion has actually done more to advance the cause of NATO than the US could have done. They are already and were always going to be surrounded by enemies due to being surrounded by former vassal states. Russia was never going to be in NATO because it's primarily a defensive alliance vs Russia. Nobody wants to give Russia a vote in an alliance that exists for mutual defense against Russia. Who gives a fuck what the Indian man on the street thinks? Greater truth isn't decided by surveying as many ignorant people as possible. Shall we next survey Kentucky or London to achieve critical rube mass? Worse India profits greatly from cheap Russian gas. May as well ask farmers about the wisdom of subsidies or johns about whether prostitution ought to be legalized. This is all more chaff. This conflict exists so that Russia can trade it's citizens blood for power. Nothing else necessitates it. It serves no other end. It has no other interest. Every other end is damaged by this war save one. You go on without end while ignoring this fundamental fact. If you can't address it properly then you may see yourself out of the conversation.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    I could give you similar polls for China, too. That is billions of people. Who cares what they think? How about who cares what YOU think! You’re in a media bubble and not seeing any other coverage around the world. You’re being told what to think and say, and all the mainstream media is in total agreement and no dissent is allowed (with the glaring exception of Tucker Carlson’s prime time slot on Fox, which otherwise proves the rule). Literally everything you’re saying is just parroting CIA / US establishment talking points word for word, just like in every other proxy war against Russia (Afghanistan, Syria). No there isn’t “just one side” that unilaterally began this conflict. Not even close. And the rest of the world outside the media bubble you’re in realized it. That’s billions of people who realize NATO expansion is responsible. Western leaders too: There was a war going on in Donbas since 2014 for 8 years before Russia invaded. Russia negotiated Minsk and Minsk II but it was never implemented. USA fomented a revolution in 2014 and Ukraine’s new government was using cluster munitions against civilians in the Donbas as early as 2014: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c... This wasn’t “unprovoked”. Even in mainstream Western Europe many leaders clearly warned Russia was being provoked: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqE7UTptgGg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqE7UTptgGg And still say now that it was provoked by NATO: https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vatican-pope-francis-russia-war-ukraine-nato/5711655218266/ https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy... I could go on. I could cite experts and leaders in USA and in Europe all of whom say the war was provoked and there is more than “one side”. They say it was very easy to avoid: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 But it won’t make a dent. You won’t care what billions of people think. Or what leaders think. Or what experts think. Because they’re all wrong. You in your media bubble have it right: the causes are super simplistic and only one side is at fault. This is fed to you to justify ANY LEVEL of escalation, up to and including the destruction of the entire world. It’s pretty ridiculous and scary actually. But the US military industrial complex has successfully co-opted most of its mainstream media to make sure only one narrative is allowed in the minds of most people. This has been a phenomenon that already was honed with other issues, such as vaccine hesitancy immediately prior. We have seen proxy wars happen (in Yemen for instance, an incredibly destructive war), we know how they occur… one side foments a revolution, the other props up the counterrevolutionaries, and both sides funnel weapons to the region for years. One side bombs the country and the other delivers weapons from afar. No thougutful person thinks there is “one side that attacked in an unprovoked way” and so on. Especially in this case, where Russia is defending its security against being surrounded by a hostile military alliance led by its geopolitical enemy, while USA simply went around the world 3000 miles away to bomb countries to the stone age to prevent, I dunno, communism I guess.

EGreg 4y ago

I have been answering you point by point, showing you where you're wrong. If a solid majority of Ukrainians do not want to join NATO in the period 1990-2010, but Bush pushed for it in 2007, then a lot of questions arise: 1) Why does NATO push for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO? 2) Why did they not welcome Russia as well? Was it more corrupt than Ukraine, or less democratic than Turkey, an existing member? Most people outside the Western bubble know the real reason. The goal was always to gradually surround Russia with NATO bases. Russia needed to be the enemy. If Russia was part of NATO, then NATO wouldn't have an enemy to defend against. Also then Europe's security would be very strong, and there would be no need for USA's weapons to keep the peace. And the bases USA has around the world would have to be reduced, too. In doing so, US presidents ignored Russian presidents (including Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev.) They also ignored everyone's warnings, and even the original architects of the USSR containment strategy: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w... Clinton ignored 50 top foreign policy experts: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/o... Bush ignored pretty much everybody, including his own ambassadors and experts: https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-prevent-war https://nonzero.substack.com/p/the-memo-that-failed-to-preve... I hope this addresses what relevance NATO expansion has. Every expert knew the predictable outcome. They said it for DECADES. And even today, billions of people around the world think like me ... according to polls: https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsible-for-ukraine-war-than-russia-survey https://thewire.in/world/more-indians-hold-us-nato-responsib... https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vatican-pope-francis-russia-war-ukraine-nato/5711655218266/ https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vat... You can repeat the words "unprovoked and unjustified" many times but that's just a verbatim phrase that you've been taught to repeat, obviously it was provoked. NATO expansion was systematic provocation. As was buzzing airspace. As was the rhetoric and the drone warfare, which worked so well in Nagorno Karabakh against Armenia. And so on. Obviously if the shoe was on the other foot, USA would do the same. In fact, they did, and does often. The Cuban Missile Crisis is an example. USA takes far less provocation to attack. Sometimes none. Like in Laos, halfway around the world. No other country does that. You seem to operate on a complete double-standard. So no, Russia isn't solely at fault. Russia can surely end it, but the consequences will be that Russia will be surrounded in short order by NATO bases, and in a decade or so, nuclear weapons pointed straight at Moscow. Maybe even broken up. While as a libertarian, I don't have a horse in this race, I can tell you that no country (especially not USA) would ever allow anything close to that to happen. Russia does not want Ukraine to become a NATO member.

michaelmrose 4y ago
Nuclear weapons would have been enough of a detergent for the foreseeable future. Invading increased security not one whit nor was it expected to. It was expected to increase wealth and power at the expense of decreasing security. In fact invasion has actually done more to advance the cause of NATO than the US could have done. They are already and were always going to be surrounded by enemies due to being surrounded by former vassal states. Russia was never going to be in NATO because it's primarily a defensive alliance vs Russia. Nobody wants to give Russia a vote in an alliance that exists for mutual defense against Russia. Who gives a fuck what the Indian man on the street thinks? Greater truth isn't decided by surveying as many ignorant people as possible. Shall we next survey Kentucky or London to achieve critical rube mass? Worse India profits greatly from cheap Russian gas. May as well ask farmers about the wisdom of subsidies or johns about whether prostitution ought to be legalized. This is all more chaff. This conflict exists so that Russia can trade it's citizens blood for power. Nothing else necessitates it. It serves no other end. It has no other interest. Every other end is damaged by this war save one. You go on without end while ignoring this fundamental fact. If you can't address it properly then you may see yourself out of the conversation.
- EGreg 4y ago
  I could give you similar polls for China, too. That is billions of people. Who cares what they think? How about who cares what YOU think! You’re in a media bubble and not seeing any other coverage around the world. You’re being told what to think and say, and all the mainstream media is in total agreement and no dissent is allowed (with the glaring exception of Tucker Carlson’s prime time slot on Fox, which otherwise proves the rule). Literally everything you’re saying is just parroting CIA / US establishment talking points word for word, just like in every other proxy war against Russia (Afghanistan, Syria). No there isn’t “just one side” that unilaterally began this conflict. Not even close. And the rest of the world outside the media bubble you’re in realized it. That’s billions of people who realize NATO expansion is responsible. Western leaders too: There was a war going on in Donbas since 2014 for 8 years before Russia invaded. Russia negotiated Minsk and Minsk II but it was never implemented. USA fomented a revolution in 2014 and Ukraine’s new government was using cluster munitions against civilians in the Donbas as early as 2014: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-c... This wasn’t “unprovoked”. Even in mainstream Western Europe many leaders clearly warned Russia was being provoked: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqE7UTptgGg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqE7UTptgGg And still say now that it was provoked by NATO: https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy-vatican-pope-francis-russia-war-ukraine-nato/5711655218266/ https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/World-News/2022/06/14/italy... I could go on. I could cite experts and leaders in USA and in Europe all of whom say the war was provoked and there is more than “one side”. They say it was very easy to avoid: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5oPNjMZw4 But it won’t make a dent. You won’t care what billions of people think. Or what leaders think. Or what experts think. Because they’re all wrong. You in your media bubble have it right: the causes are super simplistic and only one side is at fault. This is fed to you to justify ANY LEVEL of escalation, up to and including the destruction of the entire world. It’s pretty ridiculous and scary actually. But the US military industrial complex has successfully co-opted most of its mainstream media to make sure only one narrative is allowed in the minds of most people. This has been a phenomenon that already was honed with other issues, such as vaccine hesitancy immediately prior. We have seen proxy wars happen (in Yemen for instance, an incredibly destructive war), we know how they occur… one side foments a revolution, the other props up the counterrevolutionaries, and both sides funnel weapons to the region for years. One side bombs the country and the other delivers weapons from afar. No thougutful person thinks there is “one side that attacked in an unprovoked way” and so on. Especially in this case, where Russia is defending its security against being surrounded by a hostile military alliance led by its geopolitical enemy, while USA simply went around the world 3000 miles away to bomb countries to the stone age to prevent, I dunno, communism I guess.