4 ms·

See? You have nothing but hyperbole to offer. Entry of Eastern Europe into NATO is now so far in the past that we have a good amount of memoirs and personal re

by mopsi 4y ago

See? You have nothing but hyperbole to offer. Entry of Eastern Europe into NATO is now so far in the past that we have a good amount of memoirs and personal recollections in addition to all sorts of documented evidence like laws, policy papers, studies and assessments available from that time. Most of the people who were directly involved are still alive too. But the best you can offer to "prove" that countries were forced into NATO is a small number newspaper snippets blatantly taken out of context. The rest of your long posts is pure rhethorics without any factual substance. You have made up an alternative reality, which is easy to do if you're on the other side of the globe and have no personal connection whatsoever with those events. But I lived through them and I remember everything very well. I remember the discussions about NATO membership, from the earliest ideas to fully formulated policies, as well as early doubts whether we have any hope of attaining that goal. I remember the stances different parties held in my country. I voted for parties that supported joining NATO, as most people did, and those parties got elected into the government and lead the very long and demanding accession talks that were ultimately fruitful. To say that we were dragged into NATO "kicking and screaming" is plain wrong without any wiggle room. The memory of atrocities committed against us by Russians in the 20th century, as well as the Russian savagery in Chechen wars in 1990s and 2000s (that reminded us that nothing had changed) were top reasons why joining NATO had near-universal support. And the current war has only cemented that support. NATO is the reason why Russians can't bomb our cities, can't rape our women, can't kidnap our children, can't take away our land like they are doing in Ukraine. The combined strength is too big for Russia to challenge. Even countries like Finland and Sweden that maintained large armies and neutrality for more than 200 years have re-evaluated their foreign policy and joined NATO to deepen mutual cooperation.

EGreg 4y ago
Well, now we see each other’s bias. I am in the USA and see what my country does all over the world and see our propaganda. You are in a Baltic country and were actually a part of the movement to join NATO. Each of us has biases. Yours is that you didn’t really experience much the opinions of 40% of Russian speakers in your country who are also citizens. If you were in Western Ukraine, you’d also be very frustrated with Eastern Ukrainians who like Russia despite all the horrors of past decades. Not being in USA or Turkey or China, you are unaware of similar things done by them to their neighbors. Many Christian neighbors of Turkey remember genocides and genocidal rapes for instance. In regard to USA, neighbors remember stuff like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_... However, there are still many in the country that want to maintain ties with the imperialidt country despite this, who have family in that country, etc. In fact, they are breathing a sigh of relief that things got better and do not want to join a hostile alliance for fear that their relations with their neighbor will deteriorate badly and they’ll get invaded again. Cuba was in fact invaded, for instance (bay of pigs invasion) and then called for USSR to help. This led to an escalation and standoff and it is GOOD that it got deescalated. That is what I keep saying. The factors you bring up are neither exhaustive nor determinative. They are just that — factors among other factors. Your experience is certainly valuable but it is the experience of many nationalist groups in the world, whether they have their own state or are aspiring to get one (Kurds in Iraq, for instance, or Catalonians). The outcome of NATO expansion was predicted by tons of experts and they were right. Regardless of how much you keep repeating a one sided narrative, Russia’s invasion was not “unprovoked”. I have tried to address every point of yours directly and show you the larger picture, whereas you’ve IGNORED almost every single one of my points in my posts. You’re welcome to reply to the post right above the one I’m replying to, point by point for once, without again dodging.
- mopsi 4y ago
  > Regardless of how much you keep repeating a one sided narrative, Russia’s invasion was not “unprovoked”. That's a fringe opinion. Not a single government in Europe shares this view. If anything, Western Europe has walked on eggshells since 1991, always trying to accommodate Russia at the expense of the security Eastern Europe, constantly downplaying fears and refusing to take defence of Europe seriously. The narrative if NATO being hostile and encircling Russia is very hard to justify if you look at the key facts: MILITARY SPENDING of Europe had been and continued to steadily decrease since the end of the Cold War. In 2006, the total spending was 190 billion. By 2014, it was down to 162 billion.[1] As a percentage of GDP, Cold War era spending was 3-5%, now it's 1-2%. EUROPEAN MILITARY CAPABILITIES were in steep decline too. In 1990, German Army had 308 000 personnel, 5045 tanks, 2136 IFVs. To cut costs, Germany disbanded most of its army and sold off its equipment all over the world, as far as Chile. By 2015, only 61 312 personnel, 225 tanks and 406 remained.[2] The same trends were mirrored in other countries. AMERICAN MILITARY presence in Europe was also in decline. In 1987, the US had 80 military bases in Europe. 30 years later, less than half remained.[3] Furthermore, these bases are a shadow of their former self: the number of US military personnel deployed to Europe is at the lowest since WW2, down from 320 000 during the 1980s to around 60 000 nowadays, stationed predominantly in Germany and Italy.[4] In 1989, US Army had 5000 tanks in Germany alone. In 2013, the last twenty American tanks departed Europe.[5] NEW DEPLOYMENTS TO EUROPE were ridiculously small, mainly light infantry for host nation training purposes: as of 2017, a single non-permanent battalion with 800 personnel and 4 jets in Estonia, a 1200-strong battalion in Latvia and another in Lithuania with 4 jets, and 4000-strong armored battalion in Poland. Plus 4 jets in Romania for three months in the summer.[6] Speaking of MISSILES, NATO and Russia agreed in the founding act of 1997 that NATO would not station any missiles in Eastern Europe. NATO has upheld that commitment for a quarter of a century. The only missiles in Eastern Europe are Russian Iskanders and Kalibrs in Kaliningrad.[7] The hypothetical often repeated "Cuba armed to teeth with missiles" scenario already exist in Europe, with short-range Russian nuclear missiles pointed at Europe. And yet no-on is crying about provocations and proposing that Europe should preemptively bomb Moscow. Until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, Europe was unilaterally disarming itself to the extent that Germany didn't even have enough equipment for joint exercises with other countries.[8] Any notion of existential threat to Russia from such armies is severly misguided to put it mildly. If Russia was worried about security, it only had to wait. And in a way, it did. Russia waited until Europe became weak enough (in their assessment) not to pose a credible threat to Russian plans, and then used the power vacuum to do what they wanted to do. But it turned out to be a miscalculation. Unlike previous blitzkriegs, Russia is now bogged down in unwinnable war and Putin has damned Russia for a generation, and Europe is re-arming for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Historically the most pacifist party in Germany is now the strongest advocate for military aid to Ukraine. Finland and Sweden I already mentioned, their abandonment of neutrality is a shift of historic proportions. Calls for appeasement towards Russia used to be in the mainstream, now they have become a career suicide for European politicians. In ten or fifteen years' time, conspiracy theorists will be writing books on how Putin was a CIA agent sent to weaken Russia and again blaming the west, because that will be the most plausible explanation for the utterly destructive actions over the past two decades. And Russia itself will go through hardships comparable to early 1990s. Not to mention that hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians are dead on both sides of the Russian-Ukranian border, and just today Putin announced another mobilization to send another few hundred thousand to death, and for what? What are they dying for? Russian society will implode once it comes to terms with the fact that Putin has brought them 10 Afghan war worth of losses in a single year because Putin, isolated from everyone due to Covid, hallucinated in his bunker that 800 marines in Estonia and 4 fighter jets in Romania were encircling Russia. [1] European military spending: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/styles/full_content_width/public/media/Defenceagency1.jpg?itok=g3SyS_2v https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/styles/full_c... [2] Bundeswehr's size: https://www.fpri.org/docs/germany_military.png https://www.fpri.org/docs/germany_military.png [3] US bases in Europe: https://www.statista.com/chart/11403/the-us-militarys-european-decline/ https://www.statista.com/chart/11403/the-us-militarys-europe... [4] US troops in Europe: https://images01.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2022-01/1time-graph-nato-troop-numbers-1200x1001.jpg?itok=cGvhlS8m https://images01.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/ful... [5] Last US tanks leave Europe: https://www.stripes.com/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-germany-1.214977 https://www.stripes.com/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-ger... [6] NATO presence in Eastern Europe: http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/7877.jpeg http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/7877.jpeg [7] Iskander range: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-3.jpg https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... [8] Broomsticks instead of machine guns: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-is-so-under-equipped-that-it-used-broomsticks-instead-of-machine-guns/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19...

by mopsi 4y ago

EGreg 4y ago

Well, now we see each other’s bias. I am in the USA and see what my country does all over the world and see our propaganda. You are in a Baltic country and were actually a part of the movement to join NATO. Each of us has biases. Yours is that you didn’t really experience much the opinions of 40% of Russian speakers in your country who are also citizens. If you were in Western Ukraine, you’d also be very frustrated with Eastern Ukrainians who like Russia despite all the horrors of past decades. Not being in USA or Turkey or China, you are unaware of similar things done by them to their neighbors. Many Christian neighbors of Turkey remember genocides and genocidal rapes for instance. In regard to USA, neighbors remember stuff like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Haiti https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_... However, there are still many in the country that want to maintain ties with the imperialidt country despite this, who have family in that country, etc. In fact, they are breathing a sigh of relief that things got better and do not want to join a hostile alliance for fear that their relations with their neighbor will deteriorate badly and they’ll get invaded again. Cuba was in fact invaded, for instance (bay of pigs invasion) and then called for USSR to help. This led to an escalation and standoff and it is GOOD that it got deescalated. That is what I keep saying. The factors you bring up are neither exhaustive nor determinative. They are just that — factors among other factors. Your experience is certainly valuable but it is the experience of many nationalist groups in the world, whether they have their own state or are aspiring to get one (Kurds in Iraq, for instance, or Catalonians). The outcome of NATO expansion was predicted by tons of experts and they were right. Regardless of how much you keep repeating a one sided narrative, Russia’s invasion was not “unprovoked”. I have tried to address every point of yours directly and show you the larger picture, whereas you’ve IGNORED almost every single one of my points in my posts. You’re welcome to reply to the post right above the one I’m replying to, point by point for once, without again dodging.

mopsi 4y ago
> Regardless of how much you keep repeating a one sided narrative, Russia’s invasion was not “unprovoked”. That's a fringe opinion. Not a single government in Europe shares this view. If anything, Western Europe has walked on eggshells since 1991, always trying to accommodate Russia at the expense of the security Eastern Europe, constantly downplaying fears and refusing to take defence of Europe seriously. The narrative if NATO being hostile and encircling Russia is very hard to justify if you look at the key facts: MILITARY SPENDING of Europe had been and continued to steadily decrease since the end of the Cold War. In 2006, the total spending was 190 billion. By 2014, it was down to 162 billion.[1] As a percentage of GDP, Cold War era spending was 3-5%, now it's 1-2%. EUROPEAN MILITARY CAPABILITIES were in steep decline too. In 1990, German Army had 308 000 personnel, 5045 tanks, 2136 IFVs. To cut costs, Germany disbanded most of its army and sold off its equipment all over the world, as far as Chile. By 2015, only 61 312 personnel, 225 tanks and 406 remained.[2] The same trends were mirrored in other countries. AMERICAN MILITARY presence in Europe was also in decline. In 1987, the US had 80 military bases in Europe. 30 years later, less than half remained.[3] Furthermore, these bases are a shadow of their former self: the number of US military personnel deployed to Europe is at the lowest since WW2, down from 320 000 during the 1980s to around 60 000 nowadays, stationed predominantly in Germany and Italy.[4] In 1989, US Army had 5000 tanks in Germany alone. In 2013, the last twenty American tanks departed Europe.[5] NEW DEPLOYMENTS TO EUROPE were ridiculously small, mainly light infantry for host nation training purposes: as of 2017, a single non-permanent battalion with 800 personnel and 4 jets in Estonia, a 1200-strong battalion in Latvia and another in Lithuania with 4 jets, and 4000-strong armored battalion in Poland. Plus 4 jets in Romania for three months in the summer.[6] Speaking of MISSILES, NATO and Russia agreed in the founding act of 1997 that NATO would not station any missiles in Eastern Europe. NATO has upheld that commitment for a quarter of a century. The only missiles in Eastern Europe are Russian Iskanders and Kalibrs in Kaliningrad.[7] The hypothetical often repeated "Cuba armed to teeth with missiles" scenario already exist in Europe, with short-range Russian nuclear missiles pointed at Europe. And yet no-on is crying about provocations and proposing that Europe should preemptively bomb Moscow. Until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, Europe was unilaterally disarming itself to the extent that Germany didn't even have enough equipment for joint exercises with other countries.[8] Any notion of existential threat to Russia from such armies is severly misguided to put it mildly. If Russia was worried about security, it only had to wait. And in a way, it did. Russia waited until Europe became weak enough (in their assessment) not to pose a credible threat to Russian plans, and then used the power vacuum to do what they wanted to do. But it turned out to be a miscalculation. Unlike previous blitzkriegs, Russia is now bogged down in unwinnable war and Putin has damned Russia for a generation, and Europe is re-arming for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Historically the most pacifist party in Germany is now the strongest advocate for military aid to Ukraine. Finland and Sweden I already mentioned, their abandonment of neutrality is a shift of historic proportions. Calls for appeasement towards Russia used to be in the mainstream, now they have become a career suicide for European politicians. In ten or fifteen years' time, conspiracy theorists will be writing books on how Putin was a CIA agent sent to weaken Russia and again blaming the west, because that will be the most plausible explanation for the utterly destructive actions over the past two decades. And Russia itself will go through hardships comparable to early 1990s. Not to mention that hundreds of thousands of ethnic Russians are dead on both sides of the Russian-Ukranian border, and just today Putin announced another mobilization to send another few hundred thousand to death, and for what? What are they dying for? Russian society will implode once it comes to terms with the fact that Putin has brought them 10 Afghan war worth of losses in a single year because Putin, isolated from everyone due to Covid, hallucinated in his bunker that 800 marines in Estonia and 4 fighter jets in Romania were encircling Russia. [1] European military spending: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/styles/full_content_width/public/media/Defenceagency1.jpg?itok=g3SyS_2v https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/styles/full_c... [2] Bundeswehr's size: https://www.fpri.org/docs/germany_military.png https://www.fpri.org/docs/germany_military.png [3] US bases in Europe: https://www.statista.com/chart/11403/the-us-militarys-european-decline/ https://www.statista.com/chart/11403/the-us-militarys-europe... [4] US troops in Europe: https://images01.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2022-01/1time-graph-nato-troop-numbers-1200x1001.jpg?itok=cGvhlS8m https://images01.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/ful... [5] Last US tanks leave Europe: https://www.stripes.com/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-germany-1.214977 https://www.stripes.com/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-ger... [6] NATO presence in Eastern Europe: http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/7877.jpeg http://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/7877.jpeg [7] Iskander range: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-3.jpg https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... [8] Broomsticks instead of machine guns: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-is-so-under-equipped-that-it-used-broomsticks-instead-of-machine-guns/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19...