5 ms·

> I don't buy the idea that it was a mistake for NATO to allow former Soviet bloc countries to join, because it would supposedly encroach on Russia's sphere of

> I don't buy the idea that it was a mistake for NATO to allow former Soviet bloc countries to join, because it would supposedly encroach on Russia's sphere of influence or increase tensions with Russia It was a mistake for NATO to do it without Russia. It's not a matter of "influence", but a matter of military risks and perceived threats. If there was a political will towards pushing Russia to NATO any similar to what has been going on with Georgia or Ukraine, we'd be living in a different world. But now (really far more than a decade already) Russia is alienated from NATO, perceives it as a threat and a bad actor. And people will be making all kinds of moralistic arguments, but point is that all of this is a consequence of geopolitical natural laws. Fact is, politicians and leaders were clearly aware of those laws and all the cause-effects and general outcomes, but nevertheless had stirred the world towards it.

koonsolo 4y ago
Dictators don't like united democracies. Strange.
- athrowaw 4y ago
  Should we allow dictatorships because any country should have a sovereignty?
- foverzar 4y ago
  Totally strange given that love to democracies have nothing to do with anything. Srsly, how do the "United democracies" expect to be taken seriously when their whole attitude to literally everything is "bad guys don't like us for being good boys"?
  - tim333 4y ago
    NATO seems to get taken quite seriously by its opponents for some strange reason.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      Exactly, and in the end that's the only thing that matters: power. We in the western world can be very happy that democracies represent the biggest power. Anyone who doesn't agree is free to emigrate or happily live in a dictatorship of course.
      - foverzar 4y ago
        > Exactly, and in the end that's the only thing that matters: power. > democracies represent the biggest power. > Anyone who doesn't agree is free to emigrate or happily live in a dictatorship of course. Eh, but that's the point: a bunch of countries with a shady history of global power dynamics (genocidal colonialism, fascism, etc) that now declared its current political establishment as a universal virtue, all while invading other countries around the globe. I just feel like "democratic" don't notice at all how they're slipping into antagonism with almost every other culture except their own, up to labeling the forming west-skeptical alliances as "new axis of evil" or claiming everyone who doesn't politically align to them to be dysfunctional (see Hungary) What's the coping strategy for the fact that so many diverse regions of the world that share nothing in common assess a very tight (geographically, economically and culturally) circle of countries as a threat?
        koonsolo 4y ago
        First up, which countries is Europe invading? Secondly, here are the values of the european union: respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. Can you tell me which values you don't agree with? Hungary is part of EU with all benefits and responsibilities. If they don't align with these values then they get penalized, simple as that.
        athrowaw 4y ago
        > First up, which countries is Europe invading? I don't know about right now, but not long ago UK forces were in Syria, that Syria government never asked for. Should we call it invading? If not, what's your definition of invading?
tim333 4y ago
NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships, in practice mostly Russia. Unless Russia adopts democracy and human rights it's a bit impractical for it to work with or join NATO.
- skissane 4y ago
  > NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships One of NATO’s founding members was Portugal - under the Salazar dictatorship. Both Greece and Turkey went through periods of military dictatorship while NATO members-did NATO have any problem with that? The idea that NATO was formed to be a “club for democratic states” ignores its own history
- foverzar 4y ago
  > NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships This is a historically inaccurate slogan. > Unless Russia adopts democracy and human rights it's a bit impractical for it to work with or join NATO. Are we still talking about 1990s-2000s? Russia was no less democratic and adoptive of human rights than other ex-Soviet states pushed to NATO. Do you actually consider 2004 Georgia to be more in line with western view of human rights and democracy then 2004 Russia, really?

koonsolo 4y ago

Dictators don't like united democracies. Strange.

athrowaw 4y ago
Should we allow dictatorships because any country should have a sovereignty?
foverzar 4y ago
Totally strange given that love to democracies have nothing to do with anything. Srsly, how do the "United democracies" expect to be taken seriously when their whole attitude to literally everything is "bad guys don't like us for being good boys"?
- tim333 4y ago
  NATO seems to get taken quite seriously by its opponents for some strange reason.
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    Exactly, and in the end that's the only thing that matters: power. We in the western world can be very happy that democracies represent the biggest power. Anyone who doesn't agree is free to emigrate or happily live in a dictatorship of course.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > Exactly, and in the end that's the only thing that matters: power. > democracies represent the biggest power. > Anyone who doesn't agree is free to emigrate or happily live in a dictatorship of course. Eh, but that's the point: a bunch of countries with a shady history of global power dynamics (genocidal colonialism, fascism, etc) that now declared its current political establishment as a universal virtue, all while invading other countries around the globe. I just feel like "democratic" don't notice at all how they're slipping into antagonism with almost every other culture except their own, up to labeling the forming west-skeptical alliances as "new axis of evil" or claiming everyone who doesn't politically align to them to be dysfunctional (see Hungary) What's the coping strategy for the fact that so many diverse regions of the world that share nothing in common assess a very tight (geographically, economically and culturally) circle of countries as a threat?
      - koonsolo 4y ago
        First up, which countries is Europe invading? Secondly, here are the values of the european union: respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. Can you tell me which values you don't agree with? Hungary is part of EU with all benefits and responsibilities. If they don't align with these values then they get penalized, simple as that.
        athrowaw 4y ago
        > First up, which countries is Europe invading? I don't know about right now, but not long ago UK forces were in Syria, that Syria government never asked for. Should we call it invading? If not, what's your definition of invading?

tim333 4y ago

NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships, in practice mostly Russia. Unless Russia adopts democracy and human rights it's a bit impractical for it to work with or join NATO.

skissane 4y ago
> NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships One of NATO’s founding members was Portugal - under the Salazar dictatorship. Both Greece and Turkey went through periods of military dictatorship while NATO members-did NATO have any problem with that? The idea that NATO was formed to be a “club for democratic states” ignores its own history
foverzar 4y ago
> NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships This is a historically inaccurate slogan. > Unless Russia adopts democracy and human rights it's a bit impractical for it to work with or join NATO. Are we still talking about 1990s-2000s? Russia was no less democratic and adoptive of human rights than other ex-Soviet states pushed to NATO. Do you actually consider 2004 Georgia to be more in line with western view of human rights and democracy then 2004 Russia, really?