3 ms·

The only thing that would have changed is that Russia now also could invade the baltic states. Why do you think Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if the NAT

The only thing that would have changed is that Russia now also could invade the baltic states. Why do you think Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if the NATO had not been expanded?

Ray20 2y ago
>Why do you think Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if the NATO had not been expanded? Because the main reason for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a miscalculation about resistance. With the expansion of NATO, the prospect of invasion would be assessed closer to reality and dismissed as counterproductive
roenxi 2y ago
Under what circumstances would Russia feel a need to invade Ukraine if they didn't fear NATO involvement? It is pretty clear in the current war that exactly what the Russian leadership feared was happening - a pushover country on their border was being militarised by the US. In hindsight they must feel naive for not being more paranoid and bulking up their military before going in. The NATO enlargement is a broad strategy of threatening Russia and building up force to use against them. And the political rhetoric out of the US on Russia has been unhinged since at least 2016. The Russians would be stupid not to be scared and this invasion of Ukraine looks like a desperation play through that lens. Ukraine is a great example of what US support does - if the US had told them that they're on their own, Ukraine would have just gone with whatever Russia wanted diplomatically. Instead, a lot of Ukrainian's are dead, they've lost a double-digit percentage of their country, the west is hell-bent on destabilising the leadership that controls the world's largest nuclear arsenal, it looks like we're escalating into a WWIII style situation because the US deterrence is failing and Ukraine is STILL likely to end up having to do what Russia wants. Technically not maybe because they've lost the territory that Russia was most interested in. The US shouldn't be involved in militarily organising Eastern Europe. It has not helped, it seems to be making war a certainty.
- chrz 2y ago
  are you saying that if US was kot involved then Ukrainy would have to do whatever Russia tell yhwm yo do and that would be better for Ukraine? And yes sure, Russia is nust defending itself
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Ukraine was faced with a choice - do what the US wanted, or do what Russia wanted. The US choice resulted in massive death, destruction and so far it looks like Russia is going to get what they wanted anyway. What would the downside have been of just folding before the troops started moving? > And yes sure, Russia is nust defending itself Best defence is a good offence. They're flailing under strategic pressure from the US.
    - racional 2y ago
      The Ukrainians made their own decision to fight. They knew perfectly well it would involve massive death and possibly years of fighting. But they know their long history with their "brotherly" neighbors to the north, and hence, that even these costs would be preferable to perpetual subjugation. If you can't recognize this fact -- if you think they're just passive puppets who do whatever the US tells them to; or that they aren't capable of evaluating the costs and risks and making a decision to side with their families and their future -- then not only have you not been following the chain of events since the start of the invasion (in which the US basically told them capitulate, after all); you really have no understanding of how human beings work when their families and communities are threatened. Best defence is a good offence. They're flailing under strategic pressure from the US. Nobody pressured them to do anything. Russia's actions are all offense, full stop.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > ...if you think they're just passive puppets who do whatever the US tells them to They're obviously not passive puppets. They had a choice - they could do what the US wanted, or what Russia wanted. That is more agency than most countries get when facing an existential crisis. However, given that they chose to align with the US and we now have people talking in uncontroversial statements about it being a "pre-war era" the unfortunate reality here is that the option the US gave them was/is a diplomatic disaster that is very much in line with the US's NATO expansion strategy that they've been executing for the last 30-something years. It is a bad strategy that is leading to war. > Nobody pressured them to do anything. Russia's actions are all offense, full stop. Avoiding war requires both sides to reach some sort of mutual understanding. The Russian's aren't going to buy that bullshit. A lot of their troops just died because of NATO arms, held by troops that were at least in part NATO-trained, using NATO intelligence and NATO-approved strategies in a war that is part of a broad strategic push, by NATO, into Eastern Europe. They've figured out the role that NATO is playing here; the plan is obviously to contain and militarily cripple Russia. That style of rhetorical bullying is very prevalent amongst western leadership, but if we want to find a peaceful solution they should be more honest. They provoked this.

The only thing that would have changed is that Russia now also could invade the baltic states. Why do you think Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if the NATO had not been expanded?

Ray20 2y ago

>Why do you think Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if the NATO had not been expanded? Because the main reason for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a miscalculation about resistance. With the expansion of NATO, the prospect of invasion would be assessed closer to reality and dismissed as counterproductive

roenxi 2y ago

Under what circumstances would Russia feel a need to invade Ukraine if they didn't fear NATO involvement? It is pretty clear in the current war that exactly what the Russian leadership feared was happening - a pushover country on their border was being militarised by the US. In hindsight they must feel naive for not being more paranoid and bulking up their military before going in. The NATO enlargement is a broad strategy of threatening Russia and building up force to use against them. And the political rhetoric out of the US on Russia has been unhinged since at least 2016. The Russians would be stupid not to be scared and this invasion of Ukraine looks like a desperation play through that lens. Ukraine is a great example of what US support does - if the US had told them that they're on their own, Ukraine would have just gone with whatever Russia wanted diplomatically. Instead, a lot of Ukrainian's are dead, they've lost a double-digit percentage of their country, the west is hell-bent on destabilising the leadership that controls the world's largest nuclear arsenal, it looks like we're escalating into a WWIII style situation because the US deterrence is failing and Ukraine is STILL likely to end up having to do what Russia wants. Technically not maybe because they've lost the territory that Russia was most interested in. The US shouldn't be involved in militarily organising Eastern Europe. It has not helped, it seems to be making war a certainty.

chrz 2y ago
are you saying that if US was kot involved then Ukrainy would have to do whatever Russia tell yhwm yo do and that would be better for Ukraine? And yes sure, Russia is nust defending itself
- roenxi 2y ago
  Ukraine was faced with a choice - do what the US wanted, or do what Russia wanted. The US choice resulted in massive death, destruction and so far it looks like Russia is going to get what they wanted anyway. What would the downside have been of just folding before the troops started moving? > And yes sure, Russia is nust defending itself Best defence is a good offence. They're flailing under strategic pressure from the US.
  - racional 2y ago
    The Ukrainians made their own decision to fight. They knew perfectly well it would involve massive death and possibly years of fighting. But they know their long history with their "brotherly" neighbors to the north, and hence, that even these costs would be preferable to perpetual subjugation. If you can't recognize this fact -- if you think they're just passive puppets who do whatever the US tells them to; or that they aren't capable of evaluating the costs and risks and making a decision to side with their families and their future -- then not only have you not been following the chain of events since the start of the invasion (in which the US basically told them capitulate, after all); you really have no understanding of how human beings work when their families and communities are threatened. Best defence is a good offence. They're flailing under strategic pressure from the US. Nobody pressured them to do anything. Russia's actions are all offense, full stop.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > ...if you think they're just passive puppets who do whatever the US tells them to They're obviously not passive puppets. They had a choice - they could do what the US wanted, or what Russia wanted. That is more agency than most countries get when facing an existential crisis. However, given that they chose to align with the US and we now have people talking in uncontroversial statements about it being a "pre-war era" the unfortunate reality here is that the option the US gave them was/is a diplomatic disaster that is very much in line with the US's NATO expansion strategy that they've been executing for the last 30-something years. It is a bad strategy that is leading to war. > Nobody pressured them to do anything. Russia's actions are all offense, full stop. Avoiding war requires both sides to reach some sort of mutual understanding. The Russian's aren't going to buy that bullshit. A lot of their troops just died because of NATO arms, held by troops that were at least in part NATO-trained, using NATO intelligence and NATO-approved strategies in a war that is part of a broad strategic push, by NATO, into Eastern Europe. They've figured out the role that NATO is playing here; the plan is obviously to contain and militarily cripple Russia. That style of rhetorical bullying is very prevalent amongst western leadership, but if we want to find a peaceful solution they should be more honest. They provoked this.