5 ms·

Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians? It isn't hard to understand the motivations here, we've seen the US throw a massive

by roenxi 2y ago

Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians? It isn't hard to understand the motivations here, we've seen the US throw a massive hissy fit in the Cuban Missile crisis because of Soviet gear in Cuba and that was much more benign than a full military integration. And the US has a history dating back more than a century of tolerating no rival military powers in their hemisphere [0] let alone on their borders. There isn't anything to wonder at here - the Russians see their security interests as covering their border regions. In a display of outrageous hypocrisy the US also sees their security interests as also covering Russia's border region. Kremlin concern over this is hardly unexpected. The way the Ukraine war has played out makes it pretty clear the Russians did have legitimate concerns. When the US invades Iraq with no moral justification, everyone moves on. When Russia invades Ukraine with no moral justification we see a similar response from most of the world ... except NATO that goes in and orchestrates what Wikipedia suggests are half a million casualties of the Russian armed forces [1]. Why might Russian military planners feel this is a threat? Because they can count corpses and they're not stupid. If you want to argue that they underestimated the threat NATO posed them in Ukraine and so Putin was lying that is one thing, but if so his propaganda happened to be truer to reality than he thought because he made a great point. NATO is out to get the Russians. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Total_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...

aguaviva 2y ago
We've seen the US throw a massive hissy fit in the Cuban Missile crisis because of Soviet gear in Cuba and that was much more benign than a full military integration. Except there was no "full military integration" in the works, or even any "gear" deployed in Ukraine before Putin started throwing his massy hissy fit in 2014. Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians? The point is to gently remind the current regime of the borders of NATO states, and of this thing known as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
- roenxi 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > Former NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer seems to disagree with that assessment, there were plans. There were none, this "eventually" was an empty consolation without any timeframe, and was widely criticized as such at the time. No gear, no integration - and no desire to move in that direction. > And that was even before the 2014 coup that coincidentally set up a pro-NATO government. There was no coup in Ukraine. Ukraine became very interested in the military alliance after Russia invaded them.
PoignardAzur 2y ago
Cool story. At that point we get back to: > If NATO anxiety was the primary factor for the war in Ukraine, Russia wouldn't be so blasé about draining troops and hardware from its borders with NATO countries to throw them into the meat-grinder
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians? Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians if they invade. > Why might Russian military planners feel this is a threat? Because they can count corpses and they're not stupid. Because they can count corpses after they invaded. The logical conclusion was "don't invade", not "hurry up and invade while you still can".
- roenxi 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - stogot 2y ago
    It preserved the peace until 2014, and may have if Ukraine was still under a Russia-leaning president
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > If you can convince the Russian commanders of that I would suggest getting in contact with them. They already know it. The European part of Russia is practically undefended, everything has been committed to Ukraine. When Prigozhin marched on Moscow, there was nothing to oppose him other than a few bucket loaders to dig up roads. Russians are huffing and puffing about NATO because it makes riskier and costlier for them to invade other countries and kill people there. That's the simple truth. Everything else is bullshit and the theories you are spinning do not hold up to any scrutiny. Nothing of this is new. In the 1940s, Russians acted the same way. Demanded neutrality and "military cooperation" and all the other fine euphemism you present us, then invaded their neighbors, set up communist dictatorships and began sending by hundreds of thousands everyone from toddlers to bed-ridden elderly to labor camps in the Siberian wilderness or executed them on the spot, and opened floodgates to massive resettlement of ethnic Russians to wipe natives off the map. It's still in the living memory. Nobody wants to relive that again, which is why this time nobody intends to make themselves an easy target with neutrality again and countries have only increased military cooperation the more hostile Russia has become.
    - 2y ago

by roenxi 2y ago

aguaviva 2y ago

We've seen the US throw a massive hissy fit in the Cuban Missile crisis because of Soviet gear in Cuba and that was much more benign than a full military integration. Except there was no "full military integration" in the works, or even any "gear" deployed in Ukraine before Putin started throwing his massy hissy fit in 2014. Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians? The point is to gently remind the current regime of the borders of NATO states, and of this thing known as Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

roenxi 2y ago
[flagged]
- mopsi 2y ago
  > Former NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer seems to disagree with that assessment, there were plans. There were none, this "eventually" was an empty consolation without any timeframe, and was widely criticized as such at the time. No gear, no integration - and no desire to move in that direction. > And that was even before the 2014 coup that coincidentally set up a pro-NATO government. There was no coup in Ukraine. Ukraine became very interested in the military alliance after Russia invaded them.

PoignardAzur 2y ago

Cool story. At that point we get back to: > If NATO anxiety was the primary factor for the war in Ukraine, Russia wouldn't be so blasé about draining troops and hardware from its borders with NATO countries to throw them into the meat-grinder

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

> Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians? Because the major point of that infrastructure is to kill lots of Russians if they invade. > Why might Russian military planners feel this is a threat? Because they can count corpses and they're not stupid. Because they can count corpses after they invaded. The logical conclusion was "don't invade", not "hurry up and invade while you still can".

roenxi 2y ago
[flagged]
- stogot 2y ago
  It preserved the peace until 2014, and may have if Ukraine was still under a Russia-leaning president
- mopsi 2y ago
  > If you can convince the Russian commanders of that I would suggest getting in contact with them. They already know it. The European part of Russia is practically undefended, everything has been committed to Ukraine. When Prigozhin marched on Moscow, there was nothing to oppose him other than a few bucket loaders to dig up roads. Russians are huffing and puffing about NATO because it makes riskier and costlier for them to invade other countries and kill people there. That's the simple truth. Everything else is bullshit and the theories you are spinning do not hold up to any scrutiny. Nothing of this is new. In the 1940s, Russians acted the same way. Demanded neutrality and "military cooperation" and all the other fine euphemism you present us, then invaded their neighbors, set up communist dictatorships and began sending by hundreds of thousands everyone from toddlers to bed-ridden elderly to labor camps in the Siberian wilderness or executed them on the spot, and opened floodgates to massive resettlement of ethnic Russians to wipe natives off the map. It's still in the living memory. Nobody wants to relive that again, which is why this time nobody intends to make themselves an easy target with neutrality again and countries have only increased military cooperation the more hostile Russia has become.
  - 2y ago