4 ms·

Safety from NATO means being in a strong defensive position with respect to NATOs ability to project force. This isn't just about proximity, but about control o

Safety from NATO means being in a strong defensive position with respect to NATOs ability to project force. This isn't just about proximity, but about control of strategic resources. The US pushed Turkey through NATO ascension because access to the Black Sea was deemed strategically valuable in an eventual war with the USSR. Russia needs to counter that threat and losing the port in Crimea would be a strategic blunder.

int_19h 2y ago
They have had the port in Crimea since 2014. They still wanted more. Hell, when they started the war, it was supposedly about "demilitarization". By now they have officially annexed four more regions of Ukraine (well, the parts they control) in addition to Crimea, two of which wasn't even occupied until 2022.
- hackinthebochs 2y ago
  The current status quo was unsustainable. Crimea was indefensible without a land bridge through the Donbass. Ukraine was attacking Crimea by cutting off its water supply. Ukraine was also being trained and armed by the US. Time was against Russia in terms of a conflict with Ukraine being on favorable terms. NATO in Ukraine meant that Crimea would be lost eventually. Control of the Donbass gives Russia control of Crimea's water supply while allowing a proper defense.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    You know, it's almost funny how Russian "national patriots" keep saying that NATO will attack any time now for... 30 years at least? I remember reading books about this in late 90s. Yet, somehow, it's Russia that keeps invading neighboring countries. Who then scramble to join NATO because they don't want to be next. Have y'all considered that maybe if you tried not constantly trying to rebuild your empire on the backs of your neighbors by invading and occupying their territory, you would actually have that regional stability and peace that you claim to seek? Regardless of who is and isn't in NATO even?
    - hackinthebochs 2y ago
      30 Years is nothing on the timescales of geopolitics. How long has China been talking about unifying with Taiwan? Yet no one is under any illusion that China won't eventually make a move against Taiwan. The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting. And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes.
        hackinthebochs 2y ago
        Funny, most of my discussions regarding Ukraine involve people making that very claim (or variations thereof)
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Most likely what they were saying was actually quite different from that. So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect.
        hackinthebochs 2y ago
        Instead of linking you to some randoms comments, how about from the horses mouth: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-has-nothing-to-fear-from-nato-idUSTRE61A4KY/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-h... This is just one example of many if you Google. And don't bother trying to parse words to claim this isn't really an example of claiming NATO expansion is benign to Russia's security, it'll just confirm you are engaging in bad-faith.
        aguaviva 2y ago

int_19h 2y ago

They have had the port in Crimea since 2014. They still wanted more. Hell, when they started the war, it was supposedly about "demilitarization". By now they have officially annexed four more regions of Ukraine (well, the parts they control) in addition to Crimea, two of which wasn't even occupied until 2022.

hackinthebochs 2y ago
The current status quo was unsustainable. Crimea was indefensible without a land bridge through the Donbass. Ukraine was attacking Crimea by cutting off its water supply. Ukraine was also being trained and armed by the US. Time was against Russia in terms of a conflict with Ukraine being on favorable terms. NATO in Ukraine meant that Crimea would be lost eventually. Control of the Donbass gives Russia control of Crimea's water supply while allowing a proper defense.
- int_19h 2y ago
  You know, it's almost funny how Russian "national patriots" keep saying that NATO will attack any time now for... 30 years at least? I remember reading books about this in late 90s. Yet, somehow, it's Russia that keeps invading neighboring countries. Who then scramble to join NATO because they don't want to be next. Have y'all considered that maybe if you tried not constantly trying to rebuild your empire on the backs of your neighbors by invading and occupying their territory, you would actually have that regional stability and peace that you claim to seek? Regardless of who is and isn't in NATO even?
  - hackinthebochs 2y ago
    30 Years is nothing on the timescales of geopolitics. How long has China been talking about unifying with Taiwan? Yet no one is under any illusion that China won't eventually make a move against Taiwan. The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting. And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes.
      - hackinthebochs 2y ago
        Funny, most of my discussions regarding Ukraine involve people making that very claim (or variations thereof)
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Most likely what they were saying was actually quite different from that. So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect.
        hackinthebochs 2y ago
        Instead of linking you to some randoms comments, how about from the horses mouth: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-has-nothing-to-fear-from-nato-idUSTRE61A4KY/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/albright-says-russia-h... This is just one example of many if you Google. And don't bother trying to parse words to claim this isn't really an example of claiming NATO expansion is benign to Russia's security, it'll just confirm you are engaging in bad-faith.
        aguaviva 2y ago