9 ms·

It is easy; nations that attack other nations unprovoked are "evil" (at fault). Ukraine has never infringed on Russia's sovereignty or territorial integrity be

by esarbe 2y ago

It is easy; nations that attack other nations unprovoked are "evil" (at fault). Ukraine has never infringed on Russia's sovereignty or territorial integrity before it was attacked. Therefor this war is entirely Russia's fault. The world is mostly shades of gray. But this case it black and white.

dotancohen 2y ago
[flagged]
- esarbe 2y ago
  Russia's "concerns" are not valid. It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so. No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor. You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    > Russia's "concerns" are not valid. Dismissing Russia's concerns is exactly what led to this war. > It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so. NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that "Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance" and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn't even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine. > No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor. Then you know nothing of US doctrine. The Central Americans will tell you how the US will even invade just to lower the price of bananas - no joke. > You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism. No, I really don't have a side in this. I'm simply presenting Russia's viewpoint as I understand it. I also understand the Western viewpoint as well, but there's no need to defend it in present company, we all agree about NATO, European, and US positions on the matter.
    - mopsi 2y ago
      This is not "Russia's viewpoint", but a narrative to advance their ambition of enslaving again the roughly 100 million people who became free after the USSR collapsed. The Russian viewpoint is that Eastern Europe would be much easier to conquer if they were internationally isolated and could be picked off one by one like in the 1940s. The current war against Ukraine is an excellent example of this; international cooperation is a leading reason for the failure of the invasion. All the complaints about NATO lead back to the fact that for Russia it elevates the cost of invading Eastern Europe. Without NATO, they would face only limited conventional forces in Poland. With NATO, an attack on Poland go as far as activating American carrier groups or even a nuclear response.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > > It’s not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that’s entirely Ukraine’s decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so. > NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance” and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn’t even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine. A little bit more competent Googling would fill in the context you’ve clearly missed: (1) The 2008 statement was a way of mollifying Ukraine after acceding to Russia’s demand that Ukraine and Georgia be denied NATO Membership Action Plans at the 2008 summit. (Russia responded, by the way, to this accession to their demands by invading Georgia. Might have done the same to the Ukraine soon after, except by the time they were at a stable point with Georgia, they’d already managed to get a Russia-friendly government in Ukraine.) (2) Ukraine publicly abandoned any interest in a foreign military alliance between the 2008 summit and the 2014 invasion by Russia. (3) Ukraine abandoned its neutrality stance and restarted attempts to join NATO only after the 2014 invasion. (4) The 2021 statement was, again, a way of putting a nice face for Ukraine on NATO again rejecting Ukraine’s attempts to join in the near term.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Dismissing Russia's concerns is exactly what led to this war. Provided one accepts that those concerns are valid. And that its stated "concerns" were in fact its actual reasons for starting the war. But there is no compelling logical basis for us to accept either of these premises. I don't have time to fully dissect what you're saying about the NATO issue -- other than that you are leaving out some very important details which for some reason were not presented to you in whatever sources you are reading from. (Which is a polite way of telling you: your sources are apparently misinformed, or worse). But the main point is: none of the NATO stuff ever amounted to an actual physical threat against the Russian state, or otherwise any rational reason for Russia's regime to start a war. More to the point, it wasn't the real reason it chose to the start the war. It's just something it says, for internal and external propaganda purposes. So no - we don't have to "accept that Russia's concerns are valid".
- db48x 2y ago
  The whole idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is ridiculous. Read Article 1 again. <https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...>
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    Do you know whether a Tomahawk missile is nuclear-tipped, or not? No, you don't. And neither do the Russians. So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?
    - mopsi 2y ago
      What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then unfortunately none of them have Tomahawks, or anything close to them, or anything at all beyond the domestic conventional forces, so this entire comparision bears no resemblance to reality.
      - aa-jv 2y ago
        NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons. I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself. Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?
        mopsi 2y ago
        > NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Not true. > Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation? That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4-855x1024.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?
- yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
  Why do they seem valid? How long has NATO been on russia's border? This is an important question. Please try to answer it.
  - pasc1878 2y ago
    4 April 1949 the day NATO was founded.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    NATO has been on both Russia’s western (land) border and eastern (sea) border since it was founded in 1949.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia, if it comes to pass. NATO has never and will never be an aggressor, see article 1 as someone pointed out. If anything, Russia has put themselves in serious shit for invading Ukraine. If they hadn't started this, over 600.000 of their people wouldn't be dead or wounded. How many countries has NATO invaded?
  - SiempreViernes 2y ago
    > NATO has never and will never be an aggressor Not to defend the regime in power then (nor now!), but if you ask Serbia they might offer some other lived experiences on how consensual Operation Allied Force was.
    - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
      Why did NATO bomb Serbia?
      - SiempreViernes 2y ago
        It was not because Serbia invaded a NATO country, if that's what you were asking. Thought of course you knew that already since you obviously know what the operation was called, a fact basically nobody today knows (without looking it up).
        deanCommie 2y ago
        It was to stop a genocide. Just because they weren't "defending a NATO member" doesn't mean that the operation was "offensive".
        yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
        I do know why NATO bombed Serbia. Often when it’s brought up, people neglect to mention why it happened. The result is we have thousands of people who believe NATO is evil because supposedly they’ll bomb cities for no reason. But there is a reason, which curiously enough you neglected to mention. As the other commenter pointed out, it was to stop an active genocide which was being prosecuted by Slobodan Milosevic’s military and paramilitary forces.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Are you aware that NATO expansion into Ukraine seemed very likely at the time of Russia's invasion? Actually it was effectively impossible, as NATO's bylaws prevent the admission of states with active border conflicts. This is most likely (a large part of) why Putin invaded both Georgia and Ukraine -- to create permanent border conflicts, to prevent them from becoming NATO states. So in fact there was no imminent possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO state at the time of the 2022 invasion. Which makes perfect sense, as it was never the reason Putin chose to launch the full-scale invasion, anyway.
  - dmpk2k 2y ago
    One thing I've learned watching politicians the past few decades is that laws are guidelines. If the political will exists, politicians will find a way.
  - esarbe 2y ago
    The war started in 2014. There was even less imminent possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member back then, when Putin first sent unmarked military units to attack Ukraine.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      The war started in 2014. That's known, and already implicit in what I said.
  - holowoodman 2y ago
    West Germany joined NATO during an effective border conflict about whether it should actually be just Germany, reunified with the eastern parts. However, that conflict never actually was a war, just part of the "cold war".
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by esarbe 2y ago

dotancohen 2y ago

[flagged]

esarbe 2y ago
Russia's "concerns" are not valid. It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so. No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor. You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.
- dotancohen 2y ago
  > Russia's "concerns" are not valid. Dismissing Russia's concerns is exactly what led to this war. > It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so. NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that "Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance" and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn't even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine. > No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor. Then you know nothing of US doctrine. The Central Americans will tell you how the US will even invade just to lower the price of bananas - no joke. > You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism. No, I really don't have a side in this. I'm simply presenting Russia's viewpoint as I understand it. I also understand the Western viewpoint as well, but there's no need to defend it in present company, we all agree about NATO, European, and US positions on the matter.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    This is not "Russia's viewpoint", but a narrative to advance their ambition of enslaving again the roughly 100 million people who became free after the USSR collapsed. The Russian viewpoint is that Eastern Europe would be much easier to conquer if they were internationally isolated and could be picked off one by one like in the 1940s. The current war against Ukraine is an excellent example of this; international cooperation is a leading reason for the failure of the invasion. All the complaints about NATO lead back to the fact that for Russia it elevates the cost of invading Eastern Europe. Without NATO, they would face only limited conventional forces in Poland. With NATO, an attack on Poland go as far as activating American carrier groups or even a nuclear response.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > > It’s not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that’s entirely Ukraine’s decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so. > NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance” and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn’t even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine. A little bit more competent Googling would fill in the context you’ve clearly missed: (1) The 2008 statement was a way of mollifying Ukraine after acceding to Russia’s demand that Ukraine and Georgia be denied NATO Membership Action Plans at the 2008 summit. (Russia responded, by the way, to this accession to their demands by invading Georgia. Might have done the same to the Ukraine soon after, except by the time they were at a stable point with Georgia, they’d already managed to get a Russia-friendly government in Ukraine.) (2) Ukraine publicly abandoned any interest in a foreign military alliance between the 2008 summit and the 2014 invasion by Russia. (3) Ukraine abandoned its neutrality stance and restarted attempts to join NATO only after the 2014 invasion. (4) The 2021 statement was, again, a way of putting a nice face for Ukraine on NATO again rejecting Ukraine’s attempts to join in the near term.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Dismissing Russia's concerns is exactly what led to this war. Provided one accepts that those concerns are valid. And that its stated "concerns" were in fact its actual reasons for starting the war. But there is no compelling logical basis for us to accept either of these premises. I don't have time to fully dissect what you're saying about the NATO issue -- other than that you are leaving out some very important details which for some reason were not presented to you in whatever sources you are reading from. (Which is a polite way of telling you: your sources are apparently misinformed, or worse). But the main point is: none of the NATO stuff ever amounted to an actual physical threat against the Russian state, or otherwise any rational reason for Russia's regime to start a war. More to the point, it wasn't the real reason it chose to the start the war. It's just something it says, for internal and external propaganda purposes. So no - we don't have to "accept that Russia's concerns are valid".
db48x 2y ago
The whole idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is ridiculous. Read Article 1 again. <https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm?selectedLocale=en https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...>
- aa-jv 2y ago
  Do you know whether a Tomahawk missile is nuclear-tipped, or not? No, you don't. And neither do the Russians. So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?
  - mopsi 2y ago
    What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then unfortunately none of them have Tomahawks, or anything close to them, or anything at all beyond the domestic conventional forces, so this entire comparision bears no resemblance to reality.
    - aa-jv 2y ago
      NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons. I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself. Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?
      - mopsi 2y ago
        > NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Not true. > Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation? That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4-855x1024.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?
yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
Why do they seem valid? How long has NATO been on russia's border? This is an important question. Please try to answer it.
- pasc1878 2y ago
  4 April 1949 the day NATO was founded.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  NATO has been on both Russia’s western (land) border and eastern (sea) border since it was founded in 1949.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia, if it comes to pass. NATO has never and will never be an aggressor, see article 1 as someone pointed out. If anything, Russia has put themselves in serious shit for invading Ukraine. If they hadn't started this, over 600.000 of their people wouldn't be dead or wounded. How many countries has NATO invaded?
- SiempreViernes 2y ago
  > NATO has never and will never be an aggressor Not to defend the regime in power then (nor now!), but if you ask Serbia they might offer some other lived experiences on how consensual Operation Allied Force was.
  - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
    Why did NATO bomb Serbia?
    - SiempreViernes 2y ago
      It was not because Serbia invaded a NATO country, if that's what you were asking. Thought of course you knew that already since you obviously know what the operation was called, a fact basically nobody today knows (without looking it up).
      - deanCommie 2y ago
        It was to stop a genocide. Just because they weren't "defending a NATO member" doesn't mean that the operation was "offensive".
      - yakshaving_jgt 2y ago
        I do know why NATO bombed Serbia. Often when it’s brought up, people neglect to mention why it happened. The result is we have thousands of people who believe NATO is evil because supposedly they’ll bomb cities for no reason. But there is a reason, which curiously enough you neglected to mention. As the other commenter pointed out, it was to stop an active genocide which was being prosecuted by Slobodan Milosevic’s military and paramilitary forces.
aguaviva 2y ago
Are you aware that NATO expansion into Ukraine seemed very likely at the time of Russia's invasion? Actually it was effectively impossible, as NATO's bylaws prevent the admission of states with active border conflicts. This is most likely (a large part of) why Putin invaded both Georgia and Ukraine -- to create permanent border conflicts, to prevent them from becoming NATO states. So in fact there was no imminent possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO state at the time of the 2022 invasion. Which makes perfect sense, as it was never the reason Putin chose to launch the full-scale invasion, anyway.
- dmpk2k 2y ago
  One thing I've learned watching politicians the past few decades is that laws are guidelines. If the political will exists, politicians will find a way.
- esarbe 2y ago
  The war started in 2014. There was even less imminent possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member back then, when Putin first sent unmarked military units to attack Ukraine.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    The war started in 2014. That's known, and already implicit in what I said.
- holowoodman 2y ago
  West Germany joined NATO during an effective border conflict about whether it should actually be just Germany, reunified with the eastern parts. However, that conflict never actually was a war, just part of the "cold war".

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]