4 ms·

Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, a

Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, and it's really quite silly.

aa-jv 2y ago
Believe it or not, this is the basis of international law. You don't get to have standards for one nation but entirely different standards for another. The USA can deploy missiles anywhere it wants - on its territory, or on the territories of its allies. But of course it needs to suffer the consequences if it decides to forward-deploy them on someone elses territory. Same goes for Russia. Or, is there some other standard that you're applying that makes it okay for the USA to put nuclear-capable missiles on the borders of its enemies, but not okay for any other nation to do it?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- aguaviva 2y ago
  The issue here is that you're shifting the goalposts. Here's a boiled-down transcript what just transpired between yourself and the other commenter: You: NATO seeks to deploy missiles within 7 minutes flight time of Russia's capitol. That's bad, threatening. They: But we already have Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad. You: But those missiles are on Russian territory, so that makes it OK. There's simply no logic in your follow-up. Either the concern is missile proximity as you initially stated, or it isn't. And if it is -- you can't simply say it's intrinsically threatening and destabilizing when one country does it, but somehow benign and non-threatening when another country does (simply because in their case the missiles happen to be on their own territory). Plus there's Russia's announcment of its intent to employ actual nuclear-armed missiles in Belarus, which no one has mentioned. Which would seem to make its complaint about non-nuclear deployments in Ukraine (which everyone knows will be exactly that) largely moot.
  - aa-jv 2y ago
    Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it? If not, why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does? Also, your entire position assumes that Europe==USA, when in fact it simply doesn't. The USA is forward-deploying its missile systems in (currently) friendly states - what happens when those states turn against the USA? Does the USA simply invade and retrieve its missile systems?
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it? No country has a "right" to apply the Monroe Doctrine, anywhere, of course. The idea that we should defend or empathize with (or "understand") Russia's current smash-and-grab operation underway in Ukraine, based on a perceived similarity between its actions and whatever bad things other empires have done, way back when -- I find to be really quite bizarre. Why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does? I don't think the US has any such right -- and I find it quite strange that pretend to "know" that I would.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        "that you should pretend ..."
    - mopsi 2y ago
      > Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it? Yes it does, but I think you've misunderstood what the Monroe Doctrine was. The Monroe Doctrine was not a blank license for the US to invade other countries and kill people there. The point of Monroe Doctrine was to protect western hemisphere from wars initiated by European colonial empires. A good example of this is the French invasion of Mexico in 1862 in an attempt to turn the newly-independent Mexico into a colony and install European aristocrat from the Habsburg dynasty as the emperor of Mexico. Americans offered military aid to Mexico, and after a few years of fighting, that emperor got executed by a firing squad and French forces were expulsed. Sounds familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico Russia is acting like one of those colonial empires that sought to conquer and exploit the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated against such behavior.

Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, and it's really quite silly.

aa-jv 2y ago

Believe it or not, this is the basis of international law. You don't get to have standards for one nation but entirely different standards for another. The USA can deploy missiles anywhere it wants - on its territory, or on the territories of its allies. But of course it needs to suffer the consequences if it decides to forward-deploy them on someone elses territory. Same goes for Russia. Or, is there some other standard that you're applying that makes it okay for the USA to put nuclear-capable missiles on the borders of its enemies, but not okay for any other nation to do it?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aguaviva 2y ago
The issue here is that you're shifting the goalposts. Here's a boiled-down transcript what just transpired between yourself and the other commenter: You: NATO seeks to deploy missiles within 7 minutes flight time of Russia's capitol. That's bad, threatening. They: But we already have Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad. You: But those missiles are on Russian territory, so that makes it OK. There's simply no logic in your follow-up. Either the concern is missile proximity as you initially stated, or it isn't. And if it is -- you can't simply say it's intrinsically threatening and destabilizing when one country does it, but somehow benign and non-threatening when another country does (simply because in their case the missiles happen to be on their own territory). Plus there's Russia's announcment of its intent to employ actual nuclear-armed missiles in Belarus, which no one has mentioned. Which would seem to make its complaint about non-nuclear deployments in Ukraine (which everyone knows will be exactly that) largely moot.
- aa-jv 2y ago
  Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it? If not, why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does? Also, your entire position assumes that Europe==USA, when in fact it simply doesn't. The USA is forward-deploying its missile systems in (currently) friendly states - what happens when those states turn against the USA? Does the USA simply invade and retrieve its missile systems?
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it? No country has a "right" to apply the Monroe Doctrine, anywhere, of course. The idea that we should defend or empathize with (or "understand") Russia's current smash-and-grab operation underway in Ukraine, based on a perceived similarity between its actions and whatever bad things other empires have done, way back when -- I find to be really quite bizarre. Why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does? I don't think the US has any such right -- and I find it quite strange that pretend to "know" that I would.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      "that you should pretend ..."
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it? Yes it does, but I think you've misunderstood what the Monroe Doctrine was. The Monroe Doctrine was not a blank license for the US to invade other countries and kill people there. The point of Monroe Doctrine was to protect western hemisphere from wars initiated by European colonial empires. A good example of this is the French invasion of Mexico in 1862 in an attempt to turn the newly-independent Mexico into a colony and install European aristocrat from the Habsburg dynasty as the emperor of Mexico. Americans offered military aid to Mexico, and after a few years of fighting, that emperor got executed by a firing squad and French forces were expulsed. Sounds familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico Russia is acting like one of those colonial empires that sought to conquer and exploit the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated against such behavior.