7 ms·

How is that not true, though? Claiming it’s Ukraines fault for the war is absurd, but joining NATO was always going to be seen as a provocative act. It’s geopol

How is that not true, though? Claiming it’s Ukraines fault for the war is absurd, but joining NATO was always going to be seen as a provocative act. It’s geopolitics and there’s never black and white lines.

CyberDildonics 2y ago
> joining NATO was always going to be seen as a provocative act By who? Propagandists trying to rationalize invading a sovereign nation? If I join one neighbor's neighborhood watch group, another neighbor doesn't get to say I provoked them and burn my house down.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - CyberDildonics 2y ago
    I don't know what you're talking about that isn't within a sovereign country's rights. Do you think russia was "provoked into invading" ? Just come out and say it.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I dont really see what rights have to do with it. My point is that the current situation was entirely predictable, and in fact, it was widely predicted. I'm not making some moral point.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    That analogy still doesn't justify coming to your house and killing your family.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      So what? In a just world, there would no violence or threats whatsoever. My point was that it was entirely predictable. If you point a gun at someone else, you are likely to get shot. Especially if they tell you repeatedly that they will shoot you if you point a gun at them.
      - CyberDildonics 2y ago
        Ukraine never pointed a gun at russia. They didn't threaten them or try to intimidate them. This is like someone saying they will start locking their doors, so someone else says they were forced to rob and murder them. It's absurd from any perspective except for warped "don't believe your own eyes, ears and thoughts" Orwellian propaganda.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I dont think Russia was threatened by Ukraine, but NATO and more specifically the US. All of these analogies break down because there is no real world equivalent to a purely defense action like locking your doors. The idea that NATO and the US especially only engage in defensive military actions is what requires an insane level of reality denial. At any rate, Im not even trying to claim Russia has a moral high ground, just that the situation was completely predictable. At best, it was like putting your hand in a cage with the rabid dog. You can make a moral point that the dog shouldn't bite, but it is still idiotic to ignore the barking, snapping, and foaming at the mouth.
        CyberDildonics 2y ago
        Now NATO and the US forced russia to invade a sovereign country and go to war with them, killing hundreds of thousands of people? Also now somehow russia is not full of human people but has the intelligence of a rabid animal with a disease affecting its brain and somehow their borders were crossed with aggression? I'm guessing there is no explanation or evidence coming for any of these claims because if you had it, you would have put it in your comment.
  - rat87 2y ago
    NATO is a defense pact. And your portrayal of NATO is ridiculous. NATO bent over backwards to satisfy Russian paranoia. NATO had barely any troops(just enough to say if you invade and kill them it's war) in the eastern NATO member countries until the full scale invasion of Ukraine.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      NATO has never once been used in a defensive war, and is constantly used in wars of aggression, primarily by the US. It would be too exhausting to even type and link the various countries the US currently bombing and fighting in during 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#Extraterritorial_and_major_domestic_deployments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-the-us-has-bombed https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
      - Mawr 2y ago
        The point of a defence pact is not to wage war, but to avoid it. The US being a part of NATO does not mean all actions the US takes are on behalf of NATO.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Sure. But surely you see how providing us bases to launch its attacks, house air defense, and project military power. The US doesn't spend billions defending foreign countries out of altruism. The US doesn't need help from tiny European countries to defend itself.
        rat87 2y ago
        Name one NATO base east of germany. When did it open?
stogot 2y ago
Joining a defensive treaty (NATO) is not a real provocation, but is rather a post hoc justification for Putin‘s desires.
- jodleif 2y ago
  Also people seem to forget 2014, it’s not like it’s unwarranted for Ukraine to want to join NATO
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - sampo 2y ago
      > In 2014, the US overthrew a democratically elected Ukrainian government by financing neo-Nazi militias and their political allies This is how the American far-right and far-left sees it. But how do the Ukrainians themselves see this?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Killing half a million Ukrainians so that a country whose population is a third Russian doesn't vote for the Russian-friendly candidate over some Western-backed candidate who wants to exterminate and expel Russians, Nowhere near a half a million have been killed. The country identified as 17 percent Russian in the last census. No one one from the Ukrainian side was going to, or is ever going to expel or exterminate anyone. No one from Ukraine I talk to (including people very close to events at the time) gives any credence to the "coup" theory. You obviously have no understanding of the Language Law, or what it actually does. And anyway it was passed in 2019 and so had nothing to do with events of 2014. People in the West talk about the Ukraine situation all the time, from every angle, include quite obviously very pro-Russian angles. Not just online, but right there on major channels like Fox and CNN. There are no "allowed" or "disallowed" viewpoints, or any other repercussions or constraints. Everything you're saying above is sheer lunacy, basically.
luuurker 2y ago
The problem is that Ukraine has been trying to join NATO since the early 2000s. The answer was always the same: "we'll consider it". This wasn't going to change in 2014, when Ukraine had no working government and Russia invaded.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  It's also a nonsense argument given Putin's aggression prompted NATO's largest expansion in a decade and arguably most-significant expansion since the 1990s.
scotty79 2y ago
Obviously attempts of bullying victim to join a friend group that might protect them is provocative to the bully, as it might limit their capacity to do the bullying. The question is, why should we avoid doing it rather than let them escalate and use this opportunity to stomp the bully. Which is in the works and will happen in few years.
- leobg 2y ago
  Because this isn’t the school yard. And the country you label a “bully” has nukes and probably cares more about Ukraine than you do, based on willingness for sacrifices (though in reverse). There were people talking like you among JFK’s chief of staff during the Cuban Missile crisis. Same argument. Had JFK listened to them, we very likely would not be here today.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    School bully might have a gun but if he uses it then it's game over for him too. And russia behaves like a bully. Any step back emboldens them. What might have been true at the height of cold war might not be true now. Befriending the opponent failed. Now it's time to finish the job and actually win the cold war. NATO already knows this and preparations have begun. There's very little chance to avoid the direct conflict unless russia collapses harder than it did when soviet union fell. This time they won't be keeping their nukes or whatever's left of them.
    - leobg 2y ago
      If this was a computer game, I’d see it the same way. But unlike in a computer game, in the real world, that would you have labeled your enemy, does not simply disappear. If anything, you’ll create a vacuum. And I am not sure where you are taking the confidence that who or what ever feels that vacuum will be better than the status quo. The Americans have tried that in Iraq and Syria. The Vietnam war as well. And I believe the result, in every case, has been anything but that nice clean victory that “finishing off” of your enemy in a computer game promises. In my view, this comes down to Chesterton’s fence. Before you tear down a fence, it would be helpful to understand how it came to be erected in the first place. Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but pretty much the only time the strategy of killing of an enemy regime worked was Hitler. That was a man who applied industrial processes to murdering humans - rail networks, assembly line processing, gas chambers. This is not the level of evil we are facing here, at all. If Putin is anything as evil as you think he is, he will surely have systems in place that will ensure the destruction of major cities in the United States in case of anything happening to him or his regime. You schoolyard, bully, metaphor, while having the benefit of being easy to understand, carries with it a risk - 1%, 5%? - that our children will find themselves in the world of A Canticle for Leibowitz.
stickfigure 2y ago
"My wife provoked the beating by asking for a divorce"
pvaldes 2y ago
The list of excuses put by Russia is endless. They came for the nazis, stayed for the free toilets and washing machines.
rat87 2y ago
Ukraine wasn't joining NATO when Russia invaded in 2014 or 2022 when the full scale invasion happened. Ukraine wasn't even seeking NATO membership in 2014 prior to the Russian invasion. The goal of the post revolution of dignity government was stability and taking steps towards joining the EU(and even joining the EU was still seen as a difficult process that would at best take many years). Everyone including Russia knew that there was no chance of joining NATO anytime soon since France and Germany among other countries had and were still objecting. It's clear that the NATO excuse for the war is absurd bullshit

CyberDildonics 2y ago

> joining NATO was always going to be seen as a provocative act By who? Propagandists trying to rationalize invading a sovereign nation? If I join one neighbor's neighborhood watch group, another neighbor doesn't get to say I provoked them and burn my house down.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
[flagged]
- CyberDildonics 2y ago
  I don't know what you're talking about that isn't within a sovereign country's rights. Do you think russia was "provoked into invading" ? Just come out and say it.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont really see what rights have to do with it. My point is that the current situation was entirely predictable, and in fact, it was widely predicted. I'm not making some moral point.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  That analogy still doesn't justify coming to your house and killing your family.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    So what? In a just world, there would no violence or threats whatsoever. My point was that it was entirely predictable. If you point a gun at someone else, you are likely to get shot. Especially if they tell you repeatedly that they will shoot you if you point a gun at them.
    - CyberDildonics 2y ago
      Ukraine never pointed a gun at russia. They didn't threaten them or try to intimidate them. This is like someone saying they will start locking their doors, so someone else says they were forced to rob and murder them. It's absurd from any perspective except for warped "don't believe your own eyes, ears and thoughts" Orwellian propaganda.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I dont think Russia was threatened by Ukraine, but NATO and more specifically the US. All of these analogies break down because there is no real world equivalent to a purely defense action like locking your doors. The idea that NATO and the US especially only engage in defensive military actions is what requires an insane level of reality denial. At any rate, Im not even trying to claim Russia has a moral high ground, just that the situation was completely predictable. At best, it was like putting your hand in a cage with the rabid dog. You can make a moral point that the dog shouldn't bite, but it is still idiotic to ignore the barking, snapping, and foaming at the mouth.
        CyberDildonics 2y ago
        Now NATO and the US forced russia to invade a sovereign country and go to war with them, killing hundreds of thousands of people? Also now somehow russia is not full of human people but has the intelligence of a rabid animal with a disease affecting its brain and somehow their borders were crossed with aggression? I'm guessing there is no explanation or evidence coming for any of these claims because if you had it, you would have put it in your comment.
- rat87 2y ago
  NATO is a defense pact. And your portrayal of NATO is ridiculous. NATO bent over backwards to satisfy Russian paranoia. NATO had barely any troops(just enough to say if you invade and kill them it's war) in the eastern NATO member countries until the full scale invasion of Ukraine.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    NATO has never once been used in a defensive war, and is constantly used in wars of aggression, primarily by the US. It would be too exhausting to even type and link the various countries the US currently bombing and fighting in during 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#Extraterritorial_and_major_domestic_deployments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-the-us-has-bombed https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
    - Mawr 2y ago
      The point of a defence pact is not to wage war, but to avoid it. The US being a part of NATO does not mean all actions the US takes are on behalf of NATO.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Sure. But surely you see how providing us bases to launch its attacks, house air defense, and project military power. The US doesn't spend billions defending foreign countries out of altruism. The US doesn't need help from tiny European countries to defend itself.
        rat87 2y ago
        Name one NATO base east of germany. When did it open?

stogot 2y ago

Joining a defensive treaty (NATO) is not a real provocation, but is rather a post hoc justification for Putin‘s desires.

jodleif 2y ago
Also people seem to forget 2014, it’s not like it’s unwarranted for Ukraine to want to join NATO
- pessimizer 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sampo 2y ago
    > In 2014, the US overthrew a democratically elected Ukrainian government by financing neo-Nazi militias and their political allies This is how the American far-right and far-left sees it. But how do the Ukrainians themselves see this?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Killing half a million Ukrainians so that a country whose population is a third Russian doesn't vote for the Russian-friendly candidate over some Western-backed candidate who wants to exterminate and expel Russians, Nowhere near a half a million have been killed. The country identified as 17 percent Russian in the last census. No one one from the Ukrainian side was going to, or is ever going to expel or exterminate anyone. No one from Ukraine I talk to (including people very close to events at the time) gives any credence to the "coup" theory. You obviously have no understanding of the Language Law, or what it actually does. And anyway it was passed in 2019 and so had nothing to do with events of 2014. People in the West talk about the Ukraine situation all the time, from every angle, include quite obviously very pro-Russian angles. Not just online, but right there on major channels like Fox and CNN. There are no "allowed" or "disallowed" viewpoints, or any other repercussions or constraints. Everything you're saying above is sheer lunacy, basically.

luuurker 2y ago

The problem is that Ukraine has been trying to join NATO since the early 2000s. The answer was always the same: "we'll consider it". This wasn't going to change in 2014, when Ukraine had no working government and Russia invaded.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
It's also a nonsense argument given Putin's aggression prompted NATO's largest expansion in a decade and arguably most-significant expansion since the 1990s.

scotty79 2y ago

Obviously attempts of bullying victim to join a friend group that might protect them is provocative to the bully, as it might limit their capacity to do the bullying. The question is, why should we avoid doing it rather than let them escalate and use this opportunity to stomp the bully. Which is in the works and will happen in few years.

leobg 2y ago
Because this isn’t the school yard. And the country you label a “bully” has nukes and probably cares more about Ukraine than you do, based on willingness for sacrifices (though in reverse). There were people talking like you among JFK’s chief of staff during the Cuban Missile crisis. Same argument. Had JFK listened to them, we very likely would not be here today.
- scotty79 2y ago
  School bully might have a gun but if he uses it then it's game over for him too. And russia behaves like a bully. Any step back emboldens them. What might have been true at the height of cold war might not be true now. Befriending the opponent failed. Now it's time to finish the job and actually win the cold war. NATO already knows this and preparations have begun. There's very little chance to avoid the direct conflict unless russia collapses harder than it did when soviet union fell. This time they won't be keeping their nukes or whatever's left of them.
  - leobg 2y ago
    If this was a computer game, I’d see it the same way. But unlike in a computer game, in the real world, that would you have labeled your enemy, does not simply disappear. If anything, you’ll create a vacuum. And I am not sure where you are taking the confidence that who or what ever feels that vacuum will be better than the status quo. The Americans have tried that in Iraq and Syria. The Vietnam war as well. And I believe the result, in every case, has been anything but that nice clean victory that “finishing off” of your enemy in a computer game promises. In my view, this comes down to Chesterton’s fence. Before you tear down a fence, it would be helpful to understand how it came to be erected in the first place. Please do correct me if I’m wrong, but pretty much the only time the strategy of killing of an enemy regime worked was Hitler. That was a man who applied industrial processes to murdering humans - rail networks, assembly line processing, gas chambers. This is not the level of evil we are facing here, at all. If Putin is anything as evil as you think he is, he will surely have systems in place that will ensure the destruction of major cities in the United States in case of anything happening to him or his regime. You schoolyard, bully, metaphor, while having the benefit of being easy to understand, carries with it a risk - 1%, 5%? - that our children will find themselves in the world of A Canticle for Leibowitz.

stickfigure 2y ago

"My wife provoked the beating by asking for a divorce"

pvaldes 2y ago

The list of excuses put by Russia is endless. They came for the nazis, stayed for the free toilets and washing machines.

rat87 2y ago

Ukraine wasn't joining NATO when Russia invaded in 2014 or 2022 when the full scale invasion happened. Ukraine wasn't even seeking NATO membership in 2014 prior to the Russian invasion. The goal of the post revolution of dignity government was stability and taking steps towards joining the EU(and even joining the EU was still seen as a difficult process that would at best take many years). Everyone including Russia knew that there was no chance of joining NATO anytime soon since France and Germany among other countries had and were still objecting. It's clear that the NATO excuse for the war is absurd bullshit