6 ms·

What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and mi

by n4r9 2y ago

What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and military combat? There are other more likely reasons for Putin to invade Ukraine, such as mineral/crop/nuclear resources and leaving behind an imperial legacy. NATO expansion is almost certainly just the most convenient scapegoat, without which some other justification would be floated.

cess11 2y ago
The NATO core has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, participated in the dissolution of both Libya and Syria, and is currently extending an occupation of Lebanon and perpetrating a genocide in Palestine. I think fear of NATO is pretty reasonable, but it's likely it's rather seen by Russia and others as moving the limit of the possible in international law and war.
- n4r9 2y ago
  The above interventions are all highly morally dubious, agreed. However, I do not think it at all likely that NATO would attempt similar against a highly developed country with a (relatively) modern military such as Russia.
marcusverus 2y ago
> What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? NATO was created as an anti-Soviet bulwark. The Soviet Union is gone, yet NATO has continued to expand in a manner which seems designed to weaken the strategic position of Russia. Add to that America's history of color revolutions and military aggression, and it would be difficult not to interpret this as anything other than a threat. Imagine China entered into a "defensive" military alliance with Mexico. Imagine you spoke to a Chinese friend about it, and they demanded that you justify "what makes Chinese proximity so bad for America?", as though the Chinese have just as much reason to place their military assets along our southern border as we do! Would you consider such a question to be in good faith? > Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and military combat? Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. It's hardly unreasonable for them to be concerned.
- n4r9 2y ago
  > Imagine China entered into a "defensive" military alliance with Mexico. Yeah. I'd be worried if I was a US citizen. Because China has a recent history of pushing airspace boundaries and behaving in an expansionist manner. But the comparison there is more accurately with Russia rather than NATO. Russia is continually making minor incursions into NATO and European airspace and waters, for example, whereas the reverse is very rare. I'm no fan of US foreign policy, but it pales in comparison to Russia's. > Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. Believing that the political reality of Europe in the 1940s is anywhere close to today is bizarre.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Because what we called the "Soviet Union" was really just another Russian Empire. No one was particularly concerned about the other Soviet "states" except insofar as to worry about what Russia would order them to do. Hell, half the time we referred to the Soviet Union as "Russia" and "the Russians." So while the "Soviet Union" is gone, Russia remains, weakened by it's loss of territories, still as irredentist and imperialist as ever. Hence why ex-Soviet and Soviet client-states begged to join.
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    > Because what we called the "Soviet Union" was really just another Russian Empire. No one was particularly concerned about the other Soviet "states" except insofar as to worry about what Russia would order them to do. Wow, that sounds pretty bad. But I seem to remember that when Ukraine unilaterally declared its independence from the Soviet Union, Russia let them go without a fight. That's hardly what you'd expect from an evil empire, is it? Imagine how poorly you'd think of them if instead they had chosen to wage an unconstitutional war, suspended habeus corpus, shut down newspapers and imprisoned dissenters! Imagine the low regard you'd hold them in if they had invaded the "rebel" territories, killing the very people they insisted were their countrymen, burning their homes and property until they surrendered, then unconstitutionally altering the terms of their membership in the empire.
    - 2y ago
petre 2y ago
They want buffer states with puppet leaders such as Lukashanko, as Russia and East Ukraine is all flat and supposedly easy to invade. Basically the expansion of NATO and the EU screwed up the Kremlin's plans to weaken Russia's Western neighbours and bring them into its sphere of influence. Poland and Romania are the new West Germany. In fact Moldova was part of Romania before it was occupied by the USSR after WW2, so it's pretty much in a similar situation to East/West Germany. It became independent after 1991 because Russia wanted to control it. They are using narratives such as the "Moldovan language" (in fact Romanian) since at least the 70s and later blackmail using Transnistria in order to divide and control. Moldova being admitted into the EU is basically on a path to de facto unification.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? It makes Russian interference in its neighboring countries more difficult.
bdangubic 2y ago
What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? surely you would like to be surrounded by people who are adversaries to you and your family, you woild flock to move to a neighborhood like that :)
- n4r9 2y ago
  But concretely what is bad about it? Would Russia feel it implied a threat of invasion? Would they worry that their own citizens would realise how much their global power has declined? I mean, I wouldn't feel 100% comfortable but I wouldn't launch an invasion over it. Especially since it predictably encourages other bordering countries like Finland to accelerate their membership, and Ukraine itself will definitely be pushing for membership as soon as possible once the war is over. It was neither a proportionate nor a productive course of action, if that was the reason.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    Russia has repeatedly over the years said that Ukraine joining NATO is the Red Line. this was going all fine until we started fucking with that Red Line. Invasion surprised no one that followed what’s been happening in that area between Russia and NATO (USA…)
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      This was going all fine until we started fucking with that Red Line. Except that's not what happened. It's just a soundbite you heard somewhere, but has no basis in reality. You can follow this thread, if of interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42598151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42598151
      - slt2021 2y ago
        False, you are spreading blatant lies. Russians were pretty transparent about reasons. Budapest Memorandum as of 2003 guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament, provided that Ukraine stays neutral state. Ukraine decided to break the Budapest Memorandum by seeking the NATO ascension, and GW Bush promised them NATO in 2008, and then in 2014 CIA/State Department organized a coup (just a mere month before official elections) and pro-western puppet leader was put in charge (search Victoria Nuland's call where she decided to appoint pro-western Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister after the coup) who decided to seek EU and NATO membership. Thus, Ukraine effectively nullified the neutrality clause of the Budapest Memorandum. So it was Ukraine that walked back from Budapest Memorandum by giving up neutral status, that nullified the territorial sovereignty guarantees given by Russia. if you think about it, it kinda makes sense. Russia can tolerate friendly and aligned country on its border that is 70% comprised of Russian speakers and/or Russian ethnicity. But Russia cannot tolerate NATO member on its border, the same way that USA cannot tolerate Canada/Mexico that are in military alliance with Russia/China. Ask yourself, what would USA do if tomorrow Canada/Mexico decided to join exclusive economic and military alliance with China ?

by n4r9 2y ago

cess11 2y ago

The NATO core has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, participated in the dissolution of both Libya and Syria, and is currently extending an occupation of Lebanon and perpetrating a genocide in Palestine. I think fear of NATO is pretty reasonable, but it's likely it's rather seen by Russia and others as moving the limit of the possible in international law and war.

n4r9 2y ago
The above interventions are all highly morally dubious, agreed. However, I do not think it at all likely that NATO would attempt similar against a highly developed country with a (relatively) modern military such as Russia.

marcusverus 2y ago

> What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? NATO was created as an anti-Soviet bulwark. The Soviet Union is gone, yet NATO has continued to expand in a manner which seems designed to weaken the strategic position of Russia. Add to that America's history of color revolutions and military aggression, and it would be difficult not to interpret this as anything other than a threat. Imagine China entered into a "defensive" military alliance with Mexico. Imagine you spoke to a Chinese friend about it, and they demanded that you justify "what makes Chinese proximity so bad for America?", as though the Chinese have just as much reason to place their military assets along our southern border as we do! Would you consider such a question to be in good faith? > Do they actually think NATO would use it to launch invasions? Do they have no idea how much Europe hates war and military combat? Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. It's hardly unreasonable for them to be concerned.

n4r9 2y ago
> Imagine China entered into a "defensive" military alliance with Mexico. Yeah. I'd be worried if I was a US citizen. Because China has a recent history of pushing airspace boundaries and behaving in an expansionist manner. But the comparison there is more accurately with Russia rather than NATO. Russia is continually making minor incursions into NATO and European airspace and waters, for example, whereas the reverse is very rare. I'm no fan of US foreign policy, but it pales in comparison to Russia's. > Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. Believing that the political reality of Europe in the 1940s is anywhere close to today is bizarre.
Aloisius 2y ago
Because what we called the "Soviet Union" was really just another Russian Empire. No one was particularly concerned about the other Soviet "states" except insofar as to worry about what Russia would order them to do. Hell, half the time we referred to the Soviet Union as "Russia" and "the Russians." So while the "Soviet Union" is gone, Russia remains, weakened by it's loss of territories, still as irredentist and imperialist as ever. Hence why ex-Soviet and Soviet client-states begged to join.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  > Because what we called the "Soviet Union" was really just another Russian Empire. No one was particularly concerned about the other Soviet "states" except insofar as to worry about what Russia would order them to do. Wow, that sounds pretty bad. But I seem to remember that when Ukraine unilaterally declared its independence from the Soviet Union, Russia let them go without a fight. That's hardly what you'd expect from an evil empire, is it? Imagine how poorly you'd think of them if instead they had chosen to wage an unconstitutional war, suspended habeus corpus, shut down newspapers and imprisoned dissenters! Imagine the low regard you'd hold them in if they had invaded the "rebel" territories, killing the very people they insisted were their countrymen, burning their homes and property until they surrendered, then unconstitutionally altering the terms of their membership in the empire.
  - 2y ago

petre 2y ago

They want buffer states with puppet leaders such as Lukashanko, as Russia and East Ukraine is all flat and supposedly easy to invade. Basically the expansion of NATO and the EU screwed up the Kremlin's plans to weaken Russia's Western neighbours and bring them into its sphere of influence. Poland and Romania are the new West Germany. In fact Moldova was part of Romania before it was occupied by the USSR after WW2, so it's pretty much in a similar situation to East/West Germany. It became independent after 1991 because Russia wanted to control it. They are using narratives such as the "Moldovan language" (in fact Romanian) since at least the 70s and later blackmail using Transnistria in order to divide and control. Moldova being admitted into the EU is basically on a path to de facto unification.

dragonwriter 2y ago

> What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? It makes Russian interference in its neighboring countries more difficult.

bdangubic 2y ago

What makes NATO proximity so bad for Russia? surely you would like to be surrounded by people who are adversaries to you and your family, you woild flock to move to a neighborhood like that :)

n4r9 2y ago
But concretely what is bad about it? Would Russia feel it implied a threat of invasion? Would they worry that their own citizens would realise how much their global power has declined? I mean, I wouldn't feel 100% comfortable but I wouldn't launch an invasion over it. Especially since it predictably encourages other bordering countries like Finland to accelerate their membership, and Ukraine itself will definitely be pushing for membership as soon as possible once the war is over. It was neither a proportionate nor a productive course of action, if that was the reason.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  Russia has repeatedly over the years said that Ukraine joining NATO is the Red Line. this was going all fine until we started fucking with that Red Line. Invasion surprised no one that followed what’s been happening in that area between Russia and NATO (USA…)
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    This was going all fine until we started fucking with that Red Line. Except that's not what happened. It's just a soundbite you heard somewhere, but has no basis in reality. You can follow this thread, if of interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42598151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42598151
    - slt2021 2y ago
      False, you are spreading blatant lies. Russians were pretty transparent about reasons. Budapest Memorandum as of 2003 guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament, provided that Ukraine stays neutral state. Ukraine decided to break the Budapest Memorandum by seeking the NATO ascension, and GW Bush promised them NATO in 2008, and then in 2014 CIA/State Department organized a coup (just a mere month before official elections) and pro-western puppet leader was put in charge (search Victoria Nuland's call where she decided to appoint pro-western Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister after the coup) who decided to seek EU and NATO membership. Thus, Ukraine effectively nullified the neutrality clause of the Budapest Memorandum. So it was Ukraine that walked back from Budapest Memorandum by giving up neutral status, that nullified the territorial sovereignty guarantees given by Russia. if you think about it, it kinda makes sense. Russia can tolerate friendly and aligned country on its border that is 70% comprised of Russian speakers and/or Russian ethnicity. But Russia cannot tolerate NATO member on its border, the same way that USA cannot tolerate Canada/Mexico that are in military alliance with Russia/China. Ask yourself, what would USA do if tomorrow Canada/Mexico decided to join exclusive economic and military alliance with China ?