20 ms·

> 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 mann

> 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.
  - mopsi 2y ago
    > Russia let them go without a fight. That's hardly what you'd expect from an evil empire, is it? The USSR's collapse was rather peaceful not by their own choice. The USSR was in such a deep shit by the final days that officers were forcing conscripts into street prostitution to earn money for food. Secret services and armed forces became completely demoralized. Officers and soldiers sat in their bases, ignored orders in total apathy, and were busy drinking or selling off anything they could, even copper wiring from the walls of their barracks was sold for scrap. You could buy a truckload of binoculars directly from the gates of a military base for less than $100. Radars, missiles, fighter jets too - anything for the almighty dollar. Survival until the next day was the only concern; little else mattered.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Russia didn't have much of a choice in the matter given the whole economic collapse happening, but I'm glad we're on the same page about who had been in control. Not that they didn't try in the beginning though. They tried to blockade Lithuania and send tanks which backfired, but they literally couldn't afford to have an actual civil war. The US civil war comparison alluded to is superficial nonsense. They're only similar if you ignore all the details that matter like states voluntarily joining with full knowledge they were giving up sovereignty, actual federal political representation and that the Confederacy started the war by attacking Union soldiers first. Nor was there anything unconstitutional about waging a war, putting down a rebellion or even suspending habeas corpus - those are explicitly enumerated powers - powers that several of the seceding states helped draft.
mopsi 2y ago
[flagged]
lr1970 2y ago
> Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. Correction. WWII costed Soviet Union between 20 and 30 million lives [0]. Main thrust of the German onslaught in 1941 went through Ukraine. The same happened in WWI when in 1914 Germany and Austria invaded Russia through Ukraine. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the...
- benterix 2y ago
  I believe the part of the reason why Russians had the highest number of casualties in WWII was the fact that Stalin didn't care about the lives of his citizens and send men to fight in thousands, with another row shooting the ones who wanted to flee.
benterix 2y ago
> NATO has continued to expand NATO is not a living organism that expands. It is composed of free countries who can join it if the rest agrees (the rest didn't agree on Georgia or Ukraine). Whenever a country like Finland or Sweden feels threatened by Russia, they can join NATO and immediately gain protection from Russia. That's why Putin hates NATO as it limits his option for potential invasion. So far, he could only invade Georgia and Ukraine - only because they are not in NATO.

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.
- mopsi 2y ago
  > Russia let them go without a fight. That's hardly what you'd expect from an evil empire, is it? The USSR's collapse was rather peaceful not by their own choice. The USSR was in such a deep shit by the final days that officers were forcing conscripts into street prostitution to earn money for food. Secret services and armed forces became completely demoralized. Officers and soldiers sat in their bases, ignored orders in total apathy, and were busy drinking or selling off anything they could, even copper wiring from the walls of their barracks was sold for scrap. You could buy a truckload of binoculars directly from the gates of a military base for less than $100. Radars, missiles, fighter jets too - anything for the almighty dollar. Survival until the next day was the only concern; little else mattered.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Russia didn't have much of a choice in the matter given the whole economic collapse happening, but I'm glad we're on the same page about who had been in control. Not that they didn't try in the beginning though. They tried to blockade Lithuania and send tanks which backfired, but they literally couldn't afford to have an actual civil war. The US civil war comparison alluded to is superficial nonsense. They're only similar if you ignore all the details that matter like states voluntarily joining with full knowledge they were giving up sovereignty, actual federal political representation and that the Confederacy started the war by attacking Union soldiers first. Nor was there anything unconstitutional about waging a war, putting down a rebellion or even suspending habeas corpus - those are explicitly enumerated powers - powers that several of the seceding states helped draft.

mopsi 2y ago

[flagged]

lr1970 2y ago

> Within living memory, 10 million Soviets were killed in an unprovoked invasion from Europe. Correction. WWII costed Soviet Union between 20 and 30 million lives [0]. Main thrust of the German onslaught in 1941 went through Ukraine. The same happened in WWI when in 1914 Germany and Austria invaded Russia through Ukraine. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the...

benterix 2y ago
I believe the part of the reason why Russians had the highest number of casualties in WWII was the fact that Stalin didn't care about the lives of his citizens and send men to fight in thousands, with another row shooting the ones who wanted to flee.

benterix 2y ago

> NATO has continued to expand NATO is not a living organism that expands. It is composed of free countries who can join it if the rest agrees (the rest didn't agree on Georgia or Ukraine). Whenever a country like Finland or Sweden feels threatened by Russia, they can join NATO and immediately gain protection from Russia. That's why Putin hates NATO as it limits his option for potential invasion. So far, he could only invade Georgia and Ukraine - only because they are not in NATO.