3 ms·

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 gl

by 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 ?
    - mopsi 2y ago
      The Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 and not 2003, it sets no neutrality requirements on Ukraine, nor was there a coup in Ukraine, nor was Ukraine scheduled to have any elections in 2014, nor was or is Ukraine in the process of joining NATO, and nor has Mexico anything to do with it all. Did you generate your post with an AI tool? It's such a strange collection of undisputably incorrect statements, from the wrong year of the Budapest memorandum to the invalid reference of upcoming elections in 2014.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Yatsenyuk ... who decided to seek NATO membership In August 2014, and only after Russia invaded both the Crimea and the Donbas. In fact even after the invasion of just the Crimea (in March) his government was still playing it safe, and renouncing any intent to join NATO (Reuters, March 18): Ukraine's new pro-Western leadership is not seeking membership of NATO, Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said on Tuesday, in comments intended to reassure Russia and Ukraine's large number of Russian-speakers.[0] It only changed its tune -- was forced to change its tune -- when Russia doubled down on its "covert" intervention in the Donbas by sending armored vehicles with Russian military plates, and attempted a similar assault on Mariupol.[1] Which (unlike the events you are falsely describing) actually did tear the Budapest Memorandum (and the UN Charter) to shreds. And rendered whatever "defensive" objections Russia may have had to Ukraine's bloc status entirely moot. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-nato-idUKBREA2H0DO20140318/ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-nato-idUKB... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#August_2014_invasion_by_Russian_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#August_2014_inva...
- n4r9 2y ago
  This both fails to answer the question of why NATO expansion is concretely bad for Russia, and brings up a new claim which is irrelevant and inaccurate.

by n4r9 2y ago

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 ?
  - mopsi 2y ago
    The Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 and not 2003, it sets no neutrality requirements on Ukraine, nor was there a coup in Ukraine, nor was Ukraine scheduled to have any elections in 2014, nor was or is Ukraine in the process of joining NATO, and nor has Mexico anything to do with it all. Did you generate your post with an AI tool? It's such a strange collection of undisputably incorrect statements, from the wrong year of the Budapest memorandum to the invalid reference of upcoming elections in 2014.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Yatsenyuk ... who decided to seek NATO membership In August 2014, and only after Russia invaded both the Crimea and the Donbas. In fact even after the invasion of just the Crimea (in March) his government was still playing it safe, and renouncing any intent to join NATO (Reuters, March 18): Ukraine's new pro-Western leadership is not seeking membership of NATO, Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said on Tuesday, in comments intended to reassure Russia and Ukraine's large number of Russian-speakers.[0] It only changed its tune -- was forced to change its tune -- when Russia doubled down on its "covert" intervention in the Donbas by sending armored vehicles with Russian military plates, and attempted a similar assault on Mariupol.[1] Which (unlike the events you are falsely describing) actually did tear the Budapest Memorandum (and the UN Charter) to shreds. And rendered whatever "defensive" objections Russia may have had to Ukraine's bloc status entirely moot. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-nato-idUKBREA2H0DO20140318/ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-nato-idUKB... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#August_2014_invasion_by_Russian_forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas#August_2014_inva...
n4r9 2y ago
This both fails to answer the question of why NATO expansion is concretely bad for Russia, and brings up a new claim which is irrelevant and inaccurate.