6 ms·
>Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons for Ukraine. Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded Ukraine. >Recall that this
by dralley 2y ago
>Russia will not tolerate NATO membership or nuclear weapons for Ukraine.
Neither of which was a real concern before Russia invaded Ukraine.
>Recall that this conflict's roots began when we reneged on our promise to freeze NATO's borders in the late 90s after the Soviet Union's collapse.
There was no such promise. There was a quick comment in a meeting, which was quickly retracted seconds later in that same meeting, not turned into any official agreement, and by the way that was before the USSR had collapsed and not after. So the non-promise was made to an entity which also no longer existed.
Also, like, what exactly do you think would have happened to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. if they were not in NATO.
- ioblomov 2y agoFair enough: promise is too strong a word. But hints to that effect were given during diplomacy to ensure German reunification... https://archive.ph/hyDhA https://archive.ph/hyDhA My point is that Russia taking Crimea and invading Ukraine are a consequence of NATO expansion to Russia's borders. The Baltic republics joined in 2004, while Ukraine and Georgia's "aspirant" status was declared in 2002 and 2004... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring_members https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Aspiring... And recall that Putin took Crimea in 2014 right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity To say Russia's aggression was entirely unprovoked represents an ignorance of recent history.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoYou make a good point. The EU/NATO expansion was deliberately intended to hem Russia in, and Russia's actions are at least partly in response to that. However, there's a big difference between expanding your sphere of influence through "soft power" whereby those countries voluntarily join you, and expanding it through military invasion, as Russia is doing. The two are not at all comparable.
- ioblomov 2y agoAppreciate the props, I was starting to question my rhetorical chops. ;) Regarding the distinction between soft and hard power, however, I think both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would disagree: "Necessary wars are just wars, and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other resource but to fight." https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html https://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html The almost unescapable conclusion is that the Neocons' soft power forced Putin's hand, perhaps by design.
- dralley 2y agoThis is all total sophistry. Realists try to wrap Putin's decisionmaking in layers of geopolitical reasoning, when the dude literally compares himself to Peter the Great and uses 17th century maps to claim that Ukraine is an illegitimate nation. This is bog-standard nationalist stuff. Tucker Carlson literally sat down with Putin and did everything he could to tee up this nonsense about NATO that Westerners want to hear and believe was the real reason, and instead Putin dropped 45 minutes worth of nationalist pseudohistory on him that had nothing to do with NATO. Nobody in Russia pretends the war is about NATO. It's just not really part of their narrative at all. In summary: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9/live_tucker_reaction_2_hours_of_revisionist/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/1amqoq9...
- ioblomov 2y agoPlease clarify how NATO encroachment is non-threatening to a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age. And I would appreciate backing evidence beyond Office memes.
- dralley 2y agoPlease explain how a Russian nationalism that sees the Russian Empire at its height as a golden age is not a legitimate threat to all of Europe but especially Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Ukraine, such that NATO expansion is fully legitimated. You can't blame NATO expansion for Russian aggression (and call it "threatening") while at the same time literally admitting that Russia is strongly nationalist and would love to reclaim all of its former territories (which is why all of those countries desperately wanted to join NATO). Fuck dude, Russia is the largest country on earth (see: expansionism) and has the first or second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. They have no right to feel "threatened" by their smaller neighbors banding together.