5 ms·

My argument is that Russia was compelled to attack both Georgia and Ukraine because of NATO expansion, or rather preventing NATO expansion, not because of "Puti

by quotz 11mo ago

My argument is that Russia was compelled to attack both Georgia and Ukraine because of NATO expansion, or rather preventing NATO expansion, not because of "Putin is crazy, wants to be a Tsar". Your argument is that Russia wants to occupy territory just for the sake of expanding Russia, which is really not logical or reasonable. My argument is that if Mexico or Canada joined a military pact with Russia, the US would invade those countries immediately. Your argument is that any country can join a mutually defence pact without any consequences, as should be the case for Ukraine. Is this correct?

saalweachter 11mo ago
Buddy, pal, even if it wasn't absolutely craven to attack a country for fear they'd join a defensive pact because they were afraid you'd attack them, you're already begging the question that Ukraine was about to join NATO, which has been shelved for two decades, and even more off the table for the last decade since joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea. There was a 0% chance of Ukraine joining NATO in the next N years prior to Russia's invasion of them in 2021. Even if by some twisted logic that were pretext for a quote-unquote "just war", it cannot be a justification for the land grab Russia is making in Ukraine today, killing civilians and committing various war crimes on the daily to do it.
- dragonwriter 11mo ago
  > joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea. That’s...not at all clear (there is no such legal requirement, though there were some NATO members who publicly suggested that resolving the territorial disputes with Russia first was their then-current diplomatic position at various times in the discussion of the possibility. But diplomatic positions are sometimes prone to change in response to inducements from parties with different preferences.)
- quotz 11mo ago
  The land grab is Russia's assurance that the crimean pipelines and access to the black sea and the sea of azov remain unchallenged. The pipelines are extremely important to Russia's economy, and they will of course make sure to secure them. Fortunately for Russia, the eastern part of Ukraine also leans pro-Russia, has the most ethnically russian population, votes for pro-russian politicians, and also speaks the most russian, unlike the western part.[1] Russia's strategy is to secure those areas only, since those areas would be the easiest to operate. Russia would never able to rule over the current western ukrainian territories, because of the ethnical and demographical divide. Russia wouldnt attack both Georgia and Ukraine, and spend billions of resources just for the 0% chance of Ukrainian and Georgian NATO admission. Both Montenegro and Macedonia joined NATO in a matter of months, in the latter case when the regime was toppled. Enabling any talks between NATO and Ukraine/Georgia would be considered extremely terrifying for the national security of Russia. [1]https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/geography-of-the-presidential-elections-in-ukraine/ https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/geography-of-t...
mopsi 11mo ago
> My argument is that Russia was compelled to attack both Georgia and Ukraine because of NATO expansion, or rather preventing NATO expansion, not because of "Putin is crazy, wants to be a Tsar". This fails to explain why Russia attacked both countries after NATO had decided not to offer them a path to membership. Putin's intense hostility toward NATO stems from the fact that NATO stands in the way of invading Europe. The blitzkrieg against Ukraine also failed largely because of military support from European NATO members, who used established NATO communication channels to coordinate their efforts - exactly the thing NATO was established for! If Russia were a normal European country, it would have nothing to lose and much to gain from bordering NATO. NATO membership comes with oversight and separation requirements that make member states stable and predictable. A former, pre-Putin foreign minister of Russia described this as "free-of-charge security on Russia's western border". It is a problem for Putin only because he seeks to invade Europe; NATO stands in the way. > Your argument is that Russia wants to occupy territory just for the sake of expanding Russia, which is really not logical or reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable when you look at who holds power in Russia: the old revanchist KGB clan seeking to restore the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. This is the world they grew up in and were indoctrinated into in KGB schools. For them, it is a "normalcy" to which they must return. > My argument is that if Mexico or Canada joined a military pact with Russia, the US would invade those countries immediately. There is no need for guessing games when Cuba was actually in a military pact with the USSR until 1991 and hosted jets, bombers, missile cruisers and other conventional weapons for decades after the missile crisis. You can read about Soviet warships conducting missile drills off the coast of Florida in old newspapers. This is far more than anyone has done for countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War. And yet, the US did not invade Cuba. > Your argument is that any country can join a mutually defence pact without any consequences, as should be the case for Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly, in writing, pledged to respect the sovereignty of other European countries, including Ukraine, and their freedom to join military alliances. There's nothing to discuss - unless you want to turn Europe into a landscape of semi-sovereign nations ruled by Russia, which raises the question: why should Russia, in particular, be the European master race? Shouldn't the Franco-German alliance, with its much larger economy, bigger population, and numerous allies, instead dictate what Russia can and cannot do?
- 11mo ago

by quotz 11mo ago

saalweachter 11mo ago

Buddy, pal, even if it wasn't absolutely craven to attack a country for fear they'd join a defensive pact because they were afraid you'd attack them, you're already begging the question that Ukraine was about to join NATO, which has been shelved for two decades, and even more off the table for the last decade since joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea. There was a 0% chance of Ukraine joining NATO in the next N years prior to Russia's invasion of them in 2021. Even if by some twisted logic that were pretext for a quote-unquote "just war", it cannot be a justification for the land grab Russia is making in Ukraine today, killing civilians and committing various war crimes on the daily to do it.

dragonwriter 11mo ago
> joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea. That’s...not at all clear (there is no such legal requirement, though there were some NATO members who publicly suggested that resolving the territorial disputes with Russia first was their then-current diplomatic position at various times in the discussion of the possibility. But diplomatic positions are sometimes prone to change in response to inducements from parties with different preferences.)
quotz 11mo ago
The land grab is Russia's assurance that the crimean pipelines and access to the black sea and the sea of azov remain unchallenged. The pipelines are extremely important to Russia's economy, and they will of course make sure to secure them. Fortunately for Russia, the eastern part of Ukraine also leans pro-Russia, has the most ethnically russian population, votes for pro-russian politicians, and also speaks the most russian, unlike the western part.[1] Russia's strategy is to secure those areas only, since those areas would be the easiest to operate. Russia would never able to rule over the current western ukrainian territories, because of the ethnical and demographical divide. Russia wouldnt attack both Georgia and Ukraine, and spend billions of resources just for the 0% chance of Ukrainian and Georgian NATO admission. Both Montenegro and Macedonia joined NATO in a matter of months, in the latter case when the regime was toppled. Enabling any talks between NATO and Ukraine/Georgia would be considered extremely terrifying for the national security of Russia. [1]https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/geography-of-the-presidential-elections-in-ukraine/ https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/geography-of-t...

mopsi 11mo ago

> My argument is that Russia was compelled to attack both Georgia and Ukraine because of NATO expansion, or rather preventing NATO expansion, not because of "Putin is crazy, wants to be a Tsar". This fails to explain why Russia attacked both countries after NATO had decided not to offer them a path to membership. Putin's intense hostility toward NATO stems from the fact that NATO stands in the way of invading Europe. The blitzkrieg against Ukraine also failed largely because of military support from European NATO members, who used established NATO communication channels to coordinate their efforts - exactly the thing NATO was established for! If Russia were a normal European country, it would have nothing to lose and much to gain from bordering NATO. NATO membership comes with oversight and separation requirements that make member states stable and predictable. A former, pre-Putin foreign minister of Russia described this as "free-of-charge security on Russia's western border". It is a problem for Putin only because he seeks to invade Europe; NATO stands in the way. > Your argument is that Russia wants to occupy territory just for the sake of expanding Russia, which is really not logical or reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable when you look at who holds power in Russia: the old revanchist KGB clan seeking to restore the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. This is the world they grew up in and were indoctrinated into in KGB schools. For them, it is a "normalcy" to which they must return. > My argument is that if Mexico or Canada joined a military pact with Russia, the US would invade those countries immediately. There is no need for guessing games when Cuba was actually in a military pact with the USSR until 1991 and hosted jets, bombers, missile cruisers and other conventional weapons for decades after the missile crisis. You can read about Soviet warships conducting missile drills off the coast of Florida in old newspapers. This is far more than anyone has done for countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War. And yet, the US did not invade Cuba. > Your argument is that any country can join a mutually defence pact without any consequences, as should be the case for Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly, in writing, pledged to respect the sovereignty of other European countries, including Ukraine, and their freedom to join military alliances. There's nothing to discuss - unless you want to turn Europe into a landscape of semi-sovereign nations ruled by Russia, which raises the question: why should Russia, in particular, be the European master race? Shouldn't the Franco-German alliance, with its much larger economy, bigger population, and numerous allies, instead dictate what Russia can and cannot do?

11mo ago