7 ms·

I'm really confused on what you are trying to make a point on. Your statement was NATO should have not allowed Ukraine membership based on the threats from Russ

I'm really confused on what you are trying to make a point on. Your statement was NATO should have not allowed Ukraine membership based on the threats from Russia of war. NATO did not allow Ukraine membership and even stated as much that Ukraine likely could never be a member. Russia got what they wanted. So what compromise was NATO not willing to make? It feels like you are trying mental gymnastics to give a pass to a country starting a war. Russia is to blame, full stop. Russia should have no say in how Ukraine wants to move forward or the alliances they want to make. Russia is free to voice their concerns or better yet, provide better assurances and protection to Ukraine than what NATO could offer. Instead, they invaded. No one is at fault for that other than Russia.

brabel 5y ago
> I'm really confused on what you are trying to make a point on. My point is simple: Ukraine should've done what Sweden is doing and strategically make sure its territory is safe while at the same time avoiding direct confrontation with other nations. Ukraine and NATO failed to do so and we're now seeing the result of their miscalculation. Of course Russia is to blame as well, as they're the ones that Ukraine was trying to defend against, I'm not claiming otherwise. Even though the NATO-Ukraine story goes back to 1992, let's look at the events leading up to the war: On 8 June 2017, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada passed a law making integration with NATO a foreign policy priority (https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/427216.html https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/427216.html). On 14 September 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Presidency_of_Volodymyr_Zelensky_(from_2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations... ). 09 Feb 2021 - Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed during Prime Minister Shmyhal's visit to Brussels that Ukraine is a candidate for NATO membership (https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/premyer-ministr-ta-gensek-nato-obgovorili-podalshi-kroki-na-shlyahu-yevroatlantichnoyi-integraciyi-ukrayini https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/premyer-ministr-ta-gensek-nato-o...) 24 March 2021 - Ukraine announces measures to take back Crimea from Russia (https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-enacts-strategy-for-deoccupation-and-reintegration-of-crimea.html https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-e...) 25 March 2021 - Russia starts military operations near Ukraine's border (which would lead to the war, almost one year later). It's also relevant to notice that the Euromaidan protests in early 2014 were sparked by the then Pro-Russian Governement in Ukraine decision to move away from NATO and the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan) under pressure from Russia... that Russia had strongly opposed NATO membership by Ukraine should be crystal clear. That the new Ukrainian Government's decision to antagonize Russia and pursue as strongly as possible membership of NATO should also be crystal clear... hence my point that Ukraine behaved irresponsibly with regards to avoid Russian agression, ironically, while trying to prevent exactly that.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > hence my point that Ukraine behaved irresponsibly with regards to avoid Russian agression Or in fewer words, your blaming of the victim. Don't act as if it wasn't entirely Russia's choice to invade, without any comparable provocation. It's not Ukraine's job to placate Russia. Avoiding Russian aggression is Russia's job. There is no guarantee that Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway even if Ukraine didn't pursue NATO membership. (The threat of this is why they wanted to join NATO in the first place.)
  - brabel 5y ago
    > Or in fewer words, your blaming of the victim. Well, yes. Who is to blame for the sanctions being applied on Russia now? Russia, the victim maybe? Can I blame the victim sometimes when their actions directly lead to a terrible outcome that's bad for everyone?
    - somethingwitty1 5y ago
      It is a strange equivalence you are trying to build here. But to answer you directly: the people responsible for the sanctions are the people that enforced them. Full stop. Just like Russia is responsible for attacking and committing war crimes. Full stop. Now, if you want to go down the more philosophical road, people tend to be more morally ok with not feeling for Russia (IE: not calling them a "victim") over the sanctions because the sanctions were in response to attacking a nation and committing war crimes (though, if you read, many are feeling for russian citizens as many oppose the actions of "their" government). The reason most people see Ukraine as a victim is because they were doing what a nation should be doing (trying to build alliances to protect themselves against hostile forces). And when most people look at those two situations, they can easily understand how they aren't the same thing. Signing a piece of paper != bombing a hospital. Your argument is trying to take away that there is meaning and nuances to actions. We could say, "Ukraine did A, so Russia did B in response after threatening to not do A" is the same as "Russia did B, and NATO did C in response after threatening to not do B". And thus if "Russia is 'to blame' in C, then it reasons that Ukraine is 'to blame' in B". That is effectively your stance boiled down. And you can live in that world and no one can take you out of it. But the reality of the world isn't that simple and I certainly don't want to live in one where we decide that victims of atrocities and unspeakable acts "are to blame" because they tried to find peaceful ways to protect themselves. You are also completely avoiding the reality of how it could have been avoidable. Russia has no reason, NONE, to do what they are doing. You try to paint Ukraine responsible because they could have just given in to the threats (which makes no sense, given the reality of the situation), but for some reason completely ignore that Russia could have much more easily just not threatened. They could have been an ally to Ukraine. Putin and company decided they were the more powerful party and wanted to swing it around. So no, Ukraine's actions did not "directly lead to a terrible outcome". Russia's actions did. So no matter how you want to do your math, you are fundamentally wrong for victim-blaming in this situation.

brabel 5y ago

> I'm really confused on what you are trying to make a point on. My point is simple: Ukraine should've done what Sweden is doing and strategically make sure its territory is safe while at the same time avoiding direct confrontation with other nations. Ukraine and NATO failed to do so and we're now seeing the result of their miscalculation. Of course Russia is to blame as well, as they're the ones that Ukraine was trying to defend against, I'm not claiming otherwise. Even though the NATO-Ukraine story goes back to 1992, let's look at the events leading up to the war: On 8 June 2017, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada passed a law making integration with NATO a foreign policy priority (https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/427216.html https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/427216.html). On 14 September 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Presidency_of_Volodymyr_Zelensky_(from_2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations... ). 09 Feb 2021 - Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed during Prime Minister Shmyhal's visit to Brussels that Ukraine is a candidate for NATO membership (https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/premyer-ministr-ta-gensek-nato-obgovorili-podalshi-kroki-na-shlyahu-yevroatlantichnoyi-integraciyi-ukrayini https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/premyer-ministr-ta-gensek-nato-o...) 24 March 2021 - Ukraine announces measures to take back Crimea from Russia (https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-enacts-strategy-for-deoccupation-and-reintegration-of-crimea.html https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3214479-zelensky-e...) 25 March 2021 - Russia starts military operations near Ukraine's border (which would lead to the war, almost one year later). It's also relevant to notice that the Euromaidan protests in early 2014 were sparked by the then Pro-Russian Governement in Ukraine decision to move away from NATO and the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan) under pressure from Russia... that Russia had strongly opposed NATO membership by Ukraine should be crystal clear. That the new Ukrainian Government's decision to antagonize Russia and pursue as strongly as possible membership of NATO should also be crystal clear... hence my point that Ukraine behaved irresponsibly with regards to avoid Russian agression, ironically, while trying to prevent exactly that.

nybble41 5y ago
> hence my point that Ukraine behaved irresponsibly with regards to avoid Russian agression Or in fewer words, your blaming of the victim. Don't act as if it wasn't entirely Russia's choice to invade, without any comparable provocation. It's not Ukraine's job to placate Russia. Avoiding Russian aggression is Russia's job. There is no guarantee that Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway even if Ukraine didn't pursue NATO membership. (The threat of this is why they wanted to join NATO in the first place.)
- brabel 5y ago
  > Or in fewer words, your blaming of the victim. Well, yes. Who is to blame for the sanctions being applied on Russia now? Russia, the victim maybe? Can I blame the victim sometimes when their actions directly lead to a terrible outcome that's bad for everyone?
  - somethingwitty1 5y ago
    It is a strange equivalence you are trying to build here. But to answer you directly: the people responsible for the sanctions are the people that enforced them. Full stop. Just like Russia is responsible for attacking and committing war crimes. Full stop. Now, if you want to go down the more philosophical road, people tend to be more morally ok with not feeling for Russia (IE: not calling them a "victim") over the sanctions because the sanctions were in response to attacking a nation and committing war crimes (though, if you read, many are feeling for russian citizens as many oppose the actions of "their" government). The reason most people see Ukraine as a victim is because they were doing what a nation should be doing (trying to build alliances to protect themselves against hostile forces). And when most people look at those two situations, they can easily understand how they aren't the same thing. Signing a piece of paper != bombing a hospital. Your argument is trying to take away that there is meaning and nuances to actions. We could say, "Ukraine did A, so Russia did B in response after threatening to not do A" is the same as "Russia did B, and NATO did C in response after threatening to not do B". And thus if "Russia is 'to blame' in C, then it reasons that Ukraine is 'to blame' in B". That is effectively your stance boiled down. And you can live in that world and no one can take you out of it. But the reality of the world isn't that simple and I certainly don't want to live in one where we decide that victims of atrocities and unspeakable acts "are to blame" because they tried to find peaceful ways to protect themselves. You are also completely avoiding the reality of how it could have been avoidable. Russia has no reason, NONE, to do what they are doing. You try to paint Ukraine responsible because they could have just given in to the threats (which makes no sense, given the reality of the situation), but for some reason completely ignore that Russia could have much more easily just not threatened. They could have been an ally to Ukraine. Putin and company decided they were the more powerful party and wanted to swing it around. So no, Ukraine's actions did not "directly lead to a terrible outcome". Russia's actions did. So no matter how you want to do your math, you are fundamentally wrong for victim-blaming in this situation.