5 ms·

Because we don't want Russia to get a foothold right at the backdoor of our NATO allies.

richrichie 2y ago
It appears the other way around. NATO has expanded, contravening the guarantee that led USSR to give up its rightfully owned territory in Germany and has been knocking on the doors of Russia. It is evidently a critical national security interest for Russia, given the track record of unilateral regime change operations by NATO that have left millions dead and millions more displaced.
- anon291 2y ago
  You are absolutely right about NATO, but wrong about Russia. At the end of the day American hegemony has essentially produced the most peaceful, prosperous period ever and America is pretty open to any country joining this hegemony as long as you play by its basic rules. This does not mean giving up your culture. American hegemony is able to allow such disparate economies and societies as Saudi Arabia and Norway to operate in fairly peaceful markets. At the end of the day, it is in the best interest of everyone to basically do what America says. Unlike previous regimes, America has not completely run roughshod over anyone other than people that were already doing extremely questionable things. And it doesn't matter because if your leaders kowtow enough to American demands, you can be pretty sure we will leave you alone. So basically, Russia is going to lose and will make a fool of themselves as they already have, and America will come out of this relatively unscathed. At the end of the day, America has no real competition. The Pax Americana is substantively different than Pax Brittanica and Pax Romana, in that Americas is worldwide and there is no country able to threaten America in any meaningful way. We are blessed to be surrounded by two very friendly countries that play well with us. Moreover all the countries that might threaten us are literally dying out.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    > allow such disparate economies and societies as Saudi Arabia and Norway to operate in fairly peaceful markets. While the US operates at an arms length from KSA with none of the usual theatrics about human rights violations, LGBTQ rights, etc, it has not adopted the same approach to China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, etc. It aggressively meddles in them in cultural and political spheres, not allowing such disparate actors to operate in the same peaceful markets. The recent animosity towards China is mind boggling. I remember Wolfowitz’s PNAC and full spectrum domination from 2001. The US seem to have lost plenty of its power projection since then. But for its vassal states, most countries do not seem to care about its sanctions on Russia. People don’t mind a just thug keeping peace and offering protection for a reasonable sum though. The US did that role well.
    - anon291 2y ago
      > It aggressively meddles in them in cultural and political spheres, not allowing such disparate actors to operate in the same peaceful markets. The recent animosity towards China is mind boggling. As I said... If the leaders of those countries simply kowtowed to american demands, you bet they would. In particula, China -- institute free market reforms; officially announce the truth, which is that they're not communist (they haven't been for years). Russia -- not have Putin Iran -- not have the Ayatollah Cuba -- not be communist At the end of the day it is very easy to acquiesce to American demands. You simply have to not try to undo a coup they did and then never ever ever say you're communist. You can go ahead and be a dictator, but America has decided communism bad, so just don't go there and you will be okay with the US. Then let the US operate military bases on your country's soil, and voila, you will be America's friend forever. Recall that Pakistan is still an ally of the United States despite harboring its most wanted terrorist. in other words, there are very clear paths for all these countries to not feel the full force of American sanctions. And this is what I mean by the US doesn't really care. Even with China, you can say all you want about it, but America's embrace of China has made it what it is today, despite the cold tensions.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    > American hegemony has essentially produced the most peaceful, prosperous period ever In US, yes. In the rest of the world, no.
    - anon291 2y ago
      Just flat out false. There's less international conflict today than ever, thanks to Pax Americana . Are there some rogue states that do not play well with American hegemony? Yes But these states can easily make good by simply following America's terms. There are few grudges being held. No one is going to kill all their men and enslave their women. American demands are not so gruesome. They're relatively mild and would likely improve the standard of living of everyone there. I don't make this claim vacuously. Broadly speaking, everywhere that has adopted American hegemony has done incredibly well for themselves and their populace. Rationally speaking, there's no reason not to.
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
  Russia has been invading it's neighbors for about 200 years before NATO existed. Not a serious argument. Sorry.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    Is Soviet Union and Russia the same? BTW, Ukraine and a bunch of other now sovereign Eastern European countries were part of the "invasive behavior" that you allude to. I hear Stalin was a Georgian. If you really did go back 200 years before NATO, you might be surprised to learn about the conflict ridden European history. The French were prolific invaders, for example. They still run colonies in far away places.
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      > Is Soviet Union and Russia the same Yes.
    - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
      > Is Soviet Union and Russia the same? Russia is controlled by people with the same worldview as the people who controlled the Soviet Union. So in a sense, yes. That worldview to be clear is "Russia is destined to be great, but the entire world is conspiring to bring it down". Stalin had been using the phrase "capitalist encirclement" since some point in the 20s. Nowadays it's "NATO encroachment". It's not an argument to be engaged in good faith by anyone who's paying attention. The "Soviet Union" was a tool invented by Stalin to bring under his control the people that he couldn't assimilate into Russia directly. Yes, they're the same thing.
      - richrichie 2y ago
        Stalin was a Georgian.
        lksjdflkjlvksj 2y ago
        What does that have to do with literally anything? Stalin was born in Georgia, hid his accent, had the state photographers airbrush his Georgian features (arched nose, chin, and brow) to look more Russian, personally ensured that Georgia was absorbed into Russia, and made Russian the only allowed language in Georgia. So what? What's your point? You're just trying to distract from the point that matters, which is that the people currently in power in Russia had exactly the same worldview as the people in power in the Soviet Union, which is that "Russia is destined to be great, but the rest of the world is conspiring to bring it down". This applies to Putin, Stalin, and anyone who has any power in Russia. "but but but stalin was georgian". Fucking ignoramus.
- ericb 2y ago
  Nonsense. Don't invade your friendly neighbors, and peace is simple. Ukraine gave up their nukes and signed the Budapest memorandum with Russia. Russia turned around and invaded Ukraine. So, sob stories about torn up security "agreements" with Russia are just crocodile tears. Nato doesn't "expand." Countries join it for protection from predatory nations like Russia. Russia is NATO's greatest salesperson. Seriously.
  - richrichie 2y ago
    > friendly neighbor > Ukraine gave up their nukes and signed the Budapest memorandum with Russia For a moment, let's take your highly simplistic statement at face value. USSR gave up East Germany and voluntarily dissolved itself on the agreement that NATO won't expand east of Germany and Russia will be "admitted" into the West. What do we do about that now?
    - TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
      > agreement that NATO won't expand east of Germany What agreement? Even Gorbachev (last leader of USSR) confirmed that there was no such agreement. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e... And it did not voluntarily dissolved itself, it fell apart. Like when your plate voluntarily dissolves itself when you drop it on the floor.
      - richrichie 2y ago
        [flagged]
        mopsi 2y ago
        > It is pretty well established now that this was indeed the case. It is not. The title of your linked article is "What Gorbachev heard" - why speculate instead of asking him? Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Yazov and other top USSR officials have all said that there was no such thing. Gorbachev even went on to explain why it couldn't have been even in theory: democratically elected leaders can't give any promises beyond their term limits. Shevardnadze, the foreign minister of USSR at the time, gave a lengthy interview[1] where he described how the soundbites you quote were related to German reunification and have been taken out of context. His successor Kozyrev, the first foreign minister of the Russian Federation, has been even more direct and called people who keep pushing this narrative idiots. In 1990, nobody in USSR's leadership expected the USSR and Warsaw Pact to collapse in such a short time, let alone negotiate how Europe would look like afterwards. It simply does not fit the timeline nor the way diplomacy is conducted. It's a textbook example of a hoax. Beyond that, whatever happened in 1990 was superseded by a written treaty between NATO and Russia in 1997, before anyone from Eastern Europe was admitted, in which Russia reiterates the "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security".[2] Back then, Russia was still receiving food aid from the US, and was in no position to make any demands. The rewritten version of history that has that fictional promise at its core was invented in mid-2000s. [1] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-eduard-shevardnadze-we-couldn-t-believe-that-the-warsaw-pact-could-be-dissolved-a-663595.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e... [2] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  You do know NATO is a defence alliance, right?
  - thiagoharry 2y ago
    You do know that this "defence alliance" already attacked 2 countries, which were not attacking any NATO member, right? And even if the alliance really were just defensive, you realize that this means that all it takes to use it against someone is a successful false flag attack?
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      Yes they were defending someone. > successful false flag attack Classic Russian. “AKSHUALLY IT’S PROVOKASHION”
  - richrichie 2y ago
    All i know is that they bombed Serbia, which did not wage war on any NATO country, for 78 consecutive days and more recently, destroyed Syria and Libya, which again did not invade any of the NATO countries. Also it seems that NATO rebuffed Russia's attempt to join it. With Russia in NATO would have been the strongest defense alliance. I wonder why they wanted to keep Russians as perpetual enemies!

It appears the other way around. NATO has expanded, contravening the guarantee that led USSR to give up its rightfully owned territory in Germany and has been knocking on the doors of Russia. It is evidently a critical national security interest for Russia, given the track record of unilateral regime change operations by NATO that have left millions dead and millions more displaced.

anon291 2y ago
You are absolutely right about NATO, but wrong about Russia. At the end of the day American hegemony has essentially produced the most peaceful, prosperous period ever and America is pretty open to any country joining this hegemony as long as you play by its basic rules. This does not mean giving up your culture. American hegemony is able to allow such disparate economies and societies as Saudi Arabia and Norway to operate in fairly peaceful markets. At the end of the day, it is in the best interest of everyone to basically do what America says. Unlike previous regimes, America has not completely run roughshod over anyone other than people that were already doing extremely questionable things. And it doesn't matter because if your leaders kowtow enough to American demands, you can be pretty sure we will leave you alone. So basically, Russia is going to lose and will make a fool of themselves as they already have, and America will come out of this relatively unscathed. At the end of the day, America has no real competition. The Pax Americana is substantively different than Pax Brittanica and Pax Romana, in that Americas is worldwide and there is no country able to threaten America in any meaningful way. We are blessed to be surrounded by two very friendly countries that play well with us. Moreover all the countries that might threaten us are literally dying out.
- richrichie 2y ago
  > allow such disparate economies and societies as Saudi Arabia and Norway to operate in fairly peaceful markets. While the US operates at an arms length from KSA with none of the usual theatrics about human rights violations, LGBTQ rights, etc, it has not adopted the same approach to China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, etc. It aggressively meddles in them in cultural and political spheres, not allowing such disparate actors to operate in the same peaceful markets. The recent animosity towards China is mind boggling. I remember Wolfowitz’s PNAC and full spectrum domination from 2001. The US seem to have lost plenty of its power projection since then. But for its vassal states, most countries do not seem to care about its sanctions on Russia. People don’t mind a just thug keeping peace and offering protection for a reasonable sum though. The US did that role well.
  - anon291 2y ago
    > It aggressively meddles in them in cultural and political spheres, not allowing such disparate actors to operate in the same peaceful markets. The recent animosity towards China is mind boggling. As I said... If the leaders of those countries simply kowtowed to american demands, you bet they would. In particula, China -- institute free market reforms; officially announce the truth, which is that they're not communist (they haven't been for years). Russia -- not have Putin Iran -- not have the Ayatollah Cuba -- not be communist At the end of the day it is very easy to acquiesce to American demands. You simply have to not try to undo a coup they did and then never ever ever say you're communist. You can go ahead and be a dictator, but America has decided communism bad, so just don't go there and you will be okay with the US. Then let the US operate military bases on your country's soil, and voila, you will be America's friend forever. Recall that Pakistan is still an ally of the United States despite harboring its most wanted terrorist. in other words, there are very clear paths for all these countries to not feel the full force of American sanctions. And this is what I mean by the US doesn't really care. Even with China, you can say all you want about it, but America's embrace of China has made it what it is today, despite the cold tensions.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > American hegemony has essentially produced the most peaceful, prosperous period ever In US, yes. In the rest of the world, no.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Just flat out false. There's less international conflict today than ever, thanks to Pax Americana . Are there some rogue states that do not play well with American hegemony? Yes But these states can easily make good by simply following America's terms. There are few grudges being held. No one is going to kill all their men and enslave their women. American demands are not so gruesome. They're relatively mild and would likely improve the standard of living of everyone there. I don't make this claim vacuously. Broadly speaking, everywhere that has adopted American hegemony has done incredibly well for themselves and their populace. Rationally speaking, there's no reason not to.
bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
Russia has been invading it's neighbors for about 200 years before NATO existed. Not a serious argument. Sorry.
- richrichie 2y ago
  Is Soviet Union and Russia the same? BTW, Ukraine and a bunch of other now sovereign Eastern European countries were part of the "invasive behavior" that you allude to. I hear Stalin was a Georgian. If you really did go back 200 years before NATO, you might be surprised to learn about the conflict ridden European history. The French were prolific invaders, for example. They still run colonies in far away places.
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    > Is Soviet Union and Russia the same Yes.
  - bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
    > Is Soviet Union and Russia the same? Russia is controlled by people with the same worldview as the people who controlled the Soviet Union. So in a sense, yes. That worldview to be clear is "Russia is destined to be great, but the entire world is conspiring to bring it down". Stalin had been using the phrase "capitalist encirclement" since some point in the 20s. Nowadays it's "NATO encroachment". It's not an argument to be engaged in good faith by anyone who's paying attention. The "Soviet Union" was a tool invented by Stalin to bring under his control the people that he couldn't assimilate into Russia directly. Yes, they're the same thing.
    - richrichie 2y ago
      Stalin was a Georgian.
      - lksjdflkjlvksj 2y ago
        What does that have to do with literally anything? Stalin was born in Georgia, hid his accent, had the state photographers airbrush his Georgian features (arched nose, chin, and brow) to look more Russian, personally ensured that Georgia was absorbed into Russia, and made Russian the only allowed language in Georgia. So what? What's your point? You're just trying to distract from the point that matters, which is that the people currently in power in Russia had exactly the same worldview as the people in power in the Soviet Union, which is that "Russia is destined to be great, but the rest of the world is conspiring to bring it down". This applies to Putin, Stalin, and anyone who has any power in Russia. "but but but stalin was georgian". Fucking ignoramus.
ericb 2y ago
Nonsense. Don't invade your friendly neighbors, and peace is simple. Ukraine gave up their nukes and signed the Budapest memorandum with Russia. Russia turned around and invaded Ukraine. So, sob stories about torn up security "agreements" with Russia are just crocodile tears. Nato doesn't "expand." Countries join it for protection from predatory nations like Russia. Russia is NATO's greatest salesperson. Seriously.
- richrichie 2y ago
  > friendly neighbor > Ukraine gave up their nukes and signed the Budapest memorandum with Russia For a moment, let's take your highly simplistic statement at face value. USSR gave up East Germany and voluntarily dissolved itself on the agreement that NATO won't expand east of Germany and Russia will be "admitted" into the West. What do we do about that now?
  - TheLoafOfBread 2y ago
    > agreement that NATO won't expand east of Germany What agreement? Even Gorbachev (last leader of USSR) confirmed that there was no such agreement. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e... And it did not voluntarily dissolved itself, it fell apart. Like when your plate voluntarily dissolves itself when you drop it on the floor.
    - richrichie 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - mopsi 2y ago
        > It is pretty well established now that this was indeed the case. It is not. The title of your linked article is "What Gorbachev heard" - why speculate instead of asking him? Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, Yazov and other top USSR officials have all said that there was no such thing. Gorbachev even went on to explain why it couldn't have been even in theory: democratically elected leaders can't give any promises beyond their term limits. Shevardnadze, the foreign minister of USSR at the time, gave a lengthy interview[1] where he described how the soundbites you quote were related to German reunification and have been taken out of context. His successor Kozyrev, the first foreign minister of the Russian Federation, has been even more direct and called people who keep pushing this narrative idiots. In 1990, nobody in USSR's leadership expected the USSR and Warsaw Pact to collapse in such a short time, let alone negotiate how Europe would look like afterwards. It simply does not fit the timeline nor the way diplomacy is conducted. It's a textbook example of a hoax. Beyond that, whatever happened in 1990 was superseded by a written treaty between NATO and Russia in 1997, before anyone from Eastern Europe was admitted, in which Russia reiterates the "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security".[2] Back then, Russia was still receiving food aid from the US, and was in no position to make any demands. The rewritten version of history that has that fictional promise at its core was invented in mid-2000s. [1] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-eduard-shevardnadze-we-couldn-t-believe-that-the-warsaw-pact-could-be-dissolved-a-663595.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e... [2] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm
dzhiurgis 2y ago
You do know NATO is a defence alliance, right?
- thiagoharry 2y ago
  You do know that this "defence alliance" already attacked 2 countries, which were not attacking any NATO member, right? And even if the alliance really were just defensive, you realize that this means that all it takes to use it against someone is a successful false flag attack?
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    Yes they were defending someone. > successful false flag attack Classic Russian. “AKSHUALLY IT’S PROVOKASHION”
- richrichie 2y ago
  All i know is that they bombed Serbia, which did not wage war on any NATO country, for 78 consecutive days and more recently, destroyed Syria and Libya, which again did not invade any of the NATO countries. Also it seems that NATO rebuffed Russia's attempt to join it. With Russia in NATO would have been the strongest defense alliance. I wonder why they wanted to keep Russians as perpetual enemies!