NATO isn't "expanding" on its own.
Countries are requesting to become NATO members, for what reason one can only guess.
Do you think sovereign countries shouldn't be able to decide their own fate?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
It's Not Just Mainstream Press that is Broken: Co-founder of The Intercept Decides to Dabble in Genocide Denialism to Shift Focus From Russia to NATO
- Thread starter excelsiorlef
- Start date
Countries are requesting to become NATO members, for what reason one can only guess.
Do you think sovereign countries shouldn't be able to decide their own fate?
So you admit to your own ignorance of NATO history but somehow agree with a random tweet calling out such history you know nothing about?
Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored | Ted Galen Carpenter
It has long been clear that Nato expansion would lead to tragedy. We are now paying the price for the US’s arrogancewww.theguardian.com
Madeline Albright sure was a tankie.
It's okay to critcize NATO and it's past actions. That doesn't mean you support Putin or his actions.
This is stupid. NATO doesn't "expand" unilaterally. Think for one goddamn second why former Soviet states would seek to join NATO after the collapse of the USSR. And then think for two fucking seconds why Russia would be upset at such an action which would lead to them no longer being able to forcibly influence countries they invaded during WWII and then continued to forcibly occupy afterwards.
Or do you think former Soviet satellite states were part of the USSR willingly?
I don't think talking about NATO's mistakes are going to distract from anything.
People have been talking about these things. It hasn't garnered as much mainstream interest as this because there's hardly been anything in the news to talk around. The West's propaganda machine is pretty strong too.
Russia has no god-given right to a sphere of influence. It is imperialistic to suggest otherwise. Those countries joined NATO because they had a decades if not centuries long history of being oppressed and subjected by Russia. Russia does not get to play the victim in that scenario.
Soooo many supposed leftists like to think of themselves as anti-imperialists, yet think it's perfectly reasonable for Russia to have an expectation of a sphere of influence, that Eastern European countries and the Baltics should simply be relegated to Russian vassal states, with no respect to the right of self-determination of the people who live in those countries.
Moral arguments against US imperialism all day long, and then flip on the realpolitik switch to defend and provide "nuance" or "context" to Russian and Chinese imperialism. It's fucking ridiculous, and indeed imperialistic.
Intercept pushes white supremacism and imperialism? Do you have any examples? Compared to other outlets I can't think of a less imperialist outlet.
Ok that is definitely bad.
Please explain to me what NATO's bombing of civilian targets in the 90s has to do with Russia's invasion.
I can certainly look at sovereign democratic former USSR countries admitted to NATO and come away with the impression that Putin views it as a threat to his autocracy and his plans for USSR reunification.
If you see what's going on in Ukraine in regards to the peoples will to fight for their own agency and democracy it's pretty obvious how much of a risk it is to his plans and why he pushes the narrative that it's a threat.
I'm not saying that Russia is doing this solely because of the bombing. But I still think it's relevant history when we talk about this conflict. I'm seeing coverage and politicians speaking about this war like it's the first horrific and deadly conflict event in Europe since WW2; it just seems really short-sighted and propagandistic to frame it in those terms when it's not really the case.
Masha Geesen - who is vehemently anti-Putin but seemingly well versed in his thinking - suggests that NATOs involvement in the Yugoslavian War kind of paved the way for Russia to just do whatever they feel like.
Masha briefly talks about it from around 1:24 here:
You are. That's what the lot of you are doing. You don't directly defend or support what Russia is doing in Ukraine, but you do try to rationalize their actions and then think you can weasel out of the stance you've taken using words like "context" and "nuance."
You essentially said that it is reasonable for Russia to feel "threatened" by Eastern European countries and the Baltic states joining NATO. No, it's not fucking reasonable--not unless you subscribe to the view that any people's right to self-determination is superseded by their neighbors' desire for a sphere of influence, vassal states, or a buffer zone. I.e., if you're an imperialist.
I think there is an important distinction to be made.
There are the eastern european countries willing to join because of protection. Which is understandable, they have more than enough reasons to do so.
There is also the fact that NATO has to accept those countries, which is risky and implies costs for the countries that are already a member. Which begs the question, why member countries would accept eastern european countries? I don't think we are naive enough to think that it's because these states are good guys and want to protect asking countries out of good will. Here's where we need to consider NATO's main goals, historically speaking its very foundation was to check the USSR and preventing them from invading Europe. They also require countries to hold a market economy and a liberal democracy, which means that NATO also has ideological goals to promote in exchange for this mutual defense protection.
So while NATO expands in democratic ways, that doesn't mean it can't be seen as hostile to other countries.
And yes, this doesn't mean that this is the reason Putin is invading, nor justifies it, etc. Not everyone talking about this is shilling Russian propaganda either, here in Latam I've sen plenty of international analysts well outside those propaganda influences talking about this, and about the US' hypocrisy, and also the racial hypocrisy we've seen (how the world seem to care about the war because it's european, how we could be stopping attrocities elsewhere but we aren't, etc.). All of this are repeated talking points, that, while are almost never meaning that these very people support Putin's action, render US' and Europe's statements untrust-worthy.
Russia has nukes. They are in no danger of invasion. This line of logic doesn't hold, no matter how much the Russian government wants to fearmonger to it's own citizens about it.
This is a defense of Putin and Russia:
"NATO expanding closer to Russian borders", like it's a western aggressor absorbing these other countries against their will and encroaching on Russia's right to cultivate a series of satellite states in Eastern Europe. You can say you don't defend Putin, but this language is rooted in Russian talking points pure and simple. NATO isn't "expanding", countries are joining NATO because, unsurprisingly, they don't want to be annexed into Putin's Neo-USSR.
It is not as nuanced as you want it to be. Democratic European states are making a determination to join NATO for, among other reasons, security from Russia, a country that has invaded its neighbors three times in the past 15 years. Maybe these countries would be less interested in NATO membership if Russia was less hostile toward their self-determination. Right now you've got Sweden and Finland reversing years-long positions on NATO membership and looking to join precisely because of how Russia carries itself against non-NATO European countries. If Finland wants to join NATO (something that Russia has said would increase tensions) because they don't want to be invaded like Ukraine, is it Finland's fault for wanting that security? Is it NATO's for offering it? Or is Russia's for threatening them over it? Idk, it feels pretty clear cut to me!
I mean, the only countries NATO seems hostile to are the ones currently being run by an oligarchal, reactionary dictatorship. If Russia was ran like a normal country, even with a right-wing leader (since Orban is fine in NATO) holding even somewhat reasonable democratic elections, while not openly talking about wanting to reclaim the territory of the former Russian Empire/USSR, there'd be no issue.
So yes, in this case, I'm fine saying the hostility is entirely Russian leadership's fault for having shitty opinions, and that Russia shouldn't have veto power over the foreign policy of any former satellite country.
That's not a defense. That's explaining Putin's reasoning as supported by many politicians and other experts in the article I posted earlier.
But hey. I'm a tankie and didn't even know it!
I don't think invasion is the only - or even 'the' - threat as Putin sees it. It's more economic and political; that whole sphere of influence deal.
Of course, it's a fair point.
I think that if Russia was an actual democracy, but as a superpower still opposes or would challenge the rest of Europe's or US' hegemony, it would still be an antagonistic force to NATO. It just wouldn't be like we are looking at today. Russia would try to keep an influence through peaceful means instead of a freakin invasion.
Turns out I was too charitable and Scahill has a history
OP
OP
Anyway should have looked it up
He's outright argued there was no genocide
Other places he sort of acknowledged that there was Genocide in Bosnia but then states that there was no reason to believe Slobodan Milošević was of any threat to commit genocide in Kosovo
www.counterpunch.org
Also he describes Serbs killing Albanians as murder and the reverse as ethnic cleansing
Sorry folks I might have been too charitable to him.
He's outright argued there was no genocide
Other places he sort of acknowledged that there was Genocide in Bosnia but then states that there was no reason to believe Slobodan Milošević was of any threat to commit genocide in Kosovo
The Real Story Behind Kosovo's Independence
Lessons in the Bi-Partisanship of Empire The Real Story Behind Kosovo's Independence
www.counterpunch.org
Also he describes Serbs killing Albanians as murder and the reverse as ethnic cleansing
Sorry folks I might have been too charitable to him.
Swear to God you'd think every single leftist is a Putin whisperer, given how often they confidently proclaim to know what Putin's reasoning is, what Putin really wants, or what Putin will or will not do—even when it contradicts the very words coming out of his mouth. It's ridiculous.
It's really strange to think that talking about an imperialist nation's reason for engaging in imperialist actions means you support said action. If I started telling you why the Bush admin invaded Iraq and Afghanistan does that mean I support those wars?
It's not a defense of Putin, it's just an explication of Putin's rationale to prove the situation isn't black and white!!
What if, though, it is black and white and Putin's border security for invading neighboring countries is not a legitimate counterargument against NATO extending membership to countries who fear suffering the same fate as Ukraine?
If you explained the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq and presented the WMD story as evidence of the situation being more nuanced, then yeah, I'd say you were lending credibility to the admin's bogus story!
To put another way, if someone wrote, "And you don't think Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction to be sold to terror groups like al-Qaeda wouldn't seem like a threat to the Bush administration? It's not as black and white as you think" would you not interpret that as at least a partial endorsement of -- or lending credence toward -- the Bush administration's proposal for war in Iraq?
Last edited:
Why is this bad?
The fact that another country views free democracies and open markets as "hostility" is not an issue worth considering.
Why does Putin need you or anyone else to explain the reasoning behind why Russia did what it did when Putin himself already laid out his reasoning to excruciating detail in his deranged, drivel-filled monologue?
Which just reinforces that the 'threat' as Putin sees it is a threat to himself and his autocracy. Anyone who doesn't believe Putin to be the legitimately elected leader of his country would dismiss this as the machinations of a tyrant because that's what they are.
We don't need to hear another person explain Putin's "justification." Putin has done that himself. And it's all bogus.
Putin: We need to de-Nazify Ukraine and prevent the aggressive expansion of NATO.
Dumbass Political Theorists: You see Putin actually has rationale to invade because in actuality Ukraine moving closer to the West weakens his autocratic grip and influence in Eastern Europe and those former Soviet Satellite States. Putin yearns to re-establish the old borders and influence Russia commanded during the Cold War and the choice of democratic Baltic states to join NATO thwarts these ambitions. So really, he had no choice but to invade or see his influence over Eastern Europe severely weakened for the unforeseen future.
OP
OP
I don't believe that's why he's trying to annex Ukraine because he's told us why and it's not NATO is on Poland and Latvia
This isn't "NATO Expanding closer and closer to Russia," it is smaller countries around Russia aggressively pursuing NATO membership because they realize that their best opportunity to maintain independence is if they are NATO members, that Russia generally won't invade, annex, and overthrow countries that are members of NATO ... As happened with Georgia, Ukraine in 2014.
Ukraine was not being fast tracked into NATO, the projections were some 20-25 years perhaps Ukraine could join NATO or the EU.
Also, we shouldn't make any doubt, if the Baltic states didn't join NATO in the late 90s following genocide and civil war, if Poland didn't join NATO in the 90s, today's war wouldn't just be in Ukraine, it'd be in Montenegro, it'd be in the Baltics, it'd be in Poland, and eventually it'd be in East Germany. Putin is selling this anti-historical revanchism and it's not a response to NATO, it's a response to his domestic paranoia. Putin is not afraid of NATO launching some military offensive unprovoked into Russia overthrowing him, he's afraid that neighboring countries can elect liberal reformists who turn towards the West, like Zelensky, instead of pro-Russian puppets like Lukashenko. Since 2012, Putin has been most afraid of Russians, not Ukranians, Georgians, South Ossetians, Macedonians, the United States, Europe, or NATO.
It is if your democratically elected government wishes to make changes to their economies. NATO holding "free democracy" (or, liberal democracy that is) and market economy is ideologically conditioning who can be invited to the party.
So, imagine, you could have a Socialist Democracy that poses no threat to other nations, but they couldn't be allied with NATO and be part of the mutual defense because it goes against their ideological goals.
OP
OP
Fuck it furthermore without NATO allied Poland and more Ukrainians would have no means of escaping Ukraine, no means of aid delivery.
Ukraine would be even more isolated than they are now.
Ukraine would be even more isolated than they are now.
Perhaps Putin mentioned NATO one too few times and blamed Lenin one too many times, so an alternative narrative had be constructed to better fit their priors of what actually motivates Putin to act the way he does.
At the end of the day, Russia's actual issue is they have nothing to offer their former satellite statesin Eastern Europe, so the only way they can keep them in their orbit is through force, or by supporting reactionary dictatorships (hello, Belarus).
First, let me quote my edit below.
Second,
This is pure stupidity. For one, Russia isn't a socialist democracy. It is an ultra-capitalist oligarchy. Second, which country in Europe right now is a fully socialist democracy? Because "market economy" does not mean having no socialist elements, otherwise no nation in NATO would be a member.
It's funny how these 2 responses are completely opposed to one another. Yeah, Bush's rationale was bullshit, but he DID have motives beyond the ones he stated and they are worth discussing. Just like Putin has motives beyond his own proclaimed reasoning.
One of you is like "You shouldn't believe Bush is being honest when he says why he's doing an imperialism!" The other is like "You should believe Putin is being honest when he says why he's doing an imperialism!"
Last edited:
Sure, it doesn't apply to Russia.
You asked why it would be a bad thing. It would be a bad thing to a country that makes a deep transformation like that. I didn't say this was Russia's case.
Y'all really need to stop assuming everyone willing to discuss NATO is pro-Russia in any form.
OP
OP
In Eastern Europe, this would be Russia's fault if the only reason they're willing to completely overhaul the government ideology is ensure Russia doesn't invade.
I make no pretend that NATO is some humanitarian group of benevolent nations.
I just also don't entertain any notion that robs Eastern European countries of their agency to seek protection from Russia through NATO membership
My only concern in Eastern Europe is why those countries want to join and it isn't because Russia is being forced to be violent because they want to join NATO
Considering some of the most socialist countries in the world are part of NATO this seems like a weird theoretical to float.
NATO is not a mandatory requirement for living in Europe. You're doing some extreme hypothetical where a super socialist state were to emerge, democratically. But then also seeks to want to join NATO, democratically. But then this might be bad because they would be "forced" to democratically change their economy to join NATO. And this is really bad and also Russia doesn't like this despite being an ultra capitalist society?
What are you on?
Which are points I consider fair and true. EE's countries have a lot of reasons to join.
Social democracies aren't really Socialist though, which is why I'm talking in hypotetical terms
Okay, so you can't be part of NATO then if we're to entertain this weird, extremely constructed made-up example of a state that doesn't exist.
So what? Finland isn't, neither is Sweden, Austria or Switzerland. Do you think any of these countries feel "threatened" by NATO?
Not even an extreme super socialist state, I'm talking about why it is bad that a mutual defense pact holds ideological requirements. Which is the question you asked.
Again, I'm not talking about Russia here. I suggest you read my posts well and strip pre-conceptions from them.
Anyway should have looked it up
He's outright argued there was no genocide
Other places he sort of acknowledged that there was Genocide in Bosnia but then states that there was no reason to believe Slobodan Milošević was of any threat to commit genocide in Kosovo
The Real Story Behind Kosovo's Independence
Lessons in the Bi-Partisanship of Empire The Real Story Behind Kosovo's Independence
Also he describes Serbs killing Albanians as murder and the reverse as ethnic cleansing
Sorry folks I might have been too charitable to him.
The first clip seems pretty bad from democracy now, he should definitely explain his position. I'm having trouble following the point in the tweets Scahil believed Milosevic is a genocider but the U.S was funding wahabism and wanted him dead cause he would expose them for war crimes,? Either way something to be worried about and question him for.
I haven't said those countries are threatened by NATO.
Why does everybode assume stuff no one is saying?
Because countries are free to agree on the requirements of their own collective defense agreement? You're basically asking why it is good a bunch of countries got together to agree to defend themselves so long as they share the same values. Which, I don't know, seems pretty obvious.
What I got from this tweet was that the US and other Nato nations must also be held accountable and follow the rules of international law. What Russia is doing is inexcusable and isn't something that should be ignored, but other nations must be held accountable as well such as Israel towards the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen, etc. I say he's advocating for the accountability of all nations. Russia's condemnation by the world should set a precedent for how the world should behave towards nations committing war crimes, genocide, etc.