I would argue the sharp shift to right wing authoritarianism with a heavy oligarchical component being in vogue shows they had a point on that one though, lol.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes 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
I would argue the sharp shift to right wing authoritarianism with a heavy oligarchical component being in vogue shows they had a point on that one though, lol.
No one is saying that.
I watched this and I think that's very interesting. I don't think it answers my question, though.
I'm not asking that. All I'm saying is that NATO has reasons to include countries and they are ideological and strategical. And there can be countries that can, eventually, feel threatened by that, without being the beligerant force Russia is today.
I don't really see the contradiction here. Bush was dishonest about his imperialism and Putin is being straightforward about his.
The point imo isn't "are Putin's motives worth discussing"? Why dictators do what they do is always worth discussing. It's that the poster in question presented Putin's rationale as a legitimate concern about "NATO expansion" to prove that the situation isn't black and white. But that framing implicitly elevates Putin's reasoning as a legitimate counterargument. It isn't; Putin having his own rationale about invading Ukraine doesn't make the situation more nuanced. Every dictator has reasons for why they behave the way they do, that doesn't make the situation automatically less black and white.
I can't believe that after putin basically goes on TV every day and says he doesn't see ukraine as a real country and is actively progressing and planning the extermination of ukrainian identity we still have people trying to rationalize it by somehow blaming countries for wanting protection by NATO.
Half of my family comes from lithuania, a country that probably wouldn't exist anymore right now if it weren't for NATO.
Half of my family comes from lithuania, a country that probably wouldn't exist anymore right now if it weren't for NATO.
Easier to argue against.
With your hypothetical, are you referring to this titbit from Article 2?
"[Members] will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them."
OP
OP
Because I don't know your overall stance I'm going to say this:
Bush lied because he had nothing and needed endorsement of congress and the nonsense coalition of the willing. We also know there was never WMDs because that's what in the intel always actually said. So we know his we need to go to Iraq because of WMDs is bullshit and not his real motivation
Bush is an elected official who wanted bipartisan support for an illegal war
Putin has no reason to lie when he says he doesn't recognize Ukraine has a sovereign nation and thus he's justified in invading because he's just bringing the illegally occupied territory back to Russia.
He doesn't need permission from fucking anyone he's an authoritian autocratic defacto dictator, if he wants war he's got a war
There's zero reason not to believe him when he says he doesn't believe Ukraine exists...
His lies, his WMDs is the nazi nonsense that he uses as state propaganda to keep his country on lock step.
No rational person should listen to him deny Ukraine's existence and think he's lying it's NATO.
I'm not saying you're saying the above but I'm completely lost at what you're criticizing
Last edited:
You said,
"So while NATO expands in democratic ways, that doesn't mean it can't be seen as hostile to other countries."
Okay, so neither of the countries are mentioned fit your weird hypothetical, but still, they might have other ideological reasons not to join. Still, I really doubt any of those see NATO as hostile. And thus, I'm asking, why would your hypothetical country do so? As long as it doesn't plan on invading any NATO country there's nothing that could be seen as hostile. You just disagree on some points, so what?
UN investigated and said no war crimes or violation of international law were committed by NATO, so???
I would hope that a country has ideological and strategic goals for entering into a mutual defense treaty with another sovereign nation. And the fact that a hypothetical future state can feel threatened by a defense treaty is their problem.
OP
OP
Point is he definitely shouldn't be invoking anything to do with NATO and Slobodan Milošević in context of direct comparisons to Russia and Ukraine
OP
OP
With all do respect is any of this relevant to Ukraine, Russia, NATO in Eastern Europe ?
Yeah, Masha offers some really intetesting insights. They're basically saying that the US/NATO's disregard for Russia and the UN during the Yugoslavian War taught Putin a lesson about geopolitics that informed his decades of expansionism/imperialism.
Basically, "if they can do it, so can I."
Just to be clear: I don't think they're blaming US/NATO for Ukraine, just pointing out the context.
It's been pretty fucking exhausting and makes it essentially impossible to have a conversation. I mostly tap out after being called a Putin sympathizer/Kremlin spy/brainwashed idiot for the nth time.
Coming from a country that posed no threat other than being a "beacon of socialism" and still was intervened, yeah, it can be seen as a threat.
I would hope it was a good faith agreement to prevent wars and not to prevent ideological and economic shifts.
Of course it isn't. It is relevant to a thread that treats every opposing view to NATO as Pro-Russia though.
OP
OP
So not my thread then
I accused Scahill of shifting focusing from Russia to NATO which is exactly what he did.... again this is his first statement since December and it's entirely NATO focused and gives credibility to Russia felt threatened by NATO in Eastern Europe
NATO was always bad but should especially not have existed after the fall of the Soviet Union. NATO started as an anti-Communist/anti-Socialist alliance with ex-Nazis as high ranking members. They worked with the CIA to do Operation Gladio, so I don't want to hear anything about "NaTo OnLy WaNtS tO pRoMoTe sElF dEtErMiNaTiOn", it's a protection racket. Yes, as if it needs to be said, Putin is a piece of shit and there's no justification for attacking Ukraine.
Wasn't there like informal talks around Russia joining NATO in the late 90s? This came up during Putin's speech but I've heard it before from western sources as well
I can dig up quotes and links later if you'd like but yes I've seen this sentiment repeatedly
OP
OP
That's an aspect of Western Exceptionalism... but Scahill is not bringing up Kosovo to counteract that.
He's bringing up Kosovo to accuse NATO of doing Russia's Ukraine invasion first and call them all hypocrites and run the idea that Russia has a valid reason to feel/actually feels threatened by NATO allies on their border as an explanation for why Ukraine got invaded... which is how the fault casually slips to man NATO really is significantly responsible.
Putin is lying through omission here. Technically the idea of Russia joining NATO was brought up to some extend but it was not a serious request in the way Putin is now trying to pretend it was and it was not as if Russia wasn't allowed to join for unfair reasons.
Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule
George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’
www.theguardian.com
Breaking Down the Complicated Relationship Between Russia and NATO
Russia repeatedly asked to join NATO back in the 1990s
OP
OP
Like immediately after?
No way to know what kind of Democracy it'd be... define after? Russia was never really a particular stable democracy, Putin basically has had defacto control since dec 31 1999, even when he was Prime Minister instead of President it was still his country... and now Russia basically is a performative democracy. There's been three presidents, Putin was the second and was chosen by the first, when term limits came in he switched to PM, the third President served a term and then said Putin should get a third term and now I believe the Russian constitution has been changed to extend Putin's term limits to the next decade
There's no real time Russia would have been viable by the criteria
Putin is lying through omission here. Technically the idea of Russia joining NATO was brought up to some extend but it was not a serious request in the way Putin is now trying to pretend it was and it was not as if Russia wasn't allowed to join for unfair reasons.
Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule
George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’
I thought NATO did invite countries to join? That's literally what Article 10 says.
If you ignore the entire history of Eastern Europe and all of the times they've been conquered by Russia (or Russia has looked to conquer them), and also ignore Russia's modern history of taking land and annexing parts of other nations, and steal a few of Trump's literal talking points then you are correct.
It's not a trump talking point to question the viability of nato. Trump's reasons for hating NATO are totally different than what the post's author is saying.
Nah there's plenty of posts that do that here. Your accusation has a base and I'm not against that, but it's not fair to treat everybody as a Russian propaganda shill, and that's where my initial post started.
I believe the disconnect is that Russia apparently wanted to be invited as in directly invited while skipping the process that other countries go through and without the scrutiny that some (all?) NATO members would want to exercise before agreeing to membership. Basically they wanted to be "invited to join NATO" rather than be "invited to apply to join NATO".
OP
OP
Fair I guess
I mostly read any of those comments as being said in the context of the current catastrophe and not you have to like NATO entirely or you love Russia
But I'm willing to be wrong
I mean sure but this is still not Russia asking its neighbors if they would be willing to be partners.
Putting any blame on NATO for "expanding East" totally ignore how much of a threat Russia is to its neighbors.
It also signals that it is tacitely ok for Russia to do whatever to them, be it invasion all the way up to annihilation.
Um, yeah? No one is forcing another country to shift their economy or ideology. But if you want NATO members to risk their lives defending you then they'd like you to share their common values.
Which?
Galaxy brain take.
Ah, okay. Yeah, all member states basically get a veto and can make any stipulations they want, so there was no way Russia were getting in. That's without even considering the Putin regime's history of human rights violations, oppression, state sanctioned assassinations, etc.
Poster goes a bit far, true, but equally let's not mistake NATO for a benign organisation. Its origins lie in containing Russia post-WW2 (and, indeed, a resurgent Germany, if you can imagine that).
Last edited:
OP
OP
Perhaps but I'm not sure how you reconcile it was valid for it to exist because of the USSR with the current events that largely suggest Putin wants to go back further and reform the Russian Empire
Like I guess that's forsight if you're trying to put yourself back in 1991
When people look to other explanations for the invasion of Iraq beyond taking anything Bush had to say at face value, they're doing it to further discredit and delegitimize that act of imperialism.
When people construct alternative narratives for Putin's invasion of Ukraine, they're usually doing the exact opposite: they're trying to shift part of the blame away from Putin, and endow his actions with a degree of rationality.
These are not the same thing.
Also, let's stop acting as if Putin's motivations and rationale could have anything to do with what is rational for Russia in a strictly geopolitical sense.
Time and again history has shown us that what is rational for an autocrat is often very far removed from what is rational for the country they purport to lead, in a strictly geopolitical sense.
Yeah, I get that. We're all on our toes with everything that's happening. But I wish we can stop assuming the worst from people at least here on ERA. For example, I think that discussions like these don't have a place in the Invasion thread. It's tone deaf, and it doesn't help anyone. If we are in a thread talking about journalists speaking about NATO, yeah I think we can discuss this without treating each others as shill for something.
Yeah I'm not entirely sure if it is about common values. Because if a country democratically decides to shift their economies I don't see how that should go against someone's values. But would go against NATO's values. It's problematic for very democratic principles that you condition your help to another one on mantaining certain economic goals.
I come from Chile. We were sabotaged by NATO's biggest member with the help from other allies. I can see how eventually a country that goes in a different direction from NATO in the region could get sweaty even if they don't represent a direct threat. Same way I can absolutely understand why a country that chooses similar paths to NATO members would much rather be a member than be constantly threatened by Russia.
Opposing the USSR's imperialism and brand of socialism was good, actually.
Yeah, maybe because Russia forcibly occupied every territory it gained during WWII and forcibly incorporated them all into the USSR. NATO and the U.S. are no angels, but "containing Russia post-WW2" wasn't some bullshit. Go ask the Hungarians or Czechs what happened if they tried to resist being a buffer zone for Mother Russia as a satellite state for the glorious USSR.
Also, as below, the U.S. is separate from NATO. We can trash the U.S. for its actions during the Cold War whilst acknowledging they were not the actions of NATO. It was not NATO that backed fascists in Guatemala to prop up the interests of a fruit corporation.
But that wasn't NATO. That was the U.S. You can criticize the U.S. all you want, but it is separate from NATO. Case in point, NATO did not join the U.S. in invading Iraq.
I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, you describe it as "a different direction," but I'd imagine if social media existed in 1973, there'd be a healthy amount of Hungarians who'd describe it as allying with a worldview that sent tanks into their country 17 years before.
Because it turns out, there are no clean political ideologies. That's not to wash NATO hands clean, but historically, everybody has been terrible. All you can look at is the actual actions people are taking, and determine whether that's good or bad, instead of trying to point out the flaws of organizations when nobody currently in the organization alive is responsible for any of those choices.
Sure, but who's NATO biggest and most important force? Can you see why the line about sharing ideological goals is important when you have members that go against democratic principles in other countries at will? Are those values really important or is it more about economic goals?
That's why I started by pointing out the distinction. Eastern European countries have evident, obvious and undeniable reasons to be in NATO. However the organization's main members have different reasons to accept those countries, and they are to keep Russia in check. Not because of it being a dictatorship, I think it's purely because of geopolitical hegemony.
You don't need to go to 1973, there's people right now that say those things. We do agree, sadly is just the reality that the world is much complicated than "my ideology = good / your ideology = bad", and that's why I point that fundamental flaw in NATO. And I believe similar reasons are behind so many people, and journalists and analysts, that *really* aren't pro Russia, not willing to let go NATO's reasons to bring more countries as an analysis point, despite knowing Putin uses it as propaganda.
To be fair, there was a large amount of NATO countries in Iraq in the MNF-I. They didn't officially join the US in invading Iraq as NATO, outside of the non-combat role they had, but the countries did join in the coalition.
I didn't say it was? I said NATO wasn't a benign organisation. The Cold War wasn't a defensive war; it was two awful modern day empires slugging it out and doing awful modern day empire shit. it never really ended.
I don't think I've conflated the two in that way?
No? No country is required to join NATO nor is NATO membership a necessary right to existence in the modern world. NATO is a mutual DEFENSIVE alliance. Why would another country literally risk the lives of their own citizens to accept another country into NATO that doesn't share their values about democracy and open markets? It makes no sense.
Yeah, you don't share our values. You don't believe in democracy. We actually kind of oppose everything you stand for, but sure you can join our defensive alliance. And yes, we will, if it comes to it, die to protect you. Also we will share military intelligence and tactics with you despite the aforementioned fact that we do not share common interests on a fundamental level.
Some of NATO is by de-facto, not NATO.
OP
OP
That's not actually to be fair because Canada didn't, France didn't, Germany didn't significant NATO countries
And a bunch of non NATO did.
The Coalition of the Willing cannot be compared to NATO
It's a bad argument for a criticism of NATO.
Heck being part of NATO actually doesn't even prevent your country from doing military operations without NATO.
France still went to Mali years after rejoining.
Heck France and Italy even managed to con America in going into Lybia for literally no gain.
Like you can even go against the interest of the USA directly and still be part of it!
Goes to show that even if you're deeply inbedded in NATO you can still decide to not go with American silly adventures when it's stupid to follow them.
France still went to Mali years after rejoining.
Heck France and Italy even managed to con America in going into Lybia for literally no gain.
Like you can even go against the interest of the USA directly and still be part of it!
As all countries should have even.
Goes to show that even if you're deeply inbedded in NATO you can still decide to not go with American silly adventures when it's stupid to follow them.
France wasn't NATO then.