Nobody is saying the Americans are saints though. At this point you're trolling.
-
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.
Massive Russian military buildup near Ukraine
- Thread starter Forerunner
- Start date
- Status
Nobody is saying the Americans are saints though. At this point you're trolling.
What I said is I don't really have a problem with someone calling Russia a rogue state or whatever. But I guess you've got a bit heated because I've mentioned the US as well.
They were heated before you brought up the US. Basically from when you started defending Russia's actions.
I didn't defend Russian actions tho? Show me where I did that? I've never supported annexation of Crimea or the Civil War on the east Ukraine if you have receipts of the contrary, please bring them here. What I said is NATO's expansion to the East is historically considered to be a threat in Russia and no amount of saying "no it isn't" is going to change that. That's it.
This wasn't my interpretation of your post, either. It is still unclear to me why the expansion of a defensive treaty is an issue or contentious, however. Fearing a formal union would be understandable. A defensive agreement much less so. By which I mean not at all. Unless a roadblock to Russia's aggressive expansion is the threat.
How and why do you think NATO expands?
I'm Finnish. The talk about joining NATO has been increasing a lot lately due to Russia's aggression. NATO couldn't expand here unless Finnish people want it to. NATO can't come to us and say we're part of it. It's up to us to decide. Politicians can't really just decide to do it overnight either as joining requires a huge amount of support for it and any sudden decision about it would get butchered.
If Russia stopped its madness, the NATO talk would go away for the most part. The NATO talk has always been here (because Russia is what it is) but aggression like this always takes it to the next level.
I think its clear that Rosenkrants is more talking about NATO expansion in general wont stop now for a while regardless of what Russia does.
Which I can agree with,post Georgia and Ukraine, it is going to take a long time for eastern Europe (and Caucus and CIS) countries to start disliking USA involvement more than being afraid of being unsure that Russia will once again go in a "we own you" game. Even if Russia became a full democracy tomorrow, those countries have been burned with Putin enough not to trust any Russia "democratization" for a couple of decades at best.
Hell, even the 2000s "what should NATO do in a post-Russia world" question was coming more from western Europe, with Eastern Europe still looking for more integration into the western sphere (hence the rush to join the EU and euro in the baltics for instance) to make involvement of Russia into their internal politics harder.
These kind of long time "not good" history takes a while to heal, as can be seen in the balcans (and in how the EU was slowly made)
Which I can agree with,post Georgia and Ukraine, it is going to take a long time for eastern Europe (and Caucus and CIS) countries to start disliking USA involvement more than being afraid of being unsure that Russia will once again go in a "we own you" game. Even if Russia became a full democracy tomorrow, those countries have been burned with Putin enough not to trust any Russia "democratization" for a couple of decades at best.
Hell, even the 2000s "what should NATO do in a post-Russia world" question was coming more from western Europe, with Eastern Europe still looking for more integration into the western sphere (hence the rush to join the EU and euro in the baltics for instance) to make involvement of Russia into their internal politics harder.
These kind of long time "not good" history takes a while to heal, as can be seen in the balcans (and in how the EU was slowly made)
This is incorrect, and it's a mistake to accept it as fact when discussing this.
Russia is not entitled to maintain a "sphere of influence" in sovereign countries against their will. End of.
Look, I'm not saying that it's unwarranted in a current situation, at least being a part of NATO allows some semblance of security, I get that. But I think it's not that hard to understand why having a military bases of a historically antagonistic alliance might be considered as a threat in Russia itself. And just like with Eastern European states being afraid of Russia, Russian feelings towards NATO aren't going to change anytime soon either.
Pretty much.
Last edited:
Russia invaded its neighbour, didn't even use legitimate soldiers in uniform, and is currently occupying parts of it.
That is the threat. Wanting to join a defensive alliance is the response.
Putin is trying to curtail the sovereignty of former Soviet states and them not rolling over for him is not a provocation.
Again, Ukraine does what it considers to be the best for its interests. Is Putin's power play at fault here and created the situation, definitely. But it doesn't change how NATO's expansion viewed inside Russia. That's my point.
It would be easy to understand if the participating countries in question had a reason to harm or a history of harming Russia. As it stands, however, the theoretic threat is entirely contingent on the provocations of an aggressor. Somewhat comparable to our relationship with law enforcement, in that law enforcement is not applicable where there is an absence of action and bound to the borders of a sovereign state. States in this case.
If Russia turns Ukraine into one of those inconclusive, contested battlegrounds (like other territories they've "occupied" over the years), I can see them propping up the dormant nationalist movements in the Balkans and Eastern Europe in an attempt to further destabilise the region and fracture the EU.
People forget but there's a LOT of bad blood there between the nations in the Balkans (just think of the countries that were formerly in Yugoslavia) and Russia has been known to support fringe groups and nationalists. All while Hungary helps them in Brussels no less.
There needs to be a quick and decisive shutdown of Russia in this event (non-military ofc), and by that I mean freeze all their foreign assets and punish the oligarchs beyond their worst fears.
People forget but there's a LOT of bad blood there between the nations in the Balkans (just think of the countries that were formerly in Yugoslavia) and Russia has been known to support fringe groups and nationalists. All while Hungary helps them in Brussels no less.
There needs to be a quick and decisive shutdown of Russia in this event (non-military ofc), and by that I mean freeze all their foreign assets and punish the oligarchs beyond their worst fears.
What can I say, it's still viewed through the lense of Cold War in Russia and with the US being considered the de facto leader (even if it's not necessarily true in reality) of the alliance it will be a very long time before NATO isn't considered a threat.
I can see how messaging like this would be effective, true. Not especially rational but politics hardly ever is.
The EU would be a very powerful force with Russia in it, but Russia doesn't want to settle for membership when it thinks it should be out leading it's own alliances.
China has invaded USSR and Vietnam before, so, that wouldn't be a new development. That wouldn't be necessary tho, China has enough economic power to influence countries without the military getting involved. Taiwan is an exception, obviously.
There is zero defense or justification for what Russia is doing.
Straight up imperialism.
No, I don't think an invasion of Russia would be necessary or desirable. In a hypothetical Russian invasion of Ukraine, I think if NATO or whoever pushed Russia out, I think it would be enough of a reality check on the strongman persona to break them. It doesn't seem like the stablest of countries.
When it comes to NATO bases I think Cuba (and many other countries) were justified in seeking assistance from the USSR against US aggression just like Eastern European countries are justified in seeking assistance to counter Russian aggression. I also understand that Russia doesn't like it and will try to counter it even if the reasons for those countries wanting to join NATO are completely valid. Russia doesn't like it because Russia wants to exploit those countries just like the US wanted to exploit Cuba. What is wrong to me is saying that those countries shouldn't join NATO because it will piss Russia off. Or that NATO is somehow the aggressor in this scenario. Russia is upset because NATO will block them from re-asserting its control over states that do not want Russian control.
Edit: I should add again, major armchair general vibes in my posts.
Reading that agreement Russia wants again, it's actual insanity and clear to anyone with half a functioning brain that Russia knows damn well that the NATO states will throw this into the shredder immediately. Link for those who haven't seen the actual agreement Russia has written: https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en&clear_cache=Y
Article 4 is definitely most insane. Article 4 would mean that countries which were part of NATO as of 27 May 1997 can't deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any European country which was not a NATO member at the time, except for forces which were already deployed at that time. This basically means a full withdrawal of NATO forces from Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and any forces stationed in non-member states, such as military trainers in Ukraine. This article also gives Russia a veto over deployments in these countries when the security of any of these countries is threatened.
Article 6 basically puts an entire stop to NATO enlargement, but doesn't say anything about Russia enlarging CSTO (basically the Russian version of NATO which replaced the Warsaw Pact).
Article 7 similarly puts a stop to NATO military exercises in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. It doesn't say what states exactly except for Ukraine but it's probably a fair to assume that Russia is talking about countries which were part of the Warsaw Pact, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
Pure insanity, this reeks of something Russia knows damn well will be rejected by every single NATO member so in their eyes they can justify it "secure" their security through force, thus by invading countries such as Ukraine.
Article 4 is definitely most insane. Article 4 would mean that countries which were part of NATO as of 27 May 1997 can't deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any European country which was not a NATO member at the time, except for forces which were already deployed at that time. This basically means a full withdrawal of NATO forces from Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and any forces stationed in non-member states, such as military trainers in Ukraine. This article also gives Russia a veto over deployments in these countries when the security of any of these countries is threatened.
Article 6 basically puts an entire stop to NATO enlargement, but doesn't say anything about Russia enlarging CSTO (basically the Russian version of NATO which replaced the Warsaw Pact).
Article 7 similarly puts a stop to NATO military exercises in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. It doesn't say what states exactly except for Ukraine but it's probably a fair to assume that Russia is talking about countries which were part of the Warsaw Pact, Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
Pure insanity, this reeks of something Russia knows damn well will be rejected by every single NATO member so in their eyes they can justify it "secure" their security through force, thus by invading countries such as Ukraine.
Thanks for an explanation. I don't think Putin is going to attempt a full-scale invasion into Ukraine in any case, Russia is too economically weak and a possibility to stuck in a guerrila warfare in a massive country like Ukraine should be a reality check by itself. All of the manoeuvres are most likely a show to scare the West a bit, but it would be incredibly short-sighted to act in reality. Russia simply wouldn't be able to deal with an insurgency of that magnitude even if the invasion is somehow ends up being successful (which isn't a guarantee either).
Ironically Russia's fear about Sweden joining the alliance is largely due to its own actions in Europe.
Same goes for every other country which has joined and is looking to join.
If Russia turned into a post-ww2 Japan Government wise, NATO would still exist for decades due to the long memories of their neighbors. We are talking centuries here, not just USSR-era, of Russian Imperialism related to its neighbors. Even if Russia ceased to be a threat, I would imagine NATO would still be a formal alliance until the EU formalizes an EU army and redefines its security postures (which may still be NATO but just US/EU/Canada as formal partners).
From a geostrategic standpoint whoever follows Putin would have to be just as good as him to keep all the balls he's juggling , I don't see a good end to this, as more than likely he will be followed by some weakling. His 2 decades in power has ensured only his sycophants and pliant clients are left alive.
If they can get some kind of concessions here, they can use the threat of an invasion to get more later. It's blackmail.
It's to distract Russians from every thing that is wrong with the way Russia is run.
Hay era, not that I didn't know it before, but my country is run by fascists. What do?
Anyway, I still don't believe Putin is insane(ly stupid) enough to invade Ukraine.
And also since NATO will laugh at whatever demands Russia has for it, the Russian government will have a reason to say something like "NATO is the enemy; we actually want peace, but NATO wouldn't even agree with the most basic and simple demands we have".
Anyway, I still don't believe Putin is insane(ly stupid) enough to invade Ukraine.
Sort of. But also Putin is an attention seeking bitch.
And also since NATO will laugh at whatever demands Russia has for it, the Russian government will have a reason to say something like "NATO is the enemy; we actually want peace, but NATO wouldn't even agree with the most basic and simple demands we have".
Their country is being run into the ground by corrupt and immoral evil people. So they use nationalism and wars as a distraction.
Russia is basically the U.S. if the Fascist GOP take over.
User banned (2 weeks): trolling, prior similar bans
No cause that is literally America right now.
Don't need the GOP for that. Just needs....anything that is the American political system.
Ah yes, the America that just pulled out of Afghanistan and a President who has dramatically pulled back on foreign actions and *doesn't* want us going around spreading wars and conflict. Sounds exactly like Putin to me.
If you're gonna talk about America's sins at least be honest about them.
The war he supported going into.
Biden wrong to say he was against Afghanistan war from day 1
President Joe Biden has been criticized for how he handled the U.S. military exit from Afghanistan in August. But Biden
www.politifact.com
Also, congratulations, only 40 more to pull out of.
The 2001 AUMF: A Comprehensive Look at Where and How It Has Been Used | Costs of War
The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
watson.brown.edu
And THIS doesn't look like cutting fucking back on foreign actions to me.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/23/house-768-billion-defense-bill-514085
"Defence" budget.
Last edited:
I proved that nothing was being argued in good faith.
I don't recall Biden invading Mexico and using state media to tell the world that Mexico as a country has no right to exist. Unless I really missed some major news.
I don't think we should pull out of Somalia...
We're there at the government's request to fight Al-Shabaab.
Any Al-Shabaab stans in ResetEra? :/
We're there at the government's request to fight Al-Shabaab.
Any Al-Shabaab stans in ResetEra? :/
Tankies are kind of insane like that. Their world view begins with a conspiracy of anglo-saxon capitalists led by America so it excuses terrible behavior of everyone else and often lead them into cheering regimes like North Korea, China's CCP , Russia and any rando strongman that's spouting anti-American stuff regardless of their credentials and actual track record.
It leads them to defend Russia and cast NATO's actions as agressive and its expansion rapacious. Not that there was actual demand to join the defensive pacts because of Russia's own terrible history in the region.
Blows your mind that the world could be looking at another war in Europe if things spiraled out of control and still want to go off topic because of their blind hatred.
- Status