I mean, I don't believe my country acts out of some high morale ground and good intentions, that's reserved for Americans.
Nobody is saying the Americans are saints though. At this point you're trolling.
I mean, I don't believe my country acts out of some high morale ground and good intentions, that's reserved for Americans.
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.lol, so we're at the random whataboutism phase of your argument. Got it.
They were heated before you brought up the US. Basically from when you started defending Russia's actions.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.
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.They were heated before you brought up the US. Basically from when you started defending Russia's actions.
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.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.
How and why do you think NATO expands?
And no, NATO won't stop expanding even if Russia turns completely democratic at some point.
Nobody likes a hostile force in their sphere of interest and this close to the borders.
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.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.
Pretty much.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.It would be easy to understand if the participating countries in question had a reason to or a history of harming Russia.
I can see how messaging like this would be effective, true. Not especially rational but politics hardly ever is.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.
If Russia became completely democratic and stopped using force and intimidation to get what it wanted then maybe they could even join the EU one day and eventually eliminate the need for NATO to exist at all. That's a better dream to believe in than trying to undermine NATO by dividing its members and interfering in elections.
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.I guess this means China also gets to just invade it's neighbors too?
There is zero defense or justification for what Russia is doing.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.
Sure. Never said otherwise.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.Are you suggesting NATO to invade Russia or am I reading you wrong? In this case:
A) The entire country, even people who hate Putin, gonna stand up to aggressors.
B) NATO forces are going to die, in huge numbers. Modern Russian military is not Russian military from the mid 90s that was underpaid and poorly equipped.
C) If Moscow is about to fall the probability of nukes being launched is extremely high. I don't think anyone wants to see real life Fallout.
As for NATO bases being present in the CIS states, that's a security concern in the same way Soviet bases on Cuba were a concern for the US. Nobody likes a hostile force in their sphere of interest and this close to the borders.
That being said, there's not much Putin can do to stop NATO. At least not until the inevitable alliance with China.
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).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.
Same goes for every other country which has joined and is looking to join.Ironically Russia's fear about Sweden joining the alliance is largely due to its own actions in Europe.
I don't understand Russia's end goal. Are they stuck in the 60's or something?
It's to distract Russians from every thing that is wrong with the way Russia is run.I don't understand Russia's end goal. Are they stuck in the 60's or something?
I don't understand Russia's end goal. Are they stuck in the 60's or something?
Sort of. But also Putin is an attention seeking bitch.I don't understand Russia's end goal. Are they stuck in the 60's or something?
Their country is being run into the ground by corrupt and immoral evil people. So they use nationalism and wars as a distraction.I don't understand Russia's end goal. Are they stuck in the 60's or something?
That's not Russia,Their country is being run into the ground by corrupt and immoral evil people. So they use nationalism and wars as a distraction.
You left out the rest of my quote.
No cause that is literally America right now.
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.No cause that is literally America right now.
Don't need the GOP for that. Just needs....anything that is the American political system.
The war he supported going into.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.
You didn't prove anything lol
I proved that nothing was being argued in good faith.
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.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.
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.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.