First, separate NATO and US. The US is part of NATO, but NATO is its own entity. Otherwise you need to prove that NATO is being run by the US and not as an alliance, like UN, EU etc. — Christoffer
I'm still waiting to hear what NATO's fault in all of this is. What is the actual threat to Russia? Through pages and pages of posts, I've yet to hear any concrete example of NATO actually threatening Russia. — Christoffer
There are some concerns on the Russian side that are legitimate
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
....
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
— UN Charter
Even before World War II was over, Carroll argues, the leaders of the Pentagon viewed Russia as the new enemy and nuclear weapons as the tool of choice to use against it. In Carroll’s telling, the United States was primarily to blame for the Cold War’s dramatic escalation, because our government consistently ignored signals that Moscow was willing to step back from the conflict. The fact is, he writes, the Cold War was convenient, first because it could be used by the Army, Navy, and Air Force to justify competing and ever-higher defense expenditures, and later because it came to serve as the economic engine of the country—the “military-industrial-congressional-academic-labor-culture” complex of which Eisenhower warned. — The Atlantic
No of course not. You can be guilty of attacking and you can be also guilty of not preventing an attack, for example leaving your door wide open. Or if you provoke them in some way.
My personal view is that provoking an attack only gives NATO more ammunition to continue 'containing' Russia. — FreeEmotion
I agree mostly with the article by John J. Mearsheimer. But he is out there in the cuckoo land of international politics when he suggests:
"The United States and its allies should abandon their
plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer"
— John H. Mearsheimer — FreeEmotion
Åland islands is a de-militarized zone. It's a really interesting question when Finland would send forces there.I'm hoping to build out a, especially on Åland and Gotland, a modern high-tech anti-air system with AI. — Christoffer
Eisenhower, early on in his administration, made a not-so-veiled threat to use the atomic bomb to bring the Communists to the table, and they came to the table and he and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, concluded from that the usefulness of what they came to call atomic brinksmanship, which was part of what fueled the massive build up of the atomic and nuclear arsenal in the fifties.
What threats has NATO done to Russia? As in my answer to Isaac above, how would you argue for NATO's guilt in all of this, like if we were in court, how would you, in defense of Russia, argue for NATO's guilt? What did they do? Be specific — Christoffer
Putin is an aggressor and if he dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place. — StreetlightX
I need do nothing of the sort. If there is suspicion that NATO is unduly influenced by the US (as has already been presented) that is sufficient. Suspicion needs to be aired, widely disseminated, and untempered by pointless conservatism. Why? Because it's our job as citizens to hold our authorities to account. It's neither our job to excuse them, nor is it our job to judge them as a court of law might. They excuse themselves and we actually have courts of law to judge them as a court of law might, so there's no need for us to do so. Our job is to hold them to account. — Isaac
[/quote]Nor will you. NATO are not stupid. They're hardly going to issue a concrete threat to a sovereign nation are they? Yet the threats are legitimate nonetheless. As Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said...
[quoteThere are some concerns on the Russian side that are legitimate — Isaac
So what's your point? We're not allowed to hold NATO to account without the bloodied dagger in our hand? Why are you insisting on that level of evidence, what does it gain? — Isaac
If there is suspicion that NATO is unduly influenced by the US (as has already been presented) that is sufficient. Suspicion needs to be aired, widely disseminated, and untempered by pointless conservatism. Why? Because it's our job as citizens to hold our authorities to account. — Isaac
NATO, the US and Europe are completely blameless in all this. What harm comes from discussing the perceived blame? They're all big boys, I'm sure they can handle being blamed for something they didn't do. So what exactly drives you with such passion to ensure that all discussion of their role in this is stamped on? — Isaac
Once again my house invasion analogy:
Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? — Christoffer — Christoffer
I do not blame NATO for Putin's actions, I blame the practice of using military force to settle conflict. Nuclear war is a last resort. Any war should be a last resort, but nothing we can do about this unless we convince our governments to enter into some sort of peace treaty with everyone. There is the United Nations also, and their Charter.. lets see...so they all signed it .. were forced to sign it.. — FreeEmotion
Åland islands is a de-militarized zone. It's a really interesting question when Finland would send forces there.
The only Finnish forces there are the local police and the border guard. And Russia has an consulate there, which is described as more of a forward intelligence gathering post. At the height of the Cold War it had 140 personnel. That's a huge consulate workforce for Islands with a population of 30 000. And Russian helicopters do have the ability fly directly from Russia to the Islands. The military history is interesting, and a great example of two countries accepting a third party international solution. The decision on the Åland Islands is one of the few things the League of Nations succeeded in solving. — ssu
Eisenhower, early on in his administration, made a not-so-veiled threat to use the atomic bomb to bring the Communists to the table, and they came to the table and he and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, concluded from that the usefulness of what they came to call atomic brinksmanship, which was part of what fueled the massive build up of the atomic and nuclear arsenal in the fifties.
Q: You said that it’s about “turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy.” I don’t put much trust or much faith in America “turning” places into liberal democracies. What if Ukraine, the people of Ukraine, want to live in a pro-American liberal democracy?
M: If Ukraine becomes a pro-American liberal democracy, and a member of nato, and a member of the E.U., the Russians will consider that categorically unacceptable. If there were no nato expansion and no E.U. expansion, and Ukraine just became a liberal democracy and was friendly with the United States and the West more generally, it could probably get away with that. You want to understand that there is a three-prong strategy at play here: E.U. expansion, nato expansion, and turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy.
Q: You keep saying “turning Ukraine into a liberal democracy,” and it seems like that’s an issue for the Ukrainians to decide. nato can decide whom it admits, but we saw in 2014 that it appeared as if many Ukrainians wanted to be considered part of Europe. It would seem like almost some sort of imperialism to tell them that they can’t be a liberal democracy.
M: It’s not imperialism; this is great-power politics. When you’re a country like Ukraine and you live next door to a great power like Russia, you have to pay careful attention to what the Russians think, because if you take a stick and you poke them in the eye, they’re going to retaliate. States in the Western hemisphere understand this full well with regard to the United States.
The problem becomes when suspicion is used as facts. When NATO gets "equal blame" for what is happening in Ukraine and any further action by Putin. — Christoffer
If you want me to take any of your conclusions seriously, you need more than conspiracy. I'm interested in rational arguments, not opinions, suspicions and speculations. — Christoffer
Because it floods the discussion with distractions from the actual conflict, it muddies the waters with irrelevant nonsense that makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening and what could be happening. — Christoffer
putting aside his fantasies about the US even attempting to spread democracy and his insanity about China — StreetlightX
It literally doesn't matter. Not one bit. Not one iota. Russia told NATO to fuck right off, and NATO did the exact opposite of that — StreetlightX
in full cognizance of multiple people in the West telling them that this is a terrible, awful, war-engendering move and lo and behold, and now there's a war. — StreetlightX
This isn't an issue of morality or law or principle, it's a simple calculation - do you do the thing that the weaponized aggressor literally just told you to not do, on pain of war, yes or no? — StreetlightX
Putin's war is unjutified and unjustifiable. But acting in full cognizance of the deadly results of an unjustified demand does not let you off the hook. — StreetlightX
So if it's the harsh terms Treaty of Versailles, the internal problems of Weimar Germany, and other historical reason for fascism and national socialism to emerge, just what all of that has it to do with your country, which had been neutral during WW1? What have the Dutch to do with the rise of Hitler?You should take a more holistic approach. What circumstances gave rise to someone like Hitler getting into power? Let's stop with the single cause fallacies. — Benkei
Russia's internal politics are irrelevant. I don't give a shit that Putin is a criminal. I care about avoiding needless bloodshed and accepting that regional powers project a sphere of influence in which you cannot fuck around without consequences. So all this IMF and NATO shit should be called out for what it is : provocations.
The EU and the US need to just fuck off and de-escalate. — Benkei
So, basically, victim blaming? — Christoffer
So we are to blame for Russia's actions because we don't allow them to control our independent choices as nations? — Christoffer
Well hang on. For this analogy to hold Poland would have to have been threatened with invasion by Russia to motivate it to join NATO back in 1997. A real concrete threat by your standards. — Isaac
In your analogy - who's the criminal and what concrete evidence did the countries joining NATO have that he wanted to 'break into their houses' — Isaac
If someone feels threatened by Russia and they go into an alliance with others who also feel threatened by Russia, in order to have better security against any potential Russian attack. THIS IS NOT AN ACT OF AGGRESSION AGAINST RUSSIA. This is an act of protection, affecting only the ones in that alliance. They have done NOTHING against Russia. — Christoffer
you realize that your house is very close to criminal activity, maybe even organized crime. Maybe even hearing about attacks and home invasions that have been done close to you. — Christoffer
the criminals don't like this, because it makes it harder for them to invade and claim people's homes for their activities. So they say to everyone that this security thing needs to "fuck off" or else. — Christoffer
you realize that "fucking off" will just make you open to invasion once more, — Christoffer
Here Putin showed both his ruthlessness and his intelligence in Chechnya.At least Grozny seems reasonably stable (at the moment), as far as I know anyway.
I guess the Russian empire took over now-Chechnya in the 1800s after having kicked other invaders out, like the then-Persians. — jorndoe
On the contrary, you've been presented with the rational arguments of no fewer than five experts in their relevant fields which you've summarily dismissed on the grounds of a lack of concrete evidence as you would use 'in a court of law'. You don't seem interested in rational arguments at all. You want a smoking gun or nothing. — Isaac
And...? I'm still not seeing the harm. Again, assuming you're absolutely right and the US/NATO/Europe are entirely blameless. You could just ignore discussion speculating on their blame. You could swamp it in turn with discussion of...what exactly I don't know.... Since we all agree that Putin's actions are reprehensible and cannot be excused I don't really know what else you want to discuss. — Isaac
The point is you don't. You expend virtually all of your efforts here on stamping out discussion of the extent to which the US/NATO might be to blame. — Isaac
Perhaps you could explain the link you made above in "...makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening". How does expert speculation make it harder to dissect what is happening? — Isaac
Have you concrete evidence that NATO weren't to blame in any way? — Isaac
Have you concrete evidence that, of all the things Putin has said about his motives, the ones you've picked out are his 'true' motives? Not just informed speculation, concrete evidence. — Isaac
You don't get to tell Russia what counts as an act of aggression towards them or not. — StreetlightX
Who cares what they feel is aggression — Christoffer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.