Russia has argued that having NATO on its borders is a threat. Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. But Russian domestic politics is always using a narrative of being a victim and having risk of being invaded. The Second World War doesn’t exist in Russian storytelling. The great patriotic war on the other hand, conveniently started in the 40s.
The Finnish border isn’t that much closer to any important parts of Russia than the Baltic states already were. The strategic difference is perhaps mostly in how difficult it might be for Russia to attempt what they did to Ukraine on a Baltic state. The scenario is a swift invasion and an annexation being fait accompli and a threat of Nuclear use if any NATO countries come to their defense under Article 5. That would have been a sticky situation for NATO in the past (at least we thought so until we saw their military performance lately) but will be less so with Finland in the alliance.
RealLifeLore has an excellent analysis of the reasons for Russia's invasion [1], including the military motivations. I highly recommend watching it. In particular the reasoning around gas and oil reserves in the Black Sea have not been given the due attention in the media IMO. He doesn't talk about Finland, but I would imagine the fact that it would broaden the front for a land-based invasion is what motivates Russia's opposition. That and generally having gotten away with being a bully and getting what you want for so long.
There's never been a war that he didn't like, the excitement in his voice when he describes the Chechen or Georgian conflicts or the Chinese annexation of Tibet or Iraq's annexation of Kuwait really skeeves me out.
Good info, but keep is frankly weird perspective in mind.
NATO is a devensive alliance. It is no threat for a peaceful Russia at all. All else is propaganda. A really democratic Russia may even join NATO some day. (As Western Germany did ten years after the Nazis.)
There was actually some talk of Russia joining NATO 20 years ago. But then Putin wanted Russia to be fast-tracked without meeting the requirements while "unimportant countries" would be ignored, and I guess at that moment it became clear he didn't really get what NATO was about.
I think Serbs may disagree on that. In the end, NATO is the US and it's dependent vassal states. With neighbors like these, I can sympathize with Russia not being too comfortable.
I admit that the NATO operation against Serbia in 1999 was of course not purely devensive with regard to NATO territory (as Kosovo was not a member). Its nature was that of a "humanitarian intervention" in favour of Kosovo; as such it was afterwards acknowledged by the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
I personally would have preferred, if the operation had not been carried out under the label of NATO, but instead in the names of the participating countries or something else. Anyway, in later conflicts where NATO was involved it avoided to participate directly under its own name. For instance the operations in Afghanistan, though under offcial NATO leadership, was carried out by an "International Security Assistance Force" (ISAF).
Nevertheless, I still hold that NATO is, at its core, a defensive alliance, since there is no obligation for the members to assist each other in anything else than an unprovoked attack on their territories. Beyond that, NATO structures have been used for various missions, often including non-members -- even Russia itself, as in the NATO-led "Stabilisation Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina" (SFOR) in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Such mission had always been case-by-case decisions, not imposed by the NATO treaty. Furthermore, there have been numerous examples where individual NATO members have been extremely critical of US missions or certain measures. For this reason in particular, I consider the talk of "vassal states" to be quite unobjective.
It's vital for Russia to put the start of WW2 in 1941, because if they put it in 1939, like everybody else, then the USSR would have been just as much the aggressor as Nazi Germany, with invasions of Poland and Finland in 1939, and the Baltic states in 1940. Fortunately for them, at the time the West didn't care enough about Poland and the Baltics, and somehow cared more about the German invasion of Poland than the Russian one. But now they do care about Ukraine.
> Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense.
Why doesn't it make sense? I'm not for Russia nor for NATO, but what is the purpose of the alliance if not against Russia as a remnant of the cold war?
Wasn't the same kind of reasoning used by the USA for Cuba resulting in its ~blockade~ "quarantine" and almost war/invasion?
It seems to me there's a certain rhetoric meant to cast Putin as a crazy warmongering dictator who foolishly wishes to revive the Soviet Union. In part this may be true, but it seems to me that these arguments are meant to distract our gaze away from the US (and NATO in extension) as the global superpower it is, how historically it has moved against the USSR and Russia and its part in the world stage.
*Obviously Putin/Russia is to blame for invading Ukraine.
edit: Adding a few words because I think I have not been clear. I'm not arguing for Russia or against NATO. I'm arguing that from Putin's perspective it makes sense; an alliance historically against the USSR, now expanding near Russia's borders can be seen as a potential threat.
The rhetoric is "I was watering my garden and some crazy guy attacked me", but that is removing the context. And that context exists even if you believe that NATO=good & Russia=bad.
1) NATO has no territorial desires on Russia. Eastern members do have bad historic experiences with Russia so they joined a defensive alliance
2) Cuba was "allowed" to stay in the Eastern block (but not to host nuclear weapons). Ukraine was not "allowed" to join NATO, by comparison
3) Russia has nuclear/nuclear capable weapons inside NATO (Kaliningrad), not the other way around. EDIT: Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave surrounded by NATO members + bordered by the Baltic
The problem is you’re using your own perspective to imagine how Russia is assessing the situation. That’s the big mistake.
You could run the same analysis for the US involvement in Vietnam.
1) The US was anti colonial after WW2 (the US assumed colonial holdings would foment communist uprisings), and had given the Philippines it independence.
2) The US had no real strategic interest in Vietnam beyond a non-communist aligned country. it had negotiated a neutral policy towards Laos with the communist bloc. It wasn’t interested in resources or territory, at least not in anyway similar to what France had done.
Why on earth would North Vietnam think that US was just replacing France as a colonial power? That’s absurd! No way they think that, it’s just rhetoric!
——-
Of course after decades of being under the colonial yoke of France, Vietnam had a very different perspective. It was clear post-WW2 France was hell bent on restoring the colonial structure. And the only thing France understood was military defeat.
So the North, very reasonably, thought the US was lying about any sort of “neutrality in IndoChina” and that Vietnam would have any sort of independence. So they held to a hardline and were willing to sacrifice 2M+ Vietnamese for the goal of total victory and independence.
Think about it from Russia’s perspective. They had warned in 2015 about their "red line" for NATO expansion.
In what way is 2) or 3) of my points related to a perspective? Those are either historical fact or current situation.
On territory, Russia can have a different view and they are entitled to it - but doesn't change that it is a wrong perception. Not sure, if Russia's perspective should then guide policy "in the West".
I agree 2 and 3 are facts, but the error is you think they are relevant to how Russia see the situation.
I understand you think that perception is wrong, but remember, global geopolitics is not about "who is right", it's about "how do we find the least violent solution to this conflict".
If you read MacNamara's book on Vietnam, he actually goes back and talks through the war with the North Vietnamese leaders at the time. The big takeaway was there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate the conflict (acknowledged by both sides), but each side was so sure they were right that there was no backing down.
It's a tough pill to swallow to realize you could have gotten the same thing as you have today without killing a few million of your own citizens.
Edit: Your reply "If Russia wants to go nuclear over this, then so be it" is the most horrifying thing I've read in a while. But regardless there is a lot of evidence to show if Hitler had been restrained early in the lead up to WW2, before Germany had rearmed, it could have prevent WW2.
In the end, not sure it really matters how Russia sees the situation to be honest or what Russia thinks is relevant to them now[added]. If Russia wants to go nuclear over this, then so be it - they will go nuclear over something else if not this one if they are so willing to act on perceived threats not realized ones.
EDIT: I cannot stop Russia from doing what it wants to do but like in the cold war I am not stopping living my life, either.
Also not sure it is always about "least violent solution", was WWII the least violent solution or what would have been the least violent one and how could it have been reached?
I don't think anyone is disputing that the US was wrong in Vietnam. And in Iraq (the second time at least) for that matter. Yet I often see people use these examples where the US was clearly wrong as reasons why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine.
The argument isn't "we should let Russia invade Ukraine".
The argument is "if the US could be so wrong about the best path forward in Vietnam and Iraq, why are we so sure we're right about Ukraine"?
Instead of viewing everything from a US/Western European/NATO lens, take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?".
The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries, then that seems like a good trade off versus what we have now.
Of course the criticism is "Russia would have invaded anyways even if NATO hadn't expanded". And maybe that's right, but we'll never know at this point since that decision was never made.
So do you agree that letting Russia invade Ukraine is wrong?
Like I said, the US was wrong to invade Vietnam and Iraq, and Russia is just as wrong to invade Ukraine.
> take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?"
As a big mistake. Russia is not getting anything out of this that's going to help Russia in any way. Russia has made itself the enemy of everybody around them. They've completely alienated all Ukrainians, nearly half of which used to be friendly towards Russia.
> The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries
"Expanding NATO" is the wrong way to look at this. NATO doesn't expand itself, it accepts new members who apply to join NATO. NATO hasn't conquered anyone. Membership is entirely voluntary.
NATO membership has shown itself to be the best protection against Russian aggression; Georgia and Ukraine have been invaded, but Estonia has not. Refusing membership to Estonia in a faint hope that Russia would not attack is a dangerous game to play with an entire country.
What do you mean “letting Russia”? We didn’t let them do anything, they just did it.
And maybe a better analogy is if your next door neighbor was blasting music at 2am.
They’re wrong but you have a choice:1) call the cops and now you have a pissed of neighbor you get to live with forever or 2) go over and nicely ask them to turn it down.
The neighbor is wrong and your right to call the cops but you may just screw yourself over rather than just nicely asking them to turn it down.
The war in Ukraine was not some neigborly dispute. It is a logical continuation of Russian imperialism which for centuries has used genocide and terror to suppress the masses.
That's how Russia gained it's land area. Pure fucking violence. I have no idea while western colonialism has been judged harshly no-one in the west has spent much effort lamenting the fates of the people subjugated by Russia.
This is not you neighbour blasting music. This is a narcist psycho terrorizing the neighbourhood by wanton burglary and murder. For years. The war in Ukraine is this psycho once again breaking in, shooting your grandmother, raping your son, stealing your washing machine and then telling everyone proudly how rightfull he was to do so.
They went in with the full intent to end Ukrainian identity once and for all. Pure genocide. The last time they tried this was by manufacturing a famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
What's the best analogue to think about this?
While Germany was effectively de-nazified after ww2 Russia never de-stalinized or made amends for it's imperial stance. You really have to think of the Russian state you would think about Germany if it was run by third reich institutions.
If "minimal bloodshed" means "the war must end in Ukrainian victory as fast as possible" then I agree. If Ukrainian victory is not as important as swift end to hostilities then I disagree.
I believe Ukraine needs all the weapons and support so the war can end in a clear Ukrainian victory.
My current view is pretty much aligned with PM of Estonia Mrs. Kallas: “I think what everybody has to understand is that peace is not an ultimate goal if it means that the aggression pays off”
NATO members are more than willing to "fight Russia to the last Ukrainian", but I guarantee that if things really heat up, they'll throw Ukraine under the bus just like they did South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.
The best outcomes for everyone involved is some settlement where Ukraine continues to exist and NATO and Russia both agree to not interfere. See the agreement over Laos in the 1960's - neutrality.
Then there's no victory for anyone, because there's certainly no way Russia is going to win this.
The difference with Vietnam couldn't be bigger: in Vietnam, the US was fighting other people's war, most of whom didn't want it. The US was fighting the local population much of the time. This is pretty much the most generous way to interpret Russia's position in the war. Ukraine is fighting for itself, for their country and their freedom, because they know what will happen if Russia wins.
It's not NATO that's demanding that Ukraine fights; it's Ukrainians themselves who want to fight, because they know they can't afford to lose. And Ukraine has the people, they just need the weapons.
> The best outcomes for everyone involved is some settlement where Ukraine continues to exist and NATO and Russia both agree to not interfere.
That's what everybody thought, but Russian promises not to interfere turned out to be worthless. This agreement existed, but Putin broke it. He wants to control Ukraine, and made that very clear. He denies that Ukraine has any right to determine its own fate.
Asking NATO not to interfere is asking NATO to allow Russia to take over Ukraine.
The simple fact is that Russia can't force a victory, and neither can Ukraine. So the issue becomes who can hold out the longest, and with the support it's getting, that's probably Ukraine.
The only way to stop Ukraine from joining NATO, by the way, is to keep the war going. As soon as there's a peace deal, Ukraine will apply to join NATO and will probably be accepted this time. If Russia wants to prevent that, it has to offer security guarantees to Ukraine that are a lot harder than the ones they broke last time, and that will include returning all occupied land. I think that's very unlikely to happen.
Russia will probably keep Crimea, because that's impossible for Ukraine to take back. Even so, they might be stuck with sanctions.
I can guarantee it because NATO and the Western countries are only willing to sacrifice money. Once it escalates beyond that, they will pressure Ukraine to compromise with Russia or simply walk away as they have so many times before.
And I'm not sure why you think Ukraine can outlast Russia? Russia has 10x the GDP and 3x the population. They're also holding oil and gas over Western Europes heads.
Take a look at the exchange rate for the ruble. It's higher than before the war. Russia is forcing people to buy their gas with rubbles. They have way more leverage than you think they do.
I completely agree that it's best to resolve problems with minimal bloodshed. But that ship has sailed. Putin has decided to invade a country and murder its citizens. If you want to minimize bloodshed, then he needs to be stopped.
As I pointed out in my other comment - Russia will get everything it wants.
No NATO country will provide anything more than arms. Hell, Germany had to be pressed to provide anything remotely useful.
Russia will grind it out, and once Ukraine realizes their victory will destroy the country and NATO won’t swoop in to save the day, they’ll compromise.
> why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine
That's awkward language. Who gets to grant permission for the invasion of a foreign country?
The question is whether it's legitimate to go to war against the invader. NATO is not a schoolmaster, issuing invasion passes. Unfortunately NATO doesn't have clean hands (Libya, and arguably Iraq).
I guess the UN could pass a resolution to authorize an invasion (though they can't really enforce anything). It's why the US presented their case against Iraq to the UN 20 years ago.
Though in this particular case, the demands Putin made before the invasion, that NATO should promise never to allow Ukraine in, and should abandon eastern Europe entirely, sounded a lot to me like Putin was basically demanding permission to invade those countries.
Because while NATO can't give permission to invade, it can most certainly enforce a denial of that permission by defending the target of the invasion. And that's what Putin was asking from NATO: a promise not to defend Ukraine or any other country in eastern Europe.
Kinda, but if I'm not mistaken, a military intervention can be declared necessary in cases of genocide, for example. It's not clear whether WMDs would count, but that was Bush's case for the invasion of Iraq.
When we argue for you to view things from Russia's perspective we aren't condoning their actions, we're trying to prevent an escalation in response to misinformed policy. No one here has stated that they should be allowed to invade Ukraine. What many are trying to do is tamp down the calls for further military engagement or even all out war with Russia. Diplomacy is the only way we get out of this without piling up more dead bodies on all sides.
I agree. The problem is that Putin is not interested in diplomacy. Putin has made it very clear that he only respects force. So the only way to convince him not to invade a country he wants to invade, is a hard guarantee that NATO will defend that country. That's the only way. And NATO didn't give that promise to Ukraine, which is why Putin felt he could invade it.
NATO is now trying to prevent escalation while still trying to help Ukraine and prevent it from being conquered. The problem is that now there's a violent and bloody stalemate. It needs to stop, but the only way to stop is for Putin to pull his forces out of Ukraine, and he's not going to do that without some very strong arguments.
1) Isn't NATO a product of the cold war, meant to stand as an alliance against the USSR? A defense alliance must be, by definition, against someone, be it Russia or China. And isn't it a tool for the US (mainly) to serve their interests & enforce their will around the world? See Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya.
2) "Allowed" yes, disregarding the sanctions/embargo in place these last 60 years.
3) My geography knowledge is a bit spotty, but isn't Kaliningrad part of the Russian Federation (even if an exclave, between Lithuania & Poland)? Also I don't know if indeed there are nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad.
I am not arguing that NATO is worse, my point is that NATO is the West's/USA's tool and regardless of whether you see it as an instrument for justice/good, historically it very much has been against Russia's interests and arguably still is. You may consider NATO a force for good and Putin/Russia evil, thus giving legitimacy to NATO's existence & operations, that does not mean that Putin/Russia perceiving NATO as a threat "makes no sense".
Yes, "annexed" by Russians from Nazi Germany. As in, becoming part of the Soviet Union since the Red Army had taken the city near the end of WWII after the Russians and British had bombed ~90% of the city.
Then from whom is the alliance defending themselves, if not from those not into the alliance?
For example, a defense alliance that included all nations, would defend against aliens.
I repeat, a defense alliance must be, by definition, protecting the members from external threats. I don't think it's a very difficult concept to grasp.
It is possible to create an alliance against an external threat without defining the threat in advance, as you seem to assume. If Russia wanted to join NATO, they could, and this was an imaginable possibility in the 90s, and could be an imaginable possibility again in the future, in a post-Putin era. A defensive pact is just a pact against anyone who attacks; if the US attacked a NATO country, it would be a pact against the US.
Obviously you are unaware of basic history of how NATO was created to halt the communist/Soviet "threat". Please, look up "History of NATO" on Wikipedia.
So, for NATO there _was_ a _defined threat_ it sought to protect against. In general, all alliances are made against perceived present or future threats, if you are _actually_ aware of an alliance being made with no external threat in mind, please let me know.
If you delve deeper into the history of NATO, you will realize that the threat that was most critical in the mind of some members and a key reason it exists is the threat of...Germany (who was not, initially, a member, even West Germany) becoming resurgent again once the allied occupation inevitably ended. (Which, ironically, ended up taking much longer than anyone would have expected because of the Cold War.)
NATO was flexible for these purposes because it was not defined or structured around any particular threat, but as a general-purpose regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment adaptable to changing threat circumstances.
I'm not entirely sure that that is the case and Germany was the primary reason for NATO forming. It surely was meant to hinder the spread of communism/Soviets.
And yes, a defense alliance can be flexible and change its objectives with the times, that's not counter to the point I was making. I'm not sure how to better express myself, I really think it is obvious that a defense alliance must be defending its members from _external_ threats.
If there is no possible threat (real or perceived, present or future) then no alliance is formed. That is the whole purpose, _the definition_ of a defense alliance.
I don't know how to express this notion with more clarity.
2) But still Cuba was permitted to stay within the Eastern block. Why did Russia not choose to just sanction Ukraine then but allow NATO membership (that would the comparison)
3) Yes, of course, but really surrounded by NATO members. Could you imagine Russia permitting a NATO exclave inside Russia? And Russia certainly makes it sound like they have nuclear weapons there (see their latest drill last? week)
Russia/Russian government is allowed to perceive it any way he wants, but that might not dictate NATO policy.
>Russia/Russian government is allowed to perceive it any way he wants, but that might not dictate NATO policy.
Also, picking this from a comment of yours further below:
>In the end, not sure it really matters how Russia sees the situation to be honest or what Russia thinks is relevant to them in.
Obviously Russia wanted Ukraine under their influence and NATO stood against that. It really _does_ matter how Russia sees things, now there's a war in Ukraine.
2) Probably because Russia sanctioning Ukraine would not be as debilitating for the country as the embargo against Cuba has been for Cuba.
3) You're talking about land that is part of the Russian Federation since 1945, is very close to Moscow and the mainland and is surrounded by NATO members because Poland and Lithuania joined NATO in 1999 & 2004. I'm not sure you're making any sense in this. Also, it's nowhere near the USA, Russia's main adversary.
At the end of the day, yes NATO and the USA may do as they wish, will removing Ukraine from Russia's influence lead to better lives for the Ukrainian people? Will this war that has already caused so many deaths and so much pain, be worth it? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can answer with much certainty.
3) Call it "Russian exclave that hosts missile systems" then, not "Russia has nuclear weapons inside NATO" because someone who's not familiar with European politics, borders might read it as "Russia installed missile systems inside NATO country" which is simply not true. It's quite important to be precise on this.
You should drop #3, Poland and Lithuania are former Soviet states and late joiners of NATO '99 and '04 respectively so NATO effectively "annexed" former Soviet territory around part of Russia. Arguing that this somehow means that NATO is more tolerant of having Russian forces "within its borders" is absurd since they were the ones that expanded those borders around Kaliningrad.
Please explain "annexed"; your wikipedia link makes it clear that different people intepret scare-quotes in different ways. If you are talking about annexation not involving coercion, then we aren't reading from the same dictionary page.
In the sense that the current government in Russia still perceives its former satellites as part of it or its sphere of influence. The US and Russia are the main players here so I'm not considering the opinions of the people living in those states sorry but that's just realpolitik and its the way both sides think. Russia lost its empire during the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States has been expanding its empire at their expense. Before you say anything about it not being an empire, I'll just say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck.
Russian nuclear capabilities now allow complete destruction of any attacking state, even _after_ taking nuclear hit. One just can't invade Russia without complete and utter loss.
This was not yet the case during Cuban missile crisis BTW.
So because the USA has advanced weapons and other bases close enough to reach Moscow, it doesn't make sense that Putin/Russia would be concerned by NATO expansion even closer to Moscow, right next to their borders?
Having a state that you don't trust on your borders is not a justification for invasion. Hell, the UK trusts neither France nor Germany; both have attacked the UK, and planned to invade it, in the last 200 years. Lots of countries have neighbours they don't trust, but (on the whole) they don't launch unprovoked wars.
NATO is purely a defensive pact, nowhere in it's charter is there any provision for initiating hostilities and there is zero political support in the west for aggression against Russia or the acquisition of Russian territory. Until February the west was absolutely more than happy to funnel billions into Russia in return for oil and gas, and almost pathologically avoided any thought of taking any action that might affect trade with Russia.
There's one problem with that statement above when I said this:
>zero political support in the west for aggression against Russia or the acquisition of Russian territory
The problem is the west and Russia have very different ideas about what constitutes Russian territory. Putin has been crystal clear, in numerous speeches and written statements, that he considers several other countries 'Russian territory' including Belarus, Georgia, the 'stans' and Ukraine.
Ukraine joining the EU or NATO would forever take it out of the political and economic domination of Russia, and that's what he can't tolerate. In his mind that's a hostile takeover of territory that rightfully belongs to Russia and that's why he went to war. It's why in his opinion he had to go to war. He's not actually lying when he tells Russians that the west forced his hand and this is about the defence of Russia, because in his mind Ukraine is Russian territory in the same way that China considers Taiwan Chinese territory. When he says Russia, he doesn't mean the same thing that NATO leaders say when they use the same word.
So those who say they agree with Putin or agree that NATO forced his hand, are signing up to the same view of the status of Ukraine and therefore the Ukrainian people.
NATO aggressively bombed Serbia over the issue of Kosovo. I don't know how anyone can seriously claim "NATO is purely a defensive pact" with a straight face.
I think that bombing Serbia was probably the rupture that has led us to the terrible situation we have in Ukraine now.
What is really telling is your admission that NATO is also an Offensive Alliance, which is exactly the point I was making, and which has led directly to this tragedy.
What tragedy? I don't see any tragedy caused by NATO. The war started before NATO involvement. The same with Yugoslavia. Years of war and attrocities, massive refugee crisis in early 90's, ended in a month by NATO.
Preventing genocide next door is defense, not offense. Just like in Ukraine now. The most Offensive thing here is your defense of genocidal wars of aggression.
The problem here is that when you give a defensive alliance a mandate to defend entities that are not covered by it's mandate it becomes a de-facto offensive alliance.
No it does not. They did not initiate the aggression.
There's a question of semantics here of course. We're contrasting aggressive and defensive military action. I don't see how characterising military action in defence of others as aggressive is a useful or meaningful characterisation. It's defensive, just not defensive of yourself.
Also let's look at the objectives. The intention in Kosovo wasn't to invade Serbia but to end ethnic cleansing. The fact it took force to achieve that was a means to and end, not an end in itself. Without the ethnic cleansing there would have been no military action, so it wasn't about territory or aggression.
That's what he wants people to believe he is doing. But he actually started aggressive. Even if you don't take Crimea cause supposedly there was not much blood spilled, the invasion into Ukraine started on April 13, 2014 when Russian special forces killed a group of Ukrainian internal security officers deep into Ukrainian territory. There were no "victims" to defend at that point.
> Being a "defensive pact" does not exclude preventing genocide next to it's borders.
Actually, it does. Kosovo and Iraq are clear evidence that NATO is not a defensive pact. Neither attack was preceded by a judicial ruling that genocide was occurring (and genocide is very difficult to prove).
I'm afraid those attacks seriously undermined NATO's moral authority as a "defensive pact".
AFAIK, the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with NATO.
It was done by the US with some NATO (and non-NATO) countries joining it.
For example, France was strongly opposed.
Surely you mean the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Unless you're implying that was a sham political cover for naked Serbian self interest. Perish the thought.
NATO was defending Kosovo from a war of aggression and ongoing genocide.
>NATO was defending Kosovo from a war of aggression and ongoing genocide.
Except that Kosovo was not a part of NATO so you can't say that NATO is a defensive alliance unless you are going the Roman way of pre-emptive defence[1].
[1] All Roman wars were officially defensive because they believed gods would not support an offensive war
> So those who say they agree with Putin or agree that NATO forced his hand, are signing up to the same view of the status of Ukraine and therefore the Ukrainian people.
I don't have to agree with Putin to say that I can understand Russia's issues with Ukraine. Saying that Putin's/Russia's attitude makes sense, does not mean I agree with it. It's in Russia's interests that Ukraine should be under Russia's influence, and in USA's interests that Ukraine be away from this influence and under their own, NATO serving as a tool for this.
Now would the Ukrainian people's lives be better if under the EU's/NATO's influence, instead of Russia's? Maybe. Right now though, there's a war. Would a pro-Russia regime in Ukraine (& not trying to join NATO) have resulted in no war? Is the war worth it? Time will tell.
I don't agree with Putin either, but I also agree that his actions make sense within his own frame of reference.
It's not just about whether the Ukrainian's lives would be better from any observer's opinion. Nor is it a matter of them 'being under ... influence' as though they have no agency and are simply chaff blown in the wind. This conflict is fundamentally not about influence over Ukrainians, but about the Ukrainian people's right to self determination.
This whole situation is often framed as the power and influence of great powers over regional pawns. That is not at all what this is about. Until February this year the USA as a nation barely even registered that Ukraine existed, let alone whether they had any influence over it. Ukraine was a patch of land along the route of a Russian gas pipeline, and that's the only reason it was important at all. The USA couldn't have cared less. It was an addendum to a footnote in their foreign policy, hence the feeble and deliberately ineffectual response to the annexation of Crimea.
What triggered the Russian annexation of Crimea, was it US foreign policy shifts? A buildup of NATO forces? No, it was the Maidan protests in Kyiv bringing down a pro-Kremlin regime, and free and fair elections in Ukraine clearly indicating the Ukrainian people wanted to turn west. It was action by the Ukrainian people that triggered that response, not NATO. They are the ones driving this shift, and that's why all of this is even more maddening for Putin because he sees this as a traitorous betrayal of Russia by Ukrainians, by daring to think that they have any right to do so.
This is why I talked about "signing up to the same view of the status of Ukraine and therefore the Ukrainian people"
I won't pretend to be an expert on the matter, but I do not agree with your view.
For one, I think you are seriously misrepresenting USA's position. It's the biggest military power in the West and possibly the world, a country with military bases and operations all around the world. That the USA does not concern itself with other countries' matters is, sorry to say, laughable.
I also don't agree with your position that this is about the Ukrainian people's right to self determination. I think it's much closer to civil war, with "pro-Russia" Ukrainians, especially in the Donbas region, against "pro-Ukraine" Ukrainians. In 2014 that the pro-Kremlin regime fell, I remember some 50 people were killed in a burning building in Odessa. And the pro-Russia separatists of Donetsk & Luhansk were persecuted by the (corrupt) governments of Yatsenyuk & Poroshenko. Leading among those fighting against the pro-Russia "terrorists" was the Azov battalion, with several ties with neo-Nazis. It received military aid from the US up until 2018. And Ukraine has been receiving significant military aid from the US since 2014.
So to me, what you define as "right to self determination" seems more like nationalism in Ukraine backed by the USA to squash pro-Russia movements and separatists.
Lastly, I don't think that recognizing that big players like the USA, China, Russia can, and do, exert their power and influence to meddle in other countries, means that the peoples of those countries are "regional pawns". But framing it in a way that excludes their influence means you miss the big picture.
This is just a bunch of Russian propaganda bullshit.
Starting with completely skewing order of historical events.
For starters, Poroshenko was elected a president well after the Russian incursion into Donbas had begun (google for Girkin / Strelkov, Sloviansk).
Either you know shit about Ukraine 2013-2014 or you are just a Russian propaganda tool.
It is true that Ukraine has been historically divided politically between Ukrainian and Russian speakers, but the Russian invasion seems to have pushed that firmly into the past. The are constant, countless Russian speaking Ukrainians speaking out in horror at what is being done - to them! The regions that have suffered worst from shelling of civilian areas and mass murder, mass graves, etc are actually the Russian speaking regions. Putin has initiated a huge demographic shift in Ukrainian population by overwhelmingly massacring Russian speaking Ukrainians, and they are not happy about it.
Social media and the news is full of Russian speaking Ukrainians describing the killing of their family members, destruction of their homes, abuse by Russian troops.
> Putin has been crystal clear, in numerous speeches and written statements, that he considers several other countries 'Russian territory' including Belarus, Georgia, the 'stans' and Ukraine.
Don't know why you've been downvoted; Putin's MO is to openly support dissidents in neighbouring countries; declare that the dissidents are being persecuted or "genocided"; encourage the dissidents to declare a republic; and then move an army in, to defend the bogus republic.
Declaring that Ukraine is part of Russia doesn't make it so.
> Putin's MO is to openly support dissidents in neighbouring countries; declare that the dissidents are being persecuted or "genocided"; encourage them to declare a republic; and then move an army in, to defend the bogus republic.
Is not confined to neighbors. It seems that Putin secretly offered 10.000 soldiers to the crooks in Cataluña to "defend" the new republic after the independence declaration. Has been playing the amoeba game for a long time:
"During his visit (2017), Medoyev drew parallels between Catalonia and pro-Russian, theoretically independent republics such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia"
I didn't know that Russia had offered troops to support Catalunya; it doesn't surprise me. Part of his approach has been to interfere anywhere he can, whatever the ideological situation is, to stir up chaos. I think his goal is to create dissent between western peoples and nations, and undermine their unity.
It's not working very well just now. It's having the opposite effect.
I've long thought that his "create as much chaos as possible" approach was childish - like, I don't like school, so I think I'll set fire to it. Or, you don't show me enough respect, so I'll throw stones through your windows.
He wants to be treated as a serious world leader; but he behaves like an 8-year-old having a tantrum. Any parent knows that you don't negotiate with an enraged 8-year-old. It's a waste of time, if not counter-productive.
Its not so obvious if you've been paying attention to NATO expansion, as compared to NATO promises.
NATO bases have been being used to launch crimes against humanity and war crimes (with seeming impunity) for decades - the Russians have good reasons to want NATO to stand down.
The West has a long and sordid history of committing war crimes, and then ignoring their war criminals - indeed, leaving them in charge with cart blanche to commit yet more wars.
This fact seems easily ignored by those rooting for NATO's triumph, but for those of us who have been paying attention to the Wests' war crimes - for decades - the argument that 'there is nothing to worry about because NATO are innocent' falls very, very flat.
NATO "expanded" when sovereign, democratic countries CHOSE to apply for NATO-membership, completely voluntarily, because they beleive it was and is the best deterrent for Russia to invade them.
A lot of countries bordering Russia have been invaded in the past 30 years by Russia. Always leaving a trail of warcrimes, poverty, rapes, murdered and tortured civilians etc.
None of these countries were NATO members. No wonder Eastern Europe were eager to join NATO.
NATO is not perfect, neither are the member countries, but compared to Russia, it is pretty much sparkles and rainbows.
>A lot of countries bordering Russia have been invaded in the past 30 years by Russia.
I assure you, the West has invaded - and left in utter ruin - far more sovereign democratic nations than Russia has. It was only able to do that due to NATO support, from which bases many crimes against humanity and war crimes have been committed.
The Russians know this about NATO, even if Americans don't.
If you are not a Ruzzian troll go to a subrredit for n eastern country and ask the people there what they think about NATO and Russia, like go to r/romania . I assure you we don't need CIA propaganda to understand the danger Russia was and is for our freedom and unfortunetly for our brothers in Moldova that got screwed hard and might get cewed more in future but the Russians.
Though I can understand if you have no idea about the history in Easter Europe and only follow the conflicts where US and their friends get involved you might have a big bias.
I live in Eastern Europe, its why I have a balanced view of the situation.
There are as many states in this region who want to ally against NATO because of its war crimes and crimes against humanity - however I wager those states are not on your radar since you clearly live inside the media bubble created for you by the literal makers of bombs to be dropped by NATO forces in future wars.
Well, why haven't they? Any country is free to form their own alliances.
Living in eastern Europe does not guarantee a balanced view of the situation, though. Russia is a very large part of eastern Europe, and balanced views of the situation will get you thrown in prison.
You were talking about countries not on my radar. Why would do think Russia is not on my radar right now?
The thing is, even within the CIS, Russia is the biggest threat to CIS members, not NATO. That's why Georgia left after it was invaded by Russia.
And this is the big problem with Russia: Russia has always invaded its allies. It also invaded Czechoslovakia and Hungary when they were Russian allies. There's no value in allying with Russia, whereas NATO members don't get invaded.
Lol, the only reason CIS is relevant is because of Russias nukes. Their combined GDP is a paltry $1.828 trillion which is below that of each Italy, France and Germany.
And the EU would be open to that if the CIS countries (especially Russia) were democratic, had rule of law, and respected human and civil rights. 20 years ago there was even talk of Russia possibly joining NATO, until Putin made it clear that he wanted special treatment.
It's dictatorships and countries governed by corruption instead of rule of law that will always make the EU jump into bed with the US. If Russia and China want to weaken the relationship between the EU and US, they should embrace democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of information (no censorship) and respect human rights. Once that happens, the EU can afford to be critical of the US' many, many flaws.
I’d question whether American disfunctional democracy (sure you can vote, it just doesn’t make any difference) and terrible human rights record (denying human rights thanks to religious extremists, world’s highest percentage of population in jails, common and unpunished police murders) are really that much better compared to China.
They are. They are far, far from perfect, and very wrong in as lot of terrible ways. The US certainly doesn't have the moral high ground they often love to claim, but they're still much better than China or Russia on issues of democracy, human rights, freedom of speech, etc. A large minority of the US is working hard to change that, but they're not there yet.
I’d say mentioning China and Russia together in the same sentence already shows a massive bias. The only common thing they have is they are both hated by US.
I think that statement shows massive bias. There are massive differences between the two countries, but neither are beacons of freedom and human rights.
China has no elections at all, Russia has elections, but they're not remotely fair; any credible opposition tends to have "accidents". In both countries, criticism of the leader will be punished, though in different ways.
Neither has freedom of speech or a free press. It's much more structural in China, but in Russia you can still go to prison for years simply for calling the war a war. Any attempt at independent media gets harassed in various ways.
The main difference is in corruption and rule of law: Russia is pretty much entirely a mafia state now. Any assets you have are easily stolen by someone with better connections. Any of those rich oligarchs (who generally got wealthy through corruption and connections) who speaks out against Putin, is likely to lose what they have. In China, investments are safer, because China wants to attract business. And China does make real effort to fight corruption.
China's oppression of the Uyghurs is well documented, and is a process to destroy Uyghurs as a people: a form of genocide. I don't think Russia is doing anything remotely like that domestically, but both Putin and Russian state media do argue in various ways for genocide against Ukrainians.
China is a dictatorship through rule of law; they officially deny people their rights, but at least you know what to expect. Russia is a dictatorship through extreme corruption; you might nominally have rights, but you're likely to get an "accident" if you try to exercise those rights.
Russia is (obviously) far more aggressive and expansionist. China is more interested in soft power, expanding their economy, and influencing other countries through their economic expansion; much more in line with how the EU works, for example.
But no matter how you turn it, both really hate modern liberal values like democracy, free speech, free press, and don't care much for human and civil rights.
And sure, the US has a flawed democracy and has had its share of civil and human rights violations, some of which have still not been prosecuted (Guantanamo Bay), but at least nominally they do care about those issues, many of the people care about those issues, and demand improvement on those issues. Admittedly, there's also a very vocal minority that seems to prefer turning the US into an authoritarian dictatorship (more likely Russian-style and China-style), but they're a minority and they failed at their coup.
Like I said, the US is far from perfect, but if the EU needs an ally, the US is still the only real choice. The EU should probably learn to stand on its own feet and become more independent from the US, but it should not be naive about Russia and China (which it absolutely has been).
>China's oppression of the Uyghurs is well documented, and is a process to destroy Uyghurs as a people
It’s easy to demonstrate it’s not true: Uighurs, like other minorities, have certain privileges, like teaching kids their own language, or not being subject to one child policy. The oppression is a way to combat terrorism; essentially China is fighting the same problem US did, but in a more humanitarian fashion instead of bombing and droning.
Have you noticed that just from your description above Russia is much closer to US than to China? From unfair elections, to systemic oppression of racial minorities, to invading other countries.
Have you actually read that link? You're right, there are elections, but only at the local level. There's only a single party, and the national government interferes in local elections.
What China does well, though, is to get capable people in positions of power. I guess that's partially because the people don't get a direct say. Someone like Trump would never have been able to rise to power there.
> Uighurs, like other minorities, have certain privileges, like teaching kids their own language, or not being subject to one child policy.
> Have you noticed that just from your description above Russia is much closer to US than to China? From unfair elections, to systemic oppression of racial minorities, to invading other countries.
Oh, absolutely. Like I said, the US has more than its fair share of problems. These need to be addressed. But it's not a dictatorship yet, and while there are people who want to end US democracy, there are also a lot of people who want to strengthen it and address its problems. But it's absolutely true that under Trump, the US moved to become closer to Putin and more like Russia. And that is not a good direction to be moving in.
>You're right, there are elections, but only at the local level.
It's called "indirect elections", and is also used in US for presidential elections.
>There's only a single party
Which is fundamentally different from a two party system, right? :->
>And also to forced sterilisation and forced labour
Which also happen in American prisons.
See, here's the problem: I know precisely what you're trying to say, I used to believe it myself. But then I realised that this belief simply isn't backed by facts.
Americans have a chance to change stuff by voting for change , in Russia or China you need to wait for a revolution. Maybe is hard to change stuff in US but you should ask people that live in regimes where one guy is president for life and thinks he is the father of the nation and smartest person in the world if it was ever possible to change something or have the leader admit he is wrong or unwanted and leave.
You do realize that in China they also vote for changes? That’s why the country is changing so fast, as opposed to stagnating like Russia or US. China doesn’t have a president for life, this guy needs to have support or he’ll be voted out.
But this is kind of besides the point. What matters is what “real life” looks like. Are Chinese scared to call an ambulance, because it would bankrupt them? Are random black people being shot on the street?
Putin is also not a president for life in theory, there are "fair elections". As far as I know China elections are the same, same as we had in Romania during Communist party, the same dude always wins the elections, the ones that criticize him got deported or got killed, we had a comedian that made a joke about the president speech problems and he got poisoned so I understand how single party countries work, I am not from US so the black lives matters what about trolling does not work for me.
But for sure Russians should look at China and think something like "WTF we are not like China and we are a dump like North Korea, if Putin screws us at least if we got some better level of living".
Not sure if you are from China, I don't care about who is president there or to impose my country values on your culture, I was just explaining the big dangers of one party one man political system, there is corruption, misreporting, backstabbing, paranoia that eventually screws the population over. If the Chinese people decide freely to support the current political system(one party, no freedom of thinking and expression) then I respect their choice.
Also I don't know as much about China, Russia is here our neighbor so I know more about them, their politics, their mentality and their history so correct me if I got any factual thing wrong.
Here's a random fact about China: remember the Tienanmen massacre (which is being taught about in Chinese schools, btw)? The prime minister at that time spent the rest of his life in house arrest. (You might compare this to Kent State. Nobody got punished there.) But it shows that "the same dude" can be replaced when he screws up. Those aren't fake elections; they actually work.
It looks like that guy was just the fall guy, we had similar election in communist Romania, only 1 party , the president always won, the people with different ideas got sent to prison or suffered "accidents". Is your president term limited or he can be candidate forever?
Let me tell you a joke/story from communist Romania, at a farm a pig gives birth to 2 piglets, the engineer there thinks "shit, this is bad only 2, the local communist party guy will replace me so he writes in the papers 4 piglets and submits the report, his superior seens 4 piblets and thinks is bad and he updats the report to 6, the reports is sent up and up until it reaches Ceausescu - the Romanian for life president, father of the nation and smartest dude in the country in his opinion , he reads the report and sees 12 piglets, so he decides "send 2 to export and 10 will be used to feed out people" . We were super poor, there was not enough food, fuel and stuff ... with the democarcy we get corrupted politicians that we change them and a president can at most stay for 8 years, on top of that ex prime ministers, politicians were put in prison for corruption eventually so things started to work.
China is doing good economically in present but I saying there is a danger of things going wrong if the leadership is not refreshed and some dude ass gets glued to the chair, like why would only 1 dude can be president, can't be that he is the only competent person.
Thanks for chatting, because of the language difference and distance there is not much we can know about China, but remember in this case Ukraine is my neighbor and Russia also was and kind of is our neighbor too (I had to learn Russian in school too) so we the people in East Europe we know and understand things better , there is no CIA or US media that influenced our opinion and for sure "What about USA" arguments won't work on Europeans or especially Easter Europeans. So if you don't trust american media I can provide you links to local papers and maybe Google translate can help you read them, we have many policial parties so there is no excuse that some group controls all the media, and for sure we have our idiots that would prefer not to upset Putin because there are scared of what the mad man will do.
You live in Serbia? Does Russia has a claim on parts of your territory ?
I am old enough that I have heard direct reports from people that fought in the war and meet the Russian soldiers and people that lived under communist regime , so GTFO with your shity claim that who does not agree with you is an idiot that media corupted his mind not to live Russia.
Let me tell you, I don't love USA and I don't like the shit they done in Afganista,Iraq , I don't like what they did with the nuclear bombs in Japan, I don't like what they are doing with Assange but the fact is Russia is a bigger danger for my country and we were begging to enter NATO not because of love for USA but because we are fucking scared of Russia, and we are scared of them because we know not from media but from our direct experience what they are capable of.
Not all media is owned by weapon manufacturers. There's tons of independent media here, unlike in Russia, where the government dictates what the media are allowed to say. They can't call the war a war, for example. That is propaganda. The West allows all viewpoints, including the Russian one. It's just that the Russian propaganda doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
Also, Iraq was not a NATO war. It was just the US and UK, and many NATO members opposed it. I would certainly still like to see the US war crimes in Iraq prosecuted. But that does not in any way justify the Russian invasion or war crimes. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It could as easily be stated that nations join NATO in order to participate in NATO's war crimes, and share its war treasures. For the same reason that immigrants come to USA - because that's not where the bombs are falling.
Both statements are valid, and have just as much evidence supporting them.
Do you deny that NATO is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity on states its member-politicians have 'declared inferior'? Finland is just as capable of xenophobia as any other NATO member.
I'm sorry but what a weak reasoning. Why do eastern european countries join NATO, why does Finland joint? Because they want to raze the middle east and have xenophobia with Russians?
No, they join NATO because it provides security against Russia, a neighbour they fear. And they have plenty of reasons for such fear.
The existence of GLADIO is all the evidence one needs. Its purpose is to ensure any and all impediments to the expansion of NATO are removed.
The "Ma' Russians!" claim is not worth responding to, but I'm an Australian, have lived for decades in the US and in Eastern Europe, and I no longer play the nationalist game. I've been following the Wests' war crimes and crimes against humanity since 9/11, which has led me to the conclusion that yes indeed, we are the bad guys for starting World War 3 in 2003 with the illegal invasion of Iraq.
That does not prove your accusation that CIA was meddling in countries that willingly asked to join NATO because they did not want to get invaded by Russia.
Also, you're mischaracterizing the purpose of Operation Gladio.
Gladio is literally an organization whose purpose is to ensure the targeted states join NATO or, at least, remain aligned with NATO intentions.
States join NATO in order to participate in NATO's war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to be a part of the refactoring of the sovereign states of the world that NATO is engaged in. It is literally the #1 usurper of sovereign democracy.
You didn't read it, obviously. Why don't you go and inform yourself about Gladio and what the CIA have been up to in this regard, and then we can discuss things further - you don't seem to know much about it at all. Gladio is really just the tip of the iceberg - you can certainly find more details in the Wikileaks dumps. Just search for "victoria nuland" and check out the first 5 documents ..
I actually read the Wikipedia article you provided, including most relevant references. (for the context, I'm from Russia, and @stoltzmann's accusations of shilling certainly go against the spirit of this forum, they are made in bad faith as well, so I downvoted them).
The statements made in the article is that the CIA worked with their relevant counterparts (direct financing is unconfirmed) to establish a network of stay-behind organizations in Western Europe, that was supposed to resist the potential Warsaw Pact invasion. It peaked in late 60s at the height of the Cold War, has been substantially cut down since 70s and finally dismantled in 1990, being deemed harmful as the weapon caches it made were often plundered by criminals and domestic terrorists. Details differ from country to country but it was similar in principle everywhere.
That organization seems very typical for the Cold War, but I absolutely don't see how it supports your claim that CIA instigated the post-Cold War NATO expansion with this operation, could you please point me at the specific part?
Compare Iraq and Ukraine as countries. Are they remotely comparable as aggressors under international law? Recall both USSR and former SFRY sold weapons by the boatload to Iraq.
When it looks like Finland and Sweden are going to join NATO soon, you say it is because of CIA manipulation?
I assume you do not recognize the polls in for example Finland, which indicates ~22% support for joining NATO before the Russian invasion of Ukraine - to ~75% now (only 12% against)? This is all CIA manipulation?
So even if NATO completely surrounded Russia, do you think any of said war crimes would actually be committed against Russia directly because if so I want whatever you're smoking. They have 6000 nukes and US + EU combined have 25 times the GDP of Russia. We have everything to lose and practically nothing to gain from attacking Russias worthless economy.
Yes, I do believe that NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity that is bringing much death and destruction and turmoil to the world for the sake of special interests - political and commercial - who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built.
But, I've been paying attention to NATO's war crimes over the last two decades, as well as the immensely evil crimes against humanity committed by the Wests' 5-eyes nations in their disgusting wars. Why haven't you?
I actually am well aware of the crimes committed by NATO members (I would argue that they were not under NATO mandate though, except maybe Serbia, but that's a different argument). BTW the most atrocious crimes go back way more than 20 years. I also know that many western nations have been very nonchalant about violations of international law by their own allies, and I seriously hope that one of the outcomes of this crisis is that the Europeans in particular realize that to be believable you can't close your eyes just because it's your "friends".
All the above is true, but that doesn't change the fact that the motivation of the former eastern block countries is driven by a deep skepticism/fear of Russia and their politics of invading and repressing their neighbors. There is a reason why the Baltic states and Poland are the largest supporters of Ukraine, there is very strong opposition towards the Russian state, despite all countries having large Russian minorities.
Also with the (certainly justified) complaints about the "aggressive west", lets not act like Russia is some sort of innocent victim instead of being wannabe imperialists that are worse by pretty much any standard (and China is a completely different discussion).
I think this is a clear case where war is just very messy. It is easy to come up will all kinds of legal frameworks during peace time. And then a war situation will not be what you expect.
> You didn't answer the previous posters question.
That's how you troll. You reply to everything by pointing out something bad about NATO/USA/The West without answering anything.
Serious people assume good intentions on your part and waste their time with thoughtful replies only creating more opportunities for your drive-by replies.
YES, I believe NATO will commit further war crimes and continued crimes against humanity in its lust to demolish Russia. It has a long history of doing so already and shows no signs that it will stop its criminal behaviours in the near future.
>Yes, I do believe that NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity that is bringing much death and destruction and turmoil to the world for the sake of special interests - political and commercial - who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built.
>But, I've been paying attention to NATO's war crimes over the last two decades, as well as the immensely evil crimes against humanity committed by the Wests' 5-eyes nations in their disgusting wars. Why haven't you?
So no you did not answer the question.
Now I have a question for you, how did NATO force Russia to invade Ukraine, considering it is somehow part of their plan of "continued crimes against humanity in its lust to demolish Russia".
Second question, do you think what Russia is doing in Ukraine are crimes against humanity? If not why?
"do you think any of said war crimes would actually be committed against Russia directly?"
And the answer is YES, because NATO has already set a heinous precedent for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, with seeming impunity, for decades and shows no signs of stopping its criminal war regime.
So yes, I did answer the question. You maybe don't like the answer, though.
>NATO force Russia
NATO brought weapons of mass destruction to Russias borders. Unfortunately, this has now escalated into a war where, indeed, crimes against humanity are being committed. This is not unexpected, given the nature of war as a whole. It is inexcusable whether Russians or Americans are doing it, and that is entirely the point: the worlds' powers have already set a precedent, which Russia is clearly following.
Now here is a question for you: Why is it okay for Americans to support genocide in Yemen yet call for the end of Russia for its invasion of Ukraine?
> "do you think any of said war crimes would actually be committed against Russia directly?"
> And the answer is YES, because NATO has already set a heinous precedent for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, with seeming impunity, for decades and shows no signs of stopping its criminal war regime.
> So yes, I did answer the question. You maybe don't like the answer, though.
You seriously need to work on how you argue, because in every discussion I see here you answer in generalities, instead of specific answers. Yes now you have answered the question, but you definitely did not before.
Regarding your argument, by the same argument I could say that Russia will commit war crimes against NATO, because Russia has already set a heinous precedent for committing ware crimes for decades with no signs of stopping. That's not how this works.
> NATO brought weapons of mass destruction to Russias borders.
Which weapons of mass destruction?
Also you are saying NATO brought weapons of mass destruction to Russias borders. Let's not forget that Russia invaded and annexed Ukrainian territories in direct violation of the Budapest agreement, and that was all done for oil and gas nothing else. That triggered a massive change of public opinion about joining NATO in Ukraine, before there was only 20% support after it was well over 50%.
Also Russia already has weapons of mass destruction on NATO borders, there are already nuclear weapons in Kalingrad.
> Now here is a question for you: Why is it okay for Americans to support genocide in Yemen yet call for the end of Russia for its invasion of Ukraine?
I am neither American nor do I support the war in Yemen. I actually believe the propping up of the regime in Saudi Arabia by western governments is outrageous and one of the primary reasons for instability in the region. That does not mean I defend Russia's invasion in Ukraine, nor their behavior in e.g. Syria.
You know what would be really helpful here? Links to sources to know what the heck you're talking about. Preferably Wikipedia pages or something like that.
And no, "do your own research" is not a valid answer.
Providing evidence and arguments to support your claims is not "spoonfed bootlicking".
Your claim was: "NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity."
The first seems to be a link collecting data points for civilian casualties. I don't see any NATO actions on there; and in any case it's missing the further evidence that war crimes and human rights abuse occurred.
The second page, on the front page anyway, has nothing about NATO whatsoever as far as I could tell.
Airwars tracks civilian casualties of war. These casualties - war crimes and crimes against humanity - are committed by NATO members and aligned states almost every single day. NATO bases are used to launch the attacks. NATO resources are used to cover up the crimes.
Clearly, you're not asking for this information in good faith, or else you'd have discerned this already, even with a casual look at the Airwars reports, which details quite descriptively the nature of NATO involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
As far as your glib understanding of Wikileaks, I suggest you really, really study the material.
> who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built
Broken window fallacy [0]. That money spent on bases is a cost we'd rather not spend because it could be spent on other things or just saved with reduced taxes giving us citizens more of our money back.
The fact is, billions and billions in profits have been made by every single NATO base built, and it has not stopped a single damn war. In fact, NATO bases have been used to commit one heinous atrocity after the other for the last 30 years.
Yes, NATO-aligned states do currently commit war crimes and crimes against humanity at heinous scale - with seeming impunity - and there is nothing to indicate this would change in their battle against Russia. Sanctions - factually, crimes against humanity since they collectively punish an entire nation - are already evidence of the intentions of the West in dealing with Russia: to see its destruction.
The Russians are in no position to ask for anything.
They have proved that unless they are invading a much less militarily capable neighbour (being the local bully) they do not have the resources or ability to worry a NATO force. Hence the reason Sweden and Finland will now join.
Only the nuclear threat remains, which would mean the annihilation of Russia to save one mans ego if it was ever used.
> NATO bases have been being used to launch crimes against humanity and war crimes (with seeming impunity) for decades.
Any sources, or hints at what you are referring to? I have no clue what you might be hinting at. Normally (whether I believe that statement or not) I at least have some idea what is being referred to with allegations like this.
The Finnish border isn’t that much closer to any important parts of Russia than the Baltic states already were. The strategic difference is perhaps mostly in how difficult it might be for Russia to attempt what they did to Ukraine on a Baltic state. The scenario is a swift invasion and an annexation being fait accompli and a threat of Nuclear use if any NATO countries come to their defense under Article 5. That would have been a sticky situation for NATO in the past (at least we thought so until we saw their military performance lately) but will be less so with Finland in the alliance.