Who still thinks Ukraine should be part of NATO?

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
As always, still just a whiny advocate for Russian imperialism. The increase in NATO membership was the result of the contraction of the Russian empire: as the eastern European states were abruptly freed from Russian captivity, they clamored for the protection of NATO, knowing from their past experiences that it wouldn't be long before Russia would try to take control of them again.

And Jose finds this desire to be free from Russia horrifying. He says Russia is surrounded by NATO, but in fact Russia is surrounded by the same states it has always been surrounded by, and not a single one of them is controlled by NATO, so what has changed? The only thing that has changed is that Russia can no longer try to bully it way into control of these states with violence of threats of violence, and Jose finds this intolerable.

Your post proved my whole point for me once again... to the point I don't even know what we are still disagreeing over.

You say:

the eastern European states... clamored for the protection of NATO, knowing from their past experiences that it wouldn't be long before Russia would try to take control of them again.

toomuchtime​

If the enlargement of NATO was based on an imaginary imperialist aggression against her neighbors that post soviet Russia would inevitably commit in the future and not on a foreign aggression post soviet Russia had already actually committed, if you concede the fact that the whole expansion was based on a SUSPICION and not on a FACT, you're basically agreeing with me that Russia is reacting to NATO's expansionism and not the other way around.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your post proved my whole point for me once again... to the point I don't even know what we are still disagreeing over.

You say:

the eastern European states... clamored for the protection of NATO, knowing from their past experiences that it wouldn't be long before Russia would try to take control of them again.

toomuchtime​

If the enlargement of NATO was based on an imaginary imperialist aggression against her neighbors that post soviet Russia would inevitably commit in the future and not on a foreign aggression post soviet Russia had already actually committed, if you concede the fact that the whole expansion was based on a SUSPICION and not on a FACT, you're basically agreeing with me that Russia is reacting to NATO's expansionism and not the other way around.

Russia's neighbors clamored to join NATO because of hundreds of years of experience with Russian imperialism, whether under the Tsars the communists, and after the dissolution of the USSR, Russia was so broke it couldn't pay the police of the army or safely maintain its nuclear arsenal without billions of dollars of aid from Europe and the US, but as soon as the Russian economy began to recover, Putin cancelled the treaty that had ended the Chechen war and invaded again because that treaty had given Chechnya a degree of independence that was unacceptable to Russia. The US and western Europeans were foolishly optimistic that Russian culture could change, but the eastern Europeans had hundreds of years of experience with the Russians that told them imperialism was a core value of Russian culture.

The eastern European countries joined NATO so that Russia could not again try to control them and if Russia had no imperialist ambitions, this would not be seen as a threat by the Russians.

 

[para bellum]

Really?

When did Russia march down the streets of Kiev?

Lol. You had to ask...

 

[alang1216]

Ukraine reminds me of Poland in 1939: An newly independent country which separated a great power from its vital territories. Egged on by the far-removed British, Poland pugnaciously refused any land access between Germany and East Prussia. Germany finally took this matter into its own hands and the British foolishly started another world war.

Does anyone see the parallels between this catastrophe and the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Like the dissolution of Germany after WW1, the breakup of the Soviet Union resulted in the newly independent country of Ukraine, which deprived Russia of its vital naval base in Crimea. As the U.S. started meddling in Ukrainian politics, Ukraine became more and more belligerent towards Russian access to its naval base. When Russia finally retook Crimea, the U.S. response was so weak that Russia decided to retake all of the connecting provinces in East Ukraine.

Just like Britain in 1939, the U.S. had foolishly guaranteed Ukrainian territory and now felt it had to engage in hostile military action in order to save face and economically harm its Russian rival. Is the risk of a nuclear conflagration really worth this proxy war?

Dear Comrade: So you take the side of an authoritarian gov't? If we do nothing when Russia invades a border country they might take a page from Hitler and take another, and another, and another... Russia is a paper tiger and no military threat to the West.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
Russia's neighbors clamored to join NATO because of hundreds of years of experience with Russian imperialism, whether under the Tsars the communists, and after the dissolution of the USSR, Russia was so broke it couldn't pay the police of the army or safely maintain its nuclear arsenal without billions of dollars of aid from Europe and the US, but as soon as the Russian economy began to recover, Putin cancelled the treaty that had ended the Chechen war and invaded again because that treaty had given Chechnya a degree of independence that was unacceptable to Russia. The US and western Europeans were foolishly optimistic that Russian culture could change, but the eastern Europeans had hundreds of years of experience with the Russians that told them imperialism was a core value of Russian culture.

The eastern European countries joined NATO so that Russia could not again try to control them and if Russia had no imperialist ambitions, this would not be seen as a threat by the Russians.

Your inability to point out any russian aggression against eastern Europe that preceded NATO expansion is now becoming a recurring pattern and due to the excellent reason that there wasn't any.

Originally posted by toomuchtime
as soon as the Russian economy began to recover, Putin cancelled the treaty that had ended the Chechen war and invaded again because that treaty had given Chechnya a degree of independence that was unacceptable to Russia.

The second War in Chechnya started when chechen warlord Shamil Basayev invaded the neighboring province of Dagestan and keep the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation does not qualify as aggression against Russia's neighbors.

Now having made this distinction, I'm not going to hide behind Chechenya's legal status to justify the chechen war. They are a separate people with a distinct national identity just like Ukraine and should have a right to have their own country if this is the will of the majority.

But if NATO considers this as reasonable grounds to militarily encircle european Russia they should give the example first, expel Spain and Turkey and surround those 2 nations because they also violently put down any attempt by catalan and kurd separatists from leaving their respective countries.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
The eastern European countries joined NATO so that Russia could not again try to control them and if Russia had no imperialist ambitions, this would not be seen as a threat by the Russians.

Straight from the horse's mouth:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The four north-eastern battlegroups (in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) are under NATO command through the Multinational Corps Northeast Headquarters in Szczecin, Poland. Two division-level headquarters coordinate training and preparation activities of their respective battlegroups.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/...,activities of their respective battlegroups.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe in your home planet, Venus, Jupiter or Saturn, powerful foreign military alliances surrounding your borders with military bases has no relevance but here on planet Earth nation states universally regard it as an extremelly grave threat to their national security.

 

[ESay]

Your inability to point out any russian aggression against eastern Europe that preceded NATO expansion is now becoming a recurring pattern and due to the excellent reason that there wasn't any.

Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. But your ilk likes to say that the Soviet Union and Russia is not the same. Okay. Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the early 1990s.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your inability to point out any russian aggression against eastern Europe that preceded NATO expansion is now becoming a recurring pattern and due to the excellent reason that there wasn't any.



The second War in Chechnya started when chechen warlord Shamil Basayev invaded the neighboring province of Dagestan and keep the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation does not qualify as aggression against Russia's neighbors.

Now having made this distinction, I'm not going to hide behind Chechenya's legal status to justify the chechen war. They are a separate people with a distinct national identity just like Ukraine and should have a right to have their own country if this is the will of the majority.

But if NATO considers this as reasonable grounds to militarily encircle european Russia they should give the example first, expel Spain and Turkey and surround those 2 nations because they also violently put down any attempt by catalan and kurd separatists from leaving their respective countries.

Again and again, you return to the same old lie that Russia is surrounded by NATO, but Russia is surrounded by exactly the same countries that have always surrounded it and not a single one of them is controlled by NATO. What you are complaining about is that these states are no longer vulnerable to a Russian takeover.

 

[Ringo]

I think Ukraine should be free to do as they desire.

In order for her to be free, the American embassy must be removed from the country.

 

[JWBooth]

The gorilla in the room (that everyone is aware of) is that Putin has larger designs that just eastern Ukraine.

The Ukes have kicked the Russian’s butts.
Putin is gonna steamroll over Europe.
Which is it?
Evidence is that neither is true.

 

[gipper]

The gorilla in the room (that everyone is aware of) is that Putin has larger designs that just eastern Ukraine.

No proof of this but you being a good neocon, keep pushing it.

Putin’s been in power 20 years and suddenly he’s morphed into Joe Stalin. You crazy!

 

[gipper]

Well, I think it is far from being a done deal.

1. Presidential elections in the US and possibility of a Republican nominee to win. And personalities don't matter in this case. Many Republicans oppose providing any aid to Ukraine and their candidate will have to get along with their stance.

2. Many people in Europe are still afraid of Russia and want to somewhat restore cooperation with Russia for economic benefits.

3. NATO forbids countries with territorial disputes to apply for membership. Ukraine won't recognize the occupied lands as parts of Russia and won't be able to return them back by military means in the foreseeable future.

4. It is more convenient for NATO to have a buffer zone between it and Russia.

As you must know, the USG’s (NATO) instigation, promotion, and continuation of this war was never about Ukraine joining NATO. It’s always been about harming Russia and further enrichment of the MIC, with big kickbacks to the two crime families.

 

[gipper]

Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. But your ilk likes to say that the Soviet Union and Russia is not the same. Okay. Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the early 1990s.

If Russian military interventions concern you so much, why have you failed to criticize the one nation responsible for the most military interventions?

 

[gipper]

Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. But your ilk likes to say that the Soviet Union and Russia is not the same. Okay. Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the early 1990s.

Okay. Now apply that logic to the USG since 1956. Can you?

 

[Woodznutz]

No proof of this but you being a good neocon, keep pushing it.

Putin’s been in power 20 years and suddenly he’s morphed into Joe Stalin. You crazy!

What if he had been successful in taking Kiev?

 

[gipper]

What if he had been successful in taking Kiev?

You think if he took Kiev he’d invade other countries, yet there is no evidence of this. Why do you believe lies put out by the liars in our government, who’ve lied to you for decades?

 

[postman]

... if you concede the fact that the whole expansion was based on a SUSPICION and not on a FACT, you're basically agreeing with me that Russia is reacting to NATO's expansionism and not the other way around.

Interesting concept. So if America builds a wall along it's southern border, then Mexico could react to it, by invading the US?

 

[postman]

Putin’s been in power 20 years and suddenly he’s morphed into Joe Stalin. You crazy!

Russian President Vladimir Putin signs the treaty of accession (annexation) with Crimean leaders in Moscow, 18 March 2014. Formal annexation of Crimea by Russia on 18 March, illegal under international law. Russia was suspended from the G8. International sanctions imposed on Russia.

 

[gipper]

Russian President Vladimir Putin signs the treaty of accession (annexation) with Crimean leaders in Moscow, 18 March 2014. Formal annexation of Crimea by Russia on 18 March, illegal under international law. Russia was suspended from the G8. International sanctions imposed on Russia.

Do you know Crimea has been part of Russia longer than the USA has existed?

 

[postman]

Do you know Crimea has been part of Russia longer than the USA has existed?

Is that like the US being part of Great Britain?