this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
1118 points (96.4% liked)

Political Memes

5598 readers
1800 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] finitebanjo 118 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Are people actually arguing that NATO membership is the reason for Russian attacks on neighboring nations?

Putin literally said he wants to restore the old Russian Empire. What the fuck was thay suppose to mean, then? A joke?

Jfc the number of people who don't believe the terrible things Dictators say they are going to do is too damn high.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 month ago

Tankies need to toe the party line.

[–] Sam_Bass 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

NATO membership was pootins public reason for war

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

One of the listed reasons, yes. Other reasons:

  1. Protecting russia-speaking people of Donbass (almost identical reason Hitler gave for invading Austria and Sudetenlands in 1938)

  2. Historical and cultural justifications, Putin claimed Ukraine is not a legitimate state (also an argument used by Hitler in 1938)

  3. To stop "aggression of Ukraine in Luhansk and Donetsk" (Hitler accused Poland of the same in 1939)

  4. Reclaiming rightful territory (Hitler referenced the Treaty of Versailles as reason for his wars)

  5. Claiming that diplomacy failed and that Putin has no choice but to invade (also said by Hitler)

It's almost as if Putin is Hitler reincarnated.

[–] finitebanjo 2 points 1 month ago

I thought it was Gay Nazis or something.

I've honestly not even heard Putin mention NATO on Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Relations_between_Georgia_and_the_West

During the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, American president George W. Bush campaigned for offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia and Ukraine. However, Germany and France said that offering a MAP to Ukraine and Georgia would be "an unnecessary offence" for Russia.[99] NATO stated that Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted in the alliance and pledged to review the requests for MAP in December 2008.[100] Russian President Vladimir Putin was in Bucharest during the summit. At the conclusion of the summit on 4 April, Putin said that NATO's enlargement towards Russia "would be taken in Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country".[101] Following the Bucharest summit, Russian hostility increased and Russia started to actively prepare for the invasion of Georgia.[102] The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Yuri Baluyevsky said on 11 April that Russia would carry out "steps of a different nature" in addition to military action if Ukraine and Georgia join NATO.[103] General Baluyevsky said in 2012 that after President Putin had decided to wage the war against Georgia prior to the May 2008 inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as president of Russia, a military action was planned and explicit orders were issued in advance before August 2008. According to Van Herpen, Russia aimed to stop Georgia's accession to NATO and also to bring about a "regime change".[83][104]

There is a direct cause-effect relationship for Russias invasion of Georgia and it seems that at the time France and Germany were aware of this, while Bush pushed for an escalation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Geopolitical_impact

The 2008 war was the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union that the Russian military had been used against an independent state, demonstrating Russia's willingness to use military force to attain its political objectives.[287] Robert Kagan argued that "Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point" because it "marked the official return of history".[288] The failure of the Western security organisations to react swiftly to Russia's attempt to violently revise the borders of an OSCE country revealed its deficiencies. The division between Western European and Eastern European states also became apparent over the relationship with Russia. Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries received a clear message from the Russian leadership that the possible accession to NATO would cause a foreign incursion and the break-up of the country. Effective takeover of Abkhazia was also one of Russia's geopolitical goals.

The war also affected Georgia's ongoing and future memberships in international organisations. On 12 August 2008 the country proclaimed that it would quit the Commonwealth of Independent States, which it held responsible for not avoiding the war. Its departure became effective in August 2009.[291] The war hindered Georgia's prospects for joining NATO for the foreseeable future.[87][292] Medvedev stated in November 2011 that NATO would have accepted former Soviet republics if Russia had not attacked Georgia. "If you ... had faltered back in 2008, the geopolitical situation would be different now," Medvedev told the officers of a Vladikavkaz military base.

According to academic Martin Malek, western countries did not feel it was necessary to aggravate tensions with Russia over "tiny and insignificant" Georgia. He wrote in the Caucasian Review of International Affairs that Western policy makers did not want to alienate Russia because its support was necessary to solve "international problems".[38] The May 2015 report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament stated that "the reaction of the EU to Russia's aggression towards, and violation of the territorial integrity of, Georgia in 2008 may have encouraged Russia to act in a similar way in Ukraine".[294] The Russian invasion of Ukraine brought the memories of the Russo-Georgian War again into a broader geopolitical focus. In an opinion piece published in The New York Times on 6 March 2022, the incumbent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson stated that Russia's actions in Georgia in 2008 was one of the lessons of the past that the West has failed to learn

This isn't just "Putin said". There seems to be a quite clear understanding of that being the trigger point for Russia among foreign policy politicians and experts in Europe.

[–] finitebanjo 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You realise that Russia invading people for even considering the chance to a mutual defence pact isn't Western escelation, right? If anything it is proof that Russia has been planning to invade them since long before all of this.

Russia isn't at any risk of NATO countries attacking them because NATO countries have no obligation to protect an aggressor member-state. They became hostile because they were losing their chance to warmonger.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are people actually arguing that NATO membership is the reason for Russian attacks on neighboring nations?

That is your thesis. As can be seen with Russia invasion of Georgia and as it is understood by European politicians and experts, this thesis seems rather weak. This has nothing to do with whether Russias view is justified or not.

But again i'd like to invite the thought experiment. Imagine Mexico or Canada to join a military defense pact with Russia. How do you think the US would react? Which reaction would be justified in your eyes?

If you say that it is different because of how Russia has been using military violence to further its interests, which is a good point, how does that differ from the US invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?

If the US is expanding its influence towards the borders of other nations with power aspirations, it is not perceived any different how we would perceive their influence towards us. Case in point Ukraine. It is not just said, that Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine is a problem because it is an illegal invasion, but it is also said that Ukraine is defending "our" western freedom. But you can't have it both ways.

[–] finitebanjo 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Iraq and Afghanistan are not and were never colonies or US owned. After W. Bush invaded Iraq for oil he was vilified and the opposition party got to replace them for 8 years, which were spent investing in peace and diplomacy in the Middle East. Afghanistan and Iraq were allowed to reassemble autonomously as long as they did so peacefully. Obama earned a nobel peace prize. Then, the next guy in office from the same party as Bush decided to withdraw troops and release thousands of captured militants which lead to an immediate collapse of middle eastern state of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Putin has been in power for decades and will continue to do so until he dies. He is attempting to expand Russia, take complete authority over neighboring states.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are you seriously arguing, that no one should feel threatened by the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, because then the leadership of the US changed, while the occupations continued for two more decades?

With that sentiment it is no wonder, that most of the world that is not aligned with the US feel threatened by them. Also you should listen to Putins claims about Ukraine. It is the exact same bullshit. "It is just a special military operation". "We have to get rid of their corrupt leaders." "They will have freedom and self determination under us, if they are peaceful."

[–] finitebanjo 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If USA were out conquering Mexico or Canada then you could rightly call them out for their bullshit, but it is the epitomy of disingenous to compare Iraq to Ukraine.

Guess what the NATO response was to Iraq? Nothing. Guess what the NATO response was to Bay of Pigs Invasion? Nothing. NATO is not the USA and it does not protect aggressor member states. Its a mutual defense pact that has never been called upon because nobody has ever been stupid enough to attack its members.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Afghanistan was a NATO "intervention". The "Coalition of the willing" invading Iraq largely consisted of NATO members and was invoke by Bush at a NATO summit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

Again you need to differ between formal constitution and de facto actions and perception of them.

[–] finitebanjo 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Saddam Hussain ruled Iraq for 24 years during which he invaded Iran to stop rebels from overthrowing the Iranian Sunni theocracy, killing a million people and almost successfully genocided the Kurdish people.

Then, 4 NATO nations invaded Iraq while 37 willingly provided non-combatant support troops. Some NATO nations did nothing and one member opposed the invasion completely.

The United Nations itself actually placed trade restrictions on Iraq without anybody vetoing or opposing it.

Saddam was tried by Iraqis in Iraq after his capture.

I'm willing to bet you simultaneously stand up for Saddam Hussain while you condemn Netanyahu, because Genocide is fine as long as its on your side, right?

And you know what could have prevented the USA's invasion? A Mutual Defence Pact.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Putin said that NATO's enlargement towards Russia "would be taken in Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country".

Security Dilemma in action: One party wants to strengthen their own security, the other party considers that a threat to theirs and responds in kind.

Instead of mutually agreeing that they've both reached a point of military capacity where actual war would be more costly than lucrative, the respective leaders conveniently overlook who would be paying that cost and keep posturing, and the arms dealers keep making bank.