this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
482 points (97.3% liked)

World News

32372 readers
453 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ikidd 36 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Russia isn't in NATO, but they are it's most successful recruiter.

[–] SkyezOpen 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Which is why I'm baffled why people still spread the myth that Russia invaded to 'stop nato aggression.'

Like, firstly you're fucking wrong, but if you want to wear that L like a medal then go for it. Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I'm not sure who would say that it was to 'stop NATO aggression', but it's not hard to imagine it as a some kind of response to NATO's continued expansion around them.

NATO hasn't been in any direct operations against Russia but they have been involved in the ME where they have been active.

I think of it a lot in the same way as the US's pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

The "Cuban" missile crisis was started by USA putting nukes in Turkey.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wasnt the US involved in SA long before the CMC?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Well yea, the US has had imperial ambitions since its founding, but they definitely doubled down when their primary adversary set up camp in their backyard

[–] SkyezOpen -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

I'm not sure who would say that it was to 'stop NATO aggression'

I think the line might be "in response to" or similar, but it's parroted by tankies and russophiles.

NATO's continued expansion around them.

Can we imagine any reasons why Russia's neighbors might want to join a defensive pact to protect against Russia? No? Oh well, must be US imperialism then.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not saying there isn't reason for those countries to want to joint an alliance against their imperialist neighbor, but honestly it's kinda hard not to see how NATO's influence has been abused for purposes other than defense.

[–] SkyezOpen 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I won't even disagree, but that still is not a valid excuse to invade a soverign country.

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Russia wanted to join NATO under Clinton. NATO said no because a nation has to be stable and not in a conflict to join. Russia had a conflict in Chechnya.

(_see where I’m going _)

Ukraine wanted to join NATO. But if Russia invaded, they can’t join.

[–] SkyezOpen 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I know why they did it. That doesn't make it valid.

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Valid? War isn’t reasonable.

[–] SkyezOpen 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Justified, then. Much like Israel's ongoing bullshit in Gaza is not anywhere near justified.

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Oh, you want me to make a moral judgement. Okay. NATO and Putin are to blame. NATO shouldn’t have expanded, and Putin should let his neighbors have sovereignty without meddling in their governments.

[–] TokenBoomer 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Which happened first? NATO expansion, or Russian invasion?

There’s your answer.

[–] SkyezOpen 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Which one was specifically disallowed by a treaty? Just curious.

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] SkyezOpen 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes.

Edited out my snark because I mixed up replies.

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No need to be rude. Your question was not specific. NATO knew that Russia was concerned about NATO expansion, they did it anyway. Many saw this coming:

Even that first stage provoked Russian opposition and anger. In her memoir, Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, concedes that “[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.” Source

Per the article, “Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone‐​deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐​century deserves a large share as well.”

[–] SkyezOpen 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah that was my bad, I had just mentioned the memorandum in another thread and got mixed up.

Bottom line is Russia doesn't get to unilaterally dictate what other countries do. It's like my neighbor pounding on my door yelling at me to stop having premarital sex because it offends him. He can get bent, and if he kicks in my door to stop me, he's wrong.

[–] Linkerbaan 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Nato: Invades the entire middle east and fucks it up to steal oil

You: "What a great defensive alliance"

Where those WMD's in Iraq at?

[–] SkyezOpen 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're right. A warmonger republican president lied 20 years ago, so invading your neighbors is totally OK and any steps to prevent that are imperialism.

[–] Linkerbaan -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Especially if NATO pinky winky promises they wouldn't expand eastward multiple times and keeps violating that promise.

Also nice how you forget about Obama continuing it and bombing a slew of other countries such as Afghanistan.

One only needs to look at Palestine to realize how fucked up NATO is. Willing to defend israel's Genocide and attacking anyone that tries to stop it such as the Houthis.

[–] SkyezOpen 3 points 7 months ago

What was the name of the treaty that said nato wouldn't expand? Oh there wasn't one? It was just something someone MAYBE said according to gorbachev? Cool.

How about the Budapest memorandum? Does that have any weight?

[–] AnUnusualRelic 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Because that's what Russia has been repeating for the past two years. Some people believe lies whan they're repeated often enough.

A major reason may have been to stop Ukraine's entry in Nato though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.

The Baltic states joined in 2004. Long before Putin was made into a pariah, and Russia was still seen as part of the West and publicly aspiring to join NATO

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago

russia, seen as part of the west? what the hell.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I am very confused by your comment. Are you saying Putin never said that, or are you saying he was lying?

From Putin's actual mouth:

ON DECISION TO LAUNCH 'SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION'

"We saw military infrastructure being ramped up, hundreds of military advisers working and regular deliveries of modern weapons from NATO. (The level of) danger was increasing every day. Russia preventively rebuffed the aggressor. It was necessary, timely and ... right. The decision of a sovereign, strong, independent country."

Just to be clear, he definitely said that, but he was definitely lying.

(source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-speaks-victory-day-parade-moscows-red-square-2022-05-09/)

[–] SkyezOpen 1 points 7 months ago

but he was definitely lying

That's my point. We know why they SAID they did it, we also know it's not true. So why continue to parrot the Russian propaganda?