Maybe NATO should back down?

[Twilight Hue]

If Yeltsin had asked to join the NATO ...would have the NATO said yes?

I dunno. Its a good question.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks for the info.

A lot of what he says is relevant, except for his claim of genocide by nats; and I don't know anything about terrorists in the Caucasus. Still, we set him up with our (arguably illegal) invasions; and he spiked the ball. We set him up, and he can legitimately claim we are liars in some ways. Definitely our president seems to have lied about WMD's in Iraq. Still, Russia's news services aren't spiced with truth, either. They seem a little hoky sometimes, and they are a bit too directly influenced and controlled by government cronies. This weakens the argument. He doesn't have the legitimacy to support claims of genocide in Ukraine, and I personally know of people who lived in Ukraine who have had to flee from there. They're not genocidal in any way shape or form, nor are they degenerate.

Terrorism in Russia - Wikipedia <-- basic public info about terrorism in Russia. I don't see any reason to blame it on NATO, though perhaps some other information will appear.

My overall impression of the speech is that he has a legitimate complaint against the encroachment of NATO, but.... Still, he took Crimea; and that had nothing to do with terrorists or genocide. He simply took Crimea, and whatever he says about defending the people there makes no sense to me. I believe his main motivation is this 'Moral degeneracy' that he thinks that the US is pushing -- probably our ideas about LGBT rights. I think he equates this with genocide. These ideas offend and alarm many people, including many people in our own country; so that is why I think he might consider it the equivalent of genocide though it is ridiculous to me to equate these things. Even so our (and my) distrust of him should not have kept us from listening to this argument against an encroaching NATO.

 

[Augustus]

Not quite

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

The articles clearly says he never asked to join:

Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

Demanding that others beg you to join while making zero attempt to cooperate or facilitate that process is hardly an attempt to join.

It's not like joining a golf club, it's a treaty organisation that commits you to massive amounts of cooperation, technological sharing and integration and a guarantee to go to war to protect that country if they are attacked.

Yet it is NATO's fault because they don't beg someone to join such an alliance who makes no genuine attempt to join or even to meet them half-way?

Don't be silly.

 

[Estro Felino]

The articles clearly says he never asked to join:

Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

Demanding that others beg you to join while making zero attempt to cooperate or facilitate that process is hardly an attempt to join.

It's not like joining a golf club, it's a treaty organisation that commits you to massive amounts of cooperation, technological sharing and integration and a guarantee to go to war to protect that country if they are attacked.

Yet it is NATO's fault because they don't beg someone to join such an alliance who makes no genuine attempt to join or even to meet them half-way?

Don't be silly.

I would like you to answer my questions.

1) Is the NATO an organization where the will of the United State prevails over the will of other members?
2) Is the NATO an organization of unequal members?
3) Is the NATO an organization led by the United States?

Thank you.

 

[Flankerl]

The scholar in the included video argues that NATO has threatened Russia by potentially placing nukes there

False. Where are these Nukes supposed to be?

he also says that US CIA has promoted right wing candidates in Ukraine thus interfering with its politics

The current President is a quasi independent with a Centre party whose primary goal is to root our corruption.
Corruption that was born out of the previous Russia-backed President.

I think he makes an argument though perhaps there are counter perspectives to consider.

Counter perspectives like reality.

My overall impression of the speech is that he has a legitimate complaint against the encroachment of NATO

No he doesn't because these countries who used to be under the thumb of Moscow wanted a life free of that thumb.
So they chose freedom within NATO and the EU.
Ukraine couldn't and the results are clear.
The only thing keeping Russian Tanks out of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc are NATO and the EU.

I believe his main motivation is this 'Moral degeneracy' that he thinks that the US is pushing -- probably our ideas about LGBT rights

False. He has already said why he does it. He considers the area of Ukraine as Russia.
Same with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Moldavia is currently scared beyond belief because they used to be part of the USSR too.
He wants to undo 1991.

I do blame the NATO because Putin had asked to join, but the NATO was pretty reluctant saying that Russia would become a vassal member.

There is nothing in any NATO text to force member countries to do anything.

 

[Stevicus]

He condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but he does think the US and NATO helped to cause the situation.

I think he makes an argument though perhaps there are counter perspectives to consider.

I think there is some truth to the notion that the US and NATO have helped cause this situation. NATO should have been disbanded in 1991. There was no longer any reason for it to exist once the Soviet Union disbanded and communism in Eastern Europe came to an end. Even if we had reasons for keeping NATO intact, we still could have handled it much better.

Our conduct in other parts of the world since that time might also be called into question, such as Somalia, the former Yugoslavia (which included the bombing of Belgrade, something that caused the Russians to sit up and take notice), Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. Our military goes willy-nilly all over the world, as if they think they can do whatever they want. We have 750 bases in over 80 countries (750 Bases in 80 Countries Is Too Many for Any Nation: Time for the US to Bring Its Troops Home | Cato Institute).

The US government, political leadership, and media are way too tone deaf to understand how that makes us look. Indeed, it seems that the biggest fear among US policymakers is "showing weakness," as if 750 bases in 80 countries isn't strong enough for them.

They seem genuinely confused by nations and governments who claim to feel threatened by US militarism. Even Americans seem incredulous by the notion, ostensibly believing that our government is made up of saints who would never do anything wrong in the world.

 

[Estro Felino]

Who is stupid enough to believe such hogwash?
There is nothing in any NATO text to force member countries to do anything.

Actually we Italians save anything.
There still are all the documents that explain what kind of membership Italy has in the NATO as former occupied country. And as ratification of previous agreements in the armistice of 1943, 1945.

 

[Augustus]

1) Is the NATO an organization where the will of the United State prevails over the will of other members?

No

members?
2) Is the NATO an organization of unequal members?

Yes

3) Is the NATO an organization led by the United States?

Yes

 

[Revoltingest]

Spoiler: Scholar says Global South mistrusts US intentions

This video says there are many people in the southern hemisphere that view US as a provocateur in this current Russian-Ukraine war. The scholar in the included video argues that NATO has threatened Russia by potentially placing nukes there, and he also says that US CIA has promoted right wing candidates in Ukraine thus interfering with its politics. These are seen as provocations which have triggered some anxiety in Russia. He compares NATO's actions to those of the USSR when it attempted to place nukes in Cuba in the 60's. He says that there was a diplomatic way to handle this situation but that "The West was not interested in a diplomatic solution" and also worries that the USA with our enormous military will also stoke tensions in the Far East.

He condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but he does think the US and NATO helped to cause the situation.

I think he makes an argument though perhaps there are counter perspectives to consider.

Consider....
Russia invaded Europe in WW2.
NATO formed to defend against Russia
European NATO members have a few hundred nukes.
Russia has thousands of nukes.
USA has thousands of nukes.
On the surface, this suggests mutual provocation.

Beneath the surface....
One NATO member (Germany) invaded Russia.
Russia invaded Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, & Latvia.
Other countries joined the USSR under varying levels of coercion.
So far, Russia appears to be the greater provocateur.

What's it all boil down to?
Emotion & lack of negotiating peaceful relations.
I blame both USA & Russia.
But this does not excuse acquiring territory by
invading Gerogia, Crimea, & now Ukraine.

 

[Estro Felino]

No



Yes



Yes

Thank you for answering. So...you are admitting that it is not an organization of equal members.

Dont you think Russia had the right to be an equal member to the United States, given her own importance and since it is the largest country in the world?

Dont you think Russia had a point?

 

[Flankerl]

I think there is some truth to the notion that the US and NATO have helped cause this situation. NATO should have been disbanded in 1991. There was no longer any reason for it to exist once the Soviet Union disbanded and communism in Eastern Europe came to an end. Even if we had reasons for keeping NATO intact, we still could have handled it much better.

Yes no defensive pact for those small Eastern European countries.
Heaven forbid they have security against Russia.

They seem genuinely confused by nations and governments who claim to feel threatened by US militarism. Even Americans seem incredulous by the notion, ostensibly believing that our government is made up of saints who would never do anything wrong in the world.

He said while ignoring that the same is true in Eastern Europe towards Russia.

Actually we Italians save anything.
There still are all the documents that explain what kind of membership Italy has in the NATO as former occupied country. And as ratification of previous agreements in the armistice of 1943, 1945.

Then post it.
Il mio italiano andrà bene per questo.
But you won't post it because all you do is claim something without ever backing it up.

 

[Revoltingest]

They seem genuinely confused by nations and governments who claim to feel threatened by US militarism. Even Americans seem incredulous by the notion, ostensibly believing that our government is made up of saints who would never do anything wrong in the world.

I wonder what country you live in.
It's certainly not Ameristan, where everyone believes
our leaders are corrupt ********. The only differences
lie in who despises which leaders.

 

[Stevicus]

Consider....
Russia invaded Europe in WW2.
NATO formed to defend against Russia
European NATO members have a few hundred nukes.
Russia has thousands of nukes.
USA has thousands of nukes.
On the surface, this suggests mutual provocation.

Beneath the surface....
One NATO member (Germany) invaded Russia.
Russia invaded Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, & Latvia.
Other countries joined the USSR under varying levels of coercion.
So far, Russia appears to be the greater provocateur.

What's it all boil down to?
Emotion & lack of negotiating peaceful relations.
I blame both USA & Russia.
But this does not excuse acquiring territory by
invading Gerogia, Crimea, & now Ukraine.

Well, history goes a lot further back than WW2. The world is bigger than just Europe.

I agree both sides share some degree of blame.

 

[fantome profane]

If Yeltsin had asked to join the NATO ...would have the NATO said yes?

That would be like The Borg asking to join The Federation. Ridiculous!

 

[Father Heathen]

And I underline that Russia has stopped being Communist in 1989.
So let us distinguish.

It may have stopped being communist, but not totalitarian. The Russian regime is no friend of liberty and democracy.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes no defensive pact for those small Eastern European countries.
Heaven forbid they have security against Russia.

They would not have needed security against Russia. Russia chose to stand down of its own accord, and the Soviet Union literally voted itself out of existence. They didn't have to do that. They could have stuck with the hardliners and maintained the status quo if they wanted to. But they no longer wanted to. I think they clearly demonstrated to the world that they wanted peaceful coexistence.

However, your claim that these countries needed "security against Russia" would indicate that you either believe that the Russians were lying in 1991 or that the West and those small Eastern European countries didn't want to have peaceful coexistence with Russia. Indeed, there seems to be some lingering bad blood and resentment against Russians going back to the old Soviet era.

He said while ignoring that the same is true in Eastern Europe towards Russia.

Except that Eastern Europe is much closer to Russia geographically than America.

 

[Stevicus]

I wonder what country you live in.
It's certainly not Ameristan, where everyone believes
our leaders are corrupt ********. The only differences
lie in who despises which leaders.

That's only when it comes to domestic politics and (lately) elections. Somehow, when discussing foreign policy and the US role in the world, there's a disconnect, where we suddenly become "Captain America" and the "leader of the free world."

We have to maintain the image of being the "good guys," otherwise our entire foreign policy would come crashing down overnight.

 

[stvdv]

He condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine,

but he does think the US and NATO helped to cause the situation.

I agree

That's a fact

 

[Flankerl]

They would not have needed security against Russia. Russia chose to stand down of its own accord, and the Soviet Union literally voted itself out of existence. They didn't have to do that. They could have stuck with the hardliners and maintained the status quo if they wanted to. But they no longer wanted to. I think they clearly demonstrated to the world that they wanted peaceful coexistence.

However, your claim that these countries needed "security against Russia" would indicate that you either believe that the Russians were lying in 1991 or that the West and those small Eastern European countries didn't want to have peaceful coexistence with Russia. Indeed, there seems to be some lingering bad blood and resentment against Russians going back to the old Soviet era.

You seem stuck in 1991. Afterwards stuff happened.
Putin literally blew up Apartment blocks to convince the people to engage Chechnya.

He was not rebuffed. At not a single point.
He chose to endorse the undemocratic elements of the young Russian democracy.
In fact he was paraded around the EU as a sign of friendship.


And of course there is resentment against Moscow. lol
For 40 to 60 years Russia imposed its will on these people.
Entire ethnicities were loaded up on trains and brought to Siberia.

Except that Eastern Europe is much closer to Russia geographically than America.

Yes and that is a major problem for them. Hence they align to the EU and NATO.

 

[Aupmanyav]

NATO has already backed-down by not being a participant of the Ukranian-Russian war and not declaring Ukraine a no-fly zone. If they send armaments, Ukraine will suffer more.