- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Was expecting a lot of ml / ca rage. Was not disappointet.
Its funny seeing solarpunk users ideologically 180 as soon as russia comes up.
ml, stand for marxist leninist I guess. But what does ca mean ?
I don’t know, but saw a lot of tankie stuff from lemmy.ca lately.
???
Some people forget to spray against Russians under their bed every night, bam, they become Russian assets.
I believe Canada.
On 21 December 1991, Boris Yeltsin, President of Russia, sent a letter to NATO asking it to consider accepting Russia as a member of the alliance sometime in the future. In the letter to NATO, Yeltsin stated, “This would contribute to an atmosphere of mutual understanding and trust and would strengthen stability and cooperation on the European continent. We regard this relationship as serious and wish to develop this dialog on all fronts, both on the political and military levels. Today we raise the issue of Russia’s membership in NATO, however, we see this as a long-term political goal”.
Then, a bunch of stuff happened and both sides realized it was advantageous to not have Russia in NATO. Turns out it’s easier to win elections when there’s a cold war going on. You can read about it here.
Russia wasn’t exactly a bastion of stability at that era, especially as Shock Therapy economics absolutely destroyed the country.
Additionally, all these other countries that wanted into NATO vehemently hated Russia for years of occupation. They’d probably have been far more hesitant to join if Russia was in there.
Not saying there wasn’t malice on the side of the West, but at no point in NATO’s existence had inviting Russia into the fold made any strategic sense.
Including Russia in the military alliance meant to safeguard others from Russian aggression seems wild. I know things were very different in 1991 and there were hopes that Russia would become like Western European countries, but it just feels like it would’ve made NATO pointless and not in the good sense of it not being needed anymore.
Well, off course. Its about trillions of dollars in weapons and arms selling to the allies. Peace is not that profitable. Who would be the bad guy now, if Russia had joined NATO?
Also in 1992 there was the Wolfowitz Doctrine, a U.S. defense policy document, which laid out America’s grand strategy post Soviet Union, describing how the U.S. will maintain global dominance. The CHINA, CHINA, CHINA (with Trumps voice), is now a “problem” to that Doctrine, and the U.S. is trying to control the damage.
I don’t say that Russia was the innocent victim, but this is how the game is played in that level. Were Russia in the place of the USA, they would have made the same move.
I’d imagine Russia would still act like the dickbags they always have but now they’d be inside the military alliance that was supposed to defend against Russian aggression.
Or they could be a totally normal and peaceful liberal democracy. But for me it’s jushard to imagine that being the likely outcome
Nobody knows. It depends how much more profit would be for the Russian elite class to have a democracy (maybe they could had played along to joined EU). As you see USA is not particularly democratic now-days (she is in danger to become Russia).
The cognitive dissonace hits hard on this one, how dare you join a defensive pact!
They assert it is not a defensive pact, and that NATO will come for them as soon as they are powerful enough.
Sadly, that’s not really something that can be disproven, so it’s great propaganda.
Lack of evidence isn’t evidence.
that’s not really something that can be disproven
People treated Russia as a superpower. They fucked up so bad they got successfully counter invaded by the country they were invading. They don’t have 5th Gen fighters and they can’t produce modern tanks. They’re refitting older tanks and giving troops fucking golf carts. They’ve depleted a ton of soviet stock and their air defense can’t even keep their oil infrastructure from exploding once a week. Prigozin nearly marched directly to Moscow with no resistance.
If NATO was planning to invade, they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.
Also if NATO somehow forced putin to annihilate his own armor stocks and troops, then they are doing 5,000 iq illuminati bullshit and there’s nothing to be done anyway. I tag those people as NATO propagandists because they’re bigger western chauvinists than they even wish I was lol.
Which, as I understand the Russian military relationship with the Kremlin, came as a surprise to even Putin and would certainly incite some panic, renewed propaganda efforts, and saber rattling like we’ve been seeing him do lately.
they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.
And still: Europe is increasing it’s military capabilities. How does that fit together? Genuine question.
Because of decades of chronic underspending on the military, as governments convinced themselves that a land war in Europe was unthinkable.
Indeed, it’s not something that can be disproven, as in it’s nonsense that shouldn’t be entertained in rational discourse.
Arguing in bad faith for the good guys is still arguing in bad faith.
Me reminding you that a hypothesis needs to be disprovable through observation in order to be valid and that the burden of proof is with the one making the claim, not the one trying to disprove it, is the exact opposite of arguing in bad faith.
and that the burden of proof is with the one making the claim
But the claim was that NATO is a defensive pact. They said it’s an un-disprovable claim.
Ask Libya how defensive NATO is.
The destruction of the Libyan airforce so Gaddafi couldn’t drop bombs on his civilian population like Assad did in Syria was a good thing that saved lives.
Unless you’re a tankie who jerks it the images of schools and hospitals ripped to shred by barrel bombs.
Gaddafi was bad, sure, but NATO reduced libya to a state where there’s now open air slave markets.
Ask Yugoslavia how “defensive” Nato is.
NATO’s intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia’s bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, which drove the Albanians into neighbouring countries and had the potential to destabilize the region. Yugoslavia’s actions had already provoked condemnation by international organisations and agencies such as the UN, NATO, and various INGOs.
Are we talking about this?
Where defense?
Defending people against ethnic cleansing seemed to be the goal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Goals
Cool motive, still interventionism. /s
Edit: That was also the official justification of Russia’s invasion. I don’t buy either justifications.
You don’t need to buy anything, you just need information literacy and critical thinking. Which is not to say you shouldn’t be critical of US foreign policy - god knows there’s lots to criticize. But comparing the genocide in Yugoslavia to the War in Ukraine is a clear sign of acute mental darkness or you intentionally amplifying authoritarian propaganda.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
Its not critical thinking when you just parrot everything you’ve been told.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
So… it’s ok if I disengage after that rude comment, right? Spare me your speech on “information literacy” if you’re simply planning on insulting me anyways, please. Just insult me right away. That’d be at least more honest.
I don’t know what that is. NATO did an intervention on the ethnic cleansing, do you mean that?
NATO sure as shit didn’t defend any of their member nations. Interventionalism is when you invade a country claiming that it’s “for their own good”. See: Afganistan or the second Iraq war.
Yeah Russia was pissed we stopped little brother Serbia from ethnic cleansing the infidels and now makes a mockery of our altruism.
Only an idiot believes they’re sincere though.
The best understander of politics entered the chat. /s
Do you mean Serbia, or are you just confused in general about things?
So what’s your problem here exactly?
This is a counterexample of NATO being a “defensive pact”.
I think that it’s still defensive if they stopped ethnic cleansing once.
Nope, that’s interventionism, not defense.
Also, whether or not ethnic cleansing actually happened is highly debatable. The death toll exploded after NATO started bombing.
Woke liberal gay propaganda, obviously.
Well, I see nothing gay in joining a military alliance. More like propaganda where the true benefactor is Aipac.
I’d say the true benefactor is whichever country now has the protection of the military alliance
Damn if only people in Moscow had considered joining NATO, oh wait they did, I’m sure Ukraine will join any day now don’t worry, ukraine uber alles and all that, how good is imperialism, heck yeh
Nice stroke you had there
The people in Moscow have other more pressing issues inside their country that needs fixing before concerning themselves with external alliances.
No other country was accepted into NATO while in the state that Russia is in right now.
If only they tried to join in good faith…
Assuming they were sincere about it, it probably wouldn’t have lasted. The way they maintain and assert authority over autonomous regions would’ve had to change from stamping out separatist movements to more diplomatic and democratic solutions.
Though it might’ve reduced the rampant corruption we saw after the dissolution of the Soviet Union that moved Russian military hardware into warzones at the time.
Removed by mod
Are you seriously suggesting it was the CIA’s fault that Yanukovych was removed from power?
Motherfucker stole billions, killed hundreds of protesters, and committed high treason by conspiring to use the Russian military to quell dissent.
If the CIA helped that’s fine, people like that should not be in power.
If the CIA helped that’s fine, people like that should not be in power.
Imperialism is good if it’s against the “bad guys”. /s
Hey nice buzzwords. Do you happen to have ANY evidence of Cia intervention? Just one thanks.
We have lots of evidence of popular unrest and demand for Yanukovich to be ousted by the people of Ukraine
Hey nice buzzwords. Do you happen to have ANY evidence of Cia intervention?
I was referencing the hypothetical.
Why “buzzwords”? Would you care to explain why you think that “imperialism” wouldn’t apply to that (hypothetical) scenario?
It sounds like the Ukrainian people wanted the dude removed from power
Ok, Imperialism is good if we think “the people” wanted it. Got it. /s
I think popular will winning is generally a good thing
Who defines the “popular will”?
The people probably
deleted by creator
Are you implying he wasn’t a bad leader?
Helping people remove a corrupt president is generally good. If the KGB wanted to help us oust trump I wouldn’t cry about it. (Though let’s be real, they’re more likely to help him cling to power if anything)
You realize you’re advocating for covert, top down regime change, right?
Not very democratic of you, mate
I’m advocating for fascist and corrupt regimes to be overthrown.
Viktor Yanukovych was not taken out in a covert top down regime change, he was ousted by the Revolution of Dignity; there were over half a million people gathered in the capital demanding change and parliament voted to remove him without a single dissenting vote.
I’m advocating for fascist and corrupt regimes to be overthrown.
What if the fascists (AZOV) do the overthrowing?
Viktor Yanukovych was not taken out in a covert top down regime change
You’re changing the topic. You literally said that it’s ok to top-down regime change if someone’s a “bad leader”.
I’m in no way on Russias side here but there have definitely been plans to provoke them: e.g. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
Provoke into what exactly? Joining NATO or EU? Polls before the Russian annexation of Crimea showed most Ukrainians want to join EU, not NATO. These two are separate and distinct entities. As expected with the Russians, they think EU and NATO are one and the same. Truth of the matter is that Russians are first and foremost nationalist and whatever second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasianism. For the Russians, it’s “either you’re with us, or against us” mentality.
The Russians have always been chauvinists who believe they deserve a piece of the pie as a global power, regardless of whoever rules in Kremlin. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the imprisoned dissident and the West’ poster boy of the brutality of Soviet regime, was also an ultranationalist who believe in Russian superiority despite being against Soviet rule. Alexei Navalny, who was Putin’s late main opponent, was also approving of annexing Crimea and hinted at being approving of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Navalny’s wife framed the war in Ukraine as akin to a civil war, the same framing that Putin used to say that Ukraine’s independence was illegal and always belonged to Russia.
It goes to show that despite internal factionalism among Russian elites, they all still agree that Russia is a country on its own and don’t need anyone but themselves. And any neighbouring country who tries to align away from them will be punished.
Alexei Navalny, who was Putin’s late main opponent, was also approving of annexing Crimea and hinted at being approving of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
That’s a series of misunderstandings and thesises by Russian propaganda. In the end, he didn’t approve of annexation and invasions. From what I remember he only hinted at the difficulty of solving the issue of Crimea in future. Even if you find specific posts or reactions from him that suggest supporting what Russia did, they are not explained enough to be sure and those interpretations have been denied by himself in later interviews and posts.
I’ve listened to him for years. I believe that it’s impossible for him to approve Russian expansion already because of what he consistently suggested: Russia needs to think of its problems within first, and when it comes to international relations it should be good friends with Europe. In no universe he could think that violent invasions or annexations or wars would contribute to that. And I don’t find him to be any kind of supremacist. He explained a lot of issues with Russia and wanted to solve them.
These two are separate and distinct entities. As expected with the Russians, they think EU and NATO are one and the same.
Umm… no, that’s not true.
You don’t have to like Russia and/or Putin. I certainly don’t. But these kinds of stupid accusations wont help you understand politics.
Putin said that the “green men” without insignia on their uniforms who took over government facilities in Crimea in 2015 are not Russians, until he admitted months later that they actually are. Days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin reiterated many times that he will not invade and that the Russian troops in separatist-occupied Donbas and Luhansk regions are only there for “peacekeeping”. He told the outside world that they are being paranoid over the potential Russian invasion.
Putin and Kremlin lied many times. I don’t know why you would still believe someone who has been proven to lie many times unless you have a battered partner syndrome.
Yeah the tactic is to lie as much as they can to benefit themselves; if you call them out on it they act all offended and blame you for being russophobic or whatever suits their means at the moment, and use it as propaganda to paint “the west” as an stupid, prejudiced enemy. If you just let it happen, they laught at what a weak moron you are to allow yourself be fooled like that, and use it as propaganda to paint “the west” as a stupid, weak enemy
The article you link quotes Putin claiming that he has never opposed Ukraine joining NATO. That is not only demonstrably false but also just a misuse of the article that muddies the water.
Putin has absolutely opposed Ukraine joining NATO (on the basis that he has always planned on annexing Ukraine in whole or in part) and has used his power to materially prohibit their membership. Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament was part of this plan.
The article you link quotes Putin claiming that he has never opposed Ukraine joining NATO. That is not only demonstrably false but also just a misuse of the article that muddies the water.
That’s not true:
“As for Ukraine’s membership of the EU, we have never objected to this,” Putin told Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico at talks in China. “As for NATO, this is another issue… Our position here is well known: we consider this unacceptable for ourselves.”
on the basis that he has always planned on annexing Ukraine in whole or in part
And that’s just pure speculation… And afaik hogwash.
Crimea and eastern Ukraine would like to have a word with you as of 4 years ago.
Are we speaking about the same eastern Ukraine that has been attacked by Ukrainian military since the Euromaidan?
Where’s the proof that “[Putin] has always planned on annexing Ukraine in whole or in part”?
If the current trajectory of russian aggression has not yet convinced you, if Georgia’s annexation has not yet convinced you, if Transnistria has not convinced you, if Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kherson have not convinced you (despite pro-russian separatists in the region serving as erstwhile justification for annexation) then I do not know what to tell you.
What Russia says and does is very much different. Russia has thus far supported every single EU-“skeptic” movement from Britain to Armenia. Hell, just two days ago an article was posted about how yet another Russian botnet attempts to prevent Armenia from deepening ties with the EU:
That’s a think tank research on what could be done and what the effects would be rather than a plan
I think the result is similar. If a well notorious think-tank of my opponent wrote a document about 10 ways to piss me off, I’d feel provoked.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t justify what’s Russia is doing in the least.
It would’ve been funny if one of the researched methods of provoking Russia was “have a think-tank do a report on ways to provoke Russia”
