The whole defense industry leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Once you peel the narrative that we are supposed to be the good guys (hint: in some/most cases, we are not), you realize that you really just help to kill people.
replies(8):
The 2014 invasion of Ukraine was not a significant news event for me. Ukraine was weak, and the tepid response to the invasion from Ukraine and the rest of the West meant that Russia just rolled in without opposition or much drama.
Fast forward 8 years, and Ukraine has further developed its national identity and is starting to become a real democracy. The 2022 invasion was a big wake-up call for the West. We had thought that we had won the Cold War in 1992, and that our geopolitical rivals, while still warranting concern, were not a direct threat to us and our allies anymore. Nope! It turns out there is still a need for the USA to be an unrivaled global superpower, and for the rest of NATO to get its ass in gear and modernize.
Ah, the classic "The West forced Russia to invade Ukraine. Like the government in Ukraine didn't have any legitimate reason to align itself with the West after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Have you heard the rhetoric coming from Putin and the Kremlin? About how Ukraine doesn't have a legitimate national or ethnic identity of their own, and how the territory of Ukraine should just be a part of Russia. And how the Ukrainians (who are really just Russians, really) don't deserve to self-govern?
Going on right now in occupied Ukraine, the Russians are actively purging all Ukrainian language and culture. Only the Russian language will be taught in schools.
Yes, the West is totally to blame here. Totally.
But none of that even addresses my argument, Russia opposed NATO expansion, Russia threatened severe consequences, NATO gave no signs that Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO or entered any kind of negotiations, Russia delivered on its promise. The outcome was rather predictable, at least ignoring that Russia did not react as strongly to previous NATO expansions.
We can debate all day long whether NATO should expand, whether Russia should have any say in which alliances Ukraine enters, whether an invasion is a justifiable means, whether Russia would have invaded anyway if NATO would have given up on the expansion, that are all fair questions. My point is just that there was a relatively simple situation, Russia warns NATO, one step closer and there will be war, and NATO decides that it will make that step.
Oh, so we're supposed to just listen and obey every dictator out there now? We are supposed to listen and obey when North Korea threatens our (or our ally's) destruction? Are we supposed to just sit back and let China dredge up new islands out of nothing in the South China Sea, and then claim the entire thing is now their territorial waters? Are we supposed to just let them have Taiwan too? How many times has China threatened something when we sold Taiwan some more F-16s or some other military hardware?
And what about our threats? Do you think the Kremlin wasn't warned about what the consequences to Russia would be if they invaded in 2022? Why shouldn't Putin have listened to us?
> My point is just that there was a relatively simple situation, Russia warns NATO, one step closer and there will be war, and NATO decides that it will make that step.
What's funny with all this is that Finland and Sweden resisted joining NATO for decades, despite being very closely aligned with the rest of Europe. Russia made angry noises about that for years and years, and they listened. Wow! Exactly what you thought should happen! Fantastic!
And then Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Then those two countries decided they could no longer listen to the threats coming from Russia, and had to choose what was best for their own security and prosperity. And so they joined NATO to protect themselves.
Why do you think Poland, one of the poorest countries in Europe, has been giving proportionately so much aid to Ukraine? Because they fear for the war spreading, and want to stop Russia now. Why do you think Poland wanted to join NATO back in 1999? Even though one of the member countries of NATO (Germany) that had invaded them 50 years earlier? Did they fear that Poland was going to be invaded by NATO, that this was some coercion? No, because NATO doesn't invade other countries.
Poland joined NATO because they were worried about the other country that had also invaded them 50 years previously, Russia.
Are you starting to see that it is Russia that is the problem here?
What the fuck? How can you debate on that at all, let alone all day? Does Russia own Ukraine? No. So does Russia have any say in which alliances Ukraine enters? Absolutely not.
Let's be real here: Russia wants Ukraine to be "under their influence", preferably the same way Belarus is, and Chechnya. They want Ukraine to be their puppet state.
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 because the population already gave clear indications that they wanted to move closer to the West. Russia was losing their grip on Ukraine. That's the reason why they invaded. The NATO argument is all bullshit. Finland joined NATO. Is Russia invading Finland? Or at least securing their borders with Finland?
Russia wants to control Ukraine, no more, no less.
No, you can also go to war with them. The one side wants Ukraine in NATO, the other not, so there is a conflict. You can now either negotiate some compromise that is acceptable for both sides or you have to fight this out. I personally think that a Ukrainian NATO membership is not worth hundred thousands of dead and wounded, millions of refuges and a destroyed country, but others obviously disagree.
And what about our threats? [...] Why shouldn't Putin have listened to us?
Which threats? Putin already decided that Ukrainian NATO membership is so important that he is willing to go to war over the issue if there is no political solution, he certainly expected sanctions and support from the West.
Does the USA own Solomon Islands? It is just a reality that powerful nations try to exert influence over other states, whether you like it or not. We can discuss how good or bad that is but it certainly not only Russia that thinks it has some say in what other countries can or can not do.
This is very different than an imperial dictatorship like Russia, which actually does turn their conquests into puppet states.
But of course Russia and its minions like to act as if NATO is an imperial power. They also like to act as if USA controls all the NATO countries. While if fact, those countries are democracies that decide their own destinies.
So in the end, it's actually Ukraine that wants to join NATO for obvious reasons, not the other way around. NATO could have already let Ukraine join if it wanted to.
This is not 'NATO wanting Ukraine under their influence', this is 'Ukraine wanting the security guarantees that NATO offers'.
I'm getting really tired of all the Russian bullshit that's being spread here.
Well, it has been for the Ukrainians to decide. They have fought like hell to avoid being conquered by a foreign dictator that would destroy their country, their culture and the rape, torture and murder their own people.
> Which threats? Putin already decided that Ukrainian NATO membership is so important that he is willing to go to war over the issue if there is no political solution, he certainly expected sanctions and support from the West.
Which threats? I assure you that in the run-up to February 2022, there were some very serious phone calls and meetings between the USA State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry. Just because that wasn't reported on the news doesn't mean it didn't happen. Often we try to find solutions to problems without it being a public announcement.
This is idiotic, it is not up to the Ukrainians to decide to join NATO, their decision ends at applying for NATO membership. Not everybody gets to join NATO, it's not some open membership organization that anybody gets to join.
I don't understand what you are talking about. NATO did exactly what you suggest: at the request of Russians, shut the door to NATO for Georgia and Ukraine. Russia used the opportunity and shortly thereafter invaded both of them. Russia has not invaded a single country that actually joined NATO.
Seeking NATO membership is the best strategy to prevent a Russian invasion, hence why Finland and Sweden decided to join. It was a particularly notable policy shift for Sweden, because Sweden abandoned 200 years of neutrality.
Where do you get this interpretation from, honest question. In Bucharest 2008 France and Germany voiced opposition against a NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine. Despite that resistance the declarations of the summit says the following.
We reiterate that decisions on enlargement are for NATO itself to make. [...] NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations.
In December 2021 Russia made a final attempt to get a political resolution of the conflict, sending letters to the US president and NATO demanding an agreement. The response came in January 2022.
What we have made clear is that we will not compromise on some core principles. And one of them is, of course, that every nation has the right to choose its own path. So NATO respects a country or a nation when they decide to apply for NATO membership, as for instance, Ukraine [...]
I don't see how this can be interpreted as abandoning the idea of a NATO membership for Ukraine. It also somewhat misrepresent the process, it is of course in the hands of NATO members to admit new members, a country wanting to join does not mean much on its own.
Also article 10 says that new members must be in a position to contribute to the security in the treaty area. Depending on how one understands that sentence, a NATO membership of Ukraine - or even just its consideration - arguably achieved the exact opposite, at least for the moment.
These are just nice words for consolation. At the same summit in Bucharest, NATO decided not to offer Ukraine and Georgia a Membership Action Plan, which is the procedure for joining NATO. NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia in any forseeable future was off the table. The prospect was from time to time dangled in front of them to encourage reforms and modernization, but that was it. The prospect of Turkey joining the EU has been of similar nature for many decades with little actual progress.
> Also article 10 says that new members must be in a position to contribute to the security in the treaty area. Depending on how one understands that sentence, a NATO membership of Ukraine - or even just its consideration - arguably achieved the exact opposite, at least for the moment.
That is generally understood as a requirement to maintain a capable fighting force and not to freeride on the backs of others in the alliance (see Article 3; Article 10 establishes the same requirement for new applicants). I don't think any reasonable person would call Ukraine freeriders. At the moment, they are one of the most capable fighting forces in the world, and will no doubt invest heavily in armed forces after the war.
> In December 2021 Russia made a final attempt to get a political resolution of the conflict, sending letters to the US president and NATO demanding an agreement. The response came in January 2022.
Russia demanded that the country I live in should be kicked out of NATO. The last time they made such ultimatums, my government chose to satisfy their demands in an attempt to use all means possible to avoid confrontation. In the end, Russians demanded military bases on our soil as forward posts against possible attacks from Central Europe (Napoleon and all that, 2023 isn't the first time around seeing that narrative). Tens of thousands of soldiers, countless tanks and artillery guns were brought in. Those bases were used as a staging area for taking over our national institutions and installing a puppet government that immediately asked Russians to officially occupy us. Widespread terror against the population followed, including deportation of tens of thousands of women and children in cattle cars to die in Siberian gulags. For half a century that followed, until 1991, they did all they could to suppress our language, culture and identity. They replaced a third of the population in the country with Russians, in an attempt to destroy our identity and merge us into an indistinguishable and unseparatable part of Russia. We were literally becoming a minority in our own country.
But by sheer luck, that Russian empire of shit collapsed due to chronic mismanagement and internal rotting. We were able to restore independence. Sweden helped immensely in getting Russian occupying force to leave in 1994. In a decade, we were able to crawl out of the shithole Russians forced us into, and satisfied all requirements needed to join the EU and NATO. Modern military with civilian oversight, a modern government with separation of powers, rule of law and high level of protection of human rights, high quality of life, some of the highest press freedom, economic freedom and other rankings in the world.
Why should we abandon all that, isolate ourselves internationally, and make ourselves a juicy target for Russians to invade again and force us back under their boot?
Finland, I stress, took the other route the last time around. Facing Russian ultimatums, they chose war. While they lost Karelia and Petsamo, they managed to keep their independence. After the war, they chose political neutrality and stayed out of NATO, but spent decades building up one of the largest armes in Europe against any future Russian invasions. Seeing the genocidal nature and the immense scale of Russian war against Ukraine dashed any hope of fighting off another Russian war alone. Finland abandoned the strategy of neutrality and chose to step into alliance with other European nations, as did the Swedes.
So despite quite different paths our countries took in the 20th century, we've all now reached the same conclusion that strong international cooperation is the best way to maintain our independence and security in the 21st century.
Are we all dumb and wrong? Should we cut ties and put our hopes on prayers that we won't become the target of the next war Russia decides to launch?
If you are the prime minister of Finland, Estonia or Poland, what is the responsible choice here that serves the interests of your people the best?
I don't want to see Russians destroy my home with artillery, rape and murder the people around me, and force me to live in Russia, where human life has no value, elections are rigged, and police can rape peaceful protestors with impunity. Can you perhaps devote a few seconds to my security concerns for a change?
> Why did they invade?
Like I already stated earlier, because they want to control it like Georgia, Chechnya, Dagestan and Belarus. Only 1 of those countries was considered for NATO membership after the conflict kept going since 91 (considered membership in 2008).
> What evidence do you have to the contrary?
- Russia invading the North Caucasus (Chechnya, Dagestan, ...), without NATO having anything to do with it. *Please answer why they invaded.*
- Russia kept attacking Georgia since 91. Putin came in power in 2000 and he escalated that war, until it reached its peak in 2008 when NATO considered Georgias membership. So did Russia start that conflict because of NATO, or did Georgia wanted to join because of the conflict since 91? *Please answer why Russia kept the conflict going from 91 to 2008*
- Finland, a country with a huge border with Russia, applied for NATO membership in May 2022. Russia didn't invade that country to prevent them from joining *Please answer me why not*
- If Finland is such a huge threat for Russia because of NATO, *please show Russian troop buildup on that border since Finland applied and joined.*
- In 1999, Russia was one of the signatories of the Charter for European Security, which "reaffirmed the inherent right of each and every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve."
And last but not least, your dear friend Mr Putin said the following in 2002, as documented on the Kremlin website:
"On the topic of Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the Russian President said that it was entitled to make the decision independently. He does not see it as something that could cloud the relations between Russia and Ukraine."
Go read it at the Kremlin website http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/43122. *Anything to say about that?*
Back around the year 2000, it really seemed things in eastern Europe were all moving in the right direction. The entire region was becoming more and more democratic, relations were warming up. Prosperity in Russia was increasing, things in general were looking positive.
It wasn't seriously discussed, and no concrete steps were taken, but there was speculation that Russia might join NATO eventually. There was concern about China (concern which has proved well founded) and having another strong partner in Russia would strengthen the bulwark against them.
But, well, should we really have expected so much from a former KGB officer like Putin? No, he turned into another Russian strongman, seeking only to enrich himself, and determined to only leave power feet-first. He illegally coerced the Russian oligarchs into giving him billions of dollars.
The story of democracy isn't over in the rest of eastern Europe (heck, it isn't over in the USA!), and there have been various partial successes and partial failures (esp. Hungary and Turkey). And the threat and actions of Russia has in turn strengthened the need for NATO.
Edit: I stand corrected - Concrete steps were taken for Russia to join NATO.
Nope, sorry. It doesn't matter who you are, where you live, or what your concerns are. Russia and Putin insist that you must support Mother Russia, and be willing to die for the cause (of ensuring Putin gains power and wealth). /s
Concrete steps were, in fact, taken; with Russia both joining the NATO Partnership for Peace and hvaing a special cooperation deal wIth NATO, with various cooperation arrangements; it blew up when Putin wanted Russia to be admitted to NATO ahead of other Eastern European states, and without the political and other readiness criteriabeing used for other new members.
Its pretty clear that Russia's concern about Ukraine (and Georgia’s) membership in NATO isn't the reason for their aggression, but rather a result of their intended aggression and the complications that potential NATO involvement posed for that.
The Russo-Georgian and Russo-Ukrainian wars are the result of NATO accommodating Russia in this area, not a result of NATO threatening Russia.
The North Stream (2) also indicated that EU wanted to trade with Russia. Looking back it might have been foolish, but hindsight is 20/20.
A democratic Russia, with close ties to the rest of Europe, would have meant so much for both the people of Russia and Europe.
In the end, we can be very happy that the system of democracy seems to work better than autocracy, else we would all be screwed.