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.
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.
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.
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.
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.