@vivify saidYou are confused; Chechnya was and is part of Russia though separatists had managed to gain a degree of de facto independence in 1996 before Russian forces regained control in 1998. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya
Russia was still an aggressive, expansionist threat, like when they invaded Chechnya. I'll assume you already know of Russia's meddling in Georgia, which was already mentioned in this thread.
Russia didn't just lay down and behave after 1991.
Surely, Russia trying to retain control over its own territory is not a justification for a military alliance against it.
The Russian-Georgia story is pretty complicated but the events of 2008 cannot be seriously used to justify NATO eastward expansion in violation of Western leaders' pledges done years earlier.
EDIT: Of course, this is not intended to excuse any particular Russian military adventures, but merely to point out that those using them as a ex post facto justification for the continued existence of an aggressive, expansive military alliance are engaging more in polemics than argument.
@no1marauder saidYes. Keep in mind Chechnya is also land annexed by Russia. Chechens had continually tried to gain independence ever since. But you're right, this is kind of a Taiwain/China situation.
You are confused; Chechnya was and is part of Russia though separatists had managed to gain a degree of de facto independence in 1996 before Russian forces regained control in 1998. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya
The Russian-Georgia story is pretty complicated but surely the events of 2008 cannot be seriously used to justify NATO eastward expansion in violation of Western leaders' pledges done years earlier.
I agree. But I was specifically addressing your view that there was no reason for NATO after 1991; especially since this was the tail-end of the nuclear arms race, where Russia was the Big Bad Wolf.
@vivify saidIt's quite possible that the continued existence of NATO was a contributing factor in the Russia-Georgia conflict of 2008, since Georgia's President made it abundantly clear he wanted that country's admission to NATO, something Russia did and does find totally unacceptable.
Yes. Keep in mind Chechnya is also land annexed by Russia. Chechens had continually tried to gain independence ever since. But you're right, this is kind of a Taiwain/China situation.
[b]The Russian-Georgia story is pretty complicated but surely the events of 2008 cannot be seriously used to justify NATO eastward expansion in violation of Western leaders' pledges done ye ...[text shortened]... especially since this was the tail-end of the nuclear arms race, where Russia was the Big Bad Wolf.
But your point seems to suggest that NATO eastward expansion was a virtual requirement of its continued existence since it was to remain a military bulwark against Russia.
@no1marauder saidI said in that post that I agree "NATO eastward expansion" is not justified.
But your point seems to suggest that NATO eastward expansion was a virtual requirement of its continued existence since it was to remain a military bulwark against Russia.
I was simply stating that I can understand why NATO wasn't immediately dropped just because the USSR dissolved.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@no1marauder saidOh, FFS...
It's quite possible that the continued existence of NATO was a contributing factor in the Russia-Georgia conflict of 2008
Germany, France, and the Netherlands protecting one another is a reason for Putin to invade and colonise part of an independent country in the Caucasus!?
How bloody McCarthyist can you be!?
@shallow-blue saidMaybe you should try reading the whole sentence.
Oh, FFS...
Germany, France, and the Netherlands protecting one another is a reason for Putin to invade and colonise part of an independent country in the Caucasus!?
How bloody McCarthyist can you be!?
Are you really as simple minded as you come across as in this thread? The world is a bit more complex than your "good guy v. bad guy" views make it.
"U.S.-Russian relations had changed considerably from 2006 onward, but in 2008 there were important catalyzing events with the recognition of the independence of Kosovo by the United States and most E.U. states, and NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, where the alliance promised that Ukraine and Georgia would someday become members of NATO. For Moscow, both of these decisions crossed red lines."
https://warontherocks.com/2018/08/the-august-war-ten-years-on-a-retrospective-on-the-russo-georgian-war/
@no1marauder saidYou obviously missed the massacres and death camps, the genocidal war and ethnic cleansing campaign waged by Bosnian Serbs against non Bosnian Serbs with the backing of Serbia. And ultimately their fellow Slavs in Moscow. Perhaps you should get out of Europe it’s obviously too real and too complicated for you guys to see the bigger picture.
"Genocide" is a word to throw around whenever powerful countries want to interfere in the internal affairs of weaker ones. The detachment of Kosovo from Serbia, for example, was no more justified than the detachment of the Crimea from the Ukraine.
NATO should have been disbanded when it became obvious it was no longer needed, if it ever was, as a military counterweight ...[text shortened]... tate (Serbia) allied with Russia, was always bound to result in increased tensions and possibly war.
P.s did someone even mention Kosovo?
@kevcvs57 saidMore all "bad guys" v. all "good guys" narrative.
You obviously missed the massacres and death camps, the genocidal war and ethnic cleansing campaign waged by Bosnian Serbs against non Bosnian Serbs with the backing of Serbia. And ultimately their fellow Slavs in Moscow. Perhaps you should get out of Europe it’s obviously too real and too complicated for you guys to see the bigger picture.
P.s did someone even mention Kosovo?
There were plenty of atrocities by both sides in the Yugoslav wars, including by the Bosnians and the Croats against Serbs. NATO's taking of sides had very little to do with such matters which are minutiae to Western governments.
Yes, I mentioned Kosovo because you asked for an instance of NATO militarily intervening in a country that was no threat to West.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@no1marauder saidSure, sure. NATO is bad. NATO evil, Russia on the defensive. We know, we know.
Maybe you should try reading the whole sentence.
Are you really as simple minded as you come across as in this thread? The world is a bit more complex than your "good guy v. bad guy" views make it.
But NATO didn't invade the east part of Ukraine a couple of years ago, did it?
And NATO isn't about to invade the rest of Ukraine, is it?
But Putin is. No, not "the Red Scare Russia". Unlike you, we've gone beyond the Cold War. This is not about East versus West. This is about Putin's personal need for power.
Make no mistake. This is not about the country. This is very much about the man.
You're still stuck in the 1980s, when the problem was the remains of East against West. You have not kept up with reality. East against West is no longer the case. The world in general is now "Russia? Who's Russia? Shouldn't Russia be part of Europe? The real problem is China."
But for some people, that won't do. Because that would mean that Russia wouldn't be an excuse for political games. And those people are you, and Putin. He needs that conflict, because that's what keeps him in power. Even for him, it's not East vs. West - it's Putin vs. Anyone But Putin. And yes, he's willing to go to war over his own, personal grasp on power.
You still think this is about countries, don't you? You're wrong. It's about one single person.
@shallow-blue saidYour first sentence is a continuation of your simple mindedness; to you, if someone isn't 100% in agreement with you, that must mean they are pro-Russian to the extent that mirrors your anti-Russian views. That is laughably childish.
Sure, sure. NATO is bad. NATO evil, Russia on the defensive. We know, we know.
But NATO didn't invade the east part of Ukraine a couple of years ago, did it?
And NATO isn't about to invade the rest of Ukraine, is it?
But Putin is. No, not "the Red Scare Russia". Unlike you, we've gone beyond the Cold War. This is not about East versus West. This is about ...[text shortened]... .
You still think this is about countries, don't you? You're wrong. It's about one single person.
To pretend the pushing of an aggressive military alliance to the door of Russia is only a problem to that country because of one man's megalomania is beyond naivete.
Here's a good, if pessimistic, analysis of the situation which: https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/putins-wager-in-russias-standoff-with-the-west/
One factor has been missing from the posts here:
"Although the crisis has structural roots in the post-Cold War settlement[Gee, not merely in Putin's disturbed psyche!-no1], the proximate cause of this standoff is a series of political turns in 2020 and early 2021. After initially being open to dialogue, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration took a hard turn away from pursuing compromises with Moscow. Zelensky arrested Putin’s ally Viktor Medvedchuk and banned three pro-Russian television channels in the country. Putin has also railed against a discriminatory language law passed in 2019, which has just entered into force. Not only has Ukraine continued on a westward trajectory, but Zelensky has also chosen to take a hard line, and has begun to actively eliminate Russian influence in Ukraine. This turnabout dashed any hopes that Russia had of achieving a desirable political settlement and removed a path for Russia to get out from under Western sanctions. Russian officials have publicly made clear that they see no further point to negotiating with Zelensky, viewing his administration as a marionette of the United States, and have instead approached his patron — Washington."
@shallow-blue saidTurkey, Poland and Romania were probably more of a concern to Russia.
Oh, FFS...
Germany, France, and the Netherlands protecting one another is a reason for Putin to invade and colonise part of an independent country in the Caucasus!?
How bloody McCarthyist can you be!?
@kevcvs57 saidAre you a refugee from 1950? Russia is not the USSR. Red Ukrainian armies are not going to be occupying East Germany.
“ Kicking our ass out of Europe? It was the UK that kicked la Hispanidad out of Europe. The USA left Europe centuries ago but your constant wars keep dragging us back in. ”
Are you a refugee from the renaissance?
Even though Putin has demanded that nato forces leave Eastern European countries that are in nato you think he’s going to be happy with just Ukrainian annexation, really?
@shallow-blue saidI get this is what the US and UK’s government want you to believe, and the media are hard-selling it as such, but the truth, as I’m sure you are able to comprehend, is far more layered, complicated and subtle than “one man’s psychosis”.
Sure, sure. NATO is bad. NATO evil, Russia on the defensive. We know, we know.
But NATO didn't invade the east part of Ukraine a couple of years ago, did it?
And NATO isn't about to invade the rest of Ukraine, is it?
But Putin is. No, not "the Red Scare Russia". Unlike you, we've gone beyond the Cold War. This is not about East versus West. This is about ...[text shortened]... .
You still think this is about countries, don't you? You're wrong. It's about one single person.
Since when do you deal in absolutes when it comes to international politics?
Since when is everything black and white; one good guy and one bad guy?
You know the world is not that simple and you know international politics is always a serious of historic events, piled on top of each other with multiple goals and contradictions in every step.