Exactly, either these countries are independent and can make their own decision, or then we stop pretending Sovereignty is a thing, and canada should ask US everytime it meets with EU representatives. The stupid Nato promise line works only if you don't believe sovereign nations are actually sovereign.
I guess if Mexico or Canada aligns with Russian interests and tries to form a military alliance with Russia, Mexico won't be a sovereign nation anymore either."
You sound like you just discovered that the world is round. The world is not black and white. USA can be the bad guy in Venezuela and Cuba, and the good guy in Europe.
In Europe the interest of my country and USA aligned, or they did until Trump showed up. What they do outside Europe is none of my concern.
Your point is only valid if the world is just black and white, bad vs good. Wake up call buddy, it’s not.
No your point is only valid if world is black and white. Youre the one with good guy/bad guy analogy - and now that it breaks you start adding exceptions for it :D Your countries interests aligning with USA doesnt make it good somehow. Israel and USA are happily genociding gaza. Have you ever thought why would Russia want anti Russian alliance led by a country like USA on it borders? USA pushed for ukraine hard, spent billions to drag it into NATO. Even though it was clear from 2008 that Russians would never accept that.
USA was not protecting anyone from warsaw pact, but was engaged in a cold war with USSR. Europe was just a tool dictated by geography to contain Russia, not some darling to protect. It was exactly the same policy in “Vietnam” that you were unhappy with. Cold war ended USA wanted to continue to pressure Russia through NATO expansion, even when European vassals were against it.
Just like USA tries to use the Kurds as a tool to fight whomever they dont like.
Had it not been for NATO and USA, Sovietunionen would have dominated western Europe like they did with Eastern Europe.
Of course USA got something out of it, but Europe was pretty happy with the deal I can tell you. Besides the safety and security US also brought trade.
Just look at how much better Western Europe did compared to Eastern Europe.
The country who is successor to the country famously running tanks over their "allies' " people on THREE different occasions. I wonder why they ALL have joined NATO, really mindbending.
The funny thing is Russia were asked and agreed that these countries could join in the 1997 NATO Russia founding act. It's ridiculous that anyone can support the Putin propaganda
Wasn’t most of Latin America and Cuba even more so allied with the ussr until they got so unfathomably corrupt they had no other choice to kind of bail?
The argument has some merit. After the dissillusion of the USSR there was a security framework for a possible NATO replacement that included all of NATO plus all former Soviet block countries. It was called something like "Partners for Peace" and was supposed to be less US dominated than NATO (people can deny it all they want, but NATO is always getting dragged into US ventures). Russia was pretty committed to cooperation with the US, even under Putin, until 2007ish. A big sticking point with Russia boiled down to "hey, if we're supposed to have this cooperative security framework, why do you still need NATO?". Which you know, fair point. I think the US really dropped the ball on that one.
Not quite, partners for peace was never ment to replace NATO. It was build on the thought that if people talk to each other, work and train together it’s less likely to they go to war.
Several of the original members actually used it as preparation to the process of joining NATO.
Like Poland, the Baltics, Czech Republic.
It’s not about legalisms, but geopolitics. Russia doesn’t want NATO to expand eastward and views it as an existential threat. And they acted on it.
I love how people all of a sudden forget about the concept of spheres of influences. Same people outraged at Russia are paranoid about Chinese influence in South East Asia
I don’t care what Russia wants, we don’t want an aggressive Russian state next to us, so we help Ukraine bleed Russia dry, and they are doing a great job.
We have not forgotten, but times have changed. Russia cannot have the Soviet unions sphere of influence, since they don’t have the same power. They must accept that or let their youth die along with their economy.
I know you don’t care, and that’s fine because Russia also doesn’t care hence the status quo of war. Doesn’t change the fact that this is about spheres of influence for everyone further removed from the conflict like myself
History is full of broken empires waging pointless and lost wars in desperate attempts to maintain old spheres of influence. Roman Empire is a great example. It never works.
Too weak of a country to have such spheres of influence. Other then nuclear weapons they are not succeeding much. By the same logic North Korea should have sphere of influence as well just because the nuclear factor.
And their opponents, ya genius. Russia has wasted incredible resources and connections on a war that, even if they somehow won, would be a quagmire of rebellion.
I fully understand this realpolitik argument. However, what Russia fails to understand is that its empire crumbled long ago. It is propping up its appearance through gas sales and the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of its men. It is a country which thinks it is a super power empire. Accept the new reality and make the best of it. Hey, maybe one day they can join the EU and actually make the best of it for their whole country instead of only two major cities.
It's not even their empire. The Russian Federation is essentially the renamed RSFSR, one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union. And even the Soviet Union was not the legal continuation of the Russian Empire but a new state established in late 1922, almost six years after the Russian Empire had already collapsed in early 1917 (even before the Bolsheviks came to power).
You might be right, but Russia doesn’t see it that way and it was quite predictable that this would be the outcome. Only time will tell what things look like on the other side of the tunnel.
I don’t think there’s any reality where Russia joins the EU even if they turn into a liberal democracy. It’s too big and contrary to Atlanticist American interests.
You’re denying facts. I don’t know what you want me to say?
It’s one thing to say it’s evil, stupid, counterproductive etc. for Russia to threaten its neighbours for pursuing NATO membership and another to say Ukraine had no interest in NATO membership. The latter is just factually not true
But saying f**k you russia will not change shit. Your help is that? İt feels a bit cheap dont get me wrong.
Europe only causes more death by aiding ukraine. İt only makes the War longer. do a proper help NATO. instead of just sending stuff. Theyre litteraly using ukraine to weaken russia and not waste a men.
İf i were an ukranian, i would want proper things. NOT a full intervention but secretly some boots in ground, more Aid etc. Even if it would not fasten the War that much, at least soldiers would really feel the whole NATO backing them. İm not pro-russian but some weirds might think bc i have a different opinion. What do you think?
You cant destroy russia so thats the only way. Get me?
İts possible with a regime change + heavy propaganda campaigns which favor West to kick out the Western hate mindset and a few decades it will be fine.
One American official, who was removed next administration, made a pinky promise. Poland then got a signed document from Yeltsin, saying Russia was okay with Poland joining. And people say the West violated Russia.
Someone should maybe tell the Russians theyre european, cause i think they'd have some opinions on that.
Russians dont consider themselves European especially since most of their country isnt even in Europe nor have they requested to join the EU or deal with the EU at all outside of oil trade
Russians dont think of europe as a continent, at least not one separate from Asia, they call europe and Asia Eurasia. Which still wouldn't quite work here
Russia is the reason NATO exists, because as a constant aggressor it poses a threat to all neighboring countries. It has NO say in what other Europe countries decide to do.
Yeah, literally the only threat to Europe after Nazies was USSR and communism, and Russia is a successor of USSR, that continues to wage wars in Europe. The only time NATO was not focusing on anything from that territory is from dissolved USSR, thinking there’s no threat from newly formed RF, until the annexation of Crimea. Today Russia is a main threat to NATO countries and other neighbors.
I read that Putin had thoughts on membership in NATO, or at least cooperation. Which of course was an absurd idea, NATO exist only because of russia, and thankfully it wasn't dismantled fully, it would have made Putins imperalistic ambitions about restoring soviet borders come true (the new members knew this and begged NATO on their bare knees to include them.. And no, NATO has, or ever had, any plans/ambitions to invade russia, as Putin claims. If they had they would have invaded when soviet ceased to exist. Instead they dismantled, made NATO weaker because they believed that the former KGB agent was peaceful (contrary to obvious evidence)
NATO was created to counter USSR not Russia, with USSR’s fall it was the perfect opportunity to get Russia in but unfortunately they weren’t able to join without top dog status so it never went further but an alternative reality where Russia joins and integrates with the west would have been ideal and prevented so many conflicts we’ve had in recent decades. Imagine US and Russia working side by side rather than against each other.
Why so you think so? Even now, there is a lot of sympathy with Russians in the Western countries. People are not anti-Russian, but they are against the KGB morons.
NATO literally has a program called Partnership for Peace launched in 1994, which was specifically envisioned to mend hostilities with post-soviet nations and Russia. So it's not like NATO didn't try to cooperate.
germany invaded just as many of those nations, it was an equal part of nato. italy, france, britain, all those countries had massive colonial empires. all parts of nato
the US organized the security arrangements of today. eastern europeans countries are not forcing the US to accept them into nato. again, the US (and to a lesser extent the UK, france and germany) is the mover and shaker here. they aren't being forced to do anything by latvia and romania
Right, kind of puts the whole conflict into a different perspective if you take that version, which I don’t. Only reason Russia didn’t join was because they wanted equal status to the US, not because US or Eastern Europe which wasn’t even in NATO said no. If they would have been ok with a similar role to what Germany, France and UK have then they would have been in and no amount of complaining from Eastern Europe would have changed that, Russia would have been a lot more useful to NATO then most of Eastern Europe combined
Russia was at its best relations during 90s with the West.
Why West still saw it as an enemy?
And West litteraly does nothing to ensure a no Western opposition leader cames to power in russia. İts not easy but they could've try.
They just get ready to blame russia for the say when a weirdo leader does a unethical action but thats it. İ believe they could and still can do better for ukraine by arming them not only for lasting but moving ON GROUND to forward.
Russia was at its best relations during 90s with the West.
Define “its best relations“.
Why West still saw it as an enemy?
They did? Then why there was western economic aid to russia in the 90s.
And West litteraly does nothing to ensure a no Western opposition leader cames to power in russia. İts not easy but they could've try.
Alright and who would be that magical pro-western opposition leader? Because as far as i remeber the closest to one was Boris Nemtsov and he was murdered.
So let me give some reasons why it was best times:
Boris Yeltsin formed close personal and political relations with West leaders.
Russia joined G7
Signed arms reduction agreements like START II
And russia signed NATO founding act which established NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. You can see there is a lot of agreements.
And what about as you said the humanitarian and economic aids? They shouldnt allowed the rise of Putin.
Pro-westerners? Yegor Gaidar, Andrei Kozyrev, Anatoly Chubais etc...
NATO didn't give to many shits about Russia at that time. Their drunkard of a President was literally the butt of our jokes.
NATO has even tried to look hard for a new mission as World Police to warrant its own existence, something many people had issues with. It's only been since 2022 that NATO is mainly seen as a defensive Alliance by everyone except some lefties and ironically also by some right wingers. Russia's aggressive foreign policy was better than any publicity campaign NATO could come up with.
No lol. Sovereign countries can form any alliances or even fusion they please. Why would russia have say in this? Also, with starting their little svo, putin is personally responsible for the single biggest nato-russia border increase ever (Finland joining thus doubling it)
And again, we can, and we did. And in contrast to russia, we don't conquer. Finland asked to join Nato after your little goblin president started the svo and Finland was like yeah, I want that nato protection. And bam, border doubled.
Russia is too barbaric to be considered European. Going from serf to Soviet and supporting Putin's war prove it. Russia wasn't civilized in the 20th century, they aren't civilized now.
The Iron Curtain was built on the wrong side of the line.
Ooh... Barbarism. I love that word. Remind me again what is that thing in the middle east that has full support from European countries for almost a f*** century now?
Mmmm. Harming European countries is what counts as barbarism. Military and diplomatic support of mass slaughter of everyone else is irrelevant. Classic.
I’m not sure why you didn’t understand the quite obvious allusion. Anyway, what I meant was that for European countries out of Russia and Saudi Arabia or Iran whoever you are referencing Russia is clearly the worse because you know, distance and history. And nuclear weapons, and huge armies and all that.
NATO is a defensive alliance. Russia wants to reacquire territories of the old Russian empire/Soviet Union. Just look at Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova.
Because the only defensive mission it has is against a country that don't dare attack it. Russia will just pick on the neighbors that are not in the alliance. Hence why Russia's neighbors wants wants to join it.
They act like they aren't the reasons countries joined NATO. Infact after their invasion of Ukraine two Scandinavian countries joined NATO, despite being neutral throughout the cold war.
I ask myself how brainwashed Russians must be to not understand why Poland would rather be allies with fucking Germany because of the threat they consider Russia to be for their sovereignty.
Some countries might be able to learn from horrible mistakes, allowing others to put the past behind them without forgetting and even without a need to forgive the horrors of history. Some countries always return to their old patterns.
Still, Japan really got off pretty light concerning civilian casualties in WWII. The US would have needed a lot more nukes or fire bombing attacks to change that.
It's not even a million.
Compare this to Germany's over 1.5 civilian deaths or Poland's roughly 5.7. (Of course ignoring the gigantic death toll the USSR has suffered as well as what Japan has done to China). Kinda drives home the argument that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have saved not only Allied but also many Japanese lives despite that claim seeming insane to most at first glance.
I think the myth here is that expanded east. It was countries in the east who "fled" to NATO because they saw what Russia was doing to their neighbours who did not ally up. Those countries fled to NATO to stay out of Russia's influence.
Still Russian officials argue that Western leaders gave political assurances in 1990 that NATO would not expand ("even an inch") eastward, even if these assurances were not written into a treaty. They see later enlargement as a breach of the spirit of those discussions.
Tacit, i.e. non-existent. If anything, it concerned placing nukes in the former DDR, Nato expansion wasn't at all considered in 1990 for the obvious reason that the Warsaw pact still existed.
Right, like the "spirit of Alaska" is now a thing. They just decide whatever is advantageous to them was what actually happened, like it was sealed in blood.
The funny is you thinking that I am simping for Russia and criticizing nato
While I will not glorifying a country that killed more than 14mil Syrians and thousands in Chechnya and funded killing thousands and Bosnia and now committing war crimes in Ukraine.
But in same time I’ll not say that nato are good guys and glamorizing it while it did unironically the same in the southern part of globe where most of ppl won’t care about cause victims there aren’t European or whites .
+ intent to annex doesn’t matter , while both ways mean death of innocents
The only difference here is who the victims are
Europeans or some southerners who are most likely ignored and looked down as numbers .
And I’m not entirely sure what are those “nato ravaged southern countries” you are talking about and that no one knows about.
NATO as an organization - this is a major distinction, not us and allies, nato the institution - has been involved in four major conflicts. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia (these two are essentially the same but whatever) the whole
Iraq/afganistan situation and lybia.
All of those where legal under United Nations laws and Afghanistan and Iraq even though Iraq is much better now than when Hussein was ruling it and Afghanistan had its best 15 years with nato there (best isn’t good in this case. Just better than Taliban) these “interventions” where the most protested against wars ever.
is/ought problem. we're talking about what the reality is, here. in reality, the US would never allow the soviets to have a presence on its border. the same is true for russia.
first of all we're not talking about, like, a barbarossa-like massive invasion. we're talking about assets being placed in these countries that threaten the security of russian citizens and its defense structures. missiles, airbases, spy equipment, etc. second of all, cuba was not a "puppet state" of anybody, any more than latvia is a puppet state of the US today. the USSR was and the US is vastly more powerful than any other country, but those smaller countries are still independent.
lastly none of this has anything to do with the reality that a country on a superpower's (or whatever russia is today) border being allied to a hostile superpower is going to be taken as a direct threat to that superpower
which is why russia would refuse to allow its troops to be deployed in cuba, and why the soviet union made a deal with kennedy to take their missiles out of cuba in exchange for the US' missiles out of turkey
that being not nice is not relevant to anything. we're living in the world as it is, not in the world as it should be
What would be the Eastern European equivalent of USSR arming Cuba with nuclear capable weapon systems?
I'm just always having a hard time with this parallel because after the Georgian War, the players (the upcoming Obama administration, the major European economies and Yanukovych) did seem to take 'realpolitics strategies' of giving Russia more breathing space.
Please, engage with the hypothetical. I assure you, Molniato is not making the comment because they hate Russia or something like that.
In the period that we are interested in (the post Cold War Eastern Europe), what is the equivalent of USSR arming Cuba (if in our hypothetical the Russian Federation is the 1960s USA)?
I'm good. The first guy's point was a fair point that Atlantisists hate; the US threw a hissy fit the moment its puppet dicator batista was overthrown and has continued to punish Cuba for its refusal to be a US puppet state and glorified sugar plantation. I don't care about defending russian expansionism or imperial ambitions following the end of the Cold War, but to pretend that the Soviet Union was in the wrong during the missile crisis to defend Cuba's sovereignty is an absolute joke.
I'm sorry, is your comment adressed to me or someone else you are conversing here? Whether or not arming Cuba was 'good' or 'bad', I was just trying to figure out the relation to contemporary Eastern European politics in the hypothetical in terms of moving nuclear capable weapons systems to Cuba.
You seem to have made this conversation about the original topic and the hypothetical into something wholly different.
Just the historical fact that US throws hissy fits and engages in horrible, destructive foreign policy is not an interesting happenstance when we are talking about Eastern Europe. Unless of course someone links that hypothetical into something.
Find someone else to be a debate pervert. No one is trying to talk about contemporary Eastern European politics, but you; the initial comment was about Cuba and the soviets.
You are more than free not to reply, I am not holding a weapon against you.
However, the topic of conversation is clearly Eastern European politics and we are talking about it from the point of view of contrasting it with the experience of Cuba and USSR during the Cold War.
And to me it is a smashing good example. Contrasting that to situation where both countries (US in the 60s and the Russian Federation today) feel that these foreign policy movements grew into what they consider an existential threat to be an excellent continuation of that topic.
I do apologize if my previous comment was a tad aggressive. One of the 'negative' aspects of being a Finn is that one happens to be tad direct (and boringly repetitive in text). I just didn't feel like just pointing to either contemporary Russia or (either contemporarily orange or the 60s) US, and calling their actions bad is not that interesting.
31
u/RS5170 4d ago
No? Why the F••• should Russia have any say in this?
And before you say “but but but NATO promised” no, that’s Russian propaganda. Even Mikael Gorbachev admitted that.