And NATO pushing up to the borders of Russia isn’t considered an aggressive move on the part of the USA, because … ?
I’m not trying to defend his annexation of the Crimea but “trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire” isn’t what I think his motivations are when I can look at a map like this, and recall the Georgian conflict was itself sparked in part by aspirations of that country to join NATO. Americans would feel threatened if say, Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact, no?
And NATO pushing up to the borders of Russia isn’t considered an aggressive move on the part of the USA, because … ?
Because it wasn’t NATO that “pushed up to the borders of Russia” it was the Eastern European countries that fled from Russia into NATO. Not a single NATO tank had to streamroll into those Eastern European countries for them to join . You’ll note that none of those nations that joined NATO needed to be invaded and military occupied by NATO—unlike what Russia is doing now, and unlike what Warsaw Pact did in the past.
Because if any of those countries ask to leave NATO, NATO will leave. However Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova are asking Russia to leave, and Russia isn’t leaving.
Because the sovereign and independent Eastern European nations wanted to become part of NATO, and NATO tanks didn’t need to force itself on a single nation, it was invited( a single country, nor change the borders, unlike Russia’s military occupation of portions of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.
Because a NATO country like Poland isn’t the one attempting to annex the western portions of Ukraine or Belarus or Russia.
Because when Greece has been recently openly allying itself with Russia, I don’t see NATO troops from Italy or Albania or Bulgaria attempting to break apart portions of Greece.
Yay, for simple answers to simple questions.
Americans would feel threatened if say, Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact, no?
Yes, America also often used military imperialism in its attempt to stop Latin American countries from allying themselves with the Soviet Union, (e.g. the invasion at the Bay of Pigs).
You are looking at this from a moral viewpoint. The fact that many of Russia’s neighbors would rather militarily associate with the U.S. than Russia is a cause of great insecurity for Russia and probably a big part of the reason Putin would like to gain military control of more territory. Putin would have less to worry about if the eastern European nations in NATO joined because they were forced to because then these countries would be weaker U.S. allies.
Clearly Aris has moral sentiments about the matter (who would not?), but he is presenting observable facts, such as who is sending men and materiel and who is not.
Putin would have less to worry about if the eastern European nations in NATO joined because they were forced to because then these countries would be weaker U.S. allies.
If they were forced to, that would imply a US more able and willing to force them, which cancels that out.
Putin clearly intends to exert all the pressure and take all the opportunities that he can to expand Russia’s sphere of influence indefinitely, as did the former USSR. All else is tactics. As you said:
I think Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire and is going to keep taking more territory until he encounters serious resistance
Because the sovereign and independent Eastern European nations wanted to become part of NATO, and NATO tanks didn’t need to force itself on a single nation, it was invited( a single country, nor change the borders, unlike Russia’s military occupation of portions of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.
I’m not sure your average Serb would agree …
Because when Greece has been recently openly allying itself with Russia, I don’t see NATO troops from Italy or Albania or Bulgaria attempting to break apart portions of Greece.
No, they just get the Troika to do it by proxy.
I’ll restate what I said before—I’m not defending Putin’s regime as such. It’s tyrannical and corrupt and no sane person would die defending that hill. Just that Russia’s actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature. Yes, the Eastern Euro countries (mostly) joined NATO of their own free will (more accurately, they had little alternative either way with Russia being dead in the water through the 90s). What of it? The fact remains there’s an explicitly anti-Russian coalition on Russia’s doorstep, and allied groups like the EU pushing into historically-Russian territories. They’re understandably afraid of the Germans pushing east of the Vistula—after all, it didn’t end well the last two times.
“Rebuilding the Soviet Empire” is exactly the kind of propagandistic slogan that contributes to crises in the first place—viewing your enemy as some kind of inscrutable, uncompromisingly aggressive monster rather than a country concerned for its survival and who possesses few natural defenses.
I opposed NATO’s action in Kosovo as an imperialist action in support of Albanian imperialism—but this has nothing to do with NATO’s expansion eastwards any more than its intervention against Afghanistan does. NATO’s expansion eastwards was an action of the Eastern European countries fleeing westwards, being rightfully afraid of Russian imperialism.
Italy or Albania or Bulgaria attempting to break apart portions of Greece.
No, they just get the Troika to do it by proxy
Know what? I can’t remain civil in this discussion, if you’re comparing Greece being loaned money with extremely low interests as being the same thing as Ukraine being militarily conquered by Russia and many thousands of its people getting killed.
So I’m tapping out. Enjoy your “understanding” of the so called defensive attitude of Russia as one by one it conquers nations that never once threatened anyone. On my part I’ll keep denouncing Russia neoHitleric imperialism, and its vile policies.
One of the reasons to join NATO was that Russia (Soviet Union) had a history of reverting political changes in Eastern Europe; see Prague Spring. Given this history, a political change from communism to democracy seemed half-assed without also joining NATO, because it seemed like a question of time until someone in Russia decides “okay guys, your political regime will now change to this” and send tanks to enforce the decision.
It felt like without NATO, the future of Eastern Europe would be decided in two steps. 1) Russia will decide what political regime it wants, which may take a few years, but when the decision is made, then 2) the tanks will come and enforce the same regime in other countries. So, unless you agree that this is how the political regime in your country should be decided, the only safe alternative is to join NATO.
I don’t think the desire to maintain a little Balkan empire counts here.
Just that Russia’s actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature.
I don’t think so. Do tell, what Russia is defending against? And is the threat to Russia or to Mr.Putin’s thoroughly corrupt state?
an explicitly anti-Russian coalition on Russia’s doorstep
Show me that coalition and show me how is it “anti-Russian”.
a country concerned for its survival and who possesses few natural defenses
I am sorry, this passed into the realm of unadulterated bullshit. So, right now, in the XXI century Russia is “concerned for its survival”? A country of “few natural defenses” that was last conquered by Genghis Khan?
Part of the reason Putin wants a bigger empire is undoubtedly to gain some protection against future aggression. I totally agree with you that the U.S. has acted to weaken Russia.
And NATO pushing up to the borders of Russia isn’t considered an aggressive move on the part of the USA, because … ?
I’m not trying to defend his annexation of the Crimea but “trying to rebuild the Soviet Empire” isn’t what I think his motivations are when I can look at a map like this, and recall the Georgian conflict was itself sparked in part by aspirations of that country to join NATO. Americans would feel threatened if say, Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact, no?
Because it wasn’t NATO that “pushed up to the borders of Russia” it was the Eastern European countries that fled from Russia into NATO. Not a single NATO tank had to streamroll into those Eastern European countries for them to join . You’ll note that none of those nations that joined NATO needed to be invaded and military occupied by NATO—unlike what Russia is doing now, and unlike what Warsaw Pact did in the past.
Because if any of those countries ask to leave NATO, NATO will leave. However Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova are asking Russia to leave, and Russia isn’t leaving.
Because the sovereign and independent Eastern European nations wanted to become part of NATO, and NATO tanks didn’t need to force itself on a single nation, it was invited( a single country, nor change the borders, unlike Russia’s military occupation of portions of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.
Because a NATO country like Poland isn’t the one attempting to annex the western portions of Ukraine or Belarus or Russia.
Because when Greece has been recently openly allying itself with Russia, I don’t see NATO troops from Italy or Albania or Bulgaria attempting to break apart portions of Greece.
Yay, for simple answers to simple questions.
Yes, America also often used military imperialism in its attempt to stop Latin American countries from allying themselves with the Soviet Union, (e.g. the invasion at the Bay of Pigs).
So?
You are looking at this from a moral viewpoint. The fact that many of Russia’s neighbors would rather militarily associate with the U.S. than Russia is a cause of great insecurity for Russia and probably a big part of the reason Putin would like to gain military control of more territory. Putin would have less to worry about if the eastern European nations in NATO joined because they were forced to because then these countries would be weaker U.S. allies.
Clearly Aris has moral sentiments about the matter (who would not?), but he is presenting observable facts, such as who is sending men and materiel and who is not.
If they were forced to, that would imply a US more able and willing to force them, which cancels that out.
Putin clearly intends to exert all the pressure and take all the opportunities that he can to expand Russia’s sphere of influence indefinitely, as did the former USSR. All else is tactics. As you said:
I’m not sure your average Serb would agree …
No, they just get the Troika to do it by proxy.
I’ll restate what I said before—I’m not defending Putin’s regime as such. It’s tyrannical and corrupt and no sane person would die defending that hill. Just that Russia’s actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature. Yes, the Eastern Euro countries (mostly) joined NATO of their own free will (more accurately, they had little alternative either way with Russia being dead in the water through the 90s). What of it? The fact remains there’s an explicitly anti-Russian coalition on Russia’s doorstep, and allied groups like the EU pushing into historically-Russian territories. They’re understandably afraid of the Germans pushing east of the Vistula—after all, it didn’t end well the last two times.
“Rebuilding the Soviet Empire” is exactly the kind of propagandistic slogan that contributes to crises in the first place—viewing your enemy as some kind of inscrutable, uncompromisingly aggressive monster rather than a country concerned for its survival and who possesses few natural defenses.
I opposed NATO’s action in Kosovo as an imperialist action in support of Albanian imperialism—but this has nothing to do with NATO’s expansion eastwards any more than its intervention against Afghanistan does. NATO’s expansion eastwards was an action of the Eastern European countries fleeing westwards, being rightfully afraid of Russian imperialism.
Know what? I can’t remain civil in this discussion, if you’re comparing Greece being loaned money with extremely low interests as being the same thing as Ukraine being militarily conquered by Russia and many thousands of its people getting killed.
So I’m tapping out. Enjoy your “understanding” of the so called defensive attitude of Russia as one by one it conquers nations that never once threatened anyone. On my part I’ll keep denouncing Russia neoHitleric imperialism, and its vile policies.
One of the reasons to join NATO was that Russia (Soviet Union) had a history of reverting political changes in Eastern Europe; see Prague Spring. Given this history, a political change from communism to democracy seemed half-assed without also joining NATO, because it seemed like a question of time until someone in Russia decides “okay guys, your political regime will now change to this” and send tanks to enforce the decision.
It felt like without NATO, the future of Eastern Europe would be decided in two steps. 1) Russia will decide what political regime it wants, which may take a few years, but when the decision is made, then 2) the tanks will come and enforce the same regime in other countries. So, unless you agree that this is how the political regime in your country should be decided, the only safe alternative is to join NATO.
Everyone’s actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature. Perfectly, universally, and therefore uselessly.
An average Serb or an average Yugoslav..? :-P
I don’t think the desire to maintain a little Balkan empire counts here.
I don’t think so. Do tell, what Russia is defending against? And is the threat to Russia or to Mr.Putin’s thoroughly corrupt state?
Show me that coalition and show me how is it “anti-Russian”.
I am sorry, this passed into the realm of unadulterated bullshit. So, right now, in the XXI century Russia is “concerned for its survival”? A country of “few natural defenses” that was last conquered by Genghis Khan?
Part of the reason Putin wants a bigger empire is undoubtedly to gain some protection against future aggression. I totally agree with you that the U.S. has acted to weaken Russia.