[flagged]
Offensive alliance.
Libya. Serbia. Afghanistan - all offensive operations.
Libya was in order to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which Russia or China could have vetoed had they wished.
Yugoslavia (Serbia) stands.
Libya was supposed to be a UN sanctioned humanitarian op. It got silently upgraded to regime change, which is why Putin publicly expressed regret at not vetoing it.
Libya was never a threat to NATO. NATO was not defending itself from Libya.
Serbia was never a threat to NATO. NATO was not defending itself from... well, not to put too fine a point on it but... Russia's closest ally in Europe.
It is not a purely defensive alliance in any sense of the word except an Orwellian one. All of its military operations have been exclusively offensive in nature.
I almost spit out my coffee I laughed so hard.
That's how the alliance markets itself, but that's not how everyone in the world, especially their potential adversaries, perceives it. And its potential adversaries have been saying so, publicly, for decades.
As I'm sure you understand, all military alliances, even if they start out defensive in nature, can easily become offensive in nature.
> if they feel threatened enough
Exactly, they felt threatened, because they did not and do not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance.
I highly recommend watching the videos I linked in my earlier comment.
Everyone else sees very clearly that an alliance which only invokes when attacked and requires the resolution of territorial disputes prior to gaining membership is not going to just invade them first.
Half of the members were literally dependent on Russia for their energy needs, many of them thinking that the US was the warmongerer for being constantly paranoid about Russia's intentions, with defense budgets trending downwards and the former American president having openly questioned the need for NATO. There is no reasonable way to argue that they were at all going to be attacking Russia as an alliance in that state.
The cynic in me sometimes thinks that part of it, and the American response as well, is perhaps as much that it's a European country being bullied and not somewhere far away (read: brown), but that it's happening at all is any port in the storm.
I disagree that it was due to racism though (in the sense that they're explicitly thinking that "brown people's lives are less valuable"), it's simply that Europe naturally cares more about problems closer to home and the US has the context of its relationship with Russia.
On top of that, both of them have a lot of historical "trauma" from the part of WW2 which was fought by big powers in Europe. I think there would be a similar reaction from Japan, South Korea, and America in response to an invasion of Taiwan by China due to their own history on that front.
So it's not entirely unreasonable for a Russian to look at the NATO as potentially acting like the Warsaw Pact did, although, as you note, the fact that much of NATO doesn't share the same foreign policy as the US (indeed, often criticizes the US's foreign policy aims!) should disabuse them of that notion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq...
Ukraine was no threat to Russia. By invading, Russia just proved to everyone else in the world that Russia is the threat.
Which interestingly leads to even more "Russophobia" because apparently having enough Russian speakers in your area is justification enough for Russia to come in and invade.
It's all ridiculous and shameful behavior on Russia's part. I feel bad for all those having to live under their current regime.
Not since 1990, at least. Cold War era defensive structures were dismantled when Warsaw Pact dissolved and Russia never established any comparable defensive structures on its own borders.
In terms of military doctrine, composition and placement of armed forces, preparations of border defenses, early warning systems etc, Russia has not prepared for invasion in any way. Why, if they perceive this as a threat like you say? With virtually all of Russia's fighting force in Ukraine, the road to Russia is wide open. There isn't even a wire fence on Russian side of border with NATO countries Norway, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia! Where do you see any signs of belief in threat from NATO to Russia?
Countries that border Russia, in contrast, have made extensive preparations to fight off another Russian invasion.
Countries in an existing defensive alliance are likely using similar gear, have similar doctrine, have similar values, and have alignment strategic interests.
The defensive alliance exists as an outcome of these alignments, as does the cooperation on the external war. The alliance doesn't cause the external war.
Australia is not part of NATO, yet it's followed America into basically every war it's had in the last 60 years because of these preexisting alignments, not because of NATO.
He IS credible, don't get me wrong. But he does also represent the extreme end of the "Realist" school of thought so definitely isn't what you'd call "balanced".
Just make sure you balance his theories out with some other options, don't take him as gospel.
Big yikes here...
What do you think about the video I linked?
Also, analogies to dysfunctional interpersonal relationships don't represent the dynamics of many-party international competition very well.
The logic makes zero sense, I'm sorry. It's still a "well, I wouldn't have to do X if you didn't do Y" mentality that completely and utterly shirks any sense of responsibility for one's or one's country's own actions. It's hogwash doublespeak used by BOTH abusers in messy interpersonal relationships, AND by international politicians playing realpolitik.
Yes, you did say that. Russian response was overkill, but you didn't mention Putin there. Clever.
I rarely take political speech on its face value. I only watched half a minute but Putin was stating what he stated for a particular audience, to get a particular reaction.
Correct; Putin had an issue with NATO expansion.
But the reason this was an issue for him is completely missed (or deliberately ignored) by people like yourself.
The fact that NATO is a defensive pact IS the problem.
Because if a country joins NATO, that means Russia can’t invade it.
Putin’s wet dreams all revolve around restoring Russian glory and territory. He’s also said this publicly, too.
And that is why NATO expansion is such an issue for him. Any other narrative is absolute hogwash
Russia had nukes, they had no existential reason to worry about NATO.
The key element in all of this is Putin. Not NATO.
At a certain point it sure looks like Russian apologism.
Mearshimer's claim to fame stems from accurately predicting this invasion would happen.
He did also say that Putin wouldnt try to occupy Ukraine (presumably beyond the eastern part/crimea) but would instead aim to wreck it.
That part seems to be coming true as we speak.
The only way to "disprove" Mearshimer's prediction is mischaracterize Russia's military goals during the initial strike on Kiev (I am not certain what they were but I am 200% certain occupation wasn't one of them because the force was far too small for that task).
JM was just wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q&t=27m27s
Putin gave his speech about wanting to be Peter the Great, how Ukrainians are just Russians who've been convinced otherwise by the evil West, and Russian state media went around praising Putin for "solving the Ukrainian question" (yikes, and yes that's a quote).
None of that fits into JM's worldview.
No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational, especially dictators. This ought to have been obvious after WWII.
The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force.
(not that we can prove the military objectives of sending that force with any great certainty)
>No geopolitical doctrine should take for granted that all geopolitical actors are rational
Definitely not, but if you dont know a military objective for sure and from a list of 7 you pick the least rational, least likely one because reasons your doctrine is absolutely stupid.
Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow.
>JM was just wrong.
No, JM absolutely nailed it. Every word of that YouTube video you linked to was prescient.
Lol. No.
Explain the military purpose of sending riot police and parade uniforms? Explain the military purpose of getting 10,000 of his most capable special forces troops slaughtered in 3 days? Explain the 30 mile convoy?
The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians, that they would welcome the overthrow of their government, etc. That he believed Russia was the 2nd most powerful military in the world, that Ukrainians would immediately surrender, that it would be easy.
All of which is in fact backed up by intercepts and intelligence as well as the entire state narrative in the early war.
>Furthermore presenting that assumption as the sole piece of "evidence" that proves someone wrong is just...wow.
What? It's not the sole piece of evidence...
You need to read the reports about what actually happened on the ground. JM did not "nail it", he was clueless. They've been planning this for a long time. They thought they had deeply infiltrated all levels of Ukrainian government with spies whom would be able to paralyze the response (and to be fair, in the South, they did).
https://static.rusi.org/202303-SR-Unconventional-Operations-...
https://static.rusi.org/special-report-202202-ukraine-web.pd...
OMON are not just riot police and are routinely sent on Russian military expeditions (e.g. there are some in Syria). Theres some evidence that a few hundred of the invading force of 15,000 (cite: Wikipedia) were OMON.
The question you apparently haven't asked yourself is "if their goal was occupation, why did they send a few hundred OMON troops rather than the hundred thousand they'd actually need?"
>The simplest explanation is that he in fact did believe all the shit he said on TV about Ukrainians secretly yearning to be Russians
The most likely explanation is that he was primarily gambling on a quick collapse of Ukrainian resistance and the ability to pull off a coup, before placing Opposition Platform for Life (who already had ~44 seats) in charge.
The backup/secondary plan was likely to provide a distraction such that the southern and eastern forces could link up and secure Russia's main geopolitical achilles heel - the land bridge to crimea.
Putin has been very consistent about his views of Ukraine. It makes perfect sense that he got it completely wrong.
As I said, read the reports, you may find it interesting.
In no way, shape or form does that justify presuming that this was an occupation force - with or without uniforms.
Much more than 16,000 troops were intended to go towards Kyiv.
In the east, not around Kyiv. Less than a month before it happened – i.e. long after everyone else had predicted it would. And after, as shown above, he himself had spent his career claiming it wouldn't. Weak sauce, utterly weak.
Mearshimer's claim to any current fame stems almost entirely from spouting the same tired old anti-USA and anti-NATO propaganda we've heard from Russia since the Soviet era.
> The only way to "disprove" Mearshimer's prediction is mischaracterize Russia's military goals during the initial strike on Kiev (I am not certain what they were but I am 200% certain occupation wasn't one of them because the force was far too small for that task).
Oh holy shit, I never thought this infamous Twitter Copium would show up on HN too. How naïve of me.
Copium? The Guardian (a pro Ukraine cheerleader extraordinairre) said this during the offensive.
Your proclivity towards using troll slang suggests you might be spending a little too much time on twitter. You might consider cutting back. It's neither healthy nor informative.
> Your proclivity towards using troll slang suggests you might be spending a little too much time on twitter. You might consider cutting back. It's neither healthy nor informative.
The Russian state media accidentally uploaded an article celebrating their occupation of Ukraine after about 3 days.
The plan was always 3 days to occupy Ukraine and cut off the seat of power.
They admitted this themselves.
He predicted "Putin will wreck Ukraine" and this is happening now.
My guess:
Cognitive dissonance hurts. Injustice is not supposed to win, people don't want to compromise even if the alternative is much worse.
Russia should have just not invaded Ukraine. I find it incredible that people try to justify that action on increasingly flimsy grounds.
‘All his (Putin's) ideas... come from the past. He wants to move the country to the 19th century, to a time when empires were possible.’ — Marat Gelman, former Putin adviser.[1]
In other words, the USA acknowledged that they had provoked the Soviets.
But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation?
It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy.
RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army.
Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise?
Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas.
And now it's placing further nuclear missiles in Belarus.
And yet, when countries directly threatened by these weapons seek mutual defense pacts and cooperation with other countries in Europe and North America, you call this a provocation. Russia can place nukes in Europe and that's fine, but Poland can't even hold joint military exercises with France. Can you tell me why?
Their young men are being sacrificed to evict a foreign army that has invaded their soil. This has the side effect of wearing down the Russian army, so of course others are going to help who want that effect, too. But that is not why they are sacrificing their lives.
> Who benefits from this conflict?
Minority populations in a variety of countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus) who nostalgically yearn for Russian confederation again.
Nobody is “bringing NATO” anywhere. Neither the USA nor anyone else can annex other countries to NATO. Those countries apply to join the alliance, because they want to.
Educate yourself a little better on what you're talking about (in stead of listening to infamous tinfoil hatters like RKjr), then maybe you won't have to sound exactly like a Putler troll.
I keep forgetting in Russias absolute drug hazed existence a country looking to defend itself is justification for invasion.
But we know all the NATO stuff is false as Russia was given assurances by NATO members that Ukraine would be vetoed.
That didn’t do anything to stop Russias brutal war.
> But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation?
So when’s the invasion of Finland happening? If keeping NATO from Russias door step was the goal of this war if failed already.
> It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy.
I’m not sure what you’re saying, are you saying that Putins army is so pathetic that he needs other countries to handicap the country defending itself so he can look good?.
> RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army.
RJK Jrs message is pure Russian propaganda.
But even if this was a devious American plan to wear down the Russian army. The russians could easily avoid this by just leaving.
The Ukrainians are defending themselves from a brutal invasion if they stop fighting there is no more Ukraine who knows how many more war crimes the Russians will commit.
If the Russians stop fighting there is no more war.
> Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise?
The world has tried compromising with Russia time and time again and it just leads to more invasions and more war crimes by them.
The Russians don’t understand compromise only strength, the only way to get Russia to stop is by displaying strength not compromise.
> Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas.
The Russians benefit greatly from this conflict if they win, that is why a lot of the world is trying to help stop the brutal imperialistic invasion.