[flagged]
If anything, Russia has put themselves in serious shit for invading Ukraine. If they hadn't started this, over 600.000 of their people wouldn't be dead or wounded.
How many countries has NATO invaded?
Not to defend the regime in power then (nor now!), but if you ask Serbia they might offer some other lived experiences on how consensual Operation Allied Force was.
Thought of course you knew that already since you obviously know what the operation was called, a fact basically nobody today knows (without looking it up).
But there is a reason, which curiously enough you neglected to mention. As the other commenter pointed out, it was to stop an active genocide which was being prosecuted by Slobodan Milosevic’s military and paramilitary forces.
Just because they weren't "defending a NATO member" doesn't mean that the operation was "offensive".
> NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia
Would you feel threatened if your neighbours set up weapons right outside your property line, ostensibly to defend in case you attack? And especially if they've already invaded your property twice (France and Germany both invaded Russia).
Russia refused to withdraw from Moldova to implement CFE II. This is not the action of a state worried that it's disadvantage in conventional arms will lead to invasion.
This has nothing to do with NATO. Only with Russian imperialism.
Except that never happened in Ukraine, or in any of the other NATO countries close to Russia.
You know that, right?
Somebody is refusing to pay protection money and is forming a “neighbourhood watch”. We need to make example of them.
The actual Russian perspective is "Let's quickly grab Ukraine before they completely turn towards Europe, otherwise Russia cannot be an empire again."
It may be strange to modern western minds but Russians still consider their imperial project as wholesome, good and nearly sacred. To get into the correct mindstate, you can read for example how Churchill venerated the British empire. The Russians hold this same veneration to their imperial project today. They also know western audience probably would not appreciate this reasoning so they need to invent laughable excuses like ”we were afraid of NATO expansion” that clueless western commentators happily repeat as the foundational reason.
It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so.
No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor.
You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.
> Russia's "concerns" are not valid.
> It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so.
> No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor.
Then you know nothing of US doctrine. The Central Americans will tell you how the US will even invade just to lower the price of bananas - no joke.
> You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.
The Russian viewpoint is that Eastern Europe would be much easier to conquer if they were internationally isolated and could be picked off one by one like in the 1940s. The current war against Ukraine is an excellent example of this; international cooperation is a leading reason for the failure of the invasion. All the complaints about NATO lead back to the fact that for Russia it elevates the cost of invading Eastern Europe. Without NATO, they would face only limited conventional forces in Poland. With NATO, an attack on Poland go as far as activating American carrier groups or even a nuclear response.
> NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance” and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn’t even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine.
A little bit more competent Googling would fill in the context you’ve clearly missed:
(1) The 2008 statement was a way of mollifying Ukraine after acceding to Russia’s demand that Ukraine and Georgia be denied NATO Membership Action Plans at the 2008 summit. (Russia responded, by the way, to this accession to their demands by invading Georgia. Might have done the same to the Ukraine soon after, except by the time they were at a stable point with Georgia, they’d already managed to get a Russia-friendly government in Ukraine.)
(2) Ukraine publicly abandoned any interest in a foreign military alliance between the 2008 summit and the 2014 invasion by Russia.
(3) Ukraine abandoned its neutrality stance and restarted attempts to join NATO only after the 2014 invasion.
(4) The 2021 statement was, again, a way of putting a nice face for Ukraine on NATO again rejecting Ukraine’s attempts to join in the near term.
No. Russia invading a peaceful, friendly and neutral neighbor with unmarked military units is what lead to this war.
> NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit
FR, ES and DE made it clear that Ukraine would not be a candidate for NATO and nothing came of it. The first step in admitting a nation into NATO is a Membership Action Plan (MAP) - there never was a such for Ukraine. NATO membership for Ukraine was dead in the water in 2014, when Russia heinously attacked with unmarked military units.
But that is besides the point, really; Ukraine is sovereign. It is a sovereign nation that can itself decide which alliances to join. Ukraine is not beholden to Russia and Russia doesn't get a say in Ukrainian politics. Russia is not the Soviet Union and Ukraine is not the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.
> Then you know nothing of US doctrine.
Ah, yes. The "this one over there is a murderer too" defense. You're still defending imperialism, you're just defending imperialism with more imperialism.
> I'm simply presenting Russia's viewpoint as I understand it.
Russia's viewpoint is that Ukraine has no right so sovereignty. That's in direct violation with multiple treaties with Ukraine that Russia has signed.
Russia does not want an independent Ukraine. That's why they have been attacking Ukraine for 10 years now, first clandestine and then ever more openly. That's why they have been bombing civilians, that's why the formally annexed Ukrainian territory, that's why they will not grant peace to their neighbor.
Because without Ukraine, there can be no Russian Empire.
Provided one accepts that those concerns are valid.
And that its stated "concerns" were in fact its actual reasons for starting the war.
But there is no compelling logical basis for us to accept either of these premises.
I don't have time to fully dissect what you're saying about the NATO issue -- other than that you are leaving out some very important details which for some reason were not presented to you in whatever sources you are reading from. (Which is a polite way of telling you: your sources are apparently misinformed, or worse).
But the main point is: none of the NATO stuff ever amounted to an actual physical threat against the Russian state, or otherwise any rational reason for Russia's regime to start a war.
More to the point, it wasn't the real reason it chose to the start the war. It's just something it says, for internal and external propaganda purposes.
So no - we don't have to "accept that Russia's concerns are valid".
From Russia's perspective, NATO has been infringing on both Russia's sphere of influence and on her buffer states. Russia has _twice_ been invaded by the Europeans, she hasn't forgotten that. And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia.
Need I remind you how the US responded when the USSR set up missile positions in Cuba?
I have already asked you in another comment to tell me how long NATO has been literally on Russia’s border.
Why are you dodging the question?
We can safely say "no", as the US never set up missile positions in Ukraine, or had any plan to.
There's simply no analogy between the two situations.
No, you don't.
And neither do the Russians.
So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?
Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons.
I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself.
Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?
Not true.
> Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?
That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...
Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?
Yes, true:
https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co...
Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026
>That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad
Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference?
>Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?
That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast?
Because that's how you die in a thermonuclear blast.
No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources says that Tomahawks have ever been given to Eastern Europe nor that there is any intention to. Ukraine has requested them, but your own source says that Ukraine is "unlikely" to receive them.
> Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia
They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. In worst massacres, more people were killed by Serbs over a single weekend than died in the entire NATO aerial bombardment campaign that lasted several months.
> Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference?
Again, nothing you say is true. No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, but Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus: "Putin confirms first nuclear weapons moved to Belarus" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700
> That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast?
That's the question Russians should ask themselves when they keep pushing westwards with their nukes and attacks on European countries. Do Russians want to die in a thermonuclear blast that they act so recklessly?
Read my words again: the threat was made. Russia responded to that threat, as the notion that nuclear-capable missiles would be deployed on borders within minutes of Moscow was deemed intolerable, and thus the deployment was cancelled.
>They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region.
How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded? And, again, the duplicity of your argument is clear: illegal wars are 'okay' as long as they result in peace and quiet afterwards?
That's not working out much for Gaza though, is it?
> No-one has given anyone Tomahawks,
I didn't say they did - I said that the threat to do so was made, and it was made - and as a result, we have war and calamity in Europe where we could have had a real, lasting peace between aligned nations.
If not for that coup.
>Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus
Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe - so do allies have a right to engage in military agreements, or do they not?
You can't have it both ways. This is the entire point of MAD, which you seem to think doesn't apply to Washington, but does to Moscow.
There was no coup d'état.
Simply put - it's a false narrative.
Yes, there was.
You are making things up at this point. Eastern Europe has no Tomahawks, and nor has anyone given any indication that this would change, nor does the extreme caution in supplying much weaker weapons give a reason to even speculate about Tomahawks.
However, supplying more advanced weapons to Ukraine would be justified, given that Russia has broken the promises given to Ukraine in exchange for dismantling their nuclear weapons. I hope to see it happen!
> How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded?
Zero. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there were no "separatists" in Donbas except for unmarked members of Russian armed forces and security services, fully under Russian command. And as in Yugoslavia, many lives could've been saved if NATO was more assertive in bombing the aggressor and establishing peace instead of looking the other way.
> Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe
American missiles stand where they stood when Nixon was still in office and countries that have joined alliances since the Cold War host none of them.
Indications:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/tomahawk-cruise-missi...
https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/11/22/potential-envoy-to-uk...
https://www.politico.eu/article/volodymyr-zelenskyy-confirms...
"“We know the plan is realistic. U.S. own military studied it and said it is realistic,” a Ukrainian official familiar with the matter told POLITICO when granted anonymity to be able to speak about a sensitive foreign policy issue."
Pay attention to the dates.
>American missiles stand where they stood when Nixon was still in office and countries that have joined alliances since the Cold War host none of them.
Why abandon involvement in a treaty designed to prevent proliferation, if not to proliferate?
https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/08...
Oh, and about those treaties ..
https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2021/12/the-us-exit-from...
US responses in the articles you linked:
1) "the U.S. and NATO are hesitant to endorse due to fears of nuclear escalation."
2) "I don’t see the Biden administration ready to do so yet."
3) "senior U.S. official described the Ukrainian request as totally unfeasible."
You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, and it's really quite silly.
You don't get to have standards for one nation but entirely different standards for another.
The USA can deploy missiles anywhere it wants - on its territory, or on the territories of its allies. But of course it needs to suffer the consequences if it decides to forward-deploy them on someone elses territory.
Same goes for Russia. Or, is there some other standard that you're applying that makes it okay for the USA to put nuclear-capable missiles on the borders of its enemies, but not okay for any other nation to do it?
Here's a boiled-down transcript what just transpired between yourself and the other commenter:
You: NATO seeks to deploy missiles within 7 minutes flight time of Russia's capitol. That's bad, threatening.
They: But we already have Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad.
You: But those missiles are on Russian territory, so that makes it OK.
Plus there's Russia's announcment of its intent to employ actual nuclear-armed missiles in Belarus, which no one has mentioned. Which would seem to make its complaint about non-nuclear deployments in Ukraine (which everyone knows will be exactly that) largely moot.
If not, why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does?
Also, your entire position assumes that Europe==USA, when in fact it simply doesn't. The USA is forward-deploying its missile systems in (currently) friendly states - what happens when those states turn against the USA? Does the USA simply invade and retrieve its missile systems?
Yes it does, but I think you've misunderstood what the Monroe Doctrine was. The Monroe Doctrine was not a blank license for the US to invade other countries and kill people there. The point of Monroe Doctrine was to protect western hemisphere from wars initiated by European colonial empires. A good example of this is the French invasion of Mexico in 1862 in an attempt to turn the newly-independent Mexico into a colony and install European aristocrat from the Habsburg dynasty as the emperor of Mexico. Americans offered military aid to Mexico, and after a few years of fighting, that emperor got executed by a firing squad and French forces were expulsed. Sounds familiar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico
Russia is acting like one of those colonial empires that sought to conquer and exploit the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated against such behavior.
Also, if government of Mexico ever decides to invite the People's Liberation Army into Mexico to help Mexico defend itself, and the PLA accepts the invitation, I want and expect my government (i.e., Washington) to stop them -- with organized violence if necessary such as is currently happening in Ukraine.
Also, if government of Mexico ever decides to invite the People's Liberation Army into Mexico to help Mexico defend itself
And if that invitation happened only after Mexico was invaded by the US (on as grounds as equally stupid and unprovoked as Russia's current invasion of Ukraine) -- then I'm sure we can trust that you will not only unequivocally condemn that aggression, but solidly champion Mexico's right to defend itself against it by whatever means necessary.
Such dictatorships propped by a foreign power from another side of the planet at the expense of the safety and well-being of people in the Americas looks exactly the kind of thing Monroe Doctrine sought to prevent.
Still, "legitimate" is a weird choice of words to describe unnecessary and provocative WMD deployments in any context.
No country has a "right" to apply the Monroe Doctrine, anywhere, of course.
The idea that we should defend or empathize with (or "understand") Russia's current smash-and-grab operation underway in Ukraine, based on a perceived similarity between its actions and whatever bad things other empires have done, way back when -- I find to be really quite bizarre.
Why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does?
I don't think the US has any such right -- and I find it quite strange that pretend to "know" that I would.
As in uses depleted uranium (because of density characteristics) or radioactive waste stuff just for being radioactive?
(Obviously mass of tomahawk is too low for any chain nuclear reaction)
Would you want nuclear-capable missiles deployed on your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city?
Actually it was effectively impossible, as NATO's bylaws prevent the admission of states with active border conflicts. This is most likely (a large part of) why Putin invaded both Georgia and Ukraine -- to create permanent border conflicts, to prevent them from becoming NATO states.
So in fact there was no imminent possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO state at the time of the 2022 invasion. Which makes perfect sense, as it was never the reason Putin chose to launch the full-scale invasion, anyway.
That's known, and already implicit in what I said.
How long has NATO been on russia's border? This is an important question. Please try to answer it.