What is it that distances Russia from the West?

[Hans Blaster]

No .... what I am saying ..... there is a threat from those who are militarily armed whether that be Russia or anyone else that is militarily armed ... of which there are many. Do you consider China, Iran, North Korea .... others a threat (of course)? If China, Iran, North Korea where to put a Military presence in our county (no matter how small) ... would you consider that a threat? NATO is a armed presence and is a threat. The threat of NATO presence is "supposed" to deter invasions .... it is a threat against a threat.

Ummmm..

If "China, Iran, North Korea" put a military presence in our country (USA) that would be an invasion.

NATO did not put any military presence in Russia (nor did Ukraine).

 

[eleos1954]

Ummmm..

If "China, Iran, North Korea" put a military presence in our country (USA) that would be an invasion.

NATO did not put any military presence in Russia (nor did Ukraine).
Ukraine was seeking to joint NATO, was initially denied ... they were seeking it .... and still are.

If "China, Iran, North Korea" put a military presence in our country (USA) that would be an invasion.

Oh so .... if someone else does it's seen as an evasion ..... but if someone else does it (NATO).... it is not? Pretty double minded.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Realistically, Russia does not view NATO as a threat .... says who? The presence of NATO is ... in the view of Russia as a threat ..... because
when a nation joins NATO a military presence is put there ..... a military presence constitutes a threat. That is the whole point of putting a military presence in place ..... it is a threat ..... ie you mess with this country .... we have a presence there and will act .... it's a threat.

Baloney.

Do you see the police as a threat? Do you see a private detective as a threat? Do you see *every single country in the world* as a threat?

No rational person sees every country in the world as a threat, considering every single country in the world is armed for self protection.

Your post makes no sense to me using plain logic.

 

[Landon Caeli]

A blaten display of arms is viewed as a threat by anyone.

Baloney. Only some people are that emotionally sensitive.

 

[RDKirk]

If China, Iran, North Korea where to put a Military presence in our county (no matter how small) ... would you consider that a threat? NATO is a armed presence and is a threat. The threat of NATO presence is "supposed" to deter invasions .... it is a threat against a threat.

NATO forces are not in any country other than their own.

 

[RDKirk]

No rational person sees every country in the world as a threat, considering every single country in the world is armed for self protection.

Except Costa Rica, which only has a police force. And Nepal's military is solely dedicated to UN peacekeeping.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Except Costa Rica, which only has a police force. And Nepal's military is solely dedicated to UN peacekeeping.

That's what I meant. Every country except Costa Rica and Nepal.

 

[RDKirk]

That's what I meant. Every country except Costa Rica and Nepal.

It was just a quibble. It didn't change your point.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ukraine was seeking to joint NATO, was initially denied ... they were seeking it .... and still are.

So? That's not putting troops inside Russia. It is not an invasion.

Oh so .... if someone else does it's seen as an evasion ..... but if someone else does it (NATO).... it is not? Pretty double minded.

The only one evading things is you. (Or did you mean "an invasion", that might make more sense).

Putting troops on the border, but inside my territory, might be seen as a threat to you, but IT IS NOT AN INVASION.

(In case it wasn't clear before: The post-Soviet, 1991, boundaries are recognized internationally. Land that is outside the 1991 border of post-Soviet Russia is NOT PART OF RUSSIA. Those nations have the sovereign rights to operate in their own territories (with in the standards of normal interantional agreements on air transit, nuclear weapons, etc.).

Crimea is not Russia.
South Ossetia is not Russia.
Luhansk is not Russia.
Abkhazia is not Russia.
Donetsk is not Russia.

Yet Russia has invaded each of them in the last 20 years. It does not matter one bit that each of those places were once part of the Soviet Union.

 

[Landon Caeli]

@eleos1954,

Here's another thing that doesn't make sense... Russia is afraid of Ukraine joining NATO because they want a buffer zone between themselves and NATO countries..? Well guess what happens after they take over Ukraine - They place themselves directly next to NATO countries... The exact thing they were "supposedly" trying to prevent.

...So it can't be a true concern. They don't appear to be afraid of NATO if they want to get closer and be next door neighbors!

What Russia's doing in Ukraine has nothing at all to do with NATO. It's just an excuse to steal land.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Here's another thing that doesn't make sense... Russia is afraid of Ukraine joining NATO because they want a buffer zone between themselves and NATO countries..? Well guess what happens after they take over Ukraine - They place themselves directly next to NATO countries... The exact thing they were "supposedly" trying to prevent.

...So it can't be a true concern. They don't appear to be afraid of NATO if they want to get closer and be next door neighbors!

What Russia's doing in Ukraine has nothing at all to do with NATO. It's just an excuse to steal land.

To be fair, Russia doesn't appear to want to annex all of Ukraine, just some parts. Their initial invasion seemed to be aimed at capturing Kyiv as quickly as possible so as to take control of the center of government. Most likely, they would have then installed a puppet regime, leaving Ukraine in a similar situation to Belarus. Some territorial concessions would be "granted" to Russia by the new government (surrender claims to Crimea, transfer Luhansk and Donetsk, and potentially Odessa as well), but an "independent" Ukrainian state would remain as a buffer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To be fair, Russia doesn't appear to want to annex all of Ukraine, just some parts. Their initial invasion seemed to be aimed at capturing Kyiv as quickly as possible so as to take control of the center of government. Most likely, they would have then installed a puppet regime, leaving Ukraine in a similar situation to Belarus. Some territorial concessions would be "granted" to Russia by the new government (surrender claims to Crimea, transfer Luhansk and Donetsk, and potentially Odessa as well), but an "independent" Ukrainian state would remain as a buffer.

Any "[remnant] state" (as a puppet) their original plan left would have been west of the Dnipr and land locked. Russia would have certainly "annexed" all of "Novorossia" (Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Mikolaiv, Odesa, and Crimea) the lands taken by the Russian empire from the Cossaks and Tartars during the 18th century conquests. I doubt they would leave Kyiv in the hands of even the puppet government. Kyiv is a key city in the history of Russia. When the Rus' unified the East Slavs under one polity, they made their capital in Kyiv. When they converted to Orthodoxy it was from Kyiv.

(After doing all that, Putin would likely also formally annex the Moldovan territory of "Transnistria" adjacent to Odesa Oblast. Then we'd probably see (after a few years) [remnant] Ukraine and Belarus merged into some sort of "Union State" with Russia under direct Moscow control.

[Edit: apparently the Fellman-Lux decency filter confuses the proper name for the remnant of a country (or similar thing) that is also a very mild term for the part one sits on. Sigh.]

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Any "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] state" (as a puppet) their original plan left would have been west of the Dnipr and land locked. Russia would have certainly "annexed" all of "Novorossia" (Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Mikolaiv, Odesa, and Crimea) the lands taken by the Russian empire from the Cossaks and Tartars during the 18th century conquests. I doubt they would leave Kyiv in the hands of even the puppet government. Kyiv is a key city in the history of Russia. When the Rus' unified the East Slavs under one polity, they made their capital in Kyiv. When they converted to Orthodoxy it was from Kyiv.

(After doing all that, Putin would likely also formally annex the Moldovan territory of "Transnistria" adjacent to Odesa Oblast. Then we'd probably see (after a few years) [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Ukraine and Belarus merged into some sort of "Union State" with Russia under direct Moscow control.

At this point I'd say that's true, and it might have been an eventual end goal of the original plan, but the flimsy justification that they cooked up for the invasion wouldn't really have given them any grounds to annex Kyiv initially. That's not to say that they wouldn't have tried, but it wouldn't have been covered by even the thin veneer of legitimacy they painted their invasion with.

 

[eleos1954]

You clearly don't know how NATO works.

Name a NATO member force that is "occupying" the US. Or Canada. Or the UK, or Lithuania, Lativa or Estonia.

Basing and hosting is not occupation.

Agreeing to another NATO member sending their troops into your territory is also not occupation.

Here's the Status of Forces agreement and International Military Headquarters agreement for NATO that covers these arrangements:

Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces

Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty

www.nato.int

Try and find where member states are permitted to be occupied. If you're having trouble, I can give it to you in Russian.



NATO was formed because of the SOVIET UNION, not Russia. Russia may have called the shots and been the largest by population (~50% of the people) and by land area (~75% of the area controlled), but it was just part of a larger entity.



Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has added more European nations to its membership at their request. It is noteworthy that a lot of the new member are former republics of the USSR - now, I wonder why they would want to be members of a large defensive military alliance?



Tough. Russia doesn't get to dictate whether Ukraine enters NATO or not
- any more than it gets to tell Lativa, Estonia, Lithania, Norway of Finland what they can and cannot do.

Ukraine is a sovereign state and is free to enter or withdraw any alliances it wishes.



Yes, it's unfortunate there was so much dithering. It's also unfortunate there were so many internal problems in Ukraine and vacillation between Western and Russian interests which prevented earlier accession to NATO - it would have potentially avoided a lot of bloodshed.




Not really. No more than we were on the brink of WW3 during the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, or the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or the Arab-Israeli War, or the Suez Crisis, or the Six Day War, or Yom Kippur War, or any number of proxy conflicts through the Cold War period.

Also, NATO has been involved with Ukraine since the end of the 1990s, and the process of Ukraine becoming a NATO member has been ongoing since 2002:

NATO-Ukraine Action Plan

www.nato.int

So, NATO is hardly involved after the fact.

What I know is .... ALL governments are corrupt ..... ALL throw out propaganda .... ALL threaten one another .... with the larger ones being more heavily armed posing a greater threat ..... it is threat against threat. Threatening one another does not solve anything ..... it creates wars.

NATO IS after the fact ..... Ukraine was not allowed to join NATO .... they are not a member of NATO .... yet NATO is involved. NATO has gone outside of it's original intent and has been for quite some time.

 

[eleos1954]

Baloney. Only some people are that emotionally sensitive.

Evidentially you see nothing wrong with war.

I'm not emotionally sensitive, I just see war and threats of war for what they are.

 

[Landon Caeli]

What I know is .... ALL governments are corrupt ..... ALL throw out propaganda .... ALL threaten one another .... with the larger ones being more heavily armed posing a greater threat ..... it is threat against threat. Threatening one another does not solve anything ..... it creates wars.

NATO IS after the fact ..... Ukraine was not allowed to join NATO .... they are not a member of NATO .... yet NATO is involved. NATO has gone outside of it's original intent and has been for quite some time.

Even self defense is a threat?

 

[eleos1954]

Even self defense is a threat?

Placing a military force of any kind is a threat. Because of threats, nations arm themselves to a certain extent and have a right to do so ..... the larger the country the larger the threat .... threats against threats.

It's the world we live in .... unfortunately.

 

[Gene2memE]

What I know is ....

Are you admitting you don't know how NATO works?

ALL governments are corrupt ..... ALL throw out propaganda .... ALL threaten one another .... with the larger ones being more heavily armed posing a greater threat ..... it is threat against threat. Threatening one another does not solve anything ..... it creates wars.

NATO isn't threatening Russia. Russia can interpret NATO membership as a threat, but NATO isn't threatening Russia.

Russia is the one that is not only threatening it's neighbours, but actively invading them. Georgia, Moldavia/Transinistra, Ukraine (x2).

Where military action isn't an option, Russia is directing and funding efforts to distabilise them - state sponsored Russian interfrene in better than a dozen European states has been seen in the last decade alone.

NATO IS after the fact ..... Ukraine was not allowed to join NATO .... they are not a member of NATO .... yet NATO is involved.

Because there was more than two decades of co-operation, support and partnership between Ukraine and NATO members aimed at ultimately adding Ukraine as a member, activity which only ramped up after the Russian annexation of Crimea.

Ukraine was firmly on the path to NATO membership - even with Russia's occupation of Crimea the process was ongoing.

NATO has gone outside of it's original intent and has been for quite some time.

Organisations grow and evolve or they die.

 

[durangodawood]

Short version as I see it: Putin and his factions are clinging to and playing on glory dreams of Russian empire to compensate for a failing, corrupt, oligarchic domestic culture and economy.

Its very sad to me. As a fan of Russian literature and music, looking back it seems like Russia had so much to offer the world. Then they went down the rabbit hole of state communism....

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Organisations grow and evolve or they die.

Can the latter sometimes be a wiser path than the former?