• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -21
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This doesn’t make any sense. What military aggression?

    Edit: aside from this ongoing war in the Ukraine, of which Russia is obviously the aggressor towards another former Soviet state (i.e. not towards the west)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      I thought you were being intentionally obtuse but I see what you mean. Ukraine might not be a NATO member (yet), but that doesn’t mean that NATO wants Russia grabbing land from democracies that act as a buffer between them and Russia.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -19
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ll be entirely honest, I don’t think NATO will accept the Ukraine at all. I think NATO saw an opportunity to fuel a proxy war against Russia, and after they win the Ukraine will receive some aid and be left to their own devices. There’s nothing about the situation that leads me to believe anything else other than NATO using the war as an excuse to further their imperial interests. Right now the excuse is the war. When the war is over, there will be a different excuse; perhaps it will be “not until the country is rebuilt”.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -7
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t know what you mean. I use ‘ukraine’ and ‘the ukraine’ interchangeably for better sentence flow. That’s like getting upset over someone saying ‘the us’.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              71 year ago

              Yea, i dont believe you at all since you also go with Nato Imperialism and ignored that.

              “Ukraine is a country,” says William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. “The Ukraine is the way the Russians referred to that part of the country during Soviet times … Now that it is a country, a nation, and a recognized state, it is just Ukraine. And it is incorrect to refer to the Ukraine, even though a lot of people do it.”

              I see you.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -101 year ago

                I actually didn’t know that. I’d never even heard of that before. I chose to not acknowledge you mentioning my mention of NATO imperialism because I had no clue by what you meant. NATO and the imperial core are basically the same thing. If you’re trying to pretend that the military aid given to Ukraine isn’t imperialist power, then I don’t know what to say.

                By ‘I see you’, do you mean that I’m a leftist? Because, well, yea. I was attracted to lemmy the moment I learned about it because of leftist principles like the anarchical nature of the fediverse and the rejection of private property through FOSS.

                • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  Probably shouldn’t have any strong opinions on any subject in this thread if you don’t even know the basic language of the issue. This is called being a know-nothing.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -31 year ago

                    I wasn’t aware that I needed to know all of the language politics to talk about an issue. I’m well aware of the situation. Using a phrase I didn’t know was contentious doesn’t mean I don’t know anything.

            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Idiotic take. Saying the Ukraine is to refer to Ukraine as a territory of Russia.

              It isn’t a territory. It is a country. The name of that country is Ukraine.

              You don’t say the Mexico or the Canada.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -21 year ago

                The name of the US is “United States of America”. Note the lack of the word “the”. Should we start referring to Puerto Rico as “the Puerto Rico” or to Guam as “the Guam” if the most used word in the English language denotes possession?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      What military aggression?

      Russia fighting a devastating war in Chechnya. Russia occupying and trying to annex Transnistria. Russia fighting a war in Georgia in order to annex South Ossetia. Russia fighting a second war of annihilation in Chechnya. Russia annexing Crimea. Russia fighting a war in an attempt to annex all of Ukraine.

      Do you think this doesn’t constitute military aggression?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I will not deny that Russia is an aggressive nation, and I was not aware of some of those things, like the war of aggression with Georgia. Thank you for sharing some examples. Also, holy shit Putin is more scum than I thought. However, these acts of aggression by Russia don’t appear to me as reasons for NATO to exist beyond the collapse of the USSR.

        How are these acts of aggression towards the west in a manner that justifies the continued existence of NATO?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Let me ask you the opposite question: what do all of those nations on that list (and really, it’s only a partial list because it doesn’t even feature Russian aggression on the Asian continent, in the Middle East and in Africa) have in common?

          Is it possible that the commonality is that not a single one of them is part of a large military alliance capable of stopping Russian aggression?

          And, to take this one step further: why do you think that, in the last two decades, Russia has never messed with Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania - even though it has repeatedly claimed that they should be part of Russia?

          Is it possible that NATO membership of those three, very small nations is all that has prevented Russia from treating them like Transnistria or Crimea or South Ossetia or Chechnya?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Those are all excellent questions, and unfortunately I don’t know all the answers. I’ll try to answer what I can despite their loaded nature, and say when I don’t know.

            1. There are a few different commonalities; they generally identify as slavs (with exceptions, especially in the middle east like Kazakhstan), most former USSR states are member states of the CIS, almost all nations have people within them that identify as ethnic Russian, and naturally most share borders with Russia.
            2. That’s a good point, most former Soviet states don’t have a modernized military and likely wouldn’t be capable of withstanding a Russian invasion, however I think it’s worth pointing out that the majority of the West also thought Ukraine would fall during the initial invasion. Generally, I don’t think I understand your point here and I’m genuinely interested in the reasons you brought this up.
            3. Honestly, I have no idea why the northern Slavic nations haven’t seen more aggression from Russia. It’s possible that the Kremlin doesn’t see them as valuable, though they have seen some disinformation campaigns and political propaganda via proximity to Russia and Belarus.
            4. I don’t think NATO has been a deterrent, but it’s possible that I’m wrong. I think it’s worth pointing out that an excuse for Russia invading Ukraine was explicitly NATO trying to expand into Ukraine. They didn’t have much interest in doing so either, until after the initial invasion saw Ukraine still standing.
      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        None of those are attacks on the West, and if you recall there’s been far more violence and imperialism imposed on Africa and Afghanistan by the global north.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re shifting the goalpoast. The comment above you said the west is drawing a line in regards to military violence upon Eastern Europe. All of Eastern Europe are old Soviet states so mentioning that is not at all a refutal of their statement.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I didn’t shift anything. I want to know what military aggression they’re talking about, because otherwise it just comes off as the ethnocentric and uninformed stereotype of “slavs are violent”.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -31 year ago
            1. I very clearly made an edit asking for an example that wasn’t the war in Ukraine.
            2. So NATO has remained in force since the dissolution of the USSR because they’ve known that the Russian Federation would invade Ukraine 30 years into the future? And they didn’t even have the courtesy to give them a warning? Get real.
            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago
              1. Yeah how nice for you. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can’t just say “give me the answer without giving me the answer” since that request is devoid of logic and reason.
              2. Russia has been hostile towards the West in ways that transcend direct military conflict as long as it exists.
              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -11 year ago

                Allow me to summarize the conversation for you, because it seems like you missed some important things. I corrected someone claiming NATO exists because of Russia, which is unequivocally false, and someone said it doesn’t matter because Eastern Europe is full of Jingoists. I asked for other examples of military aggression, and you come at me with the same example I already addressed. That puts us here. So I’ll ask again, what other examples are there of modern military aggression in Eastern Europe? Preferably, this answer will also address the follow up question: How is it aggressive towards the west in a manner that justifies the continued existence of NATO?