The same reason US would be against Russia turning Mexico into a battering ram against US. Meanwhile, the idea that Russia wants to take back former Soviet states is so utterly laughable. It already took Russia two years just to take on the NATO proxy in Ukraine. It’s pretty clear that it would be a far bigger effort to actually take on NATO directly. Anybody with a functioning brain can see that the whole idea is absurd. Yet, here you are…
NATO has literally been expanding and invading countries for decades. Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria are just few examples. In fact, US currently occupies a larger portion of Syria than Russia is of Ukraine. Claiming that NATO is a defensive alliance is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
And let’s just look at a few facts about Crimea from a US government study. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
Why would you lie like that. Not only were these NATO adventures, what Russia is doing in Ukraine is directly modelled on what NATO did to Yugoslavia where NATO recognized separatist regions and had them invite NATO to help. That’s what Russia did with LPR and DPR. Just following the rules based order there.
NATO is a purely defensive alliance, not a battering ram.
You can definitely see how this isn’t true, right? It’d be incredibly problematic to be opposed by NATO and to have NATO creep up to your borders. Superpowers flipped their shit over stuff like this in the cold war all the time. It’s not any different today.
Sure, and in fact WWI was such a mess because of all the alliances.
But we don’t have that, we have one big alliance (NATO) where the members agree to fight if any of the members is attacked. That’s it. NATO forces don’t go conquering. If you don’t want NATO opposing you, just… don’t attack a NATO country? That doesn’t seem hard to do. I’ve done a lot of things in my life, but “sparking an international incident” has never even been on the list of possibilities.
If you’re part of the global south, there’s a decent chance NATO opposes you or someone you’re closely affiliated with. Is your suggestion to those countries for them to just not be part of the global south?
The same reason US would be against Russia turning Mexico into a battering ram against US. Meanwhile, the idea that Russia wants to take back former Soviet states is so utterly laughable. It already took Russia two years just to take on the NATO proxy in Ukraine. It’s pretty clear that it would be a far bigger effort to actually take on NATO directly. Anybody with a functioning brain can see that the whole idea is absurd. Yet, here you are…
You’re deluded. Attack the opponent to win the argument, that’s how logic works. You can’t think for yourself, but you call that freedom.
I’ve made clear arguments and even provided supporting sources, if you have trouble understanding them that’s not my problem.
Okay, I disagree with that. Lol
We’ve already established that you lack basic reading comprehension lol, but thinks for confirming that again.
Yeah, I re-read it now. You are correct, fml. I misread the comment you made, and fucking was annoying. Sorry.
NATO is a purely defensive alliance, not a battering ram. The only reason you’d be against it was if you planned on facing that defense.
The idea is hardly laughable. They took Crimea. They thought they could take more without resistance. They were wrong.
NATO has literally been expanding and invading countries for decades. Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria are just few examples. In fact, US currently occupies a larger portion of Syria than Russia is of Ukraine. Claiming that NATO is a defensive alliance is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
And let’s just look at a few facts about Crimea from a US government study. First thing to note is that it was never part of Ukraine proper. US government referred to it as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Second thing to note is that majority of the people in Crimea do not consider themselves Ukrainian, and the biggest demographic considers themselves Russian:
None of those were NATO. It wasn’t a NATO decision or responsibility. Each country involved made their own choices.
Why would you lie like that. Not only were these NATO adventures, what Russia is doing in Ukraine is directly modelled on what NATO did to Yugoslavia where NATO recognized separatist regions and had them invite NATO to help. That’s what Russia did with LPR and DPR. Just following the rules based order there.
You can definitely see how this isn’t true, right? It’d be incredibly problematic to be opposed by NATO and to have NATO creep up to your borders. Superpowers flipped their shit over stuff like this in the cold war all the time. It’s not any different today.
Sure, and in fact WWI was such a mess because of all the alliances.
But we don’t have that, we have one big alliance (NATO) where the members agree to fight if any of the members is attacked. That’s it. NATO forces don’t go conquering. If you don’t want NATO opposing you, just… don’t attack a NATO country? That doesn’t seem hard to do. I’ve done a lot of things in my life, but “sparking an international incident” has never even been on the list of possibilities.
If you’re part of the global south, there’s a decent chance NATO opposes you or someone you’re closely affiliated with. Is your suggestion to those countries for them to just not be part of the global south?
Because that’s incredibly hard to do.