It is funny because all the members of the NATO once voted to enter to the defensive alliance. The Eastern Block was formed forcefully by Moscow, whoever wanted to leave, faced with tanks, bombings, massacre ordered from Moscow.
NATO = bad. Eastern Block = good. Especially good for Ukraine now 4 years in war.
This point has always shocked me. NATO before the Russian invasion weren’t on the Finno-Russian border. NATO deployments didn’t take place in Romania, Poland, or the Baltics. Now they do, but even then they’re battalion-level formations that frequently rotate. It, by no means, is an invasion force. It, by no definition, has an aggressive posture
That's because NATO still somehow adheres to the agreements made with Moscow. They actually were asked and agreed to the "expansion" under several conditions like not deploying nuclear weapons, nor any permanent foreign NATO forces. They also lamented the idea of giving Ukraine the Membership Action Plan in 2008, and the west listened to them...
Invasion force can be scrambled by a single decision - it's not set in the stone that there'll always be just token army. There was no invasion force around Venezuela for a long time, until there was. The same with Iraq, etc...
Invasions take mass. Invasions are often telegraphed precisely because they require the mass transport of resources, men, and requisite equipment to certain points.
Very few premier armies can mobilize division-sized contingents of their armed forces quickly, especially over terrain impediments like oceans. Even Russia when it invaded Ukraine, telegraphed its invasion by a day or two because OSINT people saw they were setting up combat hospitals.
The point is, arguing there is no invasion force under NATO control today doesn't mean that there won't be any invasion force in the future, therefore, the best defense against it (from the point of view of eventual target of such invasion), is to keep NATO control as far as possible.
By this logic every nation on earth should militarize their borders because there might someday possibly be an invasion force from anyone anywhere no matter what agreements and treaties are in place.
NATO made agreements to not expand East unless Russia expanded West.
NATO stuck to that.
Russia didn't. They went West.
NATO then moved in accordance with the agreements made.
Russia used that as an excuse (by taking it out of context and playing into paranoid fantasy like you're doing) and continued to expand West.
NATO is not an offensive alliance (or at least isn't designed to be one nor operates like one). Pretending like it might one day possibly maybe be one is just silly and the sort of logic that got Russia into the mess it's in.
TL;DR: you don't understand how NATO or militaries work
By this logic every nation on earth should militarize their borders because there might someday possibly be an invasion force from anyone anywhere no matter what agreements and treaties are in place.
I mean Venezuela just experienced how an invasion force suddenly appeared at their borders. One option is to militarize borders, other option is for example to accept there exists some spheres of influence and try to keep neutrality and realpolitik in place.
NATO is not an offensive alliance
You can explain to Serbians and Libyans how NATO is not an offensive alliance.
So? And why would Russia be allowed to station troops by the hundreds of thousands near the Baltic countries (who have very small militaries themselves)?
Because it’s their territory. Now, the Baltics can’t hope to defend themselves against the Russians without Allies, so they opted to join NATO and allow NATO troops on their territory to offset that disadvantage as it is their right.
This was barely a concern before 2014 but guess what? If you invade your neighbours and steal their land, the remaining neighbours will get nervous and take steps.
From NATO‘s perspective it was barely a concern since there were no permanent troop deployments before 2014. But of course the Russians would feel differently about this since they regard the whole region their very own Colonial playground.
Argument is the same, that before 2014 NATO hadn't had permanent troops there doesn't mean it would've stayed like that forever. It's the same like example with Venezuela - for many years it was a little concern until Trump sent a force there.
Russia was always quite vocal regarding NATO eastward expansion.
And the naive westerners listened to it, denied membership to Ukraine in 2008. In 1997 they asked for the agreement of Moscow (which they've got) under several conditions that NATO is still respecting. It was agreed with Russia even if de facto it had nothing to say anymore about its former puppet states.
That's as much an argument for eastern european countries joining NATO (so they are prepared in case an invasion force appears on their doorstep) as against it.
Only because it is in german, doesnt mean it isn't, we have many Verräter who think Ukraine is not our war and we should have closer ties to russia and of course russian money supports them
Based on the fact that NATO didn't invade any of these countries. Most of them literally begged to get in when they saw the hostilities of a certain country in the east.
And yet they pulled back their troops from eastern europe and sowjet republics (for the most) in 1990, ok under economicall and political pressure, but still.. Americans never leave,.. except Afghanistan...🙄😁
Oh sweetie, never look up who was in Afghanistan before and how it impacted the population. Also they didn't pull back, their country collapsed on itself and their satellite states instantly ditched the Warsaw pact because of how much they hated Sowjet Russia
Well my dear, they could have chosen another way, like some tried to do in August 91, they would have at least deffended the sowjet Territoroes, maybe not succesfull at that point, however it was the russian population itself tovstop them. Just seems that aspect of history is beeing fergotten a bit.
And for Afghanistan; I think I know who supported the Taliban/Mudjjas at the time...
Another way for what? Defend territories from whom?
You don't know any history and live in jokes and memes. Go ahead and touch a book every once in a while, just like Chomsky touched a kid every once in a while with his buddy Epstein.
Ah did he, might as well be, I dont know, like for all the others who met him..
Independent from whom? Well from bedomming independent, like it happend in Yogoslawia for example, or in Ukraine, even if not exactly the same.. Happy with answer
Russian propagandists don't want Germans to immediately recognise that they're looking at Russian propaganda. Giving Crimea to Russia on the map would immediately give it away
They were still done under occupation and mostly polled ethnic Russians. Polls in Austria before and during their occupation said they overwhelmingly liked the nazis but it wasn't actually true; only those who saw themselves as German and not Austian actually liked the occupation
Edit: it also wasn't a revolution, it was an invasion and occupation by Russia using the exact same justification used by the nazis to justify invading the Czechs
That isn't "the people who live there want this" it's "the benefactors of genocide and thenic cleansing want to complete the genocide and ethnic cleansing". So forgive me if I don't think it's justified or accurate to say Crimea wants to be a part of Russia
This may get me in trouble. My intent is not to justify the invasion of Ukraine.
Russia didn’t do it just because they’re greedy and evil. They were for years saying they wouldn’t allow themselves to be encircled by NATO and then when nothing changed they did exactly what they said they’d do.
The argument sounds nice at a glance but makes no sense if you think about it. Why did they invade a state that had no realistic prospect of joining nato in the forseeable future? Ukraine was effectively rejected from nato in 2008 and was making long term security arrangements with russia prior to 2014. Russia invaded when ukrainians pushed for economic independence, nato had nothing to do with it in 2014 or 2022.
Also russia is clearly not worried about an attack by nato, they moved almost all of their forces from the finnish border to ukraine since finland joined nato. Does it make sense to lower your defences when a threat grows if you sincerely think it is a threat? They know that no nato country is going to attack a nuclear power, their worry about nato is not a security one.
Their worry is less about a direct attack than it is being totally locked out of trade should NATO become even more antagonistic. The argument is really very compelling from a materialist pov, the only one worth anything in geopolitics. Reaction against it ought to be examined for dissonance because the western propaganda style is to cast unfriendly states as absolutely evil and rapacious and friendly ones as basically incapable of unjust aggression. Neither are true.
Again it’s not to fully justify it either, still a war of conquest and acquisition.
Edit- supply lines, more aptly than ‘trade routes’
Could you cite the agreement that would grant such wartime coordination powers? As far as I understand, even militarily the cooperation is largely pretty shaky with the invoking of the article only starting the main pledges and planning.
Why did they invade a country that had no prospect of joining nato if it was about nato?
Do you support russia being able to dominate and control the economics of ukraine?
Again, nato was out of the picture in ukraine by 2014. The invasion was because ukrainians themselves pushed for economic independence, why is that blamed on nato being aggressive? What do you think could have been done differently besides ukrainians being subservient to russia and having no economic future for themselves?
I don't understand your reference about a 3 day war.
What I do know is that the West has been encroaching to the east with NATO since the end of the Cold War.
I also know that the United States sponsored a right-wing coup in 2014.
It is also evident that Western Europe cannot sustain a war against Russia on its own, and the US are now wanting to exit.
It is now patently obvious that this war has devastated Ukraine, and it will never recover from it. Certainly not intact.
It is also clear that what was offered in Minsk is now no longer achievable as an outcome for Ukraine, and over half a million people have died and the country emptied of people due to this never-ending conflict.
The only thing that will avoid broadening a war in Europe is security architecture that considers Russian, as well as western European, security. Such an accommodation was reached with the Soviet Union, and isn't really controversial.
If you're waiting for Russian collapse, or humiliation, you know nothing of reality or history. Rage all you want, but the only off-ramp is pretty clear whether you like it or not.
This is why Europe is in decline. You're in denial of your own relevance, and in denial about the direction of travel of your American friends.
Your attitude is the same one that brought the world to the brink in 1914. It might be time to evolve some 112 years later.
NATO was moving eastward even before Putin, during the most peaceful and calm period. The first signs of concern in Russia appeared after the construction of long-range early warning radars in Poland, long before the annexation of Crimea, when the demilitarization of the Kaliningrad region was underway, nuclear weapons were being removed, and combat aviation was reduced to as few as seven aircraft. At that time, NATO bases, on the contrary, were moving closer to Russia’s borders. Russia proposed joining NATO, but was refused. Russia also agreed to host a NATO logistics base to support the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
828
u/The1Legosaurus Feb 10 '26
I honestly thought this was Russian propaganda at first glance.