this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2022
-14 points (38.3% liked)
World News
32297 readers
951 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
your comment is clearly formulated in a way so that my reply to it should give my reasons why i believe russia is likely to invade ukraine, which isn't bad in any way of course (formulation, not invasion), but, i'm afraid there's not much i can offer besides the existing satellite pictures, convoy footage, articles and other news coverage, intelligence of other countries etc, which you no doubt have already seen
don't get me wrong, i, more than anyone would like this whole thing to turn out to be a too-far-taken negotiating tactic for russia's demands to stop expansion of nato, bc i have ukranian friends who are likely to get drafted, some of my closest friends in russia were at risk of being drafted even before this whole thing started, i myself could get drafted in the event of a war
i would be really happy to be able to look back at this comment in a year and laugh at how ridicululous this whole thing was, but, one thing we've learned is that we'll never fail to be surprised by the kind of fucked up shit a crazy nationalistic autocrat with zero oversight catering to a nationalistic population can do...
Russia is clearly the aggressor here.
russia is a country with the most number of nuclear weapons in the world, being extremely sensitive about any border disputes, fueled by an unfortunate self-perpetuating symbiosis of a large portion of the population being nationalistic being catered to by an equally nationalistic autocrat...
no sensible country would touch such an explosive combination country with a long pole, let alone try to invade, which would virtually guarantee mutual destruction with nuclear weapons...
Not all nationalisms are equal. Russia's nationalism has invaded 0 countries, and has like 4 external military bases that are holdovers from the USSR. I'm showing you a picture of dozens of NATO bases used to launch invasions and encroachments for Euro-american chauvinist interests, like as @yogthos@lemmy.ml mentioned, in Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq.
How many countries has Russia since the 1990s, compared to NATO?
Sakartvelo?
Every night, Russian soldiers move the border markers a few meters south, and people living close to it always wonder if they will wake up having become Russian residents while they slept.
First, let's establish some context here. What Russia is rightly concerned about is the fact that NATO has been relentlessly expanding to the east. They've now given NATO an ultimatum that it has to roll back and comply with the original security guarantees that were given after USSR dissolved. The threat to Russia is real and should not be understated. NATO being able to put nukes in Ukraine would mean that they could reach Moscow in five minutes. This is a red line for Russia. All the NATO members have already stated that there is no prospects of Ukraine joining NATO or EU in the foreseeable future. This precludes any reason for Russia to act.
Russia has also never once said that it plans to invade Ukraine. The troops you're talking about are stationed in their barracks. Likewise, France, Germany, and even Ukraine are saying that there is no Russian invasion happening.
So far, the only countries insisting that there is some imminent invasion are US and UK. And the country that's been most damaged by these claims is Ukraine since all the investors are now pulling out leading to the economy crashing. This is the primary reason Ukrainian government has now broken with the US narrative.
Russia is achieving its goals without any need to invade Ukraine. Europe has absolutely no interest in having a full out war in Ukraine, and it's also heavily dependent on Russian gas and oil meaning that EU has little appetite to try and sanction Russia. On the other hand, US appears to be pushing for conflict as a distraction from the disastrous domestic policy and because accepting Russian demands would be seen as weakness. This is already driving a serious wedge within NATO. Russia will continue to apply pressure by doing military exercises within its borders, and negotiating with western powers. France, Italy, and Germany are already having direct talks with Russia and this is the most likely path towards resolving the issue.
Russia invading Ukraine would be counter to their goals as it would actually help unite NATO against them. There is no conceivable benefit to Russia from fighting a war in Ukraine. It's also worth noting that Russian media hasn't talked about any war, and typically countries prepare their public for a war when they're planning on having one.
The only scenario Russia has stated that it would engage militarily in Ukraine would be if Ukraine invaded Donbas. Ukraine has been ignoring its Minsk agreement commitments failing to grant autonomy to Donetsk and Kuhansk, and has been engaging in committing war crimes in these regions by attacking water supply and civilian targets.
NATO doesn't invade countries. This is a threat to their geopolitical interests, not a direct threat.
You can whatabout your way and compare them to America acting on their interests, but that just makes them the same as America, not better.
Tell that to Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq.
Just finally read that linked article, and from where I stand, and the author of the article stands, Russia really has no right to make these demands. Nothing was officially agreed upon (signed by both parties). People give political promises all the time, but nothing is real until signed. What are your thoughts on that?
My thoughts on that are that NATO lied to the leaders of USSR and created a false impression of its intentions. Then once USSR fell, NATO took the opportunity of the ensuing chaos to ruthlessly expand itself and create chaos across the region. Russia is now in a position to make its own demands now, and that's what they're doing. The end result will either be new security treaties being signed that ensure peace in Europe or we'll see a war happen.
I think the former is likely to happen over war. There will be some sort of law that restricts NATO membership or the like. Russia is considered to be in a partnership for peace with NATO, and that's likely where the dialogue is surrounding. I think the number of NATO members who would rather negotiate peace outweigh the larger more influential members advocating for provocation (US and UK). I really want to see peace in the region.
That's my expectation as well. I think everyone understands that war would be devastating for both Russia and Europe. Another likely possibility is that NATO just falls apart, and new protocols are developed between Europe and Russia. It's becoming increasingly clear that the goals of US and Europe are no longer aligned the way they were in the past, and I don't think Europe is interested in being used as a pawn in US geopolitical games.
Yeah I agree. NATO originally formed in 1949, which is a world and a half different from the current world we currently live in.
Exactly, I think countries need to abandon antagonistic mentality that developed during the cold war and start learning to work together despite their differences. We have big problems like climate change looming in front of us, and we have to stop bickering over ideology in order to start tackling them effectively.
If only governments actually recognized this threat. They crave antagonistic encounters because it dominates the public discourse and action on climate change takes a back seat.
Huh. Donbas is a part of Ukraine. So Russia will invade Ukraine if it "invades" Ukraine? Nice reasoning.
Donbas is an autonomous region that separated from Ukraine. Funny how westerners only believe in people's right for self determination when it suits them.
Serious question: why should Ukraine be a red line when NATO could already put nuclear weapons in Latvia, which is about the same distance from Moscow?
They're not happy about Latvia either, and the current demand is that NATO rolls back to where it was in the 90s. However, when Latvia joined NATO, Russia was in no position to make any kinds of demands. Situation today is very different than it was then.
Wouldn't that totally invalidate the point of NATO, if Russia (whose expansion NATO was founded to curb) can just demand that countries that already joined it should leave it?
The point of NATO was invalidated when USSR fell. NATO has been responsible for practically all the instability in Eurasia since then, and the sooner this alliance falls apart the better off the world will be. The countries NATO assimilated should've never been admitted into NATO based on the agreements made between NATO and Russia in the 90s.
Can you elaborate? I can think of Kosovo, where NATO practically stopped a genocide from fully happening. Are you referring to the so-called spreading to the east?
Yugoslavia, Georgia, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq are all NATO projects. Meanwhile, ethnic cleansing in both Kosovo and Serbia were a direct result of the destruction of Yugoslavia by NATO. Yugoslavia provided a framework that allowed peoples of different nationalities to coexist peacefully. When that framework was destroyed we saw atrocities happen both in Serbia and Bosnia.
Agreements like Ukraine giving up it's nukes in exchange for never being invaded? Russia's word is worthless. Maybe the best thing for Ukraine is to join NATO.
NATO already made it pretty clear that Ukraine will never join. Meanwhile, all the westerners fled Ukraine from the phantom invasion that the west invented. What Ukrainians know now beyond all doubt is that the west threw them under the bus and never intended to fight for them.
It is a phantom invasion meant to distract Russia's real move in Kazakhstan. "Russian troops withdrawn in days", you say? But their mercenaries linger, to prop up their sock puppet regime with I can't imagine what kinds of violence.
LMAO, Kazakhstan is a member of CSTO and formally invited Russia to intervene. It's absolutely shocking just how ignorant some people can be.
Formally invited once they lost control. But Russia pees in it's pants at the thought of Ukraine formally invite NATO.
well, i hope you're right in the sense that this entire thing is actually a negotiating tactic, however, i can't help but still remain pretty worried
i guess we'll just see what happens, bc we will probably have a relatively certain answer soon 🤷♀️
It is a very serious situation, and there is a real risk of a conflict breaking out. I just don't see how it would be in Russia's or Europe's interest for things to go that way. On the other hand, US directly benefits from a war in Ukraine. This is a fantastic article providing some useful background on why US is escalating tensions.
I am curious though, if Russia says they aren't going to invade Ukraine, then why are they doing this massive military build up? Like what is the point? If the US/NATO refuse to cooperate with Russian demands... then what? Nothing? Do they just stay there?
There really isn't any massive military build up that I'm aware of. Russia has simply been conducting military exercises, and the point of these exercises is to put pressure on NATO. What Russia is saying is that if there was a serious consideration to admit Ukraine to NATO, then that would be a cause of them to attack Ukraine. This is a game of chicken Russia and NATO are playing, and that Russia is currently winning.
I think who is winning is something neither you or I know enough classified intelligence to make definitive statements on. What we have been fed is propaganda from both sides. My other question is, if Russia wants a buffer between NATO countries, then wouldn't invading Ukraine put Russian borders right up against NATO borders (Romania, Hungry, etc.)? I'm not seeing the logic in it.
It's pretty clear that Russia is in a much better position than NATO here. Europe depends on Russia for around 40% of its energy, and there is no credible alternative to that. Russia also has a far bigger military force that it would be able to deploy than NATO. Russia has also become sanction proof, even financial times admits this now. On top of that, Russia is also allied with China creating a huge economic bloc that Europe is entirely dependent on. Europe already does more trade with China than US at this point. European leaders clearly understand this, hence why there are direct negotiations are now happening between Russia, France, and Germany.
And again, Russia has no interest in invading Ukraine. They want Ukraine to be a neutral country the way it was before NATO did a couple revolution there.
As far as I know, NATO and USA has been and still hiring mercenaries to mess up and make conflicts near Russia frontiers. USA is the country that has been in war more than the 95% of the existence, did criminal wars and a war fanatic. I doubt Russia will use the force to invade Ukraine, makes no sense, instead war/force they would go for pro-russians politics on Ukraine using "democracy" rules.
Could you cite this? A quick search shows that Russia has leveled that accusation, but Russia often lies (remember the "little green men"?)
At the same time, Russia is itself responsible for those countries joining. NATO is not an expansionist body. It is a treaty organization where smaller countries that feel threatened by Russian interference have sought refuge. Russia's recent imperialism in Georgia and Ukraine and a longer history of imperialist tendencies has pushed countries to join to avoid being under Russia's thumb.
How exactly is Russia responsible for those countries joining? Meanwhile, NATO is absolutely an expansionist body as very clearly demonstrated by its non stop expansion for the past 30 years. Russia was perfectly fine with Georgia an Ukraine doing their thing until NATO started running coups in those countries. You managed to reverse the cause and effect here.