this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2023
-15 points (17.4% liked)
Europe
4096 readers
111 users here now
Europa
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
NATO will act according to their interests. If they can defeat an enemy, they will do so. If your point is that the US will simply point all its weapons towards Russia and China and then simply smile and let them peacefully develop to overtake the US in every aspect as they are doing, you're wrong.
Russia did. But I don't think they should just sit back and watch as the US prepares to deal a lethal blow to them. The US has set up bases all around Russia, formed military alliances with countries near its border. The US has also promoted coups in many post-Soviet states to make their governments US-affine. Even after the 2014 pro-US coup in Ukraine, Ukrainian citizens voted for the seemingly pro-Russian Zelensky, who had promised to normalize relations with Russia and embrace the Russian culture and language in the Donbas region, and were fooled by what turned out to be a new US puppet regime and continued war against the Donbas. Even US officials admit they were planning for the war, just that they didn't think Russia would strike first. At this point, who even launched the first missile in this particular development of the 2014 war is just a small technicality in a complex hybrid war that's been developing for years.
If two authoritarian behemoths are fighting to death as they are, randomly biting and scolding both in hopes that they'll magically become democratic is a stupid strategy. At best, you will achieve nothing. At worst, one of them will weaponize your innocence against the other, which is quite the case.
Ukraine coup government did. They attacked Donbass in 2014, starting civil war. Donbass called Russia for help to which they answered, but 8 years later.
It was naturally escalation, but hardly starting the aggression in Ukraine. I won't even mention USA having significant role in the coup in the first place and then NATO arming Ukraine during the entire civil war.
Yeah, I know. But the word "aggression" is (intentionally, hats off to US propaganda) vague; the user I was responding to interpreted it as "launching an attack into a territory generally recognized as foreign", so I'm going with that definition. I generally do not argue on terminology, since it's not practical to do so. But thanks for the heads up!
No one wants to defeat or have war with Russia (nor China or any country). That wouldn't make sense. NATO could have entered the war in Ukraine at any time (with the "excuse" of Russia did "strike first" as you said), but it didn't, because this war -like any war- doesn't make sense.
Fair. But didn't Finland recently and all other countries before join Nato voluntarily? Why so?
If we do what the people want -in Russia, Ukraine, and everywhere else- then we would "magically become democratic". I argue that no soldier in the battlefields wants to be a soldier, and those who want the war are not in the battlefields. But in non-democratic societies, people don't make the decisions (and, yes, no democracy is perfect, there's is a lot do and the work may never end).
And it has. They are spending on this war as much as they did on Afghanistan. They are sending intel and commands directly to Ukrainian officials. And not just weapons and information; according to the recently leaked papers, there are NATO troops on the field too. They are fighting the war in all senses except legally, and, by extension, in the PR sense.
Every war makes sense. Countries start wars when that's what benefits them the most. And countries carefully plan and set up future wars.
There are two sides in this global-scale hybrid war. Finland and other countries have joined what they believe to be the winning side, or at least the side whose victory would be more beneficial to their political interests. Other countries are siding with Russia and China. Countries joining an alliance voluntarily doesn't mean the alliance isn't a threat to the other side. NATO has gradually turned itself into an alliance with the power to defeat Russia.
No, nobody would. The US has just passed the RESTRICT Act, which imposes stronger restrictions than even China has. If you suggest that your country should just let the authoritarian guard down and allow every foreign psy-ops to have a meaningful effect on it, they'll just laugh at you or you'll be killed by thugs in an unfortunate and unrelated turn of events.
The only way to get what we want is to wait until the existing superpowers have fought each other into an unstable state, then seize power by violence. Anything else is just wishful thinking to feel better about something you don't actually ever expect to change.
Man, China is not even siding with Russia. China is against the West, it's just looking to gain as much as it can from the situation.
It's as likely to annex Siberia as help.
I don't think anyone is siding with anyone. People are just pragmatic. And we should be too! Anyway, I'm not really into politics atm, gotta take care of my mental health, but honest thanhs for engaging <3