There were also neutral countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Finland) that thought they could just stay out of it.
Russia's imperial aims are now clear to everyone. The neutral countries are all (with the exception of Switzerland) now trying to join NATO. Sweden gave up a policy that had served them well for 200 years.
Then there's Austria that still doesn't want to be a US vassal.
The promise that NATO wouldn't expand was made in a context (the absence of aggressive wars of expansion by an imperial adversary) and the assumption that NATO was about to become irrelevant. Russia was no longer a threat to western Europe.
And most of Europe was content with that. There were countries (former vassal states like the Baltics, Poland, and the Czech Republic) that were not as confident that Russia's imperial ambitions were behind it and sought the alliance as a guaranty against those ambitions. There were also neutral countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Finland) that thought they could just stay out of it.
Russia's imperial aims are now clear to everyone. The neutral countries are all (with the exception of Switzerland) now trying to join NATO. Sweden gave up a policy that had served them well for 200 years.
NATO costs money. It commits members to fight in conflicts that may be in the opposite corner of their continent. No one signs up for that kind of obligation without a damned good reason. Refusing to let them join NATO means leaving them out in the cold, forcing them to make accommodations to ruthless tyrants.
Look at the list of countries donating military equipment to Ukraine. Scroll down to the list sorted by %GDP. The US (by far the biggest donor in absolute terms) isn't even in the top 5. They are motivated because they know that if it wasn't happening to Ukraine it would be happening to them.
Adding countries to NATO on the Russian border might be truly provocative if mighty Lithuania, for instance, was a real threat to Russia. It isn't. Neither is anyone else on that list. NATO is only a problem for Russia because it's an obstacle to conquest.
If expanding NATO is a provocative move, why isn't the aggression that motivated those countries to join? NATO didn't push its boundaries outward, the countries on the boundaries pleaded to join. In a world where Russia wasn't a threat that wouldn't be attractive.
As I've stated many times, its obvious to believe (and I believe it too) any nation should make its own decisions regarding alliances, partnerships, etc.
But, then there is the how the world actually works. Russia for the past two decades has made obvious shifts in its ambitions, becoming an adversary and destroyed the so called peace dividend that would have made Nato irrelevant (not that it was so obvious back in the early 90s, otherwise why the promise?).
If the tables were turned, and something like this was happening somewhere south of our border (like mighty cuba or venezuela) i'd be on draft kings betting big on how the US would respond.
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Nov 4, 2022 - 9:47pm
VV wrote:
Actually no, I don't support the Russian War and would be highly in favor of a diplomatic solution involving Russia laying down it's arms, giving back all of Ukraine's territory (including Crimea) and agreement on what reparations and other assistance Russia will provide to help Ukraine rebuild. Let's get that ball rolling.
That would be awesome.
More than likely not going to happen.
Not until that idiot with the bald head swallows his ego driven agenda.
That's an opening bid.
And in return, no Nato expansion, as previously promised?
The promise that NATO wouldn't expand was made in a context (the absence of aggressive wars of expansion by an imperial adversary) and the assumption that NATO was about to become irrelevant. Russia was no longer a threat to western Europe.
And most of Europe was content with that. There were countries (former vassal states like the Baltics, Poland, and the Czech Republic) that were not as confident that Russia's imperial ambitions were behind it and sought the alliance as a guaranty against those ambitions. There were also neutral countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Finland) that thought they could just stay out of it.
Russia's imperial aims are now clear to everyone. The neutral countries are all (with the exception of Switzerland) now trying to join NATO. Sweden gave up a policy that had served them well for 200 years.
NATO costs money. It commits members to fight in conflicts that may be in the opposite corner of their continent. No one signs up for that kind of obligation without a damned good reason. Refusing to let them join NATO means leaving them out in the cold, forcing them to make accommodations to ruthless tyrants.
Look at the list of countries donating military equipment to Ukraine. Scroll down to the list sorted by %GDP. The US (by far the biggest donor in absolute terms) isn't even in the top 5. They are motivated because they know that if it wasn't happening to Ukraine it would be happening to them.
Adding countries to NATO on the Russian border might be truly provocative if mighty Lithuania, for instance, was a real threat to Russia. It isn't. Neither is anyone else on that list. NATO is only a problem for Russia because it's an obstacle to conquest.
If expanding NATO is a provocative move, why isn't the aggression that motivated those countries to join? NATO didn't push its boundaries outward, the countries on the boundaries pleaded to join. In a world where Russia wasn't a threat that wouldn't be attractive.
Actually no, I don't support the Russian War and would be highly in favor of a diplomatic solution involving Russia laying down it's arms, giving back all of Ukraine's territory (including Crimea) and agreement on what reparations and other assistance Russia will provide to help Ukraine rebuild. Let's get that ball rolling.
That's an opening bid.
And in return, no Nato expansion, as previously promised?
Actually no, I don't support the Russian War and would be highly in favor of a diplomatic solution involving Russia laying down it's arms, giving back all of Ukraine's territory (including Crimea) and agreement on what reparations and other assistance Russia will provide to help Ukraine rebuild. Let's get that ball rolling.
I see what you did there, tricky. Projection? If you think. I guess I could have used nicer terms, but I was attempting to use humor.
I know most here support the Ukraine war, while I've supported more diplomacy. Obviously not because I support Putin, but because its leading to thousand of direct casualties and millions of indirect casualties, as a result of disruptions to the supply of many commodities. And I'm not optimistic Ukraine can "win" at least anytime soon...but hopefully I'm wrong.
As noted, the situation has a long history, and didn't just pop-up last winter.
Actually no, I don't support the Russian War and would be highly in favor of a diplomatic solution involving Russia laying down it's arms, giving back all of Ukraine's territory (including Crimea) and agreement on what reparations and other assistance Russia will provide to help Ukraine rebuild. Let's get that ball rolling.
I just think it's distracting to assume any of the players are stupid. I think it's a smarter play to assume they're sharp as a tack and work from there.
Perhaps you are right...but too many of our complex problems with long histories are being addressed with answers that are too quick and simple....which is "stupid".
I see what you did there, tricky. Projection? If you think. I guess I could have used nicer terms, but I was attempting to use humor.
I know most here support the Ukraine war, while I've supported more diplomacy. Obviously not because I support Putin, but because its leading to thousand of direct casualties and millions of indirect casualties, as a result of disruptions to the supply of many commodities. And I'm not optimistic Ukraine can "win" at least anytime soon...but hopefully I'm wrong.
As noted, the situation has a long history, and didn't just pop-up last winter.
I just think it's distracting to assume any of the players are stupid. I think it's a smarter play to assume they're sharp as a tack and work from there.
I see what you did there, tricky. Projection? If you think. I guess I could have used nicer terms, but I was attempting to use humor.
I know most here support the Ukraine war, while I've supported more diplomacy. Obviously not because I support Putin, but because its leading to thousand of direct casualties and millions of indirect casualties, as a result of disruptions to the supply of many commodities. And I'm not optimistic Ukraine can "win" at least anytime soon...but hopefully I'm wrong.
As noted, the situation has a long history, and didn't just pop-up last winter.
