undefined

points

by throw3108223 hours ago |

comments

by wiseowise2 hours ago|

[-]

NATO is a defensive pact, it can't expand. Countries can and want to join it willingly.

> and of not stopping (well documented) US political meddling in Ukraine

Assuming that's true, and it's a big if, let's turn this around: Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to?

> Europe because it thought it was beneath itself to seriously engage with Russia.

Beneath itself like, checks notes, making its industry completely dependent on Russian energy exports and pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea and attacked east of Ukraine. If Europe had a backbone and considered Russia *beneath* them, it would completely kill any trade with it.

by throw3108222 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Countries can and want to join it willingly.

It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity.

> Russia has been messing with Ukraine politics since the collapse of the USSR. Why shouldn't US be allowed to?

The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly.

> pretty much not doing anything when Russia attacked Georgia, occupied Crimea

Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions-agains...

by wiseowise2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> It's up to the current members to decide who can join and who can't. That should also include considerations of opportunity.

And as history showed, they did the right choice. Or war in Ukraine would be war in Ukraine + Baltics + Romania.

> The US is allowed to do whatever its military and economic power allows it to. Then actions have consequences. The consequences had been stated clearly.

So US is messing with Ukraine, which Russia doesn't like, therefore Russia attacks Ukraine, because it can't compete using its whip with the Wests cookie. Logic checks out.

> Here, check the history of sanctions of the EU to Russia. It goes back to 2014.

So pretty much ignored Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. The only sanctions Russia understands is boots on the ground and rockets (now drones) attacking their military and refineries.

by woodruffw2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

On its face, this suggests that only Russia and the US have any autonomy vis a vis who gets to be in NATO. What about what Ukraine wants?

by throw3108222 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

NATO is a military alliance, the only ones who get a say about who is in it and who isn't are its current members. That said, of course choices have consequences, and some choices are more advisable/ appropriate than others.

by woodruffw2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I’m pretty confident that a large part of NATO (and all other military alliances) is the accession of new members. Candidate members have to want to accede, which goes back to my question: why are we talking about what the US and Russia want, when Ukraine’s wants are just as if not more important?

by throw3108222 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Look, the point is not what one wants. Everyone is free to make its own choices. The point is that choices have consequences, and when the consequences are very clear in advance and you still make that choice, you also take responsibility for the consequences. This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.

by woodruffw2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The point appears to be changing. And again: it’s not clear why we’re talking about the US or NATO as primary drivers when Ukraine is a sovereign state that can litigate its affairs as it pleases. If you want to claim that the US meddles in Ukraine’s affairs that seems defensible, but no less defensible than the claim that Russia also meddles in their affairs (including kinetically, at the moment).

Edit: I’ll also note that arrogance usually means something closer to “discounting the consequences of your actions,” which is not evidenced here.

by wiseowise1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.

So literally Russia invading Ukraine.

by wiseowise2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> NATO is a military alliance, the only ones who get a say about who is in it and who isn't are its current members.

And they repeatedly rejected Ukraine and are still doing it? What's your point?

by ZeroGravitas2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Mearsheimer was predicting Putin wouldn't do a full scale invasion of Ukraine right up until shortly after he already did , so strange choice of Cassandra to pick.