So what? In a just world, there would no violence or threats whatsoever.
My point was that it was entirely predictable. If you point a gun at someone else, you are likely to get shot. Especially if they tell you repeatedly that they will shoot you if you point a gun at them.
I dont think Russia was threatened by Ukraine, but NATO and more specifically the US.
All of these analogies break down because there is no real world equivalent to a purely defense action like locking your doors.
The idea that NATO and the US especially only engage in defensive military actions is what requires an insane level of reality denial.
At any rate, Im not even trying to claim Russia has a moral high ground, just that the situation was completely predictable. At best, it was like putting your hand in a cage with the rabid dog. You can make a moral point that the dog shouldn't bite, but it is still idiotic to ignore the barking, snapping, and foaming at the mouth.
Now NATO and the US forced russia to invade a sovereign country and go to war with them, killing hundreds of thousands of people?
Also now somehow russia is not full of human people but has the intelligence of a rabid animal with a disease affecting its brain and somehow their borders were crossed with aggression?
I'm guessing there is no explanation or evidence coming for any of these claims because if you had it, you would have put it in your comment.
The analogy with the dog is that you know exactly what will happen, not the biology.
What claim do you want evidence for? That Russia was willing to invade Ukraine and kill hundreds of thousands? I think the evidence speaks for itself. They were willing to do it.
This is how I thought your reply would go unfortunately. I ask for evidence and you act like you don't even understand the concept, conveniently avoiding every absurd claim you just made.
> The idea that NATO and the US especially only engage in defensive military actions is what requires an insane level of reality denial.
Oh? I'd ask for evidence but I think you're just misunderstanding what NATO is. Just because the US is part of NATO does not mean that anything it does is automatically an action of NATO.
Believe what you want. The US global strategy and practice uses NATO bases to transfer and supply its wars, house it's nukes, and intercept retaliation.
> I dont think Russia was threatened by Ukraine, but NATO and more specifically the US.
Russia was threatened by EU actually. The initial 2013 crisis, Crimea / Donbas invasions happened as a consequence of EU association agreement which was pulling Ukraine away from Russia.
Russia isn't threatened in the sense that NATO will invade Russia proper - the nukes pretty much guarantee that can't happen. NATO / EU are "invading" what Putin considers to be Russia's sphere of influence. In case of Ukraine, Putin plans/planned to unite Russia, Ukraine and Belarus into one country - the creeping integration of Belarus serves as a template.
Well for one thing by not placing many troops or building bases despite all the ridiculous claims of NATO invasion I keep hearing about. Also there was a joint council and a treaty meant to hear Russia's complaints and to find ways to cooperate such as in terrorism. It was Russia's increasing push towards authoritarianism and imperialism which undercut relations.
What's there to be concerned about? Look at the number of NATO troops and equipment in Europe in the 1980s and 2013, look at the reduction of German tanks from 5000 to 200 and removal of all US tanks from Europe, removal of missiles, destruction of stockpiles, closure of bases, abolishment of conscription. The continuous and dramatic decline in all areas alone debunks the narrative that blames NATO. There is no way to look at the sharp decline of military might of Europe and claim any threat from it; it's just total nonsense. Until Russian invasion of Ukraine, most European countries funded their militaries far below the minimum level required to maintain existing capabilities. Europe was unilaterally disarming itself.
At the same time, since Putin came to power, Russia has been running massive army reforms and increasing the number of soldiers and equipment on European borders. With each passing day, European militaries were becoming weaker and Russian military grew stronger. Russian "security concerns" are nothing but a cover story for the eventual decision to take advantage of military balance gradually tipping in their favor.
It was extremely predictable with extreme hindsight bias only.
Most of the eastern Europe entered NATO without an incident. Baltics is closer to Russia's power centers (St. Petersburg and Moscow) than Ukraine is. Finland and Sweden entered NATO without incidents. Entering NATO was undeniably beneficial for these countries, since it has a very good safety record of protecting its members. Russia tends to invade countries which didn't yet make it to NATO.
When bush pushed to start the NATO process in 2007, the ambassador to Russia said it would lead to war and strategists agreed.
I agree NATO membership is beneficial for basically all its members. It provides a great deal of security to be under the US umbrella. NATO aspirations did not work out well for Georgia.
I dont really see what rights have to do with it. My point is that the current situation was entirely predictable, and in fact, it was widely predicted.
NATO is a defense pact. And your portrayal of NATO is ridiculous. NATO bent over backwards to satisfy Russian paranoia. NATO had barely any troops(just enough to say if you invade and kill them it's war) in the eastern NATO member countries until the full scale invasion of Ukraine.
NATO has never once been used in a defensive war, and is constantly used in wars of aggression, primarily by the US. It would be too exhausting to even type and link the various countries the US currently bombing and fighting in during 2024.
