171–180 of 521 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody in my country wanted to be bombed by NATO and it still happened.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is one of the rules of NATO itself. It would be odd to have such a rule, because NATO is a defensive alliance that is of no threat to any of the bordering countries. Russia’s concern is out of the thin air, because if NATO really wanted it to, with how incompetent the russian army is, I estimate it’s 3 days to take Moscow. The only people afraid of the Russian army are Russian men of military age.
> It would be odd to have such a rule I mean, read their rules.
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
[flagged]
Putin's decision lit a fire on that, now NATO has a purpose again.
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
[flagged]
[flagged]
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
[flagged]
NATO did not deploy offensive forces into Iraq as an organisation. Some NATO members did on their own accord outside of NATO, but the organisation itself only ever had a non-combat training and advisory mission.
Not that I don't trust the FDF, pound-for-pound one of the better military organizations out there. (and a happy member of it myself.)
Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…
[flagged]
The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Wouldn't it be smarter to actually listen to what Russia is trying to say? Russia says a lot of things, often contradictory, but what really speaks is their actions. Invading Ukraine wasn’t about denazification, or nato threat, or anything except naked imperialism.
I agree. An additional reason AFAICS is that a slavic country, similar to Russia in many ways, making moves towards becoming a liberal democracy was seen as a threat to the domestic power of Putin and his inner circle. The Maidan revolution spreading to Moscow is surely a nightmare scenario for Putin.