[HarryHirsch]

The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. It probably even did, the task of the High Command is to draw up and revise plans for every contingency. What went on between the Pentagon and the Secretary of State's office? Why was the military establishment with all its experience in logistics overruled? The incompetence and lack of preparedness that are on view here is staggering.

[Scarblac]

> The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence.

NATO is absolutely zero threat to Russia, and Russia knows it. Finland joined and Russia shrugged, and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack.

What matters is the national security interests of Ukraine.

Russia is a massive threat to the national security interests of Ukraine, and Ukraine really wants to join NATO to be safe from Russia. Russia knew that if it wanted to invade and conquer Ukraine, a souvereign country, it would have to do soon because it would not be possible anymore after Ukraine joined NATO.

Russian security interests, fuck off. Neither Ukraine nor NATO is a threat to Russia.

Ukraine's security interests, those are very obviously threatened.

[multjoy]

> and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack.

They've removed them because they need to avoid any possibility of a provocation. The merest hint of a wrongful look at Finland will not go well for them.

[Scarblac]

They removed them because they're sending them all to Ukraine.

[lisasays]

"The so-called victim must have realized that going out dressed like that last night would collide with the interests of young, frustrated males in her vicinity. Who, as she must understand, would surely be unable to control their impulses. And so what happened after that was just the inevitable consequence of her recklessness."

[avgcorrection]

> victim

We’re talking about the US here, not Ukraine.

Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe a woman as well as a group of men who you suspect to be absolutely predatory scumbags, you can make predictions about what might happen.

[lisasays]

You know who the "victim" of the current invasion is. It's not the US.

Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe ...

This is just spin and narrative to suggest that the war isn't really Putin's fault.

[avgcorrection]

> You know who the "victim" of the current invasion is. It's not the US.

Mhm.

The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion. The very comment that you replied to says “The Pentagon should have”… that’s not Ukraine.

Not my problem that you are off-topic.

[lisasays]

The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion.

The topic here, at least where it started to veer way off course from the original thread, is the essentially pro-Kremlin narrative in the GGGP comment and its GP ("The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan"). In this context - US calculations as such are a red herring. What matters here is the clear (and basically rather crass) implication in these comments of core Western responsibility for Russia's military actions.

Which implication your words definitely seemed to be (if obliquely) echoing and supporting. Or at least playing footsie with, for some reason known only to you.

[avgcorrection]

> Which implication your words definitely seemed to be (if obliquely) echoing and supporting. Or at least playing footsie with, for some reason known only to you.

I’ll note that you can’t even accuse me of doing anything even remotely concrete. “Seemed to.” “If obliquely.” “Playing footsie.” All just accusations of association. Not a leg to stand on at all.

Take your control round over who is batting for the correct team elsewhere.

> US calculations as such are a red herring.

Then just say that. My God. No one cares.

[martin8412]

NATO is a defensive alliance. The defensive alliance is only at odds with Russia due to the imperialist tendencies.

Not to mention that Russia has had a land border with NATO since 1948.

[sudosysgen]

NATO is a general purpose alliance with a defensive clause amongst many and a history of involvement in offensive operations.