[richrichie]

It appears the other way around. NATO has expanded, contravening the guarantee that led USSR to give up its rightfully owned territory in Germany and has been knocking on the doors of Russia. It is evidently a critical national security interest for Russia, given the track record of unilateral regime change operations by NATO that have left millions dead and millions more displaced.

[dzhiurgis]

You do know NATO is a defence alliance, right?

[thiagoharry]

You do know that this "defence alliance" already attacked 2 countries, which were not attacking any NATO member, right?

And even if the alliance really were just defensive, you realize that this means that all it takes to use it against someone is a successful false flag attack?

[dzhiurgis]

Yes they were defending someone.

> successful false flag attack

Classic Russian. “AKSHUALLY IT’S PROVOKASHION”

[richrichie]

All i know is that they bombed Serbia, which did not wage war on any NATO country, for 78 consecutive days and more recently, destroyed Syria and Libya, which again did not invade any of the NATO countries.

Also it seems that NATO rebuffed Russia's attempt to join it. With Russia in NATO would have been the strongest defense alliance. I wonder why they wanted to keep Russians as perpetual enemies!

[bdjsiqoocwk]

Russia has been invading it's neighbors for about 200 years before NATO existed. Not a serious argument. Sorry.

[richrichie]

Is Soviet Union and Russia the same? BTW, Ukraine and a bunch of other now sovereign Eastern European countries were part of the "invasive behavior" that you allude to. I hear Stalin was a Georgian.

If you really did go back 200 years before NATO, you might be surprised to learn about the conflict ridden European history. The French were prolific invaders, for example. They still run colonies in far away places.

[frankvdwaal]

> Is Soviet Union and Russia the same?

Excellent question. Let's ask the person who justified Russia's invasion by saying that NATO contravened its non-expansion guarantee to the Soviet Union.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

LOL I hadn't heard that one before, excellent.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

> Is Soviet Union and Russia the same?

Russia is controlled by people with the same worldview as the people who controlled the Soviet Union. So in a sense, yes.

That worldview to be clear is "Russia is destined to be great, but the entire world is conspiring to bring it down". Stalin had been using the phrase "capitalist encirclement" since some point in the 20s. Nowadays it's "NATO encroachment". It's not an argument to be engaged in good faith by anyone who's paying attention.

The "Soviet Union" was a tool invented by Stalin to bring under his control the people that he couldn't assimilate into Russia directly. Yes, they're the same thing.

[richrichie]

Stalin was a Georgian.

[lksjdflkjlvksj]

What does that have to do with literally anything?

Stalin was born in Georgia, hid his accent, had the state photographers airbrush his Georgian features (arched nose, chin, and brow) to look more Russian, personally ensured that Georgia was absorbed into Russia, and made Russian the only allowed language in Georgia.

So what? What's your point? You're just trying to distract from the point that matters, which is that the people currently in power in Russia had exactly the same worldview as the people in power in the Soviet Union, which is that "Russia is destined to be great, but the rest of the world is conspiring to bring it down". This applies to Putin, Stalin, and anyone who has any power in Russia.

"but but but stalin was georgian". Fucking ignoramus.

[dzhiurgis]

> Is Soviet Union and Russia the same

Yes.

[ericb]

Nonsense. Don't invade your friendly neighbors, and peace is simple. Ukraine gave up their nukes and signed the Budapest memorandum with Russia. Russia turned around and invaded Ukraine. So, sob stories about torn up security "agreements" with Russia are just crocodile tears.

Nato doesn't "expand." Countries join it for protection from predatory nations like Russia. Russia is NATO's greatest salesperson. Seriously.

[richrichie]

> friendly neighbor

> Ukraine gave up their nukes and signed the Budapest memorandum with Russia

For a moment, let's take your highly simplistic statement at face value. USSR gave up East Germany and voluntarily dissolved itself on the agreement that NATO won't expand east of Germany and Russia will be "admitted" into the West. What do we do about that now?

[TheLoafOfBread]

> agreement that NATO won't expand east of Germany

What agreement? Even Gorbachev (last leader of USSR) confirmed that there was no such agreement.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-e...

And it did not voluntarily dissolved itself, it fell apart. Like when your plate voluntarily dissolves itself when you drop it on the floor.

[mopsi]

> For a moment, let's take your highly simplistic statement at face value. USSR gave up East Germany and voluntarily dissolved itself on the agreement that NATO won't expand east of Germany and Russia will be "admitted" into the West. What do we do about that now?

"Myth," Gorbachev said. "Had we had an agreement, we would've written it down," he added: https://x.com/splendid_pete/status/1650735533826375680

[petre]

Of course it's all BS. Putin was stationed in Dresden, the GDR in 1989 and he probably shit his pants when the Wall fell and the KGB was too busy with other stuff to extract him. That's why he made up this childrens' story that the US promised not to expand NATO Eastward: misundertanding + whisful thinking + PTSD.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-06-15/russia...

[rasz]

USSR didnt dissolve itself, it collapsed.

[ericb]

Can you point me to this treaty? Russia had admittance into the West. It wasn't serious about it. There was excitement to welcome Russia into commerce and brotherhood with the West. Russia wasn't considered an enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union until it chose to be, by becoming an expansionist power under Putin. An easy way to tell is to look at American movies in that time period--Russians stopped featuring as the default villain in American movies--no more "Ivan Drago" as foreign antagonists. The opportunity was there.

NATO doesn't threaten non-expansionist powers as a defensive treaty. Read the treaty. Being "admitted" into the west is easy--don't invade other countries, send little green men army invasions or make bellicose nuclear threats, and focus on business-first and the red carpet rolls itself out.

[anon291]

You are absolutely right about NATO, but wrong about Russia.

At the end of the day American hegemony has essentially produced the most peaceful, prosperous period ever and America is pretty open to any country joining this hegemony as long as you play by its basic rules.

This does not mean giving up your culture. American hegemony is able to allow such disparate economies and societies as Saudi Arabia and Norway to operate in fairly peaceful markets.

At the end of the day, it is in the best interest of everyone to basically do what America says.

Unlike previous regimes, America has not completely run roughshod over anyone other than people that were already doing extremely questionable things. And it doesn't matter because if your leaders kowtow enough to American demands, you can be pretty sure we will leave you alone.

So basically, Russia is going to lose and will make a fool of themselves as they already have, and America will come out of this relatively unscathed. At the end of the day, America has no real competition. The Pax Americana is substantively different than Pax Brittanica and Pax Romana, in that Americas is worldwide and there is no country able to threaten America in any meaningful way. We are blessed to be surrounded by two very friendly countries that play well with us.

Moreover all the countries that might threaten us are literally dying out.

[richrichie]

> allow such disparate economies and societies as Saudi Arabia and Norway to operate in fairly peaceful markets.

While the US operates at an arms length from KSA with none of the usual theatrics about human rights violations, LGBTQ rights, etc, it has not adopted the same approach to China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, etc. It aggressively meddles in them in cultural and political spheres, not allowing such disparate actors to operate in the same peaceful markets. The recent animosity towards China is mind boggling.

I remember Wolfowitz’s PNAC and full spectrum domination from 2001. The US seem to have lost plenty of its power projection since then. But for its vassal states, most countries do not seem to care about its sanctions on Russia.

People don’t mind a just thug keeping peace and offering protection for a reasonable sum though. The US did that role well.

[anon291]

> It aggressively meddles in them in cultural and political spheres, not allowing such disparate actors to operate in the same peaceful markets. The recent animosity towards China is mind boggling.

As I said... If the leaders of those countries simply kowtowed to american demands, you bet they would. In particula,

China -- institute free market reforms; officially announce the truth, which is that they're not communist (they haven't been for years).

Russia -- not have Putin

Iran -- not have the Ayatollah

Cuba -- not be communist

At the end of the day it is very easy to acquiesce to American demands. You simply have to not try to undo a coup they did and then never ever ever say you're communist. You can go ahead and be a dictator, but America has decided communism bad, so just don't go there and you will be okay with the US. Then let the US operate military bases on your country's soil, and voila, you will be America's friend forever. Recall that Pakistan is still an ally of the United States despite harboring its most wanted terrorist.

in other words, there are very clear paths for all these countries to not feel the full force of American sanctions. And this is what I mean by the US doesn't really care. Even with China, you can say all you want about it, but America's embrace of China has made it what it is today, despite the cold tensions.

[hulitu]

> American hegemony has essentially produced the most peaceful, prosperous period ever

In US, yes. In the rest of the world, no.

[anon291]

Just flat out false. There's less international conflict today than ever, thanks to Pax Americana .

Are there some rogue states that do not play well with American hegemony? Yes

But these states can easily make good by simply following America's terms. There are few grudges being held. No one is going to kill all their men and enslave their women. American demands are not so gruesome. They're relatively mild and would likely improve the standard of living of everyone there. I don't make this claim vacuously. Broadly speaking, everywhere that has adopted American hegemony has done incredibly well for themselves and their populace. Rationally speaking, there's no reason not to.