[gambiting]

I will listen to it, but first tell me - are you suggesting that Russia is an autocratic oligarchy where any dissent is immediately crushed because Russia wasn't allowed into NATO? If it was in NATO, it would suddenly have fair democratic elections?

[imcritic2]

No, I'm not suggesting that at all, but oligarchy and lack of democracy mostly hurts the country in internal politics, not external. The war would just not have happened. As for how bad the oligarchy in Russia is now / would be (if it joined NATO) - it's no one's business but the Russians'.

[gambiting]

The thing is - you might be right. Or you might be completely wrong - these discussions happened almost 30 years ago - even if Russia was allowed into NATO when it was originally planned, its descent into autocracy might have caused it to be kicked out, or it might have left on its own accord. Or it might have decided to attack Ukraine anyway, even while itself still in NATO. I wouldn't be so hasty to declare that if only Russia was let into NATO 30 years ago this war wouldn't have happened - we don't know.

[mathfailure]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. An attack has to have very strong reasons, as any attack is very costly, no oligarch would spend money for no reason.

So they would seek some gain then, right?

What could an oligarch possibly gain from starting a war with an allied neighboring country?

And why doesn't U.S. attack other NATO members now?

Surely it has (and had) as much oligarchy (if not more) as Russia has. (I hope you won't argue it doesn't? Since even something as ridiculous as the fact of having lobbying being absolutely legal - just can't coexist with the lack of oligarchs quite by nature/definition).

[Juliate]

> And why doesn't U.S. attack other NATO members now?

They are. Commercially first. Through technology second (the dependance of the world upon US software and hardware technology is the perfect kill switch - and the scale and pace at which we are going to need to get out of it is immense now that it is intimately tied to our professional and personal lives... but we have no choice).

And they might go further if those firsts are not enough.

[imcritic3]

Sounds like fair play to me. Where's the border between oligarchs attacking other countries and economical concurrence between different countries?

[Juliate]

It is not a matter of concurrence. The European market is going to be a closed, dead market to US technology.

We in Europe would never have invested so massively to rely on USSR or post-2008 Russia software/hardware tech, for obvious reasons

But we did on USA tech, for obvious reasons too (common history and values, democracies, multiple war allies, cooperation, and... US used to be the beacon of progress and freedom), that have all been brutally thrown out.

So why would we now?

[gambiting]

"An attack has to have very strong reasons, as any attack is very costly, no oligarch would spend money for no reason."

So why did this current attack start? It's been 3 years and there's a dozen theories as to why exactly, there is no "strong reason" anywhere to be seen.

"What could an oligarch possibly gain from starting a war with an allied neighboring country?"

Again, why is Russia in Ukraine then? They went from being brethren to portraying Ukrainians as fascist scum that need to be exterminated. Why is that?

"And why doesn't U.S. attack other NATO members now?"

Because it has more to gain by not doing so.

Again - I really can't see how you can confidently say that if only Russia was let into NATO 30 years ago this current situation wouldn't have happened.

[mathfailure]

> So why did this current attack start? It's been 3 years and there's a dozen theories as to why exactly, there is no "strong reason" anywhere to be seen. > Again, why is Russia in Ukraine then?

The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO).

The military alliance that claims Russia to be their most probable enemy and thus a military alliance AGAINST Russia.

The military alliance first broke some spoken agreement with Russian of non-expansion of said military alliance. Then did that again and again to the point where NATO wanted to advance in its expansion so much far as to the neighboring country to Russia.

This is simply not acceptable for Russia, so it had to prevent that expansion, which it did. It could only be done by force, if the other side refused to drop possibilities of joining NATO. They didn't drop them - they got invaded for demilitarization. They resist - they die. The ones who don't resist (civilians) - aren't targeted at all (however, in a war there are always casualties among civilians).

> They went from being brethren to portraying Ukrainians as fascist scum that need to be exterminated. Why is that?

Because that's what Ukrainian officials policy was towards Russian natives living on their land and daring to speak their native Russian language.

> I really can't see how you can confidently say that if only Russia was let into NATO 30 years ago this current situation wouldn't have happened.

How is that not clear? If Russia would be part of NATO - it would have 0 security concerns of NATO expanding up to its borders. If there would be no security concerns - it wouldn't start the special operation, there simply would be no reason to, as Ukraine would probably in that case be a part of NATO as well (as well as Belarus and probably Kazakhstan and some other ex-USSR *stans)! Just that simple.

[DoctorOetker]

> The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO).

If it were a simple individual somehow escalating to nation state level, I could understand them being initially forced to use deception, but not so for an entity that is already a nation state. Especially not so for a nuclear nation state!

Right before the outbreak of the full scale war (ignoring ~2014), Western intelligence services observed troops, tanks, military materiel amassing on the Russian / Ukranian border. In an attempt to dissuade Russia from invading the UK intelligence services decided to predict Russia's invasion publicly.

Russia repeatedly claimed "Nyet, nyet, no invasion, just some push-ups next to border!"

If a nuclear power were acting on existential security concerns, the last thing it would do is hide the connection to security concerns and pretend just doing some push-ups on border.

To me this invalidates this whole theory of yours and imcritic

[gambiting]

>>This is simply not acceptable for Russia, so it had to prevent that expansion, which it did. It could only be done by force, if the other side refused to drop possibilities of joining NATO

Russia can't and shouldn't have any say in what pact or alliance a sovereign country on their border wants to join. They have no right to. And well done preventing NATO expansion - where now thanks to their actions NATO did expand right to their border. Really 4-dimensional chess play guys.

>>The ones who don't resist (civilians) - aren't targeted at all

Yes I'm sure all these bombs falling on Ukrainian hospitals are just targeting errors.

And Bucha was what? An accident?

[DoctorOetker]

> The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO).

If it were a simple individual somehow escalating to nation state level, I could understand them being initially forced to use deception, but not so for an entity that is already a nation state. Especially not so for a nuclear nation state!

Right before the outbreak of the full scale war (ignoring ~2014), Western intelligence services observed troops, tanks, military materiel amassing on the Russian / Ukranian border. In an attempt to dissuade Russia from invading the UK intelligence services decided to predict Russia's invasion publicly.

Russia repeatedly claimed "Nyet, nyet, no invasion, just some push-ups next to border!"

If a nuclear power were acting on existential security concerns, the last thing it would do is hide the connection to security concerns and pretend just doing sonme push-ups on border.

To me this invalidates this whole theory of yours and imcritic

[error_logic]

That's a convenient narrative but it overlooks the desire to prevent normalization of hostile takeovers.

Russia tried to pretend that its satellite states and NATO were similar arrangements (with the latter thus being under US control), because that would make it seem like they were on even ground.

To the extent it ends up being true, it will be due to Russia's influence (conveniently allied with others' authoritarian tendencies).

[snozolli]

The strong reason for this attack was Russia's security concerns got ignored and stepped on by a military alliance (NATO).

NATO is a defensive pact. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wants their port, arable land, and because he wants to go down in history as "reuniting" the Russian empire. Also, Russia has wanted to exterminate the Ukrainian cultural identity, which they've tried to do since before the Soviet Union:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russias-i...

Putin's whining about NATO is pure bullshit propaganda. Just like his claims of Nazis in Ukraine. It's all fiction, where he writes Russia as the victim.