[_djo_]

Excellent point. Ukraine, like any sovereign country, can join whatever alliances it wants too.

There is no right in international law that allows its neighbours to invade if it picks one they don’t like.

Add to that that it’s a mutual defence pact and the argument becomes more absurd.

[quotz]

What would happen if Canada joined a mutual defense pact with Russia? Or Mexico? Think about this scenario, would the US invade immediately?. Something similar actually happened with Cuba in the 60s, and the US invaded them, doing a total naval siege [1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

[_djo_]

Nothing should or would happen.

The issue with Cuba was the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba, not merely its membership of a pact with the USSR.

The US didn’t invade Cuba, it assisted Cuban exiles to do so in the embarrassing Bay of Pigs disaster which took place before the naval blockade as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Naturally, Bay of Pigs should never have happened, and it’s one of the things that led to the CIA’s powers and freedom from oversight being drastically curtailed the following decade.

Furthermore, the world and international law has moved on since the 1960s. That sort of brinkmanship has been much reduced.

[insane_dreamer]

> Nothing should or would happen.

"nothing should" is correct; "nothing would" is fantasy

> The issue with Cuba was the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba, not merely its membership of a pact with the USSR.

Yes, putting nukes there brought things to a serious crisis, but the issue with Cuba

> The US didn’t invade Cuba, it assisted Cuban exiles to do so

Come on, let's be real here. Sure, _technically_ the US didn't invade Cuba. But it funded and assisted a mercenary force in a (very poor) attempt to do so. And that wasn't the only time the US tried to force regime change in Cuba, just like it did in Chile.

[_djo_]

If we’re talking about funding and supporting local groups, activists, and insurgents, then we’re going to have to cast the net far wider and include many similar actions by the USSR and then Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Israel, and many others.

That might be a worthwhile discussion to have, but it’s categorically not the same thing as invasion, occupation, and annexation.

[quotz]

And just like it tries to still do in Venezuela. They also did something similar in Nicaragua. Latin America has suffered tremendously from the US's Monroe Doctrine. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

[quotz]

Please read about the Monroe Doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

[_djo_]

The Monroe Doctrine from 1823?

[quotz]

Yes, that doctrine got bastardized and became highly relevant after WW2, read the wiki

[int_19h]

You are conveniently omitting the reason why all those Eastern European states wanted to join NATO, which is that they were previously invaded and occupied by USSR and/or Imperial Russia, in some cases more than once (e.g. Poland).

[insane_dreamer]

> any sovereign country, can join whatever alliances it wants too

unless you're Cuba, or Vietnam, or Nicaragua, or Chile, and the list goes on

but yes, in theory you're right; in practice history shows that if they are small and powerless then they cannot, not without consequences

[_djo_]

Cuba I have addressed.

The US was invited into South Vietnam to help defend them against an invasion from North Vietnam. We can debate the morality of the resulting war, which was questionable, but it was not a US invasion.

The US invasion of Nicaragua was in 1912, long before the modern post-WWII era of stronger international law.

Chile was not invaded by the US.

If these are the examples you have, you don’t have a strong argument.

[saalweachter]

Pardon me, you have gotten yourself dragged into a tu quoque defense of Russia.

It is best not to engage in these arguments, because they are almost never conducted in good faith.

The goal is partially to make the claim that "the US is just as bad/worse, therefore, Russia is acting morally/logically/blamelessly", but primarily to simply turn the conversation into one where you are defending everything the US has ever done wrong, instead of discussing whatever Russia is currently doing, which is where the bad faith comes in.

If you do feel compelled to engage, I recommend at most acknowledging whatever the US did previously, before pivoting back to discussing the actual current situation. Otherwise, you're playing into the strategy.

[quotz]

My argument is that Russia was compelled to attack both Georgia and Ukraine because of NATO expansion, or rather preventing NATO expansion, not because of "Putin is crazy, wants to be a Tsar".

Your argument is that Russia wants to occupy territory just for the sake of expanding Russia, which is really not logical or reasonable.

My argument is that if Mexico or Canada joined a military pact with Russia, the US would invade those countries immediately.

Your argument is that any country can join a mutually defence pact without any consequences, as should be the case for Ukraine.

Is this correct?

[saalweachter]

Buddy, pal, even if it wasn't absolutely craven to attack a country for fear they'd join a defensive pact because they were afraid you'd attack them, you're already begging the question that Ukraine was about to join NATO, which has been shelved for two decades, and even more off the table for the last decade since joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea.

There was a 0% chance of Ukraine joining NATO in the next N years prior to Russia's invasion of them in 2021.

Even if by some twisted logic that were pretext for a quote-unquote "just war", it cannot be a justification for the land grab Russia is making in Ukraine today, killing civilians and committing various war crimes on the daily to do it.

[quotz]

The land grab is Russia's assurance that the crimean pipelines and access to the black sea and the sea of azov remain unchallenged. The pipelines are extremely important to Russia's economy, and they will of course make sure to secure them. Fortunately for Russia, the eastern part of Ukraine also leans pro-Russia, has the most ethnically russian population, votes for pro-russian politicians, and also speaks the most russian, unlike the western part.[1] Russia's strategy is to secure those areas only, since those areas would be the easiest to operate. Russia would never able to rule over the current western ukrainian territories, because of the ethnical and demographical divide.

Russia wouldnt attack both Georgia and Ukraine, and spend billions of resources just for the 0% chance of Ukrainian and Georgian NATO admission. Both Montenegro and Macedonia joined NATO in a matter of months, in the latter case when the regime was toppled. Enabling any talks between NATO and Ukraine/Georgia would be considered extremely terrifying for the national security of Russia.

[1]https://www.eurasian-research.org/publication/geography-of-t...

[dragonwriter]

> joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea.

That’s...not at all clear (there is no such legal requirement, though there were some NATO members who publicly suggested that resolving the territorial disputes with Russia first was their then-current diplomatic position at various times in the discussion of the possibility. But diplomatic positions are sometimes prone to change in response to inducements from parties with different preferences.)

[mopsi]

  > My argument is that Russia was compelled to attack both Georgia and Ukraine because of NATO expansion, or rather preventing NATO expansion, not because of "Putin is crazy, wants to be a Tsar".

This fails to explain why Russia attacked both countries after NATO had decided not to offer them a path to membership.

Putin's intense hostility toward NATO stems from the fact that NATO stands in the way of invading Europe. The blitzkrieg against Ukraine also failed largely because of military support from European NATO members, who used established NATO communication channels to coordinate their efforts - exactly the thing NATO was established for!

If Russia were a normal European country, it would have nothing to lose and much to gain from bordering NATO. NATO membership comes with oversight and separation requirements that make member states stable and predictable. A former, pre-Putin foreign minister of Russia described this as "free-of-charge security on Russia's western border".

It is a problem for Putin only because he seeks to invade Europe; NATO stands in the way.

  > Your argument is that Russia wants to occupy territory just for the sake of expanding Russia, which is really not logical or reasonable.

It is perfectly reasonable when you look at who holds power in Russia: the old revanchist KGB clan seeking to restore the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. This is the world they grew up in and were indoctrinated into in KGB schools. For them, it is a "normalcy" to which they must return.

  > My argument is that if Mexico or Canada joined a military pact with Russia, the US would invade those countries immediately.

There is no need for guessing games when Cuba was actually in a military pact with the USSR until 1991 and hosted jets, bombers, missile cruisers and other conventional weapons for decades after the missile crisis. You can read about Soviet warships conducting missile drills off the coast of Florida in old newspapers. This is far more than anyone has done for countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War. And yet, the US did not invade Cuba.

  > Your argument is that any country can join a mutually defence pact without any consequences, as should be the case for Ukraine.

Russia has repeatedly, in writing, pledged to respect the sovereignty of other European countries, including Ukraine, and their freedom to join military alliances. There's nothing to discuss - unless you want to turn Europe into a landscape of semi-sovereign nations ruled by Russia, which raises the question: why should Russia, in particular, be the European master race? Shouldn't the Franco-German alliance, with its much larger economy, bigger population, and numerous allies, instead dictate what Russia can and cannot do?

[quotz]

> Putin's intense hostility toward NATO stems from the fact that NATO stands in the way of invading Europe .... > It is a problem for Putin only because he seeks to invade Europe; NATO stands in the way.

These are the most outlandish sensationalist claims I've heard on this subject, that are basically bordering on primary school children discussions. There is absolutely 0% chance or even any rational thought or discussion that has happened by the leadership in Russia on this topic. Not even Russia, but any leader with half a brain would not even simulate this scenario. This is not post WW2 anymore. Even if theoretically Russia had the military capability to "invade Europe", not only would that be the most pointless invasion, since Russia wouldn't be able gain anything after they invaded. What can they gain? They'll go to the banks and loot them, get the gold and send it home? They'll rule over the French or the Germans and make them buy Ladas? Loot some factory machines? They'll install puppets dictators? I really see in no way how this can be anyhow practical or even feasible, even if Russia had that capability. Lets say hypothetically Russia already invaded and occupied Europe, and by tonight their military has control of every piece of territory in Europe, then what? What will they do tomorrow? If you give me a single argument of why that costly occupation of europe would actually give them any benefits that outweigh those costs, then I would surrender this debate to you and never debate this again...

> There is no need for guessing games when Cuba was actually in a military pact with the USSR until 1991 and hosted jets, bombers, missile cruisers and other conventional weapons for decades after the missile crisis. You can read about Soviet warships conducting missile drills off the coast of Florida in old newspapers. This is far more than anyone has done for countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War. And yet, the US did not invade Cuba.

Cuba and Russia were never in a FORMAL military alliance or pact, since that would've provoked an immediate US invasion. They were collaborating when needed given their mutual enemy - the US. What brought the missile crisis was the planning of Russia to install nuclear weapons on the island that threatened the US (they were never installed for your information), this was as a result of the US initially installing similar nuclear weapons in Italy, Turkey and England, and also as a result of the CIA training a paramilitary cuban force to overthrow Castro (which failed of course). Again this crisis was brought on solely because of US actions, but that is out of scope for this argument. But after the missile crisis, Russia never really escalated, never put any weapons that were threatening to the US, and the only military help Cuba got was for the defense from attempts of overthrowing Castro by the US-led cabal.

[quotz]

The argument is that these rules that you describe that any country can join any mutual defence pact without any repercussions is just plain wrong, mainly because the US would be immediately working against that even with military interventions. Its the same thing with how the US's stance for foreign policy is to push democracy where it suits them if they have big influence with one of the parties, and to push favourable dictatorships if not. There's double standards and twofacedness by the US foreign policy which really everyone else sees besides US citizens themselves, mostly because the average american barely even knows anything about domestic politics let alone foreign ones (except the few propaganda topics we get from the three letter tv channels).

Just answer this question, would the US object to, possibly with military intervention, if Mexico or Canada would join a military defence pact with China or Russia, or India, or say really any other country besides the US, even Brazil. We both know the answer to this.

Now lets do even easier. Would the US object to any South American countries joining a mutual defence pact with Russia / China? We already have the answer to this.

[saalweachter]

So you're saying another country would only find mutual defense pact threatening if they wanted to invade them?