The Invasion of Ukraine, Russia Threatens Finland/Sweden

[Ozero]

I suppose we're just supposed to accept you can't and therefore won't answer my question, but will instead dodge to talk about literally anything else.

I suppose if Russia agrees to evacuate all Russian troops from this side of the Urals, NATO could discuss pulling troops out of eastern europe. After all, we don't want to be "Aggressive" do we.

It's a rich joke but sadly some people are actually ignorant enough to think of that as a legitimate argument.

[HISPIDA]

They are not talking about Armenia. Russia is referring to Azerbaijan which is Turkeys ally and recently crushed Armenia in a war. Armenia is a Russian ally. I use the term ally loosely here because as far as I know they do not have any formal defensive pacts but both sides saw substantial military support and weapons sales.

random knowledge to help future understanding of the topic for both sides: armenia is part of CSTO

[Ostroeuropa]

I suppose if Russia agrees to evacuate all Russian troops from this side of the Urals, NATO could discuss pulling troops out of eastern europe. After all, we don't want to be "Aggressive" do we.

It's a rich joke but sadly some people are actually ignorant enough to think of that as a legitimate argument.

It's an apt comparison. That it's a ridiculous demand is supposed to get you to understand the absurdity of what you are asking.

If Russia were to actually propose that in exchange I think people would take more seriously their claims that they feel surrounded and frightened. We might not agree to it, but we'd start to actually believe you feel that way. As is, it looks like you're just pretending that's the case to justify belligerence and aggression to your neighbors and are conflating us preventing you from being aggressive with us being aggressive to you.

How does Russia intend to make its neighbors feel secure? Would Russia take seriously a Polish demand that Russia move its army beyond the Urals? Why not?

[Ozero]

It's a rich joke but sadly some people are actually ignorant enough to think of that as a legitimate argument.

It's an apt comparison. That it's a ridiculous demand is supposed to get you to understand the absurdity of what you are asking.

It's apt if you disregard reality. Russia removing troops from its borders while NATO builds bases in nations on and around their borders is insanity and it's intellectually dishonest to treat the comparison as appropriate.

It would be like thinking that if Russia were building military bases in Guatemala, Belize and Mexico, that America should move its troops past their Mississippi river to stop being an aggressive threat.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's an apt comparison. That it's a ridiculous demand is supposed to get you to understand the absurdity of what you are asking.

It's apt if you disregard reality. Russia removing troops from its borders while NATO builds bases in nations on and around their borders is insanity and it's intellectually dishonest to treat the comparison as appropriate.

It would be like thinking that if Russia were building military bases in Guatemala, Belize and Mexico, that America should move its troops past their Mississippi river to stop being an aggressive threat.

You've not read the proposal I made to you.

I said that Russia should move its army beyond the urals and in exchange NATO will dismantle its bases and pull troops out of eastern europe.

You are calling it bad faith and stupid as a proposal for Russia to move its army beyond the urals "While NATO build up on its border", but you don't seem to comprehend that this is exactly the way Russia is behaving. You're asking us to pull out of eastern europe while Russia remains militarized in the region.

You're also saying "It's like if Russia was in Belize and threatening America.".

NATO is not America.

You are in fact already militarized next to NATO countries, no need to bring Belize into it. The Belize comparison would be like if Mongolia or Japan joined NATO.

[FNU]

Some of the demands in the proposal are laughable yet frightening. For example, Article 6 states "All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States." In this demand, the usage of the word accession is clearly being used in the context of "We're going to take Ukraine, and you're going to stay out of our hair. Another interesting demand is in Article 2, Paragraph 3 which states "Telephone hotlines shall be established to maintain emergency contacts between the Parties." While I understand this is just basic diplomatic practice, it only adds to how tense this situation actually is.

[Ostroeuropa]

*snip*

How does Russia intend to make its neighbors feel secure? Would Russia take seriously a Polish demand that Russia move its army beyond the Urals? Why not?

[Untecna]

It's an apt comparison. That it's a ridiculous demand is supposed to get you to understand the absurdity of what you are asking.

It's apt if you disregard reality. Russia removing troops from its borders while NATO builds bases in nations on and around their borders is insanity and it's intellectually dishonest to treat the comparison as appropriate.

It would be like thinking that if Russia were building military bases in Guatemala, Belize and Mexico, that America should move its troops past their Mississippi river to stop being an aggressive threat.

That's the issue with your argument. Russia isn't in a major military alliance with those countries. In Europe, NATO countries are getting help from other NATO member states, all of them working together for the greater of all within NATO. They are part of a military alliance, that they chose to be a part of, and allow military exercises, trainings, and bases to happen and be made. Meanwhile, Russia is essentially trying to get that removed because they want to bring back those nations under Russian control. That's pretty clear to begin with, and adding in that Russia has invaded Crimea, as well as amassed troops along the Russia-Ukraine border and supported separatists in the Ukraine, all three acts of aggression, it's shouldn't be any surprise that nations like the Ukraine are getting into NATO.

TL;DR: It's ridiculous, plain and simple.

[Ozero]

You are in fact already militarized next to NATO countries, no need to bring Belize into it. The Belize comparison would be like if Mongolia or Japan joined NATO.

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

[Kowani]

Not sure if noise or not

Russia may take new measures to bolster security if the U.S. takes aggressive action and ignores requests ruling out NATO's eastward expansion into Ukraine, a senior diplomat said Saturday, AP reports.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Saturday that Western allies are "extending the limits of what’s possible" regarding relations with Russia, per AP. Ryabkov also warned that Moscow would "take care of our security and act in a way similar to NATO’s logic" if the organization doesn't take Russia's demands seriously. He didn't specify what actions Russia may take if the West rejects its demands, per AP. […] We don’t want a conflict. We want to reach an agreement on a reasonable basis," Ryabkov said.
"Before making any conclusions what to do next and what steps could be taken, we need to make sure that the answer is negative. I hope that the answer will be relatively constructive and we engage in talks."

[Untecna]

Not sure if noise or not

Russia may take new measures to bolster security if the U.S. takes aggressive action and ignores requests ruling out NATO's eastward expansion into Ukraine, a senior diplomat said Saturday, AP reports.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Saturday that Western allies are "extending the limits of what’s possible" regarding relations with Russia, per AP. Ryabkov also warned that Moscow would "take care of our security and act in a way similar to NATO’s logic" if the organization doesn't take Russia's demands seriously. He didn't specify what actions Russia may take if the West rejects its demands, per AP. […] We don’t want a conflict. We want to reach an agreement on a reasonable basis," Ryabkov said.
"Before making any conclusions what to do next and what steps could be taken, we need to make sure that the answer is negative. I hope that the answer will be relatively constructive and we engage in talks."

"if the U.S. takes aggressive actions" is the most hilarious part.

[Rosmana]

You are in fact already militarized next to NATO countries, no need to bring Belize into it. The Belize comparison would be like if Mongolia or Japan joined NATO.

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

How about Crimea?, hmm, send in a couple of unmarked troops and helicopters, steal some land?

[Ostroeuropa]

You are in fact already militarized next to NATO countries, no need to bring Belize into it. The Belize comparison would be like if Mongolia or Japan joined NATO.

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

How does NATO expand aggressively? Just because you call it aggressive doesn't make it so.

Did we invade a country and install a puppet government to make them join NATO?

Or did those countries freely decide to join NATO?

[Untecna]

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

How about Crimea?, hmm, send in a couple of unmarked troops and helicopters, steal some land?

"But that's justified, because Russia wasn't acting in aggression! NATO is just a American puppet alliance that's trying to hurt the sovereignty of Russia!"

LMAO, I couldn't keep a straight face writing that.

[Ozero]

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

How about Crimea?, hmm, send in a couple of unmarked troops and helicopters, steal some land?

Ethnic Russians voting to rejoin Russia after the Ukrainian government proves itself unstable? How about it?

[Ostroeuropa]

How about Crimea?, hmm, send in a couple of unmarked troops and helicopters, steal some land?

"But that's justified, because Russia wasn't acting in aggression! NATO is just a American puppet alliance that's trying to hurt the sovereignty of Russia!"

LMAO, I couldn't keep a straight face writing that.

I was personally willing to regard Crimea as a marginally justified action on the basis of self-determination. Ukraine weren't going to let them leave, there's a strong chance they identify as Russian and want to be part of Russia, and Ukraine joining NATO would make securing Crimea in future impossible. While not ideal, there's also a possibility that the western powers would have denied Russia's demands for referendum, or at least an understandable concern from Russia that that is the case.

I was willing to be charitable on the point and assume that now that Russia had secured the Crimea, they would no longer object to Ukraine joining NATO and aligning to the west.

I no longer hold this view.

How about Crimea?, hmm, send in a couple of unmarked troops and helicopters, steal some land?

Ethnic Russians voting to rejoin Russia after the Ukrainian government proves itself unstable? How about it?

Oh please. You invaded and annexed it. That the citizens wanted to join Russia and invasion/annexation might have been the only way to secure their right to self-determination doesn't change that. It makes it something that I would have personally given Russia a pass over if not for continued bullshit after the incident and for decades prior to it.

[Senkaku]

You are in fact already militarized next to NATO countries, no need to bring Belize into it. The Belize comparison would be like if Mongolia or Japan joined NATO.

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

Does Russia have the will and capacity to actually stop NATO, though? Complaining to NATO that they’re doing an American imperialism and should really just lay off is unlikely to be persuasive; regardless of whether NATO broke previous agreements about eastern expansion, we are where we are now, and asking them to leave Poland & the Baltics is just not credible. Using it as a starting point in negotiations is another thing, or to justify action in Ukraine & to try to make NATO believe Russia will escalate if they help Kiev in such an event, but those are both risky gambles likely to worsen Russia’s current security picture, not improve it, since even if NATO stays out of a Ukrainian war they’d be likely to build up their forces in the Baltics and Poland in response. Talking about who’s “at fault” for geopolitical games of imperial expansion is childish. The question is whether this is sound foreign or security policy from the Kremlin, whether it serves Russia’s interests, and on balance it’s hard to see how it does, even if it is something more subtle and calculated than just a flat-out demand.

[Rosmana]

How about Crimea?, hmm, send in a couple of unmarked troops and helicopters, steal some land?

Ethnic Russians voting to rejoin Russia after the Ukrainian government proves itself unstable? How about it?

How about it?

It was a full blown invasion, using unmarked vehicles and troops, the fact that they denied it as it was happening says enough.

[Untecna]

How about Crimea?, hmm, send in a couple of unmarked troops and helicopters, steal some land?

Ethnic Russians voting to rejoin Russia after the Ukrainian government proves itself unstable? How about it?

Funny joke, my guy, tell us another.

[Ozero]

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

How does NATO expand aggressively? Just because you call it aggressive doesn't make it so.

Did we invade a country and install a puppet government to make them join NATO?

Or did those countries freely decide to join NATO?

NATO, led by the United States, uses economic promises and bribery to induce poorer governments to join their outdated alliance, then they build military bases for the United States led-NATO forces to stage operations from. That is aggressive expansion, whether it's overtly violent or economic in practice.

And you have invaded plenty of nations and installed puppet governments so it's really not the angle to take on this issue. How is Afghanistan working out for NATO?

[Y3K Earth]

It's apt if you disregard reality. Russia removing troops from its borders while NATO builds bases in nations on and around their borders is insanity and it's intellectually dishonest to treat the comparison as appropriate.

It would be like thinking that if Russia were building military bases in Guatemala, Belize and Mexico, that America should move its troops past their Mississippi river to stop being an aggressive threat.

You've not read the proposal I made to you.

I said that Russia should move its army beyond the urals and in exchange NATO will dismantle its bases and pull troops out of eastern europe.

You are calling it bad faith and stupid as a proposal for Russia to move its army beyond the urals "While NATO build up on its border", but you don't seem to comprehend that this is exactly the way Russia is behaving. You're asking us to pull out of eastern europe while Russia remains militarized in the region.

You're also saying "It's like if Russia was in Belize and threatening America.".

NATO is not America.

You are in fact already militarized next to NATO countries, no need to bring Belize into it. The Belize comparison would be like if Mongolia or Japan joined NATO.

Let's be honest everyone on the planet knows that NATO countries are subservient to America as a result of their warmongering throughout WW2 or could not hope to operate, militarily, independent in the regions they're in without NATO

[Y3K Earth]

How does NATO expand aggressively? Just because you call it aggressive doesn't make it so.

Did we invade a country and install a puppet government to make them join NATO?

Or did those countries freely decide to join NATO?

NATO, led by the United States, uses economic promises and bribery to induce poorer governments to join their outdated alliance, then they build military bases for the United States led-NATO forces to stage operations from. That is aggressive expansion, whether it's overtly violent or economic in practice.

And you have invaded plenty of nations and installed puppet governments so it's really not the angle to take on this issue. How is Afghanistan working out for NATO?

Hit the nail right on the head

[Ostroeuropa]

How does NATO expand aggressively? Just because you call it aggressive doesn't make it so.

Did we invade a country and install a puppet government to make them join NATO?

Or did those countries freely decide to join NATO?

NATO, led by the United States, uses economic promises and bribery to induce poorer governments to join their outdated alliance, then they build military bases for the United States led-NATO forces to stage operations from. That is aggressive expansion, whether it's overtly violent or economic in practice.

And you have invaded plenty of nations and installed puppet governments so it's really not the angle to take on this issue. How is Afghanistan working out for NATO?

Are you seriously trying to argue that the countries which border Russia have only joined NATO because we bribed them? That's... just sad man. Like... you think the reason these countries are in NATO is they were bribed, and not because Russia has no friends left in Europe.

What happens is that countries which are frightened of Russia apply to join NATO because it is in their interest to do so. NATO then gives them money to bolster their defenses, and as part of the alliance bloc, their economic strength is a matter of interest for the rest of the bloc.

[Ozero]

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

Does Russia have the will and capacity to actually stop NATO, though? Complaining to NATO that they’re doing an American imperialism and should really just lay off is unlikely to be persuasive; regardless of whether NATO broke previous agreements about eastern expansion, we are where we are now, and asking them to leave Poland & the Baltics is just not credible. Using it as a starting point in negotiations is another thing, or to justify action in Ukraine & to try to make NATO believe Russia will escalate if they help Kiev in such an event, but those are both risky gambles likely to worsen Russia’s current security picture, not improve it, since even if NATO stays out of a Ukrainian war they’d be likely to build up their forces in the Baltics and Poland in response. Talking about who’s “at fault” for geopolitical games of imperial expansion is childish. The question is whether this is sound foreign or security policy from the Kremlin, whether it serves Russia’s interests, and on balance it’s hard to see how it does, even if it is something more subtle and calculated than just a flat-out demand.

NATO is fairly weak at heart, it's more a matter of puffing up to seem a bigger deal than it is to gain room at the bargaining table. NATO nations are dominated by consumerists who find their economies teetering from American oil wars, the subsequent refugee crisis and COVID. They don't a war where their opponent can actually fire ICBMs back and cause gas and oil prices to rise. They'd rather find middle ground to compromise over, whether either side fully emerges happy or not.

[HISPIDA]

Because NATO aggressively expands eastward to gain footholds in nations *bordering* Russia. Russia hasn't moved westwards to place troops next to NATO nations. Read a map. Yet somehow now Russia is the one at fault for wanting to secure her frontiers against USA-led expansionism. It's insanity.

How about Crimea?, hmm, send in a couple of unmarked troops and helicopters, steal some land?

crimea wasn't "stolen"
the people voted to join russia 96% to 2.5% with 87% turnout. even if these results were altered in any way, an independent US survey of crimea showed that around 83% of all crimean residents said that the referendum represented the views of the crimean majority and a gallup survey said that 82.8% of crimeans said the same thing. a german poll said that only 4% of all crimeans were totally opposed to the results of the referendum, meaning that even if it was faked it probably would've passed anyways