The Invasion of Ukraine, Russia Threatens Finland/Sweden

[Prima Scriptura]

NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact to 'contain' Communism. NATO has never actually been a defensive alliance, all of its interventions and expansion and even its founding were offensive in nature. Every military alliance says it is defensive anyways, even Hitler framed his invasion of the USSR in 1941 in defensive terms.

When Russia sees countries like the Baltics join NATO and Ukraine threaten to it creates a security problem for them. NATO can say it is defensive all they want but the closer they push themselves to Russia and the more they intensify conflicts and try to overthrow governments like Belarus the more problems it causes Russia, who wants above all else a secure border.

Right. They formed to ensure that the USSR didn't invade its neighbors and contain their expansion.

Which interventions do you claim were aggressive?

I'm not taking your "Expansion" point at all seriously. People can join a defensive pact.

Every military alliance says it is defensive anyways, even Hitler framed his invasion of the USSR in 1941 in defensive terms.

Right. Except in NATO's charter that's the explicit legal framework and no nation can compel another, so there we go. Meanwhile, Russia is clutching pearls and has invaded its neighbors repeatedly under the Putin regime, annexing territory and picking fights, and is now wailing about "Needing to defend itself" from NATO. I think you've got your accusation of bad faith backwards here.

What is the problem with the baltics joining NATO? Does Russia intend to annex the baltics? If not, then there's no problem.

Which governments has NATO overthrown?

Mate. I think you're seriously confused and don't understand the difference between NATO and the CIA. I imagine Russian propoganda has rotted your capacity to tell the difference between "A member of NATO did this" (Specifically, the US) and "NATO did this.". You may as well accuse the olympic committee of overthrowing governments.

If Russia were to come out and say "Please disband the CIA because it's fucked and it scares us" there would be zero chance of it happening, but they'd have a lot more sympathy from the rest of Europe and even most Americans.

Some people think they have to simp for Russia in order to remain “based”

[HISPIDA]

Right. They formed to ensure that the USSR didn't invade its neighbors and contain their expansion.

Which interventions do you claim were aggressive?

I'm not taking your "Expansion" point at all seriously. People can join a defensive pact.



Right. Except in NATO's charter that's the explicit legal framework and no nation can compel another, so there we go. Meanwhile, Russia is clutching pearls and has invaded its neighbors repeatedly under the Putin regime, annexing territory and picking fights, and is now wailing about "Needing to defend itself" from NATO. I think you've got your accusation of bad faith backwards here.

What is the problem with the baltics joining NATO? Does Russia intend to annex the baltics? If not, then there's no problem.

Which governments has NATO overthrown?

Mate. I think you're seriously confused and don't understand the difference between NATO and the CIA. I imagine Russian propoganda has rotted your capacity to tell the difference between "A member of NATO did this" (Specifically, the US) and "NATO did this.". You may as well accuse the olympic committee of overthrowing governments.

If Russia were to come out and say "Please disband the CIA because it's fucked and it scares us" there would be zero chance of it happening, but they'd have a lot more sympathy from the rest of Europe and even most Americans.

Some people think they have to simp for Russia in order to remain “based”

it's hilarious because it's literally just propaganda
russia hasn't been a serious threat since, i'd argue, 1980. they're a regional power masquerading as a great power that can barely exert control over its own sphere of influence (lookin' at you, belarus and tajikistan and turkmenistan)

[Antipatros]

If Putin is 100% serious about this list of demands, he has become seriously deranged. This is what losing an empire and being humiliated does to a mf.

[HISPIDA]

If Putin is 100% serious about this list of demands, he has become seriously deranged. This is what losing an empire and being humiliated does to a mf.

it's just russia trying to show off power
they did this with the satellite destruction a few weeks back

i can't tell exactly what their end game is but they're either trying to gloat because they're gaining influence in afghanistan (unlikely), they're trying to hide the fact that they are gaining influence in afghanistan (somewhat plausible), or they're reliving the soviet glory days for a bit of larp (probably it tbh)

[Nationalist Northumbria]

russia's not stupid enough to go against nato

russia has not been able to win a war against the west since 1945

they couldn't win a war against nato (which is why they backed out of cuba, berlin, etc) in the cold war and they definitely couldn't win a war against nato now

russia's a regional power; if russia is genuinely thinking about fighting nato then it's like uzbekistan thinking about fighting the PRC

russia's main foreign policy shouldn't be nato antagonism; if anything, their foreign policy rn should be (if i was in charge of russia) supporting the NRF in afghanistan (and making iran back them), countering china in asia and europe, and expanding more influence over central asia. this is russia's prime time to fly under the radar the way the west is focused on the PRC

Russia was able to win a war against the West for most of the Cold War.

Russia is still a great power and it is not thinking about "fighting NATO" in the sense of fighting NATO all at once, but rather maybe at a push, the same way the U.S. considers what a war with China would look like, BTFOing the Baltic states and the NATO forces unlucky enough to be there to take back Ida-Virumaa. And why should the West go to war so that Estonia can continue occupying Narva? Without the words 'Sudetenland' or 'Munich'.

[Orostan]

Have you considered that the USSR perhaps may not have wanted to obliterate humanity in a nuclear war? The question of a war in europe between the Warsaw Pact and NATO was never a question of who would win, it was how quickly NATO would lose. The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO heavily and there was no way for it to win a war. This is why NATO and the US tried to encircle the USSR with enemies.

"how quickly nato would lose" lmfao
it's how quickly the ussr, and now russia, would fall apart

nato had and always will have the geographic, political, technological, and military advantage over the wpa, csto, and russia proper. the united states and france alone have the first and fifth highest military budgets in the world

russia's only advantage over nato is nuclear warhead count; even then, russia wouldn't fire them because putin isn't an idiot. russia has no advantage over nato and i'd argue it never did after korea

You don't know what you are talking about.

1) The Warsaw Pact significantly outnumbered NATO in every way and had technological parity with NATO. It would win a war, but at great cost.

2) Russia will fire their nukes if they believe the US is doing so. It takes one mistake to end the world, especially in a moment of tension. During the cold war the USSR thought Reagan would be the man to launch the nukes. The US flew bombers with nuclear bombs onboard right up to Soviet airspace regularly only to turn away at the last second. Every NATO military exercise could be an attack to the USSR and things like that nearly triggered nuclear war.

NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact to 'contain' Communism. NATO has never actually been a defensive alliance, all of its interventions and expansion and even its founding were offensive in nature. Every military alliance says it is defensive anyways, even Hitler framed his invasion of the USSR in 1941 in defensive terms.

When Russia sees countries like the Baltics join NATO and Ukraine threaten to it creates a security problem for them. NATO can say it is defensive all they want but the closer they push themselves to Russia and the more they intensify conflicts and try to overthrow governments like Belarus the more problems it causes Russia, who wants above all else a secure border.

Right. They formed to ensure that the USSR didn't invade its neighbors and contain their expansion.

Which interventions do you claim were aggressive?

I'm not taking your "Expansion" point at all seriously. People can join a defensive pact.

Every military alliance says it is defensive anyways, even Hitler framed his invasion of the USSR in 1941 in defensive terms.

Right. Except in NATO's charter that's the explicit legal framework and no nation can compel another, so there we go. Meanwhile, Russia is clutching pearls and has invaded its neighbors repeatedly under the Putin regime, annexing territory and picking fights, and is now wailing about "Needing to defend itself" from NATO. I think you've got your accusation of bad faith backwards here.

What is the problem with the baltics joining NATO? Does Russia intend to annex the baltics? If not, then there's no problem.

Which governments has NATO overthrown?

Mate. I think you're seriously confused and don't understand the difference between NATO and the CIA.

If Russia were to come out and say "Please disband the CIA because it's fucked and it scares us" there would be zero chance of it happening, but they'd have a lot more sympathy from the rest of Europe and even most Americans.

1) The Warsaw Pact was formed after NATO. The USSR did not invade anyone that wasn't already on their side after WWII was over, only the US did that. The USSR's goal and Russia's goal in the west was always having a secure border and stopping 1941 from ever happening again. You don't understand that military alliance's aren't just defensive pacts, any pact says it is defensive in nature. The Nazis said what they were doing was defensive in nature!

2) This is true for any other alliance! Putin's "REGIME" (a scary word invented by the media to demonize countries you are programmed not to like) has only made actions to secure their own territory. Crimea had important naval bases that would severely damage Russia in the hands of NATO or a hostile state. The Donbas is right on Russia's border and presents a way to pressure Ukraine not to join NATO.

3) The problem is that those countries are right on Russia's border and the way NATO has expanded is fundamentally offensive. If Canada joined the Warsaw Pact during the cold war and Soviet military forces were positioned next to the USA's border the US would have a right to be concerned, as that is a massive security problem and the deployment of Soviet troops would be a fundamentally offensive move. This is why Russia is not asking countries leave NATO, only that they don't put troops close to Russia.

4) NATO has destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya to provide you some examples.

5) If Russia demanded the CIA be disbanded it would be demanding a change to domestic politics. If they demand NATO not put troops near them it is a demand about foreign policy. The two are not comparable in any way.

You people are insane. NATO has put itself right on Russia's border - Russia is only demanding that an immediate threat to its existence be ended. The danger of war in Europe has always been created by NATO being aggressive and you people don't understand how close the world can be pushed to nuclear war by mindless expansion on NATO's part. The issue of this offer - which does not actually demand NATO "abandon" Eastern Europe (a place it has no right to be in the first place anyways), it only demands that NATO move its military farther away from Russia.

This would be a great agreement for deescalation and the fact that you, Ostroeuropa, want a nuclear war that would obliterate the human race greatly worries me.

Also, this agreement is not even an ultimatum! It's a bilateral agreement Russia proposed, they're not demanding with military force that anyone sign this.

"Also, this agreement is not even an ultimatum! It's a bilateral agreement Russia proposed, they're not demanding with military force that anyone sign this."

And NATO has rightfully rejected it. As much as Putin wants to relitigate the last 30 years of history, Russia's situation is not changing. Russia can pound sand and take out its revanchist anger on defenseless countries in its near abroad.

Will you enjoy the feeling of being killed in a nuclear explosion?

[Prima Scriptura]

If Putin is 100% serious about this list of demands, he has become seriously deranged. This is what losing an empire and being humiliated does to a mf.

it's just russia trying to show off power
they did this with the satellite destruction a few weeks back

i can't tell exactly what their end game is but they're either trying to gloat because they're gaining influence in afghanistan (unlikely), they're trying to hide the fact that they are gaining influence in afghanistan (somewhat plausible), or they're reliving the soviet glory days for a bit of larp (probably it tbh)

I can definitely see Putin trying to invade Afghanistan since the U.S is no longer protecting it. This dude is unwell enough to try such a thing.

[Orostan]

You don't understand how close this brings us to nuclear war. You think Russia is this paper tiger you have been built up by the media to believe it is when Russia is one of the world's largest nuclear powers. NATO's expansion onto Russia's borders and it acting like offensive moves are defensive is a threat to humanity itself.

You right, I don’t listen to Kermlin propaganda because I’m not a anti-western misanthropist. Russian’s borders don’t include Estonia and Latvia. And they certainly don’t include former members of the Warsaw pac. These are sovereign countries. Russia has NO right to invade them.

I am not arguing Russia should invade them. I am arguing that NATO should not put troops in them directly on Russia's borders - a fundamentally offensive deployment.

[American Pere Housh]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/world/europe/russia-nato-security-deal.html

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/na ... ar_cache=Y

Russian Demands:

1. NATO forces and equipment to withdraw from Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, as well and any forces stationed in non-member states such as military trainers in Ukraine.

2. No more NATO expansion, regardless of where in the world.

3. No NATO military exercises in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, Southern Caucuses and Central Asia.


-----------

My opinion:
We should probably begin to prepare in case this escalates. These demands are unhinged enough that I am now beginning to doubt that Russia is governed by rational actors who will avoid war with NATO. Russia has continuously escalated and done a bunch of shit by this point.

We probably need to discuss whether to adopt Russia's shadow-war strategies in the coming months and adopt a policy of assassinations while gaslighting Russia over it and so on, such would be preferable to WW3. Impressing upon Russian generals and oligarchs that we are not going to capitulate and they had best get rid of Putin and his government and so on, perhaps negotiating with them in terms of "Well. I'm sure that given the situation, the freezing of your accounts could be lifted" and so on.

But I am now of the opinion that the Putin government needs to be brought down by any means short of that which will provoke war, and that we probably do need to be prepared for Russia to start a war.

I wonder about those 4 that voted for NATO accepting the demands since I believe they hate NATO. Those in Eastern Europe are gonna tell Russia to go fuck themselves if they will think they will leave NATO.

[HISPIDA]

russia's not stupid enough to go against nato

russia has not been able to win a war against the west since 1945

they couldn't win a war against nato (which is why they backed out of cuba, berlin, etc) in the cold war and they definitely couldn't win a war against nato now

russia's a regional power; if russia is genuinely thinking about fighting nato then it's like uzbekistan thinking about fighting the PRC

russia's main foreign policy shouldn't be nato antagonism; if anything, their foreign policy rn should be (if i was in charge of russia) supporting the NRF in afghanistan (and making iran back them), countering china in asia and europe, and expanding more influence over central asia. this is russia's prime time to fly under the radar the way the west is focused on the PRC

Russia was able to win a war against the West for most of the Cold War.

lmao no
the ussr couldn't even sustain a protracted war against afghanistan, let alone the west
it would collapse after a few years on its own

Russia is still a great power

not really
they can't even control their own sphere of influence, even their proto-satellites like belarus

and it is not thinking about "fighting NATO" in the sense of fighting NATO all at once, but rather maybe at a push, the same way the U.S. considers what a war with China would look like,

a war with china would be entirely digitized; something russia isn't yet prepared for

BTFOing the Baltic states and the NATO forces unlucky enough to be there to take back Ida-Virumaa.

while i'll agree that russia can probably push into the baltics and a bit into poland, that is literally as far as they would go. they will never win a conventional war against NATO

And why should the West go to war so that Estonia can continue occupying Narva? Without the words 'Sudetenland' or 'Munich'.

estonia isnt occupying shit lmao

[HISPIDA]

it's just russia trying to show off power
they did this with the satellite destruction a few weeks back

i can't tell exactly what their end game is but they're either trying to gloat because they're gaining influence in afghanistan (unlikely), they're trying to hide the fact that they are gaining influence in afghanistan (somewhat plausible), or they're reliving the soviet glory days for a bit of larp (probably it tbh)

I can definitely see Putin trying to invade Afghanistan since the U.S is no longer protecting it. This dude is unwell enough to try such a thing.

no
this is exactly what putin does not want
russia learned from afghanistan in 1985 and learned from afghanistan again -- arguably more -- in 2021
putin wants, by all means, to secure an NRF victory and prolong the conflict so that the NRF can be sustained and funded by both russia and iran

[Antipatros]

If Putin is 100% serious about this list of demands, he has become seriously deranged. This is what losing an empire and being humiliated does to a mf.

it's just russia trying to show off power
they did this with the satellite destruction a few weeks back

i can't tell exactly what their end game is but they're either trying to gloat because they're gaining influence in afghanistan (unlikely), they're trying to hide the fact that they are gaining influence in afghanistan (somewhat plausible), or they're reliving the soviet glory days for a bit of larp (probably it tbh)

Poland should demand all of the lands of the Commonwealth as a counterproposal.

[HISPIDA]

==redacted==

[American Pere Housh]

it's just russia trying to show off power
they did this with the satellite destruction a few weeks back

i can't tell exactly what their end game is but they're either trying to gloat because they're gaining influence in afghanistan (unlikely), they're trying to hide the fact that they are gaining influence in afghanistan (somewhat plausible), or they're reliving the soviet glory days for a bit of larp (probably it tbh)

I can definitely see Putin trying to invade Afghanistan since the U.S is no longer protecting it. This dude is unwell enough to try such a thing.

It would be a repeat of the Soviet Afghani War during the 80's.

[Prima Scriptura]

russia's not stupid enough to go against nato

russia has not been able to win a war against the west since 1945

they couldn't win a war against nato (which is why they backed out of cuba, berlin, etc) in the cold war and they definitely couldn't win a war against nato now

russia's a regional power; if russia is genuinely thinking about fighting nato then it's like uzbekistan thinking about fighting the PRC

russia's main foreign policy shouldn't be nato antagonism; if anything, their foreign policy rn should be (if i was in charge of russia) supporting the NRF in afghanistan (and making iran back them), countering china in asia and europe, and expanding more influence over central asia. this is russia's prime time to fly under the radar the way the west is focused on the PRC

Russia was able to win a war against the West for most of the Cold War.

Russia is still a great power and it is not thinking about "fighting NATO" in the sense of fighting NATO all at once, but rather maybe at a push, the same way the U.S. considers what a war with China would look like, BTFOing the Baltic states and the NATO forces unlucky enough to be there to take back Ida-Virumaa. And why should the West go to war so that Estonia can continue occupying Narva? Without the words 'Sudetenland' or 'Munich'.

So, NATO member states don’t have a right to their sovereignty and we should let Russia do whatever the heck it wants because it waves around it’s nuclear arsenal. *nods*

[Goraria]

NATO is a defensive alliance and has no function unless a member is attacked. How does the existence of NATO threaten nuclear war given that fact? You claim NATO is being aggressive. How is that possible in your view?

Is it simply that more nations are signing up to a defensive alliance that in no way obligates them to join offensive wars? How precisely is that aggression?

NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact to 'contain' Communism. NATO has never actually been a defensive alliance, all of its interventions and expansion and even its founding were offensive in nature. Every military alliance says it is defensive anyways, even Hitler framed his invasion of the USSR in 1941 in defensive terms.

When Russia sees countries like the Baltics join NATO and Ukraine threaten to it creates a security problem for them. NATO can say it is defensive all they want but the closer they push themselves to Russia and the more they intensify conflicts and try to overthrow governments like Belarus the more problems it causes Russia, who wants above all else a secure border.

1. NATO wasn’t an offensive alliance. It was just an alliance to prevent further countries from being communist and contain communism.
2. Hitler declared war on the USSR. And even though he said it was for defensive purposes, why would he declare war on Russia in the first place? Also it was his opinion and Germany and Russia were in a non aggression pact so why break that pact and say that it was “for defensive purposes” If Hitler were to be smart, he would not invade Russia in the first place.
3. NATO ain’t doing anything to increase their influence (in fact it’s America who is doing the influencing) and when did NATO did such thing? They didn’t do it to the communist countries unless they were supporting those protests in Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.

[Ostroeuropa]

it's just russia trying to show off power
they did this with the satellite destruction a few weeks back

i can't tell exactly what their end game is but they're either trying to gloat because they're gaining influence in afghanistan (unlikely), they're trying to hide the fact that they are gaining influence in afghanistan (somewhat plausible), or they're reliving the soviet glory days for a bit of larp (probably it tbh)

Poland should demand all of the lands of the Commonwealth as a counterproposal.

Just demand the return of the legitimate Tsar to the throne. Just as insane, just as impossible, just as based in seething over history going the way it did, and just as unlikely to happen.

[American Pere Housh]

it's just russia trying to show off power
they did this with the satellite destruction a few weeks back

i can't tell exactly what their end game is but they're either trying to gloat because they're gaining influence in afghanistan (unlikely), they're trying to hide the fact that they are gaining influence in afghanistan (somewhat plausible), or they're reliving the soviet glory days for a bit of larp (probably it tbh)

Poland should demand all of the lands of the Commonwealth as a counterproposal.

*Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Noises*

[Orostan]

Russia was able to win a war against the West for most of the Cold War.

Russia is still a great power and it is not thinking about "fighting NATO" in the sense of fighting NATO all at once, but rather maybe at a push, the same way the U.S. considers what a war with China would look like, BTFOing the Baltic states and the NATO forces unlucky enough to be there to take back Ida-Virumaa. And why should the West go to war so that Estonia can continue occupying Narva? Without the words 'Sudetenland' or 'Munich'.

So, NATO member states don’t have a right to their sovereignty and we should let Russia do whatever the heck it wants because it waves around it’s nuclear arsenal. *nods*

NATO member states should not provoke a war with Russia or try and encircle Russia the way they are doing. That is what I am arguing.

NATO was formed before the Warsaw Pact to 'contain' Communism. NATO has never actually been a defensive alliance, all of its interventions and expansion and even its founding were offensive in nature. Every military alliance says it is defensive anyways, even Hitler framed his invasion of the USSR in 1941 in defensive terms.

When Russia sees countries like the Baltics join NATO and Ukraine threaten to it creates a security problem for them. NATO can say it is defensive all they want but the closer they push themselves to Russia and the more they intensify conflicts and try to overthrow governments like Belarus the more problems it causes Russia, who wants above all else a secure border.

1. NATO wasn’t an offensive alliance. It was just an alliance to prevent further countries from being communist and contain communism.
2. Hitler declared war on the USSR. And even though he said it was for defensive purposes, why would he declare war on Russia in the first place? Also it was his opinion and Germany and Russia were in a non aggression pact so why break that pact and say that it was “for defensive purposes” If Hitler were to be smart, he would not invade Russia in the first place.
3. NATO ain’t doing anything to increase their influence (in fact it’s America who is doing the influencing) and when did NATO did such thing? They didn’t do it to the communist countries unless they were supporting those protests in Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.

1) It has a fundamentally offensive character and has only ever done offensive interventions.
2) Hitler always intended to invade the USSR and he claimed Soviet troops were massing on the border and that he had to attack to defend Germany. The non-aggression pact was always only a delay to this.
3) Yes it is, what do you think this talk over Ukraine joining NATO is? Supporting "protests" (read: CIA color revolutions) in Warsaw Pact countries is an OFFENSIVE move.

[Ostroeuropa]

NATO member states should not provoke a war with Russia or try and encircle Russia the way they are doing. That is what I am arguing

Why shouldn't a country be encircled by a defensive alliance exactly? Is Russia planning to invade its neighbors?.

[Prima Scriptura]

So, NATO member states don’t have a right to their sovereignty and we should let Russia do whatever the heck it wants because it waves around it’s nuclear arsenal. *nods*

NATO member states should not provoke a war with Russia or try and encircle Russia the way they are doing. That is what I am arguing.

1. NATO wasn’t an offensive alliance. It was just an alliance to prevent further countries from being communist and contain communism.
2. Hitler declared war on the USSR. And even though he said it was for defensive purposes, why would he declare war on Russia in the first place? Also it was his opinion and Germany and Russia were in a non aggression pact so why break that pact and say that it was “for defensive purposes” If Hitler were to be smart, he would not invade Russia in the first place.
3. NATO ain’t doing anything to increase their influence (in fact it’s America who is doing the influencing) and when did NATO did such thing? They didn’t do it to the communist countries unless they were supporting those protests in Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.

1) It has a fundamentally offensive character and has only ever done offensive interventions.
2) Hitler always intended to invade the USSR and he claimed Soviet troops were massing on the border and that he had to attack to defend Germany. The non-aggression pact was always only a delay to this.
3) Yes it is, what do you think this talk over Ukraine joining NATO is? Supporting "protests" (read: CIA color revolutions) in Warsaw Pact countries is an OFFENSIVE move.

NATO states defending their borders and sovereignty isn’t “escalating war” with Russia. Russia does not have a right to those states. Russia has been the one it has been escalating by having hundreds of thousands of troops on the Ukrainian border. So, NATO States that were former members of the Warsaw Pact have every right to defend themselves from Russian aggression.

[Orostan]

Why shouldn't a country be encircled by a defensive alliance exactly? Is Russia planning to invade its neighbors?.

I cannot believe you posted this without thinking. LITERALLY ANY MILITARY ALLIANCE DESCRIBES ITSELF AS DEFENSIVE.

"Why should the USSR fear Hitler, he says he only acts defensively!"

[Prima Scriptura]

Why shouldn't a country be encircled by a defensive alliance exactly? Is Russia planning to invade its neighbors?.

“Because west is bad! Something something.”

[HISPIDA]

Why shouldn't a country be encircled by a defensive alliance exactly? Is Russia planning to invade its neighbors?.

invasion? no; they stopped overtly doing that after 2014
orientation? yes

russia's current goal in foreign policy is to counteract american and taliban influence in afghanistan, support armenia against azerbaijan and turkey, support assad against turkey and the us, and keep bullying ukraine and georgia since those are the only countries they can bully

[Orostan]

NATO member states should not provoke a war with Russia or try and encircle Russia the way they are doing. That is what I am arguing.


1) It has a fundamentally offensive character and has only ever done offensive interventions.
2) Hitler always intended to invade the USSR and he claimed Soviet troops were massing on the border and that he had to attack to defend Germany. The non-aggression pact was always only a delay to this.
3) Yes it is, what do you think this talk over Ukraine joining NATO is? Supporting "protests" (read: CIA color revolutions) in Warsaw Pact countries is an OFFENSIVE move.

NATO states defending their borders and sovereignty isn’t “escalating war” with Russia. Russia does not have a right to those states. Russia has been the one it has been escalating by having hundreds of thousands of troops on the Ukrainian border. So, NATO States that were former members of the Warsaw Pact have every right to defend themselves from Russian aggression.

Ukraine isn't part of NATO and those troop movements are in response to NATO refusing to deescalate with Russia. Every state has a right to defend itself from aggression, but to say that the encircling of Russia with foreign military bases, the stationing of NATO troops directly on its border, and the rapid expansion of NATO post-cold war was defensive is absurd. It's all offensive in character and a threat to Russia's territorial integrity.