[RD] Is NATO a threat to Russia? If so, how?

[red_elk]

It's very unfortunate I find that for me, an American so far away from this conflict, who's got no dog in the fight, who wants to be receptive of the Russian position, gets told NOT of the virtues of rescuing any one or any group within Donbas region...but that all of this is basically just a big counteraction against the perceived danger of NATO (more likely including some vague references to US foreign policy decisions since 1945 they don't like)...

Actually I've been trying to get across position of pro-Russian people in Donbass for a decade here. Posting videos, interviews, articles, etc.
The response is always the same - there are no pro-Russians in Donbass, it's all lies and Russian propaganda. Videos are fake, polls and interviews are staged, shellings are false flags.

We do care for these people. Accepting refugees, sending humanitarian aid, doing many other things. Just posting this stuff here doesn't make much sense - few people may silently acknowledge the information, ten others will come mocking and spitting poison. I'd rather do something useful than waste effort to change opinions here.

 

[ConquestsMaster]

What I don't understand is what does this have to do with Democracy? As noted above, NATO/US countries did not produce a playback before bombing another country on some far-fetched pretext.
If you are an ally - you can indiscriminately bomb cities, you can organize a naval blockade that will cause famine, you can even kill and dismember a journalist on the territory of another country (NATO member) or you can organize "genocide" (although I personally would not use such a strong word in this case, although it is certainly close to it) in the Gaza Strip. "As a Nicaraguan might say, he's a sonofabitch but he's ours" (c). The issue is not the structure of the state. How many African countries in the Western (including French) coevolution of influence have been democracies? Rhetorical question.
From Putin Munich Speech 2007: Putin was particularly concerned about "the hypertrophied use of force in international affairs - military force - force that plunges the world into the abyss of successive conflicts". At the same time, Putin emphasized that attempts to interfere in internal affairs, much less use force, do not solve problems, but only aggravate them and bring them to a new level. "It is obvious that such interference does not at all contribute to the maturation of truly democratic states. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable." Libya, Syria, the birth of ISIS - the consequences of such policies.
In April 2008, the NATO summit decided on a Membership Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia, which means that Russia's objections to the indivisibility of security (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indivisible_security) were ignored. Inspired by this, it seems that Saakashvili decided to start a war with the breakaway territories from the collapse of the USSR.
In response to NATO's continued expansion to the east of Europe, NATO's decision in 2008, the construction of missile defense bases (interceptor missiles against ICBMs), and the events in Georgia in 2010, Russia listed NATO's expansion as a military threat in its military doctrine.
What happened next?Then there was Maidan in 2014, and Russia, realizing that in the near future NATO ships would be stationed in Sevastopol, not the Russian Black Sea Fleet, organized a coup in Crimea and annexation.In response, NATO has already declared Russia as a threat in its doctrine.
That is, since 2007 we have seen Russia's objections to the violation of the indivisibility of security (as Russia understands it - and it understands it as follows - no NATO bases directly next to its border).In the peace treaty discussed with Ukraine in 2022, I recall that Russia offered to return control over Donbas to Ukraine (not as a unitary state, of course. But in the West we know many examples of confederations and countries with many state languages, for some reason democratic Ukraine could not afford it), in exchange for not joining NATO and reduction of armed forces. There was also a mention that Russia had no objection to EU membership. As we can see, there were no economic or political demands. There were military demands, and the main one was not to join NATO.
So in Syria, in Africa, in Ukriane - we see a conflict between Russia and NATO, which began to brew as early as 2007 (and we can say even earlier). Now we see a China-US conflict brewing, and it is not about the unfortunate Uighurs. (natural killing of Palestinians does not bother the rulers of the US), but probably in the economic and political challenge to the West from China.
UPD.
I forgot one more thing. Chechnya.
Field commanders, especially after the second Chechen war, were quietly given asylum in the West. They were fighting for freedom, yeah. Field commanders in Donbas are murderers and war criminals. That's different.
But I remember that in the second Chechen war, the fighters were mostly Wahhabis and/or mercenaries. In the 90s, even in the village where I was on school vacation, preachers from KSA came to visit. They spread Wahhabism freely (ooh, sorry. Democracy (in the 90's the KSA was one of the main allies of the usa in the ME, so they were definitely preaching democracy (you know, stoning women till death for adultery and etc)) It is good that the activities of these "missionaries" were quickly suppressed in our republic. Or we could face second Chechnya
.

It does not have much to do about democracy. People in this thread were not arguing about democracy being good or bad (or real or fake). Nor were they arguing about whether the liberal West is hypocritical or not. It's obviously hypocritical and has waged multiple senseless wars and supports many authoritarian regimes.

The discussion was about how a democratic form of governments makes it harder to bear the costs of wars of aggression (both human and financial).
NATO could bomb Serbia or Libya because the large power disparity meant that Western casualties were low and the monetary cost low relative to their wealth.

But larger wars like in Afghanistan eventually became unpopular. Still the Western death toll there was extremely low. The Iraq War was even more unpopular. So much, that millions of people in the West took the streets in one of the largest protests in world history. Multiple US allies simply refused to join the war (France, Germany, Canada, etc.), because they saw it as unpopular, misguided, or both. And once again, the Western death toll was very low if we compare it to what Russia is suffering in Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

It's easier for authoritarian states to wage costly wars of aggression. They still need some level of popular support or acquiescence. But it's much easier to obtain when you have more tools to silence or destroy the opposition (state propaganda, censorship of news, jailing or murder of opponents, etc.).

You might say that in Russia the war is popular because people understand that it had to be fought. Maybe. People often like to point out that if Mexico tried to ally Russia, the US would invade Mexico. But if the war became a 2 year-long war where hundreds of thousands of Americans died in what looks on the map like a stalemate, a large proportion of Americans would start opposing the war. They would ask to bring the boys home and to let Mexicans do whatever they want in their country. That's what happened in Vietnam, the last war where the US had a large death toll. It lead to large protests at home (and fueled the counterculture). In the end it was so unpopular that Nixon withdrew troops from South Vietnam.

In any case, it's your call if you want to send your countrymen to die in the mud of Ukraine to kill their Slavic brothers. But so far this war doesn't seem to have made Russians any safer, especially the Donbass ones whose land is destroyed. A lot more Russians are dead or maimed than if the war was not being fought.

 

[Quintillus]

Russia cares about the Russians in the Donbass... just as the German government cared about the Germans in the Sudetenland and Poland in 1938 and 1939. In both cases, if the motivation were truly benevolent, easy paths to immigration could have been arranged, or perhaps foreign investment to boost the economies of those areas. Instead, both Germany and Russia militarily invaded their neighbors.

The reason that other countries turned against Germany in the 1930s and Russia in the 2020s was not that they didn't think there were ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland or ethnic Russians in the Donbass. It was the aggressive and destructive methods by which the German and Russian governments pursued territorial expansion and the obliteration of regimes that wouldn't agree to be their puppets, merely using the excuse of "protecting minorities" as a thin excuse for the initial stages of aggression.

 

[ConquestsMaster]

It's a very internet-driven post-ideology world we live in now: no one can advance their own position; everyone can at least try and tear down the strawman of the other person's position.

It's very unfortunate I find that for me, an American so far away from this conflict, who's got no dog in the fight, who wants to be receptive of the Russian position, gets told NOT of the virtues of rescuing any one or any group within Donbas region...but that all of this is basically just a big counteraction against the perceived danger of NATO (more likely including some vague references to US foreign policy decisions since 1945 they don't like)...

Yeah. I feel you. I'm a bad example because I like to argue. But discussing these large conflicts is tough (Israel-Palestine is even worse). Because people often invest so much emotions in these topics that they became very entrenched in their viewpoint and unreceptive to information that contradicts it.

I try to look for information among pro-Russian sources even more so than from Western sources. Obviously it has its own bias but by balancing it with Western news you get a more accurate depiction of the situation on the ground. For opinions, I don't read Western sources much because I know what they will say. Pro-Russian ones are interesting. It shows you the different currents of propaganda. The war is fought for many reasons according to the target audience:
-For the leftist anti-imperalist: it is a war against US hegemony and Ukrainian neonazism
-For the right-winger: it is a war against the decadent homosexual West
-For the Russian imperialist: it is a war to regain territory and glory
-For the realist: it is an expected reaction to US encroachment in what is Russia's sphere of influence
-For the humanitarian: it is to save the people of the Donbass
-For the even more naive: it is a preventive "defensive" war against a NATO invasion
-And then there is the throw things at the wall and see what sticks: biolabs, etc.

In the end, seeing so many different (sometimes contradictory) arguments makes it less convincing.

In any case, one more thing that makes debating tough is that we attribute to others viewpoints that they might not have. We then end up arguing against what we think our "enemies" are like instead of the real person in front us. I'm certainly guilty of that.

But here's an example:

Actually I've been trying to get across position of pro-Russian people in Donbass for a decade here. Posting videos, interviews, articles, etc.
The response is always the same - there are no pro-Russians in Donbass, it's all lies and Russian propaganda. Videos are fake, polls and interviews are staged, shellings are false flags.

We do care for these people. Accepting refugees, sending humanitarian aid, doing many other things. Just posting this stuff here doesn't make much sense - few people may silently acknowledge the information, ten others will come mocking and spitting poison. I'd rather do something useful than waste effort to change opinions here.

Plenty of people including "pro-Ukraine" people like myself recognize that there are many pro-Russian people in the Donbass. And even more so in Crimea. Also, I think the citizens of the Donbass had valid grievances against the new government in Kyiv. There were also real shellings that caused deaths of civilians on both sides of the front line in the Donbass. And I think a federal type of government with auotnomy for the regions might have been a good peaceful solution. Plenty of pro-Ukraine people completely agree with you on these points. You have more in common than you think. Why do you ignore it?

The only difference is that I think going to war was pretty much the worse possible things for the welfare of the people of the Donbass. Almost any other alternative would have been better for them. I also doubt that a country declaring war on its smaller neighbor is truthful when it claims to do so for humanitarian reason ("to protect ethnic minorities").

 

[red_elk]

Russia cares about the Russians in the Donbass... just as the German government cared

I'm not Russian government.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

Russia cares about the Russians in the Donbass... just as the German government cared about the Germans in the Sudetenland and Poland in 1938 and 1939. In both cases, if the motivation were truly benevolent, easy paths to immigration could have been arranged, or perhaps foreign investment to boost the economies of those areas. Instead, both Germany and Russia militarily invaded their neighbors.

The reason that other countries turned against Germany in the 1930s and Russia in the 2020s was not that they didn't think there were ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland or ethnic Russians in the Donbass. It was the aggressive and destructive methods by which the German and Russian governments pursued territorial expansion and the obliteration of regimes that wouldn't agree to be their puppets, merely using the excuse of "protecting minorities" as a thin excuse for the initial stages of aggression.

Don't forget that when Germany entered Sudetenland, Poland also grabbed part of Sudetenland for themselves in 1938 because they "cared" about the Polish population there.

Český Těšín - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Churchill's memoirs, that delayed the Allies coming to Poland's aid by at least a month, by which time Germany had pretty well blitzed them.

 

[Gedemon]

yes, Poland started WW2, it is known, Germany had no choices, we've seen Putin interview.

 

[Kyriakos]

It didn't start ww2, it just wanted a bit more territory. Hopefully it doesn't dream of Kalinigrad too.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

yes, Poland started WW2, it is known, Germany had no choices, we've seen Putin interview.

Who implied that Poland started the war? I stated the fact that Germany and Poland both went into Sudetenland in 1938, both using the same excuse of protecting their "own" people.
Germany started WW2 11 months later when it invaded Poland. France and England did not come to Poland's assistance immediately that Germany invaded because they both regarded Poland's land grab as repulsive.

 

[Gedemon]

Who implied that Poland started the war?

Putin did.

Tucker Carlson interview: Fact-checking Putin's 'nonsense' history

Historians say the litany of claims made by the Russian president are nothing more than a selective abuse of history to justify the ongoing war in Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

Russians are living in an alternate self-made history, which is something to take into consideration to understand their current point of view.

Now, I will need to study more of your alternate history, I suppose it could explain a few things.

 

[Kyriakos]

You can be of the view that someone doesn't get that the letter A is not the letter B.
It'd be more economical to just say they are demons, though.

 

[Quintillus]

Don't forget that when Germany entered Sudetenland, Poland also grabbed part of Sudetenland for themselves in 1938 because they "cared" about the Polish population there.
View attachment 687821

Český Těšín - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Churchill's memoirs, that delayed the Allies coming to Poland's aid by at least a month, by which time Germany had pretty well blitzed them.

Citation needed on Churchill's memoirs (page, edition?). I'm not going to believe an unsourced claim that sounds dubious just because a name is dropped. Although his memoirs have been on my reading list for a while, so don't be surprised if I check the citation.

There were three main problems with the Allies helping Poland - distance, France's inability to make a quick offensive into Germany beyond a couple kilometers, and the fact that Soviet Russia invaded Poland from the east. Had the Soviets not invaded Poland on September 17th, the Poles may have been able to slow the Germans enough for substantial quantities of aid to arrive via Romania. They at least would have lasted longer than they did.

Additionally, the Poles were not committing genocide against anyone, as both the Germans and the Soviets were against the Poles. It's little wonder that Poland considers Russia to be a dangerous threat considering the history and Russia's renewed expansionist agenda.

Be wary of listening to Putin's version of history. He knows history well enough to take it out of context in ways that may sound realistic to people who aren't well-versed enough it in themselves, and has the motivation to do so.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

Putin did.

Tucker Carlson interview: Fact-checking Putin's 'nonsense' history

Historians say the litany of claims made by the Russian president are nothing more than a selective abuse of history to justify the ongoing war in Ukraine.

www.bbc.com

Russians are living in an alternate self-made history, which is something to take into consideration to understand their current point of view.

Now, I will need to study more of your alternate history, I suppose it could explain a few things.

Here are some passages from two chapters of Churchill's memoirs to start your research.
He regarded the Polish action in seizing their chunk of Sudetenland as "shameful" and that they were like German "vultures" on Czechoslovakia's carcass; and "grovelling in villainy".

France's leaders were even more vicious in their opinions of Polish actions in 1938. Best you find and read them in the original French if you're really interested.

The Second World War: The Gathering Storm, 1948.
Book One
FROM WAR TO WAR

The Second World War: The Gathering Storm (volume 1)

Volume 1 of Winston Churchill's epic retelling of the story of the Second World War, written as a memoir to Churchill's own historic contribution to the war effort.

www.fadedpage.com

Chapter 18
Munich Winter

On September 30, Czechoslovakia bowed to the decisions of Munich. “They wished,” they said, “to register their
protest before the world against a decision in which they had no part.” President Benes resigned because
“he might now prove a hindrance to the developments to which our new State must adapt itself.” He departed
from Czechoslovakia and found shelter in England. The dismemberment of the Czechoslovak State proceeded in
accordance with the Agreement. But the Germans were not the only vultures upon the carcass. Immediately after
the Munich Agreement on September 30, the Polish Government sent a twenty-four-hour ultimatum to the Czechs
demanding the immediate handing-over of the frontier district of Teschen. There was no means of resisting this
harsh demand.

The heroic characteristics of the Polish race must not blind us to their record of folly and ingratitude
which over centuries has led them through measureless suffering. We see them, in 1919, a people restored by the
victory of the Western Allies after long generations of partition and servitude to be an independent Republic
and one of the main Powers in Europe. Now, in 1938, over a question so minor as Teschen, they sundered
themselves from all those friends in France, Britain, and the United States who had lifted them once again to
a national, coherent life, and whom they were soon to need so sorely. We see them hurrying, while the might
of Germany glowered up against them, to grasp their share of the pillage and ruin of Czechoslovakia.
During the crisis the door was shut in the face of the British and French Ambassadors, who were denied even
access to the Foreign Secretary of the Polish State. It is a mystery and tragedy of European history that a
people capable of every heroic virtue, gifted, valiant, charming, as individuals, should repeatedly show such
inveterate faults in almost every aspect of their governmental life. Glorious in revolt and ruin; squalid and
shameful in triumph. The bravest of the brave, too often led by the vilest of the vile! And yet there were
always two Polands; one struggling to proclaim the truth and the other grovelling in villainy.


Chapter 19.
Prague, Albania, and the Polish Guarantee
January-April, 1939

The Slovaks formally declared their independence. Hungarian troops, backed surreptitiously by Poland,
crossed into the eastern province of Czechoslovakia, or the Carpatho-Ukraine, which they demanded.
Hitler, having arrived in Prague, proclaimed a German Protectorate over Czechoslovakia, which was thereby
incorporated in the Reich.
...
The Poles had gained Teschen by their shameful attitude towards the liquidation of the Czechoslovak State.
They were soon to pay their own forfeits. On March 21, when Ribbentrop saw M. Lipski, the Polish Ambassador in
Berlin, he adopted a sharper tone than in previous discussions. The occupation of Bohemia and the creation of
satellite Slovakia brought the German Army to the southern frontiers of Poland. Lipski told Ribbentrop that the
Polish man-in-the-street could not understand why the Reich had assumed the protection of Slovakia, that
protection being directed against Poland. He also inquired about the recent conversations between Ribbentrop
and the Lithuanian Foreign Minister. Did they affect Memel? He received his answer two days later (March 23).
German troops occupied Memel.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

Be wary of listening to Putin's version of history.

I did my own reading on this topic more than 20 years ago, when it was brought to my attention by Lithuanian friends.

According to historian Paul N. Hehn, Poland’s annexation of Teschen may have contributed to the British and French reluctance to attack the Germans with greater forces in September 1939.
A Low, Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe, and the Economic Origins of World War II, 1930-1941.

Daladier, the French Prime Minister, told the US ambassador to France that: "he hoped to live long enough to pay Poland for her cormorant attitude in the present crisis by proposing a new partition."

The Soviet Prime Minister, Molotov, denounced the Poles as "Hitler's jackals".

 

[Remorseless1]

Don't forget that when Germany entered Sudetenland, Poland also grabbed part of Sudetenland for themselves in 1938 because they "cared" about the Polish population there.
View attachment 687821

Český Těšín - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to Churchill's memoirs, that delayed the Allies coming to Poland's aid by at least a month, by which time Germany had pretty well blitzed them.

Is that why the USSR invaded Poland at the same time as Nazi Germany? Or was it that the Russians had a treaty with the fascists?

Regardless, the Russians did murder 200,000 Polish military officers after the Soviets and the Nazis had carved up the Poles.

Ah, the loving embrace of the Russian bear

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

Is that why the USSR invaded Poland at the same time as Nazi Germany? Or was it that the Russians had a treaty with the fascists?

Regardless, the Russians did murder 200,000 Polish military officers after the Soviets and the Nazis had carved up the Poles.

Ah, the loving embrace of the Russian bear

Read the book by Paul N. Hehn (Prof. at various American universities) I cited, and come to your own conclusions.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Russia cares about the Russians in the Donbass... just as the German government cared about the Germans in the Sudetenland and Poland in 1938 and 1939. In both cases, if the motivation were truly benevolent, easy paths to immigration could have been arranged, or perhaps foreign investment to boost the economies of those areas. Instead, both Germany and Russia militarily invaded their neighbors.

The reason that other countries turned against Germany in the 1930s and Russia in the 2020s was not that they didn't think there were ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland or ethnic Russians in the Donbass. It was the aggressive and destructive methods by which the German and Russian governments pursued territorial expansion and the obliteration of regimes that wouldn't agree to be their puppets, merely using the excuse of "protecting minorities" as a thin excuse for the initial stages of aggression.

One would presume this [bolded] to be the obvious answer.
However I think this goes back to a resentment that national borders were not drawn to the liking of the party which felt aggrieved. Whether that be Russia after the Cold War or Germany in the early 20th century. For either power to feel the need to accept ethnic/language groups from foreign countries back into their country would be (I imagine to them) perceived as a sort-of insult and a further concession by them of an earlier loss. To which I would say, frankly: well, get over it...
In a previous topic about the Ukraine War, I do distinctly remember asking red_elk about the very point you mention [bolded] and was told, by him, that that would be tantamount to "ethnic cleansing" of Russians in Donbas. (The voluntary departure of Russians from Ukraine, mind you!) A position I find hard to comprehend, given that the remedy was then to displace so many Ukrainians by military force.

 

[ConquestsMaster]

Every time I think the quality of trolling can't get worse I'm surprised.
Here in a thread about NATO and Russia, we have Comrade Ceasefire employing whataboutism (as usual) to normalize Nazi Germany's behavior.
And it's not even original. He echoes the same propaganda talking points made by Putin in his interview with Carlson.
Everyone who knows about WW2 knows that Poland seized that one Czechoslovak city. What point is ComradeCeasefire trying to make?

There are two objectives with this type of trolling. To distract from the main subject of conversation. And, when that main subject is discussed again, to try to make people accept that every country is just as sh*tty as Russia (or Nazi Germany) and thus that any criticism is pointless.

Moderator Action: Accusing someone of trolling is considered trolling itself. The_J

 

[banzay13]

The voluntary departure of Russians from Ukraine, mind you!

Beside, name me cites, that Ukrainians found in Donbass region, I can mention, we see such voluntary two year ago in Artzah. Do you really think, all those Armenians flee voluntary?!

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I'm not well versed enough in my Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, although I'd like to be; that part of the world does interest me greatly as it is not thought about very much either in the US or Europe. So I can't really comment now.

Don't forget that when Germany entered Sudetenland, Poland also grabbed part of Sudetenland for themselves in 1938 because they "cared" about the Polish population there.

So?
To my knowledge, the Poles in their annexation of that part of Czechoslovakia (unjust though it was) nonetheless had no intention to fight Germany or Prague over it. At least I never heard that they did. Unlike Russia trying to take down the whole Kiev government and knock off its president because of some squabble in Donbass.