• paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    What military aggression?

    Russia fighting a devastating war in Chechnya. Russia occupying and trying to annex Transnistria. Russia fighting a war in Georgia in order to annex South Ossetia. Russia fighting a second war of annihilation in Chechnya. Russia annexing Crimea. Russia fighting a war in an attempt to annex all of Ukraine.

    Do you think this doesn’t constitute military aggression?

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I will not deny that Russia is an aggressive nation, and I was not aware of some of those things, like the war of aggression with Georgia. Thank you for sharing some examples. Also, holy shit Putin is more scum than I thought. However, these acts of aggression by Russia don’t appear to me as reasons for NATO to exist beyond the collapse of the USSR.

      How are these acts of aggression towards the west in a manner that justifies the continued existence of NATO?

      • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Let me ask you the opposite question: what do all of those nations on that list (and really, it’s only a partial list because it doesn’t even feature Russian aggression on the Asian continent, in the Middle East and in Africa) have in common?

        Is it possible that the commonality is that not a single one of them is part of a large military alliance capable of stopping Russian aggression?

        And, to take this one step further: why do you think that, in the last two decades, Russia has never messed with Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania - even though it has repeatedly claimed that they should be part of Russia?

        Is it possible that NATO membership of those three, very small nations is all that has prevented Russia from treating them like Transnistria or Crimea or South Ossetia or Chechnya?

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Those are all excellent questions, and unfortunately I don’t know all the answers. I’ll try to answer what I can despite their loaded nature, and say when I don’t know.

          1. There are a few different commonalities; they generally identify as slavs (with exceptions, especially in the middle east like Kazakhstan), most former USSR states are member states of the CIS, almost all nations have people within them that identify as ethnic Russian, and naturally most share borders with Russia.
          2. That’s a good point, most former Soviet states don’t have a modernized military and likely wouldn’t be capable of withstanding a Russian invasion, however I think it’s worth pointing out that the majority of the West also thought Ukraine would fall during the initial invasion. Generally, I don’t think I understand your point here and I’m genuinely interested in the reasons you brought this up.
          3. Honestly, I have no idea why the northern Slavic nations haven’t seen more aggression from Russia. It’s possible that the Kremlin doesn’t see them as valuable, though they have seen some disinformation campaigns and political propaganda via proximity to Russia and Belarus.
          4. I don’t think NATO has been a deterrent, but it’s possible that I’m wrong. I think it’s worth pointing out that an excuse for Russia invading Ukraine was explicitly NATO trying to expand into Ukraine. They didn’t have much interest in doing so either, until after the initial invasion saw Ukraine still standing.