|
steinrokkan posted:NATO was no more an anti-Russian coalition post-Cold War (well, until Russia gave them a reason to change their focus) I guess we're arguing chicken-and-egg then. Russia didn't begin their foreign policy adventures until after NATO expanded. And I really don't agree with the EU analogy. What started as a coal and steel bloc was explicitly changed into something else with the EEC, then explicitly changed again with Maastricht. What treaties were signed officially changing NATO into something other than an anti-Soviet alliance? Why wouldn't Russia feel threatened by an expanding NATO? If NATO is merely a project of European integration now, why is America still involved?
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
bit of a hostile reaction to the suggestion that people like azov battalion nazis shouldnt get more guns, which is probably why european countries are intervening. seems like to me there are some parties in the US foreign policy who want these weapons on the border, and i doubt its to secure peaceful relations between ukraine and luhansk-donetsk going forward
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Specifically when Mr. lollontee refers to "Communist Militias", he refers to the movement to which the Luhansk and Donetsk leaders, such as late Alexander Zakharchenko are most often affiliated, which is the National Bolshevik Party, better known as Nazbols. Which is literally Nazis with Soviet insignia (because for them Soviet symbolism is the equivalent of Imperial German symbolism for the original Nazis).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Specifically when Mr. lollontee refers to "Communist Militias", he refers to the movement to which the Luhansk and Donetsk leaders, such as late Alexander Zakharchenko are most often affiliated, which is the National Bolshevik Party, better known as Nazbols. Which is literally Nazis with Soviet insignia (because for them Soviet symbolism is the equivalent of Imperial German symbolism for the original Nazis). Prizrak Brigade isnt associated with nazbols, and youre lying
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
What's the Russian unit that had the puppy-murdering nazi?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
TipTow posted:I guess we're arguing chicken-and-egg then. Russia didn't begin their foreign policy adventures until after NATO expanded. Well, if NATO hadn't expanded, then Russia would be screaming about EU expansion. Both the NATO and the EU expanded eastward, one goes hand in hand with the other, despite different clauses in formal treaties both are the same in terms of effectively providing real world collective security, they aren't really separable, precisely because the NATO focus has changed so much (on more generally representing the military arm of European and American global influence, for better or worse) since the fall of the Soviet Union. quote:And I really don't agree with the EU analogy. What started as a coal and steel bloc was explicitly changed into something else with the EEC, then explicitly changed again with Maastricht. What treaties were signed officially changing NATO into something other than an anti-Soviet alliance? Why wouldn't Russia feel threatened by an expanding NATO? If NATO is merely a project of European integration now, why is America still involved? But what has demonstrably, materially changed is the physical capabilities of NATO in Europe, the massive scaling down of all the military resources that could be used to attack Russia. Europe gave up most of its military bulk to focus on light rapid response forces reinforced by painted-broomhandle-wielding infantry. Which is a definitive argument that yes, the mission and scope of NATO involvement has changed parallel with the changes ongoing in European politics and priorities more generally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:29
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Prizrak Brigade isnt associated with nazbols, and youre lying Interesting they serve nazbols then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Interesting they serve nazbols then. you realise the nazbols are anti-putin nationalists, right? that they do not actually serve the interests of the russian state, which is why they keep getting thrown in jail and getting their parties banned?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:35
|
|
|
its hard for me to see the organizational link between an international revolutionary socialist infantry brigade, and the national bolshevik party of russia, so could you steinrokkan expand a bit what you meant by that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
In lighter(?) non-news: https://twitter.com/Mortis_Banned/status/1484250486677123087
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
GABA ghoul posted:Yes, Ukraine, a country of 40 million people with an airforce and thousands of armed vehicles needs western arms to take over two cities run by gangsters. Those cities full of gangsters pretty soundly defeated the Ukrainian army with the help of some over border gangster exchange.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
While battalion do I choose if I want to be with Janus Putkonen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, if NATO hadn't expanded, then Russia would be screaming about EU expansion. Both the NATO and the EU expanded eastward, one goes hand in hand with the other I don't think this is true. Why do they go hand in hand? There's overlap in membership of course, but if what you said is true why did the UK leave the EU but not NATO? steinrokkan posted:No treaties were signed, but NATO isn't a political union, it's a military alliance, and as such its function is subservient to the political designs of its members. It can't be taken separately. If the focus of NATO members shifts from Russia, it de fact means the focus of NATO shifts from Russia. Yes, sure, but I'm still trying to figure out why it's unreasonable for Russia to perceive a threat from a military alliance that at least had been anti-Soviet that is expanding toward them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
^^^ They can feel whatevwr they want about NATO fo course, but how does that justify annexing territory from Ukraine? Why don't they invade Poland or something if they're so mad at NATO. barbecue at the folks posted:There have been good new books coming out recently in Finland on the White and Red Terror before and after the jaeger landing that ultimately decided the conflict - things got real bloody and complicated, as they tend to do in such conflicts. However, this is the only recent book I could find for an international audience, as far as I know - at least it looks like a good one: https://brill.com/view/title/22853?language=en You might be able to snag it from a university library near you, for example, I guess? (I'm assuming you don't read Finnish.) I feel kinda bad now after realizing I'm unable to point towards anything else than the most general accounts or Wikipedia, egg on my face, I guess! This one? http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=A2917ACC9888E73B547B580E941F48CB  I'll definitely check it out once I'm done reading about the formation of Uzbekistan 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Where did you get the idea that they are communists? E: These guys with imperial flags? Yeah, they are 100% communists. 
Paladinus fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
lollontee posted:Prizrak Brigade isnt associated with nazbols, and youre lying бригада Призрак was (is? idk if they are still around in some form) politically quite broad, uniting all sorts of differently-aligned units under one umbrella. there were a few communist (or supposedly-communist, seeing who they chose to share a brigade with) units; there were also fine gentlemen like ДШРГ Русич - a bunch of actual, honest-to-god russian ultra-nationalists. if you read russian (or can use google translate), you can read an interview with one of their people here
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
This is peak communism, actually. If you don't know Russian, let me know, I can translate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
That's clearly an economically anxious comrade who we should ally with to own the libs
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:They can feel whatevwr they want about NATO fo course, but how does that justify annexing territory from Ukraine? Why don't they invade Poland or something if they're so mad at NATO. It "justifies" it because if a state feels threatened it will do what is necessary to neutralize the threat. And your rhetorical question is a little weird, as 1) why would Russia want to provoke a hot conflict with NATO, since that's one thing they're hoping to avoid by keeping NATO away from its borders, and 2) I'm no expert on military strategy but invading Poland from Kaliningrad seems like it'd be a little difficult to pull off. And I want to be clear here, I am in no way in favor of Russia unilaterally invading and annexing any part of Ukraine. I just think there's a bit more nuance to this crisis than "bloodthirsty Putin wants to be Czar of All the Russias." All behaviors have antecedents, and the West is not blameless in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Somaen posted:The democratic republic I had in mind was the one the USSR made up as a pretext to start the winter war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Democratic_Republic At the end of the civil war, a lot of the reds including most of the leadership fled into the Soviet Union. The people who were placed in charge of the puppet government were some of the few survivors of those refugees. They had near-zero buy-in from Finnish communists largely because of how most Finnish communists at the time viewed Stalin as the arch-devil. This had a lot to do with how despite the fact that after the war the whites set up literal concentration camps for the red prisoners and basically killed them for sport, somehow Stalin managed to end up killing more Finnish communists than the whites ever did. (This was because the Finnish reds in exile were understandably very interested in taking the fight back to Finland, and so in the "communism-in-one-country" vs "world-revolution-now" debate they all sided with Trotsky. Which was, er, a bad long-term career move in the Soviet Union.) Otto Wille Kuusinen, the guy who Stalin installed as the head of the Terijoki government, managed to survive the purges by betraying, informing on and helping to condemn hundreds of other leading Finnish reds, including his own wife. It's hard to describe how tone-deaf this choice was. Among Finnish communists, the fascists or the capitalists might be the opponent, but OWK was the enemy. Pretty much everyone notable could name a friend, colleague or family member who he had helped to murder. His choice alone probably did more than anything else to help forge Finnish national unity during the winter war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
TipTow posted:It "justifies" it because if a state feels threatened it will do what is necessary to neutralize the threat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:09
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, if NATO hadn't expanded, then Russia would be screaming about EU expansion. Both the NATO and the EU expanded eastward, one goes hand in hand with the other, despite different clauses in formal treaties both are the same in terms of effectively providing real world Obviously Russia made itself important enough to care about again, in a negative fashion, but NATO (as a whole) would have been perfectly happy to just gently caress up in the Middle East if Russia didn't make itself the priority.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:13
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:Well, many countries joined NATO because after their recent experiences with Russia or USSR, they felt threatened by Russia. That's right! I understand why, for example, the Baltic states would've wanted to join NATO. But surely it's obvious to see see how three states on Russia's border joining a military alliance with the United States would be seen as threatening to Russia?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
lollontee posted:yet another imperial war against russia
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
TipTow posted:I don't think this is true. Why do they go hand in hand? There's overlap in membership of course, but if what you said is true why did the UK leave the EU but not NATO? quote:Yes, sure, but I'm still trying to figure out why it's unreasonable for Russia to perceive a threat from a military alliance that at least had been anti-Soviet that is expanding toward them. What's the statute of limitations on that? Is the UK still training its nukes on Paris in case of zombie Napoleon? Maybe the real issue is with Putin refusing to acknowledge Russia is Russia and not the USSR, and using the history of Cold War as a convenient argument in incensing nationalist sentiments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
TipTow posted:That's right! I understand why, for example, the Baltic states would've wanted to join NATO. But surely it's obvious to see see how three states on Russia's border joining a military alliance with the United States would be seen as threatening to Russia? No. Russia could also just gently caress off from these three states entirely and everything would be just fine. It's literally about keeping their sphere of influence. The only one threatening for the last few decades (including invading countries, shooting down civilian airplanes, etc.) was Russia. e: also Xarn posted:As someone living in EE, please gently caress off and ideally also die. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Terminally Bored fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
TipTow posted:This I will disagree with. NATO was about defending the Western Bloc against the Eastern. What real purpose did/does NATO serve after the end of the Cold War? It was the End of History, right? But because NATO--which, again, was an explicitly anti-Soviet alliance--expanded into Easter Europe, it seems pretty easy to understand why Russia, the official successor state to the USSR, would feel threatened. Whether or not the Baltics, Poland et al. wanted to be in NATO or not is irrelevant; the anti-Russia military alliance expanded toward Russia, and Russia has acted to counter NATO's encroachment since. Russia has been provoked, whether it was deliberate or incidental doesn't matter. As someone living in EE, please gently caress off and ideally also die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I mean, I'd argue that NATO is essentially just one branch of the American Empire, but the success of NATO (in Europe) is that the client states have joined voluntarily for all the reasons you mention and more. It was anti-Soviet, but when the USSR fell it was just repurposed into being a way to continue to prop up the American MIC and extend/maintain American influence in Europe. For sure the people of Eastern Europe wanted to join because they knew what Russia was/is, but I feel like Russia assumed it had a far greater presence in the minds of western politicians than it actually does, and thus concluded that this was a deliberately anti-Russia ploy. Sort of like how the UK thinks it's still a great empire that people pay attention to, and thinks everything the EU does is a snub against it, when in reality they're just not important enough to care about. Yes, I agree with that, the US is obviously the elephant in the room when it comes to NATO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
TipTow posted:That's right! I understand why, for example, the Baltic states would've wanted to join NATO. But surely it's obvious to see see how three states on Russia's border joining a military alliance with the United States would be seen as threatening to Russia? It also happened two decades ago. Why is it an issue now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
TipTow posted:I just think there's a bit more nuance to this crisis than "bloodthirsty Putin wants to be Czar of All the Russias." All behaviors have antecedents, and the West is not blameless in this situation. What makes you think people don't? Here were discussing what is materially significant for us today, affecting our friends and families. We can't fit all historical nuance into our conversations and it doesn't matter, otherwise we can go back to Russian anxiety of being invaded by Napoleon, the Poles and all the way back to the golden horde. The nuance of Russia being scared of A B C isn't more significant than eastern euro states feeling threatened by Russia and joining NATO. It makes sense to discuss where do we go from here but it requires acknowledging that Russia is ruled by a guy that has been invading countries and sending death squads to take out his enemies in other countries for the past two decades and we definitely don't need to consider his feelings at this point quote:Finnish history Somaen fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jan 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:lol, I'm incredibly curious to hear what goals this hypothetical "imperial war against Russia" is supposed to have and who exactly is trying to start it Need to be careful or evil NATO might turn Russia into a keptocratic market economy or something 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:This is peak communism, actually. Uh, that's actually a wheel of sickles, totally legitimate Communist symbol
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
nurmie posted:бригада Призрак was (is? idk if they are still around in some form) politically quite broad, uniting all sorts of differently-aligned units under one umbrella. there were a few communist (or supposedly-communist, seeing who they chose to share a brigade with) units; there were also fine gentlemen like ДШРГ Русич - a bunch of actual, honest-to-god russian ultra-nationalists. if you read russian (or can use google translate), you can read an interview with one of their people here i recall that a bunch of ultranationalist elements joined and later left the Prizrak after they turned out to be too socialist for their liking, but i cant find anything on this "Rusich" platoon so i cant really comment on them specifically. Paladinus posted:This is peak communism, actually. whos he and why are you linking it here? bit of context on your random burns helps the victim along in understanding whatever it is theyre supposed to feel ashamed about
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Actually I changed my mind. Russia annexing Ukraine is a provocation of the glorious Czechia and we should start making nukes to be safe. And if they try to annex more territories, NUKE THEM. This makes perfect sense according to the great poster TipTow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
lollontee posted:whos he and why are you linking it here? bit of context on your random burns helps the victim along in understanding whatever it is theyre supposed to feel ashamed about *in response to a picture of a Waffen SS soldier with full insignia* "So ONE SS guy wore the double lightning symbol, what am I supposed to conclude from this random personal attack against me???"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
lollontee posted:i recall that a bunch of ultranationalist elements joined and later left the Prizrak after they turned out to be too socialist for their liking, but i cant find anything on this "Rusich" brigade so i cant really comment on them specifically. Oh, so you just recall things, not concretely know them? And you don't know who Rusich are or anything like that? But you still decided that it would be perfectly fine to call Prizrak a communist brigate? Why is that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yes, I agree with that, the US is obviously the elephant in the room when it comes to NATO. Some common ground, this is kinda central to my "Russia feeling threatened by NATO" position. And I appreciate your reasoned discussion with me steinrokkan, as opposed to the two! posters who wish death on me for trying to discuss a pretty complicated situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Oh, so you just recall things, not concretely know them? And you don't know who Rusich are or anything like that? But you still decided that it would be perfectly fine to call Prizrak a communist brigate? Why is that? Don't worry, he, as somebody who read a reddit post once, or maybe it was a post about house decor, not sure, is infinitely more qualified to know things in his gut.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Arzachel posted:It also happened two decades ago. Why is it an issue now? The Baltics were annexed six decades prior to joining NATO. Why was it an issue in 2004?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
TipTow posted:Some common ground, this is kinda central to my "Russia feeling threatened by NATO" position. The NATO security guarantee wouldn't be worth much without the US providing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2022 16:30
|
|
