You might be technically correct but the distinction largely does not matter in terms of the West taking a hard line against military aggression in Eastern Europe.
This doesn't make any sense. What military aggression?
Edit: aside from this ongoing war in the Ukraine, of which Russia is obviously the aggressor towards another former Soviet state (i.e. not towards the west)
I thought you were being intentionally obtuse but I see what you mean. Ukraine might not be a NATO member (yet), but that doesn't mean that NATO wants Russia grabbing land from democracies that act as a buffer between them and Russia.
I'll be entirely honest, I don't think NATO will accept the Ukraine at all. I think NATO saw an opportunity to fuel a proxy war against Russia, and after they win the Ukraine will receive some aid and be left to their own devices. There's nothing about the situation that leads me to believe anything else other than NATO using the war as an excuse to further their imperial interests. Right now the excuse is the war. When the war is over, there will be a different excuse; perhaps it will be "not until the country is rebuilt".
'the ukraine' was dropped over 30 years ago. Nato Imperialism? i see you.
I don't know what you mean. I use 'ukraine' and 'the ukraine' interchangeably for better sentence flow. That's like getting upset over someone saying 'the us'.
Yea, i dont believe you at all since you also go with Nato Imperialism and ignored that.
“Ukraine is a country,” says William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. “The Ukraine is the way the Russians referred to that part of the country during Soviet times … Now that it is a country, a nation, and a recognized state, it is just Ukraine. And it is incorrect to refer to the Ukraine, even though a lot of people do it.”
I see you.
I actually didn't know that. I'd never even heard of that before. I chose to not acknowledge you mentioning my mention of NATO imperialism because I had no clue by what you meant. NATO and the imperial core are basically the same thing. If you're trying to pretend that the military aid given to Ukraine isn't imperialist power, then I don't know what to say.
By 'I see you', do you mean that I'm a leftist? Because, well, yea. I was attracted to lemmy the moment I learned about it because of leftist principles like the anarchical nature of the fediverse and the rejection of private property through FOSS.
Probably shouldn't have any strong opinions on any subject in this thread if you don't even know the basic language of the issue. This is called being a know-nothing.
I wasn't aware that I needed to know all of the language politics to talk about an issue. I'm well aware of the situation. Using a phrase I didn't know was contentious doesn't mean I don't know anything.
If you're being honest here you should know that the way you are speaking about these topics is very Russocentric. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but it makes me wonder about your news diet. I understand why people think you might be acting in bad faith.
I appreciate your good faith approach. I can see how what I'm saying could be seen that way, and I wish more people would approach these conversations the way you did instead of how the other folks below have so they could get the perspective.
To use good guy bad guy terms, Russia is the bad guy in this war. The good guys are the Ukrainians. However, that doesn't mean NATO supplying the good guys also makes them the good guys; it's a convergence of interests. I'm trying to get people to stop seeing Russia as the continuation of the USSR, because they aren't. The USSR no longer exists, and the Russian Federation is a different country with a different economy and different interests. Trying to conflate them is like apples and oranges: it can be done, but it's not helpful.
Now you know. Be serious or stay quiet.
Pedantry over the use of the word "the" is the most bullshit, liberal shit I think I've seen all week. Are you being serious? We need to start referring to this country as United States because it doesn't belong to anyone, right? Should we ditch that old method of referring to the Puerto Rico which implied it was independent? What use is the word 'the' if English articles are policed in the manner you're trying to do?
You should probably just have stayed in school and maybe you'd have covered this.
Idiotic take. Saying the Ukraine is to refer to Ukraine as a territory of Russia.
It isn't a territory. It is a country. The name of that country is Ukraine.
You don't say the Mexico or the Canada.
The name of the US is "United States of America". Note the lack of the word "the". Should we start referring to Puerto Rico as "the Puerto Rico" or to Guam as "the Guam" if the most used word in the English language denotes possession?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Uhhh, Crimea, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Africa.
They don't attack the west directly, they attack western interests and proxies.
None of those are attacks on the West, and if you recall there's been far more violence and imperialism imposed on Africa and Afghanistan by the global north.
You're shifting the goalpoast. The comment above you said the west is drawing a line in regards to military violence upon Eastern Europe. All of Eastern Europe are old Soviet states so mentioning that is not at all a refutal of their statement.
I didn't shift anything. I want to know what military aggression they're talking about, because otherwise it just comes off as the ethnocentric and uninformed stereotype of "slavs are violent".
You might be technically correct but the distinction largely does not matter in terms of the West taking a hard line against military aggression in Eastern Europe.
This doesn't make any sense. What military aggression?
Edit: aside from this ongoing war in the Ukraine, of which Russia is obviously the aggressor towards another former Soviet state (i.e. not towards the west)
I thought you were being intentionally obtuse but I see what you mean. Ukraine might not be a NATO member (yet), but that doesn't mean that NATO wants Russia grabbing land from democracies that act as a buffer between them and Russia.
I'll be entirely honest, I don't think NATO will accept the Ukraine at all. I think NATO saw an opportunity to fuel a proxy war against Russia, and after they win the Ukraine will receive some aid and be left to their own devices. There's nothing about the situation that leads me to believe anything else other than NATO using the war as an excuse to further their imperial interests. Right now the excuse is the war. When the war is over, there will be a different excuse; perhaps it will be "not until the country is rebuilt".
'the ukraine' was dropped over 30 years ago. Nato Imperialism? i see you.
I don't know what you mean. I use 'ukraine' and 'the ukraine' interchangeably for better sentence flow. That's like getting upset over someone saying 'the us'.
Yea, i dont believe you at all since you also go with Nato Imperialism and ignored that.
I see you.
I actually didn't know that. I'd never even heard of that before. I chose to not acknowledge you mentioning my mention of NATO imperialism because I had no clue by what you meant. NATO and the imperial core are basically the same thing. If you're trying to pretend that the military aid given to Ukraine isn't imperialist power, then I don't know what to say.
By 'I see you', do you mean that I'm a leftist? Because, well, yea. I was attracted to lemmy the moment I learned about it because of leftist principles like the anarchical nature of the fediverse and the rejection of private property through FOSS.
Probably shouldn't have any strong opinions on any subject in this thread if you don't even know the basic language of the issue. This is called being a know-nothing.
I wasn't aware that I needed to know all of the language politics to talk about an issue. I'm well aware of the situation. Using a phrase I didn't know was contentious doesn't mean I don't know anything.
If you're being honest here you should know that the way you are speaking about these topics is very Russocentric. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but it makes me wonder about your news diet. I understand why people think you might be acting in bad faith.
I appreciate your good faith approach. I can see how what I'm saying could be seen that way, and I wish more people would approach these conversations the way you did instead of how the other folks below have so they could get the perspective.
To use good guy bad guy terms, Russia is the bad guy in this war. The good guys are the Ukrainians. However, that doesn't mean NATO supplying the good guys also makes them the good guys; it's a convergence of interests. I'm trying to get people to stop seeing Russia as the continuation of the USSR, because they aren't. The USSR no longer exists, and the Russian Federation is a different country with a different economy and different interests. Trying to conflate them is like apples and oranges: it can be done, but it's not helpful.
Now you know. Be serious or stay quiet.
Pedantry over the use of the word "the" is the most bullshit, liberal shit I think I've seen all week. Are you being serious? We need to start referring to this country as United States because it doesn't belong to anyone, right? Should we ditch that old method of referring to the Puerto Rico which implied it was independent? What use is the word 'the' if English articles are policed in the manner you're trying to do?
You should probably just have stayed in school and maybe you'd have covered this.
Idiotic take. Saying the Ukraine is to refer to Ukraine as a territory of Russia.
It isn't a territory. It is a country. The name of that country is Ukraine.
You don't say the Mexico or the Canada.
The name of the US is "United States of America". Note the lack of the word "the". Should we start referring to Puerto Rico as "the Puerto Rico" or to Guam as "the Guam" if the most used word in the English language denotes possession?
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?
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?
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?
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.
Uhhh, Crimea, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Africa.
They don't attack the west directly, they attack western interests and proxies.
None of those are attacks on the West, and if you recall there's been far more violence and imperialism imposed on Africa and Afghanistan by the global north.
You're shifting the goalpoast. The comment above you said the west is drawing a line in regards to military violence upon Eastern Europe. All of Eastern Europe are old Soviet states so mentioning that is not at all a refutal of their statement.
I didn't shift anything. I want to know what military aggression they're talking about, because otherwise it just comes off as the ethnocentric and uninformed stereotype of "slavs are violent".
The war in Ukraine obviously.