It could only be considered an offensive organisation if it’s goal was to united smaller nations to attack Russia, which in its 73 year existence it hasn’t done.If NATO's goal was to unite small nations against Russia, then it is by definition an offensive organisation, and cannot claim that it's actions are defensive. Ergo, Russia's response is legitimate as an offensive force has progressively migrated towards it borders a reaction was inevitable.
My opinion is that NATO was never intended to be an offensive organisation. But it's use by Western powers to recruit smaller Eastern European nations for political purposes has transformed it into one, and that has certainly been the interpretation from Russia.
What was the US' reaction during the Cuban missile crisis when Russia wanted to shift defensive position's to America's backyard? The rhetoric at the time was that this was an offensive action - the same interpretation is applied here.
I agree, Ukraine does have a right to sovereignty, self-government and self-determination. But that also means that a nation must be ready to deal with the ramifications & repercussions of those decisions.
The decision to join NATO may have been made in the context of some implicit or explicit guarantee of Western military support, whilst Russia was bellowing threats about lines not being crossed. The Ukrainian government made a decision, and this is the consequence.
No country lives in a vacuum. There is no right or wrong here. Just actions & reactions.
Yes, the suffering of refugees cannot be ignored - it is what makes war so terrible when innocent people have their lives destroyed. But I think that they will fare better than their compatriots who were victims of NATO-assisted wars in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan & Iraq.
A rose-tinted view of what NATO does, obviously published by NATO.
Of course NATO will argue for its existence - it'd be foolish to think that they wouldn't. But to then believe their arguments that operations in Afghanistan and Libya were successful and beneficial to the local population? Please...
More to the point, none of this addresses Putin's main issue - which is the persistent, east-ward expansion of NATO since 1999. Not 2008, or 2014.
In fact, Russia's security concerns have been communicated for much longer as described by NATO's own website:
These concerns have been present for much longer than what is currently being portrayed. And if it were mentioned in private discussions in 1997, then it would have been again both privately & publicly for many years after.
Framing the war as a recent escalation of events is disingenuous and frankly, propaganda.
You mentioned Russia has its right to sovereignty but what about Ukraines right to Sovereignty...
You might not want to believe that the Russian people’s standard of living will be affected, but what about the Ukrainian People? What crimes have they committed against Russia to justify the Invasion?
If that's a rose tinted view, yours is a Putin tinted view. You have given no evidence to your theory, only Putin double speak.
NATO was formed after WWII to stop another war from aggression of a nation against others, designed as a treaty to combine the defences of all signatories so that if an aggressive nation attacks one country they attack all. It is a protection against bullying nations.
It is sad that this history has not been taught in all schools.
Only 14 articles long, the Treaty is one of the shortest documents of its kind. The carefully crafted articles were the subject of several months of discussion and negotiations before the Treaty was actually signed.However, once Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States had discussed these issues, they agreed on a document that would establish the North Atlantic Alliance.On 4 April 1949, the 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty at the Departmental Auditorium in Washington D.C., the city which lends its name to the Treaty.The Treaty committed each member to share the risk, responsibilities and benefits of collective defence – a concept at the very heart of the Alliance. In 1949, the primary aim of the Treaty was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent. The Treaty also required members not to enter into any international commitments that conflicted with the Treaty and committed them to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations (UN). Moreover, it stated that NATO members formed a unique community of values committed to the principles of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.In addition to collective defence and key values, the principle of consensus decision-making and the importance of consultation define the spirit of the Organization, together with its defensive nature and its flexibility.The signing of the Treaty led to the creation of the Alliance and, only later, did a fully-fledged organisation develop. Strictly speaking, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provides the structure which enables the goals of the Alliance to be implemented. To date, those goals have not fundamentally changed nor the Treaty been rewritten. The only so-called “amendments” made so far stem from the series of accession protocols which have been added as new members join, illustrating the foresight of its drafters and their ability to marry international concerns and objectives with national interests.
I can see that being an initial response but perhaps not the long term one.The reality is there are several countries who will want what Russia are selling and will align themselves to hey access to them. Trade will continue, as it has always.
John, you've outlined in your post that NATO existed to combat the USSR. The USSR collapsed in 1991. So what exactly was NATO defending against after 1991?
Hard to know what's propaganda vs fact with these articles. But we know Russia spends around 1/10 what the US does on it's military. So that lack of spending must also show up somewhere other than old rations. Missiles aren't cheap. Firing a few dozen a day for 10 days or so would eat up a lot of $. A few downed helicopters and jets at $50 million a pop maybe?Ukraine war: Russia's corruption is 'no doubt' affecting its military's combat performance
Russia has suffered significant logistical and strategic issues, but videos and photos on social media of captured equipment show poor maintenance and quality.www.foxnews.com
As a concept I'm quite strongly against war.Are we that righteous, that we are really pushing for this without exhausting every option?
Hard to know what's propaganda vs fact with these articles. But we know Russia spends around 1/10 what the US does on it's military. So that lack of spending must also show up somewhere other than old rations. Missiles aren't cheap. Firing a few dozen a day for 10 days or so would eat up a lot of $. A few downed helicopters and jets at $50 million a pop maybe?
Wonder when both sides will just simply run out of heavy weapons.
That's just it. What's the west willing to suffer to avoid deaths?It would mean some pain for the rest of the world but if we got serious with the sanctions, rather than continuing to send Russia ~1 billion USD per day for oil and gas, then that might eventually work?
That's just it. What's the west willing to suffer to avoid deaths?
Not much I'm guessing.
It all seems very manufactured. No problem with Putin getting taken out internally.
But something feels very off with this all.
The other thing is the question of why the US and Europe are really involved and how this thing really started. This goes a lot deeper than dropping "freedom bombs". Because it seems like a great way to grind down the Russian economy and deplete the military by proxy.
I've got no love for the Russian government. But I'm not blind to the fact we have sneaky arse western governments that are totally devoid of honesty.
LIVE UPDATES: Biden admin supports NATO sending jets to Ukraine while calls intensify for the US to do more
NATO countries have 'green light' to send fighter jets to Ukraine, Blinken says
NATO members have a "green light" to send fighter jets as part of their military aid to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Sunday.www.foxnews.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?