this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
6 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
4881 readers
79 users here now
Europe
Rules:
- All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
- Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
- No personal attacks
- Posts in English, translations allowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're just regurgitating propaganda you've memorized instead of actually engaging with the article. Why would they bother spending the effort trying to annex or invade Europe when they can just exploit political instability resulting from the self inflicted harm that militarization will cause? The elephant in the room is that European economy is already suffering, and spending 5% of GDP on NATO is going to require massive austerity. Nationalist parties are already polling sky high across Europe, and this will only further drive their popularity. All these parties are perfectly happy to work with Russia and exist the EU.
So, why did they Annex Crimea and invade Ukraine?
I don't think Europe should be spending 5% of GDP on defence. That doesn't mean Russia is not a threat. You're saying that Russia is a threat, but from a intelligence and misinformation point of view. What makes you think much of the new spending won't be on that?
These questions have been answered in detail many time by plenty of people such as John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, and many others. Russia's annexation of Crimea was a direct response to the overthrow of the legitimate and democratically elected government by the west. The invasion of Ukraine was a response to NATO provocation. The fact that this was a provocation wasn't even hidden. It was openly discussed in mainstream US media and by US think tanks. A couple of examples for you here
In fact, entire books have been written on the subject detailing the history of the provocations that led to the conflict.
What I'm actually saying is that Europe is creating internal political instability and popular revolt against the neoliberal regime through its austerity policies. Meanwhile, Europe's own actions are the reason for the adversarial relationship with Russia. Russia will obviously continue to see Europe as a threat given Europe's openly hostile stance towards Russia, and therefore has every incentive to destabilize Europe in every way possible. Thus, European strategy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where the actions Europe is taking ensure an adversarial relationship with Russia while destroying the foundation of economic stability that allows current political system to function.
Lol, so NATO provoking Russia is saying that Ukraine could enter at some point. Russia invaded them as in the future, they may not be able to invade them?!
At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn't want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.
Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.
NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders since the 90s. Don't take my word for it though, here it is from the former head of NATO:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm
I guess he must be spreading Ruzzian propaganda. 🤣
I literally linked you an article and a policy paper above showing the exact opposite. I love how you ignore the reference I provide you with and just keep spewing propaganda talking points.
Zelensky also jails his competition, and even cancelled elections. Yet, according to eurotrolls Ukraine is the pinnacle of democracy. I guess it's not just Ukraine nowadays, Romania cancelled elections when the wrong candidate won and jailed him. So, let's not pretend cancelling elections is something that doesn't happen in European "democracies".
I don't think Russia wants to "invade and control their neighbors when it wishes", but I also don't think the expansion of NATO justifies in any way the war Russia started.
And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.
Russia is playing into USA hands by behaving this way, imho. Just as much as Europe is.
Talking about justifications is just moralizing, and it's not constructive in nature. The question should be how different countries should behave to avoid conflict.
Meanwhile, the whole talk of NATO expanding is pure nonsense. NATO has been shown to be impotent in Ukraine, and the US is now actively pulling out of Europe. Without the US there is no NATO because Europe lacks industrial capacity to pick up the slack. Even with the US in NATO, Russian military industry is outproducing it by a large factor according to a no lesser person than Rutte:
All the NATO wunderwuffe failed to turn the tide of war in Ukraine, and now NATO stocks are running dry with no clear way to replace them because NATO is not capable of pumping weapons out at the rate they're consumed in Ukraine.
Not really, the most likely scenario here is that Russia and the US will make a deal over the heads of the Europeans. They've already reestablished diplomatic relations, and when it becomes clear that Russia won the war, the US will make the best of it by throwing Europe under the bus.
Then why do you moralize Europe's reaction? Or are you saying that you don't think wasting money in military is bad?
"Moralizing" just means "making judgments on whether it's good or bad".
Are you saying that we should not judge whether the decision to start a war was good / bad?
Can you explain what you mean by "this whole talk"? which talk? is this something I said?
I don't see how this challengues anything I said (if this was your intent).
"NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders" is something you said, not me. I was just following up from that.. I didn't say anything about the power of NATO in Ukraine.. you are making up your own straw man....
And you think this will not benefit the USA?
Europe also does deals with USA over the heads of the Russians.. this is not benefiting Russia either.
Point out where I make any moral arguments regarding Europe. What I'm actually saying that Europe is acting in an irrational and and self harmful way that's at odds with its own interests. The key is that strength is multifaceted, and it’s important to understand what type of strength is called for in any particular situation.
I'm saying that we need to consider the context that led to the decision to start the war, and talk about what could've been done differently to avoid the war.
I'm referring to you saying: "And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further."
I didn't say it wouldn't, but something benefiting the USA isn't contrary to it also benefiting Russia. It's not a zero sum game.
If by does deals you mean gets brutally exploited then sure. The US is now selling Europe energy at 5-10x times that Russia was charging, it's actively poaching European industry that can't survive on high energy prices, and it's insisting on Europe spending an astounding 5% of GDP to pay US military industrial complex.
Ah, and don't you think that's bad? ...or you just don't think that acting in a way that harms the population should be "moralized"?
Do you think Russia is in a better position now than after the war? I don't think Russia's attack on Ukraine was a rational response to NATO's expansion or beneficial to the Russians. If you don't like the word "justified" then you can think of it in those terms.
Ok, what should Russia have done differently to avoid the war? or is this exclusively Europe's responsibility? Is Russia like a wild animal that simply reacts mechanically, taking only reactionary action, even when the decision can hurt them more than it can benefit them?
Do you really think that NATO's expansion was such an existential threat for Russia that waging war was "rational"? Because a moment ago you were saying that "NATO expanding is pure nonsense", that it can't really keep up, etc. So was NATO a threat or not?
Yes I said that. Is it wrong? you mean the war has not triggered several countries to start having interest in joining NATO?
And this article is even about European members of NATO wanting to spend more in military... I think this is the opposite of what Russia wanted, which is why I find it ironic.
I didn't say it's a zero sum game. The fact that this whole thing is forcing everyone to make deals with the US is quite telling, imho.
Same for Europe, the deal was brutal, but the pressure was high due to the breaks with Russia. Losing European business was a hard blow for Russia too, and they are overall in a much worse position now, imho.
I'm not surprised at Europe's stupidity, but Russia is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, to put it mildly. Both Russia and Europe are best when they work together... and they will destroy themselves if they continue this way.
I've explicitly and repeatedly explained what I think. If you have trouble understanding what I wrote then please let me know what part of it you need explained to you further.
Absolutely, the World Bank just reclassified Russia as a high income country, and the IMF forecasts that Russian economy is set to grow faster than all the western economies. Russia has also demonstrated that it is able to take on NATO militarily, and given that it is winning the war, it will dictate the terms in Ukraine.
Furthermore, NATO is now in a state of complete chaos. There is infighting between Europeans internally, as well as growing ideological fractures across the Atlantic. It is not at all clear that NATO will survive the next few years. Don't take my word for it though, here's The Times describing the last NATO summit as Potemkin in nature.
Russia did try to avoid the war for 8 whole years. That's what the Minsk agreements were about. The ones top European leaders have now admitted were never intended to be implemented faithfully and were used to buy time to arm Ukraine.
Perhaps what Russia should have done differently was to not wait as long as they did to intervene in the ethnic cleansing that Ukraine was conducting in Donbas with western help.
I do think that, and plenty of western experts think that as well and have been warning about this since the 90s. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Yes it is wrong, and I've explained in detail why it's wrong already.
You seem to have this infantile notion that simply adding NATO members makes it stronger.
Russia isn't forced to make any deals with the US last I checked. It's the US that's trying to make deals with Russia right now, not the other way around.
It's not because it opened up domestic niches that are being filled by local businesses, and China was able to redirect its trade towards BRICS. For example, trade with China stands at over 200 bln now. And of course, Russian oil and gas revenues soared 41% in first half of the year, as the data shows
Russia is now largely insulated from the economic chaos in the west because it's mostly cut out of western economy. This alone is a huge benefit because it will insulate Russia from the economic crash that's unfolding in the west. Russia is still able to sell its commodities to the world, and it's no longer reliant on the western financial system to do that. It managed to strengthen relations with friendly countries. China in particular has become a strong ally for China, and its economy already surpasses the US in terms of PPP. It's also where pretty much all technology is produced.
Russia has other options and it has proven over past three years that it does not need Europe. Meanwhile, Europe cannot function without Russian energy.
Sorry, but if you truly don't think that decisions that lead to suffering should be "moralized", and you really think that it's "rational" and in the "own interests" of a country to wage war in order to grow the economy, then I think we simply disagree on what should be the goals of a society and where its interests should lie.
From the article you linked:
Chomsky even uses the word "unjustified". He's saying pretty much the same thing I said.
Note how what I was asking is whether NATO's expansion was a threat for Russia, not whether the expansion of NATO was a good decision. (or if you don't like the word "good" then... "rational and under our own self-interest").
I can perfectly agree with NATO's expansion being a "bad" (sorry... irrational / self-harming) decision by the West, but that wasn't what I asked.
hahaha... infantile? Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ the adult.
You seem to have the delusion that I was talking about "strength" when I said "expansion".
Is it true or is it false that the war has motivated NATO's expansion (ie.. adding members)? because that's all I said, ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
You're just putting words in my mouth at this point. What I said is that it's rational for a country to respond militarily to an aggressive military alliance surrounding it. Given that NATO would be able to place nukes in Ukraine that could hit Moscow under 5 minutes, it would be insane for Russia not to respond to that.
Nowhere did I suggest that Russia started the war to grow its economy. What I said, is that Russia managed to restructure its economy away from the west, and it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is.
Chomsky can use whatever words he likes, but the provocations are well documented. Again, as I've already explained to you repeatedly, talking about justifications is not constructive. You're back to doing moralizing here.
The question is how to avoid conflicts like this going forward. The argument about whether it's moral for Russia to start the war does the opposite of that because it implicitly ignores the role the west played in starting the conflict.
Since people in the west have little influence over Russian actions, it is the most productive to focus on what their own governments are doing. That should be obvious, yet here we are.
I love how you're trying to be clever here, but let's reason through this using your adult brain Ferk. Explain why would NATO expansion be a problem for Russia if the alliance isn't becoming stronger?
So you are saying that if there was a bordering country (let's say... Belarus.. for example) that decided to strike a military alliance with Russia (let's say they decide to call it "Union State Treaty"... or maybe for example "ODKB"), then do you really think this should be seen as a "provocation" and that it'd be a "rational" reaction for Europe to wage war?
I don't think war is the answer to a defense treaty. NATO was a defense treaty.. a weak one (by your own admission) without a lot of military investment, specially by Europe. I disagree that it was really a threat.. the same way that I would not have seen it as a threat if Russia started making some NATO-equivalent treaties with countries in the Europe-Russia border. If the roles were reversed and Ukraine joined a treaty with Russia, China and other big powers, I would be against Europe waging war. Would you not?
Ah, so the economic boom has nothing to do with the war? Because what I wanted to ask is whether the war caused self-harm or benefit.
In your last bit there it seems you are hinting that Russia was harmed by the war, even if it wasn't harmed "the way Europe is".
So.. which one is it? was the war a rational benefitial thing for Russia that resulted in them being better off? or was it an irrational self-harming thing (even if not "the way" it was for Europe)?
Chomsky is too. I believe that if you don't have morals in regards to which decisions are beneficial for a society then is when discussing these topics does become "not constructive".
I have no problem accepting the role of the West. I agree that NATO's expansion was a "morally bad" (irrational / self-harm) decision because it should have been the better person and realize earlier that Russia would end up behaving the way they did (irrationally).
My point is that Russia feeling entitled to wage a war was also "morally bad" (irrational / self-harm). I'm saying this because I feel that your comments imply that Russia was completely rational in waging war.
hahahaha thank you! I'll try to explain it clearly Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆! :D
Huh? That's not what I said.
My point is that NATO expansion was NOT a real threat/problem for Russia. That's why I think the attack was (to use Chomky's words): "unprovoked and unjustified".
I'm saying that when USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba we know what the reaction from the US was. This is not a hypothetical debate.
NATO is not a defense treaty. It's an aggressive organization that has been invading and destroying countries for decades now. Go read up on Yugoslavia and Libya as two examples. Meanwhile, the key member of NATO has been at a state of continues war all around the world.
It's entirely irrelevant what you think. What matters is how Russia perceives NATO. The fact of the matter is that NATO should have been disbanded when USSR dissolved. Yet, for some reason it was not. Then Russia offered to join NATO and create a joint security alliance on equal terms, but was rebuffed by NATO.
You keep trying to paint this as a neutral situation, but the facts are against you. NATO is the organization that has been expanding towards Russia despite giving guarantees to the contrary in the 90s.
Russia did not invade Ukraine for economic reasons. The economic boom is the result of Russian being much better at restructuring its economy than Europe.
Where was I hinting that?
The elephant in the room is that the west is not able to impose its morals on Russia. We can control what we do in the west, and the question becomes whether we should take actions that lead to war or to peace.
Avoiding a war requires empathy. The west has to honestly acknowledge that Russia has legitimate interests of its own, and security concerns that the west has been trampling over. Then the rational thing to do is to find a compromise that both sides can see as being preferable to open war. That's how diplomacy works.
Instead, the west tried to impost its will on Russia while disregarding Russian concerns, and that led to a conflict that the west is now losing.
Can you demonstrate in what way this was irrational self harm on the part of Russia? I gave you concrete examples in this thread showing that standard of living in Russia has improved during the time of the war, Russian economy has grown, Russian military has become far stronger, and Russia has become a much more important geopolitical player in the world. In what way has Russia irrationally self harmed itself?
I literally provide you with many quotes and references from top western academics, diplomats, and politicians who disagree with your bold statement mr Ferk. I love how you cherry picked a single line from Chomsky while ignoring all the rest to make another straw man. Very mature of you.
Do you think the US reaction was "rational"?
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I don't want the US to set up their nuclear weapons in Europe.. I'm against that too.
Whenever a "defense treaty" takes any action it's always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider "pacekeeping", "humanitarian protection", etc.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different? Do you really think this is one sided and Russia would not try to argue that they did not start any attacks even when they might have actually attacked? (even if it were to be by accident! ...or because of orders to pull off not arriving in time...)
Also.. you said "this is not a hypothetical debate" but at the same time you say that the level of "aggression" isn't the same... so tell me: if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of "aggression" as NATO (whichever high you may believe that is), do you really think that Europe should be "rational" in reacting by automatically waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
Here: "it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is"
You qualify it by saying "the way Europe is", implying that there might be some "way" harm was inflicted, just not in the same "way" (or level?) as Europe.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
Sorry, but I'm not "the west" ... Chomsky is not "the west", you are not "the west" (or are you?)
Me, Chomsky, and any person with a set of moral standards should be allowed to judge whether they think that an action made by any third party is morally "good" or "bad"... if someone came and tried to kill someone else I would have no problem in accusing the killer of doing something wrong, regardless of whether they would listen to me or not.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm (and sure, that might imply making concessions.. like agreeing for us to drop the knives, if that works at preventing them from using theirs), but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds when they actually go and kill someone.
If you truly believed that what the Russians did was not causing harm... if it truly was a just and well deserved war that is actually good and rational, then maybe Europe should not try to prevent it. But if the attack was a bad thing, morally, rationally, and in terms of causing harm, for both Ukrainians and Russians, then it's something that should be prevented. Even if you think that one side might have been more hurt than the other, that does not make it right for the "winner". There are no real winners here.
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war... now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it's Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
I literally said, I think this is the third time.. but I'll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
Do you understand that? Do you disagree with that? I hope not!
The one statement that you seem to disagree with is the other one, the one I made before and that Chomsky agrees with, the one concerning Russian actions in response to NATO expansion. The one that states that the action was not "rational" because NATO wasn't really a threat FOR RUSSIA. It might be still be a threat FOR WORLD PEACE to expand NATO because of the reaction many, including those experts, were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
I do, it's rational for them not to want to have nukes on their doorstep just as it's rational for Russia to want the same.
Yet, the US does precisely that in Europe right now making it a target for Russian nuclear weapons.
NATO has been invading countries contrary to all international laws and norms. Only valid peacekeeping is done through the UN.
Russians literally wanted to join NATO and create a joint security framework that would be acceptable to everyone. Why did NATO reject that?
If Europe thought it could win against Russia and it had credible evidence that Russia was setting up an organization to invade Europe then it would be rational for Europe to take military action. However, none of that is actually happening last I checked.
No, it doesn't imply a level of harm. I'm literally saying Russia is not harmed while Europe is harmed. I've also provided you with concrete sources detailing the state of things in Russia. I think I've been quite clear regarding what I actually meant.
I think there was initial harm to Russia at the start of the war, but on the whole it seems pretty clear that the overall situation in Russia has improved compared to prewar period now. Amusingly, a lot of it has to do with the economic decoupling from the west. This forced Russia to actually start investing in domestic industry and revival of what became the rust belt after the fall of USSR. You keep talking about harm to Russia, but you still haven't provided any examples of what you mean by it. I've given you plenty of sources supporting what I say. Feel free to explain in concrete terms what you believe the harm to Russia is.
Do you think Russians are losing sleep over you judging them?
The reality is that you can't just arbitrarily pick a point and decide that history starts now. The attack you lament was a response to decades of actions by the west that have been well documented, and with many people having warned that continuation of such actions would lead to a military response from Russia. Now that it happened you evidently want to ignore the actions that led up to this response and frame it was Russia being wrong morally.
I think the side that's actually growing stronger both militarily and economically is objectively the winner.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? What I said was that growing the economy was NOT THE REASON why Russia went to war. However, in the course of the war Russian economy did improve because Russia managed to do good planning. Let me know if you're still struggling to comprehend this and I have to use smaller words. I've explained this three times now.
The cause of the war was NATO expanding to Russian borders and Russia responding to that. This is now acknowledged by everyone including the former chief of NATO. This is what the conflict is about. The fact that Russia managed its economy well during this time does not imply that Russia is profiting from the war. It's absolutely incredible that you have so much trouble understanding these basic concepts.
And yet, you also continue to insist that the war was unjustified and unprovoked, citing Chomsky over and over here. Pick a lane bud.
Yet, the sources I provided you very clearly state that NATO was a credible threat to Russia. In fact, this article in National Interest that was published in 2021 EXPLICITLY states that the goal the US had was to break Russia:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/strategy-avoiding-two-front-war-192137
It is absolutely surreal that you continue that NATO was not a threat to Russia when the key NATO member openly discusses policy of dismembering Russia in preparation for war on China. This is absolute clown shit.
You agree with me there then.
And I'm against that. Are you not? I don't see what point you are making.
Yes, that's what NATO argues. NATO's intervention in Libya was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Similarly with NATO's intervention in the former Yugoslavia, they claim to enforce UN mandate. The UN has no army to enforce anything on their own.
As I said, of course each side will always twist the narrative to their advantage. You cannot just say that one side is right and pretend that you are being impartial and unaffected by propaganda.
They shouldn't have rejected it. No.
I disagree sorry. It would be wrong and stupid for Europe to wage war against their Russian neighbors and create an environment that ultimately would lead to self-harm. Waging war is not benefitial. Europe being capable of winning (your scenario) would also mean that the Russia alliance would be less of a threat.. so I think attacking then would just be bullying and that decision would end up coming back to bite us at some point in the future. It would motivate our neighbors to guard themselves and invest in military, and it would also cause diplomatic problems in future relationships.
No. Why would you presume that?
I think we are talking past each other... these questions are clearly in bad faith and what follows shows that you misinterpreted the question that elicited the previous answer you are referring to.
I feel I've already explained myself way too much in too many ways, and I don't think we are gonna reach anywhere here. I don't think it's worth continuing.
If you're saying Russian response to NATO expansion was rational then we agree.
The point I've been making this whole thread is that Europe is the only entity in this equation that is not acting rationally in its own interest. Both US and Russia are pursuing their interest, meanwhile Europe is not.
Incidentally, Russia says that their intervention in Donbas is directly modelled on NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Just as NATO did, they waited for LPR and DPR to separate, then they recognized their independence, and then had them invite Russia to intervene on their behalf. So, Russia is enforcing UN mandate as well following this logic.
That's literally been my whole point here. However, the historical facts are important. It was NATO that refused to disband after the USSR dissolved despite the fact that it's entire mandate for existence disappeared. It was NATO that rebuffed Russia's offer to join it. It was NATO that broke its promise not to expand easier. It was NATO that played games with Minsk agreements. The history very clearly shows which side has been consistently escalating tensions since the 90s.
If the threat was existential then there would be no choice. The same way Europe had no choice but to resist nazi Germany during WW2. However, this course of action only makes sense if there is a credible existential threat. In case where things can be resolved diplomatically, then diplomatic approach should absolutely be followed. We are in complete agreement here.
Then why spend so much time talking about what you think is moral or justified. Your adversary does not care one bit about that. They have their own morals and their own justifications for what the do. This is why I keep saying that focusing on morality is not productive. What you have to focus on are national interests. What does Europe want and what does Russia want. You have to develop empathy to see things from the perspective of your adversary and to understand WHY they do the things they do. Then and only then can you start having meaningful dialogue and try to find common ground.
The reason this war happened was precisely because the west refused to try and see things from Russian perspective and to genuinely understand their interests and goals.
I'm not sure what I misinterpreted. You keep pointing to me saying that Russian economy has improved throughout the war as some sort of a gotcha in terms of the underlying reasons for the war. And I keep explaining that these things are tangential. Russia did not go to war to improve its economy, and had its economy suffered, it would have continued the war anyways because Russia sees this war as being existential.
I feel the same. Have a good day.