Comments by "Emanon" (@Emanon...) on "Finland u0026 Sweden: Why Aren't They in NATO? - TLDR News" video.

No. Russia is threatened by having liberal democracies, backed by a US agenda, on their border, as it could potentially undermine autocratic power. The US would never accept a foreign alliance member on its border, either. National defense is not based on "kumbaya" but on "what if shit hits the fan"... And Russia has a historic justification to be weary of strong militaries on their border. Just saying.
22
@diegog1853 I see your point. Although I have to refer you to my former statement with regards to defence policy. "What if". Not "Kumbaya". Is it rational to just allow a neighbouring defense alliance, which historically has been opposed to "you" ie former and current Russian autocratic regimes, to encroach and become stronger? Do we need to be reminded of the numerous promises the West made after the fall of the USSR with regards to NATO expansion? I'm not advocating for Putin's aggression, Russia in general or the horrible acts in Ukraine. I'm merely trying to make people think a bit more about the conflict in a larger picture. And yes, consequences of a conflict that shaped our world 80 years ago, and still does to this day, should not be dismissed out of hand. Korea, Taiwan, Palestine... All are conflicts shaped directly by WW II. And with the rise of China to equal American dominance, we would all be wise to take heed and learn from our mistakes the past.
2
@wile123456 I agree. But that's a choice Russians have to make for themselves. Not something accomplished by going to war or economically punishing the Russian people for. Yes. Its complicated.
1
@diegog1853 I never said it was a justified position, merely that in Russian optics, "the West" have been the aggressors every single time. Napoleon, Crimea, WW I + WW II. You're very naive if you think that countries, even peaceful democratic ones, will unilaterally disarm and build hospitals and make baby food instead. Diplomatic power needs to be backed up by economic and yes military power, to have an impact in conflict negotiations.
1
@miguelpadeiro762 This is about context. And learning that unilateral decisions should be considered carefully. The West didn't seek to aid Russian reform and strengthen democratic institutions after the fall of the USSR. It was a free-for -all for corporate and criminal interests ie victoriously pillaging the carcass of an enemy. Sure, I wish and hope for democracy in Russia. But if that's the goalpost, I would have taken the status quo with Ukraine staying out of NATO if that meant preventing an escalation of conflict in Europe and suffering of innocent Ukrainians. Finally, It's not whataboutism. It's about outright hypocrisy with regards to the conflicts started, supported and maintained by the US and its allies for economic and geostrategic interests. It's very rich to suggest that the US are now 100% on the side of moral good every time. You know how I know? They don't give a shit about oppressed and occupied Palestinians, suffering Yemenites or the 100.000+ pro-democratic journalists, thinkers and political dissidents being tortured in Egyptian jails. All of this caused by US BFFs and regimes aided and supplied by them.
1
@diegog1853 You're right. I think we can agree on the general principles. And yes, it doesn't excuse acts of premeditated aggression. Two final notes: 1) Trying to understand the mentality of a people during or leading up to a conflict is key for an acceptable outcome. If we all try to understand the possible reasons for an action, it'll make us that more capable to deal with it. The Americans are a great example of how not to do it... 2) Hypocrisy. Sanctions, weapon deliveries, public support for Ukraine. I'm all for that short of escalating the conflict. But have we forgotten the acts of unwarranted aggression by the US in Iraq? Or the 60+ other "special military operations" conducted by them the last 70 years? How is it that Israel is allowed rampant acts of violence, oppression and seizure of land (wall, settlements, evictions) and allowed to freely get away with it, whilst Russia "needs to be stopped" with our heaviest economic arsenal ?
1
@diegog1853 Thanks for a polite and frank discussion. Not a given these days...
1