• finderscult@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      In practice, no. Countries and militaries and other such groups of psychos will always push every boundary they can unless they think the cost is too high.

      In theory? Yes. If the rules as written actually mattered, countries would only respond to those that broke rules. In this case Russia would be responding to NATO breaking international law multiple times.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      Russia attacked Ukraine because of threats to Russian national security. The “legal framework” or “rules based order” that allowed NATO countries to create those threats to Russia created the conditions under which Russia had two choices - follow the rules exactly and let their belligerent opponents (the North Atlantic empire) continue to build up the threat level, or break the rules and protect itself.

      This is why for years the conversation around Russia has been a debate between people who say a security framework must guarantee security for all, on the one side, and on the other side, people who said we only need to guarantee our security and we can threaten the security of others and they can’t do anything about it.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        25 days ago

        threats to Russian national security

        Yeah, like someone else living on land that Russia wanted.

        Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          25 days ago

          So check this out:

          Russia was trading with England when Napoleon, Emperor, decided to blockade England. Russia continued trading with England despite Napoleon’s demands to stop, so Napoleon built an army and marched it all the way East across Europe. It invaded Russia across the Ukraine border, because it was the strategic weak point of Russia, and that war is considered one of the bloodiest campaigns of history. Millions of Russians were killed. Russia won, but at great cost.

          Years later, the Third Reich emerges in Germany. Hitler wrote a book about the communists being the biggest threat to Europe’s way of life. He claimed he would invade Russia and make all of the slavs live on reservations like the Americans did to the indigenous peoples, create an apartheid state like the Americans did to the blacks, and build the new continental European empire with the spoils of war. He built an army and marched it all the way East across Europe and invaded Russia over the Ukraine border, because it’s the strategic weak point. It was a terribly bloody invasion. Millions of Russians died. Russia won, but at great cost.

          After the Russians defeated the Third Reich by marching all the way to Berlin, defeating 80% of the Nazi military, the USA nuked two Japanese cities with large civilian populations, and then took over the Korean peninsula from the Japanese empire, where it proceeded to bomb the half of Korea that was adjacent to Russia to the point where there were literally no more structures and Koreans were living in caves. The USians built NATO and staffed it with the same Nazi officers that just went on the war path to invade Russia, and the USA worked with the Catholic Church to save many Nazis officers and give them safe haven throughout the world via Operation Paperclip. Through NATO they also built a vast network of “leave behind” armies that were built around Nazis and Nazi sympathizers across Europe that they could activate as resistance fighters if Russia ever invaded - Operation Gladio. They build a vast network of proxies through which they fomented uprising, coups, and what we now call “color revolutions” to threaten the USSR. And most importantly for this conversation, they not only launched a bunch of proxy wars with the USSR through various proxy states but they also built a transnational nuclear-armed military in Europe that had no democratic accountability to any people. Using this transnational nuclear military they deployed nukes everywhere in Europe aimed at Russia.

          In 1992, after the dismantling of the USSR, Russia met with NATO and Bill Clinton to talk about how to maintain peace now that the USSR was gone. The Russian position was that Russia’s national security could not be considered separate from Europe anymore, like the Iron Curtain strategy position, so Russia committed to building mutual security. One aspect of that mutual security was for everyone to respect MAD and not make attempts to create nuclear first strike capabilities. Another aspect of that mutual security was that Russia needed to protect the Ukraine border, over which it has been invaded multiple times before with great loss of life. There was a discussion about not expanding NATO Eastward for 2 reasons: 1) because putting nuclear capabilities around Russia is a component of undermining MAD and 2) putting an army on the Ukraine border made it possible to invade Russia again.

          NATO made statements about not expanding Eastward, but no firm doctrinal commitments. And when they did expand Eastward, Russia didn’t fight back. They appeased the West as they built nuclear capabilities all along Russia’s Western border. They appeased the US when the USA funded neo-nazis and terrorists. The USA vetoed every vote to condemn the celebration of Nazis, but Russia just took it. And that’s their choice. So we don’t need to bother with it.

          But Bill Clinton said that NATO will never be in Ukraine back in 1992 directly to Russian leaders, and as soon as that meeting was over he told his military staff to start building a plan to get NATO into Ukraine.

          For the last 30 years that’s the context that Russia has been dealing with. Starting with Bill Clinton taking NATO and saying it’s a defensive alliance only and then proceeding to use it to devastate Yugoslavia, the last socialist state in Europe. This defensive alliance dropped depleted uranium bombs from aircraft into civilian cities. They destroyed Yugoslavia with a defensive, while Russia was listening to the empty promises of Bill Clinton and NATO ringing in their ears.

          In 2014, when there was a coup in Ukraine, it could have just been some standard political unrest. But John McCain and Victoria Nuland were literally in Maidan Square. John McCain was on stage with Right Sector saying it was a great day for democracy. Victoria Nuland was caught in tape discussing who would be the next president of Ukraine. And the day after the Ukraine government agreed to work with the protestors demands, the Right Sector stormed the capitol with guns drawn, forcing the sitting president and government to flee the country.

          Russia correctly saw this as a US-guided situation that was part of the historical process of eventually bringing Ukraine into NATO to fully encircle Russia and break it’s national security. So it reacted and invaded Crimea. After Maidan, Ukrainian neo-nazi militias that were tied to the history of Operation Gladio began killing ethnic Russians in Ukraine, with back channel US support.

          And in 2022, Russia said they saw military activity on the border, significant enough that it could not be ignored anymore. Was it missile systems? Was it missile defense? Was it rapidly deployable units? We won’t know until the dust settles, but Russia invaded and this was it’s stated reason.

          You can keep pretending that Russia invaded Ukraine for resources, but Russia has never had any intention of invading and holding all of Ukraine. In the assessment of the CIA, not only does Russia not have the capability to do so, it knows it doesn’t have the capability to do so and the CIA has clearly identified that it has never been a strategic goal of Russia to do so.

          The real reason has everything to do with national security, and if you study history, it becomes painfully obvious that this is the case.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      If we are talking about “the rules” then UA, and as a proxy for the West, failing to implement Minsk II is the primary precursor to Russia invading.

  • JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    29 days ago

    “The DoD has no comment on remarks supposedly made by a private citizen to a Russian news outlet.”

    A retired colonel? Who gives a shit what a has-been nobody from a 20 year old administration has to say? What, are they going to do, interview me next for expert testimony on Canada because I carry a hockey stick?

    It’s not like Russia needs permission to attack NATO anyway, Putin just needs to decide if he wants it or not and can figure out whatever justification he desires.

  • futatorius@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    25 days ago

    But Russia bringing in 12,000 North Koreans doesn’t give Ukraine the right to defend itself? What about the war crime of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure? What about the war crime of invading a country that hadn’t attacked you?

  • tO0l@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    29 days ago

    NATO is at war with Russia and using Ukraine as the proxy. This is as true as the idea that the Chinese/NK, Indians and Iranians are all allies of Russia in this war due to the trade of weapons, oil, drones, troops, etc. I also count every US-based MNC that is still doing business in Russia as collaborators.

    I’d vastly prefer that we cut the Russians off from the world and anyone else who helps them vs sending billions of dollars of weapons, technology and intelligence that will never be enough to actually defeat them. All doing this has done is led to more Ukranian lives being lost for the same end. Russia was always going to take the land back.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      29 days ago

      This is obviously becoming a bloc conflict between G7 and BRICS. The problem that G7 has is that it’s a smaller economic bloc that doesn’t produce much anything useful at this point. Western economies have become largely financialized with all the meaningful production having moved out to countries aligned with Russia.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      29 days ago

      Ukraine is free to determine that NK, China, and Iran are all parties to the war due to their material support of the Russian operation. Ukraine can decide to declare war against those countries. They can go and prosecute that war, if they so choose.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      28 days ago

      Decoupling immediately would be the best possible outcome for anti-imperialism so yes please do this Trumpist logic.

  • erin@social.sidh.bzh
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    29 days ago

    so if India use their bought Rafale to attack Pakistan or China that bring France at war with those countries? Of course not… And for Ukraine it’s the same…

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      29 days ago

      These weapons are being operated directly by NATO from the territory of Ukraine to attack Russia. Nobody is denying this, and the fact that you can’t understand it is frankly wild.

      • erin@social.sidh.bzh
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        29 days ago

        oh sorry, I commented on a lemmy.ml post that drink russian propaganda… Sorry to bother… But I have one question. If NATO was really on the frontline, why NATO leader are so eager to not openly enter war with Russia to the point where it took 3 years for them to greenlight the target of Russian territory? That like fighting with an hand in the back, that would be bad strategic decision… If really NATO is in the frontline why no Rafale or F-22 in the sky? If NATO is at war with Russia, why not attacking from Finland or Baltic states to flank the army? If NATO is at war with Russia, why after 3 years there are no Nuke in the sky from both side?

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          29 days ago

          ATACMS relies on targeting data that can only be obtained from NATO sources as Ukraine doesn’t have its own satellite and airborne recon platform. You could give ATACMS to Ukraine and they could only use it in short ranges because they don’t have the data they need to target deep into Russia. That means NATO is literally providing everything except the button pusher - they are providing the missiles, the launchers, the trainings, the satellites, the spy planes, the data infrastructure, the data itself. Ukraine pushes the button.

          This is funamdentally different than using a bullet made in one country to kill a person in another country.

          • erin@social.sidh.bzh
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            29 days ago

            And Putin does nothing and passively let himself victimize by those same NATO country… All he does are empty threat since after 3 years of threat, NATO country still lives in peace like nothing is happening. So much for the strong leader that Putin try to show… Or maybe being a carpet for NATO boots is being strong in Russia culture…

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              27 days ago

              What a ridiculous position to hold, and my god the brainworms you must have based on your exchange with @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

              Russia actively responds to threats and has been doing so for quite some time. First, it took Crimea. Then it sent lethal support to the Donbas. Then it sent mercenaries into a bunch of countries in North Africa fighting against the West. Then it launched an SMO to militarize the border with Ukraine. Then it attacked Western Ukrainian infrastructure. Then it built an Africa Corps. Then it created economic alternatives to the West. Then it materially supported the West’s adversaries. Then it made a change to its nuclear protocol. Then it launched an IRBM.

              Russia responding to Western salami slicing with its own salami slicing. Just as the NATO escalations are nuanced, so are Russia’s responses. NATO countries still live in peace because they have not declared war on Russia yet. Every time they make another thin slice of the salami, Russia finds a way to respond that is just as thin. However, Russia launched the capture of Crimea and no one could stop it. Russia launched the SMO to secure the Ukranian border and no one could stop. Russia worked to support decoupling of Africa from the West and no one has been able to stop it. Russia is working with partners to work around Western economic dominance and sanctions and no one can stop it.

              The Russian military has not made many mistakes and it has not been strategically inactive. From this, we have to conclude that Russia understands its own limits, and I don’t think anyone, especially Russia, believes they can or need to fight all of Europe. Likewise, I think Russia is aware, as NATO is aware, there is no way NATO could defeat Russia. The risk, therefore, is that NATO chooses to engage Russia in a long-term war of attrition, and that risk is very very real. Russia’s strategic imperatives are therefore 1) to not become encircled, 2) to maintain counter-intelligence supremacy, and 3) to avoid a protracted war of attrition with NATO.

              1. is why Russia took Crimea and subsequently invaded Ukraine
              2. is why Russia is being judicious with deploying its technology and why it is operating in Africa
              3. is why Russia is supporting the opening of additional fronts in Africa, building material support with military powers aligned against the West, building economic alternatives to the West, and most importantly, not giving the West sufficient casus belli to launch an all out war of attrition

              You’re requirement that for Putin to be strong he must be irrational is ridiculous.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              29 days ago

              And once Russia hits a NATO country trolls like you will start crying how Russia started a completely unprovoked war against a peaceful defensive alliance.

              • erin@social.sidh.bzh
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                28 days ago

                I will not cry because when it will happen, their are only 2 outcomes:

                • Russia is demilitarize so fast by NATO countries that the country will not be able to do much (that outcome has even been told by Putin himself in 2023 as the reason Russia has no chance against NATO)
                • Both countries use their nuke and we will be all dead in a beautiful bang :)

                in both outcome Russia loose

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  28 days ago

                  The actual outcome is going to be that the US will leave Europe to hang, and NATO will collapse. The fact that you don’t get that is absolutely hilarious. If you think that the Oligarchs in US are going to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Europe you should really get your head checked.

        • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          29 days ago

          The most heavily propagandized victims always assume they are immune to propaganda.

          • erin@social.sidh.bzh
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            28 days ago

            not what I say, what I say is NATO soldiers are not on the frontline fighting Russia and unlike what Putin says, he really not want to start that war with NATO…

          • erin@social.sidh.bzh
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            29 days ago

            As a c/NonCredibleDefense member I’m not offended by your message, I laughed a lot while writing that “essay”… but the fact that you are diverting from the question on why NATO country lives in peace without consequence while Russia spend 3 years saying they are at war with NATO and threatening of nuclear retaliation while doing nothing (not even a non nuclear missile or a bomb on NATO territory) tells a lot about the fact that you can’t answer…

            The mismatch between what Putin says and what Putin does is so big that instead of using his IRBM on NATO soil to proof that he has to be taken seriously, Putin used it on non NATO soil which lead to more NATO help to Ukraine next Tuesday… And Putin will continue to threaten but will do nothing against NATO countries… I can bet a lot on that… So much for the not so strong leader that is Putin… XD

            • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              27 days ago

              As a c/NonCredibleDefense member

              Oh now your talk about being a proud warmongerer makes sense to me.

              NATO country lives in peace without consequence while Russia

              As a person living in Europe my wallet tells me that we actually did face some severe consequences.