| UA-RU WAR | NATO Crisis | ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

[teekay99]

Russia achieved this strategic political win way back in 2014 with the sectarian hostilities Donbas and along the eastern boarder. Then they won another victory when they seized Crimea.

Excellent point ...

 

[RiffRaff]

If Ukraine were to join NATO, that would be an example of NATO clearly expanding its borders towards Russia. Thus, If one of Russia's goals is to keep NATO out of Ukraine, a Russian invasion accomplishes that, even if Russia cannot take over the entire country.
According to Chapter 1, Paragraph 6 of the 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement, aspiring member states must meet specific political and territorial criteria before being invited to join:


Given this, a Russian invasion that creates territorial disputes within Ukraine's borders would make Ukraine ineligible to join NATO until that dispute is resolved. This stops NATO expansion towards Russia via Ukraine.

However, Russia probably miscalculated how the West would respond, and the plan backfired to some degree. NATO expanded towards Russia by way of Finland and Sweden.

NATO expansion towards Russia may not be a direct casus belli, and it is likely not the only or primary factor for Putin's adventure. But I am sure it was a contributing factor in Putin's decision making process. There may be other factors too - obtaining a warm water port (the 2014 Crimea invasion), and linking land/territory from Russia to Crimea by way of Ukrainian control.

Feel free to berate me if I stated the obvious

You stated the obvious, but you missed the part where territorial disputes were already ongoing between Ukraine and Russia. Crimea has been disputed territory since 2014, and the southeast regions of Ukraine - Donbass and Luhansk, specifically - had also been fighting an undeclared war with Russian separatists from 2014 right up until the invasion. Ukraine hasn't met the qualifications for NATO membership for over a decade. Therefore, using "NATO expansion" as an excuse to invade Ukraine is not only disingenuous, it's ludicrous.

 

[RiffRaff]

I see your point and you're right, but what if the tables were turned and say canada suddenly aligned with russia and china against the US militarily and economically. How would the US respond. We saw how the US responded when russia put missiles in cuba. Defcon 2.

I'm not saying russia doesn't need to be stopped. They do. How do you do it now though without full NATO mobilization and I just don't see that happening.

Oh, you're correct in that it is far too late for anyone to stand up to Russia now without it escalating into a nuclear crisis. The time to have that fight was back in 2014 when Russia seized Crimea. That was one of the worst foreign policy blunders of Obama's term. Yes, it would have been a serious crisis back then as well, but less so than today when Russia is completely entrenched and the West has already set the precedent. If Obama and other world leaders had backed Ukraine back then as they promised Ukraine that they would, I think Putin would have backed off and we wouldn't be in this quagmire today.

 

[RiffRaff]

It cannot be ignored that the crusades, however imperfect or ugly they were. Where ultimately a response to a Muslim expansion from what is Saudi Arabia today north into Macedonia and Slavic regions and then west and north into the Iberian peninsula till it was finally halted at Tours 150 miles SW of Paris.

The "response to a Muslim expansion" was the excuse that rallied the troops at that time. It had more to do with members of nobility wanting to accumulate land and wealth through military service. I am positive that there were true believers involved who thought that ridding the Holy Land of Muslims was a justifiable reason to go to war. As is usually the case, however, the true believers were just pawns to be sacrificed for the political and financial benefit of others.

The same can be said for the Russia-Ukraine War today. Putin has been touting the war as a fight against NATO expansionism, a fascist/Nazi government in Ukraine, and even against Satanists. All excuses to rally the troops. His real reason is rebuilding the old Russian Empire. In other words, the accumulation of land, wealth, and power. Same old song and dance; different players on the stage.

How about "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" That excuse aged like milk. Blackwater sure reaped in millions of dollars in profit, though, so it's all good.

How about "Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11! Let's invade Afghanistan! Never forget!" Except 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia; and funding for Al Qaeda in general and support for some of the 9/11 hijackers specifically originated from Saudi citizens. But Saudi Arabia has oil, so we can't attack them. Let's go after a country that has no strategic importance to the United States whatsoever instead.

The US/Israel/Iran War. President Trump claimed that airstrikes against Iran in June of 2025 "obliterated" Iran's nuclear weapons program. Why then did Iran become an imminent nuclear threat seven months later? Because it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

When China finally invades Taiwan, will it be to "reunite the citizens with the mainland?" No, it will be to take over a small country with a modern manufacturing industry and a trillion dollar GDP.

Don't believe the church and state, and everything they tell you.

 

[Publius]

The "response to a Muslim expansion" was the excuse that rallied the troops at that time. It had more to do with members of nobility wanting to accumulate land and wealth through military service. I am positive that there were true believers involved who thought that ridding the Holy Land of Muslims was a justifiable reason to go to war. As is usually the case, however, the true believers were just pawns to be sacrificed for the political and financial benefit of others.

The same can be said for the Russia-Ukraine War today. Putin has been touting the war as a fight against NATO expansionism, a fascist/Nazi government in Ukraine, and even against Satanists. All excuses to rally the troops. His real reason is rebuilding the old Russian Empire. In other words, the accumulation of land, wealth, and power. Same old song and dance; different players on the stage.

How about "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" That excuse aged like milk. Blackwater sure reaped in millions of dollars in profit, though, so it's all good.

How about "Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11! Let's invade Afghanistan! Never forget!" Except 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia; Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia; and funding for Al Qaeda in general and support for some of the 9/11 hijackers specifically originated from Saudi citizens. But Saudi Arabia has oil, so we can't attack them. Let's go after a country that has no strategic importance to the United States whatsoever instead.

The US/Israel/Iran War. President Trump claimed that airstrikes against Iran in June of 2025 "obliterated" Iran's nuclear weapons program. Why then did Iran become an imminent nuclear threat seven months later? Because it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.

When China finally invades Taiwan, will it be to "reunite the citizens with the mainland?" No, it will be to take over a small country with a modern manufacturing industry and a trillion dollar GDP.

Don't believe the church and state, and everything they tell you.

The manipulative reasons for many of the conflicts you listed were often real. What I don’t think can be ignored is in the measure of European response to Islam’s expansion as some contrived justification wealthy nobles. It dismisses the self interest of the common man by presuming they are unable to look at circumstances and events and make decisions to participate out of their own self interest.

It ignores that Islamic slave trade was so prevalent in Slavic nations that the western word for chattel slavery is derived from the ottomans centuries long practice of taking slaves out of South Eastern Europe and across the Mediterranean. These are real things and can’t just be painted over as an excuse used by the nobility to fool and manipulate the peons. Islamic records indicate the caliphates took between 6- 10 million slaves out of North Africa and 11/2 and 2 million Europeans.

I am not saying this is a massive anomaly in human history or necessarily excessive by comparison. But it is real and it would have had real implications for the self-interest of commoners.
Modern historians like to rail about the inquisition and how oppressive and horrible it was. Well it certainly was and horrible things were done as a direct result of the inquisition. But at scale the inquisition was responsible for the death of 3000-5000 over a 350 year period. We use the inquisition to demonize the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. Yet dismiss the Islamic Caliphates slave trade as just an excuse.

You know sometimes what is assumed and promulgated by academics and those who influence power today. Can be just as wrong and manipulative as what they claim to correct.

 

[RiffRaff]

The manipulative reasons for many of the conflicts you listed were often real. What I don’t think can be ignored is in the measure of European response to Islam’s expansion as some contrived justification wealthy nobles.

We can both be right at the same time on this topic. The two reasons are not mutually exclusive. The only area we might disagree is percentages.

It dismisses the self interest of the common man by presuming they are unable to look at circumstances and events and make decisions to participate out of their own self interest.

Have you met any Americans lately? They've been voting against their own self interests for over 40 years now.

It ignores that Islamic slave trade was so prevalent in Slavic nations that the western word for chattel slavery is derived from the ottomans centuries long practice of taking slaves out of South Eastern Europe and across the Mediterranean. These are real things and can’t just be painted over as an excuse used by the nobility to fool and manipulate the peons. Islamic records indicate the caliphates took between 6- 10 million slaves out of North Africa and 11/2 and 2 million Europeans.

There is no country or religion on the planet, still in existence or otherwise, that can claim a moral high ground on the topic of slavery.

I am not saying this is a massive anomaly in human history or necessarily excessive by comparison. But it is real and it would have had real implications for the self-interest of commoners.

The self-interest of commoners in that time period was limited pretty much to survival.

Modern historians like to rail about the inquisition and how oppressive and horrible it was. Well it certainly was and horrible things were done as a direct result of the inquisition. But at scale the inquisition was responsible for the death of 3000-5000 over a 350 year period. We use the inquisition to demonize the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. Yet dismiss the Islamic Caliphates slave trade as just an excuse.

Others might separate the two. I pretty much demonize all organized religions, especially the Abrahamic versions.

You know sometimes what is assumed and promulgated by academics and those who influence power today. Can be just as wrong and manipulative as what they claim to correct.

True. Everyone has an agenda. Fox Mulder had the right idea with "Trust no one."

 

[Publius]

We can both be right at the same time on this topic. The two reasons are not mutually exclusive. The only area we might disagree is percentages.

Percentages are real boots on the ground estimations of how much abuse a group of people are willing to tolerate. Not a just an academic and mostly arbitrary value assigned after the fact in history.

Have you met any Americans lately? They've been voting against their own self interests for over 40 years now.

They sure have and the wealthy and powerful have acted and facilitated things that were not in their self interests either.
When did this become a new thing and does that mean self-interest, liberty and freedom to choose are flawed values.
If so who is qualified or retains the right to choose for themselves or others on anything?
Ensuring the rights of self interest and liberty guarantees only one thing. The universal right to fail. Just because failure is always an option does not means the right to self-interests.

There is no country or religion on the planet, still in existence or otherwise, that can claim a moral high ground on the topic of slavery.

True to a point, why then should any culture , religion, or atheist world view ever be motivated to change?
Also how long are mistakes and abuses to be counted against a people.
One would be hard pressed to find any Christian today that actually believed the tactics and abuses of the inquisition were a good thing and needed to be used again.
I think one could find a great many (not a majority) of Muslims who still believe that a literal application of sharia law and justice is called for still today.

The self-interest of commoners in that time period was limited pretty much to survival.

So survival is not rooted in self interest.?

Others might separate the two. I pretty much demonize all organized religions, especially the Abrahamic versions.

I have no problem with that belief being held. I would also hope though that this lack of faith counted against behaviors found in organized religious populations would also honestly be used to evaluate the same tendencies and moral failings found in non religious ideologies. Be that humanist agnostics pantheistic Buddhist or atheist.
My point is that it’s not honest to disqualify religious worldviews out right simply because or their moral contradictions and failures. Without also applying the same standard to non religious or humanist world views. Because failure will be found in both.
so what then is the value to be had in assigning fault to either.

True. Everyone has an agenda. Fox Mulder had the right idea with "Trust no one."

A man wandering in the wilderness mumbling “trust no one” is likely to forever wander in the wilderness lost and alone.

 

[RiffRaff]

A man wandering in the wilderness mumbling “trust no one” is likely to forever wander in the wilderness lost and alone.

I'm okay with that trade-off.

 

[Publius]

I'm okay with that trade-off.

Fair enough

 

[RiffRaff]

Fair enough

There is a specific point in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where the closest human being to you is on the ISS. I want to permanently anchor a houseboat there.

 

[Publius]

There is a specific point in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where the closest human being to you is on the ISS. I want to permanently anchor a houseboat there.

Well I live alone, I work 4-10’s alone speak with my daughter twice a month and a good three days off is spent with my dog and working on my house.
I’m already halfway to that spot in the pacific you talking about about

There is a tee shirt I see for sale that would be good for you.
It has a survey question printed on it.
HUMANS, NOT HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

 

[RiffRaff]

There is a tee shirt I see for sale that would be good for you.
It has a survey question printed on it.
HUMANS, NOT HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

I have a collection of t-shirts with that theme. The most succinct one I have - and I do wear in public - says "humans suck"
I also have a Santa hat that says "bah humbug." We should compare notes sometime.