1097
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

And by "neutral buffer state" they mean a Russian territory, that can't elect its own leaders, has no control over its resources and lives under a permanent Russian occupation.

[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Indeed and Putin's Sock Puppet will green light the next Russian invasion of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

[-] ReCursing@lemmings.world 14 points 1 day ago

Why do the Russians think they need a buffer between themselves and NATO anyway? Are they planning on doing things that would make them seem like a threat to NATO, and don't believe NATO have supersonic planes or something?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wpb@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Russia is the bad guy in this conflict. 110%. But there's no reason to start making up reasons why. Ukraine was not a neutral non-NATO buffer state after the euromaidan coup, and it doesn't need to be for the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing invasion to be wrong, which they are. All made up reasons do is give your opponents ammunition.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 118 points 2 days ago

Are people actually arguing that NATO membership is the reason for Russian attacks on neighboring nations?

Putin literally said he wants to restore the old Russian Empire. What the fuck was thay suppose to mean, then? A joke?

Jfc the number of people who don't believe the terrible things Dictators say they are going to do is too damn high.

[-] theMacerena@lemmings.world 46 points 2 days ago

Tankies need to toe the party line.

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Relations_between_Georgia_and_the_West

During the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, American president George W. Bush campaigned for offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia and Ukraine. However, Germany and France said that offering a MAP to Ukraine and Georgia would be "an unnecessary offence" for Russia.[99] NATO stated that Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted in the alliance and pledged to review the requests for MAP in December 2008.[100] Russian President Vladimir Putin was in Bucharest during the summit. At the conclusion of the summit on 4 April, Putin said that NATO's enlargement towards Russia "would be taken in Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country".[101] Following the Bucharest summit, Russian hostility increased and Russia started to actively prepare for the invasion of Georgia.[102] The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Yuri Baluyevsky said on 11 April that Russia would carry out "steps of a different nature" in addition to military action if Ukraine and Georgia join NATO.[103] General Baluyevsky said in 2012 that after President Putin had decided to wage the war against Georgia prior to the May 2008 inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as president of Russia, a military action was planned and explicit orders were issued in advance before August 2008. According to Van Herpen, Russia aimed to stop Georgia's accession to NATO and also to bring about a "regime change".[83][104]

There is a direct cause-effect relationship for Russias invasion of Georgia and it seems that at the time France and Germany were aware of this, while Bush pushed for an escalation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Geopolitical_impact

The 2008 war was the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union that the Russian military had been used against an independent state, demonstrating Russia's willingness to use military force to attain its political objectives.[287] Robert Kagan argued that "Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point" because it "marked the official return of history".[288] The failure of the Western security organisations to react swiftly to Russia's attempt to violently revise the borders of an OSCE country revealed its deficiencies. The division between Western European and Eastern European states also became apparent over the relationship with Russia. Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries received a clear message from the Russian leadership that the possible accession to NATO would cause a foreign incursion and the break-up of the country. Effective takeover of Abkhazia was also one of Russia's geopolitical goals.

The war also affected Georgia's ongoing and future memberships in international organisations. On 12 August 2008 the country proclaimed that it would quit the Commonwealth of Independent States, which it held responsible for not avoiding the war. Its departure became effective in August 2009.[291] The war hindered Georgia's prospects for joining NATO for the foreseeable future.[87][292] Medvedev stated in November 2011 that NATO would have accepted former Soviet republics if Russia had not attacked Georgia. "If you ... had faltered back in 2008, the geopolitical situation would be different now," Medvedev told the officers of a Vladikavkaz military base.

According to academic Martin Malek, western countries did not feel it was necessary to aggravate tensions with Russia over "tiny and insignificant" Georgia. He wrote in the Caucasian Review of International Affairs that Western policy makers did not want to alienate Russia because its support was necessary to solve "international problems".[38] The May 2015 report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament stated that "the reaction of the EU to Russia's aggression towards, and violation of the territorial integrity of, Georgia in 2008 may have encouraged Russia to act in a similar way in Ukraine".[294] The Russian invasion of Ukraine brought the memories of the Russo-Georgian War again into a broader geopolitical focus. In an opinion piece published in The New York Times on 6 March 2022, the incumbent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson stated that Russia's actions in Georgia in 2008 was one of the lessons of the past that the West has failed to learn

This isn't just "Putin said". There seems to be a quite clear understanding of that being the trigger point for Russia among foreign policy politicians and experts in Europe.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

You realise that Russia invading people for even considering the chance to a mutual defence pact isn't Western escelation, right? If anything it is proof that Russia has been planning to invade them since long before all of this.

Russia isn't at any risk of NATO countries attacking them because NATO countries have no obligation to protect an aggressor member-state. They became hostile because they were losing their chance to warmonger.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

Putin said that NATO's enlargement towards Russia "would be taken in Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country".

Security Dilemma in action: One party wants to strengthen their own security, the other party considers that a threat to theirs and responds in kind.

Instead of mutually agreeing that they've both reached a point of military capacity where actual war would be more costly than lucrative, the respective leaders conveniently overlook who would be paying that cost and keep posturing, and the arms dealers keep making bank.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago

This meme seems to undercut its own argument. No one can honestly argue that post-Euromaidan Ukraine was intent on remaining a buffer between Russia and NATO. In 2014 Ukraine made it clear that it was resolved to go to the Western camp and was sick of Russian influence. So what exactly is the argument here?

[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago

I'm not going to entertain the thought of what "neutrality" would mean, because the entire "neutral buffer" argument is just Russian propaganda. Ukraine wasn't neutral before 2014, it was squarely within the Russian sphere of influence since the collapse of the union. Let's reverse the situation. Let's say Russia wins, dismantles the current Ukrainian government and sets up the "legitimate" Ukrainian government, would Ukraine become a "neutral buffer"? No. It would become a vassal state of Russia because Russia can't give Ukraine the autonomy to make their own decisions, otherwise they might decide to turn westward again.

Maybe that's the hypocrisy the meme is pointing to, that the neutrality argument in its entirety is bullshit because Ukraine was never neutral to begin with.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 108 points 2 days ago

This is a weird comma, usage.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago

While Russia is the belligerent actor and it is their fault, pre-2014 Ukraine was hardly "neutral", having mulled both NATO and EU ascension discussions. The latter being the actual provocation rather than the former. (This isn't at all to say any of this is Ukraine's "fault", only to point out they were not "neutral")

In early 2013 the Ukrainian parliament agreed to make legal steps towards EU ascension (source 2014 pro Russia unrest in Ukraine)

Which is what Lord Robertson, the former Secretary General of Nato, has stated was the start of the crisis:

"One theory, propounded by realists such as the academic John Mearsheimer, is that Nato expansion in eastern Europe was the reason that Putin invaded Ukraine. Robertson dismissed the idea. “I met Putin nine times during my time at Nato. He never mentioned Nato enlargement once.” What Robertson said next was interesting: “He’s not bothered about Nato, or Nato enlargement. He’s bothered by the European Union. The whole Ukraine crisis started with the offer of an EU accession agreement to Ukraine in 2014.

Putin fears countries on Russia’s border being “fundamentally and permanently” changed by EU accession. “Every aspect [of society is affected] – they woke up very late to it… I don’t think they ever fully understood the EU,” Robertson said, adding the caveat that the EU was not at fault because accession was what Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, wanted." [end quote]

Source: https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2024/05/george-robertson-nato-why-russia-fears-european-union

[-] socsa@piefed.social 30 points 2 days ago

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It is allowed to make treaties with other sovereign nations.

Or do you believe the US should invade Brazil because it is part of BRICS?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 18 points 2 days ago

I guess its worth mentioning that Ukraine was never "neutral" to begin with. Since the fall of the union Ukraine had been in the Russian sphere of influence and they were neutral only to the extent where it wouldn't undermine Russian control over Ukraine. That's why the EU accession agreement started this, because it undermined Russian power and Russia was not okay with losing that power. Russia never wanted neutral buffer states, Russia wanted countries that they could control.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
1097 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5454 readers
2422 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS