NATO Expands further

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well Finland and now Sweden have announced their desire and intention to apply for NATO membership.

That such a decisions is not made via a national referendum is a subversion of democracy, the consequences are potentially huge and every adult in the country should have had a voice in this.

The Western media constantly babble about Putin and Russia "want to reestablish the old Russian empire" while right under our noses the military force (dominated by the non-European USA) NATO continues its perverse growth.

There is nothing to stop any country from developing a treaty with other nations that guarantee military support if attacked, much as Poland had with Britain at the start of WW2.

It is simply not necessary to join NATO, there are other far less contentious options, all of this bodes ill IMHO.

So, should NATO continue to expand and continue to accept members from states bordering Russia?

[Diogenes]

Russian propagandists may think others have forgotten history.
NATO organized because of Russian invasions. Just since 1939:

1 Poland (1939–1956)
2 Baltic states (1940–1991)
[Esonia, Latvia, Lithuania]
3 Finnish territories (1940)
4 Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (1940)
5 After the Soviet Union entered the war on the Allied side
5.1 Iran (1941–1946)
5.2 Hungary (1944)
5.3 Romania (1944)
5.4 Bulgaria (1944)
5.5 Czechoslovakia (1944)
5.6 Northern Norway (1944–1946) and Bornholm, Denmark (1945–1946)
5.7 Eastern Germany (1945–1949)
5.8 Austria (1945–1955)
5.9 Manchuria (1945–1946)
5.10 Korea (1945–1948)
5.11 Kuril Islands (1945)
6 Cold War
6.1 Hungarian Revolution of 1956
6.2 Czechoslovakia (1968–1989)
6.3 Afghanistan (1979–1989)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... viet_Union

This list does not include Stalin starving 10 million in Ukraine.
https://www.history.com/news/ukrainian-famine-stalin

Russia is no longer the soviet union though, does not occupy any of the above and there is no Warsaw pact anymore.

The reason for NATO has vanished and died completely

Current events prove you are absolutely, completely, and irrevocably WRONG. Russian imperialists like Putin and those who swallow his propaganda think it's just fine to invade and destroy sovereign nations like Ukraine. Putin's genocidal campaign is nothing new. It's a shame the Russian people have signed on to these lies and violence, but in a land where disinformation is the official position of the State, I suppose they can't be blamed too much. Putin's popularity rose dramatically when he started trumpeting his imperialist agenda.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/puti ... ly-to-last

The long history of Russian imperialism shaping Putin’s war
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... utins-war/

"... for centuries, Russia’s multifaceted, complex identity has led it to justify its imperial dominion ...."
https://theconversation.com/russias-imp ... stay-95832

[Jose Fly]

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became members in 2004, 18 years ago, not ~25.

Okay, but whether they joined 18 or 25 years ago isn't the point. Russia has had NATO countries on their border for a while now, so the excuse of "Russia can't abide a border country joining NATO" for the Ukraine invasion doesn't hold water.

This was following the Clinton ramp-up, Russia stated their disapproval of that years before and again objected in 2004 when it happened, their objections were ignored just as they were with Ukraine, I find absolutely nothing surprising about Russia's stance on Ukraine, nothing at all, totally foreseeable.

I'm not at all surprised that Russia objects to more countries joining NATO. They can object all they like. But invading a country, leveling entire cities, and slaughtering its citizens is a completely different thing.

Think about it - if there really had been very little prospect of Ukraine actually joining NATO any time soon (as is stated by US, UK and many others) then what prevented an agreement that it would never become a member? wouldn't that be a small concession worth making that could have averted war?

Because Ukraine didn't want to sign an agreement like that. Remember, they want to join NATO.

Saying there's "no real prospect anyway of Ukraine becoming a member" and then also saying "under no circumstances can we agree to not allowing Ukraine to join", seems a tad suspicious, insincere and since we know NATO cannot be trusted what seriously did people expect Putin to do?

I honestly don't know what Putin's goal was when he decided to invade Ukraine, but I doubt it was to get more countries to join NATO. Add in the world uniting to isolate Russia and punish it economically and I'd say his invasion has backfired rather significantly.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became members in 2004, 18 years ago, not ~25.

I'm not at all surprised that Russia objects to more countries joining NATO. They can object all they like. But invading a country, leveling entire cities, and slaughtering its citizens is a completely different thing.

Yes, it's a blatant violation of international law, as it was when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999. If we care about the law then we must apply it impartially and have Clinton and Blair dragged before the international criminal court as well as Putin.

Read above, I posted a copy of a news report from 1999 all about NATO "invading a country, leveling entire cities, and slaughtering its citizens" I hope you find it interesting.

The narrative "Russia is evil and NATO are good" is exactly the kind of misconception that will eventually lead to catastrophe, just you watch, there's even talk of a new NATO for the pacific, with Taiwan becoming a founding member, this playing in other countries' backyards is gonna backfire one day.

[Diogenes]

The narrative "Russia is evil and NATO are good" is exactly...

...correct. In the 20th Century alone Russia has invaded more than 20 sovereign nations. And this does not include all the countries it absorbed and made part of the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, Russia has only been invaded twice since the 13th Century (the Mongol 'Horde'); by Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1941. Meanwhile, the West (the 'Allies') joined with the Soviets to repeal the mutual threat that Hitler presented.
Yet Russia collectively thinks of itself as the victim, while it routinely practices genocide and invasion, including Georgia and the Crimea.

Yet you blame NATO, a defensive organization which arose to protect itself from Russian (and CCCP) aggression. Repeating Russian propaganda here is going to convince NO ONE. Your claims are laughable and do not deserve further notice.

BTW, Putin's foolish and evil misadventure has accomplished the opposite of his intent as today formerly neutral Finland and Sweden formally applied for membership in NATO.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/10996793 ... plications

[Jose Fly]

Yes, it's a blatant violation of international law

Agreed.

as it was when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999

Sorry, not interested in "but they did it too" arguments.

[Diogenes]

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became members in 2004, 18 years ago, not ~25.

I'm not at all surprised that Russia objects to more countries joining NATO. They can object all they like. But invading a country, leveling entire cities, and slaughtering its citizens is a completely different thing.

Yes, it's a blatant violation of international law, as it was when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999.
....

No, it is not the same, yet you offer it as a false equivalent.
"NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bomb ... Yugoslavia

[AgnosticBoy]

The narrative "Russia is evil and NATO are good" is exactly...

...correct.

As a non-partisan, I dislike the statement because it gives the impression that Russia will always be wrong or that NATO will always be right. I also think such rhetoric is potentially harmful and offensive because you're painting all Russians with a broad brush, and that includes the Russians in Western countries, or even Russians that may be members of this site. I can imagine that such sentiments (i.e. labelling an entire country evil) was a factor in the creation of Japanese internment camps on American soil during WWII.

Based on a lot of cases, I would say that Russia has done wrong, and is currently engaged in a lot of wrongdoing. This is all that's needed to convey the message that they are in the wrong on a particular matter. It also helps to preserve diplomatic relations.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, it's a blatant violation of international law

Agreed.

as it was when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999

Sorry, not interested in "but they did it too" arguments.

But why ever not? tolerating law breaking by some parties yet objecting to it by others undermines the very concept of justice and law.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became members in 2004, 18 years ago, not ~25.

I'm not at all surprised that Russia objects to more countries joining NATO. They can object all they like. But invading a country, leveling entire cities, and slaughtering its citizens is a completely different thing.

Yes, it's a blatant violation of international law, as it was when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999.
....

No, it is not the same, yet you offer it as a false equivalent.
"NATO's intervention was prompted by Yugoslavia's bloodshed and ethnic cleansing of Albanians."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bomb ... Yugoslavia

NATO acted without UN authorization, same as Russia has. Of course the criminals will seek to justify their crimes, that's what NATO did and what Russia are doing.

NATO lied, Jamie Shea lied, Tony Blair lied just as Putin has lied, if you care to research what I'm saying you'll see I'm not making this up, not defending Russia, I'm stating facts easily verified facts.

[The Barbarian]

As the Finnish president told Putin, "You did this." Putin really has only himself to blame. His uncontrolled aggression has backfired on him. And yes, Russia is much less secure and strong than it was before he invaded Ukraine.

Erdogan's move to block Finland and Sweden is merely a ploy to get them to drop support for Kurdish groups seeking autonomy for Kurds in Turkey. At this point, Finland and Sweden are effectively in NATO, and already do joint exercises with them. There is no question that NATO countries would militarily support Sweden and/or Finland against Russian aggression.

Given the fiasco in Ukraine, it's questionable whether they'd even need help. Both nations have highly effective and well-equipped forces much larger and more powerful than those of Ukraine. And Russia is losing to Ukraine at this point. A much weaker Finland, in the 1930s, fought the Red Army to a draw. I doubt if they want a replay of that.