You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

bramflakes comments on February 2015 Media Thread - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: ArisKatsaris 01 February 2015 11:03AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (138)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: bramflakes 02 February 2015 06:51:07AM 0 points [-]

Because the sovereign and independent Eastern European nations wanted to become part of NATO, and NATO tanks didn't need to force itself on a single nation, it was invited( a single country, nor change the borders, unlike Russia's military occupation of portions of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.

I'm not sure your average Serb would agree ...

Because when Greece has been recently openly allying itself with Russia, I don't see NATO troops from Italy or Albania or Bulgaria attempting to break apart portions of Greece.

No, they just get the Troika to do it by proxy.

I'll restate what I said before - I'm not defending Putin's regime as such. It's tyrannical and corrupt and no sane person would die defending that hill. Just that Russia's actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature. Yes, the Eastern Euro countries (mostly) joined NATO of their own free will (more accurately, they had little alternative either way with Russia being dead in the water through the 90s). What of it? The fact remains there's an explicitly anti-Russian coalition on Russia's doorstep, and allied groups like the EU pushing into historically-Russian territories. They're understandably afraid of the Germans pushing east of the Vistula - after all, it didn't end well the last two times.

"Rebuilding the Soviet Empire" is exactly the kind of propagandistic slogan that contributes to crises in the first place - viewing your enemy as some kind of inscrutable, uncompromisingly aggressive monster rather than a country concerned for its survival and who possesses few natural defenses.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 02 February 2015 09:34:09AM 6 points [-]

One of the reasons to join NATO was that Russia (Soviet Union) had a history of reverting political changes in Eastern Europe; see Prague Spring. Given this history, a political change from communism to democracy seemed half-assed without also joining NATO, because it seemed like a question of time until someone in Russia decides "okay guys, your political regime will now change to this" and send tanks to enforce the decision.

It felt like without NATO, the future of Eastern Europe would be decided in two steps. 1) Russia will decide what political regime it wants, which may take a few years, but when the decision is made, then 2) the tanks will come and enforce the same regime in other countries. So, unless you agree that this is how the political regime in your country should be decided, the only safe alternative is to join NATO.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 02 February 2015 09:09:31AM *  8 points [-]

I'm not sure your average Serb would agree .

I opposed NATO's action in Kosovo as an imperialist action in support of Albanian imperialism -- but this has nothing to do with NATO's expansion eastwards any more than its intervention against Afghanistan does. NATO's expansion eastwards was an action of the Eastern European countries fleeing westwards, being rightfully afraid of Russian imperialism.

Italy or Albania or Bulgaria attempting to break apart portions of Greece.

No, they just get the Troika to do it by proxy

Know what? I can't remain civil in this discussion, if you're comparing Greece being loaned money with extremely low interests as being the same thing as Ukraine being militarily conquered by Russia and many thousands of its people getting killed.

So I'm tapping out. Enjoy your "understanding" of the so called defensive attitude of Russia as one by one it conquers nations that never once threatened anyone. On my part I'll keep denouncing Russia neoHitleric imperialism, and its vile policies.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 02 February 2015 09:31:11AM 3 points [-]

Just that Russia's actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature.

Everyone's actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature. Perfectly, universally, and therefore uselessly.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 February 2015 06:47:24PM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure your average Serb would agree ...

An average Serb or an average Yugoslav..? :-P

I don't think the desire to maintain a little Balkan empire counts here.

Just that Russia's actions are perfectly understandable as defensive and reactive in nature.

I don't think so. Do tell, what Russia is defending against? And is the threat to Russia or to Mr.Putin's thoroughly corrupt state?

an explicitly anti-Russian coalition on Russia's doorstep

Show me that coalition and show me how is it "anti-Russian".

a country concerned for its survival and who possesses few natural defenses

I am sorry, this passed into the realm of unadulterated bullshit. So, right now, in the XXI century Russia is "concerned for its survival"? A country of "few natural defenses" that was last conquered by Genghis Khan?