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.

Lumifer 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: 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?