Ukraine invasion

[FrogReaver]

My take:

NATO defending non-NATO countries from Russia can be argued to be the morally right thing to do. But it does not appear to be the strategically correct thing to do. NATO functions best when countries join for mutual defense - and if NATO defends those not in NATO then there’s no point in other countries joining NATO.

Not intervening also paints Russia/Putin as the clear aggressor and builds international consensus around cutting ties with Russia via sanctions and business pullout. For the West this is likely a more devastating and longer lasting victory than militarily pushing Russia out of Ukraine.

The sanctions and business pullouts also function as a deterrent to other countries in the future as it shows the cost of aggressive wars even if the west doesn’t join them militarily is far higher than otherwise calculated.

It makes no strategical sense to try and prevent nuclear war by allowing nuclear powers to take what they want via military might just because they have nukes to shield them. Such a philosophy may spare us today but it almost inevitably leads to a future where nuclear war becomes more likely, not less. So IMO I don’t believe the west is militarily staying out to prevent world war 3 and nuclear Armageddon, that’s just a convenient excuse IMO. It’s really because it’s in their strategical interests to not get militarily involved.

 

[Zardnaar]

My take:

NATO defending non-NATO countries from Russia can be argued to be the morally right thing to do. But it does not appear to be the strategically correct thing to do. NATO functions best when countries join for mutual defense - and if NATO defends those not in NATO then there’s no point in other countries joining NATO.

Not intervening also paints Russia/Putin as the clear aggressor and builds international consensus around cutting ties with Russia via sanctions and business pullout. For the West this is likely a more devastating and longer lasting victory than militarily pushing Russia out of Ukraine.

The sanctions and business pullouts also function as a deterrent to other countries in the future as it shows the cost of aggressive wars even if the west doesn’t join them militarily is far higher than otherwise calculated.

It makes no strategical sense to try and prevent nuclear war by allowing nuclear powers to take what they want via military might just because they have nukes to shield them. Such a philosophy may spare us today but it almost inevitably leads to a future where nuclear war becomes more likely, not less. So IMO I don’t believe the west is militarily staying out to prevent world war 3 and nuclear Armageddon, that’s just a convenient excuse IMO. It’s really because it’s in their strategical interests to not get militarily involved.

The risk isn't 0 but if you give into nuclear blackmail they'll just keep doing it. So you have to cave or eventually say no.

Side tangent on r/Ukraine there's a bot. If you type Russian Soldier/Ship/Tank the bot responds by f bombing the relevant comment. Basically the snake island response.

Then someone says something like "good bot".

 

[Thunderfoot]

My take:

NATO defending non-NATO countries from Russia can be argued to be the morally right thing to do. But it does not appear to be the strategically correct thing to do.<SNIP>

You can change that from 'appears to be' to 'is not' the correct thing. NATO is a defenseive agreement and would be at fault if it went on the offensive for a non-member nation. The UN under the auspices of peace keeping can intervene, but the likelyhood is much smaller, the same troops would be committed but, the command & control would be much, much different.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can change that from 'appears to be' to 'is not' the correct thing. NATO is a defenseive agreement and would be at fault if it went on the offensive for a non-member nation. The UN under the auspices of peace keeping can intervene, but the likelyhood is much smaller, the same troops would be committed but, the command & control would be much, much different.

NATO was involved in Serbia/Kosovo

 

[Zardnaar]

NATO was involved in Serbia/Kosovo

I remember that. It's a favorite Russian distraction.

BUT the arguements they're using I remember from 1999 anti NATO crowd so it's not new.

 

[NotAYakk]

One of my ex coworkers has family (parents and at least one sibling) in occupued Ukraine right now.

The gofundme to help them support other people in the area is pretty likely to be scam safe (for me).

 

[FrogReaver]

I remember that. It's a favorite Russian distraction.

BUT the arguements they're using I remember from 1999 anti NATO crowd so it's not new.

Not sure I follow your point.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not sure I follow your point.

It's a popular whataboutism for pro Russia types along with Iraq, Yemen etc.

Usually used to counter arguements about NATO being defensive alliance.

There's basically a big bananasquirrel list of reasons justifying the "special military operation".

I suppose we're doing a "special economic westward expansion" as a response.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's a popular whataboutism for pro Russia types along with Iraq, Yemen etc.

Usually used to counter arguements about NATO being defensive alliance.

Im not pro Russia by any stretch.

All I’m saying is that NATO has taken military actions in regions that haven’t attacked a NATO country. If they have done it before the question isn’t whether they can, it’s why they chose not to this time.

Which counters the point that NATO cannot get involved this time.

 

[Thunderfoot]

NATO was involved in Serbia/Kosov

NATO was acting under UN authority. They were there as a peacekeeping force. Again, if the UN authorizes action, THEN they can move as a NATO representative of the UN. Go back and check your sources. I was assigned in support of those operations, just so you know.