Community >> View Post
Post By
Prefer to Remain Private

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: A legitimate grievance is still a legitimate grievance.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2022 at 08:46:53 am EST (Viewed 183 times)
Reply Subj: Re: A legitimate grievance is still a legitimate grievance.
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2022 at 10:00:23 am EST (Viewed 176 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
    I think it helps to keep in mind that NATO is literally an ANTI-Russian organization. 

    Mmmmm... I dunno that it's so much anti-Russian as it is anti_Russian/Soviet aggression, anti-Russian/Soviet imposition of authoritarian governments on its neighbors. And the way things are shaping up, it seems like its a necessary alliance. It's easy to understand that Russia doesn't like it, but the best way to way to dissolve it is to stop threatening their neighbors and start cooperating for the greater good. If Putin had put as much effort into building a healthy economy for Russia as he has into enriching himself and his friends they could be the envy of the world.

    And please don't think I'm forgetting the misdeeds of the US and other countries. That's a whole other discussion that I'm willing to have

Yeah, I sort of agree with that. I mean NATO did have much less meaning after the Soviet Union fell but still fell into a role of monitoring the status. Really, if anything Putin has done more to bring it back to the forefront than anything. So we can argue the chicken or the egg situation. 

No question it is a major thorn in Russia's side, but it is also clear that Russia had a couple ways out of the whole thing. Become a functioning member of the international society and give them no reason to be or continue actions to spread discord and expand influence in more and more questionable means. Which is what they chose. 

Perhaps it is true that NATO guided that, but I do not think they would have been perturbed anyway given the government of Russia under Putin has been described as a mob boss situation before. 

To me that the US has done bad things is true, but does not get Russia out of much of anything either. I know that is not LGDB point but to me it reads that way at times. 

It is akin to the it is everybody's fault but my own argument. Even if there are valid concerns wrapped in. Hell Russia also invented a few of their own to justify the conflict other than NATO.



The one thing overlooked in the question of whether NATO should have stayed around, is Poland.  In fairness, the US and Western Europe love doing that,

Poland was where the Soviet version of NATO, the Warsaw Pact, was formed, and they joined NATO fully in 1999, which was after a lesser partnership starting in, I believe 1996.

Admittedly, Poland is a little nuts at times, especially when it comes to Russia,  being under the thumb of Fascists or Communists for half a century will do that.

However, Russia was in shambles in '96.  I can't help but wonder if they saw this as an eventuality.

Also, Russia has worked with NATO before, under Putin even,  In 2002 the Russia-NATO council was formed.  It continued actions until 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine.

When Putin has been willing to play ball with NATO in the past, claiming its existence is a potential part of the problem is a title more complicated.

That would mean that for 12 of the 23 years he has been in power he saw them as potential pawns... I mean allies.

The grievance about NATO seems to be that that they did not want to work with him after he invaded a sovereign nation.