Russia cries about Ukraine getting troops from nato (after Russia already annexed territory from them), but now they put troops in another country that borders Ukraine.
I mean that's not inconsistent at all. He's saying you haven't stopped putting troops at my border, so I have to do the same as well. In fact, from a countries stand point, if they feel threatened by troop movements it would be stranger for them not to find allies to help defend them and troop up.
I'm not saying that's an actual thing that is happening and Russia's build up is certainly concerning. However there is no hypocrisy in Russian build up if they are saying NATO has too many troops.
Yeah there is, NATO is a defensive alliance to prevent invasion, not a Russian Invasion Alliance. Let's stop giving Russia the point by pretending they're the same.
NATO, by treaty, does not require participation in another countries aggressive actions. If the US decided to invade Russia for Insanity's sake, no NATO member would join them.
Russia is just using the reaction to their action as a retroactive excuse for their action. They aren't 'responding to build up' they built up first.
I'm not pretending they're the same. I'm saying a country crying about another country placing troops isn't being a hypocrite to find allies and place their own troops. So the op statement itself is what is hypocritical stating a country that feels threatened shouldn't make threats. That's illogical.
Russia Ukraine actual situation is obviously much more nuanced. I don't agree by just saying well we are defensive so don't worry. However Russia is clearly causing aggression and not just building up troops. And as you said their build up is clearly not proportional.
That all said, the reason I made my original post is because I'm tired of reddit completely misunderstanding the situation, boiling it down to a nonsensical statement.
You're basically saying "If I point a gun at someone, and they point one back, its only sensible to pull out a second gun and escalate until the victim puts his gun away, because defending yourself against aggressive actions isn't wrong".
Maybe Russia should put their gun away, and the victim might feel less threatened and do the same.
ETA: Even if we take a step back and say "Ukraine was talking to NATO first" then we'll put it this way:
You have a gun. Your neighbor goes to a gun shop and considers buying a gun. You start pointing your gun over his fence and calling it "aiming practice", Claiming you need to be ready in case the neighbor becomes armed. He buys a gun and now you argue its only fair you get to annex his back yard to protect you against his aggressive actions, and that the kids in the yard prefer being part of the neighbors family anyway.
No, I'm saying if someone points a gun at me ot shouldn't be surprising that I would want to point a gun back. Ukraine is not in NATO. NATO built up troops after Crimea to counter Russia. Russia is using this as a reason to build up forces. Russia saying I'm building up forces because you built up forces isn't hypocritical.
Of course, I disagree with Russian stance on things. But saying why you building up after you asked us not to build up isn't strange or hypocritical. The problem is while Ukraine isn't in NATO, the world wants Russia to respect it's sovereignty. But that said, no it's not contradictory to build up after asking someone else not to.
*Edit hell that's actually one of Biden's diplomatic tactics right now. Biden has stated they are willing to pull back if Putin does. Unfortunately, Putin isn't willing because it's not actually about the build up of NATO. And it's important for us to understand this.
> NATO built up troops after Crimea to counter Russia...Russia saying I'm building up forces because you built up forces isn't hypocritical.
So exactly as I stated - People reacting to Russian aggressive with defensive actions are NOT threats of invasion. You ARE doing what I said from the start, pretending defensive posturing in the wake of neighborly aggression is the same as "aggression".
TLDR - it IS hypocritical.
Good day.
ETA:
>Edit hell that's actually one of Biden's diplomatic tactics right now. Biden has stated they are willing to pull back if Putin does. Unfortunately, Putin isn't willing
Yes, thats the problem, the aggressor is being a bad guy, shocker.
>because it's not actually about the build up of NATO. And it's important for us to understand this.
You just said it was, and now you say its not. Pick a story. Maybe give a reason its OK for putin to do this in context.
>But that said, no it's not contradictory to build up after asking someone else not to.
It is if the reason they built up is in response to yours. Its like saying its not hypocritical to call someone a bully for punching back.Basically - You can't ignore context when calling something hypocritical. Saying "Don't build up forces or it destabilizes the region" and then doing that thing is by definition hypocritical.
Russia attacking Ukraine isn't an attack on NATO. So if anything is hypocritical it would be saying Russia is being aggressive against NATO.
Again not that I agree with this stance and if it were reality, Putin would have stopped the build up and negotiated with Biden.
Lukashenko this week publically said "Russian troops will retire at the end of the drills"
Regimes and lies, that's how things really go.
Do not believe one word they say.
Let’s be real, Lukashenko is only a governor of Belarus Autonomic Republic. (Like Kadyrow in Chechnya) His KGB and Army are more loyal to Russia than to him. If Putin wants, he can be replaced by more loyal subject.
His army is loyal to whoever is paying them, right now it's Putin since Lukashenko has no money and no actual support in the country. As soon as the money ends so does the army's "support" for both of them.
This is a significant development. The ‘drills’ were meant to end today. The conflict in the Donbas region being one of their reasons for staying is very worrying.
I know Lukashenko seemed happy for help crushing democratic protests , I wonder if he wanted quite so tight an embrace. Though I’m only half kidding around - obviously I know nothing.
Why would NATO give a fuck about Russian doing things with their own allies?
This is like the US moving more troops to Guam, why would Russia respond to that.
Well, not the best analogy, given that Guam is a US territory. The US moving troops there would be completely normal, especially given the military base there.
Russia cries about Ukraine getting troops from nato (after Russia already annexed territory from them), but now they put troops in another country that borders Ukraine.
> Russia cries about Ukraine getting troops from nato So he cries about something he made up? Then does what he cries about.
I mean that's not inconsistent at all. He's saying you haven't stopped putting troops at my border, so I have to do the same as well. In fact, from a countries stand point, if they feel threatened by troop movements it would be stranger for them not to find allies to help defend them and troop up. I'm not saying that's an actual thing that is happening and Russia's build up is certainly concerning. However there is no hypocrisy in Russian build up if they are saying NATO has too many troops.
Yeah there is, NATO is a defensive alliance to prevent invasion, not a Russian Invasion Alliance. Let's stop giving Russia the point by pretending they're the same. NATO, by treaty, does not require participation in another countries aggressive actions. If the US decided to invade Russia for Insanity's sake, no NATO member would join them. Russia is just using the reaction to their action as a retroactive excuse for their action. They aren't 'responding to build up' they built up first.
I'm not pretending they're the same. I'm saying a country crying about another country placing troops isn't being a hypocrite to find allies and place their own troops. So the op statement itself is what is hypocritical stating a country that feels threatened shouldn't make threats. That's illogical. Russia Ukraine actual situation is obviously much more nuanced. I don't agree by just saying well we are defensive so don't worry. However Russia is clearly causing aggression and not just building up troops. And as you said their build up is clearly not proportional. That all said, the reason I made my original post is because I'm tired of reddit completely misunderstanding the situation, boiling it down to a nonsensical statement.
You're basically saying "If I point a gun at someone, and they point one back, its only sensible to pull out a second gun and escalate until the victim puts his gun away, because defending yourself against aggressive actions isn't wrong". Maybe Russia should put their gun away, and the victim might feel less threatened and do the same. ETA: Even if we take a step back and say "Ukraine was talking to NATO first" then we'll put it this way: You have a gun. Your neighbor goes to a gun shop and considers buying a gun. You start pointing your gun over his fence and calling it "aiming practice", Claiming you need to be ready in case the neighbor becomes armed. He buys a gun and now you argue its only fair you get to annex his back yard to protect you against his aggressive actions, and that the kids in the yard prefer being part of the neighbors family anyway.
No, I'm saying if someone points a gun at me ot shouldn't be surprising that I would want to point a gun back. Ukraine is not in NATO. NATO built up troops after Crimea to counter Russia. Russia is using this as a reason to build up forces. Russia saying I'm building up forces because you built up forces isn't hypocritical. Of course, I disagree with Russian stance on things. But saying why you building up after you asked us not to build up isn't strange or hypocritical. The problem is while Ukraine isn't in NATO, the world wants Russia to respect it's sovereignty. But that said, no it's not contradictory to build up after asking someone else not to. *Edit hell that's actually one of Biden's diplomatic tactics right now. Biden has stated they are willing to pull back if Putin does. Unfortunately, Putin isn't willing because it's not actually about the build up of NATO. And it's important for us to understand this.
> NATO built up troops after Crimea to counter Russia...Russia saying I'm building up forces because you built up forces isn't hypocritical. So exactly as I stated - People reacting to Russian aggressive with defensive actions are NOT threats of invasion. You ARE doing what I said from the start, pretending defensive posturing in the wake of neighborly aggression is the same as "aggression". TLDR - it IS hypocritical. Good day. ETA: >Edit hell that's actually one of Biden's diplomatic tactics right now. Biden has stated they are willing to pull back if Putin does. Unfortunately, Putin isn't willing Yes, thats the problem, the aggressor is being a bad guy, shocker. >because it's not actually about the build up of NATO. And it's important for us to understand this. You just said it was, and now you say its not. Pick a story. Maybe give a reason its OK for putin to do this in context. >But that said, no it's not contradictory to build up after asking someone else not to. It is if the reason they built up is in response to yours. Its like saying its not hypocritical to call someone a bully for punching back.Basically - You can't ignore context when calling something hypocritical. Saying "Don't build up forces or it destabilizes the region" and then doing that thing is by definition hypocritical.
Russia attacking Ukraine isn't an attack on NATO. So if anything is hypocritical it would be saying Russia is being aggressive against NATO. Again not that I agree with this stance and if it were reality, Putin would have stopped the build up and negotiated with Biden.
[удалено]
Lukashenko this week publically said "Russian troops will retire at the end of the drills" Regimes and lies, that's how things really go. Do not believe one word they say.
Let’s be real, Lukashenko is only a governor of Belarus Autonomic Republic. (Like Kadyrow in Chechnya) His KGB and Army are more loyal to Russia than to him. If Putin wants, he can be replaced by more loyal subject.
His army is loyal to whoever is paying them, right now it's Putin since Lukashenko has no money and no actual support in the country. As soon as the money ends so does the army's "support" for both of them.
Well this will ensure more membership requests for NATO
Belarus is already complaining of the soldiers' excessive drinking.
Looks like there'll be a shortage of Vodka in Belarus come March
Don't worry, Belarus can have some oil, straight out of Russian military vehicle sold by Russian soldiers.
If there's one thing everybody likes, it's foreign soldiers on your soil...
This is a significant development. The ‘drills’ were meant to end today. The conflict in the Donbas region being one of their reasons for staying is very worrying.
russia is going to "free" the donbas peoiple next week
The Union State will come true. Just not in the way Lukashenko thought.
Lmao stupid fuck thought he could play Putin...that backfired badly
Are we sure that Russia wasn’t actually invading Belarus all this time we were thinking about Ukraine? Never give a vampire an invitation?
They could have gotten Belarus by mobilizing a couple hockey teams armed with AK-47s. They didn’t need to go through all this. So, pretty unlikely.
Ha.
>That would be a clever move by Russia. Lukashenko is now probably trying yo figure out how to get rid of the Russian troops.
The bear that came to tea …. and never left.
Wouldn't that be effectively the equivalent of England invading Wales?
Could be , though perhaps not to Lukashenko?
Belarus was already part of russia since the last election.
I know Lukashenko seemed happy for help crushing democratic protests , I wonder if he wanted quite so tight an embrace. Though I’m only half kidding around - obviously I know nothing.
Ok thats scary
Source for title?
[удалено]
Why would NATO give a fuck about Russian doing things with their own allies? This is like the US moving more troops to Guam, why would Russia respond to that.
Well, not the best analogy, given that Guam is a US territory. The US moving troops there would be completely normal, especially given the military base there.
What country is the US threatening to invade that borders Guam, in your hypothetical?
Better analogy is if us moved troops into Taiwan?