What Lefties Get Wrong About NATO

[How to be wise]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Within the Western world order Putin's government would be overthrown because it doesn't serve US interests.

Or maybe it will be overthrown because it is an autocracy, and the US wants a democracy. There’s nothing bad about that.

[Epikur]

Just now, How to be wise said:

Or maybe it will be overthrown because it is an autocracy, and the US wants a democracy. There’s nothing bad about that.

Yes the US always big fan of democracies except when it is not

[tsuki]

@Preety_India Your posts indicate that you are biased towards upholding peace and forging alliances. This is not how power works. When situation changes, alliances are reevaluated and all peace agreements fly out of the window if it benefits either side.

Nobody except historians or citizens think in terms of rules and rights at this scale. It's might makes right. 

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

Or maybe it will be overthrown because it is an autocracy, and the US wants a democracy. There’s nothing bad about that.

Well, don't come crying when the autocrat you poked decides to give you a taste of your own medicine.

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Vaush underplays the fact that in a nuclear arms race (which NATO vs Russia is) strengthening defense is an escalatory move. One side cannot just keep raising their defenses and then acting surprised when the other side counters by raising their offenses. It would be foolish in this scenario for the defense-raising side to cry, "But we were just being defensive! We weren't hurting anyone. But you guys are the bad guys because you started going offensive!"

Defense and offense are entangled. If the West has overwhelming defensive capabilities and keeps raising them every year, Russia will be forced into an offensive posture, and start looking to create a defensive buffer zone.

Yes, NATO is primarily defensive. However, what is not acknowledged is that raising defense in such an overwhelming way is legitimately threatening and perpetuates an arms race.

"But Russia has nothing to fear!" is not a serious position. If Russia was not proactive the US and NATO would certainly stage a coup and depose their government. This much is obvious. The US is not going to stop until it has a pro-US government in Russia.

The defense raising of NATO is a response to Russia's acts of aggresion, like the Invasion of other countries and the annexation of entire landmasses that do not belong to it, and the undermining of the sovereignty of nations aswell as the blackmailing of nations.

Russia is gaslighting the West. Of course the West will increase it's defenses, that's the only rational thing to do in response to the actions the Kremlin has been taking in the last 3 decades.

 

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, don't come crying when the autocrat you poked decides to give you a taste of your own medicine.

Nobody will because autocratic systems are so corrupt they are unable to sustain themselves, one of the reasons why the Soviets failed, why China will fail and why Russia is failing. How you do you just completely forget about Spiral Dynamics when talking about this issue?

Edited March 6, 2022 by Scholar

[ThomasT]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The biggest question will be: Will Putin gain preventing Ukraine from joining NATO?

A country cannot join NATO while currently in a conflict. So while there are disputes surrounding Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, Ukraine won't be accepted into NATO. These could last for a long time.
Also, keeping Ukraine from developing their own natural gas reserves is an economic win. 
Here is an interesting look on nuclear war and its game theory: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1500168838356381703
 

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The defense raising of NATO is a response to Russia's acts of aggresion, like the Invasion of other countries and the annexation of entire landmasses that do not belong to it, and the undermining of the sovereignty of nations aswell as the blackmailing of nations.

Russia is gaslighting the West. Of course the West will increase it's defenses, that's the only rational thing to do in response to the actions the Kremlin has been taking in the last 3 decades.

Again, this is relative. This is how it looks from the Western perspective.

Quote

Nobody will because autocratic systems are so corrupt they are unable to sustain themselves, one of the reasons why the Soviets failed, why China will fail and why Russia is failing. How you do you just completely forget about Spiral Dynamics when talking about this issue?

They fail in the long-term. But until then there's the matter of starting WW3.

A catastrophic failure of Russia is not in the interest of the West.

[tsuki]

@Scholar There is a lot of democratic morality mixed into your arguments.

High spiral stages require more sophisticated environments to exist, so they are not an objective answer to evolution and survival.

When the nukes land, only bacteria and fungi will survive. Maybe some stage red cavemen too.

Edited March 6, 2022 by tsuki

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Again, this is relative. This is how it looks from the Western perspective.

This is also how it would look from the perspective of a high consciousness Russian leader, he would realize this and act accordingly. But Putin's consciousness is limited, so much so that he is undermining he interests of his own nation and people, in the same way Hitler did.

 

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They fail in the long-term. But until then there's the matter of starting WW3.

A catastrophic failure of Russia is not in the interest of the West.

At this moment, a catastrophic failure of Russia in the interest of all people, Russia must have a revolution and transcend it's current limitations. I don't think WW3 is likely to occur, but of course an autocrat would frame it in this way so he could forever continue with his corruption.

In the end, progress always involves certain risks, and sometimes catastrophy. WW2 has a tremendous effect on the progress of mankind, so did the extinction of the dinosaurs. And if WW3 happens, maybe in a few hundred years we will look back at it and be glad, because it changed the trajectory of mankind and this planet forever.

Starting war with Hiter was catastrophic, but what would have been more catastrophic is to allow for the old ways to conitnue.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Scholar

[DocWatts]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A catastrophic failure of Russia is not in the interest of the West.

The West really dropped the ball after the fall of the Soviet Union by not offering them the equivalent of a Marshal Plan, and helping with the transition to a democracy. 

Instead, multinationals were given free reign to practice Disaster Capitalism in Russia, and one can't help but see the current situation as a direct consequence of the West's greedy and short sighted behavior.

Edited March 6, 2022 by DocWatts

[Peo]

Is Sweden and Finland membership to NATO a threat to russia, as much as Urkrain in NATO? I think this would leave Russia very vulnerable for a northern and eastern flank towards Russia, if they both joned NATO.

[How to be wise]

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, don't come crying when the autocrat you poked decides to give you a taste of your own medicine.

The west is already a democracy.

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Peo said:

Is Sweden and Finland membership to NATO a threat to russia, as much as Urkrain in NATO?

Maybe not as much as Ukraine but could be a threat for Putin in a political sense for sure. I think this speaks for itself : "Russia warned of military consequences if either Finland or Sweden joined Nato"

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Scholar said:

And if WW3 happens, maybe in a few hundred years we will look back at it and be glad

Thank God no one gave you any power. You sound more insane than Putin.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Hilary Clinton's position was basically to overthrow Putin. Which is why he hated her so much. And I'm sure it wasn't just Hilary Clinton. There are probably plans right now in the CIA for how to depose Putin.

Where did Hillary Clinton say THAT?

Also, removing Putin is something Vaush supports as well.

[Leo Gura]

@Cykaaaa If WW3 happens there won't be anyone left to look back.

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Cykaaaa said:

That's an assumption and I don't know whether it's true. Casualties would be huge, right. But I doubt we'd completely kill ourselves off.

Do you think there is a fair chance to survive a nuclear war? Because if you take into account how everything would be damaged just by the radiation, i think its fair to assume, that even if you would be in a nuclear bunker, sooner or later you would be dead.

But lets assume x number of people would survive, thanks to the radiation damage all waters would be poisned, soil would be destroyed, the whole ecosystem would die. So you basically can't grow any food and can't drink any water.

The problem here is that in my opinion so much damage would be done, that it would be irreversible.

In fact, one of the biggest reason why WW3 has not happened yet , is because every nation knows, that there would be no winners.

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, Cykaaaa said:

It just seems very implausible to me that humanity will keep its peace forever.

Maybe our own selfishness will be that will save humanity, who knows. Individual and collective egos will fight for their survival forever thats for sure.In my opinion this 21st century will decide this question , whether we really survive or not. However, nuclear war is just only one threat among many that could kill us all.

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Thank God no one gave you any power. You sound more insane than Putin.

That's quite an emotional response. I think you pick and choose when you tend to apply a lense of Love and Harmony. Evolution doesn't work in a linear way, because it tends to create biases that seek to uphold themselves. Purely physically speaking, we could probably progress mankind more in 5 years than we did in the last 50 years if only the motivation was there to do so. The reason why we do not do so is because systems tend to seek comfort within norms.

Usually it requires a dramatic event to cause dramatic changes. Like if you get cancer, you might suddeny get the motivation to change your entire life, meditate for 4 hours a day, adopt healthy habits and take joy in every moment of your life. If you had never gotten cancer, you might have lived your life in stagnation, comfort and essentially misery.

This is true for evolution too. Dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions of years and they barely changed, life was stagnating. And yes, what wiped out the dinosaurs was a terrible tragedy, for the dinosaurs. However, it shook life to it's core, enabling it to take completely new pathways that were not possible to take previously because systems had stabilized to such a degree that new changes simply would not have occured.

 

My hope would be that a world war would eventually lead to greater harmony. From what I know current projections actually show that most humans would survive a nuclear holocaust, in a kind of worst case scenario. And it might very well be that it would actually reduce suffering in the world for that period, as it would put an end to most factory farms.

It's a very human centric perspective to call a nuclear holocaust a bad thing. For others it would mean freedom and new opportunities. And for life as a whole it might mean greater expression of harmony, complexity and love. Our current societies have a legacy that very much limited our future trajectory, and shaking it up would give us the ability to create a new foundation, made from a higher level of consciousness.

 

 

So, interestingly you have done to me what you have accused others of when talking about Putin. You have assumed your relative perspective to be absolute, and dismissed mine because it undermined your survival.

 

 

We can see this on a smaller scale playing out in the EU. The EU was in comfort, but it was not necessarily acting in it's best interest. Sometimes to act in your best interest requires some event that forces you to do so, an event that makes remaining in the status quo more uncomfortable than actually going through the resistance and effort to change.

In a similar manner, the events Putin initiated might let to great suffering in Russia, which in turn might lead to a revolution that will weed out much of the corruption currently present in the system. Corruption that under other circumstances would have continued to exist for a long time. I would accuse you of being myopic in this regard Leo.

Edited March 6, 2022 by Scholar

[Blackhawk]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Vaush underplays the fact that in a nuclear arms race (which NATO vs Russia is) strengthening defense is an escalatory move. One side cannot just keep raising their defenses and then acting surprised when the other side counters by raising their offenses. It would be foolish in this scenario for the defense-raising side to cry, "But we were just being defensive! We weren't hurting anyone. But you guys are the bad guys because you started going offensive!"

Defense and offense are entangled. If the West has overwhelming defensive capabilities and keeps raising them every year, Russia will be forced into an offensive posture, and start looking to create a defensive buffer zone.

Yes, NATO is primarily defensive. However, what is not acknowledged is that raising defense in such an overwhelming way is legitimately threatening and perpetuates an arms race.

"But Russia has nothing to fear!" is not a serious position. If Russia was not proactive the US and NATO would certainly stage a coup and depose their government. This much is obvious. The US is not going to stop until it has a pro-US government in Russia.

Sigh.

Nato raises their defense as a response to Russia raising their offense. (And also as a response to China raising their offense.)

Why do I even write here..

Edited March 7, 2022 by Blackhawk