It's not Russia, it's Putin
This topic contains 262 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by 
TheEncogitationer 2 years, 6 months ago.
-
NATO was set up to defend the West against Russia. It’s only a threat to Putin because he is a humiliated bully.
The idea that NATO is a threat is ridiculous. It is a defensive alliance. Any country, if it were to meet the entry requirements and be accepted by other members, can join. Allowing a country on a border of a hostile force, is not a threat. It is strengthening that countries chance of strength in unity and mutual defence. Ukraine joining NATO as a reason to invade Ukraine is preposterous.
It was an excuse to invade Ukraine, something which is beneficial to the people who chose to invade Ukraine, not the average Russian in the slightest. Aggression against a medium sized neighbour, allied with powerful countries is never a recipe for stability or self-protection. It is like saying you’re cutting down an enormous forest to protect the environment for your citizens because the trees make it hard to build windmills. Yeah, there is a tiny bit of sense in that yes, to might need to remove a few trees to build some windmills (though there are plenty of locations without trees) but the end result is absolutely not helping the environment…and your just stuffing the pockets of the leaders who profit off those trees being cut.
The individual members of NATO are not saints and certainly do things for their own interests which are not always helpful on a global scale. None the less, what Russia’s ruling class is doing is using “security” as an excuse to fulfil their own interests, committing endless atrocities in the process, gaining a tighter grip over the people and fulfilling their own interests along the way. You simply cannot believe anything a tyrant says about why they are doing something contentious or controversial. It is almost always spin and they are almost always doing it for personal nefarious reasons (or for the interests of those who keep them in power).
It absolutely baffles my mind how anyone can take a sympathetic approach to Russia, not to mention the fact that they do every evil thing they claim they are fighting against in exponentially worse ways making the lives of their citizens and neighbouring countries miserable along the way.
What is the distinction between an artificial country and a legit?
The only remotely reasonable answer is, a legit country is one that is recognised by most other countries (I don’t care what most is…let’s say, like 75%?). Artificial isn’t a sensible word with country. Illegitimate maybe is? Like calling Tibet a country is illegitimate (even if you think it should be it’s own one). Same with Somaliland (even though it does de facto act as it’s own nation). It simply isn’t recognised and cannot do what all other recognised nations do (though it does, to a limited extent do other things).
The idea that some nations are less “artificial” than others is preposterous. There are simply no nations that have the same boundaries that they did centuries ago unless they are Islands, and even then they were almost certainly part of some other “nation” (as Iceland was) or extended themselves beyond it and included non indigenous cultures (like Japan). Age doesn’t necessarily work to legitimise a country, as an old one can still be made up of disparate groups who were cobbled together (like Spain or Belgium) or were once part of larger unions (like Austria or Thailand). Some nations gradually annexed other people’s land (people who still live on that land as now oppressed minorities no longer enjoying their own nation) such as America, Canada, Australia or Argentina. Some were born from a culture who once lived in one place, migrated and took over another (Hungary, Azerbaijan). Others only recently seceded from an oppressor, though never previously having been united nation before within the new borders set (Ireland, Bangladesh, Eretria).
Some nations were carved up by colonial powers (Lebanon, Malaysia). Others were creations by larger empires that mostly contained an ethnic group but still had their own members in bordering areas and minorities within their own (Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Iran, Sri Lanka, Laos).
I cannot fathom how we could coherently define an “artificial” country. Let alone use the existence of a nation being artificial to refuse them their own autonomy or justify atrocities against them. If we were to allow that, we could easily justify invading America to give natives their land back, invading Iceland to give it back to Denmark, invade Lebanon to further divide it by sectarian groups, invade Somalia to force autonomous regions to act as a united nation or invade Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Northern Italy to recreate the Holy Roman Empire. We could also invade Russia to force them to give up Chechnya, Tartarstan, Dagestan, Karelia, Ingushetia, El Merv, Chuvask and Altai (amongst many others).
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by
Davis.
-
This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.