In the late 90s and early 2000s, who exactly was NATO defending itself against? there was no longer an adversary superpower that needed to be fought with mass fighter jets and tanks. Russia was agreeing to let American military aircraft through its airspace for chrissakes
The only reason NATO stuck around back then was that a bunch of bureaucrats really wanted to keep their jobs.
I recently read a book about the relevant history and it’s been 20-30 years since. I was curious about how Russia started on the warpath and the transition from Clinton to Bush (Iraq, the ABM treaty, etc) was a fairly major factor. It was a very jarring contrast reading speeches and news reports from back then, such as the franco-german-russian united front against the iraq war. Things could have gone very differently back then if a few decisions weren’t made.
I can’t believe you fell for that. And 2) back to the original point of late ninties early 2000s, some people can see beyond the very measly 5 years you tried to limit it to. Ciao.
No, the point is that the situation was a bit more complicated than “Russia is a disease that cannot be reasoned with” within living memory. Sure at this point we’re cheerfully careening towards ww3 with all diplomacy out the window (with Russia as a primary driver). But it didn’t use to be like that
Reality is more complicated than the strawman you were putting into someone else’s mouth? Ya don’t say… I mean that’s sort of the point of a strawman like the one you were making.
But also, I’ve not seen any serious analysis backing the idea we’re currently on a path to WW3. Such a situation is unlikely to be produced by the Ukrainian conflict alone.
To back that claim you’re going to have to rely on theoretical escalations outside that conflict… And that’s not what “careening towards” means.
If a car is careening towards something, it doesn’t mean - it would be happening if it means it is happening BECAUSE…
Funny how right after Openskies ended Russia invades a country. Almost seems like all the precautions in place were kinda keeping them from misbehaving.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in 1949 and is a group of 32 countries from Europe and North America that exists to protect the people and territory of its members.
… treaties don’t just disappear after a short amount of peace. I think it would take at least 50 solid years and probably some democracy for that sort of thing to happen.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, who exactly was NATO defending itself against? there was no longer an adversary superpower that needed to be fought with mass fighter jets and tanks. Russia was agreeing to let American military aircraft through its airspace for chrissakes
The only reason NATO stuck around back then was that a bunch of bureaucrats really wanted to keep their jobs.
It’s amazing you’re trying this rhetoric when Russia is literally on the warpath.
I recently read a book about the relevant history and it’s been 20-30 years since. I was curious about how Russia started on the warpath and the transition from Clinton to Bush (Iraq, the ABM treaty, etc) was a fairly major factor. It was a very jarring contrast reading speeches and news reports from back then, such as the franco-german-russian united front against the iraq war. Things could have gone very differently back then if a few decisions weren’t made.
This is the same energy as polo is gone so we don’t need vaccines anymore.
Comparing an entire country to a disease, stay classy reddit
idk how else to respond lol. Did not expect to see defenses of the bush administration’s foreign policy on lemmy
Truth is you had no point. And it was easily shown with 1 sentence.
No, the point is that the situation was a bit more complicated than “Russia is a disease that cannot be reasoned with” within living memory. Sure at this point we’re cheerfully careening towards ww3 with all diplomacy out the window (with Russia as a primary driver). But it didn’t use to be like that
Reality is more complicated than the strawman you were putting into someone else’s mouth? Ya don’t say… I mean that’s sort of the point of a strawman like the one you were making.
But also, I’ve not seen any serious analysis backing the idea we’re currently on a path to WW3. Such a situation is unlikely to be produced by the Ukrainian conflict alone.
To back that claim you’re going to have to rely on theoretical escalations outside that conflict… And that’s not what “careening towards” means.
If a car is careening towards something, it doesn’t mean - it would be happening if it means it is happening BECAUSE…
Funny how right after Openskies ended Russia invades a country. Almost seems like all the precautions in place were kinda keeping them from misbehaving.
… treaties don’t just disappear after a short amount of peace. I think it would take at least 50 solid years and probably some democracy for that sort of thing to happen.