DocWatts

What Lefties Get Wrong About NATO

87 posts in this topic

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.


"Wanting keeps me from the awareness I already have it. I already am it.” — Byron Katie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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. 


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 by Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@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 by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 by Scholar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 by DocWatts

"The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical." - George Lakoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


"Wanting keeps me from the awareness I already have it. I already am it.” — Byron Katie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأشهد أن ليو رسول الله

*This account is no longer active as the user has decided to leave the forum*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura Wait, what?

Wouldn't you agree that sometimes people (or even humanity as a whole) have to reach their lowest point in order to then go to another level? 

It's like with that Don Beck quote. Leaps forward are often preceded by desperate, regressive steps backward.

Obviously it'd be idiotic to go for these lowest points intentionally. I'm not saying that. And war should be avoided at all costs. But I'd say that indeed it could be the case that we'd look back at ww3 and say "it was tragic, but it progressed us unlike anything else".


You don't have to like everyone. You just have to love them.

This account is no longer active. New account is @Sincerity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

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

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.

Sooner or later the world will go to war again. If not tomorrow, maybe in 50 or 200 years. I mean, are we really underestimating our fellow humans? Although I really hope it doesn't happen, obviously.


You don't have to like everyone. You just have to love them.

This account is no longer active. New account is @Sincerity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Do you think there is a fair chance to survive a nuclear war?

I mean, humanity isn't that easy to kill (I hope?)

Although you might be right. I don't know, really. Maybe it'd wouldn't be a step forward after a temporary regress as I said earlier, but instead a massive, unnecessary, hopeless step backward which would take decades or centuries to reverse. Or maybe we really would kill ourselves off. It all really depends on how many nukes are launched.

But nevertheless I think that global war is bound to happen AT LEAST once more in the future. How far into the future, I don't know. It just seems very implausible to me that humanity will keep its peace forever.


You don't have to like everyone. You just have to love them.

This account is no longer active. New account is @Sincerity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now