> Why put up with NATO expansion? Russia's expansion is also totally defensive! wink-wink
The difference between NATO's expansion and Russia's expansion is that Finland is not under a threat of violence from NATO. Quite clearly Russia is threatening Ukraine with violence if it doesn't become part of Russia.
That would be why Russia's expansion isn't totally defensive. I mean, it's defensive for Russia sure. Just not for Ukraine.
Similar to the old joke. A man from American tells his Soviet friend; freedom is being able to criticize Regan from outside the White House without being arrested. His Soviet friend tells him; we have freedom too! You can criticize Regan from outside the Kremlin as well!
> The difference between NATO's expansion and Russia's expansion is that Finland is not under a threat of violence from NATO.
But Finland isn't technically under a threat of violence from Russia. "Wasn't" at least, as there had been no warm grievances that anyone really cared about.
You'll say that Finland has to assume threat and mitigate risks, but this is hardly any different from Russia's perspective against NATO.
> Quite clearly Russia is threatening Ukraine with violence if it doesn't become part of Russia.
Eh, methinks this is an overestimation of Russia's ambition. One could realistically argue that Russia merely "defends" east-leaning loyalish "Russian-speaking" regions. Realistically, even action towards Odessa would automatically involve Prednisone and then no one would be handle that Genie without major clusterfuck.
> I mean, it's defensive for Russia sure. Just not for Ukraine.
Sure, but that's exactly the point I am trying to convey: enemy military can talk about "defense" all it wants, but at the end of the day their job is to kill people and that might as well include you.
> You'll say that Finland has to assume threat and mitigate risks, but this is hardly any different from Russia's perspective against NATO.
Finland is considered by Russia to be an unfriendly country. That's an escalation towards violence and the USSR and Finland have fought several wars. No reason to wait a decade to get invaded like Ukraine; just join NATO now while you can.
The difference is how Finland and Russia are mitigating their threats. Finland is mitigating the threat of Russia by joining a defense alliance. Russia is mitigating the threat of NATO's power expansion by invading countries that might join.
Russia could create their own defense alliance, lets call it the Warsaw Pact. And then it could allow Ukraine to join their Warsaw Pact. If NATO invaded Ukraine to prevent Ukraine from joining the Warsaw pact I'd say NATO was in the wrong.
> Eh, methinks this is an overestimation of Russia's ambition. One could realistically argue that Russia merely "defends" east-leaning loyalish "Russian-speaking" regions. Realistically, even action towards Odessa would automatically involve Prednisone and then no one would be handle that Genie without major clusterfuck.
The problem is the phrase "regions". Nobody cares when you kill people within your own borders. Ukraine is outside of Russia's borders and so we care.
The difference between NATO's expansion and Russia's expansion is that Finland is not under a threat of violence from NATO. Quite clearly Russia is threatening Ukraine with violence if it doesn't become part of Russia.
That would be why Russia's expansion isn't totally defensive. I mean, it's defensive for Russia sure. Just not for Ukraine.
Similar to the old joke. A man from American tells his Soviet friend; freedom is being able to criticize Regan from outside the White House without being arrested. His Soviet friend tells him; we have freedom too! You can criticize Regan from outside the Kremlin as well!