The US was invited into South Vietnam to help defend them against an invasion from North Vietnam. We can debate the morality of the resulting war, which was questionable, but it was not a US invasion.
The US invasion of Nicaragua was in 1912, long before the modern post-WWII era of stronger international law.
Chile was not invaded by the US.
If these are the examples you have, you don’t have a strong argument.
Pardon me, you have gotten yourself dragged into a tu quoque defense of Russia.
It is best not to engage in these arguments, because they are almost never conducted in good faith.
The goal is partially to make the claim that "the US is just as bad/worse, therefore, Russia is acting morally/logically/blamelessly", but primarily to simply turn the conversation into one where you are defending everything the US has ever done wrong, instead of discussing whatever Russia is currently doing, which is where the bad faith comes in.
If you do feel compelled to engage, I recommend at most acknowledging whatever the US did previously, before pivoting back to discussing the actual current situation. Otherwise, you're playing into the strategy.
My argument is that Russia was compelled to attack both Georgia and Ukraine because of NATO expansion, or rather preventing NATO expansion, not because of "Putin is crazy, wants to be a Tsar".
Your argument is that Russia wants to occupy territory just for the sake of expanding Russia, which is really not logical or reasonable.
My argument is that if Mexico or Canada joined a military pact with Russia, the US would invade those countries immediately.
Your argument is that any country can join a mutually defence pact without any consequences, as should be the case for Ukraine.
Buddy, pal, even if it wasn't absolutely craven to attack a country for fear they'd join a defensive pact because they were afraid you'd attack them, you're already begging the question that Ukraine was about to join NATO, which has been shelved for two decades, and even more off the table for the last decade since joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea.
There was a 0% chance of Ukraine joining NATO in the next N years prior to Russia's invasion of them in 2021.
Even if by some twisted logic that were pretext for a quote-unquote "just war", it cannot be a justification for the land grab Russia is making in Ukraine today, killing civilians and committing various war crimes on the daily to do it.
The land grab is Russia's assurance that the crimean pipelines and access to the black sea and the sea of azov remain unchallenged. The pipelines are extremely important to Russia's economy, and they will of course make sure to secure them. Fortunately for Russia, the eastern part of Ukraine also leans pro-Russia, has the most ethnically russian population, votes for pro-russian politicians, and also speaks the most russian, unlike the western part.[1] Russia's strategy is to secure those areas only, since those areas would be the easiest to operate. Russia would never able to rule over the current western ukrainian territories, because of the ethnical and demographical divide.
Russia wouldnt attack both Georgia and Ukraine, and spend billions of resources just for the 0% chance of Ukrainian and Georgian NATO admission. Both Montenegro and Macedonia joined NATO in a matter of months, in the latter case when the regime was toppled. Enabling any talks between NATO and Ukraine/Georgia would be considered extremely terrifying for the national security of Russia.
> joining NATO would have required relinquishing its claim on Crimea.
That’s...not at all clear (there is no such legal requirement, though there were some NATO members who publicly suggested that resolving the territorial disputes with Russia first was their then-current diplomatic position at various times in the discussion of the possibility. But diplomatic positions are sometimes prone to change in response to inducements from parties with different preferences.)
> My argument is that Russia was compelled to attack both Georgia and Ukraine because of NATO expansion, or rather preventing NATO expansion, not because of "Putin is crazy, wants to be a Tsar".
This fails to explain why Russia attacked both countries after NATO had decided not to offer them a path to membership.
Putin's intense hostility toward NATO stems from the fact that NATO stands in the way of invading Europe. The blitzkrieg against Ukraine also failed largely because of military support from European NATO members, who used established NATO communication channels to coordinate their efforts - exactly the thing NATO was established for!
If Russia were a normal European country, it would have nothing to lose and much to gain from bordering NATO. NATO membership comes with oversight and separation requirements that make member states stable and predictable. A former, pre-Putin foreign minister of Russia described this as "free-of-charge security on Russia's western border".
It is a problem for Putin only because he seeks to invade Europe; NATO stands in the way.
> Your argument is that Russia wants to occupy territory just for the sake of expanding Russia, which is really not logical or reasonable.
It is perfectly reasonable when you look at who holds power in Russia: the old revanchist KGB clan seeking to restore the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. This is the world they grew up in and were indoctrinated into in KGB schools. For them, it is a "normalcy" to which they must return.
> My argument is that if Mexico or Canada joined a military pact with Russia, the US would invade those countries immediately.
There is no need for guessing games when Cuba was actually in a military pact with the USSR until 1991 and hosted jets, bombers, missile cruisers and other conventional weapons for decades after the missile crisis. You can read about Soviet warships conducting missile drills off the coast of Florida in old newspapers. This is far more than anyone has done for countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War. And yet, the US did not invade Cuba.
> Your argument is that any country can join a mutually defence pact without any consequences, as should be the case for Ukraine.
Russia has repeatedly, in writing, pledged to respect the sovereignty of other European countries, including Ukraine, and their freedom to join military alliances. There's nothing to discuss - unless you want to turn Europe into a landscape of semi-sovereign nations ruled by Russia, which raises the question: why should Russia, in particular, be the European master race? Shouldn't the Franco-German alliance, with its much larger economy, bigger population, and numerous allies, instead dictate what Russia can and cannot do?
> Putin's intense hostility toward NATO stems from the fact that NATO stands in the way of invading Europe
....
> It is a problem for Putin only because he seeks to invade Europe; NATO stands in the way.
These are the most outlandish sensationalist claims I've heard on this subject, that are basically bordering on primary school children discussions. There is absolutely 0% chance or even any rational thought or discussion that has happened by the leadership in Russia on this topic. Not even Russia, but any leader with half a brain would not even simulate this scenario. This is not post WW2 anymore. Even if theoretically Russia had the military capability to "invade Europe", not only would that be the most pointless invasion, since Russia wouldn't be able gain anything after they invaded. What can they gain? They'll go to the banks and loot them, get the gold and send it home? They'll rule over the French or the Germans and make them buy Ladas? Loot some factory machines? They'll install puppets dictators? I really see in no way how this can be anyhow practical or even feasible, even if Russia had that capability. Lets say hypothetically Russia already invaded and occupied Europe, and by tonight their military has control of every piece of territory in Europe, then what? What will they do tomorrow? If you give me a single argument of why that costly occupation of europe would actually give them any benefits that outweigh those costs, then I would surrender this debate to you and never debate this again...
> There is no need for guessing games when Cuba was actually in a military pact with the USSR until 1991 and hosted jets, bombers, missile cruisers and other conventional weapons for decades after the missile crisis. You can read about Soviet warships conducting missile drills off the coast of Florida in old newspapers. This is far more than anyone has done for countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War. And yet, the US did not invade Cuba.
Cuba and Russia were never in a FORMAL military alliance or pact, since that would've provoked an immediate US invasion. They were collaborating when needed given their mutual enemy - the US. What brought the missile crisis was the planning of Russia to install nuclear weapons on the island that threatened the US (they were never installed for your information), this was as a result of the US initially installing similar nuclear weapons in Italy, Turkey and England, and also as a result of the CIA training a paramilitary cuban force to overthrow Castro (which failed of course). Again this crisis was brought on solely because of US actions, but that is out of scope for this argument. But after the missile crisis, Russia never really escalated, never put any weapons that were threatening to the US, and the only military help Cuba got was for the defense from attempts of overthrowing Castro by the US-led cabal.
> There is absolutely 0% chance or even any rational thought or discussion that has happened by the leadership in Russia on this topic.
All military and intelligence chiefs of the European nations that share a border with Russia disagree with that and warn that their societies must be prepared for an invasion within 2 to 5 years after the war in Ukraine ends. What you call "outlandish sensational claims" by "primary school children" is something they take very seriously and it has fundamentally reshaped their approach to defense policy. Sweden, most notably, abandoned 200 years of neutrality, joined NATO, and began hardening its vulnerable points, such as the island of Gotland, which was demilitarized in 2005. Now Sweden has re-established a military presence on the island, brought back heavy weaponry, and is building up a defensive force. Why does an island in the middle of the Baltic sea need tanks, air defense systems and fighter jets on high alert?
Finland, known for its progressive policies, left the Ottawa treaty that banned anti-personnel mines. Why do you think they did that? Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are building bunkers and digging defensive lines on their border with Russia. Latvian news reported just today that the government is considering dismantling rail tracks connecting to Russia to make them unavailable to invading force. Not to mention Poland's buying spree: Poland is acquiring hundreds of rocket artillery systems and a thousand tanks.
Are they all foolish children who don't know what they are doing? The looming threat of a Russian invasion is the sole reason Northern and Eastern Europe maintain militaries at all. There is no other threat in the region. Their militaries could be disbanded overnight if Russia were to vanish into thin air.
> Cuba and Russia were never in a FORMAL military alliance or pact, since that would've provoked an immediate US invasion.
It doesn't change the fact that in practical terms, the military cooperation between Cuba and the USSR was much deeper than the relationship post–Cold War NATO members have had with the older members. The newer NATO members have received only a promise of assistance in the event of an invasion. Cuba received actual tanks, submarines and fighter jets.
The military and intelligence chiefs of all these countries will of course act this way, the other side of the answer for this question is "No worries, Russia's not a threat, we'll keep everything as is". Imagine if a military general from Poland or Finland answers this, he'll lose his job immediately. If I am a Polish citizen and the Polish military general says this, I will absolutely make sure that guy gets fired, I will protest on the streets because of this. It would be ridiculous for a military general to say that all is fine, except if he's waging war of course :D
That answer, that Russia's not a threat, goes against the whole NATO and The West's side of the argument, which is that Ukraine needs financial and military support from the US and EU. What's happening in Ukraine is a proxy war, that has been cooking since 2008 if not even sooner. Why would the citizens of EU and US fund Ukraine if Russia's not an existential threat to us? Why would we care? We certainly care more about Palestinians, since we see all these massacred people on instagram and twitter, but none of our money goes there. Theres very little civilian videos coming out of Ukraine regarding war crimes. So we need explanations of why we are sending money to Ukraine, just as we needed those for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria etc. Bush and the admin lied about WMDs and chemical weapons, which we found out 15 years after, and yet the taxpayer money was washed out of the voter base, into the military industrial complex.
The west is funding Ukraine so that they weaken Russia and do a regime-change that is favorable to The West, not because Russia is an existential threat. Russia can't even occupy Ukraine, a country with the lowest GDP per capita in europe, with one of the highest corruption indexes, let alone imagine occupying parts of Europe, say Poland, or the Baltics. It makes zero sense. Even if they did occupy, they wont be able to do anything? I dont get it? Europe doesnt have any major natural resources? What will they do with all of us? Enslave us and sell us to african tribal leaders? Steal the gold? I seriously dont understand.
The West needed a leader that would break that cold-war-ish pointless loop of blaming Russia for everything, since Russia is not a threat anymore, but China is. But any western leader claiming that would've actually caused a political suicide for him, his career would be over, because we the citizens have been fed this propaganda of Russian threat for decades, and its hard to forget it.
What happened with Trump was that he had enough mojo and approval to actually sell the public this argument of Russia not being a threat, and he successfully changed course by 180 degrees, completely disbanding all of the previous decades of foreign policy that was aimed against Russia, because it was useless. He hasnt done many good things since he took office, but just this one makes up for all of them and will go down in history for it.
P.S. just to add, I come from a country in the Balkans, but've lived for a long time in the UK, and now I live in the US. Even my homecountry started preparing for war against Russia :D, most probably because we were "advised" by our "allies" from the EU. The threat from Russia we have is NIL, NADA, not even that, its in the negative range, its embarrassing.
> The military and intelligence chiefs of all these countries will of course act this way, the other side of the answer for this question is "No worries, Russia's not a threat, we'll keep everything as is". Imagine if a military general from Poland or Finland answers this, he'll lose his job immediately.
Why? The public and other government institutions would much prefer to hear that there is no threat from Russia, and that we do not need to pull productive members of society away from their work and studies to serve as conscripts. Finnish law requires all apartment buildings to provide proper shelters, which adds about 2% to construction costs. Don't you think real estate developers and buyers would be very glad to eliminate this expense? If Russia is not a threat, then this is just a waste of resources.
But your argument is a tough sell when major Russian exercises simulate naval and airborne landings into Finland and missile strikes against Finnish cities. Combined with extreme rhetoric from Russian state media, which regularly questions Finland's right to exist, accuses it of being a Russophobic Nazi state, and portrays it as a "dangerous breakaway" instead of a legitimate independent nation, there is little room to underestimate the seriousness of the threat. This is the same rhetoric Russia has used against Ukraine, and we can all see how far they are willing to take it. Many dismissed the rhetoric as empty posturing until missiles started raining down.
> Russia can't even occupy Ukraine, a country with the lowest GDP per capita in europe, with one of the highest corruption indexes, let alone imagine occupying parts of Europe, say Poland, or the Baltics.
GDP per capita doesn't fight.
Ukraine had vast Soviet stockpiles that had not been scrapped. For example, independent counting has recorded at least 1330 visually confirmed Ukrainian tank losses. Compare that with Germany, which has twice the population and is far wealthier: as of 2022, the entire German fleet consisted of only ~200 operational tanks.
How many other countries in Europe can afford to lose 1330 tanks and still keep fighting? Who even has 1330 operational tanks to begin with? No one. Even major countries like the UK and France have only 160 and 220 tanks, respectively. These small numbers are not enough to stop the kind of onslaught Ukraine is experiencing, which is why European military leaders are rightfully so concerned.
> Finnish law requires all apartment buildings to provide proper shelters, which adds about 2% to construction costs.
When was this law enacted?
> The public and other government institutions would much prefer to hear that there is no threat from Russia, and that we do not need to pull productive members of society away from their work and studies to serve as conscripts.
Sadly this is not how politics works. If the human race was a giant insectoid hive mind, we would have way better use of resources than we have now. There is a great essay called Meditations on Moloch [1], that explains what youre describing, especially about war. The military industrial complex is its own self propelling feedback loop industry. If no country had a ministry of defense, we would all be better off, but if one country does it, then every country has to have it, so all of this percentages of GDP are sunk into it, instead of going into healthcare or education.
Since WW2, or even before maybe WW1, the rules of war and occupation have changed. Its not possible anymore for one country to just occupy another, mainly because more territory doesnt mean more economic growth or gain, and mainly because its impossible to rule over another peoples in the modern age, as opposed to in the past. The modern occupation consists of the occupying country having some kind of same-ethnicity but minority faction inside the occupied country, and trying to use that situation to create a breakaway state (which the occupied country wouldnt want of course) so it would create a pretense for war, or use that faction to influence politics for the whole country. The other modern occupation method is to influence the politics of the country by either heavily financially supporting a given faction, or heavily arming that faction (in a paramilitary way). Both of these methods provide political backsupport for the occupying country, in order for better economic deals and geopolitical positioning. But the main goal for the game of modern occupation and warfare is better economic deals.
What politicians and governments state in public is quite different than what actions they enact. Russia's politicians have to look strong. By stating those things about Finland, they hope to say "we hold Finland by the balls" because there is a Russian minority there, and because sometime ago parts of Finland was Russian territory, so they can sell those arguments to the public for a necessary invasion if needed. So they want to tell Finland to not escalate this further by putting nukes on the border, since that would result in war, and to keep being a buffer zone. But in all reality there's 0% chance of Russia invading Finland unprovoked, mainly because we western europeans consider Finland to be part of us, part of the EU, unlike Ukraine which we consider to be a part of the Russian sphere of influence. In all reality, if Russia invades Finland, that would be the biggest blunder for Russian politics because in a matter of seconds NATO would occupy Moscow.
> the entire German fleet consisted of only ~200 operational tanks
Germany was demilitarized until a few years ago, as part of post WW2 rules. They're not the example you're thinking of. In addition, tanks are not important for european warfare anymore, because most of the warfare NATO was waging was overseas. Most of the combat strategy has changed to involve combat aircraft and rockets, which NATO excels at.
Many decades ago. Finland now serves as a blueprint for civil defense. Estonia and Latvia have begun to introduce similar provisions, and Norway announced restoration of theirs that were abolished in 1998.
> Its not possible anymore for one country to just occupy another, mainly because more territory doesnt mean more economic growth or gain, and mainly because its impossible to rule over another peoples in the modern age, as opposed to in the past.
The USSR was perfectly willing to trade economic development for imperialism. The methods they used to keep the Eastern Bloc under control are also well known. Are you not aware of the Hungarian uprising of 1956, the Prague spring of 1968, the imposition of martial law in Poland in 1981, and other key events? Driving a tank over dissenters or ordering soldiers to beat their skulls open with sapper shovels is a surprisingly effective way of crushing opposition. That remains true in 2025, as we can see on the news.
> In all reality, if Russia invades Finland, that would be the biggest blunder for Russian politics because in a matter of seconds NATO would occupy Moscow.
The same was said about Ukraine, and yet here we are, about to enter the fifth year of the war.
I see no reason to believe that an attack on other European countries besides Ukraine would lead to a much different reaction. Revelations about the Biden administration have shown that Biden knowingly limited Ukraine's capabilities precisely when the Kharkiv offensive was achieving its greatest successes because he got scared by Russian threats to retaliate with nuclear weapons. What makes Finland or Latvia or Poland so exceptional that it would suddenly make allies stop fearing Russian nukes?
> But in all reality there's 0% chance of Russia invading Finland unprovoked, mainly because we western europeans consider Finland to be part of us, part of the EU, unlike Ukraine which we consider to be a part of the Russian sphere of influence
This is just your bias talking. Finns are proper Europeans for you, while Ukrainians are some half-slaves of Russia. For Putin's generation, the us-versus-them border runs considerably further west from yours, somewhere along the furthest extent of imperial Russia and the USSR and its satellites. The Russian viewpoint is very well summarized in the 1997 "Foundations of Geopolitics" by hardcore Russian Nazi Alexander Dugin and much of what he wrote there has been put into action since the book was published: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics#In_...
> Germany was demilitarized until a few years ago, as part of post WW2 rules.
Not true at all. West Germany had 5000 tanks in the 1980s. As a general rule, European countries have lost about 80-90% of the equipment and manpower that they had during the Cold War.
> In addition, tanks are not important for european warfare anymore, because most of the warfare NATO was waging was overseas. Most of the combat strategy has changed to involve combat aircraft and rockets, which NATO excels at.
Other areas are just as lacking. Germany has only about 30 operational fighter jets, artillery rounds for only a few days at the intensity seen in the war in Ukraine, and so on. Germany has a scandal about the poor state of the Bundeswehr every time its inspector-general issues a report.
**
With outlandish ideas about "Moscow being occupied within seconds", it seems like you're living in another era of the distant past. It is a luxury that defense and intelligence chiefs cannot afford, which is why your assessments diverge from theirs. By focusing on economics, you clearly fail to recognize that Russians are driven by an entirely different set of factors. By overestimating European military strength, you severely underestimate how far a broader Russian attack could penetrate.
The argument is that these rules that you describe that any country can join any mutual defence pact without any repercussions is just plain wrong, mainly because the US would be immediately working against that even with military interventions. Its the same thing with how the US's stance for foreign policy is to push democracy where it suits them if they have big influence with one of the parties, and to push favourable dictatorships if not. There's double standards and twofacedness by the US foreign policy which really everyone else sees besides US citizens themselves, mostly because the average american barely even knows anything about domestic politics let alone foreign ones (except the few propaganda topics we get from the three letter tv channels).
Just answer this question, would the US object to, possibly with military intervention, if Mexico or Canada would join a military defence pact with China or Russia, or India, or say really any other country besides the US, even Brazil. We both know the answer to this.
Now lets do even easier. Would the US object to any South American countries joining a mutual defence pact with Russia / China? We already have the answer to this.
unless you're Cuba, or Vietnam, or Nicaragua, or Chile, and the list goes on
but yes, in theory you're right; in practice history shows that if they are small and powerless then they cannot, not without consequences