this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
497 points (95.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6625 readers
590 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean it can be both (broadly speaking). NATO loves expanding and broadening the strength of its alliance, weakening a geopolitical enemy, opening up new markets for their shiny shiny weapons, and provoking a little low-level conflict to keep everyone alert and stay on top of new tactical developments now that the landscape of war is changing.
But also, holding Russia at bay is a necessary noble thing to do, and all these breakaway republics are acting out of pure self preservation necessity when they join an alliance that will bloody Russia's nose for them if they get messed with.
All Russia had to do was join NATO and stop claiming the former Soviet Union has to be restored. NATO exists because Russia was considered a threat. Were it not a threat, its entire existence would be futile.
NATO was on the decline in the last decade. There were many articles asking if it was just a cold war holdover and many countries weren't paying their fair share. Then Russia invaded Ukraine, starting the largest war in Europe since WWII, and suddenly new countries are joining NATO and members are increasingly paying their 2%.
They did try in 1954, but were turned down.
Putin asked about it again when he came to power, he just didn’t want to wait in line or meet the prerequisites like the “countries that don’t matter” did
Russia is testing if NATO is indeed an anti-Russia alliance. It may well be, although Russians culturally distinguish themselves from the West and would never align with the latter. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, the man responsible for the collapse of communism, still expressed concerns about NATO expansion. Russia even set up CSTO, as something of a counter to NATO, with several former Soviet republics. So, this clearly shows Russia wants to be independent from the West and carve their own influence; that ideology being called Eurasianist.
Keep in mind though that the West and Putin were friendly in the 00s but the former keep questioning the human rights issue in Russia. So, I think this annoyed Putin (as many dictators tend to be when questioned about human rights) and only galvanised his and Russia's anti-Western sentiment. There are many Russians who are pro-West and liberal, but they are a minority in comparison to the nationalist and Eurasianist minded Russian population. Because if Putin truly doesn't have support, the support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have already collapsed.
lmao
I find the term "Breakaway Republic" rather problematic. Most of the countries that used to be in the Warsaw Pact or USSR were independent before World War II. They did not just break away, they re-established their independence.