Gaetz Tells Bolling Russia Would Be Better NATO Member Than Ukraine: ‘Probably Provides More Benefit Long-Term’

Who says Russia can't join in on that goal? /j

In fairness, in the very early 2000s, before it became obvious Russia was just going to continue being a dick, Russia was on the path of becoming a NATO ally.

Which makes one wonder why they were still around after the collapse of the USSR. Well, they've managed to create jobs for themselves since then, so congrats to them.

NATO was built to oppose the USSR, of which Russia was a member state. Do not confuse them. Modern Russia is feeling the effects of the Soviet era, but that doesn't make them the same country.

Although you are correct from a historical perspective, you are not from a foreign policy perspective.

With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the United States considered the Russian Federation as the successor state of the USSR.

Via The US State Department
- "Successor state" means the next state. Your own source disproved you. The successor states to Yugoslavia are not the same as Yugoslavia in that same manner.
  
  Edit: since this is the most downvoted comment I've posted in this thread, I'm curious. Does anyone know why the US chose to so quickly recognize Russia as the successor state out of all of the former Soviet nations?
  
  I dunno, maybe because it's where the USSR was ruled from, or maybe it's because it's the biggest? Or maybe stop being a pedantic little turd and stop the bad faith nonsense and just come out and say you're a pro putin bootlicker?
  
  Took a while for someone to finally try and answer this.
  
  It's because Gorbachev plotted with a small group of people to undermine the Soviet communist party and "reform" it into a more liberal nation to appease the west. What he failed to realise was that the Soviet communist party was the underpinning of the entire USSR (an optional union), as well as the source of his authority as an elected leader. This intentional shifting of power from "we are party for the politicians" to "we are the party that controls institutions" (as well as external pressure, unorthodox party members as elected officials, and historical implications) weakened the Soviet party and the USSR to the point where unity broke down into national/ethnic tribalism with far right reactionaries destabilizing things even more. When the USSR collapsed in political suicide, Yeltsin was President of the Russian SFSR, was more than eager to seize power from Gorbachev, and was one of three that plotted to illegally dissolve the USSR. The moment the USSR collapsed, Gorbachev was out of power. The US didn't have to do anything to get the same results as the Mujahideen, but they had a reactionary in power that was lukewarm to the west; the results were the same. That is why they recognized the Russian Federation so quickly.
  
  The Russian SFSR and the Russian Federation are distinct countries with different economies and different interests. In no way, shape, or form are they the same. The only thing in common is the geographic region. You hurt your credibility by claiming otherwise.
You might be technically correct but the distinction largely does not matter in terms of the West taking a hard line against military aggression in Eastern Europe.
- This doesn't make any sense. What military aggression?
  
  Edit: aside from this ongoing war in the Ukraine, of which Russia is obviously the aggressor towards another former Soviet state (i.e. not towards the west)
  
  I thought you were being intentionally obtuse but I see what you mean. Ukraine might not be a NATO member (yet), but that doesn't mean that NATO wants Russia grabbing land from democracies that act as a buffer between them and Russia.
  
  I'll be entirely honest, I don't think NATO will accept the Ukraine at all. I think NATO saw an opportunity to fuel a proxy war against Russia, and after they win the Ukraine will receive some aid and be left to their own devices. There's nothing about the situation that leads me to believe anything else other than NATO using the war as an excuse to further their imperial interests. Right now the excuse is the war. When the war is over, there will be a different excuse; perhaps it will be "not until the country is rebuilt".
  
  'the ukraine' was dropped over 30 years ago. Nato Imperialism? i see you.
  
  I don't know what you mean. I use 'ukraine' and 'the ukraine' interchangeably for better sentence flow. That's like getting upset over someone saying 'the us'.
  
  Yea, i dont believe you at all since you also go with Nato Imperialism and ignored that.
  
  “Ukraine is a country,” says William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. “The Ukraine is the way the Russians referred to that part of the country during Soviet times … Now that it is a country, a nation, and a recognized state, it is just Ukraine. And it is incorrect to refer to the Ukraine, even though a lot of people do it.”
  
  I see you.
  
  I actually didn't know that. I'd never even heard of that before. I chose to not acknowledge you mentioning my mention of NATO imperialism because I had no clue by what you meant. NATO and the imperial core are basically the same thing. If you're trying to pretend that the military aid given to Ukraine isn't imperialist power, then I don't know what to say.
  
  By 'I see you', do you mean that I'm a leftist? Because, well, yea. I was attracted to lemmy the moment I learned about it because of leftist principles like the anarchical nature of the fediverse and the rejection of private property through FOSS.
  
  Probably shouldn't have any strong opinions on any subject in this thread if you don't even know the basic language of the issue. This is called being a know-nothing.
  
  Idiotic take. Saying the Ukraine is to refer to Ukraine as a territory of Russia.
  
  It isn't a territory. It is a country. The name of that country is Ukraine.
  
  You don't say the Mexico or the Canada.
  
  The name of the US is "United States of America". Note the lack of the word "the". Should we start referring to Puerto Rico as "the Puerto Rico" or to Guam as "the Guam" if the most used word in the English language denotes possession?
  
  What military aggression?
  
  Russia fighting a devastating war in Chechnya. Russia occupying and trying to annex Transnistria. Russia fighting a war in Georgia in order to annex South Ossetia. Russia fighting a second war of annihilation in Chechnya. Russia annexing Crimea. Russia fighting a war in an attempt to annex all of Ukraine.
  
  Do you think this doesn't constitute military aggression?
  
  I will not deny that Russia is an aggressive nation, and I was not aware of some of those things, like the war of aggression with Georgia. Thank you for sharing some examples. Also, holy shit Putin is more scum than I thought. However, these acts of aggression by Russia don't appear to me as reasons for NATO to exist beyond the collapse of the USSR.
  
  How are these acts of aggression towards the west in a manner that justifies the continued existence of NATO?
  
  Let me ask you the opposite question: what do all of those nations on that list (and really, it's only a partial list because it doesn't even feature Russian aggression on the Asian continent, in the Middle East and in Africa) have in common?
  
  Is it possible that the commonality is that not a single one of them is part of a large military alliance capable of stopping Russian aggression?
  
  And, to take this one step further: why do you think that, in the last two decades, Russia has never messed with Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania - even though it has repeatedly claimed that they should be part of Russia?
  
  Is it possible that NATO membership of those three, very small nations is all that has prevented Russia from treating them like Transnistria or Crimea or South Ossetia or Chechnya?
  
  Those are all excellent questions, and unfortunately I don't know all the answers. I'll try to answer what I can despite their loaded nature, and say when I don't know.
  
  There are a few different commonalities; they generally identify as slavs (with exceptions, especially in the middle east like Kazakhstan), most former USSR states are member states of the CIS, almost all nations have people within them that identify as ethnic Russian, and naturally most share borders with Russia.
  
  That's a good point, most former Soviet states don't have a modernized military and likely wouldn't be capable of withstanding a Russian invasion, however I think it's worth pointing out that the majority of the West also thought Ukraine would fall during the initial invasion. Generally, I don't think I understand your point here and I'm genuinely interested in the reasons you brought this up.
  
  Honestly, I have no idea why the northern Slavic nations haven't seen more aggression from Russia. It's possible that the Kremlin doesn't see them as valuable, though they have seen some disinformation campaigns and political propaganda via proximity to Russia and Belarus.
  
  I don't think NATO has been a deterrent, but it's possible that I'm wrong. I think it's worth pointing out that an excuse for Russia invading Ukraine was explicitly NATO trying to expand into Ukraine. They didn't have much interest in doing so either, until after the initial invasion saw Ukraine still standing.
  
  Uhhh, Crimea, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Africa.
  
  They don't attack the west directly, they attack western interests and proxies.
  
  None of those are attacks on the West, and if you recall there's been far more violence and imperialism imposed on Africa and Afghanistan by the global north.
  
  You're shifting the goalpoast. The comment above you said the west is drawing a line in regards to military violence upon Eastern Europe. All of Eastern Europe are old Soviet states so mentioning that is not at all a refutal of their statement.
  
  I didn't shift anything. I want to know what military aggression they're talking about, because otherwise it just comes off as the ethnocentric and uninformed stereotype of "slavs are violent".
  
  The war in Ukraine obviously.