- Feb 18, 2022
- Reaction score
From Russia's viewpoint this may be true. The "not too different" part.Not too different from Russia invading countries by force and then recognizing chunks of territory in those countries as independent states.
The timeframe and manner of recognition are completely different though. Imho.
I don't think they have to be separated- all those things are true. NATO obviously did help Kosovo gain independence.NATO's earlier aggression and the ongoing occupation were factors in preventing Serbia from acting against Kosovo's independence.
And NATO's recognition of Kosovo helped them break away too.
I don't see how Kosovo's independence can be separated from NATO's actions against Serbia.
This is the fundamental difference as I see it, and why I don't take the comparison beyond the 2 points I mentioned.Maybe with the passage of time the West will come to accept Russia's theft of territory.
NATO bombed Milosevic to the bargaining table (in violation of the UN Charter, conceded), and led a peacekeeping force afterwards under UN auspices (KFOR/UNMIK). With many non-NATO countries participating, including Russia and Ukraine.
NATO didn't attach territory from Serbia to another NATO State. Russia is annexing Ukraine by force.
The West doesn't really care when Russia does this in Central Asia, or bombs Syrian cities to rubble. Okay, we get that. We didn't do shit for Rwanda either.
I said at the outset- I don't think Europe is going to sit for it in Ukraine. Ukraine is just a little too "European" for that to fly. Grozny? Grumble grumble. Aleppo? Grumble grumble. Crimea? GRUMBLE GRUMBLE.
Kiev? Uh, not so fast Abernathy...
I mean, Sweden is joining NATO ffs!