To what extent is it justifiable to reduce formerly hostile countries

File: 17_1.jpg (127KB, 1294x728px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1294x728px

>>2201472
considering Russia was invaded twice within a 25 year span. One of which killed 6 million men and the second killed nearly 25 million, it seemed pretty damn apparent at the time that the Russians needed a land shield against the what was though to be inevitable.

and consider the Anti-Russian NATO alliance now expanding further into Russia's frontier with the shield gone, it's pretty easy to see why Russia saw the Warsaw Pact as necessary.

Hell there's wars going on today over expanding the alliance's borders further still, which still makes me question why NATO is hesitating so much on absorbing Ukraine, if the goal is to put Western troops on the Russian border. This would be a dream come true to just get on with it.

>>2201494
>Russia
>invaded in WW1
They were the invaders.

>>2201494
god damn my english is bad today, but you get the picture. sorry.

File: lolistirner.jpg (50KB, 613x771px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 613x771px

>>2201472
In a sense of "might makes right" its extremely justifiable. I mean the only arguments against it are some abstract morality. I hardly a spookspammer but that's about as spooked as you can get geopolitically.

>>2201472
start shit get hit
even in the west the sentiment initially was that the eastbloc states got what was coming to them, outside of Poland of course.

>>2201496
>They were the invaders
same in WW2

File: 1480774542818.jpg (124KB, 800x555px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 800x555px

>>2201472
>formerly hostile countries
Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia weren't hostile to the USSR. Bulgaria was only forced at the very end to declare war but surrendered to the Soviets shortly after.

>justifiable
As someone living in one of those countries I would be inclined to say absolutely no and I would say that the best thing the Soviets could and should have done is to retreat to their country shortly after defeating the Nazis and just leave us in peace.

Realistically though they probably couldn't.
>the Americans dominated the West, retreating would be a sign of weakness
>they wanted to keep Germany divided and prevent another war by them
>they felt the need to have more buffer states to protect themselves
>they needed to loot those countries of resources because theirs was recently devastated
"we give them our grain, they take our oil."
>they needed some markets for their mostly subpar products

>>2201496
Regradless of how the war started, Russia and the Russian people still thought themselves to be invaded, and the humiliating treaty of Brest-Litovsk solidified the perception that Germany was there as an occupying invasion force.

It's not paranoia if everyone is indeed out to get you, and after the World Wars, the Soviets indeed believed that they had to prepare for the next invasion, and having a 600 km land shield was their best bet to guard against such a war or at best deter one from every happening.

>>2201513
Slovakia was hostile, so was Bulgaria, technicallities didn't matter to the overall sentiment against east bloc nations, sentiment worldwide was negative to them(initially at least)

>>2201510
Or during the war with Genghis Khans

Why are Russians such bullies?

>>2201513
Czechoslovakia didn't even exist during WW2

>>2201529
Your point?
There was no Czechoslovakia to be hostile to the Soviets.
There was the pro-Soviet puppet government that was formed at the very end.

File: 3392d96560b42d14104721c97c144db5.jpg (54KB, 564x830px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 564x830px

>>2201472
Eastern Europe would be better off if it stayed behind the Iron curtain desu
>inb4 sure Ivan