4 ms·
because NATO is getting closer to our borders, we can't leave it without response
by d1ffuz0r 9y ago
because NATO is getting closer to our borders, we can't leave it without response
- keymone 9y agoyeah, NATO occupying one chunk of neighbouring country and igniting and fueling armed rebellion in another chunk is certianly reason to be worried. oh wait, that wasn't NATO, was it?
- d1ffuz0r 9y agoyes it was NATO who fueled it, just like many other revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
- keymone 9y agowell for sure, comrade putin and his friends are the best so any protest against them must surely be a CIA coup! your logic is impeccable tovarish!
- d1ffuz0r 9y agofunny, please read more about current relationship between Ukraine and Poland, Hungary, Romania (all NATO members). they supported the revolution at first, but now they treat them to acquire Ukrainian territories https://www.unian.info/politics/2184929-certain-statements-in-pace-by-hungarians-romanians-seem-to-hold-concealed-territorial-claims-to-ukraine-gerashchenko.html https://www.unian.info/politics/2184929-certain-statements-i...
- keymone 9y agodo tell which territories have Poland, Hungary and Romania have occupied? because russia is already occupying crimea and parts of some eastern regions via puppet governments funded and armed by russia.
- d1ffuz0r 9y agohttps://www.unian.info/politics/2183494-mfa-ukraine-demands-that-hungary-cancel-self-determination-for-zakarpattia-event.html https://www.unian.info/politics/2183494-mfa-ukraine-demands-...
- gandhium 9y agoSurprisingly, there wasn't a single word about 'NATO fueling' in that article.
- keymone 9y agos/S/Uns/
- Ygg2 9y agoWould you prefer it the other way around? Let's say hypothetically Russia puts their bases and ICBM in Canada and assures everyone, it's only to target Mexico, in case a large narco or terrorist threat appears there.
- keymone 9y agoi would prefer Russia to not interfere with internal political processes. like giving Yanukovich $15bn loan on the eve of signing EU association which ultimately led to tens of thousands of people being killed.
- Ygg2 9y agoThat's avoiding my question. But meddling into internal political processes seems like bread and butter for any would be superpower. Or are Iraq and Afghanistan invasion somehow not interference with political processes?
- keymone 9y agoyour question poses a false dichotomy. the choice is not between russia occupying ukraine versus russia behaving differently somewhere else, the choice is between russia occupying ukraine and russia not occupying ukraine. i prefer russia not occupying ukraine.
- gandhium 9y agoAre you implying that US or NATO put their bases and ICBMs in Ukraine?
- mtgx 9y agoIt's not a invalid point per se, but I think everyone knows NATO's recent moves against Russia are a direct consequence of Russia invading and annexing Crimea. It probably won't end well if everyone decides to "one-up" each other, though, similar to how WW1 started.
- d1ffuz0r 9y agotry digging deeper, like ready history of NATO from 90s til current days. you will find something new for yourself
- the_gastropod 9y agoAmbiguous "read history" statements aren't helpful. If you have a point, we'd love to read it.
- rovek 9y ago> invading and annexing Crimea This is one of few times I've seen "invade" used to describe Russia's actions in Crimea. I find it strange that even western media talks about "annexation" when they usually employ exaggerated terminology for all kinds of trivial events. edit: I'm not saying the invasion was trivial, I'm saying the media response was/is understated compared to non-events they exaggerate
- gandhium 9y agoWell, at least media don't play the Russian-proposed "we were heroic defenders" tune, like it was with Georgia in 2008.
- ionised 9y agoWasn't NATO putting missile bases/defences in Turkey long before all this though? Russia saw that as a provocation and a breach of previous agreements.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoAnd why is NATO getting closer to your borders? It's not because NATO is expansionistic, seeking bases to launch an invasion of Russia. No, it's because countries like Poland fear Russia invading them, and so they seek protection via NATO. What should NATO do, when Poland asks to become a member? Say no, because Russia has the right to meddle in Poland? Say no, because not upsetting Russia is more important than Poland's future? Say no, because defending the western half of Europe is all we should care about? If Russia doesn't like everyone wanting to join NATO, it's really easy for them to fix: Stop making everyone feel threatened by Russia. (Now, in the real world, that may not work, because Russia is paranoid, because of a couple of guys named Napoleon and Hitler who, starting from further west than the eastern edge of Poland, got all the way to Moscow - or within 15 miles of it, in Hitler's case. So Russia has some grounds for concern based on history. Nevertheless, NATO has exactly zero interest in invading Russia. My main point, however, stands - it's Russia's fault that NATO is expanding, not NATO's fault.)