7 ms·
NATO has settled military bases in all of Eastern Europe, despite promises from the early 90s that no country from the USSR-block would join NATO. By gradually
by icare_1er 5y ago
NATO has settled military bases in all of Eastern Europe, despite promises from the early 90s that no country from the USSR-block would join NATO.
By gradually pushing its pawns all around Russia, NATO (meaning the US) is as much responsible in that crap as Putin is. How many Russian bases in the Carribean, in Canada, and in the Pacific ?
- junon 5y agoNATO is a defensive treaty pact. Putin alone could end this. Russia is not being actively threatened. How much did Russia pay you to spread this garbage take?
- icare_1er 5y agoYes, setting army bases all around a country is defensive when it's the US, but it's an aggression if it is any other country. o)
- nickpp 5y agoWhen the country is a proven aggressor that held the region under occupation for 50 years, such a defense makes sense. Too bad they faltered.
- ghostwriter 5y agoPlease outline a framework under which a country could be recognised as an aggressor. It could happen that by the same standard the US would be an aggressor who keeps the Hawaiian Kingdom under occupation since after its annexation in 1893: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_King...
- nickpp 5y agoI don’t need a framework, I lived under the Soviet occupation of the Eastern Europe. I visited Hawaii recently too - they didn’t seem occupied at all.
- ghostwriter 5y agoYou don't need a framework because you know you'll be inconsistent. Very conveniently so. > "they didn’t seem occupied at all" all you're saying is that you like the outcome. The fact remains the same though - that territory was occupied, and then annexed, and the government was overthrown by the U.S. military forces.
- nickpp 5y ago> you like the outcome Not me. The people living under that "occupation".
- trasz 5y agoI lived under what's now called the "Soviet occupation", and it didn't feel occupied at all too.
- icare_1er 5y agoNATO and US lecturing the planet about not being an "aggressor" is kind of funny. Putin is pretty much emboldened in playing with the rule of law because the US showed him how to trample international laws for the past 20years (Kosovo, Irak, Libya, Syria). Yeah yeah I know, invading and bombing countries when it's Washington is ok...
- sudosysgen 5y agoNATO is not a defensive pact. It contains many provisions for offensive interventions, which were invoked more than Article 5. Beyond that, even Article 5 was never used in defense, only in offense - safe harbor is not an act of war, and the Afghan government did not provide material support to the attack on 9/11. It's a military pact that contains both a self defense treaty that goes beyond self defense, as well as purely offensive considerations.
- nickpp 5y agoAnd still it’s Russia invading Ukraine, not NATO.
- sudosysgen 5y agoOf course. Two wrongs don't make a right. NATO invades innocent countries, so did Russia, doesn't make NATO any less threatening.
- nickpp 5y agoFunny enough, only Russia feels threatened by NATO, while all the other countries feel threatened by Russia.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThat's 100% bullshit. The Libyan refugees - or worse, those that couldn't leave - whose country was bombed to barbarism and who lost everything feel even more threatened by NATO, which dealt devastation far beyond the worst fantasies from Putin's twisted mind. Far more people died in the NATO invasion of Afghanistan than there even are soldiers and militia members in the whole of Ukraine. Make no mistake, NATO is even more threatening and has dealt more devastation than Russia ever could. NATO has just as few qualms about intervention and far more power and experience in ruining countries than even Russia, and that's saying a lot.
- 5y ago
- rowanajmarshall 5y agoRussia is not entitled to a ring of vassal-slave states.
- icare_1er 5y agoThat's because you lack historical culture. You should re-read about that lengthy negociations that took place in the 90s re. the dismantling of the USSR. It came with a lot of conditions, negociated for years, with Kohl and Mitterrand playing the middle-men. Conditions that the newly recreated eastern countries would stay neutral and not become NATO, were very clear, and signed off by Baker on the US side. I've given you enough key words for you to go and catch up a bit.
- nickpp 5y agoThat is simply not true. No organization had the right to decide the defense strategy of the newly freed Eastern countries. And Russia itself had zero leverage, they were starving.
- sudosysgen 5y agoWell no, that's factually false. Every NATO member can deny the entry of any country in NATO. So, the US, Germany and France absolutely have the right to decide their defense strategy doesn't involve being part of NATO.
- nickpp 5y agoPlease reread my post, I never said that.
- sudosysgen 5y agoYes, you did. You said, in context, that no organisation had the right to decide the defense policy of the post Soviet states with regard to NATO. That's not true.
- elsurudo 5y agoWith those countries’ and populations’ permission… I wonder why that is?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- junon 5y ago> NATO has settled military bases in all of Eastern Europe ... with permission.
- trasz 5y agoI think the point is to avoid shooting war, not to be fair (whatever "fair" could mean in the context of countries).