4 ms·

NATO has been steadily moving in towards Russia, picking off ex-Soviet satellite states one by one, and withdrawing from the treaties that kept the EU safe: Th

NATO has been steadily moving in towards Russia, picking off ex-Soviet satellite states one by one, and withdrawing from the treaties that kept the EU safe: This was one of the pivotal moments: "US President George W Bush, in 2002, pulled the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned weapons designed to counter ballistic nuclear missiles." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565 Since then it has been slow and steady escalation https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/timeline/ while we fritter away the time that would allow us to deal with Climate Destruction. Yes Putin == $BAD_MAN. Yes USA == $OTHER_BAD_MENS. No, neither of those justifies military action on either side. This is a stupid waste of time.

older 5y ago
It has nothing to do with NATO, it is just another lie invented as excuse to invade. Here they still have it on the kremlin website: "I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598
- frabbit 5y ago
  And? That statement occurred 4 or 5 months before the USA had withdrawn from the ABMT. I don't know enough about Russia's changing attitudes towards the USA: how much of it was hope that they could work things out together to jointly oppress the rest of the world; how much of it was biding time in a weakened state before they could mount a plausible defence against the USA. But it does seem probable that the prospect of being left without the possibility of firing nuclear weapons at the US while staging bases are set up ever close to Russia would be undesirable to Russia. Do not take from this that I am defending Russia's actions. I have no interest in either a US nor a Russian Imperium and think that the Ukranian right to manage their own affairs without being attacked is paramount. The same way that I believe that Venezuela and Iran have a right not to be attacked.
  - older 5y ago
    And yet you're repeating narratives of russian propaganda. Which is 100% lies and bullshit. But it means that propaganda works.
adrian_b 5y ago
NATO did not move towards Russia by its own desire, as you imply. All the neighbors of Russia have always known that one must expect that Russia will invade them at the first opportunity, so they made efforts to join NATO as it was obvious that like Ukraine, they do not have enough resources to fight alone against Russia. Entering NATO was not easy for them, because the main NATO countries imposed a lot of conditions and the new NATO members had to actually unofficially pay their membership with billions of dollars in contracts awarded to companies from various old NATO members. The NATO membership was not a free gift and it was paid dearly precisely because the new members were those who wanted the NATO expansion, to be protected against the Russians. It was not the old NATO who desired the expansion towards Russia. Moreover, calling the new NATO members as "ex-Soviet satellite states" is an insult. They have never been satellite states by their own will. All the countries from the Eastern Europe are states who have been invaded by the Russians during WWII and where the Russians were able to install puppet governments and steal whatever they wanted as a consequence of the agreements between USA and Great Britain with Stalin. The states from Western Europe have paid their freedom from Hitler with little of their own money but mostly with what was not theirs to give, i.e. with the countries from Eastern Europe, which were given to the Russians.
threeseed 5y ago
NATO is a defensive, voluntary organisation. This idea that it somehow coercing Eastern European countries to join is baseless and ridiculous.
- frabbit 5y ago
  It may or may not be a baseless idea but it is not what I said in the comment to which you are replying.

older 5y ago

It has nothing to do with NATO, it is just another lie invented as excuse to invade. Here they still have it on the kremlin website: "I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598 http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598

frabbit 5y ago
And? That statement occurred 4 or 5 months before the USA had withdrawn from the ABMT. I don't know enough about Russia's changing attitudes towards the USA: how much of it was hope that they could work things out together to jointly oppress the rest of the world; how much of it was biding time in a weakened state before they could mount a plausible defence against the USA. But it does seem probable that the prospect of being left without the possibility of firing nuclear weapons at the US while staging bases are set up ever close to Russia would be undesirable to Russia. Do not take from this that I am defending Russia's actions. I have no interest in either a US nor a Russian Imperium and think that the Ukranian right to manage their own affairs without being attacked is paramount. The same way that I believe that Venezuela and Iran have a right not to be attacked.
- older 5y ago
  And yet you're repeating narratives of russian propaganda. Which is 100% lies and bullshit. But it means that propaganda works.

adrian_b 5y ago

NATO did not move towards Russia by its own desire, as you imply. All the neighbors of Russia have always known that one must expect that Russia will invade them at the first opportunity, so they made efforts to join NATO as it was obvious that like Ukraine, they do not have enough resources to fight alone against Russia. Entering NATO was not easy for them, because the main NATO countries imposed a lot of conditions and the new NATO members had to actually unofficially pay their membership with billions of dollars in contracts awarded to companies from various old NATO members. The NATO membership was not a free gift and it was paid dearly precisely because the new members were those who wanted the NATO expansion, to be protected against the Russians. It was not the old NATO who desired the expansion towards Russia. Moreover, calling the new NATO members as "ex-Soviet satellite states" is an insult. They have never been satellite states by their own will. All the countries from the Eastern Europe are states who have been invaded by the Russians during WWII and where the Russians were able to install puppet governments and steal whatever they wanted as a consequence of the agreements between USA and Great Britain with Stalin. The states from Western Europe have paid their freedom from Hitler with little of their own money but mostly with what was not theirs to give, i.e. with the countries from Eastern Europe, which were given to the Russians.

threeseed 5y ago

NATO is a defensive, voluntary organisation. This idea that it somehow coercing Eastern European countries to join is baseless and ridiculous.

frabbit 5y ago
It may or may not be a baseless idea but it is not what I said in the comment to which you are replying.