3 ms·

It's literally hearsay. Quite literally. Again, is there any treaty, any memorandum, any pact or anything about NATO not expanding eastwards? Any trade agreemen

by _dw7s 5y ago

It's literally hearsay. Quite literally. Again, is there any treaty, any memorandum, any pact or anything about NATO not expanding eastwards? Any trade agreement, any signed piece of paper between heads of state and representatives of NATO or NATO members about this? Because again, there is a 1994 Memorandum about Ukraine's borders and nuclear weapons which someone is deliberately ignoring. I find it both troubling and disingenuous for people to beat the dead horse about the NATO expansion myth while completely ignoring Russia breaking both the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Those weren't hearsay, they were actual agreements which were negotiated and signed. But sure, 'you can't trust the west'. I'm coming from a former communist country and to be honest, the west never invaded. The Russians did, repeatedly. Across history, the Russians were the only constant invaders. And this is actually why my country joined NATO the first chance it got. So, if someone is to blame for NATO expansion, it's actually Russia. Actually, this invasion we're witnessing is one of the best advertisements for NATO in history. So, fuck Putin, fuck Russia and their expansionist ambitions. I hope I live to see Putin's head on a pike.

331c8c71 5y ago
There are multiple memorandums and cable transcripts in the link I posted. Verbal guarantees were given on many occasions but conveneniently forgotten or dismissed later on. I fail to see how smth like Bucharest memorandum is so different in terms of importance (in you eyes) provided it was not recognized as legally binding and was described as a "political commitment" by the US in the context of its sanctions on Belarus. > Across history, the Russians were the only constant invaders. Which history? It is just a fact of life that smaller countries are more frequently invaded and/or being controlled (not that it doesn't happen at all to bigger ones).
- decebalus1 5y ago
  I don't think you understand the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... and a meeting 'memo', when you say 'memorandum'. Hearsay is something someone says about what they've heard. Which is what you linked. Also, the plural of memorandum is 'memoranda'. I still haven't seen any treaty in your links. > Verbal guarantees were given on many occasions but conveneniently forgotten or dismissed later on. Putin also said, months ago, that he's not going to invade Ukraine and that the West is creating panic. But we're conveniently forgetting these 'verbal guarantees', right? > It is just a fact of life that smaller countries are more frequently invaded Yeah, 'just a fact of life'. NATO expansion into smaller countries, due to this 'fact of life' is a 'fact of life' itself.
  - 331c8c71 5y ago
    There was no signed agreement, I'm not disputing that. And I don't think it's valid to use the term "hearsay" for a transcript. Putin is putin, he's dictator with no regard for human life at this point. What I think though, is that the west was ruthless with Russia after SU collapse in the 90s and early 2000s which actually created the resentment we see now. https://youtu.be/8X7Ng75e5gQ https://youtu.be/8X7Ng75e5gQ This talk is a tad dramatic but very well captures the public sentiment I believe. Unlike eastern europian countries Russia couldn't just join eu/nato and started retaliating only when Georgia and Ukraine were on their path to nato. Not that unreasonable if you ask me. > Yeah, 'just a fact of life'. NATO expansion into smaller countries, due to this 'fact of life' is a 'fact of life' itself. As this war (unfortunately) which I believe wouldn't happen if ukrainian leaders were a bit smarter (and it wouldn't mean becoming Belarus - one could be smth like Kazakhstan in terms of foreign policy).
    - decebalus1 5y ago
      > There was no signed agreement, I'm not disputing that. So why allegedly breaking this 'no signed agreement' held at a higher standard than Russia breaking actually signed agreements?
331c8c71 5y ago
> So, fuck Putin, fuck Russia and their expansionist ambitions Being a member of nato is like being in a gang whose leader (US) really likes to fight and cripple others (I would say way more than russia in recent history). It is certainly convenient but hardly morally superior.
- decebalus1 5y ago
  Between my country and Russia, I can say for sure that one of them has not bombed/invaded/occupied/ethnically cleansed/impoverished another nation in the past 80 years. So again, fuck Putin and fuck Russia.
  - t-3 5y ago
    Sure, for your country, in the past 80 years. Not for the countries that have influence, power, and nukes that enable them to do what they want, and to make your country do what they want too. All of the major powers are Russias-with-other-names.

by _dw7s 5y ago

331c8c71 5y ago

There are multiple memorandums and cable transcripts in the link I posted. Verbal guarantees were given on many occasions but conveneniently forgotten or dismissed later on. I fail to see how smth like Bucharest memorandum is so different in terms of importance (in you eyes) provided it was not recognized as legally binding and was described as a "political commitment" by the US in the context of its sanctions on Belarus. > Across history, the Russians were the only constant invaders. Which history? It is just a fact of life that smaller countries are more frequently invaded and/or being controlled (not that it doesn't happen at all to bigger ones).

decebalus1 5y ago
I don't think you understand the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... and a meeting 'memo', when you say 'memorandum'. Hearsay is something someone says about what they've heard. Which is what you linked. Also, the plural of memorandum is 'memoranda'. I still haven't seen any treaty in your links. > Verbal guarantees were given on many occasions but conveneniently forgotten or dismissed later on. Putin also said, months ago, that he's not going to invade Ukraine and that the West is creating panic. But we're conveniently forgetting these 'verbal guarantees', right? > It is just a fact of life that smaller countries are more frequently invaded Yeah, 'just a fact of life'. NATO expansion into smaller countries, due to this 'fact of life' is a 'fact of life' itself.
- 331c8c71 5y ago
  There was no signed agreement, I'm not disputing that. And I don't think it's valid to use the term "hearsay" for a transcript. Putin is putin, he's dictator with no regard for human life at this point. What I think though, is that the west was ruthless with Russia after SU collapse in the 90s and early 2000s which actually created the resentment we see now. https://youtu.be/8X7Ng75e5gQ https://youtu.be/8X7Ng75e5gQ This talk is a tad dramatic but very well captures the public sentiment I believe. Unlike eastern europian countries Russia couldn't just join eu/nato and started retaliating only when Georgia and Ukraine were on their path to nato. Not that unreasonable if you ask me. > Yeah, 'just a fact of life'. NATO expansion into smaller countries, due to this 'fact of life' is a 'fact of life' itself. As this war (unfortunately) which I believe wouldn't happen if ukrainian leaders were a bit smarter (and it wouldn't mean becoming Belarus - one could be smth like Kazakhstan in terms of foreign policy).
  - decebalus1 5y ago
    > There was no signed agreement, I'm not disputing that. So why allegedly breaking this 'no signed agreement' held at a higher standard than Russia breaking actually signed agreements?

331c8c71 5y ago

> So, fuck Putin, fuck Russia and their expansionist ambitions Being a member of nato is like being in a gang whose leader (US) really likes to fight and cripple others (I would say way more than russia in recent history). It is certainly convenient but hardly morally superior.

decebalus1 5y ago
Between my country and Russia, I can say for sure that one of them has not bombed/invaded/occupied/ethnically cleansed/impoverished another nation in the past 80 years. So again, fuck Putin and fuck Russia.
- t-3 5y ago
  Sure, for your country, in the past 80 years. Not for the countries that have influence, power, and nukes that enable them to do what they want, and to make your country do what they want too. All of the major powers are Russias-with-other-names.