6 ms·

Everyone is re-writing the Ukraine narrative.

by stunt 5y ago

kennyadam 5y ago
Who else? Other than Russia, of course.
- pydry 5y ago
  Indeed, documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts as well as internal policy discussions opposing NATO expansion to Eastern Europe. "In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," according to a State Department memorandum in 1990, while those states were still emerging from Soviet control as the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. "[We] do not, in any case, wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border. Such a coalition would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets." https://m.dw.com/en/nato-why-russia-has-a-problem-with-its-eastward-expansion/a-60891681 https://m.dw.com/en/nato-why-russia-has-a-problem-with-its-e... A large contingent of the western media is pretending that the documents referred to above by deutsche welle simply do not exist partly because A) Gorbachev apparently doesnt remember the assurances and B) because the repeated diplomatic assurances were never codified into a treaty. Also the phrase "purely defensive military alliance" is a lie. A lie viscerally disproven by bayonet thrust up Khafaffi's backside in 2011 by NATO allies after he was "welcomed back" into the international community. Neither of these facts are popular, but they are nonetheless still facts.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    The Soviets don't exist anymore. Russia was never meant to be our arch enemy like they were. In fact you can tell from the current lack of even minimal military spending below agreed NATO standards that Europe did not view Russia as the enemy. We simply didn't even consider it likely enough to have enough resources for an effective land defense, let alone an attack. Of course this invasion put Russia back on the villain map with increasing spending accordingly. Of course NATO will now reinforce the borders, probably Sweden and Finland will join... As it was Ukraine was not going to join NATO anyway. This whole thing had the opposite effect.
    - pydry 5y ago
      >Of course this invasion put Russia back on the villain map It's been there for years. >As it was Ukraine was not going to join NATO anyway I really cant fathom why people say this when they said that they wanted to join & NATO said that they wanted them to join and they were taking concrete steps toward joining.
      - GekkePrutser 5y ago
        > It's been there for years. Well, not really in geopolitical terms. Russia was a bad actor globally especially in the cyber sphere but they weren't considered a serious threat to Europe. If they had been we would have had more defense spending and more military personnel around the borders. Also, consider they have Koningsberg which is basically the equivalent of Cuba in the missile crisis days to Europe. And we didn't make a big point of that (and still don't) > I really cant fathom why people say this when they said that they wanted to join & NATO said that they wanted them to join and they were taking concrete steps toward joining. Well, first of all, the reason they wanted to join was protection against Russian agression. Russia has now proven this to be a very valid concern (and they already had in the eastern areas). Secondly, there was no real talk. Especially due to the unresolved situation in the east it was impossible for Ukraine to join anyway. A nation can't join NATO with unresolved military conflicts within their border. IMO the talk about Ukraine joining was more political flirting rather than serious talk. I do think Ukraine would have joined the EU eventually (after they cleaned up a lot of their corruption), but probably not NATO.
        pydry 5y ago
        >Well, first of all, the reason they wanted to join was protection against Russian agression. Russia has now proven this to be a very valid concern Trying to join is exactly what provoked this invasion. Putin may br evil but the one thing you cant say is that he wasnt absolutely crystal clear on this being Russia's one red line. Zelensky announcing that he was hell bent on joining NATO as Russian troops pulled away was probably the final trigger. Putin is still being clear that renouncing NATO membership will stop the war. This is literally 100% what Ukrainians are dying for - the ability to join NATO. I hope they consider it worth it. Washington does. I dont. It seems fairly plausible that Libya is a model for what NATO wants to see happen to Russia as it creeps up to its most exposed border. Theyd rather mariupol be a smoking radioactive crater than be a host for NATO forces along their jugular. Zelensky is more right than he can imagine as he says that hes fighting our war. It is a geopolitical coup for the west to have a smaller weaker country on the border of foreign powers fight and die in our wars. It was the British Empire's main trick. >Secondly, there was no real talk. Especially due to the unresolved situation in the east it was impossible for Ukraine to join anyway. Ukraine was about to try and "resolve" the situation in the East and it had already started military cooperation. Frankly Russia would probably let them if it could get Ukraine to stay out of NATO. If it was impossible to join the cost of saying "we wont join" would be zero and it would have prevented the worst war in Europe since WW2. Either thats the biggest own goal ever or it isnt what happened at all. >IMO the talk about Ukraine joining was more political flirting rather than serious talk. I really hope that isnt the case because the result of that "flirting" is tens of thousands dead. Likewise Zelensky's "flirting" about getting nuclear weapons. If the goal was to provoke the sleeping bear into mauling the baby then mission accomplished.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    > documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts as well as internal policy discussions opposing NATO expansion to Eastern Europe. I like how you admit that there was no such treaty, just vague promises to a country (USSR) which doesn't exist anymore. Usually, you russian bots say that NATO was bound to not accept new members.
    - pydry 5y ago
      I like how quoting Deutsche Welle citing public documents about specific promises makes me a Russian bot.
      - eveningcoffee 5y ago
        Because nothing was promised. It was only told that right after collapse of SU the previously occupied countries are not yet ready to join NATO.
        pydry 5y ago
        Are you saying what was in the released documents was made up?
        eveningcoffee 5y ago
        "In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," according to a State Department memorandum in 1990, while those states were still emerging from Soviet control as the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. Do you see any promise here? I don't. Nothing to see here move along.
        pydry 5y ago
        >"Indeed, documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts" Was Deutsche Welle lying when they wrote this? It's a simple question. Theres something to see here youre pretending doesnt exist.
  - eveningcoffee 5y ago
    "In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," So they told in 1990, right after the fortunate collapse of Soviet Union, that the countries previously occupied by Russians will be not YET ready to join NATO. Guess what, a little over 10 years later they were ready. The other thing that happened? Putin happened. Nothing was promised to Russians.
  - blaser-waffle 5y ago
    > "In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees, "In the current environment" -- environments change. 1990 was 32 years ago. > [We] do not, in any case, wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border. Such a coalition would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact don't exist anymore; no one cares what they think. There were never promises made, and even if there were, those countries / alliances aren't around to complain. Hell, several WARPACT members are in NATO now, and it's clear that several (like the Czechoslovaks) didn't really want to be in WARPACT anyways. > Also the phrase "purely defensive military alliance" is a lie. A lie viscerally disproven by bayonet thrust up Khafaffi's backside in 2011 by NATO allies after he was "welcomed back" into the international community. Bollocks. Libya had a long history of trying to attack NATO members. Quaddafi's Libya blew up western airplanes (e.g Lockerbie), fired missiles at western aircraft and ships (Gulf of Sidra), and openly supported terrorists attacks elsewhere (the La Belle bombing in Western Germany). He wasn't just some random bystander. Plus his own people did the thrusting; NATO only gave them enough air cover to rebel.
    - pydry 5y ago
      Lockerbie wasnt them. Who it really was isnt clear but the trial was clearly dodgy as fuck. Gadaffi "accepted responsibility" solely because that was the price of lifting sanctions. If that's America's bar for "invading for defensive purposes" then NATO might as well just admit it's sole purpose for existence is the destruction of Russia. America was flying planes over sidra in an attempt to provoke them. If Libyan jets were shot down "testing" the borders in the gulf of mexico would you really claim that the US was acting offensively? I wouldnt. The US empire wanted Libya destroyed from day one pretty much. It clearly wants Russia destroyed too. Ukrainian women and children are dying precisely because provoking a conflict on Russia's border aligns with Western imperial objectives. Like it or not their blood isnt just on Putins hands.

Everyone is re-writing the Ukraine narrative.

by stunt 5y ago

Everyone is re-writing the Ukraine narrative.

kennyadam 5y ago

Who else? Other than Russia, of course.

pydry 5y ago
Indeed, documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts as well as internal policy discussions opposing NATO expansion to Eastern Europe. "In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," according to a State Department memorandum in 1990, while those states were still emerging from Soviet control as the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. "[We] do not, in any case, wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border. Such a coalition would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets." https://m.dw.com/en/nato-why-russia-has-a-problem-with-its-eastward-expansion/a-60891681 https://m.dw.com/en/nato-why-russia-has-a-problem-with-its-e... A large contingent of the western media is pretending that the documents referred to above by deutsche welle simply do not exist partly because A) Gorbachev apparently doesnt remember the assurances and B) because the repeated diplomatic assurances were never codified into a treaty. Also the phrase "purely defensive military alliance" is a lie. A lie viscerally disproven by bayonet thrust up Khafaffi's backside in 2011 by NATO allies after he was "welcomed back" into the international community. Neither of these facts are popular, but they are nonetheless still facts.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  The Soviets don't exist anymore. Russia was never meant to be our arch enemy like they were. In fact you can tell from the current lack of even minimal military spending below agreed NATO standards that Europe did not view Russia as the enemy. We simply didn't even consider it likely enough to have enough resources for an effective land defense, let alone an attack. Of course this invasion put Russia back on the villain map with increasing spending accordingly. Of course NATO will now reinforce the borders, probably Sweden and Finland will join... As it was Ukraine was not going to join NATO anyway. This whole thing had the opposite effect.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >Of course this invasion put Russia back on the villain map It's been there for years. >As it was Ukraine was not going to join NATO anyway I really cant fathom why people say this when they said that they wanted to join & NATO said that they wanted them to join and they were taking concrete steps toward joining.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      > It's been there for years. Well, not really in geopolitical terms. Russia was a bad actor globally especially in the cyber sphere but they weren't considered a serious threat to Europe. If they had been we would have had more defense spending and more military personnel around the borders. Also, consider they have Koningsberg which is basically the equivalent of Cuba in the missile crisis days to Europe. And we didn't make a big point of that (and still don't) > I really cant fathom why people say this when they said that they wanted to join & NATO said that they wanted them to join and they were taking concrete steps toward joining. Well, first of all, the reason they wanted to join was protection against Russian agression. Russia has now proven this to be a very valid concern (and they already had in the eastern areas). Secondly, there was no real talk. Especially due to the unresolved situation in the east it was impossible for Ukraine to join anyway. A nation can't join NATO with unresolved military conflicts within their border. IMO the talk about Ukraine joining was more political flirting rather than serious talk. I do think Ukraine would have joined the EU eventually (after they cleaned up a lot of their corruption), but probably not NATO.
      - pydry 5y ago
        >Well, first of all, the reason they wanted to join was protection against Russian agression. Russia has now proven this to be a very valid concern Trying to join is exactly what provoked this invasion. Putin may br evil but the one thing you cant say is that he wasnt absolutely crystal clear on this being Russia's one red line. Zelensky announcing that he was hell bent on joining NATO as Russian troops pulled away was probably the final trigger. Putin is still being clear that renouncing NATO membership will stop the war. This is literally 100% what Ukrainians are dying for - the ability to join NATO. I hope they consider it worth it. Washington does. I dont. It seems fairly plausible that Libya is a model for what NATO wants to see happen to Russia as it creeps up to its most exposed border. Theyd rather mariupol be a smoking radioactive crater than be a host for NATO forces along their jugular. Zelensky is more right than he can imagine as he says that hes fighting our war. It is a geopolitical coup for the west to have a smaller weaker country on the border of foreign powers fight and die in our wars. It was the British Empire's main trick. >Secondly, there was no real talk. Especially due to the unresolved situation in the east it was impossible for Ukraine to join anyway. Ukraine was about to try and "resolve" the situation in the East and it had already started military cooperation. Frankly Russia would probably let them if it could get Ukraine to stay out of NATO. If it was impossible to join the cost of saying "we wont join" would be zero and it would have prevented the worst war in Europe since WW2. Either thats the biggest own goal ever or it isnt what happened at all. >IMO the talk about Ukraine joining was more political flirting rather than serious talk. I really hope that isnt the case because the result of that "flirting" is tens of thousands dead. Likewise Zelensky's "flirting" about getting nuclear weapons. If the goal was to provoke the sleeping bear into mauling the baby then mission accomplished.
- xdennis 5y ago
  > documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts as well as internal policy discussions opposing NATO expansion to Eastern Europe. I like how you admit that there was no such treaty, just vague promises to a country (USSR) which doesn't exist anymore. Usually, you russian bots say that NATO was bound to not accept new members.
  - pydry 5y ago
    I like how quoting Deutsche Welle citing public documents about specific promises makes me a Russian bot.
    - eveningcoffee 5y ago
      Because nothing was promised. It was only told that right after collapse of SU the previously occupied countries are not yet ready to join NATO.
      - pydry 5y ago
        Are you saying what was in the released documents was made up?
        eveningcoffee 5y ago
        "In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," according to a State Department memorandum in 1990, while those states were still emerging from Soviet control as the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. Do you see any promise here? I don't. Nothing to see here move along.
        pydry 5y ago
        >"Indeed, documents show a pattern of promises US negotiators made to their Russian counterparts" Was Deutsche Welle lying when they wrote this? It's a simple question. Theres something to see here youre pretending doesnt exist.
- eveningcoffee 5y ago
  "In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees," So they told in 1990, right after the fortunate collapse of Soviet Union, that the countries previously occupied by Russians will be not YET ready to join NATO. Guess what, a little over 10 years later they were ready. The other thing that happened? Putin happened. Nothing was promised to Russians.
- blaser-waffle 5y ago
  > "In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that [Eastern European] states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees, "In the current environment" -- environments change. 1990 was 32 years ago. > [We] do not, in any case, wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border. Such a coalition would be perceived very negatively by the Soviets. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact don't exist anymore; no one cares what they think. There were never promises made, and even if there were, those countries / alliances aren't around to complain. Hell, several WARPACT members are in NATO now, and it's clear that several (like the Czechoslovaks) didn't really want to be in WARPACT anyways. > Also the phrase "purely defensive military alliance" is a lie. A lie viscerally disproven by bayonet thrust up Khafaffi's backside in 2011 by NATO allies after he was "welcomed back" into the international community. Bollocks. Libya had a long history of trying to attack NATO members. Quaddafi's Libya blew up western airplanes (e.g Lockerbie), fired missiles at western aircraft and ships (Gulf of Sidra), and openly supported terrorists attacks elsewhere (the La Belle bombing in Western Germany). He wasn't just some random bystander. Plus his own people did the thrusting; NATO only gave them enough air cover to rebel.
  - pydry 5y ago
    Lockerbie wasnt them. Who it really was isnt clear but the trial was clearly dodgy as fuck. Gadaffi "accepted responsibility" solely because that was the price of lifting sanctions. If that's America's bar for "invading for defensive purposes" then NATO might as well just admit it's sole purpose for existence is the destruction of Russia. America was flying planes over sidra in an attempt to provoke them. If Libyan jets were shot down "testing" the borders in the gulf of mexico would you really claim that the US was acting offensively? I wouldnt. The US empire wanted Libya destroyed from day one pretty much. It clearly wants Russia destroyed too. Ukrainian women and children are dying precisely because provoking a conflict on Russia's border aligns with Western imperial objectives. Like it or not their blood isnt just on Putins hands.