3 ms·

> "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

> "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.

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.