3 ms·

> Can you provide the source for this, please? Sure[1]. If you google you will find the direct quote in this paragraph in many places. > The present crisis ha

by joecot 4y ago

> Can you provide the source for this, please? Sure[1]. If you google you will find the direct quote in this paragraph in many places. > The present crisis has its roots in a long-brewing contest over Ukraine’s geopolitical alignment. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine became independent but for decades joined neither with Russia nor with the West. The United States, for its part, expanded its NATO alliance but initially sidestepped Ukraine. It recognized that Russia, sharing deep ties and a 1,426-mile land border with Ukraine, might oppose such a move by force. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” William J. Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia and current CIA director, cabled from Moscow in 2008. “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/23/ukraine-taiwan-red-lines/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/23/ukraine-ta...

avmich 4y ago
Well, your quote doesn't support your statement, right? Baltic countries - former Soviet republics - aren't Ukraine, and they went to NATO - quite some years ago already. Meanwhile, Ukraine is not in NATO, doesn't even have guarantees it'll be there, even after this war (which I frankly consider stupid, given that NATO was created to deter the predecessor of Russia, and it's Ukraine which is actually doing that in the battlefield). And I'd take William J Burns words with some grain of salt. It's likely "anyone" who he had to find were from some selected circle of rather like-minded persons.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 4y ago
The claim was "US and NATO diplomats were crystal clear that . . . the former Soviet states should not be invited into NATO" Your link doesn't say anything close to that.
- yks 4y ago
  For Russian apologists the hearsay “evidence” of some non-expansion guarantees said in private is rock solid but the Budapest Memorandum, which Russia is a signing party of is a non-consequential piece of paper, funny how that works.

by joecot 4y ago

avmich 4y ago

Well, your quote doesn't support your statement, right? Baltic countries - former Soviet republics - aren't Ukraine, and they went to NATO - quite some years ago already. Meanwhile, Ukraine is not in NATO, doesn't even have guarantees it'll be there, even after this war (which I frankly consider stupid, given that NATO was created to deter the predecessor of Russia, and it's Ukraine which is actually doing that in the battlefield). And I'd take William J Burns words with some grain of salt. It's likely "anyone" who he had to find were from some selected circle of rather like-minded persons.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

torstenvl 4y ago

The claim was "US and NATO diplomats were crystal clear that . . . the former Soviet states should not be invited into NATO" Your link doesn't say anything close to that.

yks 4y ago
For Russian apologists the hearsay “evidence” of some non-expansion guarantees said in private is rock solid but the Budapest Memorandum, which Russia is a signing party of is a non-consequential piece of paper, funny how that works.