4 ms·

There is no evidence NATO pro missed Ruzzia that they will not expand/ And why would the fallen USSR would have to barggen for that promise? You Riussians hav

There is no evidence NATO pro missed Ruzzia that they will not expand/ And why would the fallen USSR would have to barggen for that promise? You Riussians have the mental inability to understand the Eastern Europe , why did your brothers slavs enter NATO, why is Seriba wanting in EU and not CSI, why Ukraine wanted in EU and Puttler started the conflict to stop them. We explained this many time but it is impossible for Ruzzian to understand, I think is projection , you can't understand that we do not want your lands or resources, we the East entered NATO to ensure our children will not be killed not he front lines when Ruzzians will invade, opr be deported to Siberia again and replaced with Ruzzian colonists. Compare Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Ruzzia, only Ruzzia was involved in many conflicts. Not sure if repetition can help you guys, but let me try "we do not give a shit about your land, resources or internal politics. We want to be safe so we entered NATO, the invasion in Ukraine is the proof that everyone except Ukraine was the smart ones to enter NATO, and Ukraine shows us that it was zetarded to trust Ruzzia" Only Putin and his gangs of oligarchs are at fault you are a poor country with no perspective for a future, if you have followed Poland example and reform and bring democracy and stop getting involved in conflicts you would be an economic power and a trusty partner.

greenavocado 2y ago
[flagged]
- mopsi 2y ago
  There is none. Gorbachev himself called it a myth: https://twitter.com/splendid_pete/status/1650735533826375680 https://twitter.com/splendid_pete/status/1650735533826375680 In the same clip, USSR's minister of defense says the same when journalists ask about it: don't know anything about it. Other people from USSR's top leadership have said the same and I've never seen anyone of equal weight dispute them. The hoax doesn't even make sense, because not even American presidents can promise what their successors will do or will not do. It's up to the electorate to decide who will be the next president and what policies they will pursue. Gorbachev briefly touches upon this too by mentioning sovereignty.
  - greenavocado 2y ago
    While it's generally true that presidents can't promise what their successors will do, there might be rare exceptions or situations where a president could influence future actions through long-term policies or agreements. Your statement implies that presidents have complete control over their policies. In reality, the implementation of policies often involves complex interactions with Congress, the judiciary, and other factors. It also suggests that the electorate has full control over who becomes president and what policies they pursue. This overlooks factors like the Electoral College system, party nominations, and the influence of various interest groups on policy-making. There's a slight tension between saying presidents can't promise future actions and then stating it's up to the electorate to decide future policies. This could imply that the electorate has more power to determine future actions than sitting presidents do. Your question touches on the balance between governmental continuity and the potential for change that comes with each new administration. This is indeed a challenge in democratic systems. While presidents have significant power, they are constrained by various factors like constitutional limits, legislative processes, judicial oversight, international agreements, bureaucratic inertia Undoing everything is often not practical or desirable. Some policies become deeply entrenched and difficult to reverse. Rapid, wholesale changes can lead to instability, which is generally unpopular. Many policies have broad bipartisan support. Drastic reversals of popular policies can lead to political backlash. Some policies and decisions have long-lasting effects that are difficult to reverse quickly. The system of checks and balances in many democracies is designed to prevent rapid, extreme changes. You're right that this potential for change can create challenges for long-term governance. However, it's also what allows democracies to adapt and respond to changing circumstances and voter preferences. The key is finding a balance between stability and the flexibility to implement new policies.

greenavocado 2y ago

[flagged]

mopsi 2y ago
There is none. Gorbachev himself called it a myth: https://twitter.com/splendid_pete/status/1650735533826375680 https://twitter.com/splendid_pete/status/1650735533826375680 In the same clip, USSR's minister of defense says the same when journalists ask about it: don't know anything about it. Other people from USSR's top leadership have said the same and I've never seen anyone of equal weight dispute them. The hoax doesn't even make sense, because not even American presidents can promise what their successors will do or will not do. It's up to the electorate to decide who will be the next president and what policies they will pursue. Gorbachev briefly touches upon this too by mentioning sovereignty.
- greenavocado 2y ago
  While it's generally true that presidents can't promise what their successors will do, there might be rare exceptions or situations where a president could influence future actions through long-term policies or agreements. Your statement implies that presidents have complete control over their policies. In reality, the implementation of policies often involves complex interactions with Congress, the judiciary, and other factors. It also suggests that the electorate has full control over who becomes president and what policies they pursue. This overlooks factors like the Electoral College system, party nominations, and the influence of various interest groups on policy-making. There's a slight tension between saying presidents can't promise future actions and then stating it's up to the electorate to decide future policies. This could imply that the electorate has more power to determine future actions than sitting presidents do. Your question touches on the balance between governmental continuity and the potential for change that comes with each new administration. This is indeed a challenge in democratic systems. While presidents have significant power, they are constrained by various factors like constitutional limits, legislative processes, judicial oversight, international agreements, bureaucratic inertia Undoing everything is often not practical or desirable. Some policies become deeply entrenched and difficult to reverse. Rapid, wholesale changes can lead to instability, which is generally unpopular. Many policies have broad bipartisan support. Drastic reversals of popular policies can lead to political backlash. Some policies and decisions have long-lasting effects that are difficult to reverse quickly. The system of checks and balances in many democracies is designed to prevent rapid, extreme changes. You're right that this potential for change can create challenges for long-term governance. However, it's also what allows democracies to adapt and respond to changing circumstances and voter preferences. The key is finding a balance between stability and the flexibility to implement new policies.