4 ms·

I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders". That is not Russian propaganda. Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" com

I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders". That is not Russian propaganda. Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" comes from a leaked telegram from CIA director William Burns: https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/08/the-crucial-question-surrounding-ukraines-nato-admission?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/08/the-crucial-ques...

aguaviva 2y ago
I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders" And we could forgive them for that small particular exaggeration, if that was all it was. But they took extra special care to double down on the "pushing" part, and dial it up a notch, to "shoving [it] its borders", which is unmistakably an intentional use of emotionally manipulative language. Which is the precise moment which qualifies what they said as propaganda. As to what you're saying: Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" Except there was no concrete "push" in Ukraine's case. Ukraine's NATO membership application was formally rejected by NATO in 2008. This was very, very big news at the time, and Merkel still can't keep bragging about it.† Despite NATO's also offering some secondary, mollifying words about Ukraine "eventually" joining the alliance, there was no significant action taken to move that forward in the critical window of 2008-2014, when Russia invaded. In fact, in 2010 Ukraine's path to NATO took a very significant step backward, when its parliament voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status. And as for the phrase "brightest of red lines": If you actually pull up the text of the cable, it specifically refers to the MAP, or Membership Application Plan, which was explicitly denied to Ukraine in 2008, as indicated above. Precisely due the level-headed advice of people like Burns et all. But Russia invaded in 2014 and 2022 anyway. Because its actual reasons were never rationally connected to NATO expansion in the first place. And yet - whatever sources you've been reading seem to have left you with the impression that Burns's "brightest of red lines" had in fact been crossed, and that this is what "caused" the invasion. Why is that? † https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > 2014, when Russia invaded. Did anything else happen in Ukraine before that happened? Maybe somebody overthrew the government and installed a puppet who eventually left office with a 6% approval rating? Maybe a bunch of US congressmen literally flew out to show their support?
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Maybe somebody overthrew the government and installed a puppet And when you're completely cornered on one line of disinformation, not just maybe but sure enough -- somebody will chime in with another. The coup/puppet narrative in relation to these events is simply bogus. You can do your homework on it if you want, or not. I don't particularly care.
  - rat87 2y ago
    What actually happened in Ukraine was that the president went back on his promise to try to work towards join the EU (possibly due to threats from Putin) and some young Ukranians organized a protest on social media because they saw the EU as the only hope for a bright Ukrainan future (if you want to know why just look at the economy and corruption levels in former communist EU countries compared to Ukraine) and the President as going back on his word and throwing it away. Instead of considering their points or even trying to ignore them he tried to suppress the protests with extreme violence and ridiculous anti protest laws people thought might lead to dictatorship like in neighboring Russia or Belarus. The Ukranian people didn't like this and the protests grew and grew and grew. The EU and US encouraged the political opposition to make a compromise with the President even if it was unsatisfactory. But then the police who has been fighting the protesters got cold feet that the president would throw them under the bus in the deal, so they disappeared and the President decided to do the same. Since he abandoned his country and his post the legislature had no choice but to remove him from office including many from his own party. A couple of US politicians voiced support for the people protesting for their rights against a corrupt and increasingly authorian leader, I see why they did it but how is that relevant to any of this? Also Poroshenko wasn't in any way installed or a puppet, he was elected by Ukranians in an election that was fair and free followed by another fair and free election which he lost in a landslide. That's democracy. Poroshenko may have not been the best leader but he was tons better then Yanukovych and it was pretty hard to run Ukraine even before Russia invaded.

aguaviva 2y ago

I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders" And we could forgive them for that small particular exaggeration, if that was all it was. But they took extra special care to double down on the "pushing" part, and dial it up a notch, to "shoving [it] its borders", which is unmistakably an intentional use of emotionally manipulative language. Which is the precise moment which qualifies what they said as propaganda. As to what you're saying: Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" Except there was no concrete "push" in Ukraine's case. Ukraine's NATO membership application was formally rejected by NATO in 2008. This was very, very big news at the time, and Merkel still can't keep bragging about it.† Despite NATO's also offering some secondary, mollifying words about Ukraine "eventually" joining the alliance, there was no significant action taken to move that forward in the critical window of 2008-2014, when Russia invaded. In fact, in 2010 Ukraine's path to NATO took a very significant step backward, when its parliament voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status. And as for the phrase "brightest of red lines": If you actually pull up the text of the cable, it specifically refers to the MAP, or Membership Application Plan, which was explicitly denied to Ukraine in 2008, as indicated above. Precisely due the level-headed advice of people like Burns et all. But Russia invaded in 2014 and 2022 anyway. Because its actual reasons were never rationally connected to NATO expansion in the first place. And yet - whatever sources you've been reading seem to have left you with the impression that Burns's "brightest of red lines" had in fact been crossed, and that this is what "caused" the invasion. Why is that? † https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o

pessimizer 2y ago
> 2014, when Russia invaded. Did anything else happen in Ukraine before that happened? Maybe somebody overthrew the government and installed a puppet who eventually left office with a 6% approval rating? Maybe a bunch of US congressmen literally flew out to show their support?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Maybe somebody overthrew the government and installed a puppet And when you're completely cornered on one line of disinformation, not just maybe but sure enough -- somebody will chime in with another. The coup/puppet narrative in relation to these events is simply bogus. You can do your homework on it if you want, or not. I don't particularly care.
- rat87 2y ago
  What actually happened in Ukraine was that the president went back on his promise to try to work towards join the EU (possibly due to threats from Putin) and some young Ukranians organized a protest on social media because they saw the EU as the only hope for a bright Ukrainan future (if you want to know why just look at the economy and corruption levels in former communist EU countries compared to Ukraine) and the President as going back on his word and throwing it away. Instead of considering their points or even trying to ignore them he tried to suppress the protests with extreme violence and ridiculous anti protest laws people thought might lead to dictatorship like in neighboring Russia or Belarus. The Ukranian people didn't like this and the protests grew and grew and grew. The EU and US encouraged the political opposition to make a compromise with the President even if it was unsatisfactory. But then the police who has been fighting the protesters got cold feet that the president would throw them under the bus in the deal, so they disappeared and the President decided to do the same. Since he abandoned his country and his post the legislature had no choice but to remove him from office including many from his own party. A couple of US politicians voiced support for the people protesting for their rights against a corrupt and increasingly authorian leader, I see why they did it but how is that relevant to any of this? Also Poroshenko wasn't in any way installed or a puppet, he was elected by Ukranians in an election that was fair and free followed by another fair and free election which he lost in a landslide. That's democracy. Poroshenko may have not been the best leader but he was tons better then Yanukovych and it was pretty hard to run Ukraine even before Russia invaded.