3 ms·

Ukraine only exists as a post Soviet country because we agreed with Russia that they (Ukraine) would never have nukes nor be a part of NATO. They otherwise woul

by koolba 2y ago

Ukraine only exists as a post Soviet country because we agreed with Russia that they (Ukraine) would never have nukes nor be a part of NATO. They otherwise would never have allowed the formation of a separate government. The insane rhetoric of Biden and Zelensky and specifically entertaining the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is what led to this tragedy. It’d be like Mexico joining the USSR. Do you think the USA would simply let that happen?

drawkward 2y ago
As if neither Trump nor Putin has reneged on a deal before. For fucks sake, who gives a shit about what Russia thinks? They suppress democracy and political opposition. They poison journalists outside of Russia. They jail and kill public interest figures. They kidnap and jail Americans on false pretexts.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jquery 2y ago
    False equivalency, comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought.
    - koolba 2y ago
      > comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought. I'm sure Russia feels the same when considering the prospect of a neighbor joining an nuclear armed international alliance constructed specifically to oppose it's power and existence. My goto analogy for this is the hypothetical of Mexico joining the USSR. Sure it sounds far fetched, but how do you think the USA would react to that type of situation?
      - drawkward 2y ago
        Your goto analogy sucks. The USA is not trying to occupy Mexico. NATO is a defense pact.
        koolba 2y ago
        I think you need to lookup the definition of the word hypothetical. The point of the exercise is to imagine a scenario where the players are reversed to imagine how they would react.
        drawkward 2y ago
        My quibble is not the hypothetical, it is your implicit claim that the situations are similar. Thats what an analogy is. The mere fact of your defending Russian invasion of Ukraine is enough to completely discredit your opinion on the matter.
        CapricornNoble 2y ago
        >NATO is a defense pact. Oh lordy. I only ever hear this on the internet and I always find it bizarre. Who is telling people this? University professors? Where and in what subjects? Prime time news programs? Again, in what countries? I've been in the military for 20 years and I've never heard an NCO or officer utter these words. Because it's nonsense. Defense pacts don't conduct totally-offensive air campaigns against countries that none of their members are at war with.[1] There is no formal legal mechanism for NATO as an organization to act as an enforcement arm for UN Resolutions, by the way. If there was, NATO probably should have been bombing Israel since UN Resolution 497 in 1981. [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/topics_71652.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/topics_71652.htm
  - drawkward 2y ago
    First off, youre misquoting me. Thats just despicable. Second, you have shown us three examples of Ukraine fending off Russian aggression. I dont know why you are advancing Russian propaganda, but the fact that you are provides moe than enough justification to completely ignore your claims.
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      > First off, youre misquoting me. Thats just despicable. The purpose is to demonstrate that the complaints have no morally universal application. Despicable actions by Ukraine are given a carte blanche. I find it bizarre that people hold it up as some sort of beacon of liberal democracy. >Second, you have shown us three examples of Ukraine fending off Russian aggression. So the ends justify the means? Anyone who feels they are "fending off aggression" can kill civilians with carbombs and fatally abuse American citizens in their prisons? That's your position? >I dont know why you are advancing Russian propaganda Are you saying that NPR and the Helsinki Times are Russian propaganda outlets? That strikes me as completely irrational, but nevertheless a very common viewpoint among European warhawks. It's no surprise that Europe wasn't invited to the peace talks in Saudi Arabia.
mopsi 2y ago
> Ukraine only exists as a post Soviet country because we agreed with Russia that they (Ukraine) would never have nukes nor be a part of NATO. There was never such a deal. Quite the opposite: Russia and the US reiterated in several agreements a commitment to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty, including the right to freely choose allies. This traces back to the 1975 Helsinki Conference, where representatives of all European countries agreed on common principles for security and cooperation in Europe, which are often referenced in later treaties. Key documents: * Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Helsinki_Final_Act https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Helsinki_Final_Act * Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1994): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securi... * Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation (1997): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm * Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (1997): https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52240.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
- koolba 2y ago
  There’s plenty of record that those promises were made to the Russians during the USSR dissolution discussions: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi... > In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion. Whether they were written down and signed is nowhere near as relevant as whether they were actually promised. The word of the counterparty is what makes and enforces a diplomatic deal, not some piece of paper.

by koolba 2y ago

drawkward 2y ago

As if neither Trump nor Putin has reneged on a deal before. For fucks sake, who gives a shit about what Russia thinks? They suppress democracy and political opposition. They poison journalists outside of Russia. They jail and kill public interest figures. They kidnap and jail Americans on false pretexts.

CapricornNoble 2y ago
[flagged]
- jquery 2y ago
  False equivalency, comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought.
  - koolba 2y ago
    > comparing the aggressor Russia with a country that's in a literal fight for its survival. Straight up Kremlin talking points. Not food for thought. I'm sure Russia feels the same when considering the prospect of a neighbor joining an nuclear armed international alliance constructed specifically to oppose it's power and existence. My goto analogy for this is the hypothetical of Mexico joining the USSR. Sure it sounds far fetched, but how do you think the USA would react to that type of situation?
    - drawkward 2y ago
      Your goto analogy sucks. The USA is not trying to occupy Mexico. NATO is a defense pact.
      - koolba 2y ago
        I think you need to lookup the definition of the word hypothetical. The point of the exercise is to imagine a scenario where the players are reversed to imagine how they would react.
        drawkward 2y ago
        My quibble is not the hypothetical, it is your implicit claim that the situations are similar. Thats what an analogy is. The mere fact of your defending Russian invasion of Ukraine is enough to completely discredit your opinion on the matter.
      - CapricornNoble 2y ago
        >NATO is a defense pact. Oh lordy. I only ever hear this on the internet and I always find it bizarre. Who is telling people this? University professors? Where and in what subjects? Prime time news programs? Again, in what countries? I've been in the military for 20 years and I've never heard an NCO or officer utter these words. Because it's nonsense. Defense pacts don't conduct totally-offensive air campaigns against countries that none of their members are at war with.[1] There is no formal legal mechanism for NATO as an organization to act as an enforcement arm for UN Resolutions, by the way. If there was, NATO probably should have been bombing Israel since UN Resolution 497 in 1981. [1] https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/topics_71652.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/topics_71652.htm
- drawkward 2y ago
  First off, youre misquoting me. Thats just despicable. Second, you have shown us three examples of Ukraine fending off Russian aggression. I dont know why you are advancing Russian propaganda, but the fact that you are provides moe than enough justification to completely ignore your claims.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    > First off, youre misquoting me. Thats just despicable. The purpose is to demonstrate that the complaints have no morally universal application. Despicable actions by Ukraine are given a carte blanche. I find it bizarre that people hold it up as some sort of beacon of liberal democracy. >Second, you have shown us three examples of Ukraine fending off Russian aggression. So the ends justify the means? Anyone who feels they are "fending off aggression" can kill civilians with carbombs and fatally abuse American citizens in their prisons? That's your position? >I dont know why you are advancing Russian propaganda Are you saying that NPR and the Helsinki Times are Russian propaganda outlets? That strikes me as completely irrational, but nevertheless a very common viewpoint among European warhawks. It's no surprise that Europe wasn't invited to the peace talks in Saudi Arabia.

mopsi 2y ago

> Ukraine only exists as a post Soviet country because we agreed with Russia that they (Ukraine) would never have nukes nor be a part of NATO. There was never such a deal. Quite the opposite: Russia and the US reiterated in several agreements a commitment to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty, including the right to freely choose allies. This traces back to the 1975 Helsinki Conference, where representatives of all European countries agreed on common principles for security and cooperation in Europe, which are often referenced in later treaties. Key documents: * Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (1975): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Helsinki_Final_Act https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Helsinki_Final_Act * Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine's accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1994): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Securi... * Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation (1997): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm * Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (1997): https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52240.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

koolba 2y ago
There’s plenty of record that those promises were made to the Russians during the USSR dissolution discussions: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi... > In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion. Whether they were written down and signed is nowhere near as relevant as whether they were actually promised. The word of the counterparty is what makes and enforces a diplomatic deal, not some piece of paper.