5 ms·

> Russia was promised by the US that NATO would not expand. by someone named Baker This is Russian propaganda. Russia claims this was promised verbally. Surely

> Russia was promised by the US that NATO would not expand. by someone named Baker This is Russian propaganda. Russia claims this was promised verbally. Surely if this was something that Russia wanted why didn't they demand in writing, like they did about many other concessions made to them? The answer is that Putin made that up. It never happened.

koonsolo 2y ago
When people state this obvious lie, I always ask: So which NATO member states voted for not expanding to the east? Same with the Ukraine "coup", I always ask: So which dictator did they install in 2014?
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  When a group of Americans were mad that their preferred candidate didn't win and stormed the Capitol, were they heroes or traitors? When a group of Ukrainians did the same, why does your answer flip?
  - jxjnskkzxxhx 2y ago
    Trump lost fairly, so storming the capitol is treason. Yanukovich didn't win fairly, so removing him is warranted. The answer flips because the situations are the opposite.
    - riehwvfbk 2y ago
      The people who stormed the Capitol didn't think Trump lost fairly. So the real difference is whether they succeeded. Had the Capitol protesters succeeded, they would have made the media feed people like you and I their narrative and make sure we saw them as freedom fighters. I'm sure you'll disagree with the above, so here's a thought experiment. What would the Euromaidan protesters be called if they had lost?
      - koonsolo 2y ago
        To be clear, Yanukovych was fairly elected in 2010 and there are no claims that this was somehow rigged or undemocratic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Conduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...). The protests started when he switched his stance on getting closer to EU. The protesters got him out and had a new election. How can you compare that to not accepting an election result? Edit: To answer your question: if the Euromaidan protest didn't succeed, it was just a protest like it was now. They would have had another election a bit later, possibly pissing off Russia again (In 2004 Russia poisoned a pro-EU candidate).
      - jxjnskkzxxhx 2y ago
        They didn't think that Trump lost fairly, but what they think doesn't matter. The law takes it's course.
  - koonsolo 2y ago
    Euromaidan was a protests because Yanukovych didn't act on his promise to integrate Ukraine with the EU. Protesters were upset because that was not what he promised during his campaign. The storming of the capital in US was under false claims that the elections were stolen. There is both evidence that the elections were not stolen, and evidence what Yanukovuch said during his election campaign were not his actions. You can't tell the difference between the two? Plenty of protests ended in the fall of a government and electing a new one. Why would that be the same as the US storming of the Capital? If you would have said to compare it to the Georgian protests that don't accept the election results, that would be more difficult. But Euromaidan? That's easy.
- genewitch 2y ago
  As i said, "Stuff shifted, but under no circumstances was russia going to let Ukraine 'join NATO'." - it's just too close to moscow, and there's been issues in that region since the collapse. "We're going to acquire nukes" was sort of the final straw. Let's just hope that Canada saying the same thing doesn't foment the same response from their neighbor, eh?
  - koonsolo 2y ago
    Can you give me a reference in what year Ukraine said they were going to acquire nukes?
    - genewitch 2y ago
      I sure can, but why do you ask? I just did 25 minutes of research to give a clear reasoning why they want them, and then finding the dates of when Zelenskyy said they "need" or "should get" nuclear weapons. But i'm unwilling to share this research effort without knowing the purpose behind your asking. To put it better, what year would be an acceptable answer? Is the year that they loudly claimed "we should have never given up our nuclear weapons" not acceptable? the year "we need Nukes or NATO"? I also remember sabre rattling in 2014 and either 2016 or 2017. NATO already has missiles pointed at Russia, and Ukraine joining NATO would allow missiles to be launched from even closer to Russia. I don't understand why people don't get the nuance. The US did dirty. I don't know how to solve that, but the answer isn't "war with russia" or "proxy war with russia" the answer is closer to "get the fighting to stop, and tell russia to chill out and report issues to the world, not sit and stew for 8 years over their ethnic brothers, sisters, and children being 'rained down upon' with death and destruction."
      - koonsolo 2y ago
        You claim Russia invaded because Ukraine said they were going to acquire nukes. I'm asking for a reference and a date when they said that. And obviously, it must be before the Russo-Ukrainian war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War
genewitch 2y ago
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325680/Document-06-Record-of-conversation-between.pdf https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325... page 5. also in other documents. It's ok, it was only declassified 9 years ago. and if we're going to point at everything trump says and react with gusto - like canadian politicians saying they need to arm themselves with nukes to prevent invasion, just to name one - then i question the validity of "oh they didn't sign it so it doesn't matter" The secretary of state said to Gorbachev multiple times "not one inch to the east" of the "NATO" base in Germany. But none of this matters, because Ukraine is 250 miles from Moscow, and that's a lot different than the nearly 600 miles away Poland is. the closest nato point to moscow as it stands right now is 350 miles away. if you can't see the difference, i'm sorry. A big point of contention for Russia is the "Ethnic Russian" portions of Ukraine, near the border, who would "gladly" be part of russia, but because of an arbitrary border, they cannot. Here's infamous socialist George Galloway explaining it better than i can, and with a better accent: https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1740955477.979_georgegallowaygoesoffonpiers2.mp3 https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1740955477.979_georgegalloway...
- mopsi 2y ago
  Baker and Gorbachev talked about the status NATO forces in East Germany until the Soviet withdrawal in 1994. They agreed that only the forces under direct German control would enter East Germany until the last Soviet forces had withdrawn. Their agreement was formalized in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The relevant article: ARTICLE 5 Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of the present Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not integrated into the alliance structures to which German armed forces in the rest of German territory are assigned will be stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany. During that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, armed forces of other states will not be stationed in that territory or carry out any other military activity there. Germany upheld their part of the agreement, the withdrawal went uneventfully, and the agreement was concluded by the end of August 1994. As you can see, it has nothing to do with whether NATO would accept new members or not. Gorbachev and many other top Soviet/Russian officials have directly refuted this myth, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43149963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43149963

koonsolo 2y ago

When people state this obvious lie, I always ask: So which NATO member states voted for not expanding to the east? Same with the Ukraine "coup", I always ask: So which dictator did they install in 2014?

riehwvfbk 2y ago
When a group of Americans were mad that their preferred candidate didn't win and stormed the Capitol, were they heroes or traitors? When a group of Ukrainians did the same, why does your answer flip?
- jxjnskkzxxhx 2y ago
  Trump lost fairly, so storming the capitol is treason. Yanukovich didn't win fairly, so removing him is warranted. The answer flips because the situations are the opposite.
  - riehwvfbk 2y ago
    The people who stormed the Capitol didn't think Trump lost fairly. So the real difference is whether they succeeded. Had the Capitol protesters succeeded, they would have made the media feed people like you and I their narrative and make sure we saw them as freedom fighters. I'm sure you'll disagree with the above, so here's a thought experiment. What would the Euromaidan protesters be called if they had lost?
    - koonsolo 2y ago
      To be clear, Yanukovych was fairly elected in 2010 and there are no claims that this was somehow rigged or undemocratic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Conduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...). The protests started when he switched his stance on getting closer to EU. The protesters got him out and had a new election. How can you compare that to not accepting an election result? Edit: To answer your question: if the Euromaidan protest didn't succeed, it was just a protest like it was now. They would have had another election a bit later, possibly pissing off Russia again (In 2004 Russia poisoned a pro-EU candidate).
    - jxjnskkzxxhx 2y ago
      They didn't think that Trump lost fairly, but what they think doesn't matter. The law takes it's course.
- koonsolo 2y ago
  Euromaidan was a protests because Yanukovych didn't act on his promise to integrate Ukraine with the EU. Protesters were upset because that was not what he promised during his campaign. The storming of the capital in US was under false claims that the elections were stolen. There is both evidence that the elections were not stolen, and evidence what Yanukovuch said during his election campaign were not his actions. You can't tell the difference between the two? Plenty of protests ended in the fall of a government and electing a new one. Why would that be the same as the US storming of the Capital? If you would have said to compare it to the Georgian protests that don't accept the election results, that would be more difficult. But Euromaidan? That's easy.
genewitch 2y ago
As i said, "Stuff shifted, but under no circumstances was russia going to let Ukraine 'join NATO'." - it's just too close to moscow, and there's been issues in that region since the collapse. "We're going to acquire nukes" was sort of the final straw. Let's just hope that Canada saying the same thing doesn't foment the same response from their neighbor, eh?
- koonsolo 2y ago
  Can you give me a reference in what year Ukraine said they were going to acquire nukes?
  - genewitch 2y ago
    I sure can, but why do you ask? I just did 25 minutes of research to give a clear reasoning why they want them, and then finding the dates of when Zelenskyy said they "need" or "should get" nuclear weapons. But i'm unwilling to share this research effort without knowing the purpose behind your asking. To put it better, what year would be an acceptable answer? Is the year that they loudly claimed "we should have never given up our nuclear weapons" not acceptable? the year "we need Nukes or NATO"? I also remember sabre rattling in 2014 and either 2016 or 2017. NATO already has missiles pointed at Russia, and Ukraine joining NATO would allow missiles to be launched from even closer to Russia. I don't understand why people don't get the nuance. The US did dirty. I don't know how to solve that, but the answer isn't "war with russia" or "proxy war with russia" the answer is closer to "get the fighting to stop, and tell russia to chill out and report issues to the world, not sit and stew for 8 years over their ethnic brothers, sisters, and children being 'rained down upon' with death and destruction."
    - koonsolo 2y ago
      You claim Russia invaded because Ukraine said they were going to acquire nukes. I'm asking for a reference and a date when they said that. And obviously, it must be before the Russo-Ukrainian war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

genewitch 2y ago

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325680/Document-06-Record-of-conversation-between.pdf https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325... page 5. also in other documents. It's ok, it was only declassified 9 years ago. and if we're going to point at everything trump says and react with gusto - like canadian politicians saying they need to arm themselves with nukes to prevent invasion, just to name one - then i question the validity of "oh they didn't sign it so it doesn't matter" The secretary of state said to Gorbachev multiple times "not one inch to the east" of the "NATO" base in Germany. But none of this matters, because Ukraine is 250 miles from Moscow, and that's a lot different than the nearly 600 miles away Poland is. the closest nato point to moscow as it stands right now is 350 miles away. if you can't see the difference, i'm sorry. A big point of contention for Russia is the "Ethnic Russian" portions of Ukraine, near the border, who would "gladly" be part of russia, but because of an arbitrary border, they cannot. Here's infamous socialist George Galloway explaining it better than i can, and with a better accent: https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1740955477.979_georgegallowaygoesoffonpiers2.mp3 https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1740955477.979_georgegalloway...

mopsi 2y ago
Baker and Gorbachev talked about the status NATO forces in East Germany until the Soviet withdrawal in 1994. They agreed that only the forces under direct German control would enter East Germany until the last Soviet forces had withdrawn. Their agreement was formalized in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The relevant article: ARTICLE 5 Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of the present Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not integrated into the alliance structures to which German armed forces in the rest of German territory are assigned will be stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany. During that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, armed forces of other states will not be stationed in that territory or carry out any other military activity there. Germany upheld their part of the agreement, the withdrawal went uneventfully, and the agreement was concluded by the end of August 1994. As you can see, it has nothing to do with whether NATO would accept new members or not. Gorbachev and many other top Soviet/Russian officials have directly refuted this myth, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43149963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43149963