3 ms·

> He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool. Your oft-cited link doesn't support the "100% NATO said they wouldn't expand" and it's a verbal statement that

by troupo 8mo ago

> He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool. Your oft-cited link doesn't support the "100% NATO said they wouldn't expand" and it's a verbal statement that wasn't even ratified anywhere. Unlike, you know, multiple treaties Russia has with, say, Ukraine. But if you're holding verbal agreements in such high esteem, Putin himself said he doesn't care if Ukraine joins NATO. > Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive. You mean "just some the NATO members were positive and within the country the request was so unpopular that it led to public protests". > before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining My statement was definitely an exaggeration. However support for joining NATO: - before 2014 was hovering around 20% on a good day, and the request to join NATO was met with strong opposition and public protests. - after 2014 support spiked to 50 and then to 70, and then slowly subsided. Gee I wonder why - After 2022 it's been around 80%. I wonder why. Truly it's all the fault of the expansionist NATO. > Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway". Now tell me, who exactly is responsible for public opinion in Ukraine turning from "nope, we don't want NATO", to "yes, we overwhelmingly want to be in NATO"? I mean, you seem to absolve Russia of any and all responsibility. > Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan. Ahahahhahahahahahahahha. This is the literal quote of what I said: "Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan". If you claim that Russia is not complicit in this, I don't know what to tell you. But sure, in your eyes Russia does nothing, never gets involved in everything, and that 4-year war it's waging against anither country is totally and absolutely justified because Russia.

drysine 8mo ago
I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward". You argue like you haven't seen it. >just some the NATO members were positive That's not true, the alliance itself gave the assurances.[0] >the request was so unpopular The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request. >Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway". And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation. >This is the literal quote of what I said You forgot to quote "Just like". "the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014" isn't "just like" what you wrote. Besides, you haven't even offered any sources for your statements. Is it because you blame Russia for anything you don't like? [0] https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2008/04/03/bucharest-summit-declaration https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resource...
- mopsi 8mo ago
  > I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward". Eduard Shevardnadze, the USSR's minister of foreign affairs at the time, clarified that the context was the potential stationing of foreign NATO troops (US, UK, etc) in East Germany after reunification. There was nowhere further "east" to move at the time, since East Germany bordered the Warsaw Pact. German reunification was agreed upon with the understanding that foreign troops would not be moved directly to the border with the Warsaw Pact, because the Pact had not yet had time to establish military infrastructure after retreating from East Germany. That was the agreement and parties adhered to it. Shevardnadze also said that in 1990, it was unimaginable to the Soviet leadership that the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself would dissolve. Therefore, there was no reason to discuss potential NATO membership of countries and territories that were under Soviet control at the time. And according to him, this was indeed not discussed at all during his tenure (1985-1991); not internally, and not with foreign partners either. The putinesque sob story that NATO promised never to accept any new members is an anachronistic perversion of these events.
- troupo 8mo ago
  > though it was not a legally binding assurance Oh no, really? > The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request. Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further? Or that multiple NATO members opposed Ukrainian membership (you have to get approval from all NATO members)? Or that the whole thing was derailed by Russian involvement in Georgia? > And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation. I've yet to see you assign any responsibility to Russia for its actions. > You forgot to quote "Just like". 1. you have to actually provide a source that what happened in Ukraine was a coup. Hint: Ukrainians are quite happy to remove anyone in power through popular movements 2. I clearly literally described what Russia was doing. You keep trying to move the discussion to your own very narrow (and quite invalid) definition of a coup. 3. I've yet to see you assign any reponisbility to Russia for Russia's actions. Russia is blameless, spotless, and purely justified in its 4-year invasion of Ukraine.

by troupo 8mo ago

drysine 8mo ago

I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward". You argue like you haven't seen it. >just some the NATO members were positive That's not true, the alliance itself gave the assurances.[0] >the request was so unpopular The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request. >Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway". And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation. >This is the literal quote of what I said You forgot to quote "Just like". "the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014" isn't "just like" what you wrote. Besides, you haven't even offered any sources for your statements. Is it because you blame Russia for anything you don't like? [0] https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2008/04/03/bucharest-summit-declaration https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resource...

mopsi 8mo ago
> I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward". Eduard Shevardnadze, the USSR's minister of foreign affairs at the time, clarified that the context was the potential stationing of foreign NATO troops (US, UK, etc) in East Germany after reunification. There was nowhere further "east" to move at the time, since East Germany bordered the Warsaw Pact. German reunification was agreed upon with the understanding that foreign troops would not be moved directly to the border with the Warsaw Pact, because the Pact had not yet had time to establish military infrastructure after retreating from East Germany. That was the agreement and parties adhered to it. Shevardnadze also said that in 1990, it was unimaginable to the Soviet leadership that the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself would dissolve. Therefore, there was no reason to discuss potential NATO membership of countries and territories that were under Soviet control at the time. And according to him, this was indeed not discussed at all during his tenure (1985-1991); not internally, and not with foreign partners either. The putinesque sob story that NATO promised never to accept any new members is an anachronistic perversion of these events.
troupo 8mo ago
> though it was not a legally binding assurance Oh no, really? > The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request. Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further? Or that multiple NATO members opposed Ukrainian membership (you have to get approval from all NATO members)? Or that the whole thing was derailed by Russian involvement in Georgia? > And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation. I've yet to see you assign any responsibility to Russia for its actions. > You forgot to quote "Just like". 1. you have to actually provide a source that what happened in Ukraine was a coup. Hint: Ukrainians are quite happy to remove anyone in power through popular movements 2. I clearly literally described what Russia was doing. You keep trying to move the discussion to your own very narrow (and quite invalid) definition of a coup. 3. I've yet to see you assign any reponisbility to Russia for Russia's actions. Russia is blameless, spotless, and purely justified in its 4-year invasion of Ukraine.