40 ms·

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 assura

by drysine 7mo 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 7mo 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 7mo 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.
- drysine 7mo ago
  >Oh no, really? Maybe you should reread my first comment? I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing
  - troupo 7mo ago
    Yes, yes you do. If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war"? I see that you still absolve Russia of literally any and all responsibility for its actions.
    - drysine 7mo ago

by drysine 7mo ago

mopsi 7mo 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 7mo 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.

drysine 7mo ago
>Oh no, really? Maybe you should reread my first comment? I'm not interested in arguing for the sake of arguing
- troupo 7mo ago
  Yes, yes you do. If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war"? I see that you still absolve Russia of literally any and all responsibility for its actions.
  - drysine 7mo ago