When you give your word that you won't expand "one inch" east in order to get Russia's go ahead to reunify Germany & bring them into NATO, then turn around less than 10 years later & start your first of 5 waves of eastward expansion, yeah I"d say that's a betrayal. Not just the US Sec State gave his word but multiple Eurofag high officials did too. This isn't in dispute, it's on record.
Practically every western Russia expert admits that this is seen as a huge betrayal in Moscow. Not only that, most of the top experts in the west agree that the eastward expansion of NATO was going to detabilize Eastern Europe & potentially lead to war.
I dunno what this meme video says, why you'd watch such a thing to find the answer is anyone's guess. The thumbnail says it all really. Dumb shit for ignorant kids.
Here's something for adults:
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Again, you need to ask yourself why countries want to join NATO? You have to ask why non-NATO countries are starting NATO talks now. Russia's paranoia and aggression is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A lot of these talking points are always presented in a way that theres just the US and Russia and the rest are just pawns in their play. A very typical American view.
While the US has a big influence, NATO ≠ US. If a new member wants to join, it can only be done by unanimous agreement with the existing states.
Countries join for safety and a guarantee that their place wont be invaded, not because they are all pro-US and want their all mighty empire to expand.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
Trying to explain the history of Atlanticist influence in Europe or how the power dynamic within NATO works is a waste of time but you can look to the 2014 coup as an example of how the soverignty of these countries is overridden when it suits the western bloc.
NATO promised Moscow they wouldn't expand "one inch" eastwards in 1990.
This was extremely important to the Russians.
In 1997 NATO went back on their word, hence it's a betrayal.
Then again broke their word 4 more times to the point where they have NATO missiles within a few hundred kms from Russia's borders.
This betrayal has been happening for 25 years & Russian protests & attempts to remedy it diplomatically have been dismissed outright.
Russia's security concerns are legitemate & if you think otherwise just take a look at Ukraine today. That's where your moronic argument leads. In the end it required NATO arming nazis who've been killing Russians for 8 years to finally get the Russians to react with hard power.
It seems pointless discussing this with you, you have no concept of how major power geopolitics works IMO. This video is embarrasing for you. It's like you think this is some spat on social media between sorority sisters. Just ridiculous stuff.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So you are hung up on a verbal agreement that was done 30 years ago?
"Russia's security concerns are legitemate & if you think otherwise just take a look at Ukraine today."
Yes, I'm looking at it. NATO is not attacking, Russia IS. It's quite simple who the aggressor is.
I think Putin in his paranoia doesn't understand the harm he is doing to his country by trying to "defend" it and the free promotion he is giving for NATO. How's that for understanding power geopolitics? The cold war was over-ish (why NATO was originally formed) but it seems he wants a new one?
I'll give you this though. NATO expanding might not be the best thing for maintaining long term peace, but the only way to dismantle or make these alliances obsolete is prove over time that Russia doesn't pose a risk to it's neighbors. It was doing fine for a while.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sal9000 (Long Spike)
a verbal agreement from 30 years ago to a country that no longer exists
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
Russia then and now is a more legitemate state than that anglo-american vassal you live in. Your head of state lives in London and your foreign policy is dictated in Washington DC.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danman (Site Administrator)
"NATO is not attacking, Russia IS"
not really. NATO's been part of the conflict in Donbass for about 7 years & the 2 Donbass republics declared independence in 8 years ago. Russia now finally recognizes their independence which means NATO is in a way part of this conflict that's still playing out. It didn't start on Feb 24 2020, that's just when Russia formally sent troops in to force a poltiical settlement. Germany & France weren't able to get Kyiv to honour the Minsk accords under the Normandy Format. Ukraine was building up forces to go in & wipe out a bunch more Russian Ukrainians in Donbass. Nothing Russia did in terms of diplomacy was working. I'm not saying this is entirely about the Donbass but that's a significant part of it, especially within Russian domestic politics. Imagine if thousands of Canadians were dying across the border what pressure your govt would be under to do something.
US/NATO already has been meddling in Ukraine including being directly infolved in the military there as during an armed conflict, not to mention (again) the overthrow of the elected govt in 2014. Ukraine's been p much a de facto NATO country for the past few years, the bases that NATO setup aren't formal NATO bases but a lot of other stuff is the same.
> I'll give you this though. NATO expanding might not be the best thing for maintaining long term peace, but the only way to dismantle or make these alliances obsolete is prove over time that Russia doesn't pose a risk to it's neighbors
yea, nah get fucked.
NATO has created mayhem all around the world these past 23 years, destroying Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria. The whole time insisting that Russia's concerns aren't even enough to speak aobut as they install missile bases right near Russia & refuse to take Ukraine off the table in terms of membership & blah blah, all the rest of the stuff I've previously mentioned
You say "Russia has to prove their innocence" when in fact it's NATO who are FAR more aggressive around the world. It's a little American feifdom & treats Russia as an enemy the entire time as if the Cold War hadn't ended in 1989. Russia being a nuclear superpower who NATO shouldn't be fucking with for all our sakes. They should have taken the opportunity offered over the past few decades & sorted out a decent security arrangement with Russia, or even accepted Russia/Soviet Union into NATO while they had the chance. Both were offered & especially the security cooperation, NATO just acts like Russian concerns don't matter at all. Now all of a sudden all the western propaganda is acting like we should be shocked that Russia invaded. Admittedly I'm surprised they took this gamble but it's not like it wasn't provoked.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"not really. NATO's been part of the conflict in Donbass for about 7 years & the 2 Donbass republics declared independence in 8 years ago. Russia now finally recognizes their independence which means NATO is in a way part of this conflict that's still playing out."
Russia recognizes the independence of their separatist regions in Ukraine. What a magic trick. Wonder what he we claim next. Oh yeah, he basically said this about the whole of Ukraine in his speech.
"US/NATO already has been meddling in Ukraine including being directly infolved in the military there as during an armed conflict"
I don't deny it that the west has tried to win Ukraine to their side. What you seem to dismiss is whats Russias involment in this. Maybe you've skipped those part when reading on it, because it's obviously western propaganda.
You know that Russia hate doesn't spawn from thin air. Oh, I forgot, it's all the yanks doing it with their propaganda, not that Russias ever done anything to cause it.
"yea, nah get fucked.
NATO has created mayhem all around the world these past 23 years, destroying Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria."
Wow it did all that, huh?
Tell me, why would NATO attack Russia and spark WW3? What purpose would it serve?
If NATO gets involved, there will be no winners in that war. We all know this. Even Putin said this himself a few weeks back. Basically, mutually assured destruction is what prevents this from happening. Putin's been flaunting his nuke arsenal from time to time, so I'm not sure if he's playing with a full deck.
Comments
(Site Administrator)
When you give your word that you won't expand "one inch" east in order to get Russia's go ahead to reunify Germany & bring them into NATO, then turn around less than 10 years later & start your first of 5 waves of eastward expansion, yeah I"d say that's a betrayal. Not just the US Sec State gave his word but multiple Eurofag high officials did too. This isn't in dispute, it's on record.
Practically every western Russia expert admits that this is seen as a huge betrayal in Moscow. Not only that, most of the top experts in the west agree that the eastward expansion of NATO was going to detabilize Eastern Europe & potentially lead to war.
I dunno what this meme video says, why you'd watch such a thing to find the answer is anyone's guess. The thumbnail says it all really. Dumb shit for ignorant kids.
Here's something for adults:
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
Again, you need to ask yourself why countries want to join NATO? You have to ask why non-NATO countries are starting NATO talks now. Russia's paranoia and aggression is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A lot of these talking points are always presented in a way that theres just the US and Russia and the rest are just pawns in their play. A very typical American view.
While the US has a big influence, NATO ≠ US. If a new member wants to join, it can only be done by unanimous agreement with the existing states.
Countries join for safety and a guarantee that their place wont be invaded, not because they are all pro-US and want their all mighty empire to expand.
(Site Administrator)
Trying to explain the history of Atlanticist influence in Europe or how the power dynamic within NATO works is a waste of time but you can look to the 2014 coup as an example of how the soverignty of these countries is overridden when it suits the western bloc.
NATO promised Moscow they wouldn't expand "one inch" eastwards in 1990.
This was extremely important to the Russians.
In 1997 NATO went back on their word, hence it's a betrayal.
Then again broke their word 4 more times to the point where they have NATO missiles within a few hundred kms from Russia's borders.
This betrayal has been happening for 25 years & Russian protests & attempts to remedy it diplomatically have been dismissed outright.
Russia's security concerns are legitemate & if you think otherwise just take a look at Ukraine today. That's where your moronic argument leads. In the end it required NATO arming nazis who've been killing Russians for 8 years to finally get the Russians to react with hard power.
It seems pointless discussing this with you, you have no concept of how major power geopolitics works IMO. This video is embarrasing for you. It's like you think this is some spat on social media between sorority sisters. Just ridiculous stuff.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
So you are hung up on a verbal agreement that was done 30 years ago?
"Russia's security concerns are legitemate & if you think otherwise just take a look at Ukraine today."
Yes, I'm looking at it. NATO is not attacking, Russia IS. It's quite simple who the aggressor is.
I think Putin in his paranoia doesn't understand the harm he is doing to his country by trying to "defend" it and the free promotion he is giving for NATO. How's that for understanding power geopolitics? The cold war was over-ish (why NATO was originally formed) but it seems he wants a new one?
I'll give you this though. NATO expanding might not be the best thing for maintaining long term peace, but the only way to dismantle or make these alliances obsolete is prove over time that Russia doesn't pose a risk to it's neighbors. It was doing fine for a while.
(Long Spike)
a verbal agreement from 30 years ago to a country that no longer exists
(Site Administrator)
Russia then and now is a more legitemate state than that anglo-american vassal you live in. Your head of state lives in London and your foreign policy is dictated in Washington DC.
(Site Administrator)
"NATO is not attacking, Russia IS"
not really. NATO's been part of the conflict in Donbass for about 7 years & the 2 Donbass republics declared independence in 8 years ago. Russia now finally recognizes their independence which means NATO is in a way part of this conflict that's still playing out. It didn't start on Feb 24 2020, that's just when Russia formally sent troops in to force a poltiical settlement. Germany & France weren't able to get Kyiv to honour the Minsk accords under the Normandy Format. Ukraine was building up forces to go in & wipe out a bunch more Russian Ukrainians in Donbass. Nothing Russia did in terms of diplomacy was working. I'm not saying this is entirely about the Donbass but that's a significant part of it, especially within Russian domestic politics. Imagine if thousands of Canadians were dying across the border what pressure your govt would be under to do something.
US/NATO already has been meddling in Ukraine including being directly infolved in the military there as during an armed conflict, not to mention (again) the overthrow of the elected govt in 2014. Ukraine's been p much a de facto NATO country for the past few years, the bases that NATO setup aren't formal NATO bases but a lot of other stuff is the same.
> I'll give you this though. NATO expanding might not be the best thing for maintaining long term peace, but the only way to dismantle or make these alliances obsolete is prove over time that Russia doesn't pose a risk to it's neighbors
yea, nah get fucked.
NATO has created mayhem all around the world these past 23 years, destroying Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria. The whole time insisting that Russia's concerns aren't even enough to speak aobut as they install missile bases right near Russia & refuse to take Ukraine off the table in terms of membership & blah blah, all the rest of the stuff I've previously mentioned
You say "Russia has to prove their innocence" when in fact it's NATO who are FAR more aggressive around the world. It's a little American feifdom & treats Russia as an enemy the entire time as if the Cold War hadn't ended in 1989. Russia being a nuclear superpower who NATO shouldn't be fucking with for all our sakes. They should have taken the opportunity offered over the past few decades & sorted out a decent security arrangement with Russia, or even accepted Russia/Soviet Union into NATO while they had the chance. Both were offered & especially the security cooperation, NATO just acts like Russian concerns don't matter at all. Now all of a sudden all the western propaganda is acting like we should be shocked that Russia invaded. Admittedly I'm surprised they took this gamble but it's not like it wasn't provoked.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
"not really. NATO's been part of the conflict in Donbass for about 7 years & the 2 Donbass republics declared independence in 8 years ago. Russia now finally recognizes their independence which means NATO is in a way part of this conflict that's still playing out."
Russia recognizes the independence of their separatist regions in Ukraine. What a magic trick. Wonder what he we claim next. Oh yeah, he basically said this about the whole of Ukraine in his speech.
"US/NATO already has been meddling in Ukraine including being directly infolved in the military there as during an armed conflict"
I don't deny it that the west has tried to win Ukraine to their side. What you seem to dismiss is whats Russias involment in this. Maybe you've skipped those part when reading on it, because it's obviously western propaganda.
You know that Russia hate doesn't spawn from thin air. Oh, I forgot, it's all the yanks doing it with their propaganda, not that Russias ever done anything to cause it.
"yea, nah get fucked.
NATO has created mayhem all around the world these past 23 years, destroying Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria."
Wow it did all that, huh?
Tell me, why would NATO attack Russia and spark WW3? What purpose would it serve?
If NATO gets involved, there will be no winners in that war. We all know this. Even Putin said this himself a few weeks back. Basically, mutually assured destruction is what prevents this from happening. Putin's been flaunting his nuke arsenal from time to time, so I'm not sure if he's playing with a full deck.