https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm?selectedLocale=en
(As delivered)
From the guy's own mouth.
Whoa, Putin's propaganda goes all the way to the top!
/s because I just remembered where I am
There is nothing in this that reflects the title. It's nothing more than passive propaganda. They are relying on people to just read the title and not open the link.
What is actually said is:
And let me just end by saying that this reflects the political reality that nations are sovereign. Nations decide themselves, and Ukraine has of course the right to decide its own path. And it's up to Ukraine and NATO Allies to decide when Ukraine becomes a member. Russia cannot veto membership for any sovereign independent state in Europe.
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.
At least he had some good jokes to warm up the crowd!
I think I've told you before that I know it's hard to allocate money for defence, because most politicians want to spend money on health, on education, on infrastructure instead of defence.
Lmao holy shit. What the fuck country is he talking about? The bridges are falling apart everywhere
And let me just end by saying that this reflects the political reality that nations are sovereign.
I mean that's just factually untrue. Every nations sovereignty is restricted by geopolitical realities. No nation can just do whatever they desire, including joining certain alliances. Mexico will not be joining BRICS for instance, because of the geopolitical situation. And that's not even a military alliance, which NATO is! Europeans are not special, they have to play by the same rules as everybody else. To claim otherwise is to ignore the reality on the ground right now, both in Ukraine and globally.
Also none of this factors in that joining NATO, by definition, involves giving up some part of your nations sovereignty. NATO in reality acts as an extended arm of the US military and it's industrial complex, and in joining, countries are subjected to this reality of Atlanticism.
Mexico will not join BRICs because they would then have to leave USMCA trade agreement. Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants. The US does not get to dictate anymore by military might. They have done in the past. To do so today would bring other trade deals into conflict. The EU would be very against this. This does not mean the US cannot use its financial might, which it clearly does and often.
Also none of this factors in that joining NATO, by definition, involves giving up some part of your nations sovereignty. NATO in reality acts as an extended arm of the US military and it’s industrial complex, and in joining, countries are subjected to this reality of Atlanticism.
Simply not true. Being part of NATO is not an aggressive pact. It is only enacted if another member is attacked. One or more members being aggressive does not mean the rest have to follow. The US and the UK attacked Iran as individual nations. The US has the biggest say in NATO because they spend more than anyone else by quite some distance. Something that is changing because of the Russian attempts to annex Ukraine into its own borders.
Being part of NATO is not an aggressive pact. It is only enacted if another member is attacked.
Yugoslavia and Libya would probably beg to differ.
One or more members being aggressive does not mean the rest have to follow.
But they usually always do, because of the implication...
You are aware that the US and UK were not the only countries to deploy troops to Iraq (not Iran, as you mistakenly claim). There was a whole NATO training operation involving 13 NATO member states. 20 of the current 31 NATO members had some form of troop deployment in Iraq between 2003 and 2011.
Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants. The US does not get to dictate anymore by military might. They have done in the past. To do so today would bring other trade deals into conflict. The EU would be very against this
I am not American, and it's quite clear the US does use it's military might when it needs to, to dictate the order of the world, and there is nothing that the EU can do about it. Precisely because their sovereignty is curtailed due to being US vassal states. Of which NATO membership is a key part. This includes actions against the EU. Unless you want to argue that the nordstream gas pipelines just spontaneously combusted.
If it was a NATO aggressive action then ALL would be involved not just a portion.
As for the US using it military might, it has been bitten enough to know it is just a waste of money. Unless you have a costed strategic end game policy, simply removing dictatorships is not enough.
Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants.
Bro lmao you said this shit right here, you're a joke, a clown, an court jester
Dude's from England, cut him some slack for being oblivious. Cuba was only part of the British empire for like a year.
Actually he also said (in the link):
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.”
NATO is not a friend or friendly force, it is one of the great evils of our time, anyone arguing otherwise just wants to bomb third world countries.
Ask the citizens of Libya and Iraq how defensive and friendly NATO is.
The process of "joining NATO" is not anything equivalent to making friends, any country joining NATO essentially becomes a vassal for US interests. There's a reason why Sweden and Finland held out for so long.
There's a reason why Sweden and Finland held out for so long.
And that they're doing it with no say from the people.
"If you invite your serial killer gun nut friend to build a tree stand on your property pointed at my house, we're going to have problems"
Maybe. But it's my fucking property, and I'll do whatever the fuck I want on it.
Go ahead. Come onto my property and try to stop me.
Eh. It's the metaphor. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and the argument about what Ukraine does or doesn't do on its own soil - or who it invites over to play - being somehow justification for invasion is hypocritical tripe. Russia's been invading other sovereign states, and stockpiles weapons in its vassel states; it's an "existential threat" to every one of its neighbors, except the strong ones like China.
The arguments Putin used for invasion about Ukraine abusing its citizens were better, except for being lies. They should have stuck with that one, except they had no evidence and nobody believed it. It still made a better story and was less hypocritical.
Also, behaving like a communist with your country when your neighbor is an imperialist dictatorship is only a recipe for becoming a member of an imperialist dictatorship.
Firstly, I'm not sure your understanding of the meaning or relevance of 'hypocrisy' is very clear.
Secondly, you're introducing a moralistic discourse about this when the first issue is what caused or explained the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Despite the evidence overwhelmingly pointing to NATO expansion, the fact that you are denying it when even Stoltenberg and Blinken are basically at the point of admitting it, implicit as those admissions may be, is pretty comic.
If you think that the Ukrainian government was not only not abusing, but in fact not committing acts amounting to ethnically cleansing Russians in eastern Ukraine, you have been living under a rock and its disgusting that you can utter such bullshit with such nonchalance and impunity. Contrary to, say, accusation of genocide in Xinjiang, for which there is no hard concrete evidence (in fact evidence and reason point to the contrary), there are mountains of evidence in every form of media, whether video, documents, government announcements, proving that there was repressive military and political action being taken against the Russophone and ethinically Russian, or simply anti-nationalist Ukrainians of the East, by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist regime. There have been mass disappearances, lynchings, bombings, assassinations, and we could go on. Again, there is too much evidence for this in every form for any one person to peruse the entirety of, so either you are pig-shit ignorant, or you are lying. Trouble is you are doing it in the wrong place.
Your last sentence is barely comprehensible quite frankly. If you think that reocognizing that a state should not aggressively expand a demonstrably imperialist organisation and in the process break all related previous agreements and promises in doing so, in a way that every party involved is fully aware will be perceived as a threat to the national security of one of the concerned countries, if one wants to avoid hot conflict, given the self-evident realities of realpolitik, is communist or marxist, then go off I guess.
Cool, now your brother is dead and you lost half your property. Your serial killer gun nut buddy doesn't give a damn about you so he didn't show up to fight himself, but now he holds the mortgage to your house because he lent you weapons to fight and lose.
Was it worth it?
Yes. Liberty and self sovereignty is worth defending, especially when the stated objective of the invader is genocide.
Lmao you not only think Russia is committing genocide, but you think they came right out and said their intent is to commit genocide?
Fucking delusional
Tfw your subscription-based private court rules that weapon emplacements pointed directly at your neighbor's house are not a NAP violation 
Coming onto your property. And half of it is theirs now and you're refusing to call a truce even though youve failed your big push to retake that half and are slowly losing more ground.
Some NATO officials should stick to avoiding nuclear holocaust over some theoretical pissing contest.
There is only one country that is constantly threatening a nuclear attack. That country is not in NATO.
There is only one country that is constantly threatening a nuclear attack. That country is not in NATO.
The only country in the world with an official "first strike" nuclear policy is the United States.
Not arguing there. But this was 80 years ago. You would think that making threats of this nature would be something that you would show restraint considering we have a history.
The U.S. is the only country on the planet that has a first-strike policy, i.e., that as a standing matter threatens to use nukes. This is not 80 years ago, this is right now.
There is only one country that used nukes against a live target, ever, and they did it twice, to civilian population centers in the middle of active peace negotiations.
There is only one country with nuclear capabilities deployed in over 80 countries under its direct control. There is only one country that has unilaterally pulled out of every nuclear treaty in history. There is only one country that publishes news articles about and has leadership in press conferences talking about winning nuclear war and about developing mini nukes. There is only one country working to undermine the MAD doctrine. There is only one country that just sent a nuclear-armed submarine to one its vassal states as a show of willingness.
ah yes because ww2 was a happy time for all and no other countries did anything compared to that. smart.
There is only one country that just sent a nuclear-armed submarine to one its vassal states as a show of willingness.
the russians literally lost so many nuclear subs in non native waters that the cia tried to grab one with a oversized arcade shop claw.
No other country in the history of humanity dropped nukes outside of tests. No other country nukes civilians. No other country nukes civilians in a country that was surrendering. There is no way around it.
I'm not talking about the existence of subs in non-native waters. I'm talking about surfacing a sub and announcing it's presence in South Korea as a sabre rattle. Russia didn't surface subs off the coast of Florida, it didn't surface subs in a port in Mexico. Because Russia isn't trying to get in a war with the USA. It's the USA that keeps expanding its military presence every year, believing it has the mandate to establish a command center for each region of the planet, using slogans like "the border is everywhere" to organize it's border patrol, and expanding the presence of its nuclear capabilities into 80+ countries.
No, there is no comparison.
They dropped a bomb on a nation that was guilty of murdering up to 10m people. They were also not the initial aggressive beligerant. They do not have control with 80 nations, they have a non aggression pact. Yep, there are parts of the US media that is screwed up. That comes with free press. Does Russia have a free press? There is only one country that is looking to test out the mad doctrine, who also sent nuclear weapons to a vassal state: Russia.
As always, the good and conscientious liberal is never more than two steps away from trying to justify the nuclear anihilation of two cities full of noncombatants in a country that was already surrendering. Incredible.
Next they will ignore this and continue to make things up about their state- designated "enemies" to make them sound worse. Sure, we may have lied about every war before this for profit but this time the Badguy Villainman really is Hitler 2.0, we swear! This time we really are on the right side of history, so shut up and support these Nazis!
God damn, I've lived in America all my life and I'm so sick of our bullshit, and I don't even have to worry about stepping on any of the unexploded freedom we leave everywhere else. And if you live in the UK or something, no you don't, it's Damp America, it's all America.
This post is dedicated to the brave Mujahadeen fighters of Afghanistan
You are mistaken. The US is in NATO. Unless you mean to tell me their 1000 military bases encircling Russia and China are somehow not a provocation?
So you would be ok if Turkey says "we only invaded those greek islands because they had greek military bases in them"? I am just wondering, since when having military bases(your own or of allies), in your own sovereign, internationally recognized territory is an acceptable casus belli for you.
Would you be ok if the US invaded Cuba, if Cuba had russian bases? Is this what you are saying? How something like this justifies invasion?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
Due to the sensitive and often classified nature of this information, there is no comprehensive list with the exact number or location of all bases, stations and installations. The total number of foreign sites with installations and facilities that are either in active use and service, or that may be activated and operated by American military personnel and allies, is just over 1,000.
Name 1000 military bases? How about viewing the major ones: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FyafNUuWIAA_Iz9.jpg
Of course you'll now say there's something wrong with the picture and lalala your way out.
Naval Facility Okinawa is one of the more controversial. There's also Fort Magsaysay in the Philippines, along with others in the region. The US really does have China surrounded on multiple fronts.
The largest American overseas base is Camp Humphreys in South Korea, which comprises of over 500 individual buildings and cost $11 billion.
Just because you close your eyes to what is happening in the world, doesn't mean the rest of us are blind too.
my brother in none, if they wanted to use nukes they would have. they know that their equipment is shit and that the us and relevant countries have like 10 different active systems for dealing with the 5 icbms what are actually functional.
us on the other hand... also china
Ofcourse. They dont want to start a nuclear war because their systems are shit... Yeah, I'm sure it's nice inside the bubble you are living in.
Lol, chinamongering now.
This is so hilariously weak who did you think you would convince with this quote blatantly showing your title to be a lie. Lmao.
Lol the absolute delusion of tankies. You'd be funny if you weren't advocating for imperialistic cultural genocide.
Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Learn to read.
Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
At least quote the relevant section ffs
The closest thing to the lie you wrote is the part where it says Putin demanded that NATO stop recognizing Ukraine as a sovereign country. So he's invading Ukraine because NATO didn't allow him to annex Ukraine Anschluss and annexation of Sudetenland style. And if you think that would help, remember that appeasing Putin over Georgia and, effectively, over Crimea and Donbass didn't do shit to stop his aggression.
Besides the document implies what was already obvious, which is that, before the war, Ukraine wasn't even going to be allowed into NATO any time soon, NATO countries just couldn't sign an agreement that would limit Ukraine's sovereignty.
What is the fascination with historically illiterate liberals trying to equate everything they don't like to Hitler?
Putin invaded Ukraine, because he doesn't want nukes 800 km from Moscow. If you don't understand this, you don't understand what is happening here.
Yes but you see, no country has declared war based on the threat of nukes.
Quarantines are, of course, different. As are special military operations. Of course.
Oh they haven't? India-Pakistan conflict did not happen then. The Cuban missile crisis didn't happen either. I guess the US hasn't been trying to kill Iran's nuclear program with drone bombings and assassinations either.
I'd say open a book, but I don't think you have the capacity to benefit from it.
Zephyreks is being sarcastic by highlighting the US's doublespeak that they employ to wage war without declaring war.
Oh all right. Sorry, too many liberal idiots running amuck in the comments. Got carried away.
US policy at the time was that a quarantine was obviously not a blockade and thus not a declaration of war. Obviously.
"Everyone around me is arming themselves. Better stab the one that hasn't got a weapon because I agreed to defend them a while back. That'll fix it."
Invading a non-NATO country does not do anything whatsoever to counter NATO presence near Russia. Russia has already had a land border with NATO for twenty years. Thanks to Finland joining it also just got a lot bigger, because funnily enough if Russia starts throwing its weight around everyone else is going to look for security from Russia. This reasoning doesn't even explain Russia's invasion, never mind justify it
Are you pretending that Ukraine did not apply for NATO membership, or that NATO stated they were planning to place nukes there (which we only learned because Ukraine was cheering it on Twitter)?
I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that even if Russia fully annexed Ukraine in 24 hours flat, it wouldn't move NATO's borders any further away from Russia.
Putin invaded because he's an autocratic piece of shit that wants to bully smaller countries into increasing his own wealth and power. I don't expect a pro Kremlin stooge to understand anything happening here though.
Sure, geopolitics doesn't exist, it's all just this craaaaaayzee guy twirling his evil mustache. It's not like the Russian government has any say, or that almost everyone in it not only support the SMO but many of them think Putin is too soft on Ukraine and should commit much more of their military to it. It's not like over 70% of the Russian public also supports the SMO and Putin's decisions, saying they should never make concessions to return the Donbas to Ukraine. I mean, it's not like most of the world aside from the propaganda-steeped NATO countries also side with Russia with respect to the conflict. Nope. None of that. Just that one maniacal power hungry madman!
https://www.eiu.com/n/russia-can-count-on-support-from-many-developing-countries/
lol. It's so funny these fucking dweebs who can't understand the world beyond a simplistic Saturday-morning-cartoon kind of analysis with Putin being this season's villain.
It's Boris and Natasha from the Rocky Bullwinkle show. That's all it is to these idiots.
Yet you are willing to support the actual fascists who were bombing their own people, in the most corrupt country in Europe. I wouldn't expect an Andrews Air Base resident to understand.
It's hilarious seeing the liberals' comments here that prove that despite being overeducated they literally don't know how to read.
You know synonyms exist right? And "enlargement" and "expansionism" are cleary synonyms in this context.
The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO.
What he's saying is that Putin doesn't get to dictate which alliances sovereign nations can join.
Ahh yes, NATO, an alliance well known for respecting sovereignty. That's why they invade and bomb any third world nation with a sovereign project against US interests...
And how did these nations join NATO post cold war? Surely there was no manipulation of the sovereignty of Eastern European nations at that time right?
And do NATO countries have sovereignty themselves, or are they just US vassal states? Be honest here, because the answer is quite clear. It's gotten to the point that the US can bomb the gas pipelines of another NATO country (see nordstream) and nothing can be done about it. And every NATO country has to buy US weapons systems, engage in specific international training exercises, etc. Very sovereign.
Let's be clear, realpolitik is all there ever was, and all there ever will be in geopolitics. The "sovereignty" of every nation on the planet is subject to this. Unless you want to do the Turkey/Cuban missile crisis again. There's a reason Mexico can't join BRICS, there's a reason Cuba can't claim Guantanamo bay as theirs, etc.
Except that OP is trying to frame the invasion as justified when the reality is that Putin thought he could bully his neighbors. NATO predictably went "fuck off" and that somehow means bombing Ukrainian children was unavoidable.
If you are against bombing Ukrainian children, then you should probably be cheering on what Russia is doing, since it stopped exactly that.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians
I don't see it like that - I see it like assigning any blame at all to NATO, which it does deserve, to some degree.
Everyone who ever asked me shit like that was never interested in having a discussion, just in purity tests. What I think should happen to Putin has no bearing on what caused this. And FWIW this kind of mindless insistence on moral absolutism is why Tripoli went from the capital of the most stable country in Africa to an open-air slave market.
It's a litmus test for whether I want to engage with you at all.
Being able to state unequivocally that a murderous billionaire should drop dead is the absolute bare minimum for a socialist.
I have yet to get a straight answer from so-called socialists on Lemmy.
No it isn't, it's because you want to dictate the terms of the conversation, which, again, leaves zero room for any admittance that Putin isn't the only one who caused this situation.
"The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that."
"Don't allow others to join your defense pact or we'll demonstrate why it's necessary in the first place."
Perfectly sane logic. Nothing strange.
You mean that it's bad that the USA threatened to nuke Russia when Russia was putting missiles in Cuba, or when Russia invaded Ukraine when USA said they would put missiles in Ukraine? Was it bad the USA threatened nuclear war because Cuba wanted to defend itself from a belligerent neighbour? Russia backed off, should the US back off from Ukraine? Or "this is different".
Was it bad that Russia threatened nuclear way because Ukraine wanted to defend itself from a belligerent neighbour?
The USA doing bad things in the past doesn't make it alright for Russia to do the same bad shit.
It isn't a team sport. We aren't children. Both can, in fact, be wrong, and neither justifies the other.
So you're alright with the way the US treats Cuba then? The USA did make it very clear that they wouldn't tolerate Warsaw Pact expansionism near their borders, and Cuba could have just surrendered after the Bay of Pigs invasion to avoid all the negative consequences that have resulted from Cuba's decision to oppose the freedom loving USA.
Yeah and the US made it very clear that they didn't want USSR expansionism near their borders. Doesn't make what the US has done to Cuba alright, just like it doesn't make what Russia has done in Ukraine alright.
Yes, in 2004 and 2014 by covert and "diplomatic" US forces.
This has never been about sovereignty and always about maintaining hegemonic imperialist control.
Seems you are referring to the Orange Revolution and the revolution of dignity.
If you claim these events are purely because of US influences, than you’ve missed a lot of Russian details.
People who participated in these openly claim they were taking orders from the US embassy.
If you're trying to claim that these events were driven by "Russian interference," I have some hacked voting machines to sell you.
The US effectively did. There's no other explanation for why US elected and career officials were present in Ukraine during small and violent anti-government protests, and there's no other explanation for how and why the US state department chose the next leader of Ukraine after the democratically elected and widely supported President Yanukovych was forced to flee in fear for his life. Ukraine for all practical purposes lost its sovereignty in February 2014.
If you're talking about the small peninsula of Crimea, the residents of Crimea democratically chose to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
It's not easy, but it's very much worth taking some time to understand what sovereignty and democracy actually mean, both in theory and in practice.
No, the US effectively didn't. Russia actually did. It's truly incredible that you're promoting the results of a referendum held by an invading military force as legitimate and then telling me that I don't understand democracy. You can't have democracy at gunpoint. Would you be defending an American-run referendum to see if Basra wanted to join the USA in 2003? Because that is what you're doing right now.
A couple things wrong with your comment:
a) you are deflecting because you can't answer
b) you are seriously comparing an outright unprovoked invasion from US into Iraq, with one where Russia is defending Russian-speaking people against a Nazi-un government that has been bombing them for 8 years.
c) even before the invasion, these people wanted to join up with Russia. They went all the way to Moscow multiple times to beg for Russia to intervene.
d) it is obvious you know next to nothing about Ukraine and its situation. You only know what the US state department has told you and you repeat the exact same talking points.
So a few things.
If the election weren't legitimate, why do Crimeans still stand by the decision they supposedly made at gunpoint to this day? Why don't they remember there being Russian soldiers being present during the referendum? Why would Ukrainian citizens be welcomed into Crimeans communities now if this had simply been a nationalist land grab? Why didn't Ukraine invest in Crimean infrastructure and social services between 1991 and 2014? Why would Russia invest in that same infrastructure and social services post 2014? Why weren't Russian citizens allowed to vote in the referendum, only Ukrainians with Crimean residency?
https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247
Comparing this situation to the relationship between the US and Iraq/Basra is grotesque and intellectually dishonest so there's no point in discussing that further.
Welcome, stay a while and chat with us. You can expand your horizons or you can go back to reddit where anti-imperialist analysis and opinion are censored.
Lmao I'm a leftist and was never censored in 12 years on reddit. Give me a break from your victim complex.
You shit stain tankies can keep on sucking authoritarian dick tho.
Huzzah for US dominance in the world! Huzzah for nuclear escalation! Huzzah for NATO and global imperialism! Huzzah for Zelenski and all Ukrainian Nazis!
There now, you don't have to feel so alone and surrounded by scary tankies.
It’s because this WorldNews community is hosted on lemmy.ml. There’s better alternatives on @lemmy.world and @kbin.social
Like... name all of the US foreign military bases??
you're among comrades