322
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
322 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4919 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Let's recap for the people who still fall for this BS. A Russian diplomat claims that during some negotiations back in the 1980s, he was given a verbal promise that NATO would never move east. Everyone he claims was part of this negotiation claims it never happened, no evidence that it ever happened has ever come out, and, more importantly, it was never codified in any treaty. Although Russia has regularly used it to justify their aggression since then.
At one point, Ukraine started moving towards joining NATO, which pissed Putin off because he believes Ukraine to be part of Russia still. Ukraine elected a leader who claimed that he would remain neutral, but then decided to shift and get more cozy with Russia. They also decided to, because it was angering Russia and they didn't want to end up in a war with them, shelve the idea of joining NATO. However, most Ukrainians wanted closer ties with Europe, so there was a revolution who ousted him. In response to this, Russia, who was unhappy with this, invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. All the good it did them not joining NATO!
Falling for the dumb "appeasement" strategy again, they let Russia keep the stolen land. Then Russia, started funding (violating an actual written treaty) separatists in the east of the country, helping it get ripped apart by a civil war. So then Ukraine started talking about joining NATO again because, he, Putin just proved that not joining NATO wasn't going to stop his aggression in the country. And then Putin claimed "hey! Remember that treaty we made up about not expanding NATO? Well, you're violating it so we have no choice but to invade Ukraine." And a bunch of rubes fell for this line and think it's actually US and NATO that started this war, and not an imperialistic and aggressive Putin who started the war by invading a neighbor and illegally grabbing their land.
Not to mention the treaty after the fall of the Soviet Union where Ukraine would give up it's nukes if Russia and the US would give assurances (though not guarantees) that each would help Ukraine if the other tried to invade.
So really US support of Ukraine is following the spirit of that treaty.
In other words, Putin is a rat faced liar.
I didn't reference the events that you did.
What was the purpose of NATO? Is it still expanding?
Putin lying about the 'treaty' is more about internal propaganda.
https://academic.oup.com/dh/article-abstract/44/2/237/5699276?login=false
Why are people so against the possibility that the US government could be doing that again, but in Ukraine now?
NATO is a defensive alliance. Kinda seemed unnecessary with the fall of the Soviet Union, but with Russia starting land wars in Europe, has become extremely relevant again. Basically just prevents other countries from invading NATO countries. Putin doesn't like it because he wants to invade countries. Countries like joining NATO because they don't like being invaded.
Yes. Finland has joined and Sweden is soon to join. After Putin's invasion of Ukraine they didn't want to also be invaded. They never joined during the Cold War, they weren't as worried about the Soviet Union doing something as they are about Putin trying to attack them. So Putin has actually created the latest "expansion" of NATO, and now has a significantly longer border with NATO because of Finland joining. If NATO was the concern, this is a strategic defeat for Russia no matter the outcome of the war in Ukraine.
Because it's not at all the same situation. Ukraine is a democracy. Afghanistan had a Soviet puppet government the the Soviets were using their military to prop up.
Besides, this kind of "trap" depends on Russia wanting to invade another country. It can be easily avoided by simply not invading another country.
A lot of this logic relies on Russia having the right to invade Ukraine. It does not. Ukrainians have the right to join or not join NATO. It's their decision, not anyone else's. If Ukrainians want to join NATO, it does not give Russia the right to invade to prevent it from happening.
I'm not against the possibility. Where did you get that idea? If you had some convincing evidence that this was the case, I would be interested in seeing it.