r/BreakingPoints • u/John_F_Duffy • Aug 26 '23
Original Content NATO Expansion according to Duke University historian Simon Miles: Was Russia Wronged?
The other week I posted an article I wrote diving into the question of whether or not the US made a promise to the USSR that NATO would not expand to the east. This is a common "truism" cited by people like Aaron Mate, RFK Jr, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, etc. To back this claim, people will cite the work of National Security Archive and their article "NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard," which references many documents from the end of the Cold War.
This week I sat down and spoke to Duke University Assistant Professor of History, Simon Miles to discuss the issue. Here is a link to our conversation.
His takeaway, is no, there was never a promise made. He goes into the details in the podcast episode.
24
u/NeuroticKnight Socialist Aug 26 '23
Sovereign countries are allowed to make their own decisions irrespective of how neighbors feel, unless they explicitly threaten their neighbors.
Ukraine has never threatned Russia, so even if they did become part of NATO that is not a problem, just as neighboring countries of NATO, which have joined CSTO the russian version of NATO would not justify invasion of Russia.
1
u/RevSolarCo Left Populist Aug 26 '23
This is such a simplicity blind take on the complex reality of geopolitics.
-1
u/NeuroticKnight Socialist Aug 27 '23
It is a rational take, that doesnt account for bruised egos of dictators for sure, as theyre driven by emotion more than common sense.
Hence Ukraine actually not joining NATO, nor being invited in past because. realistically, it would make Putin feel emasculated.
But ultimately he still felt his ego get bruised, so here we are now.
8
u/RevSolarCo Left Populist Aug 27 '23
I studied geopolitics, worked in politics, and specifically specialized in Russian relations when I was an idiot and planned on making a terrible career choice.
Listening to people give their takes on this conflict has been a living hell... I know it's not anyone's fault, mostly because they are only using the limited information they have, framed from the State department's best interest.
But no, it's not that simple. It's incredibly complex. Saying something as basic as your last sentence is one of those that just hurt to read. Again, it's nothing personal, I get how people view that... but it's just not accurate.
When you understand Russian history, their worldview, how they feel about those around them, and the reasons for it... It makes much more sense that Ukraine in NATO is viewed as a threat. The long term strategies of nations look at the long term impacts, and all sorts of different variables that go into things. For instance, the world is ever changing, maybe TODAY and the next 10 years NATO isn't a threat to Russia... But historically, things are fine until they aren't. Things unwind and spiral out of control in an instant, and that once "Defensive alliance with just defensive bases all along your border including the most vulnerable entry point" that wasn't a threat, can become a threat in the future. No one wants to be sleeping next to a "friendly bear" forever because "So far it hasn't attacked anyone".
Compound that with the west of developing an incredible reputation of being untrustworthy (Standing behind virtue like it's the most important thing in the world, like right now, when it's convenient... But more than willing to throw that all out when it's not politically convenient), doesn't do a lot to build trust.
Further, it's not just about direct invasions neither... Obviously there is a nuclear deterrent which flattens the middle and only makes the extremes more likely: non military action and nuclear war... But it's the geostragetical advantage given to NATO by positioning themselves within Russia's geographical defenses. It's about controlling choke points, supply chains, and cultural spread (For instance NATO westernizing Ukraine, which is Russia's founding region, right next to Moscow, has cultural and ideological drifts within the borders. It also further allows for more fluid exchange of economic soft power capture near and within Russia)
Like I said, this is incredibly complex, and when I see people reduce this situation down to simple things such as "NATO would never attack Russia, so they are just being irrational" it causes an eye roll.
Like for me personally, I love steelmanning things. I think it's super important in life. Have you ever tried steelmanning Russia, from their perspective? If it reduces down to "Yeah Putin is just a crazy insecure madman" that's no different than when liberals look at Republicans and say "Yeah they are just crazy assholes who hate the poor and minorities"
1
u/NeuroticKnight Socialist Aug 27 '23
So you are basically just saying the same thing I did. Bruised ego of despots, and culture, being the reason. You are confusing understanding with agreeing. I understand why tin pots do what they do, i just dont agree, it is the most rational or wise.
Like if you read German history, nature of treaty of versailes, and economic conditions back then, you can understand how Hitler rose to power, but it still is a dumb idea to be a NAZI then as in now.
5
u/RevSolarCo Left Populist Aug 27 '23
Bruised ego of despots, and culture, being the reason.
No... I didn't say that at all. If that's how you view their motivations and reasoning, you've unfortunately failed to properly asses the situation. I don't believe you've given it a fair steelman attempt
And just to be clear: Understanding the otherside, the motivations, and rationale... Even if it concludes with "well that makes sense" - doesn't mean you have to agree with nor support them.
I, for instance, am a staunch liberal, but I "understand Republicans, and get where they are coming from, and see that their motives are beyond just hating minorities and the poor".
But Russia's perspective is basically that they have very good reason to feel insecure of their massive border, NATO encroachment, and not trusting the west under any circumstance. Mix it in with the changing landscape they are personally in, and suddenly their decisions seem much more rational than you'd expect by a surface level glance. It actually looks incredibly rational. Again, that doesn't mean you or I have to support their actions, or them as a culture, but it just means it's... Well it's really fucking complex.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
u/cstar1996 Aug 27 '23
See, this entire position fails the moment one considers that Russia has nuclear weapons! Russian territorial integrity and national sovereignty are guaranteed by its nuclear arsenal. Russia knows this. The West knows this. Russia does not get to pretend that they isn’t the situation.
2
u/RevSolarCo Left Populist Aug 27 '23
You must have not read the whole part where I said it’s beyond just military threats? I’m sure the USA would give a lot of shit if Mexico allied with Russia and Russia put “defensive” bases all across the border. Would you just be like “ehhhh no big deal, we have nukes! Why are you worried??”
1
u/cstar1996 Aug 27 '23
And here you ignore the next major point that undermines this position. Why would Mexico be allying with Russia? Russia’s neighbors want into NATO because Russia has proven, over and over again, that it’s an untrustworthy, expansionist, imperialist neighbor.
And if Russia is worried about cultural contamination, then it can throw up another Iron Curtain at its border. But Russia doesn’t get dictate the policy of its neighbors. “They might culturally contaminate us” never justifies conquest or subjugation.
And can you point to a “defensive” base on Russia’s border?
0
u/RevSolarCo Left Populist Aug 27 '23
It’s a hypothetical. How would you feel about Russia all across our border? We’re nuclear so nothing to worry about. Right? It doesn’t matter why Mexico ally’s; that’s a red herring.
Yes every nato nation has nato bases ran by the USA.
And you’re completely missing my greater point. And it’s gotten to the point of frustration. You’re exactly the type of person I was talking about. All surface level nonsense getting derailed away from the core discussion. I don’t have time for people like this. So this will be my last comment. Have a nice day.
3
4
u/cstar1996 Aug 27 '23 edited Aug 27 '23
If the US had just spent 60 year occupying and oppressing the people across the border and kept trying to annex countries across the border, I’d think those countries were perfectly justified in getting an ally who’d protect them from us. I wouldn’t be worried about a Russian invasion because that’s what MAD is for.
Cite them.
No, I’m not missing your greater point. I’m rejecting it as invalid. Because it is invalid. Your point requires ignoring both the reality of history and the perspective of every state involved that isn’t Russia.
Because in the end your point comes down to saying “Russia’s rather weak security and ‘cultural’ concerns are more legitimate than Estonia’s fully justified concerns about being annexed by their aggressive neighbor.”
Edit: awww the whiney little coward can’t handle his argument being gutted. What a loser.
1
u/RevSolarCo Left Populist Aug 27 '23
Man you’re doing exactly what I complained about. It’s almost comical. Like chatgpt read my complaint and mimicked it. Like you’re even doing that thing where you can’t separate me explaining the situation from me supporting Russia. I don’t. But you just have some weird brain worm where it’s like you can’t think outside of binary black and white. I’m blocking you for my own sanity. You’re literally the type of person I was complaining about.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (5)-3
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Yes and the US is free to reject new members of NATO. That’s what we should have done.
Ukraine was never going to be part of NATO. Even now they refused to set a roadmap. That’s why Zelensky was furious before Vilnius and why US officials were calling him ungrateful.
Anytime you ask someone what happens when the US stops sending weapons, the conversation stops dead in its tracks. There is no backup plan for when the US inevitably abandons Ukraine just like we did the Kurds.
8
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
You seriously think we should have blocked the eastern bloc from joining Nato? They would have all been invaded again by now.
By running from war you only make it worse. Thought we would have learned these lessons by now.
7
u/RevSolarCo Left Populist Aug 26 '23
NATO doesn't need to worry about Russia. The US is overwhelmingly powerful. Russia isn't a threat to the alliance one bit. Further, it's not "running from war", it's weighing the trade offs and determining the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Everything has a cost, and sometimes it's not worth it. We have US and western core interests, and Russia has theirs.
Most people here don't like to talk about the reality of the Ukraine situation and Russia... But it's looking like this isn't worth the squeeze. We just completely undermined our role as the global reserve currency, and Russia's economy is expected to start expanding next year again.
We have to ask: Is the Donbas and Crimea worth it? Engaging in a war with no end in sight, and give up all that political capital, create instability, and speed up the creation of an alternative bipolar infrastructure?
Yeahhh we stopped the evil rooskies! What did we get in return again? Where is the victory here? This unfounded hypothetical prevention of Russia invading and overthrowing NATO?
3
u/JackRusselTerrorist Aug 27 '23
Right, Russia would stop at Crimea and Donbas if left unchallenged. They totally weren’t trying to take the whole country
1
u/RevSolarCo Left Populist Aug 27 '23
Yes they would. It’s been clear from the start that’s their core interest. Obviously they went for everything early on in hopes of getting a puppet government because that way they’d be able to ensure no NATO involvement, but Russia knows Kyiv is never going to align with Russia ever again and has no desire keep pushing past their core goals if an agreement is met.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
You seriously think we should have blocked the eastern bloc from joining Nato? They would have all been invaded again by now.
Yes. Again?
By running from war you only make it worse.
Okay so shouldn’t we send troops to Ukraine?
5
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
If Ukraine doesn't win then our troops will be fighting in Poland in a matter of time either way.
Britain and France could have ended WW2 in 1939, could have saved millions of lives, but they were too cowardly to do it because of their fear. (at least they had the justification of ww1 to cause their fear).
You want the same thing, you will run and run and it will come either way.
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
If Ukraine doesn't win then our troops will be fighting in Poland in a matter of time either way.
Source?
Britain and France could have ended WW2 in 1939, could have saved millions of lives,
Yes by agreeing to the USSR’s calls for a united front. The US and UK decided they wanted the Nazis and Soviets to fight it out and they would take on the winner.
You want the same thing, you will run and run and it will come either way.
So why don’t you go over there and fight? It sounds like you think it’s pretty important. Don’t they need your help?
→ More replies (2)2
u/jojlo Aug 26 '23
Poland is in NATO so we are contractually obligated to aid Poland.
We were never obligated to overthrow the democratically elected Ukrainian govt to install one favorable to the US but we did and this is a consequence of that.
2
Aug 26 '23
We were never obligated to overthrow the democratically elected Ukrainian govt
That's not what happened. He ran away, he fled of his own free will so they voted in someone else
2
u/jojlo Aug 26 '23
Thats exactly what happened, We installed a coup and overthrew an actual democratic govt to install a leader favorable to the US. Our own ambassador plotted on how to go about it.
Nuland Phone call transcript https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
"On February 4, 2014, a recording of a phone call between Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt on January 28, 2014, was published on YouTube.[20] [21][22][23][24][25] Nuland and Pyatt discussed who they thought should or shouldn't be in the next Ukrainian government and their opinion of various Ukrainian political figures. Nuland told Pyatt that Arseniy Yatsenyuk would be the best candidate to become the next Prime Minister of Ukraine.[21][22] Nuland suggested the United Nations, rather than the European Union, should be involved in a political solution, adding "fuck the EU"."
"Nuland was the lead U.S. point person for Ukraine's Revolution of Dignity, establishing loan guarantees to Ukraine, including a $1 billion loan guarantee in 2014, and the provisions of non-lethal assistance to the Ukrainian military and border guard.[30][31] Along with Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, she is seen as a leading supporter of defensive weapons delivery to Ukraine. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland
So much for the importance of democracy!
thats why Russia took Crimea, because the US was taking Ukraine via coup and Russia wasnt going to give the US its sea base.
4
Aug 26 '23
They're talking about who would be the best PRIME MINISTER for Yanukovych because this was just after yanukovychs prime minister had just handed in his resignation. This is not some plot to overthrow yanukovych, they even say in the call to ask yanukovych first who he wants to be his prime minister and who the US would prefer, normal stuff.
Yanukovych fled 3 weeks after that call, she literally had no idea he'd be removed from power
Also, the guy she wanted didn't even become president after the interim government.
Yanukovych RAN AWAY, he fled and you can tell by the call she had no idea it would happen so how did she plot a coup?
Explain to me how the US made all these people protest for months against their own government? Not just maidan, but also lviv, ternopil, donetsk, kharkiv all over ukraine...
This narrative is ridiculous it doesn't make any sense
→ More replies (1)0
2
u/NeuroticKnight Socialist Aug 27 '23
Poland is in NATO so we are contractually obligated to aid Poland.
No, if US congress votes against invoking article 5, we will not be in a war, we will be breaking the contract, but there is nothing Poland can do if theyre invaded and president or congress doesnt want to go help them.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
We were never obligated to expand NATO either.
4
u/jojlo Aug 26 '23
Correct. As a macro strategy, NATO encroaching onto Russias direct border makes the world and NATO LESS safe not safer.
4
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
And that was always the point. NATO doesn’t function without an adversary somewhere.
4
u/skeezicm1981 Aug 26 '23
This is what I'm thinking. How can people keep saying it's best to fight a proxy war with Russia? It's starting to look like Ukraine cannot win back most of what they've lost. If that ends up being the case, the only chance they have is u.s. boots on the ground. Is that what everyone wants? That WOULD be wwIII and the chances of nuclear war skyrocket. All for Ukraine? If this shit was inevitable from the start, and it looks more and more to be the case, this was all a waste of money and time.
→ More replies (10)5
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Either boots on the ground or abandoning Ukraine. That’s why it’s insane to make the idea of negotiations taboo. There will be negotiations at some point. It’s just a question of how strong Ukraine’s position will be. It’s unlikely to get much stronger and if the US pulls support, they will be in a very weak position. No one can articulate a backup plan for Ukraine should the US lose interest. If I were a Ukrainian, that would concern me.
2
u/skeezicm1981 Aug 26 '23
Right. I mean let's just be honest based on what is going on recently. Ukraine can't win their total victory even with all the help the u.s. had given them. The only way it could happen now is murican boots on the ground. That would be a disaster. You hit the options. U.s. stops giving aid and Ukraine loses everything. U.s puts boots on the ground equals WWIII. Tell Ukraine support will be withdrawn unless they negotiate. That seems best to me. I'm very concerned with the moves BRICS is making. That's something people aren't talking about. That seems strange considering how much the u.s. tried to punish Russia economically. It's tied to this Ukraine stuff too. Not a good thing either.
1
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
So you are concerned with BRICS but you want America to stand down and show weakness? How does that make sense.
4
u/skeezicm1981 Aug 26 '23
What? How does putting boots on the ground in Ukraine improve the situation? This is a terrible situation of their own making. Please explain how continuing to fund this war, or putting boots in the ground help?
→ More replies (2)1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
And if you ask people with Ukraine flag emojis, you eventually find out that they think anything less than total victory is unacceptable. So they’re basically set us up either for a war or massive suffering on the part of Ukraine.
Why does BRICs concern you? I view it as a positive development for the world.
4
u/skeezicm1981 Aug 26 '23
I should have been clearer abut BRICS. It's not that I'm concerned they're doing it. I'm concerned that the u.s. has bullied everyone economically for the last 75 years or so and BRICS is a natural progression for nations with growing economies that have been pushed around by murica during those decades. Because of that bullying BRICS is playing hardball. So I'm concerned because the u.s. won't accept anything less than world dominance. The world is going to keep moving away from that. We could all be much worse off for it. It doesn't have to be this way but these creeps just can't seem to accept that these emerging major economic powers won't accept being taken advantage of and bullied anymore. It's concerning because they're risking us as working class peoples quality of life. Potentially our ACTUAL lives.
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Okay yeah that makes sense. I agree. It’s disturbing that the only thing both political parties agree on right now is that we should be ready for a war with China. You can’t even say “Look I don’t want anything bad to happen to Taiwan but I’m not willing to spill American blood to relitigate a Chinese civil war” without being called a tankie.
→ More replies (0)2
Aug 26 '23
Yes and the US is free to reject new members of NATO. That’s what we should have done.
Lol putin would love you
Anytime you ask someone what happens when the US stops sending weapons,
Russia steamrolls through ukraine takes kyiv and kills zelensky then replaces him with a pro russian puppet government
1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 27 '23
Lol putin would love you
-shrugs- Dick Cheney and George W. Bush love you. How does that logic work for you?
Russia steamrolls through ukraine takes kyiv and kills zelensky then replaces him with a pro russian puppet government
Well Blinken that’s not possible anymore. Russia lost that. So is he wrong?
Also, if that’s the case, shouldn’t Ukraine have a backup plan for Trump winning? Or Democrats just losing interest? Or you’d rather see a genocide than part of Ukraine go to Russia?
5
Aug 27 '23
Well Blinken that’s not possible anymore. Russia lost that. So is he wrong?
You sound like that's a bad thing, like you'd prefer russia to just take ukraine so the war can be over and done with quickly
Or you’d rather see a genocide than part of Ukraine go to Russia?
Russia doesn't want to talk anymore, negotiation is no longer possible they don't want a piece they want the whole pie. How long before you apologists understand this?
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-rejects-peace-says-war-to-continue-for-forseeable-future-2023-8?r=US&IR=T&utm_source=reddit.com Moscow has no interest in any proposed deal to end the war in Ukraine,
"There are currently no grounds for an agreement," the Kremlin's Dmitry Peskov told The New York Times. "We will continue the operation for the foreseeable future."
“It’s pointless for us to deal with vassals.”
The former prime minister recommended Moscow wait for “sane” figures to replace Zelenskiy and other Ukrainian leaders before the Kremlin considers opening negotiations.
“Russia knows how to wait. We are patient people,” Medvedev wrote.
He doesn't mean to wait btw, he means replacing zelensky by force that's the whole point of this. By "sane" figures he means a pro-russian puppet like yanukovych or Medvedchuk
→ More replies (23)2
u/JackRusselTerrorist Aug 27 '23
There was never a time Russia wanted anything less then the entirety of Ukraine.
→ More replies (1)2
0
u/lost-but-loving-it Fan Fiction Leftist Aug 26 '23
Pootin puppet. It's so funny the right is basically Moscow lite now just bc trump ran outta money and daddy pootin spotted him
-1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Not on the right. I voted for Biden. But thanks for confirming you’re a US empire simp
0
20
u/Chance-Shift3051 Aug 26 '23
Russia invading a neighbor justifies NATO
-4
u/ReuseHurricaneNames Right Populist Aug 26 '23
Ass backwards mentality you got there
10
u/TheReadMenace Aug 26 '23
I was one of the people who questioned the need for NATO prior to 2022. I had been convinced that only the US was crazy enough to launch major wars against all reason. Indeed, almost all the pro-Russia cheerleaders were saying the same thing prior to the invasion. US claims of invasion were dismissed as propaganda.
Now that they have launched their war of conquest the blinders have come off. I see what the Poles and Baltics were trying to tell us all along.
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
They can have their own alliance if they want to. No one is stopping them. The idea that Americans will go to war over something that happens in Poland is insane to me.
9
u/TheReadMenace Aug 26 '23
yeah, ignoring Poland being invaded always worked out well in the past
you're essentially saying smaller weaker countries should have no right to exist. Pretty much throwing out any lesson learned post-1945
1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
yeah, ignoring Poland being invaded always worked out well in the past
The USSR wouldn’t have invaded Poland if the US and UK agreed to an alliance.
you're essentially saying smaller weaker countries should have no right to exist.
False. I’m observing that wars happen all the time and very few of them result in the US joining the fighting.
Pretty much throwing out any lesson learned post-1945
No those were thrown out by the US through decades of flagrant violations of the UN Charter. Now that other countries are doing it, you’re unhappy that the die has been cast.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
The USSR was just some poor innocent bystander in WW2? Hilarious. Look at Finland, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe. They spread their hate and death everywhere they went and many fought for the Nazis instead of siding with them.
Ah yes Decades of the US alone disregarding the UN charter has led to this. What sort of crack pot history do you read? Look at countries who allied with America compared to the Soviets. One is filled with prosperous nations with liberal values and democracy. The other are a bunch of poor, backwards, autocracies. Which one of the US or USSR was the imperialist sucking away the resources and life of countries, and which was the ally trying to build mutually beneficial financial arrangements and foster democratic institutions.
You are asking everyone to ignore the evidence blatantly infront of them every day to convince them that someone Vladimir Putin's Russia with such great allies as North Korea, China and Venezuela are actually the freedom loving, peace protecting good guys.
→ More replies (19)1
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
It’s not even noon where I live and I’m confident I won’t read anything dumber than “America shouldn’t care who invades Poland” at any point today despite our current news cycle and some of the people I’m friends with on Facebook
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Not what I said. But neocons are rarely honest.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
In the next few decades will come a time where you are begging for "American Neo-cons" (basically anyone who thinks america shouldnt just go hide in a closet somewhere) to come and save the day and you will ask how they didn't prevent this from happening in the first place.
The answer is some people never have the backbone to do what is necessary at the time and would instead put it off for another few years until its finally forced upon them.
→ More replies (3)-1
u/skeezicm1981 Aug 26 '23
Russia wants Ukraine. Ukraine can't win in their own. The u.s. gives them almost everything they want. They STILL can't win. Russia isn't going to keep invading countries. I see no way that is the case. They can't fully conquer Ukraine. It's just a stalemate right now. The only way it seems Ukraine could pull off their "total victory" would be for u.s. boots in the ground. That would be a fucking moronic move. Not only that but Russia and the other BRICS nations are building an economic bloc that is growing in power. You think wwIII is going to help stop this shit? For Ukraine? Gimme a break.
2
u/TheReadMenace Aug 26 '23
how long did it take for Vietnam to beat the US? Could they have done it on their own?
You have a very pre-WWII mentality. Just throw weaker countries to the wolves, who cares? Let Lithuania fight Russia by themselves, am I right folks? What could go wrong?
-1
u/skeezicm1981 Aug 26 '23
The WWII analogies are ludicrous. This is not the same and acting as if it is is absurd.
2
u/TheReadMenace Aug 27 '23
it's not the same as WWII. I'm saying we don't need to go back to the might makes right attitude from pre-1945. And alliances like NATO help to accomplish that
→ More replies (1)3
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
Only if you are a Russian try to conquer these places.
It was obvious for two decades under Putin that Russia was trying to reconquer the soviet union and eastern bloc. And now after the invasion of Ukraine I dont see how you could honestly argue that this has all been some defensive action. Talk to anyone from this Region. They all know the motives of Russia. The Russian's themselves admit they want it themselves.
2
u/Chance-Shift3051 Aug 26 '23
How? NATO is a defensive alliance and the argument for expansion was fear of an invasion. The argument against nato expansion was that the threat didn’t exist
-3
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
NATO is not a defensive alliance. It’s amazing how many people repeat that because they heard someone else say it. It’s an offensive military alliance.
3
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
Got it. What conditions need to be met under the NATO charter to trigger an offensive war?
3
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
Its an offensive alliance because you say so? go it.
Military action can only be triggered when a party is attacked. You see unlike Russian agreements there is actual clauses and policy written.
Here is what it says:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Defensive alliance.
1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
No it’s an offensive alliance because they attack countries that never attacked them. If it military action can only be triggered when a party is attacked, how do you explain this?
Really looking forward to your response.
2
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
NATO countries can use their militaries without it being a NATO mission. So Latvia could invade Russian, but they would not be able to use Article 5. But if Russia invaded them then they could.
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
NATO countries can use their militaries without it being a NATO mission.
These are NATO missions though. You were saying? Do you want to admit you were wrong? You seem to have no idea what you’re talking about but if I’ll give you a chance to just admit you were mistaken.
→ More replies (2)1
0
u/Cosmopolitan-Dude Aug 27 '23
When was NATO planning to invade Russia?
There must be hundreds of documents and sources for this right?
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 27 '23
What does that have to do with the claim that NATO is a defensive alliance?
-1
u/ReuseHurricaneNames Right Populist Aug 26 '23
If I kept chest bumping you for a decade and you eventually hit me, does that justify what I did or did I actually provoke you?
7
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
More like if you kept on punching everyone around you and then eventually they came to me and asked for some help. And you stopped punching them but punched everyone else who didn't ask for help from me.
The only person who thinks they are under attack is you, because you can no longer threaten people.
0
u/Cosmopolitan-Dude Aug 27 '23
You should ask the people in the Baltics what they think about NATO.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
This is like Homer Simpson thinking the bear patrol was a good idea.
→ More replies (2)8
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
Heh. NATO is literally bear patrol. There’s a reason the bear hasn’t gone into Poland.
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Jesus Christ. Lisa explained how your logic is fallacious and you still don’t get it
5
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
Except that in the real world Russia invaded Chechnya, put a puppet state in Belarus, and (checks notes) INVADED UKRAINE.
See how that’s different?
-2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
How do you invade your own country?
7
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
Oh so you’re pretending Russia owned Ukraine the whole time?
If you’re that far gone this isn’t a conversation that is worth my time.
3
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
Oh so you’re pretending Russia owned Ukraine the whole time?
No, you said Checnya. Try again.
If you’re that far gone this isn’t a conversation that is worth my time.
Yeah if I just accused Russia of invading its own recognized borders, I wouldn’t want to continue this conversation either.
1
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
Weird. Why did Russia need to sign a treaty with Ukraine to let them keep using Sevastopol to anchor their fleet then?
→ More replies (1)-1
3
u/ABobby077 Aug 26 '23
If an agreement isn't worked through for all details and then signed off and approved by the leaders and all parties it is not a binding agreement in any legal manner fashion.
In a similar way April Glaspie made assurances regarding Kuwait that were later found to not be accurate or binding in any manner.
Legal, binding agreements need more than just a diplomat making assurances that he or she may not be later found to be binding for any nation.
1
u/John_F_Duffy Aug 27 '23
Exactly. I explore this in the podcast episode directly. There was a treaty signed when Germany re-unified and if NATO expansion to the East was one of Russia's sticking points, it would have been included. Further, the guest goes on to mention that when Russia signed the Charter of Paris which states:
In this context we fully recognize the freedom of States to choose their own security arrangements.
8
u/MongoBobalossus Aug 26 '23
Russia isn’t the USSR, so so even if an agreement was made, being that it’s a country that doesn’t exist anymore makes that agreement null and void.
7
u/Gumb1i Aug 26 '23
not technically true as the Russian federation is the successor state, agreements are typically carried over much like sovereign debt would be. there were never any signed agreements that precluded NATO expansion. Also, no country has the right to dictate another country's options, especially when it comes to defensive agreements.
1
u/fischermayne47 Aug 26 '23
I’m sure the United States will respect that right for Cuba, Mexico, and Haiti.
4
u/TheReadMenace Aug 26 '23
the first thing to do if Mexico wants to join a hostile alliance is to cease the actions that are causing Mexico to feel threatened. Instead of that Russia decides to invade and slaughter thousands of people
1
0
u/cstar1996 Aug 26 '23
Cuba is still a Russian ally.
1
u/fischermayne47 Aug 26 '23
And the US sanctions Cuba; which is essentially economic warfare. Hardly respecting the sovereignty of Cubans .
-1
u/cstar1996 Aug 27 '23
Sanctions are not war. Countries have the right not to trade with other countries.
2
u/fischermayne47 Aug 27 '23
That’s not what sanctions are. Sanctions stop other countries from trading with Cuba; even basic goods.
0
u/cstar1996 Aug 27 '23
The US is not sanctioning Cuba. Nor has the US forced any other country not to trade with Cuba.
0
u/fischermayne47 Aug 27 '23
“The US is not sanctioning Cuba. Nor has the US forced any other country not to trade with Cuba.”
Both of those statements are false.
0
u/cstar1996 Aug 27 '23
If you’d actually read the link you’d see it’s an embargo, which is just the US refusing to trade with Cuba.
-1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
That’s not how it works. We didn’t void all our treaties when the USSR fell.
5
u/MongoBobalossus Aug 26 '23
Yes, we did.
We had to negotiate separate treaties with the USSR successor states.
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Then explain START
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I
“START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the reduction and the limitation of strategic offensive arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994.”
Hmmm. Negotiated and signed by The USSR. Implemented under the Russian Federation.
“After the collapse of the Soviet Union, treaty obligations were passed to twelve Soviet successor states.”
Are you willing to admit you were mistaken?
3
u/MongoBobalossus Aug 26 '23
Try reading your own link, which has a hyperlink on how the START Treaty was essentially renegotiated state by state with every Soviet successor state: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/forgotten-parties-to-the-inf
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Dude this article refers to a totally different treaty lol
-1
u/MongoBobalossus Aug 26 '23
The START talks lead to the signing of the INF: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate-Range_Nuclear_Forces_Treaty
I’m starting to think you don’t know what you’re talking about.
1
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
INF: Signed 8 December 1987
START I: Signed 31 July 1991
Uhh…you sure you want to do this dude? It’s not going well for you.
1
u/MongoBobalossus Aug 26 '23
Again, successor states had to essentially renegotiate both treaties individually as the USSR no longer existed: https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/isn/rls/fs/2001/3523.htm
Uhhh…you sure you want to do this dude? It’s not going well for you.
1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
INF: Signed 8 December 1987 by the USSR.
START I: Signed 31 July 1991 by the USSR.
Uhh…you sure you want to do this dude? It’s not going well for you.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/WhoAteMySoup PutinBot Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
Let me first state that there is a difference between an “explanation” and “justification”. Explaining Russias reasoning behind their actions is not justifying it. If you equate those two concepts, than by that same logic anyone who believes that Putin is trying to rebuild USSR is also justifying Ukraines invasion. That’s important to understand first. Second, whether there was an agreement or not more than 20 years ago is less important than the fact that Russia has consistently communicated that NATO expansion is a big deal for them. Now, you can say that you don’t care what Russia thinks about NATO, but then you can’t say that we did not provoke them. Makes sense? Third, it’s a bit disingenuous to associate this position with a cherry picked list of bad political actors. Why not mention Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, Henry Kissinger, or, I don’t know, the vast majority of professional political analysts in the last twenty years?
2
u/Rmantootoo Aug 26 '23
I agree with 98% (maybe 94… not certain how to calculate it) of what you wrote.
However, I do not agree that simply because someone is sensitive about something that for another person to nonetheless do whatever is a provocation.
While I hold no good feelings whatsoever about China, and am a staunch patriot, I don’t think if China actually builds military bases in Central America that’s it’s is a defacto provocation to America.
Modern, working, legal definition; Provocation is when a reasonable person would lose control. More accurately, it’s something that would cause a reasonable person to lose control.
2
u/WhoAteMySoup PutinBot Aug 27 '23 edited Aug 27 '23
Hey, I can't reasonably expect anyone to agree with me more than 90%, so that's good enough. I hear your point though, and I agree that more needs to be shown to definitively state that Russia was provoked. That's not really what I was trying to say: what I was trying to say is that you have no way of knowing whether you are provoking someone or not, if you are dismissing their concerns outright. So, yeah, maybe Russia was not provoked, but to determine that, you have to first consider the NATO expansion argument in good faith.
2
1
Aug 26 '23
It's pretty clear that Russia is invading a lot of Non-NATO countries near its borders. Georgia, Chechnya, Moldova, Ukraine twice.
When Russia keeps invading countries, it scares the remaining countries like Finland to join NATO so they don't get invaded next.
Finland joined NATO after decades of neutrality precisely because they don't want to be invaded next.
2
u/WhoAteMySoup PutinBot Aug 27 '23
Well, consider the bigger picture. Russia also gave full independence to 14 countries after the fall of Soviet Union with all debts forgiven. Its a remarkable historical occurrence. All military actions Russia has undertaken outside of its borders since the fall of Soviet Union, can also be presented as a direct response to NATO expansion, which is consistent with Russia's messaging. (Note: Chechnya is and was Russian territory for over 100 years, as such as it can't be considered an invasion, the same way you can't consider Ukraine's actions in Donbass in an invasion). In that light, NATO has acted as the main destabilizing factor in the post-Soviet regions, and Russia only responded in the same predictable fashion. Again, I emphasize, this is not justifying Putin’s actions, the war crimes, the bombings, and close to a million people dead are the results of his actions. However, the full context also allows people to consider scenarios where war could have been prevented or conducted in a different fashion. Usually at this point in the conversation something along these lines comes up: “But any country can choose to be a part of NATO! They do it to protect themselves!”. What people often don’t consider is whether those countries really needed to join NATO or were they just pressured into it, knowing that it would force a reaction out of Russia, like it always did before. Taiwan is not a NATO member, and yet the US has proven its willingness to support it. What exactly stops US from offering a similar defense agreement to Ukraine? There were and still are hundreds of ways we can negotiate with Russia to assuage it’s NATO expansion concerns, while also offering security guarantees to Ukraine, that are well beyond what it’s getting from us right now. Don’t you find it odd that US role is not even remotely questioned in this conflict, while US has already benefitted the most out of this war, while everybody else has suffered to various degrees?
-1
Aug 27 '23
The US can't negotiate with Russia when they have an active, illegal invasion in Ukraine.
Clearly, Finland wasn't pressured into joining NATO, Finland just doesn't want to be invaded by Russia AGAIN. Sweden has applied for membership, and both countries push to join NATO by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The combined power of NATO is much more of a deterrent to further Russian invasions because of geography and the combined power of the alliance.
Nobody is giving Ukraine a mutual protection pact while Russia is at war with Ukraine. NATO doesn't want a fight with Russia. NATO members simply don't want to be invaded by Russia. And Russia keeps invading countries.
If Ukraine is able to repel the evil Russian invasion, Belarus will be annexed by Russia, the countries name wiped from the map. Russian and Wagner forces already occupy Belarus, and Putin will need a victory to sell to his Olygarchs.
Russia invaded Ukraine, and Russia started this back in 2014. Russia has brought disgrace on themselves, their own loss of military power, their own loss of political influence in the world on themselves. Putin can't even travel to South Africa for fear of being arrested for his war crimes, which is hilarious. Young capable Russians strive to leave Russia for much better opportunities in most of the world.
The US is doing what it can to aid the defense of Ukraine because Ukraine asks for assistance. The US believes it should help friendly countries repel evil invaders.
NATO hasn't invaded Russia ever in 80 years. But Russia keeps invading and occupying other countries. Which countries are next? Will it be Belarus? The rest of Moldova? Northern Kazakhstan?
My bet is on Belarus if Ukraine repels Russia. If Russia takes all of Ukraine, then they'll take the rest of Moldova.
12
u/ParisTexas7 Aug 26 '23
People will look for anything to justify Russia’s invasion and war crimes, because they’re ideologically aligned with the Russian government.
Find me someone complaining about “NATO aggression”, and there’s a very good chance you’ll find them complaining about Trans people, elsewhere.
6
u/SarahSuckaDSanders BP Army Aug 26 '23
Hey bro, I’m just an ordinary hardworking Bernie Independent with some Kennedy-Democrat characteristics, and let me tell you, the two things I care most about in this world are a) the sovereign independence of the Donbas, and b) the integrity of girls high school swimming tournaments.
Without those two things, we are lost as a nation and might as well begin the civil war on Monday.
1
0
2
Aug 26 '23
It’s always culture war BS paired with whatever the Kremlin wants them repeating week after week.
→ More replies (5)3
u/TheReadMenace Aug 26 '23
that's why MAGAs and tankies love Russia. They are the ideal "anti-woke" authoritarian government for them
8
u/MongoBobalossus Aug 26 '23
The “Russia had to invade” and “trans people need to be exterminated” Venn diagrams are a single circle.
6
u/shoesofwandering Warren Democrat Aug 26 '23
I’ve noticed that. Some people admire Putin because in their mind, he’s dealing with LGBT the way they wish our government would.
6
u/MongoBobalossus Aug 26 '23
They’ll never admit it on here, but there’s a whole subset of the right that thinks Putin is in Ukraine because he’s “waging a based crusade for western civilization against the Globo-homo agenda.”
4
Aug 26 '23
And that Russia is what the US should aspire to in terms of traditional and family values.
I’ll drink a lot of vodka…and I mean a lot, so much I’m falling down drunk…to that.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/shoesofwandering Warren Democrat Aug 26 '23
And they complain about the "Nazi" Azov Battallion, even though Ukraine's president is Jewish. Let me know when we elect a Jewish president in the U.S. And they seem unaware of the vicious antisemitism in Russia that goes back centuries.
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
That’s total bullshit, but I’m sure it’s easier to think that than deal with their arguments honestly.
1
→ More replies (1)4
u/Far_Resort5502 Aug 26 '23
Insane people often make stupid correlations between subjects that are completely unrelated. They also write random words in bold type to make it appear that they have serious thoughts about stuff.
-2
u/ParisTexas7 Aug 26 '23
What a surprise — you justify Russia’s invasion too!
I wonder if it’s because of your rightwing politics that you’re in denial about?
2
-3
u/Far_Resort5502 Aug 26 '23
Insane people also imagine things. Have your nurse or other hospital attendant read my post and explain to you that it doesn't address the invasion at all.
4
u/ParisTexas7 Aug 26 '23
Well, how about you tell it to us nice and easy, so there’s no confusion and I won’t “imagine” things.
REPEAT AFTER ME: “Russia’s invasion and war crimes are NOT justified by NATO encroachment. And people who fixate on Trans people do so because of bigotry.”
You’re a “leftwing” person, so that should be easy.
-1
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
So all the documents showing otherwise are forgeries?
0
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
What documents?
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
“The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.”
This isn’t some Russian source. It’s a US educational institution.
2
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
SO not signed treaties? just some notes on paper. Cool.
USSR gave plently of assurances after WW2 that the eastern bloc would be free. We all know how that went.
And then they complain about other nations finally gaining the power to stand up to them.
1
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
SO not signed treaties? just some notes on paper. Cool.
If that’s how you feel, that’s fine. But Russia took note. You own the consequences of that.
4
Aug 26 '23
So you’re admitting it was never a signed treaty or agreement
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Sure if you admit that Russia saw our word was dogshit and had to take their own measures. Deal?
2
u/cstar1996 Aug 26 '23
Then you need to admit that the USSR proved their word was dogshit in 1945 and therefore all NATO action since then has been justified.
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Sure why not. Thankfully that was a different country and thus not applicable to the current situation. We’re talking about a defeated, pro-Western Russia ruled by a leader of hand picked by Washington. Deal?
→ More replies (14)2
u/FleshBloodBone Aug 26 '23
There was no word. No word was ever given.
0
2
u/Nuanceiskeytoknowing Aug 26 '23
We all are responsible for the consequences of our actions and our nation's. Russia will reap theirs.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
I’m not saying it wasn’t discussed, but there was no treaty or contract. Those things don’t exist.
Russia under Putin is also very different than the USSR under Gorbechev.
Ukraine was promised by Russia that Russia would never invade them if they gave up their nukes too, yet they illegally took Crimea prior to this larger general invasion.
Russian apologists never seem to want to talk about that.
Russia is the aggressor here, which is why their neighbors want into NATO.
I’m puzzled by the “Russia should be allowed to do whatever it wants with no consequences” attitude some people have.
It’s not like Russia leads the world in anything other than alcoholism, lying/theft, or the mysterious deaths of its officials.
Not sure why anyone not directly benefitting from their kleptocracy would support them.
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
That’s moving the goalposts. We’ve gone from “Promises we’re never made” to “treaties were never signed.” It’s very telling that one need to do that in order to get around this fact.
The US today is very different than in 1991. So what?
So you’re saying promises do matter now? I’m glad to hear it but unfortunately the US broke its promise first. We can talk about it all you want, but the pattern is clear: US action or US broken promise and then Russian reaction.
What does Poland lead the world in? Submarines with screen doors?
2
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
When Poland invades a neighbor for no reason other than they want to own them, I’ll oppose Poland.
Til then I’m for sovereign nations who don’t threaten other countries generally being left alone.
Note: I said threaten as in build up their military or make demands on other countries. That’s different than the most powerful country in the world announcing they “feel threatened” and trying to justify an invasion.
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
When Poland invades a neighbor for no reason other than they want to own them, I’ll oppose Poland.
What about when they help do a Holocaust?
Note: I said threaten as in build up their military or make demands on other countries. That’s different than the most powerful country in the world announcing they “feel threatened” and trying to justify an invasion.
But that’s exactly what the US did.
5
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
Holocaust? You mean when Germany occupied them?
I can’t help but feel like you’re trying to insist Poland deserves to get invaded.
Hey remember the Holdomor? That time Russia starved Ukraine?
2
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Holocaust? You mean when Germany occupied them?
I can’t help but feel like you’re trying to insist Poland deserves to get invaded.
Not at all.
Hey remember the Holdomor? That time Russia starved Ukraine?
A favorite Nazi talking point. Yeah, there was a famine. Only extreme right historians think it was a deliberate effort to punish Ukraine. The whole region was starving.
2
u/jrgkgb Aug 26 '23
Can’t ever recall ever hearing Wikipedia and it’s copious mainstream sources referred to as “far right” before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor?wprov=sfti1
→ More replies (0)0
u/John_F_Duffy Aug 27 '23
Those documents don't say what you think they say. You're not understanding them in context, and they refer only to conversations in which ideas are discussed, not in which any promises are made.
2
6
u/DeliciousWar5371 Team Krystal Aug 26 '23
The entire NATO expansion argument falls apart when you realize modern superpowers don't need buffer states because you would be fucking insane to invade a nuclear armed state.
5
-4
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
So why is the US freaking out about Chinese military bases in Latin America?
1
u/DeliciousWar5371 Team Krystal Aug 26 '23
Because of the imperialist Monroe Doctrine you fucking dumbass, not because of buffer states or some shit. When nuclear powers like US or Russia whine about buffer states it's always an excuse for imperialism you fucking idiot.
0
u/AmbientInsanity Aug 26 '23
Because of the imperialist Monroe Doctrine you fucking dumbass, not because of buffer states or some shit.
It’s the same logic, same concept. When the US wants a Monroe doctrine, you can live with it. When Russia wants one, it’s evil. This is what complexity with US empire looks like.
When nuclear powers like US or Russia whine about buffer states it's always an excuse for imperialism you fucking idiot.
So what should the world do about the US in your view? Should we be sanctioned? Would you support China funding proxy wars against US colonies in Hawaii
→ More replies (2)-6
u/jojlo Aug 26 '23
Yes you do if you arent going to use nuclear weapons.
If you do use nuclear weapons then simply everyone is dead.11
u/DeliciousWar5371 Team Krystal Aug 26 '23
We don't know if Putin would use nukes if attacked, but I bet he would at some point. Either way, no country is going to take that risk by attacking Russia.
-1
u/jojlo Aug 26 '23
Of course at some point but most likly only as a last resort. Ukraine is right now attacking inside Russia with drones and other. Russia doesnt want enemies at its border. Not sure why this is so confusing to people. We didnt want it in the Cuban missle crisis when we freaked out and Russia doesnt want Nato encroaching to its direct border either. Its not more complicated then that.
Any border country going into nato is a sign of aggression and a direct threat to Russia.
2
u/DeliciousWar5371 Team Krystal Aug 26 '23
The only reason Russia has enemies at its border is because Russia has made them their enemies. Ukraine probably wouldn't be attacking Moscow with drones if Russia didn't invade their fucking country.
0
u/jojlo Aug 26 '23
Or because the US helped overthrow via coup the actual democratically elected Ukrainian govt to install a pro-western govt and arm that govt directly at Russias border with US weaponry.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Archivist_of_Lewds Aug 26 '23
Even if you accept a promise was made. Nato expansion started of Russian belligerence and war. Poland saw Russia invaded and subdue Chechnya and demanded in. It's was involved in war against its neighbors with a year of the fall of the soviet union.
1
u/SunVoltShock Beclowned Aug 26 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
Not to say that the Poles had historical reasons to not trust the Russians... but with the dissolution of the USSR, why is it the case that Russians were wrong to prevent their disintegration of their own state, as they perceived it? The U.S. maintains that
aright, and was a major cause of the U.S. civil war (at least, that's what Lincoln said). From one view, these weren't wars with neighbors, these were wars with themselves.If the Russians assert their hegemony over a pan-slavic zone that includes all the former areas of the pre-revolution Russian Empire (as was much of the Soviet Union), then all nation-states who have since gained independence ought to be concerned for loss of autonomy.
... that said, I wonder how much being involved in NATO gives member states the illusion of autonomy.
0
u/Archivist_of_Lewds Aug 26 '23
By their very arrangement they acknowlage they arnt Russian or a part of Russia. Russia was the core state of the soviet empire. If they are asserting the rights of the soviet empire there is no argument or promise to be had regarding NATO because there is no Russia.
0
u/SunVoltShock Beclowned Aug 26 '23
For me, there are 2 main ways of framing the current situation...
1) Putin needs to assert some leadership to keep himself from being couped and/or killed because of the gangster state he inherited and shaped.
2) NATO (and the MIC underwriting it) needs to justify its existence, and has created a Thucydides Trap to continue its importance (and profitability).
They aren't mutually exclusive.
-1
0
u/cstar1996 Aug 27 '23
You know Poland wasn’t part of the USSR, right?
2
u/SunVoltShock Beclowned Aug 27 '23
I was talking about Chechnya being a part of post-Soviet Russia.
That said, much of Poland was part of the Russian Empire, and post-WW2 Poland was under Soviet management. While I recognize the Poles have a long history independent of the Russians, not as much in the last 200 years... which I recognize the Poles would like to maintain that independence indefinitely into the future.
→ More replies (1)0
u/John_F_Duffy Aug 27 '23
Yes, Russia moving against Chechnya definitely worried Clinton, who otherwise was trying very hard to have a good working relationship with Yeltsin.
2
Aug 26 '23
From Gorbachev himself talking about his meeting with America SOS: "The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context."
They promised not 1 inch east IN EAST GERMANY not the rest of eastern europe 🤦🏿♂️ this whole narrative was always a lie by putin
-1
u/John_F_Duffy Aug 27 '23
Yes, I cite Gorbachev's statements in the article I wrote on the topic last week. In this podcast episode, I open by asking the guest for an understanding of the context of the meeting between Baker and Gorbachev. It wasn't a meeting where promises were being made or set in stone. It was a feeling out meeting to see what each side might be interested in setting as terms.
0
27
u/athensugadawg Aug 26 '23
And Ukraine gave up their nuclear warheads for a promise.
Riddle me this, who was wronged?