NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is proposing to establish a fund of allied contributions worth $100 billion over five years for Ukraine as part of a package for alliance leaders to sign off when they gather in Washington in July.
I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’
I think the line might be “in response to” or similar, but it’s parroted by tankies and russophiles.
NATO’s continued expansion around them.
Can we imagine any reasons why Russia’s neighbors might want to join a defensive pact to protect against Russia? No? Oh well, must be US imperialism then.
I’m not saying there isn’t reason for those countries to want to joint an alliance against their imperialist neighbor, but honestly it’s kinda hard not to see how NATO’s influence has been abused for purposes other than defense.
Russia wanted to join NATO under Clinton. NATO said no because a nation has to be stable and not in a conflict to join. Russia had a conflict in Chechnya.
(_see where I’m going _)
Ukraine wanted to join NATO. But if Russia invaded, they can’t join.
Oh, you want me to make a moral judgement. Okay. NATO and Putin are to blame. NATO shouldn’t have expanded, and Putin should let his neighbors have sovereignty without meddling in their governments.
No need to be rude. Your question was not specific. NATO knew that Russia was concerned about NATO expansion, they did it anyway. Many saw this coming:
Even that first stage provoked Russian opposition and anger. In her memoir, Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, concedes that “[Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and his countrymen were strongly opposed to enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.” Source
Per the article, “Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone‐deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐century deserves a large share as well.”
Yeah that was my bad, I had just mentioned the memorandum in another thread and got mixed up.
Bottom line is Russia doesn’t get to unilaterally dictate what other countries do. It’s like my neighbor pounding on my door yelling at me to stop having premarital sex because it offends him. He can get bent, and if he kicks in my door to stop me, he’s wrong.
You’re right. A warmonger republican president lied 20 years ago, so invading your neighbors is totally OK and any steps to prevent that are imperialism.
Also nice how you forget about Obama continuing it and bombing a slew of other countries such as Afghanistan.
One only needs to look at Palestine to realize how fucked up NATO is. Willing to defend israel’s Genocide and attacking anyone that tries to stop it such as the Houthis.
What was the name of the treaty that said nato wouldn’t expand? Oh there wasn’t one? It was just something someone MAYBE said according to gorbachev? Cool.
How about the Budapest memorandum? Does that have any weight?
I think the line might be “in response to” or similar, but it’s parroted by tankies and russophiles.
Can we imagine any reasons why Russia’s neighbors might want to join a defensive pact to protect against Russia? No? Oh well, must be US imperialism then.
I’m not saying there isn’t reason for those countries to want to joint an alliance against their imperialist neighbor, but honestly it’s kinda hard not to see how NATO’s influence has been abused for purposes other than defense.
I won’t even disagree, but that still is not a valid excuse to invade a soverign country.
Russia wanted to join NATO under Clinton. NATO said no because a nation has to be stable and not in a conflict to join. Russia had a conflict in Chechnya.
(_see where I’m going _)
Ukraine wanted to join NATO. But if Russia invaded, they can’t join.
Yes, I know why they did it. That doesn’t make it valid.
Valid? War isn’t reasonable.
Justified, then. Much like Israel’s ongoing bullshit in Gaza is not anywhere near justified.
Oh, you want me to make a moral judgement. Okay. NATO and Putin are to blame. NATO shouldn’t have expanded, and Putin should let his neighbors have sovereignty without meddling in their governments.
Which happened first? NATO expansion, or Russian invasion?
There’s your answer.
Which one was specifically disallowed by a treaty? Just curious.
The Budapest Memorandum?
Yes.
Edited out my snark because I mixed up replies.
No need to be rude. Your question was not specific. NATO knew that Russia was concerned about NATO expansion, they did it anyway. Many saw this coming:
Per the article, “Vladimir Putin bears primary responsibility for this latest development, but Nato’s arrogant, tone‐deaf policy toward Russia over the past quarter‐century deserves a large share as well.”
Yeah that was my bad, I had just mentioned the memorandum in another thread and got mixed up.
Bottom line is Russia doesn’t get to unilaterally dictate what other countries do. It’s like my neighbor pounding on my door yelling at me to stop having premarital sex because it offends him. He can get bent, and if he kicks in my door to stop me, he’s wrong.
Nato: Invades the entire middle east and fucks it up to steal oil
You: “What a great defensive alliance”
Where those WMD’s in Iraq at?
You’re right. A warmonger republican president lied 20 years ago, so invading your neighbors is totally OK and any steps to prevent that are imperialism.
Especially if NATO pinky winky promises they wouldn’t expand eastward multiple times and keeps violating that promise.
Also nice how you forget about Obama continuing it and bombing a slew of other countries such as Afghanistan.
One only needs to look at Palestine to realize how fucked up NATO is. Willing to defend israel’s Genocide and attacking anyone that tries to stop it such as the Houthis.
What was the name of the treaty that said nato wouldn’t expand? Oh there wasn’t one? It was just something someone MAYBE said according to gorbachev? Cool.
How about the Budapest memorandum? Does that have any weight?