- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Who would have though that our dear Jens Stoltenberg is a Putin apologist; quote:
“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 to 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. He has got the exact opposite.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Russia was already obligated by treaty to not invade Ukraine. And why would NATO refuse to accept new members?
Why would NATO refuse to accept new members? Why don’t you ask them why they rejected the USSR’s application. Or ask them why they rejected Russia’s application.
Russia has never requested to join NATO.
-
Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”
So no, other than a throw away comment they made no move whatsoever to join NATO.
-
That’s the Soviet Union.
-
Another throwaway comment and it even says that Clinton had no issue if they wanted to join NATO
Swing and a miss my friend.
https://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/98-00/davydov.pdf
In December 1991 Russia’s deputy prime-minister Gennady Burbulis visited NATO’s headquarters and was received by the Secretary General of the Alliance Manfred Worner. Among the problems they discussed was the point concerning Russia’s entry into NATO. This idea was supported then by vice-president Alexander Rutskoy, head of the government Egor Gaidar, Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Kozyrev.
It’s a far more complex situation than a throwaway comment once. Even still, you need to explain why they rejected the Soviet Union, as your conjecture is that NATO has no reason not to accept new members.
So once again Russia did not ever apply to join NATO.
Secondly I don’t need to explain shit. I accept they rejected the Soviets and no one is surprised that it didn’t happen during the bloody Cold War.
Then you don’t understand security.
Security is when countries collaborate. Insecurity is when countries compete.
The idea that not bringing in Russia is because of the cold war makes it sound like you think the military leaders who just fought 2 world wars believe that they just need to build high castle walls and then they will be secure. The world wars showed that security is a relationship between and among nations. The USSR wanted to do anything possible to avoid wars, but the West wasn’t interested in security, they were interested in competition.
This is why they did not admit the USSR into NATO and why they don’t wish to entertain Russian entrance into NATO despite such an arrangement being capable of reducing the chance of nuclear war.
It’s because NATO isn’t a security structure, it’s a dominance structure.
-
That doesn’t sound like apologia, that sounds like mockery & derision.
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.
Putin 100% would have invaded those areas had NATO leadership been stupid.
EDIT: Everyone point & laugh at the stupid tankie in the thread.
It’s not controversial to say that Putin doesn’t want NATO enlargement, or that preventing it is one of his key goals from invading Ukraine. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to interpret that statement as Stoltenberg saying that wanting to prevent NATO expansion constitutes a legitimate casus belli for invading Ukraine.
Understanding the motivations of people like Putin is important, even if those motivations aren’t morally acceptable.
I do think the author of that article (intentionally?) misses the point though, and arguably is an apologist - it being a motivation doesn’t mean that without NATO enlargement Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded, Putin has had overt imperialist ambitions toward Ukraine, which NATO membership would have prevented him executing. Therefore NATO expansion was less a cause of the war, than it was a push for him to start the war earlier before Ukraine was within the protection of NATO.
We also know details about Russia’s proposed peace deal with Ukraine back in early 2022… It looks really good given how the war’s gone.
How on earth could Ukraine ever trust a peace deal with Russia? Putin has made it clear his word is worthless and therefore any agreement is meaningless.
Even with a 2022 “peace deal,” Russia would have continued the ”special operation” on their own timeline. Ukraine deserves to be made whole. Russia offered a false a truce because Ukraine started landing blows and fighting back.
The Minsk Agreements were signed with the West explicitly planning to break them and only use them to “buy time” for Ukraine.
The 2022 peace deal would have restored Ukraine’s borders. Both sides had agreed to terms until good ol’ Boris decided to come through and fuck things up. This has been widely confirmed by officials in Germany, the US, Israel, Russia, and Ukraine.
It’s important to understand that Russia’s goal in Ukraine isn’t to capture territory, but to protect it’s heartland from conflict (a la Cuban Missile Crisis, Monroe Doctrine, etc.) Russia’s core aim is to prevent NATO from getting ever closer to Moscow because Russian defensive doctrine relies on defence in depth and that falls apart if someone can launch a decapitating strike on your capital with conventional means. It’s important to remember that from 1983-1992, Russia had adopted a NFU nuclear policy that was only repealed once it became apparent that NATO would not adopt one in return.
multiple peace deals. if one fails, that’s tragic – if multiple fail after foreign intervention, something’s fucky
Apologist? It sounds like NATO standing up for itself and refusing to cave to Putin’s egregious demands.
Egregious demands like stop marching your nuclear army, which lacks all democratic accountability and is led by Western European elites, towards the border that Russia was invaded over twice by European elites? Like don’t put nuclear capabilities in our back yard?
Remember when Biden said that Russia will not be allowed to meddle in South America because that’s America’s front yard, were those egregious demands?
LOL.
deleted by creator
Don’t forget Cuban crisis where US was prepared to wage nuclear war of Russian nuclear missiles placed in Cuba. Actually we were 5 minutes to end of the world.
It must be said that the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis was precipitated by the US placing nuclear missiles in Türkiye. It was later resolved by the US withdrawing said missiles.
Of course it’s called the Cuban Missile Crisis because the US writes the
propagandahistory books.Yep, I didn’t want to go to deep :)
But Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014
And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine.
What an absurd statement. Is invading Ukraine some kind of slippery slope that requires constant effort or else we’ll just wildly slide wildly down it? No one forced Russia’s hand here but their madman despot.
Fuck off Jens
