movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

Also, see meddling in Eastern Ukraine and the Wests open desire to "weaken Russia".

CC: Blungld

---

Great point. F the USA and NATO! Those corrupt a holes! I am all in rooting for Russia too cuz that's where my loyalties lie and that is the form of government (oligarchical authoritarian) that I celebrate.

Ascendancy. How?

What happened to your sides' claim that Russia was going to re-assemble the old USSR, conquer Poland, and threaten Europe?

blungld said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

The Russian apologists refuse to acknowledge this basic truth: neither Ukraine or NATO would have EVER attacked Russia. NEVER. The only "threat" Ukraine and NATO represent is a roadblock to expansion and external control of the region.

Russia feeling threatened by Ukraine as justification for invasion is invented and only makes sense through the geopolitical lens of Russia believing that everything in the region is already theirs. It's analogous to conservatives in this country who see granting equivalent rights to others as losing something themselves rather than making it equal for everyone. Russia didn't believe that Ukraine was autonomous nation that was free to prosper on its own emergent democratic terms. And this is largely because Russia it seems is not able to thrive itself through entirely domestic means and seeks to control and exploit its neighbors for resources and ideological/political coercion.

It's no wonder that the farthest right members of BI have no issue in Russia's expansionism and their need to control others.

---

Russia and Ukraine have, for starts, a territorial dispute over Crimea. Ukraine was set to retake it with NATO's military assistance.

Ukraine isn't prospering, its GDP per capita was 1/3 that of Russia before the war. It was widely recognized as the most corrupt nation in Europe, and the poorest. It has been run by oligarchs, whereas in Russia their political power had been curtailed.

Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Sachs aren't exactly "farthest right", the issue here is not right or left, but understanding of the basic geopolitical dynamics and history, vs a more simplistic interpretation - see my post above on Burns' "Nyet means nyet" memo, showing that the recent more aggressive stance by NATO has been a deliberate recent policy that departed from Obama's more moderate and pragmatic approach.

---

I see. When Russia takes Crimea it becomes an up for grabs territorial dispute rather than invaded land.

My point is that Ukraine was autonomous to succeed or fail in their emergent capitalist democratic attempts not that they were a model triumph. But they were succeeding and in the ascendancy. The corruption you point to was almost entirely of Russia's making so rather negligent that you would conveniently forget this.

Ukraine would not have invaded Russia. Ukraine would have continued to gain more prosperity, become more capitalist, and more democratic and THAT and nothing else was the threat to Russia: neighboring country, former Soviet territory, thriving independently of Putin's puppet strings. Assigning blame to Ukraine or ignoring this real root cause for war is mental gymnastics and Russian apology.

---

Crimea has been Russian since the 18th century, and a Russian province with a heavy Russian majority whose population has been overwhelmingly in favor of joining Russia, as confirmed by the referendum and several independent western-led polls. Their population is strongly opposed to the forced ukrainization policy from the post-Maidan Kiev regime. Crimeans regard the Kiev government as a hostile entity, the authority that cut off their water supply for 7 years, devastating their agriculture, out of pure spite.

Ukraine was not succeeding economically, and was not on the ascendance, if anything the Zelensky government has proven to be even more corrupt than its predecessors. Russia has nothing to do with this, the Ukrainian oligarchs, people like Kolomoisky, are homegrown. Your assessment here is a reflection of your Slava Ukrainii cultural biases and not based on reality.

Ukraine stated its intentio to reconquer Crimea by force, they also expressed their desire to acquire or produce nuclear weapons.

blungld said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

Also, see meddling in Eastern Ukraine and the Wests open desire to "weaken Russia".

CC: Blungld

---

Great point. F the USA and NATO! Those corrupt a holes! I am all in rooting for Russia too cuz that's where my loyalties lie and that is the form of government (oligarchical authoritarian) that I celebrate.

---

My own loyalties to my government end when that government is actively promoting an unnecessary and avoidable violent war for cynical geostrategic objectives.

Your loyalties are blind and shallow, and ultimately counterproductive, very destructive towards the people you claim to be rooting for. There are no winners across the board in actively creating the conditions that made this war unavoidable (once again see Burns and Obama's red lines in the previous page).

This is a pretty good breakdown of the firehose of falsehoods by an Austrian disinformation expert.

7. Spread not just one but many lies to create as much confusion as possible

8. Motivate others to spread your lies

9. Ridiculous propaganda helps make your more subtle lies appear more legitimate

10. If it gets tough to deny, use whataboutism

— Dietmar Pichler (@DietmarPichler1) July 19, 2023

14. When your fabricated content triggers emotions, people will spread it even more

15. Make your audience feel special, in the sense that they are well-informed, while others are just "decadent Western sheep"

— Dietmar Pichler (@DietmarPichler1) July 19, 2023

Here's an example of him correcting disinformation from the start of the war:

If you host a panel discussion, correct your guests, if they use these false narratives, made up by the Kremlin.
Ukraine has never waged war against its own people.
Russian speaking Ukrainians ≠ "Separatists", they also love their country🇺🇦.

— Dietmar Pichler (@DietmarPichler1) March 10, 2022

So ... it was a game of patty cakes that killed thousands in eastern Ukraine?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

This is a pretty good breakdown of the firehose of falsehoods by an Austrian disinformation expert.

---

This guy is literally a flag-waving activist, his NGO is likely funded by NATO. He doesn't even bother to put up a semblance of neutrality:

movielover said:

---

So ... it was a game of patty cakes that killed thousands in eastern Ukraine?

---

This never happened, no civil war in the Donbass, no sir, and these are all Russian operatives:

Flashback: May 9, 2014, the invasion of Mariupol

On Victory Day, the citizens of Mariupol rose up against the US-backed Azov Nazis, sent by the Kiev regime to spread terror and crush any dissent against the CIA-backed coup in Kiev.
The Ukrainian Nazis used not only small arms,… pic.twitter.com/tisHs50K0c

— Gabe (@GabeZZOZZ) July 2, 2023

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

movielover said:

---

Ascendancy. How?

What happened to your sides' claim that Russia was going to re-assemble the old USSR, conquer Poland, and threaten Europe?

---

Are you a total child? Sides? Yes, Russia/Putin has his sights on re-assembling the USSR. AND ALSO yes, Ukraine is an independent nation had been becoming more capitalist and democratic and on a path to greater and greater economic prosperity but for Russian interference. Have you been to Ukraine? Have relatives there and in Poland? I have been just a few years ago before COVID and have large extended family in Ukraine and Poland. Your comments on the situation are consistently wrong and morally bankrupt.

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

Also, see meddling in Eastern Ukraine and the Wests open desire to "weaken Russia".

CC: Blungld

---

Great point. F the USA and NATO! Those corrupt a holes! I am all in rooting for Russia too cuz that's where my loyalties lie and that is the form of government (oligarchical authoritarian) that I celebrate.

---

My own loyalties to my government end when that government is actively promoting an unnecessary and avoidable violent war for cynical geostrategic objectives.

Your loyalties are blind and shallow, and ultimately counterproductive, very destructive towards the people you claim to be rooting for. There are no winners across the board in actively creating the conditions that made this war unavoidable (once again see Burns and Obama's red lines in the previous page).

---

You are super confident for a guy who has been radically wrong many times over. My loyalties to family and justice and democracy are not shallow or blind and I think that is pretty cheap and ahole insult to toss at me. And I would be willing to bet that I am far more of a pacifist and anti-war than you are.

blungld said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

blungld said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

Also, see meddling in Eastern Ukraine and the Wests open desire to "weaken Russia".

CC: Blungld

---

Great point. F the USA and NATO! Those corrupt a holes! I am all in rooting for Russia too cuz that's where my loyalties lie and that is the form of government (oligarchical authoritarian) that I celebrate.

---

My own loyalties to my government end when that government is actively promoting an unnecessary and avoidable violent war for cynical geostrategic objectives.

Your loyalties are blind and shallow, and ultimately counterproductive, very destructive towards the people you claim to be rooting for. There are no winners across the board in actively creating the conditions that made this war unavoidable (once again see Burns and Obama's red lines in the previous page).

---

You are super confident for a guy who has been radically wrong many times over. My loyalties to family and justice and democracy are not shallow or blind and I think that is pretty cheap and ahole insult to toss at me. And I would be willing to bet that I am far more of a pacifist and anti-war than you are.

---

Having an unpopular opinion doesn't make me "radically wrong many times over". In fact I was right about my main points on this thread, pertaining to the grounds for this war, its main elements and current outcome, as predicted by Mearsheimer.

The lack of emotional maturity on display here is a key aspect of the whole Ukraine war storyboarding, and its contradictions - you're an anti-war pacifist who is supporting this war to the last Ukrainian.

Hey, Cal88, I have an honest question as I wonder what makes certain people tick here:

where were you born and where did you grow up?

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

But yeah, that's the spirit...

"So our diplomats were lying (when offering #Ukraine #NATO membership in 2021?"
Former U.S. Ambassador to #Russia @McFaul: Yes!

(Cr: Wyatt Reed) pic.twitter.com/pjgb6R5ctk

— T-House (@thouse_opinions) May 22, 2022

Haloski said:

---

Hey, Cal88, I have an honest question as I wonder what makes certain people tick here:

where were you born and where did you grow up?

---

I got a lot of this kind of pushback two decades ago after the president of my country of origin, Jacques Chirac, told off Dubya in the buildup to the Invasion of Iraq.



Turned out all this evidence was bunk, and the weasels were right. The same pattern is repeating today in the buildup around another big war.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Yes, NATO justifies it's expansion because they never contractually agreed not to respond.

Despite such documented occurrences, such as Baker promising Shevardnadze "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward". On the same day in Moscow, and famously telling the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move "one inch to the east".

On the following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people," Kohl said.

However, In NATO's words, "Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement".

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Being a man of his word is of little value for you and for much of the political class as well, I guess Gorbachev was a bit naive there, taking Baker at his word.

In reality though Russia was far too weak to assert its influence in eastern Europe in the 90s and 00s, so any promise, written or repeatedly made verbally, would have been ignored by the neocons who took over, much like Trump unilaterally broke the Iran nuclear treaty.

Russia was also deliberately weakened through the economic collapse of the 90s, which was largely engineered by US economists and bankers. This is well documented by Jeffrey Sachs, who was one of the main economic advisers to Yeltsin.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Yes, NATO justifies it's expansion because they never contractually agreed not to respond.

Despite such documented occurrences, such as Baker promising Shevardnadze "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward". On the same day in Moscow, and famously telling the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move "one inch to the east".

On the following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people," Kohl said.

However, In NATO's words, "Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement".

---

Indeed, and absolutely none of this justifies a military invasion by Russia nor does it make it "inevitable."

An alleged pacifist who won't agree to unconditional peace talks. That's a new one.

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Well, the European leaders signed the Minsk Accords and that didn't mean a*** either.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Yes, NATO justifies it's expansion because they never contractually agreed not to respond.

Despite such documented occurrences, such as Baker promising Shevardnadze "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward". On the same day in Moscow, and famously telling the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move "one inch to the east".

On the following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people," Kohl said.

However, In NATO's words, "Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement".

---

Indeed, and absolutely none of this justifies a military invasion by Russia nor does it make it "inevitable."

---

Lather, rinse, repeat...

We present facts and history, and the response is "Russia was the aggressor" and troll accounts.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Yes, NATO justifies it's expansion because they never contractually agreed not to respond.

Despite such documented occurrences, such as Baker promising Shevardnadze "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward". On the same day in Moscow, and famously telling the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move "one inch to the east".

On the following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people," Kohl said.

However, In NATO's words, "Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement".

---

Indeed, and absolutely none of this justifies a military invasion by Russia nor does it make it "inevitable."

---

Lather, rinse, repeat...

---

When did NATO admit Ukraine, again?

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Yes, NATO justifies it's expansion because they never contractually agreed not to respond.

Despite such documented occurrences, such as Baker promising Shevardnadze "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward". On the same day in Moscow, and famously telling the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move "one inch to the east".

On the following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people," Kohl said.

However, In NATO's words, "Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement".

---

Indeed, and absolutely none of this justifies a military invasion by Russia nor does it make it "inevitable."

---

Lather, rinse, repeat...

---

When did NATO admit Ukraine, again?

---

No, but they armed them. Details below.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-arms-sales-ukraine-spark-starts-war-russia

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Lather, rinse, repeat...

---

When did NATO admit Ukraine, again?

---

Ukraine is, by design, NATO's proxy army. What NATO country would tolerate even 1,000 of its own dying in a war... They struck gold with Ukraine, which already has half a million casualties, and is still going.

The plan is to get Ukraine into NATO after a war that would be stretched out as long as possible in order to inflict as much damage as possible on Russia, regardless of the toll on Ukraine. The main reason Ukraine wasn't given official NATO membership is because of Article 5, but Ukraine has been a de facto NATO country since 2014.

---

If Ukraine was a NATO country Russia would not have invaded it because they know what the consequences of that would be.

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Lather, rinse, repeat...

---

When did NATO admit Ukraine, again?

---

Ukraine is, by design, NATO's proxy army. What NATO country would tolerate even 1,000 of its own dying in a war... They struck gold with Ukraine, which already has half a million casualties, and is still going.

The plan is to get Ukraine into NATO after a war that would be stretched out as long as possible in order to inflict as much damage as possible on Russia, regardless of the toll on Ukraine. The main reason Ukraine wasn't given official NATO membership is because of Article 5, but Ukraine has been a de facto NATO country since 2014.

---

I'm pretty sure if any NATO country was invaded as Ukraine was the population would absolutely tolerate dying in a war to defend themselves. Of course, that wouldn't have to happen because they're in NATO.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Yes, NATO justifies it's expansion because they never contractually agreed not to respond.

Despite such documented occurrences, such as Baker promising Shevardnadze "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward". On the same day in Moscow, and famously telling the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move "one inch to the east".

On the following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people," Kohl said.

However, In NATO's words, "Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement".

---

Indeed, and absolutely none of this justifies a military invasion by Russia nor does it make it "inevitable."

---

Lather, rinse, repeat...

---

When did NATO admit Ukraine, again?

---

No, but they armed them. Details below.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-arms-sales-ukraine-spark-starts-war-russia

---

And the goalposts keep moving!

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

No, but they armed them. Details below.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-arms-sales-ukraine-spark-starts-war-russia

---

And the goalposts keep moving!

---

The goalposts moved from this

Quote:

---

sycasey said:

Indeed, and absolutely none of this justifies a military invasion by Russia nor does it make it "inevitable."

---

to hair-splitting debates about the nature of NATO involvement in Ukraine.

---

Looks like my point stands firm there, comrade. Nothing NATO did justifies Russia starting a war.

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Yes, NATO justifies it's expansion because they never contractually agreed not to respond.

Despite such documented occurrences, such as Baker promising Shevardnadze "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward". On the same day in Moscow, and famously telling the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move "one inch to the east".

On the following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people," Kohl said.

However, In NATO's words, "Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement".

---

Indeed, and absolutely none of this justifies a military invasion by Russia nor does it make it "inevitable."

---

Lather, rinse, repeat...

---

When did NATO admit Ukraine, again?

---

No, but they armed them. Details below.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-arms-sales-ukraine-spark-starts-war-russia

---

And the goalposts keep moving!

---

"Making Ukraine a NATO Member in All but Name" is not moving the goal post.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/making-ukraine-nato-member-all-name

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

P.S. When the USSR collapsed, President Bush promised that NATO wouldn't move Eastward. We see how that turned out.

---

President Bush did? Cite your source.

---

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

---

Looks like it was Baker, not Bush, who spoke about the idea. And of course, it was never put in writing (like in a treaty or something).

---

Secretary of State James Baker, official representative of his President and country.

---

Yes, and I think all diplomats and official representatives know that whatever might have been said during the course of a negotiation, it doesn't mean s*** until someone signs something. The Russians knew it too. They are not innocent lambs.

---

Yes, NATO justifies it's expansion because they never contractually agreed not to respond.

Despite such documented occurrences, such as Baker promising Shevardnadze "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward". On the same day in Moscow, and famously telling the Soviet General Secretary that the alliance would not move "one inch to the east".

On the following day, February 10, 1990, Helmut Kohl, the future chancellor of a united Germany, repeated the same thought to Gorbachev, even as they disagreed on other issues. "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people," Kohl said.

However, In NATO's words, "Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement".

---

Indeed, and absolutely none of this justifies a military invasion by Russia nor does it make it "inevitable."

---

Lather, rinse, repeat...

---

When did NATO admit Ukraine, again?

---

No, but they armed them. Details below.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-arms-sales-ukraine-spark-starts-war-russia

---

And the goalposts keep moving!

---

"Making Ukraine a NATO Member in All but Name" is not moving the goal post.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/making-ukraine-nato-member-all-name

---

This opinion piece does not convince me that Russia's war is justified.

It's an analysis, not an "opinion piece", and it's pretty much the same analysis as those of Mearsheimer, Chomsky and Jeffrey Sachs, and also the same as those of Obama and William Burns, who've also predicted that NATO moving into Ukraine would precipitate a violent civil war in that country and a likely military intervention by Russia.

Interestingly enough, Burns also stated that Russia would take that step of military intervention reluctantly. That's the difference between a serious analysis of the situatio,n and lower-level emotional storyboarding directed at the general public. Burns doesn't even mention Putin by name, but frames his analysis in terms of Russian national security interests: