How many times was this posted already? Note this is the official NATO source https://www.nato.int/docu/update/2008/04-april/e0403h.html

Quote from article:



What are you thinking, NATO can pull this off and Russia cannot possibly change it's stance because of a statement made in 2003? If only things worked like that in politics, lol

I don't see how it's a problem that Nato allows a country to eventually join it.
Ukraine is a sovereign country, Putin said it himself;

At a joint press conference in January 2003, Putin responded to a question about Ukraine. “Ukraine is an independent sovereign state, and it will choose its own path to peace and security”

==> what can't you understand in this statement ?

This post was edited by Meanwhile on Jan 18 2023 10:34am

Exactly right, you don't see it as a problem and NATO clearly doesn't see this as a problem.

The only problem is that Russia sees it as a problem. For them it's such a problem that a statement from 2003 clearly means nothing anymore and they invaded Ukraine.

About that last sentence, perhaps you could travel to the Kremlin and ask Putin what he doesn't understand about the 2003 statement cuz it's his statement, not mine.

gl

Its already a debunked argument.
They won't explain to you the tangible threat to Russians. They will only state that Ukrainian membership in NATO is a threat.
They won't acknowledge that joining NATO is a lengthy and uncertain process. They will have you believe it was about to imminently happen.
They won't acknowledge the irony of the country with the largest military on the continent and largest stockpile of nuclear weapons claiming to be "threatened" by the poorest country in Europe choosing its own self determination over a Russian sphere of influence.
They will expect you to believe that it is merely a coincidence that eastern Ukraine has an abundance of natural gas, valuable metals, agricultural land and transit gas pipelines from Russia.

Then they will tell you negotiations in good faith were attempted, all while tanks were massing on Ukraine's borders; Or somehow because NATO successfully negotiated with the USSR, that is a precedence for successful negotiations with an authoritarian dictator some 3 decades later.
They won't recall that before Russia invaded Crimea, there were NO NATO alliance troops in eastern European countries. They only point to NATO expansion being the cause for Russian aggression. When in reality it is Russian aggression which equates to NATO expansion.

Then they will tell you that by supporting Ukraine's self determination, you also support the continuation of a war that they seek to justify.
The mental gymnastics are dystopian.

Nobody denied that Russia has a right to security, but don't pretend that expanding its sphere of influence is the same as security.

The narrative across these snippets puts forward that Russia will invade Western Europe and / or that Ukraine first, who is next to be invaded, therefore the EU and NATO cannot lose this war. However across all 3 clips it ignores what we have previously stated, whereby Russia did not wake up one morning and have aspirations of new empire but rather they reacted to a perceived or real threat.

As a metaphor, this is not a case of a baby throwing its soother out of the pram and having a mikey fit, but rather its a case of someone taking the soother (for whatever reason) from the child and hence the child is now throwing a tantrum. Whether it was right to take the soother or not is irrelevant.

With brevity, thank you for posting these clips. To be fair he has very well verbalized the EU and Nato position in a very real and emotional outburst. As many of you know I really struggle with this narrative noting that Russian concerns (re: Ukraine, Nato Expansion) were never really entertained over the last decade +.

I accept people can have a different viewpoint however I dont agree that Russia will invade a Nato country as has been indirectly suggested here. If in the fullness of time I am proven wrong, so be it. I dont think this is pro Russian, but rather an objective view of the position. happy to be challenged, but remember this is old ground and we did the whole "how did this war start" for 100's of pages already (i always refer back to the video in post #74? so if challenging me on this watch that first thanks).



Who is this "they" ?

Enhanced / Diminished sphere of influence is a major consideration for superpowers on the global stage, whether it be Cuba, Soloman Islands, or Ukraine. Russia has ever stated that it considers Ukraine to be one of its key strategic pieces, or "red lines". The US has Cuba, China has Taiwan/Tibet, and Russia has Ukraine. Joining Nato is a lengthy process, however as I understand it, if Russia invaded Finland, a Nato member, England, would defend Finland, which lets be honest, would drag Nato into such a war. it IS ironic that the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons has delusions/issues of persecution. There are as i understand things alot of wealth/resources in Ukraine and this would be part of Russia's "key strategic position", in my opinion.

i think i covered everything, let me know if i did not answer anything.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 18 2023 11:28am

Tsar "princes" don't want to lose their mafiosos privileges and local influence to western/nato/freeworld standards. Unlike their citizens and citizens from neighboring countries. Story ends here.

those were the posts you made AFTER i repeatedly ignored your clumsy deflection attempts and pressed you on the issue. i directly quoted your FIRST reply, which was ONLY whataboutisms, proving you LIED when you claimed you acknowledged it from your first reply, pootin bootlicker.

If you want a technical point: Russian troop movements prove John Mearsheimer wrong. Putin’s shifting of Russian troops away from NATO’s borders and into Ukraine proves Russia hardly felt threatened.

Another teriible point that the guy is not a magic genius:

In a September 2015 conference, Mearsheimer's question of Putin's interest in conquering Ukraine. He declared verbatim on this subject: "If you really want to destroy Russia, you should encourage him to conquer Ukraine. Putin is far too smart to try to do so"


Checkmate.

Dishonest crap poster, lol

I stated NATO fucked up, 2008 Bucharest summit.

About you stating that civilians in Dnipro were targeted, I replied that even the Ukrainian mayor of Dnipro stated that he thought the missile was aimed at power stations nearby. Since you clearly disagree, go tell the guy that he's a Putin bootlicker.

Oh and just so you know, you and your limited vocabulary trash posts (bootlicker, fascists, hacks, repeat repeat repeat) do not impress anyone here. Everyone is looking right through you or completely ignores you, lol. You're a waste of forum space

This post was edited by Djunior on Jan 18 2023 11:51am

Mearsheimer never claimed that he has a crystal ball and knew everything. But he was right on most things.

But as always you try to dismiss everything that doesn't suit your preferred narrative.

/