prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America’s greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a “tragic mistake” that ought to ultimately provoke a “bad reaction from Russia” back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was “the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat […] since the Soviet Union collapsed”
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
It’s been invaded precisely because the US refused to publicly state that Ukraine would not joined NATO and wanted to maintain ambiguity on the matter while arming Ukraine. Nice of you to try and twist that around though. Gold star for mental gymnastics.
After three years in Ukraine, it’s obvious to anybody with a minimally functional brain that Russia is not going to be able to invade Europe. However, what Russia will absolutely do is exploit the political instability in Europe caused by massive austerity needed to massively ramp up defense. Why invade the idiots when it’s far cheaper to do political capture.
What is also obvious to anybody with a minimally functional brain is that Russia would invade if they thought they could. Therefore ramping up defence is a good idea to dissuade Russia from thinking it’s a good idea. Even with that deterrence, those not covered by this (Moldova, Georgia, as mentioned) are still vulnerable.
It is a reasonable point that there needs to be a balance, as throwing the entire economy into the military by pulling societal investment will fan anti-EU pro-Russian sentiment, so a balance needs to be struck. From the tone, I doubt you’re the right person to discuss the nuance though.
The opposite is obvious actually because Russia has a huge land area with a low population. Trading people for more territory would make absolutely no sense for Russia. Maybe time to check the functioning of that brain of yours, cause it’s clearly not firing on all cylinders.
Nope, US clearly said no to NATO for them already in 2009, much before the Russian invasions.
Dude, this stuff you’re telling is at least three yo. It’s been largely debunked.
All the ex Warsaw hate Russia even if they’ve slavic roots in common like Poland or Ukraine, just take a look on what that people state and do. This should tell you much about how much this people want to avoid Moscow’s influence.
Nato is a defensive org, so it’s absolutely not important for Russia if Ukraine joining that, unless Russia wants to conquer Ulraine, which is the only reason why they do not want thta to happen.
Putin wanted to invade Ukraine, and they did it. They don’t want to have democracy close to their border, caise you know…people don’t like to live in a dictatoriship.
We could also say that war over there actually started in 2014.
But as you also stated, a lot of people were surprised since there is not a neo-liberal side against a communist side anymore since there is no communism anymore in Russia (Do you agree with this? Apart from the single-party political structure which can be called with various names, the economy is maybe watched by the gov but still liberal).
The fact that Russia is no longer communist and NATO has continued to expand and surround Russia is a clear demonstration that this has never been an ideological conflict. And that illustrates that Russia does indeed have legitimate security concerns, because it’s clear that the goal of NATO expansion is to contain Russia.
Yeah that was supposed to be the big prize, and then they could plunder Russia and surround China from the west. Didn’t really work out though, and now all the western fash are seething.
This is what all the experts have been warning of literally since the 90s.
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America’s greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a “tragic mistake” that ought to ultimately provoke a “bad reaction from Russia” back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was “the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat […] since the Soviet Union collapsed”
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
All the ex Warsaw begged for a membership, it wasn’t the USA teasing them.
And in fact US denied Ukraine a NATO membership, and funnily it’s been invaded.
It’s been invaded precisely because the US refused to publicly state that Ukraine would not joined NATO and wanted to maintain ambiguity on the matter while arming Ukraine. Nice of you to try and twist that around though. Gold star for mental gymnastics.
I wonder what the mental gymnastics will be if/when Russia invades non-NATO countries like Moldova and Georgia.
Come back to me when any of your deranged fantasies actually come true and then we’ll talk.
Yes, total fantasy. They would never do such a thing.
After three years in Ukraine, it’s obvious to anybody with a minimally functional brain that Russia is not going to be able to invade Europe. However, what Russia will absolutely do is exploit the political instability in Europe caused by massive austerity needed to massively ramp up defense. Why invade the idiots when it’s far cheaper to do political capture.
What is also obvious to anybody with a minimally functional brain is that Russia would invade if they thought they could. Therefore ramping up defence is a good idea to dissuade Russia from thinking it’s a good idea. Even with that deterrence, those not covered by this (Moldova, Georgia, as mentioned) are still vulnerable.
It is a reasonable point that there needs to be a balance, as throwing the entire economy into the military by pulling societal investment will fan anti-EU pro-Russian sentiment, so a balance needs to be struck. From the tone, I doubt you’re the right person to discuss the nuance though.
The opposite is obvious actually because Russia has a huge land area with a low population. Trading people for more territory would make absolutely no sense for Russia. Maybe time to check the functioning of that brain of yours, cause it’s clearly not firing on all cylinders.
Nope, US clearly said no to NATO for them already in 2009, much before the Russian invasions.
Dude, this stuff you’re telling is at least three yo. It’s been largely debunked.
All the ex Warsaw hate Russia even if they’ve slavic roots in common like Poland or Ukraine, just take a look on what that people state and do. This should tell you much about how much this people want to avoid Moscow’s influence.
No, the US never took NATO off the table. At least try to lie about something that’s not demonstrably false.
Nato is a defensive org, so it’s absolutely not important for Russia if Ukraine joining that, unless Russia wants to conquer Ulraine, which is the only reason why they do not want thta to happen.
Putin wanted to invade Ukraine, and they did it. They don’t want to have democracy close to their border, caise you know…people don’t like to live in a dictatoriship.
We could also say that war over there actually started in 2014. But as you also stated, a lot of people were surprised since there is not a neo-liberal side against a communist side anymore since there is no communism anymore in Russia (Do you agree with this? Apart from the single-party political structure which can be called with various names, the economy is maybe watched by the gov but still liberal).
The fact that Russia is no longer communist and NATO has continued to expand and surround Russia is a clear demonstration that this has never been an ideological conflict. And that illustrates that Russia does indeed have legitimate security concerns, because it’s clear that the goal of NATO expansion is to contain Russia.
Containing Russia is probably some thing due to the fact that Russia does not allow a political choice since decades
As opposed to Europe where elections get cancelled when the wrong candidate wins? 🤣
Not so much contain as to colonise, Russia has been contained all that time but they still expanded more.
Yeah that was supposed to be the big prize, and then they could plunder Russia and surround China from the west. Didn’t really work out though, and now all the western fash are seething.