Foreign Ministry responds to rumors of Kyiv's plans to build nuclear bomb

[Gunny]

Zelensky later walked back the comments, saying that Kyiv is not pursuing nuclear weapons and the remarks were made to emphasize the failures of the Budapest Memorandum (https://kyivindependent.com/ukraines-nuclear-disarmament/).

Under the 1994 agreement, Ukraine willingly surrendered its nuclear arsenal in exchange for receiving security guarantees from the U.S., the U.K., and Russia.

Foreign Ministry responds to rumors of Kyiv's plans to build nuclear bomb (https://kyivindependent.com/ukraines-foreign-ministry-responds-to-rumors-of-kyivs-potential-to-build-nuclear-bomb/)

So much for promises:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

Foreign Ministry responds to rumors of Kyiv's plans to build nuclear bomb (https://kyivindependent.com/ukraines-foreign-ministry-responds-to-rumors-of-kyivs-potential-to-build-nuclear-bomb/)

So much for promises:rolleyes:
Promises Like not Expanding NATO closer to Russia?

[fj1200]

Promises Like not Expanding NATO closer to Russia?

Do you really think NATO expansion explains Russian aggression?

[revelarts]

Do you really think NATO expansion explains Russian aggression?
Do you really think it has nothing to do with it?

[Black Diamond]

Do you really think it has nothing to do with it?

:laugh:

[fj1200]

Do you really think it has nothing to do with it?

Yes. Except for being a convenient excuse. When was the last time that NATO expanded by invasion?

[revelarts]

Yes. Except for being a convenient excuse. When was the last time that NATO expanded by invasion?

The promise wasn't to not expand by invasion, it was to not expand any closer to Russia's boarders period.
And that was like 20 yrs and half a dozen countries ago.
By any honest standard if Russia needed excuses to invade it seems there are real ones available. Even if some people prefer not to even consider them.
How many times was Russia suppose to ignore NATO moving the goalpost?

Is Invasion wrong? Yes. Is it a completing shocking unprovoked aggressive mystery? no.
Tease a bear what happens?

[fj1200]

The promise wasn't to not expand by invasion, it was to not expand any closer to Russia's boarders period.
And that was like 20 yrs and half a dozen countries ago.
By any honest standard if Russia needed excuses to invade it seems there are real ones available. Even if some people prefer not to even consider them.
How many times was Russia suppose to ignore NATO moving the goalpost?

Is Invasion wrong? Yes. Is it a completing shocking unprovoked aggressive mystery? no.
Tease a bear what happens?

Where did we make this agreement?

[Kathianne]

Where did we make this agreement?

Indeed. No need either for 'guessing' as NATO puts it forthrightly:



https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm


Last updated: 24 Oct. 2024 11:07Setting the record straight
De-bunking Russian disinformation on NATO
Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine has shattered peace and stability in Europe and gravely undermined global security. NATO's Strategic Concept – adopted in 2022 – states that Russia is the most significant and direct threat to Allies' security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. Russia wants to establish spheres of influence and control other countries through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation. It uses conventional, cyber and hybrid means – including disinformation – against NATO Allies and partners.


NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. The Alliance will continue to respond to Russian threats and actions in a united and responsible way. We are strengthening our deterrence and defence, supporting our partners, and enhancing our resilience. This includes calling out Russia's actions and countering disinformation.




Myth:
NATO is at war with Russia in Ukraine
FACT
NATO is not at war with Russia and is not party to the war Russia is waging on Ukraine. NATO supports Ukraine in its right to self-defence, as enshrined in the UN Charter. We do not seek confrontation with Russia. In response to Russia's aggressive actions, we continue to strengthen our deterrence and defence to make sure there is no room for misunderstanding that NATO is ready to protect and defend every Ally.


NATO is a defensive Alliance. Our core task is to keep our nations safe. At the Washington Summit, Allies reaffirmed their iron-clad commitment to defend Allied territory at all times. We will continue to protect our one billion people, and safeguard freedom and democracy, in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.


Myth:
NATO promised Russia it would not enlarge after the Cold War
FACT
The myth that there was a promise by Western leaders not to allow new members to join has been circulating for many years, and is actively used in disinformation campaigns by the Kremlin since the start of the Russian war against Ukraine.


While records show that in the initial stages of discussions about German reunification, US Secretary of State James Baker and his West German counterpart, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, floated such an idea with each other and with Soviet leaders in 1990, but diplomatic negotiations quickly moved on and the idea was dropped.


NATO’s founding treaty – signed in 1949 by the 12 original members and by every country that has joined since – includes a clear provision that opens NATO’s door to “any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.” This has never changed. No treaty signed by NATO Allies and Russia ever included provisions that NATO cannot take on new members. Decisions on NATO membership are taken by consensus among all Allies.


Describing NATO’s open door policy as “expansion” is already part of the myth. NATO did not seek out new members or aim to “expand eastward.” NATO respects every nation’s right to choose its own path. NATO membership is a decision first for those countries that wish to join. It is then for NATO Allies to consider the application.


Myth:
NATO is aggressive
FACT
NATO is a defensive alliance. Allies work together to deter aggression and to ensure that NATO is prepared to defend all Allies in case of attack. NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia, or any other nation. NATO did not invade Georgia in 2008. Russia did. NATO did not invade Ukraine in 2014, and again in 2022. Russia did.


NATO made significant efforts over many years to establish a strategic partnership with Russia. We established the NATO-Russia Council in 2002 and worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning, including during periods of NATO enlargement.


It was Russia that gradually chipped away at peaceful cooperation, with its pattern of increasingly aggressive behaviour, from Grozny to Georgia and Aleppo to Ukraine.


NATO Allies engaged in persistent diplomatic efforts to convince Russia to change its course. NATO held the last meeting of the NATO-Russia Council in January 2022 to call on President Putin to step back from the brink. President Putin chose war.


Myth:
NATO tries to push Europe into a war with Russia
FACT
Russia started its war against Ukraine without being threatened by Ukraine or any other country in Europe. It illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and proceeded to seize territory in Donetsk and Luhansk. And in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War 2.


Russia has struck hospitals, schools, and shopping malls. Russia bombs civilian power and water infrastructure. Russia is killing Ukrainian civilians.


Ukraine has the right, and the responsibility, to protect its people. Self-defence is a fundamental right, which is enshrined in the UN Charter. And NATO has the right to support Ukraine as it seeks to uphold its right to self-defence and to prevail as a sovereign state in Europe. Self-defence and the support of self-defence is in line with international law.


By supporting Ukraine and working to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to deter and defend, NATO is helping to uphold the international rules-based order and the security of NATO’s one billion people.


Myth:
NATO's deployments are a threat to Russia
FACT
Before Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine in 2014, there was no permanent deployment of multinational NATO troops in the eastern part of the Alliance. As the security environment changed following Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and destabilisation of eastern Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia, while maintaining political and military dialogue, and deployed four multinational battlegroups to the Baltic States and Poland in 2016.


As a reaction to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO reinforced its deterrence and defence posture. We doubled the number of multinational battlegroups in the east of the Alliance from four to eight. We will continue to do what is needed to protect and defend all Allies.


Outside NATO territory, the Alliance has a KFOR peacekeeping mission in Kosovo based on a United Nations Security Council mandate, and a train and assist mission in Iraq contributing to the fight against terrorism at the request of the Iraqi government.


Russia's aggressive actions are undermining international security and stability. As well as its aggression against Ukraine, Russia has military bases and soldiers in Georgia and Moldova without the consent of the governments of these countries.


Myth:
NATO is encircling Russia
FACT
Russia is the world's largest country. It is almost twice the size of the US and China.


When Finland joined the Alliance in April 2023, NATO's land border with Russia more than doubled. Even after Finland's accession, only 11% of Russia's land border is shared with NATO countries.


No one has backed Russia into a corner. It is hard to encircle a country with eleven time zones.




Myth:
Ukraine will not join NATO
FACT
All 32 NATO Allies have agreed that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance. NATO supports the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements, including Ukraine. NATO's door remains open. Ukraine, as the country who wishes to join and NATO Allies decide on NATO membership. Russia does not have a veto.


At the 2024 Washington Summit, Allies reaffirmed their full support for Ukraine’s right to choose its own security arrangements and decide its own future, free from outside interference. Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance when conditions are met and Allies agree.


In Washington, Allies confirmed their support for Ukraine on its irreversible path to NATO membership. They agreed to establish NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) to coordinate the provision of military equipment and training for Ukraine by Allies and partners. They also announced a pledge of long-term security assistance for Ukraine, providing a minimum baseline funding of 40 billion Euro within the next year, and sustainable levels of security assistance in the future.


The Summit decisions and the NATO-Ukraine Council, combined with Allies’ ongoing work, form a bridge to Ukraine’s membership in NATO.


Myth:
NATO's operations prove that the Alliance is not defensive
FACT
NATO intervened in the former Yugoslavia to stop bloodshed and save lives. From 1992-1995, NATO conducted military operations in Bosnia, including enforcing a no-fly-zone and providing air support for UN peacekeepers. These activities were mandated by the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia is a member. NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions helped pave the way for the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia that had killed over 100,000 people. From 1996, NATO led multinational peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, which included troops from Russia.


NATO's operation in Kosovo in 1999 followed a year of intense international diplomatic efforts, which included Russia, to end the conflict. The UN Security Council repeatedly branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the growing number of refugees as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's mission helped to end large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians. KFOR, NATO's ongoing peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, has a UN Security Council mandate (UNSCR 1244) and is supported by both Belgrade and Pristina.


The NATO-led operation in Libya in 2011 was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs 1970 and 1973), neither of which was opposed by Russia. UNSCR 1973 authorised the international community "to take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". This is what NATO did, with the support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

[Gunny]

Promises Like not Expanding NATO closer to Russia?Has nothing to do with the agreement that Ukraine is not in violation of anyway. Not a NATO member.

[Kathianne]

Promises Like not Expanding NATO closer to Russia?

or no promises?

https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

[revelarts]

Indeed. No need either for 'guessing' as NATO puts it forthrightly:



https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm


Has nothing to do with the agreement that Ukraine is not in violation of anyway. Not a NATO member.


or no promises?

https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east

NATO says it aint so.
there you have.

Where did we make this agreement?

From the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we’ve been told (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/11/18/nato-expansion-and-the-origins-of-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/) that the issue of NATO expansion is irrelevant to the war, and that anyone bringing it up is, at best, unwittingly parroting Kremlin propaganda, at worst, apologizing for or justifying the war. So it was curious to see NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg earlier this month say explicitly that Russian president Vladimir Putin launched his criminal war as a reaction to the possibility of NATO expanding into Ukraine, and the alliance’s refusal to swear it off — not once or twice, but three separate times.“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,” Stoltenberg told (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm) a joint committee meeting of the European Parliament on September 7. “That was what he sent us. And [that] was a pre-condition for not invade [sic] Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.”“He went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite,” Stoltenberg reiterated, referring to the accession of Sweden and Finland into the alliance in response to Putin’s invasion. Their entry, he later insisted, “demonstrates that when President Putin invaded a European country to prevent more NATO, he’s getting the exact opposite.”It’s not clear if Stoltenberg was referring to the draft treaty Putin put forward in December 2021 and simply mixed up the seasons (the provisions of each are the same), or if he’s referring to an earlier, as-yet-unreported incident. In any case, what Stoltenberg claims here — that Putin viewed Ukraine’s NATO entry as so unacceptable he was willing to invade to stop it, and put forward a negotiating bid that might have prevented it, only for NATO to reject it — has been repeatedly (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/14/biden-official-admits-us-refused-to-address-ukraine-and-nato-before-russian-invasion/) made (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/26/misperception-security-dilemma-ir-theory-russia-ukraine/) by those trying to explain (https://www.statecraft.co.in/article/chomsky-says-us-eastward-expansion-to-blame-for-putin-s-monstrous-war-in-ukraine) the causes of the war and how it could be ended, only to be dismissed as propaganda.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/when-officials-say-quiet-part-russia-nato-out-loud/5833329
https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-keeps-saying-things-nato-doesnt-let-you-say/5833855
....
February 9, 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Mikhail Gorbachev that if the Soviet leader would cooperate with German unification, NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” This was just one of many assurances of Soviet security made by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991.
On December 12, 2017, the National Security Archive at George Washington University declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early) about these assurances. As the National Security Archive reported at this time: The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward , when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
…As we now know, the U.S. broke these assurances—a decision characterized by George Kennan, America’s chief architect of Soviet containment policy during he Cold War—as “A Fateful Error” in his Feb. 5, 1997 [I]New York Times editorial (https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html). At the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the assembly and stated his opposition to U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his opposition to Georgia and Ukraine’s NATO membership bids.I suspect that by stating his vehement opposition to Ukraine’s membership in NATO, Putin signaled to NATO leaders precisely how they could bait him into committing to a risky military adventure in Ukraine. Since I read George Kennan’s 1997 Times editorial, it’s been clear that the U.S. government has sought to maintain enmity with Russia in order to maintain NATO and to justify the DoD’s enormous ongoing expenditures on weapons systems. In other words, during the Cold War, NATO became a Sacred Cow that no one in Washington would dare slaughter.

....

UK Reform Party leader Nigel Farage summarized his view on the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict:“I stood up in the European parliament in 2014 and I said: ‘There will be a war in Ukraine.’ Why did I say that? It was obvious to me that the ever-eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union was giving this man [Putin] a reason … to say: ‘They’re coming for us again,’ and to go to war.”

[revelarts]

.....
Russia’s Apprehensions
Declassified documents (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994) demonstrate that President Boris Yeltsin expressed his opposition to NATO to the Clinton administration on several occasions (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard), and that senior U.S. diplomats relayed to Washington the pervasive antipathy toward the policy within Russia’s foreign policy and national security apparatus. For example, in 1993, as Secretary of State Warren Christopher was about to depart for a meeting with Yeltsin, the chargé d’affaires at the U.S. embassy, James Collins, sent a cable (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16378-document-06-your-october-21-23-visit-moscow) warning that NATO expansion was “neuralgic to the Russians,” who feared that they would “end up on the wrong side of a new division of Europe . . . if NATO adopts a policy which envisions expansion into Central and Eastern Europe without holding the door open to Russia.” That outcome, warned Collins, “would be universally interpreted in Moscow as directed at Russia and Russia alone—or ‘Neo-Containment’, as Foreign Minister [Andrei] Kozyrev recently suggested.”
Collins was right. Consider what Yeltsin told President Bill Clinton (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16391-document-19-summary-report-one-one-meeting) during their May 10, 1995, meeting in Moscow:
I want to get a clear understanding of your idea of NATO expansion because now I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed. How do you think it looks to us if one bloc continues to exist while the Warsaw Pact has been abolished? It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? [T]hey ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this? We need a new structure for Pan-European security, not old ones! Perhaps the solution is to postpone NATO expansion until the year 2000 so that later we can come up with some new ideas. Let’s have no blocs, only one European space that provides for its own security.
Putin’s animosity toward NATO’s enlargement represented continuity, not a personal quirk, and was well understood in Washington. For example, in a February 2008 cable (https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html) written shortly before the fateful Bucharest summit and addressed to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (among others), the U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, now the head of the CIA, noted:
Foreign Minister [Sergei] Lavrov and other senior Russian officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains an ‘emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy concerns also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.
In his 2019 memoir, The Back Channel (https://books.google.com/books?id=UDFeDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA233&lpg=PA233&dq=Ukrainian+entry+into+NATO+is+the+brightest+of+a ll+redlines+for+the+Russian+elite+(not+just+Putin) .+In+more+than+two+and+a+half+years+of+conversatio ns+with+key+Russian+players,+from+knuckle-draggers+in+the+dark+recesses+of+the+Kremlin+to+Pu tin%E2%80%99s+sharpest+liberal+critics,+I+have+yet +to+find+anyone+who+views+Ukraine+in+NATO+as+anyth ing+other+than+a+direct+challenge+to+Russian+inter ests&source=bl&ots=Y7rQr6q6JZ&sig=ACfU3U36tIWfnC0UozeJQ3B-2Qk-A0tJlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiqxPratav2AhVQhOAKHWTiBC4Q6AF6BAgCEAM#v =onepage&q=Ukrainian%20entry%20into%20NATO%20is%20the%20bri ghtest%20of%20all%20redlines%20for%20the%20Russian %20elite%20(not%20just%20Putin).%20In%20more%20tha n%20two%20and%20a%20half%20years%20of%20conversati ons%20with%20key%20Russian%20players%2C%20from%20k nuckle-draggers%20in%20the%20dark%20recesses%20of%20the%2 0Kremlin%20to%20Putin%E2%80%99s%20sharpest%20liber al%20critics%2C%20I%20have%20yet%20to%20find%20any one%20who%20views%20Ukraine%20in%20NATO%20as%20any thing%20other%20than%20a%20direct%20challenge%20to %20Russian%20interests&f=false), Burns notes that he made the same point, although more vividly, in a memo to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, also written in February 2008. “Ukraine’s entry into NATO,” he wrote, “is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
It’s wrong, therefore, to reduce Russian aversion to NATO expansion to Putin’s paranoia and fear of democracy, or Russia’s historical baggage. No leader in Moscow liked the policy, and they minced no words about it. However, out of weakness and economic dependence on the West, and the United States in particular, they had to come to terms with it—including by signing the May 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act (https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm), and settling for sops such as the NATO-Russia Council (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50091.htm), formed in May 2002.
In the 1990s, Russia, led by an ailing and often inebriated Yeltsin, was near economic collapse and its armed forces were debilitated. After Putin became president in 2000, Russia gained the economic and military power to go beyond verbal objections to NATO. The catalyst was NATO’s decision related to Ukraine’s and Georgia’s membership at its Bucharest conclave. Thereafter, Russia turned from protests to pushback. The first sign of this change was the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, which occurred soon after the Bucharest meeting. Then, in 2014 (https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/conflict-ukraine), fearing that Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution would lead to alignment with NATO and the EU, Russia annexed Crimea and created two breakaway statelets in Ukraine’s Donbas region.
...
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/nato-and-the-road-not-taken/

MORE
Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could provoke Russia
Published: February 28, 2022
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999

https://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-chief-admits-nato-expansion-key-russian-invasion-ukraine/5833309
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/nato-and-the-road-not-taken/

[fj1200]

So... we didn't.

[Gunny]

So... we didn't.Excuses to take what they couldn't bully their way into anymore after the people voted their puppets out.

[revelarts]

I love the NATO point about how it's crazy that Russia should have any fears or talk about being encircled by NATO.
"Russia has eleven time zones!" It's huge. :laugh:

But somehow it's not crazy for the US to NOT want a CUBA. Even as a Russian ally. Much less Russian missile based there... for "defense".
And we still talk about the Monroe Doctrine.
And we don't feel "safe" with 2 oceans separating us from most of the rest of the world on most of our boarder.

[Black Diamond]

Where did we make this agreement?

Gorbachev didn't get it in writing.

[revelarts]

Gorbachev didn't get it in writing.
If we don't count the memos, telegraphs, probably email, & others correspondence since the 1991.
And verbal promises only mean anything in John Wayne movies about America.
But we're still always "the good guys"... and don't mean any harm.

[Black Diamond]

If we don't count the memos, telegraphs, probably email, & others correspondence since the 1991.
And verbal promises only mean anything in John Wayne movies about America.

a treaty or the like wasn't signed.

[revelarts]

a treaty or the like wasn't signed.
Doesn't look like it... but promises were made... assurances given.

[Black Diamond]

Yes. Except for being a convenient excuse. When was the last time that NATO expanded by invasion?

The way Russians think.. 1941.

[revelarts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf5xEBwBhds

[revelarts]

Gorbachev didn't get it in writing.

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
...Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6) ....
...
Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18)...
...
As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)...

...When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)....

...NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.


https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

[fj1200]

Gorbachev didn't get it in writing.

The Baker quote has been attributed to NATO troops in East Germany.

[fj1200]

I love the NATO point about how it's crazy that Russia should have any fears or talk about being encircled by NATO.
"Russia has eleven time zones!" It's huge. :laugh:

But somehow it's not crazy for the US to NOT want a CUBA. Even as a Russian ally. Much less Russian missile based there... for "defense".
And we still talk about the Monroe Doctrine.
And we don't feel "safe" with 2 oceans separating us from most of the rest of the world on most of our boarder.

I think it's ridiculous to equate Russian activities and US/NATO activities. Is Russia actively working to destabilize Africa?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/opinion/russian-mercenaries-africa-wagner.html

Is Russia actively working to destabilize South America?

https://gordoninstitute.fiu.edu/news-events/the-policy-spotlight/2024/russian-warships-venezuelan-elections-and-a-fabricated-crisis-with-guyana-in-the-caribbean.html

Is this really the same thing as NATO expansion in your eyes?

[SassyLady]

Why does NATO need to expand?

[Kathianne]

I think it's ridiculous to equate Russian activities and US/NATO activities. Is Russia actively working to destabilize Africa?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/opinion/russian-mercenaries-africa-wagner.html

Is Russia actively working to destabilize South America?

https://gordoninstitute.fiu.edu/news-events/the-policy-spotlight/2024/russian-warships-venezuelan-elections-and-a-fabricated-crisis-with-guyana-in-the-caribbean.html

Is this really the same thing as NATO expansion in your eyes?

Bottom line, they want the US to 'go it alone,' 'keep their $$$ at home,' 'isolationism,' IF all of the aforementioned don't work, capitulate. No war.

[Black Diamond]

I think it's ridiculous to equate Russian activities and US/NATO activities. Is Russia actively working to destabilize Africa?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/opinion/russian-mercenaries-africa-wagner.html

Is Russia actively working to destabilize South America?

https://gordoninstitute.fiu.edu/news-events/the-policy-spotlight/2024/russian-warships-venezuelan-elections-and-a-fabricated-crisis-with-guyana-in-the-caribbean.html

Is this really the same thing as NATO expansion in your eyes?

I didn't know he was equating those things.

[Black Diamond]

Bottom line, they want the US to 'go it alone,' 'keep their $$$ at home,' 'isolationism,' IF all of the aforementioned don't work, capitulate. No war.

False dilemma. A deal can be cut.

[fj1200]

Why does NATO need to expand?

Russian aggression perhaps?

[Kathianne]

Russian aggression perhaps?

C'mon fj, you know it's only the US that is aggressive. Well China too, but shhhh.

[Black Diamond]

Russian aggression perhaps?

Which Russian aggression are you referring to? The expansion began before the Ukraine war.

[Kathianne]

Which Russian aggression are you referring to? The expansion began before the Ukraine war.
and when NATO/Europe/US let it stand? What happened?

Never mind, isolationism and appeasement always work. If it should fail, capitulation avoids the horrors of war.

[fj1200]

I didn't know he was equating those things.

Maybe not directly but isn't that the heart of the matter? Russia being "encircled" by NATO requiring a response of aggression? Does NATO aggress to the extent that Russia does? Are they worried about being encircled in the Sahel? Are they worried about being encircled in Guyana?

[fj1200]

Which Russian aggression are you referring to? The expansion began before the Ukraine war.

North Macedonia and Montenegro since Georgia? Finland and Sweden since Ukraine? It's more likely that Russia is the source of that which it decries.

[Black Diamond]

and when NATO/Europe/US let it stand? What happened?

Never mind, isolationism and appeasement always work. If it should fail, capitulation avoids the horrors of war.

Sorry. Let what stand?

[Kathianne]

Sorry. Let what stand?

Previous Russian expansion-they've been doing so for years. Putin really wants a return to USSR, not going to happen, but he does more than dreams.

[fj1200]

Previous Russian expansion-they've been doing so for years. Putin really wants a return to USSR, not going to happen, but he does more than dreams.

He's at least fighting wars like the USSR. Fight a war, lose a generation of men, complain about birth rates.

[Kathianne]

https://www.cfr.org/event/russian-aggression-beyond-ukraine

It's not just meddling in Crimea and Ukraine.

[Black Diamond]

North Macedonia and Montenegro since Georgia? Finland and Sweden since Ukraine? It's more likely that Russia is the source of that which it decries.

Okay. The Baltic states joined in 2004. So i wasn't sure if you were going back to 1939 when Stalin took them.

[fj1200]

Okay. The Baltic states joined in 2004. So i wasn't sure if you were going back to 1939 when Stalin took them.

I suppose on one hand you pick your time frame because the entire reason for NATO being is at heart Russia.

[Kathianne]

North Macedonia and Montenegro since Georgia? Finland and Sweden since Ukraine? It's more likely that Russia is the source of that which it decries.
and Poland:

https://www.newsweek.com/andrey-sidorov-warns-poland-may-cease-exist-russia-ukraine-war-1960992

[revelarts]

I think it's ridiculous to equate Russian activities and US/NATO activities. Is Russia actively working to destabilize Africa?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/opinion/russian-mercenaries-africa-wagner.html

Is Russia actively working to destabilize South America?

https://gordoninstitute.fiu.edu/news-events/the-policy-spotlight/2024/russian-warships-venezuelan-elections-and-a-fabricated-crisis-with-guyana-in-the-caribbean.html

Is this really the same thing as NATO expansion in your eyes?

It's not MY eyes we have to be concerned about.
I'm not sure why we pretend we KNOW the Russians are LYING when they say they don't feel safe with NATO's (Benign:rolleyes:) expansions.

Frankly I don't understand why many in the U.S. don't feel safe unless we have even more bases all over the world and an even BIGGER military armed for bear right up to the very edges of the Russian boarders. But i don't think most regular folks are lying about their concerns.
I think some in the MIC/DeepState/NeoCons know better. I think some Higher-Ups in our military make & drink the kool-aid that we are in mortal danger from various foreign actors... no matter HOW big our military is.
And I think that many Russian Higher-Ups are probably the same.
I think Russians like Putin know the western MIC/DeepState/NeoCons/Globalist (& the CFR) wants to continue and be a UNI-power in the world.

The NeoCons (& globalist) have written public documents about that desire. And ways to accomplish it. I don't have to make up any thoughts or feelings about NATO being used for expansionist goals. Whether achieved by invasion, stealth or diplomacy. the neocons have put all of that on the table as options towards the goal. The goal has been to dominate Russia ... Europe ...the world. Brezinski, who was neocon adjacent, in his book 'the Grand Chess Board' calls for Russia to be broken up into 3 pieces. Why should Russia NOT be concerned?
Dominating most of Europe by hook or crook has been the goal of many western leaders as long as we've been alive. & Russia has always been a primary obstacle and Russians know this. "the Great Game" is what some have called it.

As BlackDiamond mentioned many Russians see 1941 as part of a long history of Western European aggression. Maybe even going back to Napoleon.
Just as some here sincerely see... "know"... just the opposite.

[revelarts]

https://www.cfr.org/event/russian-aggression-beyond-ukraine

It's not just meddling in Crimea and Ukraine.

Sorry they lost me right out of the gate when they say that the Nord stream pipelines were "sabotaged" by Russia.
sheesh
OUR president said that the pipeline would not continue.
"How is that ...mr president?"
'Trust me, It can be done "wink wink".'

The globalist CFR is not an unbiased source, but i'll return to it another day to see what accusations are being made. And check out how valid they seem.

[Kathianne]

Sorry they lost me right out of the gate when they say that the Nord stream pipelines were "sabotaged" by Russia.
sheesh
OUR president said that the pipeline would not continue.
"How is that ...mr president?"
'Trust me, It can be done "wink wink".'

The globalist CFR is not an unbiased source, but i'll return to it another day to see what accusations are being made. And check out how valid they seem.

Your choice, read what you choose. That's how it works.

[revelarts]

Your choice, read what you choose. That's how it works.
I will, eventually.
Do you think Russia destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline?

[Black Diamond]

I will, eventually.
Do you think Russia destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline?

Well i don't think Russia blew that pipeline up either. But is there anything else in the article?

[Kathianne]

I will, eventually.
Do you think Russia destroyed the Nord Stream Pipeline?

I've heard the Ukrainians were accused, was it proven? I can't find anything but German accusations.

[SassyLady]

Russian aggression perhaps?

Sounds circular to me.

[revelarts]

I've heard the Ukrainians were accused, was it proven? I can't find anything but German accusations.
yep , I heard that Ukraine was accused as well. the rebut to that idea is that they didn't have the ships, tech or expertise to do what was done.

The only real option is the U.S..
Means & motive.
Plus it's a promise fulfilled that now we dont want to take credit for.

the president of the U.S. said
"We will End it"

Add to that that it just wasn't Biden. Other officials and neo-cons have talked about getting rid of that pipeline for a longtime.
(for freedom!)

Dept of state spokesmen Ned Price said "Nord Stream 2 will not move forward"
Dept of State Under Secretary Vitoria Nuland said "One way or another Nord Stream2 will not move forward
Mike Pompeo said "the U.S. will do everything to stop the Nord Stream 2 project."
Tom Cotton Repuplican Congressmen "If the president wishes to take the reins of international leadership, this is his opportunity. Kill Nord Stream2 now, and let it rust beneath the waves of the Baltic."
MArcy Kaptur Congresswoman "put an end to it"
Adam Kinzinger Congressmen "end it once and for all"
Ted Cruz "Use all the tools available"
Marsha Blackburn Congresswoman "stop nord strem 2"
Former U.S. Ukrainian ambassador "taking out Nord Stream 2 to forever"
Jake Sullivan U.S. National security advisor "we have made it clear to the Russians that that pipeline is at risk if they move further into Ukraine"
John Bolton "The U.S. must takes immediate steps to deter Russia from invading Ukraine including ... terminating the Nord Stream 2 pipeline"

]President Biden
“When it come to Nord Stream 2, a pipeline that will bring natural gas to Germany , It will not happen”

But somehow some people want to gaslight the public that other parties did it. "probably Russia"
Sweden did an investigation & closed it. Without saying who/what they think caused it.
Russia asked the U.N. to investigate it but the U.S. lead Security council refused to do it. AP (https://apnews.com/article/politics-united-nations-germany-sweden-denmark-eaddc9fbc0b1a60c74f9d18dc5561626)

[Kathianne]

yep , I heard the Ukraine was accused as well. the rebut to that idea is that they didn't have the ships, tech or expertise to do what was done.

The only real option is the U.S..
Means & motive.
Plus it's a promise fulfilled that now we dont want to take credit for.

the president of the U.S. said
"We will End it"

Add to that that it just wasn't Biden. Other officials and neo-cons have talked about getting rid of that pipeline for a longtime.
(for freedom!)

Dept of state spokesmen Ned Price said "Nord Stream 2 will not move forward"
Dept of State Under Secretary Vitoria Nuland said "One way or another Nord Stream2 will not move forward
Mike Pompeo said "the U.S. will do everything to stop the Nord Stream 2 project."
Tom Cotton Repuplican Congressmen "If the president wishes to take the reins of international leadership, this is his opportunity. Kill Nord Stream2 now, and let it rust beneath the waves of the Baltic."
MArcy Kaptur Congresswoman "put an end to it"
Adam Kinzinger Congressmen "end it once and for all"
Ted Cruz "Use all the tools available"
Marsha Blackburn Congresswoman "stop nord strem 2"
Former U.S. Ukrainian ambassador "taking out Nord Stream 2 to forever"
Jake Sullivan U.S. National security advisor "we have made it clear to the Russians that that pipeline is at risk if they move further into Ukraine"
John Bolton "The U.S. must takes immediate steps to deter Russia from invading Ukraine including ... terminating the Nord Stream 2 pipeline"

]President Biden
“When it come to Nord Stream 2, a pipeline that will bring natural gas to Germany , It will not happen”

But somehow people want to believe other parties did it.
Sweden did an investigation & closed it. Without saying who/what they think caused it.
Russia asked the U.N. to investigate it but the U.S. lead Security council refused to do it. AP (https://apnews.com/article/politics-united-nations-germany-sweden-denmark-eaddc9fbc0b1a60c74f9d18dc5561626)

and they have proof of that?

[revelarts]

and they have proof of that?

Proof that the security council refused to investigate?
"THEY"? the Sweds? have Proof that U.S. did it? they are the only ones I know of to have conducted an investigation.
Reporter Seymor Hirsh says he was told by insiders that it was a U.S. covert team Link (https://theintercept.com/2023/03/25/nord-stream-russia-investigation-seymour-hersh/)

Proof of the quotes?
All the quotes are public record.

the evidence available, means & motive points to the U.S..

If a neighbor says over and over again "I'm going to kill your dog".
And the dog ends up dead of knife wounds, who's the prime suspect/ likely killer Kath?

[revelarts]

The Baker quote has been attributed to NATO troops in East Germany.
Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker -declassified
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between

Baker:"...And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction."

[fj1200]

It's not MY eyes we have to be concerned about.
I'm not sure why we pretend we KNOW the Russians are LYING when they say they don't feel safe with NATO's (Benign:rolleyes:) expansions.

I know that you'll pull out whatever quote you need to justify your position but the question remains...


When was the last time that NATO expanded by invasion?

Massed troops and materiel along borders? Took active steps to break Russia into 3 pieces?

BTW, how long has Brzynski been dead and/or out of a position of a position of influence?

[fj1200]

Sounds circular to me.

Of course. Do you think Finland and Sweden are in danger of invading Russia? Montenegro and North Macedonia are going to start making incursions? Anything is possible.


Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker -declassified
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between

Baker:"...And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction."

I'm aware.

[SassyLady]

Of course. Do you think Finland and Sweden are in danger of invading Russia? Montenegro and North Macedonia are going to start making incursions? Anything is possible.



I'm aware.

Maybe not making incursions but allowing the U S to set up military bases?

[fj1200]

Maybe not making incursions but allowing the U S to set up military bases?

But but but but but but............................

[SassyLady]

But but but but but but............................

Cat got your tongue?

[revelarts]

Of course. Do you think Finland and Sweden are in danger of invading Russia? Montenegro and North Macedonia are going to start making incursions? Anything is possible.
I'm aware.

I know that you'll pull out whatever quote you need to justify your position but the question remains...
[I]
When was the last time that NATO expanded by invasion?

Massed troops and materiel along borders? Took active steps to break Russia into 3 pieces?

Hey Again, I'm not the one that needs to be convinced FJ.
You have to explain to the Russians that the U.S. are "the good guys" and that the U.S. and NATO never have meant them any harm.
That all the missiles pointed in their direction from every one of those lovely NATO country are just for defense.
And all the talk of weakening Russia forever by taking Ukraine out of their orbit like Brzezinski and others "realist" and globalist and the CFR have advised is all old news & historic BSery.



BTW, how long has Brzynski been dead and/or out of a position of a position of influence?
But hey man, I'm glad you're asking questions, it's pushed me to do some diving.
But after my last answer i was going to leave the topic alone, but you asked another question and I said well OK let me check on Z. Brzesinski's influence real quick.
so I found some interesting things... much of what most people would expect... that Brzezinski's influence, like Kisingers, is felt very much to this day.

But then found myself at the edge of a rabbit hole.
Make of it what you will, But it is interesting.

I'll just mention 2 things.
1st is that it's a fact that NATO has wanted Ukraine in NATO for a LONG time... in order to weaken Russia.
Since Ukraine had been the USSRs warsaw pack greatest asset, trading partner, natural resource, bread basket, ethnic tie, etc etc..

Ok so anyway I found that in 2004 Brzezinski testifies in congress about the:
U.S. INITIATIVES AT NATO'S ISTANBUL SUMMIT
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JUNE 16, 2004
so among other things one of the Speakers (Robert A. Bradtke, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Bureau of European Affairs, U.S. Department of State) says at this hearing.
...At Istanbul, there will also be a NATO-Ukraine Council meeting between President Kuchma and the NATO Heads of State and government to discuss Ukraine's progress toward integration into the Alliance.
The United States supports each step that the Ukraine takes to move toward a full integration into the NATO's Alliance institution. For Ukraine's aspirations to be fulfilled, however, it is essential that they demonstrate the commitment to democratic reform and the rule of law....

"...NATO-Ukraine Relations
At Istanbul, there will be a NATO-Ukraine Council meeting between President Kuchma and the NATO Heads of State and Government to discuss Ukraine's progress toward integration into the Alliance. The U.S. is supportive of each step that Ukraine takes to assume NATO's shared values and to move toward full integration. We want to work with Ukraine as a NATO partner to achieve concrete goals. Ukrainian troops on the ground with coalition forces in Iraq and with NATO forces in Kosovo vividly show Kiev's commitment to trans-Atlantic security. For further progress toward NATO integration, the most important thing is fulfillment of Ukraine's commitment to democratic reform and the rule of law. Ukraine's presidential elections this fall will be a defining moment in its drive toward NATO membership. At the Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government plan to raise the need to hold free and fair elections with President Kuchma...."


So following him Brzesinki adds to that:
"...A NATO-Ukraine Summit at Istanbul offers our leaders an opportunity to chart a course for cooperation that improves Kiev's prospects for membership. Ukraine has made much progress in military reform, but its leaders know that membership cannot be achieved through defense reform alone. Political and economic reform are equally important requirements. They are, indeed, the foundations of effective enduring military reform and the key to successfully preparing for the fiscal and political burdens that come with NATO membership.
Eventually, if sufficient progress is made on political, economic, and military reforms, we would like to see the Alliance invite Ukraine to begin an intensified dialogue with NATO as a first step towards participation in the Membership Action Plan. A key indicator will be if Ukraine holds free and fair Presidential elections in November.

The decisions of Albania, Croatia, Macedonia and Ukraine to seek NATO membership are decisions that each NATO Ally, old and new, has interest in welcoming, reinforcing, and assisting."
https://web.archive.org/web/20040824084914/http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa94281.000/hfa94281_0.htm


So, Brzezinski still in the mix trying to get corrupt Ukraine into NATO back in 2004. 20 years ago.
But wait there's more.
This is not Ziggy Bezezinski, it's some guy name IAN Brzezinski.
so it doesn't count right?
um well, actually, IAN is Ziggy's son.
- i'd never heard of the guy until today- ( I feel like Trump here you know how he say it. "I didn't know that ..nobody knows that").
So anyway how does he rank as a NATO witness to congress about NATO in 2004.
Well at that time IAN Brzezinski served as "Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs DOD since November 2001. For 7 years before that, he served as a senior staff member in the Senate. He worked for Senator William Roth from 1995 to 2000, including Senator Roth's term as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and he was the chief staff member of the Secretary of the Senate Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly."

but wait that's not all, if you go his wiki page you get this.

IAN Brzezinski ...in 1986 graduated from Williams College. He was a Support Analyst/Information Assistant at the National Security Council in 1986–1987.
He served as a member of the Policy Planning Staff in the Department of Defense in 1991–1993, and was also a consultant to the Center for Naval Analysis in 1991–1992.
In 1993–1994, Brzezinski became a volunteer advisor to the government of Ukraine, where he assisted Ukraine's National Security Council, Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry and Parliament.
He returned to the United States in 1995, and became Legislative Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senator William Roth. In 2000, he became a Senior Professional Staff Member for the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.[2]

He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy in 2001–2005. (DOD)

After leaving the Defense Department, Brzezinski became a Principal at the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., providing policy and technical advice to U.S. combatant commands and foreign clients. He left Booz Allen Hamilton after five years, and now heads the Brzezinski Group, which provides similar services: " ... a strategic advisory firm serving U.S. and international commercial clients in the financial, energy, and defense sectors. The Brzezinski Group assists them navigate geopolitical developments, develop and execute market entry and opportunity capture strategies, and manage relationships with government entities."

He is also a member of the Strategic Advisors Group at the Atlantic Council; in 2010 he was named a Senior Fellow in the council's Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security.[3]...
Rabbit Hole or Rabbit Trail take it as you will,
Interesting to me a least.

....

But anyway bottom line/main point, yes the U.S. has been trying to weaken Russia for a long time INLINE with the plans outlined by Brzezinski who said that if we can get Ukraine away from Russia it will be weak & not be a major threat.

[fj1200]

Cat got your tongue?

Nope. I was just estimating each and every "but" you would come back with. It was probably an underestimation.

[fj1200]

Hey Again, I'm not the one that needs to be convinced FJ.

I'm not interested in your rabbit hole. You'll find what you want to find. I can't tell you how the Putin/Russians feel but I can say that rational thought doesn't seem to be the basis. We've had missiles pointed their way for decades along with a telling lack of invasion... to me anyway.

[revelarts]

I'm not interested in your rabbit hole. You'll find what you want to find. I can't tell you how the Putin/Russians feel but I can say that rational thought doesn't seem to be the basis. We've had missiles pointed their way for decades along with a telling lack of invasion... to me anyway.
Russia's had missile pointed at us and all of Europe for decades as well. without invasion. That means they are peaceful right?
They never spread one inch to reclaimed any warsaw pack nations as they watched NATO expanded by 3, 5, 7, 10, 13+ nations closer & closer. Almost like NATO are trying to gently swallow them up too. These New NATO countries now have less trade, communications & access with/to Russia. And 13+ NEW sets of U.S. E.U missile EVEN CLOSER than before pointed their way.
Why should they be worried? No one in history has ever invaded Russia before... right? & NATO will always be run by kind & friendly people.
The U.S. has only preemptively struck nations that are bad. or bombed, drone struck bad nations even without a declaration of war. Or used surrogates to attack other nations.... bad nations. And no one in the US ever thinks that Russia is bad, do they?
So it's completely irrational for Russia to have any concerns.

China has never in 1000+ years invaded Europe, or the U.S. or any of North or South America... ever. That's a telling lack of invasion for ya, right?
Why should we be afraid they will one day? it's COMPLETELY irrational isn't it?

I don't understand how some can't comprehend some Russian's POV.
Try walking in others moccasins for a minute.
They have a right to be just as paranoid as some people in the U.S. are. Thinking that someone is going to dominate or destroy them... if they don't DO something.

[fj1200]

Russia's had missile pointed at us and all of Europe for decades as well. without invasion. That means they are peaceful right?
They never spread one inch to reclaimed any warsaw pack nations as they watched NATO expanded by 3, 5, 7, 10, 13+ nations closer & closer. Almost like NATO are trying to gently swallow them up too. These New NATO countries now have less trade, communications & access with/to Russia. And 13+ NEW sets of U.S. E.U missile EVEN CLOSER than before pointed their way.
Why should they be worried? No one in history has ever invaded Russia before... right? & NATO will always be run by kind & friendly people.
The U.S. has only preemptively struck nations that are bad. or bombed, drone struck bad nations even without a declaration of war. Or used surrogates to attack other nations.... bad nations. And no one in the US ever thinks that Russia is bad, do they?
So it's completely irrational for Russia to have any concerns.

China has never in 1000+ years invaded Europe, or the U.S. or any of North or South America... ever. That's a telling lack of invasion for ya, right?
Why should we be afraid they will one day? it's COMPLETELY irrational isn't it?

I don't understand how some can't comprehend some Russian's POV.
Try walking in others moccasins for a minute.
They have a right to be just as paranoid as some people in the U.S. are. Thinking that someone is going to dominate or destroy them... if they don't DO something.

I really don't understand your America/NATO as Aggressor position. Anyway... Without invasion? Tell Georgia that. Tell Ukraine that. Mention that to those in the Sahel. Where else is the Wagner Group hanging out? I can understand their POV and I believe it to be irrational. Every 2nd world country that has turned away from Socialism/Communism has prospered. Putin seems to have a desire for to restore Russia to an old ideal and that is unfortunate but plenty of countries have chosen to seek the defensive alliance of NATO and they probably have a pretty good reason for that. Put yourself in their shoes.

I think I asked this before. Do you really think NATO expansion is the real reason or is it just an argument of convenience that you're more than willing to accept.