From the guy’s own mouth.
There is nothing in this that reflects the title. It’s nothing more than passive propaganda. They are relying on people to just read the title and not open the link.
What is actually said is:
And let me just end by saying that this reflects the political reality that nations are sovereign. Nations decide themselves, and Ukraine has of course the right to decide its own path. And it’s up to Ukraine and NATO Allies to decide when Ukraine becomes a member. Russia cannot veto membership for any sovereign independent state in Europe.
And let me just end by saying that this reflects the political reality that nations are sovereign.
I mean that’s just factually untrue. Every nations sovereignty is restricted by geopolitical realities. No nation can just do whatever they desire, including joining certain alliances. Mexico will not be joining BRICS for instance, because of the geopolitical situation. And that’s not even a military alliance, which NATO is! Europeans are not special, they have to play by the same rules as everybody else. To claim otherwise is to ignore the reality on the ground right now, both in Ukraine and globally.
Also none of this factors in that joining NATO, by definition, involves giving up some part of your nations sovereignty. NATO in reality acts as an extended arm of the US military and it’s industrial complex, and in joining, countries are subjected to this reality of Atlanticism.
Mexico will not join BRICs because they would then have to leave USMCA trade agreement. Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants. The US does not get to dictate anymore by military might. They have done in the past. To do so today would bring other trade deals into conflict. The EU would be very against this. This does not mean the US cannot use its financial might, which it clearly does and often.
Also none of this factors in that joining NATO, by definition, involves giving up some part of your nations sovereignty. NATO in reality acts as an extended arm of the US military and it’s industrial complex, and in joining, countries are subjected to this reality of Atlanticism.
Simply not true. Being part of NATO is not an aggressive pact. It is only enacted if another member is attacked. One or more members being aggressive does not mean the rest have to follow. The US and the UK attacked Iran as individual nations. The US has the biggest say in NATO because they spend more than anyone else by quite some distance. Something that is changing because of the Russian attempts to annex Ukraine into its own borders.
Being part of NATO is not an aggressive pact. It is only enacted if another member is attacked.
Yugoslavia and Libya would probably beg to differ.
UN led is not NATO led.
Actually he also said (in the link):
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.”
“If you don’t promise to stop making new friends, I’m going to kill another one.”
“If you invite your serial killer gun nut friend to build a tree stand on your property pointed at my house, we’re going to have problems”
Maybe. But it’s my fucking property, and I’ll do whatever the fuck I want on it.
Go ahead. Come onto my property and try to stop me.
Cool, now your brother is dead and you lost half your property. Your serial killer gun nut buddy doesn’t give a damn about you so he didn’t show up to fight himself, but now he holds the mortgage to your house because he lent you weapons to fight and lose.
Was it worth it?
Yes. Liberty and self sovereignty is worth defending, especially when the stated objective of the invader is genocide.
Average property rights enjoyer here
Eh. It’s the metaphor. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and the argument about what Ukraine does or doesn’t do on its own soil - or who it invites over to play - being somehow justification for invasion is hypocritical tripe. Russia’s been invading other sovereign states, and stockpiles weapons in its vassel states; it’s an “existential threat” to every one of its neighbors, except the strong ones like China.
The arguments Putin used for invasion about Ukraine abusing its citizens were better, except for being lies. They should have stuck with that one, except they had no evidence and nobody believed it. It still made a better story and was less hypocritical.
Also, behaving like a communist with your country when your neighbor is an imperialist dictatorship is only a recipe for becoming a member of an imperialist dictatorship.
Firstly, I’m not sure your understanding of the meaning or relevance of ‘hypocrisy’ is very clear.
Secondly, you’re introducing a moralistic discourse about this when the first issue is what caused or explained the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Despite the evidence overwhelmingly pointing to NATO expansion, the fact that you are denying it when even Stoltenberg and Blinken are basically at the point of admitting it, implicit as those admissions may be, is pretty comic.
If you think that the Ukrainian government was not only not abusing, but in fact not committing acts amounting to ethnically cleansing Russians in eastern Ukraine, you have been living under a rock and its disgusting that you can utter such bullshit with such nonchalance and impunity. Contrary to, say, accusation of genocide in Xinjiang, for which there is no hard concrete evidence (in fact evidence and reason point to the contrary), there are mountains of evidence in every form of media, whether video, documents, government announcements, proving that there was repressive military and political action being taken against the Russophone and ethinically Russian, or simply anti-nationalist Ukrainians of the East, by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist regime. There have been mass disappearances, lynchings, bombings, assassinations, and we could go on. Again, there is too much evidence for this in every form for any one person to peruse the entirety of, so either you are pig-shit ignorant, or you are lying. Trouble is you are doing it in the wrong place.
Your last sentence is barely comprehensible quite frankly. If you think that reocognizing that a state should not aggressively expand a demonstrably imperialist organisation and in the process break all related previous agreements and promises in doing so, in a way that every party involved is fully aware will be perceived as a threat to the national security of one of the concerned countries, if one wants to avoid hot conflict, given the self-evident realities of realpolitik, is communist or marxist, then go off I guess.
NATO is not a friend or friendly force, it is one of the great evils of our time, anyone arguing otherwise just wants to bomb third world countries.
Ask the citizens of Libya and Iraq how defensive and friendly NATO is.
The process of “joining NATO” is not anything equivalent to making friends, any country joining NATO essentially becomes a vassal for US interests. There’s a reason why Sweden and Finland held out for so long.
This is so hilariously weak who did you think you would convince with this quote blatantly showing your title to be a lie. Lmao.
It’s not a lie, he literally said it in his speech.
Lol the absolute delusion of tankies. You’d be funny if you weren’t advocating for imperialistic cultural genocide.
That’s literally what you’re advocating for.
Some Presidents should stick to declaring only things they have control over.
Some NATO officials should stick to avoiding nuclear holocaust over some theoretical pissing contest.
There is only one country that is constantly threatening a nuclear attack. That country is not in NATO.
There is only one country that is constantly threatening a nuclear attack. That country is not in NATO.
The only country in the world with an official “first strike” nuclear policy is the United States.
Not arguing there. But this was 80 years ago. You would think that making threats of this nature would be something that you would show restraint considering we have a history.
The U.S. is the only country on the planet that has a first-strike policy, i.e., that as a standing matter threatens to use nukes. This is not 80 years ago, this is right now.
You are mistaken. The US is in NATO. Unless you mean to tell me their 1000 military bases encircling Russia and China are somehow not a provocation?
Name them?
Like… name all of the US foreign military bases??https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
Due to the sensitive and often classified nature of this information, there is no comprehensive list with the exact number or location of all bases, stations and installations. The total number of foreign sites with installations and facilities that are either in active use and service, or that may be activated and operated by American military personnel and allies, is just over 1,000.
There is only one country that used nukes against a live target, ever, and they did it twice, to civilian population centers in the middle of active peace negotiations.
There is only one country with nuclear capabilities deployed in over 80 countries under its direct control. There is only one country that has unilaterally pulled out of every nuclear treaty in history. There is only one country that publishes news articles about and has leadership in press conferences talking about winning nuclear war and about developing mini nukes. There is only one country working to undermine the MAD doctrine. There is only one country that just sent a nuclear-armed submarine to one its vassal states as a show of willingness.
They dropped a bomb on a nation that was guilty of murdering up to 10m people. They were also not the initial aggressive beligerant. They do not have control with 80 nations, they have a non aggression pact. Yep, there are parts of the US media that is screwed up. That comes with free press. Does Russia have a free press? There is only one country that is looking to test out the mad doctrine, who also sent nuclear weapons to a vassal state: Russia.
As always, the good and conscientious liberal is never more than two steps away from trying to justify the nuclear anihilation of two cities full of noncombatants in a country that was already surrendering. Incredible.Next they will ignore this and continue to make things up about their state- designated “enemies” to make them sound worse. Sure, we may have lied about every war before this for profit but this time the Badguy Villainman really is Hitler 2.0, we swear! This time we really are on the right side of history, so shut up and support these Nazis!
God damn, I’ve lived in America all my life and I’m so sick of our bullshit, and I don’t even have to worry about stepping on any of the unexploded freedom we leave everywhere else. And if you live in the UK or something, no you don’t, it’s Damp America, it’s all America.
This post is dedicated to the brave Mujahadeen fighters of Afghanistan
ah yes because ww2 was a happy time for all and no other countries did anything compared to that. smart.
There is only one country that just sent a nuclear-armed submarine to one its vassal states as a show of willingness.
the russians literally lost so many nuclear subs in non native waters that the cia tried to grab one with a oversized arcade shop claw.
No other country in the history of humanity dropped nukes outside of tests. No other country nukes civilians. No other country nukes civilians in a country that was surrendering. There is no way around it.
I’m not talking about the existence of subs in non-native waters. I’m talking about surfacing a sub and announcing it’s presence in South Korea as a sabre rattle. Russia didn’t surface subs off the coast of Florida, it didn’t surface subs in a port in Mexico. Because Russia isn’t trying to get in a war with the USA. It’s the USA that keeps expanding its military presence every year, believing it has the mandate to establish a command center for each region of the planet, using slogans like “the border is everywhere” to organize it’s border patrol, and expanding the presence of its nuclear capabilities into 80+ countries.
No, there is no comparison.
What he’s saying is that Putin doesn’t get to dictate which alliances sovereign nations can join.
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.”
“Don’t allow others to join your defense pact or we’ll demonstrate why it’s necessary in the first place.”
Perfectly sane logic. Nothing strange.
Cuba had the same thing happen to them in the 60’s.
So you’re alright with the way the US treats Cuba then? The USA did make it very clear that they wouldn’t tolerate Warsaw Pact expansionism near their borders, and Cuba could have just surrendered after the Bay of Pigs invasion to avoid all the negative consequences that have resulted from Cuba’s decision to oppose the freedom loving USA.
Russia has made it very clear they don’t want NATO expansionism near its borders.
Oh good you already understand why it’s Bad Actually™ then
You mean that it’s bad that the USA threatened to nuke Russia when Russia was putting missiles in Cuba, or when Russia invaded Ukraine when USA said they would put missiles in Ukraine? Was it bad the USA threatened nuclear war because Cuba wanted to defend itself from a belligerent neighbour? Russia backed off, should the US back off from Ukraine? Or “this is different”.
Literally nowhere in these remarks does it say “expansion” or “expansionism”…
Ahh yes you have to think a bit critically.
Head of NATO ruzzian shill confirmed
