Attack in Ukraine

@no1marauder said
If that triggered the invasion, it should have been done in 2008 when NATO declared at the Bucharest Summit:

"23. NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. "

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

So you know better than Russia when it should have been done? Maybe they didn't want to resort to war unless they absolutely had to. NATO expansion has always been a thorn in Russia's side. They never liked it. Now they feel they have no choice. They don't want nukes next to their border. Ukraine is trying to get nukes again after getting rid of them.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/02/23/ukraine-you-promised-to-protect-us-if-we-gave-up-our-nukes-n450443

@sh76 said
Ukraine's (apparent) official Twitter account (it has the blue checkmark, meaning at least the people at Twitter think it's legit) responded:

"thanx, appreciate it"

This is truly a Gen Z war. Instead of top-secret international diplomacy, the combatants can't even be bothered to write out the whole words.

Also, today someone asked the country of Ukraine why they follow the state of New Jersey on Twitter and the response was:

"cauz they're cool"

@wildgrass said
Also, today someone asked the country of Ukraine why they follow the state of New Jersey on Twitter and the response was:

"cauz they're cool"

Maybe it's phony, but they have the blue checkmark.

https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts

@metal-brain said
What is your source of information?

NATO expanding into Baltic states was a broken promise to Russia that NATO would not expand.

Ukraine was promised security in 1994 in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. a path to NATO. Most of the Partnership for Peace signatories eventually became NATO members (or have no need to because their security is not at risk). Ukraine had a path to NATO backed by the US since at least 2008.

According to a U.S. diplomatic cable published by the WikiLeaks website, Philippe Errera, strategic affairs adviser to then-French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, told Joseph Wood, deputy assistant to the U.S. vice president for national security affairs, that offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP) would be a “serious decision” because of NATO’s Article 5, which treats attack on one member as an attack on all.

He added that “NATO may not be ready for Article 5 guarantees to Georgia either.”

Wood responded that France’s “hesitation regarding Article 5 commitments implies a de facto ‘sphere of influence,’ because Russia is the only possible menace to Ukraine or Georgia.”

https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/at-key-time-french-resist-nato-membership-for-ukra-91750.html

Except for during the Yanukovych administration, Ukraine has been trying for NATO membership for a long time.

https://www.unian.info/politics/10437570-ukraine-s-parliament-backs-changes-to-constitution-confirming-ukraine-s-path-toward-eu-nato.html

That Ukraine would be a NATO member by now but for Russian opposition and Western wariness in the face of this opposition is borderline obvious.

@sh76 said
Ukraine was promised security in 1994 in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. a path to NATO. Most of the Partnership for Peace signatories eventually became NATO members (or have no need to because their security is not at risk). Ukraine had a path to NATO backed by the US since at least 2008.

[quote]According to a U.S. diplomatic cable published by the WikiLeaks web ...[text shortened]... ut for Russian opposition and Western wariness in the face of this opposition is borderline obvious.

You act as if a new country that wishes to join Nato is a quick process. Countries who wish to join Nato must follow a membership action plan, but it can be a lengthy undertaking.
North Macedonia took 20 years to complete the plan before it joined Nato in 2020. A new country also has to be unanimously approved by Nato members.

@sh76 said
Ukraine was promised security in 1994 in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. a path to NATO. Most of the Partnership for Peace signatories eventually became NATO members (or have no need to because their security is not at risk). Ukraine had a path to NATO backed by the US since at least 2008.

[quote]According to a U.S. diplomatic cable published by the WikiLeaks web ...[text shortened]... ut for Russian opposition and Western wariness in the face of this opposition is borderline obvious.

Shouldn’t NATO have been disbanded after the fall of the USSR and the dispersion of the Warsaw pact?

@shavixmir said
Shouldn’t NATO have been disbanded after the fall of the USSR and the dispersion of the Warsaw pact?

Why?
Why would you abandon a 30 member mutual defence organisation in a chaotic random universe.
Do you think no one had the imagination to envisage a resurgent power hungry Russia emerging from the ashes of the Soviet Union.
The other very good reason for NATO to exist is that Britain France and Germany have not plunged Europe into another war, do you think that might have something to do with being in a mutual defence arrangement.

@kevcvs57 said
Why?
Why would you abandon a 30 member mutual defence organisation in a chaotic random universe.
Do you think no one had the imagination to envisage a resurgent power hungry Russia emerging from the ashes of the Soviet Union.
The other very good reason for NATO to exist is that Britain France and Germany have not plunged Europe into another war, do you think that might have something to do with being in a mutual defence arrangement.

I’m pretty sure the EU makes sure Europe doesn’t go to war with each other.

NATO is a US run machine.

@shavixmir said
Shouldn’t NATO have been disbanded after the fall of the USSR and the dispersion of the Warsaw pact?

Events of the last week indicate a strong "no."

@shavixmir said
I’m pretty sure the EU makes sure Europe doesn’t go to war with each other.

NATO is a US run machine.

NATO isn't there to prevent NATO countries from going to war with each other. It's there to protect them members from outside threats.

@metal-brain said
You act as if a new country that wishes to join Nato is a quick process. Countries who wish to join Nato must follow a membership action plan, but it can be a lengthy undertaking.
North Macedonia took 20 years to complete the plan before it joined Nato in 2020. A new country also has to be unanimously approved by Nato members.

If Poland, Hungary, Romania and the Baltics can make it into NATO, so can Ukraine, were it not for the Russian consideration.

@sh76 said
Events of the last week indicate a strong "no."

I'm also quite sure if there was no NATO, then Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.
No?

And what is NATO doing exactly? Except wanting partipating nations to spend heaps of money on weapons?
What did NATO do in Crimea?

Nothing. It's just a lobby for the arms industry. And a threat to anyone who disagrees with the US.

It's obviously not much of a bloody deterent.

@shavixmir said
I’m pretty sure the EU makes sure Europe doesn’t go to war with each other.

NATO is a US run machine.

I’m pretty sure the EU couldn’t stop a runaway pram and I’m actually a fan.
It’s US run because they are the ones with the biggest economy and military but that might not always be the case and even now they are pivoting towards the pacific and away from Europe.
Do you honestly believe that with a massive autocratic oligarchy on its eastern border the rest of Europe should not form a counterbalance even with and especially without the US.
An anti nato stance in a militarised world full of alliances is odd to say the least coming from a European.

@shavixmir said
I'm also quite sure if there was no NATO, then Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.
No?

Do you believe Russia would just leave the Baltic states in peace if there was no NATO?

@shavixmir said
I'm also quite sure if there was no NATO, then Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.
No?

And what is NATO doing exactly? Except wanting partipating nations to spend heaps of money on weapons?
What did NATO do in Crimea?

Nothing. It's just a lobby for the arms industry. And a threat to anyone who disagrees with the US.

It's obviously not much of a bloody deterent.

Your first assumption is dubious and probably false. In any case, blaming NATO for Russia invading Ukraine is farfetched, even for US-hating keyboard warriors.

That Russia successfully swallowed the Crimea and it invading Ukraine, a non-NATO member, is hardly a sound line of attack on NATO. If the Russians invade Latvia or Poland and NATO does nothing, then you can attack NATO as being meaningless, but that a country not in NATO is not protected by NATO is hardly a commentary on NATO.

===It's obviously not much of a bloody deterent.===

Seriously, Shav. Are you just not paying attention to your own posts? Why would NATO be a deterrent to the invasion of a non-NATO member?