Nato summit: Ukraine on 'irreversible path' to membership
Nato summit: Ukraine on 'irreversible path' to membership
The alliance also pledges more aid to Ukraine, but China warns it to stop "provoking confrontation".
Nato members have pledged their support for an "irreversible path" to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.
While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance's 32 members said they had "unwavering" support for Ukraine's war effort.
Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine's military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.
The bloc's Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: "Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest."
You're viewing a single thread.
The purely defensive pact keeps on expanding.
Yeah, right after Russia invades one country, capturing and killing men, women, and children while threatening other countries. Weird...
It didn't start there.
Where did it start?
It started when the USSR collapsed and the purely defensive pact that was created solely to fight off the USSR wasn't dissolved with it. It became an organization looking for a purpose.
And Russia has not been an aggressor since... "please list all russian backed invasions since 1990"
The US is objectively more of an aggressor. Where's the NATO equivalent for fighting them off? Oh right, dismantled, stomped on, and now taking victory laps around it.
Where’s the NATO equivalent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
Headquartered in Moscow.Now think for yourself why Ukraine would rather protect itself from being invaded by Russia than by the US.
Because the US has the means to work behind the scenes. Invasions are a crude tool which can be avoided when you can simply infiltrate the country with agents paying people off from within the country. Of course, this requires a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and isn't possible for most countries.
Im no defender of the US but they are not actively expanding into neighbouring territory. And there is nothing stopping Russia approaching Canada and Mexico about a military alliance, except the reality of the how absurd it is.
There is no need to overtly expand into a neighbouring territory when you can already exert sufficient influence with "soft" power. Russia doesn't have the means to pay off Canada or Mexico to switch sides like the US does with Ukraine.
That soft power being mutual growth and societal progress?
Russia cant offer similar because they are a cancer.
So? They are not forcing anyone to join. Unlike certain other countries
So then how should russia feel and respond to this?
Should anyone start invading when their feelings are getting hurt now?
How did the US feel when Cuba allowed russia to put weapons there? Let me answer the question; Kennedy threatened complete war and the destsruction of the world. Should the Soviets have put weapons in Cuba?
Sure, invade the US. Ukrain has nothing to do with it.
Cool, you didnt answer the question. The problem is that if you actually think about it for a second you will realize how this whole thing was directly caused by NATO/American interference. I am not infavor of countries invading but its not the "UNPROVOKED!!" bullshit line they keep repeating. This war was completely avoidable.
Disengage from Ukraine and stop invading countries.
Well, generally, Russia can go fuck itself.
They should feel that they lost the cold war and their kleptocracy isn't conductive to expanding their already reduced sphere of influence, so they better make peace with the fact.
Since they dont feel this and feel directly threatened, why should NATO/America keep pushing it till war?
'cause they can. There's no good guys in international politics, you can check out an history book to confirm that.
So are you going to be the one sent overseas to die in a country that most people dont care anything about?
you clearly aren't grokking what I'm trying to communicate
You are claiming that they can do what they want, but that is backed by boots on the ground. Is that going to be you, or are you going to force my children to fight your wars?
I don't see how it's necessary to explain what is there for everyone to see: they got Ukrainians fighting for them (well, and themselves as well), then if that's not enough, the closest NATO countries will probably get into it.
By minding their own business? Why would they care?
The care because they believe it is a direct move of aggression and endangers their people. Why did the US care during the Cuban missile crisis?
The coup in 2014 was carried out by force.
Lmfao stfu Tankie.
It's a "coup" when I dislike it, and a glorious revolution when I do. /s
That's why the west calls it the "revolution of dignity" lol. Do you have any sense of self-awareness? Such dignity having the CIA up your ass to make your country more west-friendly.
"revolution of dignity"
Is what Ukrainians called it after countless of them were murdered by police in the streets and they successfully ran their Pro-Putin dictator out of the country. Seethe harder fascist.
The people of Iraq also welcomed the US as liberators.
Not my fault you failed to understand the simple point that "the people" aren't a monolith and that narratives about what "the people" want aren't necessarily true. If, say, January 6th was a success, Trump and the rest of the fascists would be claiming that the storming of the capital was an expression of "the will of the people" to run the "democrat dictators out of office".
I'm perfectly aware of that, which is why you have to look at material conditions.
I mean, have you ever been there? I have, it was incredibly corrupt, and this was AFTER 2014. it's not so unbelievable that people tried to enact a change...
The CIA paid a million people to stand out in the could for months on end? Whoa, where do they keep all these actors?
I'm not doing your work for you tankie. Quote the part of the article that supports your thesis.
You all do this same thing, throw a book at someone and when they refuse to bow to your demand to waste their time you declare victory.
But while the gains of the orange-bedecked "chestnut revolution" are Ukraine's, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.
Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.
Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.
Arguments against the Orange Revolution being a coup:
The protests were sparked by widespread allegations of election fraud and corruption, which were supported by international observers and the Ukrainian opposition.
The protests were largely peaceful, with only a few instances of violence and property damage.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine annulled the election results, citing irregularities and fraud, and ordered a revote.
The new president, Viktor Yushchenko, was elected through a fair and transparent process, with international observers monitoring the election.
While there are valid arguments on both sides, the majority of evidence suggests that the Orange Revolution was a popular uprising rather than a coup. The protests were sparked by widespread discontent with the election results and the government’s handling of the election, and were largely driven by Ukrainian citizens rather than foreign powers. The Supreme Court’s decision to annul the election results was based on allegations of fraud and irregularities, and the subsequent election was monitored by international observers. Ultimately, the Orange Revolution was a significant event in Ukrainian history that led to the country’s transition towards democracy and closer ties with the West.
TL;DR Russia is poor af and everyone but American middle class settler tankies who live comfortably in the US want blue jeans and VW Jettas and not to suffer under the gangster oligopoly of Russia's petro state.
Tankies keep pretending that this isn't true because the US intelligence agencies opportunistically tipped the the unrest in Ukraine in their favor, just like Putin has done in ever country that is in his sphere.
Fun fact: Putin, the man that tankies slavishly uphold as a stalwart of US imperialism was himself installed into power by the CIA to keep Soviet candidates from taking back power through democratic election held after the first term of Boris Yeltsin was about to be ended, which he was almost assuredly going to lose.
Tankies continue to be played like a Switch by western intelligence and it will ultimately lead to Russia's demise. All their accusations of everyone being western stooges is PURE F***ING PROJECTION
Sir, you asked for a quote from the article.
Tankies continue to be played like a Switch by western intelligence and it will ultimately lead to Russia's demise.
Then you have nothing to worry about 👍
First you intentionally make the dumbest interpretation of how a situation can occur, then when I post an article that shows exactly how something like this goes down, you call me a name, refuse to read, and revel in your ignorance. A simple article is not a book. Operations to subvert politics in a country take many years, even decades, and the article talks about US operations to interfere in the politics of Ukraine. Do you think you can make the connection between that and what happened around a decade after that article was written or is this too difficult for you?
No you threw a link at me and expecting me to strain out whatever point you were trying to make. And you still won't do the simple act of concisely presenting whatever you think proves you right. Instead you caterwaul for two paragraphs worth of text.
It's probably because you're trying to walk me to your point of view and the article really doesn't contain the definitive proof you think it does.
All you ML propaganda tactics are predicated on deception which you justify by saying it's for the revolution.
Your praxis does not work in the information age where anyone can fact check your biased premise.
And yes I'm well aware that western governments foment decent artificially. That doesn't prove anything about the euromadien protests. We all know if there were some ML uprising you would not accept the idea that it was BS because western govs do velvet revolutions. Before you say that doesn't happen Lenin him fucking self was smuggled out of Europe by Anglo bourgeoisie to overthrow the Czar.
In the time it took you to write that nonsense whiny post, you could've just read the article. I explained it to you anyway, in a post shorter than the one you typed, but you melted down anyway.
Even if thats true (spoiler, it isnt) there have been plenty of free, internationally recognized (not just by the west), elections since them.
I wonder why? What happened recently to get all these nations lining up to join Nato?
NATO started expanding long before the current conflict.
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, many former Warsaw Pact and post-Soviet states sought to join NATO.
Weird that the nations previously under authoritarian rule suddenly wanted to be part of a defensive pact once they had their freedom. That's such an unforeseen outcome.
I mean, can you believe fucking NATO man? They were such assholes to check notes expand by allowing countries in who wanted to be in NATO to protect themselves. NATO really should have just dissolved instead of expanding and giving former Soviet block states protection from Russia.
Yes. NATO should have dissolved, or at least decommissioned a large part of their forces. It was formed to defend against the USSR. When that republic ceased to exist, it only continued because it was militarily and financially advantageous to do so.
If your neighbor sets up sniper nests on their roof, and sets up sandbags and barbed wire on the fence line while claiming that it is purely defensive ; would you take them at their word. Or, would you see that as a threat of violent escalation?
And yet here we have Russia, the successor nation showing that NATO needs to be kept around so they don't invade another neighbor. Remember, Crimea wasn't the first time this century they've done that.
To your example, my neighbor would be within their rights to do that if I have a history of kicking down doors. But I guess violence only matters from one direction, nevermind that so many former client states actively sought protection from this shit happening, especially when Russia can't be taken at their word to leave neighbors alone.
This is some
logic.
Projection is common among your set, so I'm not surprised you see it that way.
Thanks for letting me know you're out of arguments though.
Please expand on your comment, it doesnt say much. As I understand it, a sovereign nation has opted to join a group under its own free will due in part to threats, invasions, land grabs and broken agreements by its nuclear capable neighbour.
You're taking NATO at face value while ignoring the actions taken underground to pry apart any countries who aren't friendly to the west. Why would the west need to fund operations like this if it was such a voluntary and clearly beneficial relationship?: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
And you are acting like the actions taken by aggressive nations dont factor into this at all. Russia annexed Crimea, is it any wonder they want some sort of protection.
Think about when Russia annexed Crimea and then compare that to the date of the article I linked. Clearly there was more going on behind the scenes and it wasn't just a matter of Russia deciding one day to expand their territory.
They gotta collectively match the size of Russia to be competitive.
