In May 1990 speech Secretary General Manfred Wörner said “The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.”
This shows 2 things:
As we already knew NATO had told the Soviet Union although that it would not move further East than East Germany
They understood full well that NATO moving East was seen as threatening by USSR given the promise not to do so was a “security guarantee” for them.
You already dumped a load of “sources” previously.
I don’t think anyone is going to win by just showing information from either side of a position. I believe all your stuff is right wing propaganda. You believe all my stuff is right wing propaganda.
As the war enters its 4th year all we can hope is that there is a steady resolution to the conflict. That Ukraine remains sovereign. That Russia stops killing civilians.
Wether Ukraine cedes land to Russia for some reason is up to the Ukrainian people.
Ukraine will cede the 4 oblasts and will likely be neutral to NATO at the end of the war, crippled and battered, vs the same results without the devastation of years of conflict had they surrendered months in when they had the chance. Ukraine has taken far less civilian casualties than they’ve claimed, and has dealt far more than they’ve claimed. Russia isn’t some evil empire of villians, it’s a country at war. It isn’t Israel.
I do agree that pasting tons of sources isn’t going to do anything, that was the reason I posted so many (though you can feel free to check them, as I’ve already done for your sources). I do think it’s funny that my sources are largely things like bbc and OHCR, just presenting a narrative that concedes basic material reality.
I trust Russian sources more than you do and distrust Ukrainian sources more than you do. I don’t blindly accept either. Russia isn’t indiscriminately firing missiles and drones at cities, and neither is Ukraine. Both have at times targeted civilians, and both have at times unintentionally hit civilian targets. Russia isn’t acting as an evil empire, it’s trying to grab the four oblasts and demillitarize Ukraine after a decade of deescalation talks failed following the far-right Euromaidan coup.
Ah, so if it’s not indiscriminate then it is discriminate. Targeted.
Hospitals. Shops. Schools. Businesses. Power.
On video. In print.
Also, the ousting of a pro Russian puppet due to not following the wishes of the people (free trade with Europe) should be quite telling. And then suddenly Russia rocks up with its military to try and force the issue.
Putin doesn’t want Ukraine to have closer ties to Europe. He doesn’t want them being self sufficient. He wants them to be dependent on Russia and be a part of it. They’ve always wanted it. First for the grain and now for the whatever else he wants - oil, minerals and wealth no doubt.
Yanukovych turned down the IMF loan that required privatizing and destroying safety nets like healthcare in favor of the Russian loan that didn’t have the same strings attached, then the west couped him for it. It was never about “free trade.” Russia didn’t want the post-Euromaidan far-right regime to have ties to NATO while bombing the Donbass region.
Awfully convenient for you and Russia all these things don’t you think? Smells a bit on my bullshit detector. Why would an IMF load require privatising healthcare and removing safety nets when almost no other nation in Europe or the world for that matter has such things.
What the loan did require was an introduction of austerity measures to help restore/bolster the economy, like ending certain gas subsidies (I suppose you could lump that in a safety net if you wish) and high government worker pay.
The people did not want the “no strings attached” loan from Russia because they knew it would not solve anything and they knew things needed to change, otherwise they would be in the same position in short order, and it would certainly not be no strings attached. When the people start protesting the government you know something is amiss.
They want less reliance on Russia, not more.
Regarding the Donbass, I know we hate links, but this essay seems quite informative with a lot of sources and I’m curious your thoughts - likely far-right aligned with Russia but I’m hopeful you can keep an open mind.
Hers a simple google search for you. Many sources.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ukraine+children+kidnapped&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb#ip=1
the Wikipedia link, yourself having linked Wikipedia earlier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abductions_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war
With the United Nations stating this is a war crime
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64985009
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/coiukraine/A_HRC_52_62_AUV_EN.pdf
Tangential to this, I quite enjoy this young man’s recount of the conflict https://youtu.be/jlTnKYTxWOY
But I bet this is all “right wing propaganda” somehow.
I mean, sites like the BBC are right wing propaganda outlets. If you like, I can also copy and paste a bunch of sources:
NATO expansion
not one inch east declassified https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between
Documents reveal Clinton forced Yeltsin into signing NATO-Russia pact https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/documents-reveal-clinton-forced-yeltsin-into-signing-nato-russia-pact/
In May 1990 speech Secretary General Manfred Wörner said “The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.”
This shows 2 things:
https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
fascism
maidan coup
war crimes
negotiations
misc sources
That doesn’t actually form an argument, though.
You already dumped a load of “sources” previously.
I don’t think anyone is going to win by just showing information from either side of a position. I believe all your stuff is right wing propaganda. You believe all my stuff is right wing propaganda.
As the war enters its 4th year all we can hope is that there is a steady resolution to the conflict. That Ukraine remains sovereign. That Russia stops killing civilians.
Wether Ukraine cedes land to Russia for some reason is up to the Ukrainian people.
Ukraine will cede the 4 oblasts and will likely be neutral to NATO at the end of the war, crippled and battered, vs the same results without the devastation of years of conflict had they surrendered months in when they had the chance. Ukraine has taken far less civilian casualties than they’ve claimed, and has dealt far more than they’ve claimed. Russia isn’t some evil empire of villians, it’s a country at war. It isn’t Israel.
I do agree that pasting tons of sources isn’t going to do anything, that was the reason I posted so many (though you can feel free to check them, as I’ve already done for your sources). I do think it’s funny that my sources are largely things like bbc and OHCR, just presenting a narrative that concedes basic material reality.
You clearly distrust Ukrainian sources and trust Russian sources though.
I don’t get how you can just go “no Ukraine don’t suffer civilian casualties” when Russia indiscriminately fire missiles and drones at cities.
Russia at the moment is acting very much like an evil empire.
I trust Russian sources more than you do and distrust Ukrainian sources more than you do. I don’t blindly accept either. Russia isn’t indiscriminately firing missiles and drones at cities, and neither is Ukraine. Both have at times targeted civilians, and both have at times unintentionally hit civilian targets. Russia isn’t acting as an evil empire, it’s trying to grab the four oblasts and demillitarize Ukraine after a decade of deescalation talks failed following the far-right Euromaidan coup.
Ah, so if it’s not indiscriminate then it is discriminate. Targeted.
Hospitals. Shops. Schools. Businesses. Power.
On video. In print.
Also, the ousting of a pro Russian puppet due to not following the wishes of the people (free trade with Europe) should be quite telling. And then suddenly Russia rocks up with its military to try and force the issue.
Putin doesn’t want Ukraine to have closer ties to Europe. He doesn’t want them being self sufficient. He wants them to be dependent on Russia and be a part of it. They’ve always wanted it. First for the grain and now for the whatever else he wants - oil, minerals and wealth no doubt.
Yanukovych turned down the IMF loan that required privatizing and destroying safety nets like healthcare in favor of the Russian loan that didn’t have the same strings attached, then the west couped him for it. It was never about “free trade.” Russia didn’t want the post-Euromaidan far-right regime to have ties to NATO while bombing the Donbass region.
Awfully convenient for you and Russia all these things don’t you think? Smells a bit on my bullshit detector. Why would an IMF load require privatising healthcare and removing safety nets when almost no other nation in Europe or the world for that matter has such things.
What the loan did require was an introduction of austerity measures to help restore/bolster the economy, like ending certain gas subsidies (I suppose you could lump that in a safety net if you wish) and high government worker pay.
The people did not want the “no strings attached” loan from Russia because they knew it would not solve anything and they knew things needed to change, otherwise they would be in the same position in short order, and it would certainly not be no strings attached. When the people start protesting the government you know something is amiss.
They want less reliance on Russia, not more.
Regarding the Donbass, I know we hate links, but this essay seems quite informative with a lot of sources and I’m curious your thoughts - likely far-right aligned with Russia but I’m hopeful you can keep an open mind.
https://aspeniaonline.it/russian-disinformation-about-the-ukrainian-conflict-since-2014-fact-checking-and-recurring-patterns/