everyone agrees that Ukraine doesn’t join NATO because doing so destabilizes the entire region.
Lmfao yes, the very stable region around Ukraine will be checks notes …destabilized by joining a defense pact against the country that is actively invading and destabilizing the region.
Yeah, but that doesn’t destabilize the region. It might make Russia uncomfortable, but that’s not the same thing as regional instability.
Ukraine would have little interest in joining NATO if Russia wasn’t already making them uncomfortable, so even if it was instability, well, that egg was there before the chicken.
Instability is conflict. Only one nation started a conflict.
The hate level of EU is too damn high. Obviously NATO membership for Ukraine was never serious, it was just nazi animation meant to diminish Russia. It failed in that Russian military production now higher than all of West, and they are replacing faster than losses.
The real path for peace is to get Russia to demilitarize as well as Ukraine. VdL needing a “peace” that makes Ukraine stronger than it is now, is nazi subhuman filth that must be exterminated from policy influence. But EU/western democracy brainwashing levels are just proven to be so extreme, that collapse is certain.
Ukraine can be protected without NATO? Like that deal they made where they gave up the nuclear missiles in exchange for security guarantees? Yeah, nice try. Once again you’re defending putin’s imperialism with weak excuses, what a surprise.
Here’s Biden performing these gymnastics all the way back in 1997 (in reference to the Baltics joining, but the argument applies verbatim to Ukraine):
“I think the one place, where the greatest consternation will be caused in the short term, for admission, having nothing to do with the merit, the preparedness of the country to come in, would be to admit the Baltic States now in terms of NATO-Russian, US-Russian relations. And if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance were it to be tipped, in terms of a vigorous and a hostile reaction, I don’t mean military, in Russia, it would be that.”
Here’s George Kennan performing the same gymnastics:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake.”
And there’s many, many more examples like this.
The simple fact of the matter is that we all saw this coming miles ahead, and we went ahead anyway. We threw Ukraine under the bus. Even moreso after the war started, publicly dangling the carrot of joining NATO in front of Ukraine while privately never intending to let them join.
I’m not sure what you think destabilizing means, but to me, having an angry state with nuclear weapons on my doorstep does not sound like a very stable situation.
I know, that’s what I’m saying, expanding NATO destabilized the region. And we knew that this would happen: see the quotes in my earlier post. These quotes were from years and years before even the invasion of crimes. They predicted more than a decade before that if we were to expand NATO further east in the direction of a nuclear armed rogue state, then we would be jeopardizing the lives of countless innocent civilians in the region. And these weren’t like some obscure off hand remarks either; this was common knowledge among foreign policy experts at the time.
Is it nice that there is a nuclear armed hyper capitalist stare sitting on the border of Ukraine? No, it sucks. But the way to deal with that is not by flipping of the Russians, slapping a big target on the back of Ukraine, and then running away. And this is exactly what we did by expanding NATO (again, see the Biden and Kennan quotes) and pretending that we were considering letting Ukraine join NATO. We failed them, over and over.
A country that is threatening with the use of nuclear missiles is never a stable situation. I don’t think that’s a good argument to avoid protecting vulnerable states from those countries.
Suppose you sit down next to a hardened criminal. Tough guy, unstable, face tattoos, MS-13 photoshopped on his knuckles, the works. Not an ideal situation, not very stable.
In comes Uncle Sam, telling the criminal “hey, criminal! Realitätsverlust thinks your mother is a hooker, and says they will kill your first-born son” and so on and so forth. I would argue (and so would Biden, and so would Kennan, and so would other foreign policy experts) that the situation is now even less stable.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I’m feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn’t want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I’m pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
Biden and others’ comments pertain to pre Crimean invasion Russia, and I’d say they hold up quite well, given that they turned out to be right.
But I concede the point that my analogy is unfair. But in turn, I think the loaded gun thing also doesn’t quite match up with reality. If we planned for Ukraine to enter NATO then it’d be an accurate metaphor. But the fact remains that despite us (the US) telling them that they could, and telling them to forego peace talks by threat of not allowing them to join NATO, behind closed doors we never intended for them to actually join.
Like the criminal punching you, it is not right to attack a foreign country without UN approval. If the attacks on Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on should be condemned (and they should), then certainly the invasion of Ukraine should be condemned. But to pretend history started on February 24th, 2022 and that everything happened because Putin is evil, and that we have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and that we didn’t see it coming, and that we couldn’t have prevented it by negotiating the Russia-US security agreement put forth in December 2021, is reductive.
Western countries just negotiate with Russia and everyone agrees that Ukraine doesn’t join NATO because doing so destabilizes the entire region.
Joining NATO would destabilize the entire region because… it would force Russia to invade Ukraine even harder?
Have you considered why Ukraine wants to join NATO so fucking badly?
The big sticking point here is NATO … take it off the negotiating table, then you can see where the Russians are at.
Invading Ukraine, like they did in 2014, long before NATO membership was a consideration for Ukraine?
The reason why Russia is so staunchly against Ukraine (or any other countries) joining NATO is because it makes it that much harder to start a landgrab war.
Otherwise, there’s a war being fought with a steady stream of people dying because someone wants to join an exclusive club?
There’s a war being fought with a steady stream of people dying because Russia invaded with the intent to murder Ukrainians and exterminate Ukraine as an independent nation.
Ukraine wanting to join the “Don’t invade me” club is hardly fucking surprising in light of that.
That’s the biggest fuck up off it all. Just holding Crimea was enough for it to be impossible for Ukraine to join NATO, as there may be no disputed territories and they would have never given it up formally.
Putin should’ve backed out and regrouped a lot better and more carefully after his full scale invasion failed miserably. It’s been a nonsense keep going out of principle war for years now and the biggest loser is Russia (it’s hard to even calculate the impact of a lost generation of young men + loss of influence world wide because of how crappy weapons systems turn out to be in real war instead of demonstrations.
Meanwhile there’s an enormous diaspora of Ukrainians growing in many western European countries now and they became de facto part of the club a lot stronger and faster than anyone could have ever imagined before 2022.
That’s the biggest fuck up of all such regimes. Fascists can never say “it’s enough”. There is no “we are done, cool down the war machine, lets invest in domestic infrastructure.”
You can’t become a fascist by ever being satisfied with what you have, and you can’t remain in power as a fascist if you don’t keep pushing pain and terror. You just have to keep redlining the engine of human suffering until it finally stalls and breaks down.
Putin is held hostage by his own power and ideology, and can never stand down or step away with his head still on his shoulders.
How about this for a thought
Western countries just negotiate with Russia and everyone agrees that Ukraine doesn’t join NATO because doing so destabilizes the entire region.
Instead everyone wants to shoehorn Ukraine into NATO even if it costs us all the risk of nuclear war.
Ukraine can still be protected and defended by western interests in other ways without involving NATO.
The big sticking point here is NATO … take it off the negotiating table, then you can see where the Russians are at.
Otherwise, there’s a war being fought with a steady stream of people dying because someone wants to join an exclusive club?
Lmfao yes, the very stable region around Ukraine will be checks notes …destabilized by joining a defense pact against the country that is actively invading and destabilizing the region.
Tbf, if Ukraine joins NATO, that gives NATO a way around the mountains to attack RU, so I can see why that would upset them…
…but yeah if RU wasn’t invading people all the goddamn time this would be a lot less of an issue lmao, RU is their own worst enemy.
Yeah, but that doesn’t destabilize the region. It might make Russia uncomfortable, but that’s not the same thing as regional instability.
Ukraine would have little interest in joining NATO if Russia wasn’t already making them uncomfortable, so even if it was instability, well, that egg was there before the chicken.
Instability is conflict. Only one nation started a conflict.
Putin could just not invade countries and nobody would want to join NATO.
The hate level of EU is too damn high. Obviously NATO membership for Ukraine was never serious, it was just nazi animation meant to diminish Russia. It failed in that Russian military production now higher than all of West, and they are replacing faster than losses.
The real path for peace is to get Russia to demilitarize as well as Ukraine. VdL needing a “peace” that makes Ukraine stronger than it is now, is nazi subhuman filth that must be exterminated from policy influence. But EU/western democracy brainwashing levels are just proven to be so extreme, that collapse is certain.
Ukraine wants to join NATO specifically to prevent Russia from invading again. What do you not get about that?
Ukraine can be protected without NATO? Like that deal they made where they gave up the nuclear missiles in exchange for security guarantees? Yeah, nice try. Once again you’re defending putin’s imperialism with weak excuses, what a surprise.
Damn I’m really excited for the mental gymnastics you’ll need to explain this lmaoo.
Here’s Biden performing these gymnastics all the way back in 1997 (in reference to the Baltics joining, but the argument applies verbatim to Ukraine):
“I think the one place, where the greatest consternation will be caused in the short term, for admission, having nothing to do with the merit, the preparedness of the country to come in, would be to admit the Baltic States now in terms of NATO-Russian, US-Russian relations. And if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance were it to be tipped, in terms of a vigorous and a hostile reaction, I don’t mean military, in Russia, it would be that.”
Here’s George Kennan performing the same gymnastics:
“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake.”
And there’s many, many more examples like this.
The simple fact of the matter is that we all saw this coming miles ahead, and we went ahead anyway. We threw Ukraine under the bus. Even moreso after the war started, publicly dangling the carrot of joining NATO in front of Ukraine while privately never intending to let them join.
So, it’s not “destabilizing the region”, it’s making russia mad.
I’m not sure what you think destabilizing means, but to me, having an angry state with nuclear weapons on my doorstep does not sound like a very stable situation.
They have been at war for 3 years. Nothing about the situation is stable.
In fact, letting Ukraine join NATO would bring stability, since that would prevent Putin from invading again.
But Putin doesn’t want that, because Putin wants to invade Ukraine even more.
I know, that’s what I’m saying, expanding NATO destabilized the region. And we knew that this would happen: see the quotes in my earlier post. These quotes were from years and years before even the invasion of crimes. They predicted more than a decade before that if we were to expand NATO further east in the direction of a nuclear armed rogue state, then we would be jeopardizing the lives of countless innocent civilians in the region. And these weren’t like some obscure off hand remarks either; this was common knowledge among foreign policy experts at the time.
Is it nice that there is a nuclear armed hyper capitalist stare sitting on the border of Ukraine? No, it sucks. But the way to deal with that is not by flipping of the Russians, slapping a big target on the back of Ukraine, and then running away. And this is exactly what we did by expanding NATO (again, see the Biden and Kennan quotes) and pretending that we were considering letting Ukraine join NATO. We failed them, over and over.
A country that is threatening with the use of nuclear missiles is never a stable situation. I don’t think that’s a good argument to avoid protecting vulnerable states from those countries.
Suppose you sit down next to a hardened criminal. Tough guy, unstable, face tattoos, MS-13 photoshopped on his knuckles, the works. Not an ideal situation, not very stable.
In comes Uncle Sam, telling the criminal “hey, criminal! Realitätsverlust thinks your mother is a hooker, and says they will kill your first-born son” and so on and so forth. I would argue (and so would Biden, and so would Kennan, and so would other foreign policy experts) that the situation is now even less stable.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I’m feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn’t want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I’m pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
Biden and others’ comments pertain to pre Crimean invasion Russia, and I’d say they hold up quite well, given that they turned out to be right.
But I concede the point that my analogy is unfair. But in turn, I think the loaded gun thing also doesn’t quite match up with reality. If we planned for Ukraine to enter NATO then it’d be an accurate metaphor. But the fact remains that despite us (the US) telling them that they could, and telling them to forego peace talks by threat of not allowing them to join NATO, behind closed doors we never intended for them to actually join.
Like the criminal punching you, it is not right to attack a foreign country without UN approval. If the attacks on Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on should be condemned (and they should), then certainly the invasion of Ukraine should be condemned. But to pretend history started on February 24th, 2022 and that everything happened because Putin is evil, and that we have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and that we didn’t see it coming, and that we couldn’t have prevented it by negotiating the Russia-US security agreement put forth in December 2021, is reductive.
“Proposing that a country join a defence pact only activated in case of an attack on the country is aggravating any potential aggressors”
Jesus Christ.
“Cartels murdering people in your town? Just don’t talk to the cops, that’s how you stay safe.”
Hey man, take it up with Biden, I’m just relaying the message. Plus, I think “defence” pact is a bit much given what NATO has done in Yugoslavia.
Joining NATO would destabilize the entire region because… it would force Russia to invade Ukraine even harder?
Have you considered why Ukraine wants to join NATO so fucking badly?
Invading Ukraine, like they did in 2014, long before NATO membership was a consideration for Ukraine?
The reason why Russia is so staunchly against Ukraine (or any other countries) joining NATO is because it makes it that much harder to start a landgrab war.
There’s a war being fought with a steady stream of people dying because Russia invaded with the intent to murder Ukrainians and exterminate Ukraine as an independent nation.
Ukraine wanting to join the “Don’t invade me” club is hardly fucking surprising in light of that.
Ukraine wasn’t going to join NATO before the war, even after losing the Crimean peninsula.
Ukraine needs security guarantees because they have been invaded twice in a generation. What non-NATO guarantee is going to be acceptable to Ukraine?
That’s the biggest fuck up off it all. Just holding Crimea was enough for it to be impossible for Ukraine to join NATO, as there may be no disputed territories and they would have never given it up formally.
Putin should’ve backed out and regrouped a lot better and more carefully after his full scale invasion failed miserably. It’s been a nonsense keep going out of principle war for years now and the biggest loser is Russia (it’s hard to even calculate the impact of a lost generation of young men + loss of influence world wide because of how crappy weapons systems turn out to be in real war instead of demonstrations.
Meanwhile there’s an enormous diaspora of Ukrainians growing in many western European countries now and they became de facto part of the club a lot stronger and faster than anyone could have ever imagined before 2022.
That’s the biggest fuck up of all such regimes. Fascists can never say “it’s enough”. There is no “we are done, cool down the war machine, lets invest in domestic infrastructure.”
You can’t become a fascist by ever being satisfied with what you have, and you can’t remain in power as a fascist if you don’t keep pushing pain and terror. You just have to keep redlining the engine of human suffering until it finally stalls and breaks down.
Putin is held hostage by his own power and ideology, and can never stand down or step away with his head still on his shoulders.