You're viewing a single thread.
The opposite seems more truthful : the n.a.t.o. and e.u. were given every chances to welcome Russia, but they immediately took steps to establish their hegemony(, including the bombing of Yugoslavia, and the whole Middle-East), before "protecting protesters" in Lybia V.Putin already knew that we were the biggest liars on Earth, he saw what was hidden behind our lies and opposed Dmitry Medvedev(, almost every article from 2011 says that it was rare for him), who was ready to believe us one more time(, and quickly regretted his trust).
We(sterners) had more than one chance to be united in diversity, we still have this possibility now, instead we're opposing everyone who doesn't conform to our "values". If we(sterners)'re not stopped then neo-colonialism won't end and any country judged too diverse will be forced to conform. Also, Russia is considered too large/powerful and hence too difficult to control, thus a potential threat to western hegemony/"enforced peace", allowing western hegemony may imply a smaller and/or less powerful Russia.
There's more details on everything that Russia(, and even the u.s.s.r. before,) did in order to unite with the west, but we're so certain of our moral&economic&military&.. superiority that we won't agree to any concession.
It's a badly written comment, there's only two arguments and i'd have to search in my computer folders for any sources i may have(, i remember that in the first years after Yeltsin resigned, V.Putin took many measures to unite with the west, and obtained such things as the NATO-Russia Council). I still think that there's a lot of truth in writing that Russia had&'will have' to abandon its diversity in order to have a hope of uniting with the west(, in the sense of not being unfairly attacked by our politicians&medias since they're probably too big to be integrated into the e.u. anyway, they could join n.a.t.o. but they would have to agree with our goal for hegemony and apparently prefer to suffer than being immoral).Stoltenberg has now publicly acknowledged that Putin made clear to NATO in a draft treaty before the war that it could avert it if NATO agreed not to keep enlarging. But NATO rejected the offer. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm#:~:text=The background was that President,condition for not invade Ukraine
Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. 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.
Yeah, totally, they did what they could for n.a.t.o. to publicly acknowledge three times their demand from October 2021 to January 2022 but were ignored if i'm only relying on my memories. And they threatened Ukraine in the beginning of 2021 by amassing their troops at their borders but then retreated, so it wasn't some kind of unprovoked invasion coming from nowhere, our heads of state were clearly aware of the russian demands but lied to their population as usual(, because we're too stupid to be told the truth or sthg).
I'd have to find the sources here as well, but Ukraine already wrote in its constitution that joining the n.a.t.o. was a national priority, and as usual we'll have to thank Eastern Galicia for that(, so it's not a russian illusion about some imaginary threat, they possibly waited for V.Putin to step down before acting), and apparently european "partners" were much less insistant on Ukraine's admission than americans(, confirmed in facts but i still kinda doubt it), the most famous warning about n.a.t.o. expansion dated back from the Munich security conference in 2007, but it can be found since 1991.
Goes to show how unbiased you are, leaving out the very next paragraph:
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.
An alliance to defend against Russia refusing to demilitarize the countries closest to Russia, while Russia is actively preparing to invade? The shock. The horror.
You mean the alliance that promised not to expand one inch to the east and then continued to break that promise for decades. Maybe kindly fuck off?
Oh I am sorry. Does it upset you that formerly soviet vassals decided they want to join a defensive alliance against their former oppressor? To be protected from Russia's agression, which Pootin, in his infinite wisdom, proved entirely justified? Russia could have proven that NATO is a relic of the past and not needed anymore. Pootin proved the exact opposite.
No, what upsets me is that US colonized former soviet republics and installed puppet regimes that don't represent the interests of the people. NATO could've been disbanded back in the 90s because there was no threat from Russia to anyone at the time. Instead, NATO chose to invade and destroy countries for decades. And now imbeciles such as yourself claim it's defensive alliance. You are piece of human garbage, and you deserve everything that's coming to you.
