There’s a war going on right now in Ukraine, helping them win it will make Russia launching a next war less likely and further off.
This is exactly what I am thinking as well. Russia is clearly threatening the stability of the EU right now. If the EU wants to send a strong signal against aggression and meddling, it needs support Ukraine in a way that makes it clear to any would-be-adversary, that the EU is willing and capable to defend itself and its allies.
More money for the death-machine and profits for the shareholders, hurray!
Pacifism is great and all, but Putin clearly shows that you need to be able to defend yourself, if you don’t want your rights and your freedom eroded away by foreign interests. Granted, no military will help you defend against threats to your rights from within, but it makes it at least less likely that those threats from within get backing from foreign threats.
While I really wish we would do more that Russia loses this war sooner rather than later and their economy is shattered, because that’s the only way I see out of this with Putin losing power, I have to say that Putin only got into the powerful position he’s in now due to mutual escalation for decades. This includes permanent provocations by NATO versus Russia. NATO is a bunch of warmongering pieces of shit, but Putin was so fucking stupid that he basically made the biggest PR campaign that NATO could ever have wished for, and now everyone wants to suck off Jens piece of shit Stoltenberg.
I despise NATO with every fibre of my being, yet I am fully aware that the stupid fucks have played their cards well enough that now even I see the need for a total econominal crushing of Russia. Only with a regime change we could then try to help the next Russian regime with humanitarian aid to prevent famines etc.
That’s bullshit and a cop-out. Every country in NATO joined willingly because every country should have some level of self-determination. NATO grew because decade after decade, the Russian government proved that they act in bad faith in nearly every interaction with the international community.
Maybe if Russia acted in good faith and was willing to be a partner in the region, neighboring countries wouldn’t have felt the need to join NATO, but here we are.
Pacifism doesn’t work. We’ve seen it time and time again that it just buys our adversaries time, and we end up where we’re at today.
It is sad how many upvotes a warmonger like you can get. You pick an arbitrary point in time and look at the state of things then and pretend the lead-up didn’t happen. That’s either propaganda, or an insane lack of functional brain cells.
Concerning NATO expansion, I’ve got an entertaining link for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q&t=1020
Or at 17:00 if the direct link doesn’t work
I had your message marked as unread in my inbox so that I’d eventually watch the video you recommended, but now that I got around to it, I have to say I turned it off after a bit over 2 minutes because - speaking as a non native speaker - the narrator has an insanely annoying slur / mumbling in his voice. How can a native speaker possibly be so bad at English? :(
I guess you’re right. His pronounciation isn’t very clear. The tl;dw is, and I don’t claim it to be all encompassing, watch the video if you really want to know what was said, that Poland and Hungary not only weren’t ‘annexed’ into NATO, not only asked nicely to join, but actively bribed and forced their way into NATO. Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin made a horse-trade, where Poland and Hungary joining NATO was scheduled to happen after elections in Russia, but before US elections, so that both can win their reelection. The ascension of Poland and Hungary was clearly communicated and signed off between both head of states. The issue lies with the rest of both countries. Other politicians, on both sides, stirred more hostility. When Bush and Putin took over, the relationship between both coutries deteriorated even further. Bush’s unilateral push to get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is, according to the video, the reason why Putin invaded Georgia. However after Bush, Obama took over and made it NATO policy that a country must have full control over its land, excluding Georgia for being partially occupied and Ukraine for having singed a lease on the Sevastapol naval base with the Russians, on top of the majority of Ukrainians at the time being against joing NATO. Obama has mellowed his tone significantly towards Russia compared to Bush. Only with the Euromaidan happening did Russia decide that, actually, Ukrainians are nazis and NATO is encroaching our borders and we need to defend ourselves. NATO enlargement isn’t ‘the US broke all agreements and is pushing for encirclement’, but different presidents having different goals. Clinton wanted to be reelected and Poland threatened to mobilize voters with polish roots for the Republicans. Bush was a warmonger that wanted to steamroll everyone, including Russia. Obama was looking to ease tensions and make alliances. The issue with Ukraine is separate from those presidents however. It was triggered by Putin getting spooked by popular uprisings.
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.’
each party will take action as they deem necessary
tbh this reads like the “security guarantees” that Ukraine got for giving up their nuclear weapons: not worth the paper it’s written on
Who worded those “security guarantees”?
The signatories of the Budapest Memorandum were Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, the UK, and the US.
The stipulations of the agreement are essentially as follows:
-
Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).
-
Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
-
Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
-
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
-
Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
-
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
1 is obviously trash, and has been since 2014. Russia has tried using legal fig leaves to cover 2, but basically everyone - including Russia - is fully aware that it’s complete bullshit. 3 is also useless - and has been since the document was signed, considering how much influence Russia has exerted on Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan over the last few decades, but particularly since Putin’s ascent to power. 4 is a non-point because the UNSC is and will continue to be categorically useless simply due to the single-veto structure it has. 5 is what Putin threatens every fucking week. 6 is essentially holding hands around the fire and singing kumbaya, which is manifestly idiotic in this context.
The current situation:
- One signatory (Ukraine) is under attack from another (Russia), and those attacks were, to a significant degree, enabled by a third signatory (Belarus), which itself has been effectively subsumed by another signatory (Russia)
- One signatory (Kazakhstan) can’t feasibly do anything, and is additionally already in a semi-sketchy position with another signatory (Russia)
- the remaining signatories (US; UK) have repeatedly sought UNSC interventions, which have and will continue to fail to pass due to - as noted above - Russia applying their veto as a rule. This is the only enforcement mechanism in the entire thing, and it is effectively a statement of guaranteed bureaucratic inaction.
For real: retrospectively, Ukraine (and Kazakhstan and Belarus) should have held out for WAY stronger enforcements clauses, but (and this part is basically and educated guess) the US and UK were in the “woooo Cold War DONE” mindset, and Russia probably had a rough idea of their current situation in mind, and thus had a vested interest in making the defensive arrangements more or less meaningless.
-
