Listen to a reading of this article: ❖ So Putin has finally made a move, issuing a decree formally recognizing the sovereignty of the separatist-held Donbas territories in eastern Ukraine known as …
Yes, but there are precedents to this. The situation didn’t come out of the blue. Russia surely carries the responsibility for acknowledging the separatist states and escalating the situation with “piece troops”.
But NATO surely is responsible for creating the situation at large. The promise was no eastern expansion, yet eastern expansion took place.
The references made to the previous US interventions by Op are highlighting the aggressive nature of the US which created the pretext to the current situation. You cannot wipe those away by saying you are referring to the last 48 hours only.
More recently the german Spiegel published documents demonstrating the promises. Here is an english language Russia Today link, referencing the original german article (you can find the paywalled link there).
But let’s be frank, the idea that a NATO expansion to the east will set off a conflict with Russia is just obvious. There were high ranking officials confirming that over the last thirty years (I believe even Genscher).
The argument that states should be able to choose their allies is a little bit absurd since we are not talking about a club that you can vote yourself in if you wish to do so. The NATO has to extend an offer for your country to be able to join it.
Russia and before that the Soviet Union expressed their issue with that and asked NATO not to put troops against their borders. Yet, NATO did.
The sources I link to above are from the most realist IR academic and from a totally mainstream german news outlet.
There are many report stating that these promises were made.
Whether Russia made a tactical mistake in codifying these promises… is it relevant? There is clear evidence that NATO promised not to expand. And again, it seems obvious that a NATO expansion would set up a conflict with Russia. So why would you do it?
Here is another good german language article about the situation
So, do you agree to and support the implication that Western imperialist empire should be expansionist and conquer nations for warmongering purposes “to contain China/Russia”?
You must be joking. What about Syria? Or Iraq? Also Korea, Vietnam, Hawai, Puerto Rico, Guam, and so on and so on.
deleted by creator
Yes, but there are precedents to this. The situation didn’t come out of the blue. Russia surely carries the responsibility for acknowledging the separatist states and escalating the situation with “piece troops”.
But NATO surely is responsible for creating the situation at large. The promise was no eastern expansion, yet eastern expansion took place.
The references made to the previous US interventions by Op are highlighting the aggressive nature of the US which created the pretext to the current situation. You cannot wipe those away by saying you are referring to the last 48 hours only.
deleted by creator
Sure I can.
We can cite John Maersheimer from 2014
Here is the outline link to the same article.
More recently the german Spiegel published documents demonstrating the promises. Here is an english language Russia Today link, referencing the original german article (you can find the paywalled link there).
But let’s be frank, the idea that a NATO expansion to the east will set off a conflict with Russia is just obvious. There were high ranking officials confirming that over the last thirty years (I believe even Genscher).
The argument that states should be able to choose their allies is a little bit absurd since we are not talking about a club that you can vote yourself in if you wish to do so. The NATO has to extend an offer for your country to be able to join it.
Russia and before that the Soviet Union expressed their issue with that and asked NATO not to put troops against their borders. Yet, NATO did.
The sources I link to above are from the most realist IR academic and from a totally mainstream german news outlet.
deleted by creator
Please check the Spiegel article. Also, again, isn’t it common sense that if you put troops against a country’s border, that country feels threatened?
edited “border”
deleted by creator
There are many report stating that these promises were made.
Whether Russia made a tactical mistake in codifying these promises… is it relevant? There is clear evidence that NATO promised not to expand. And again, it seems obvious that a NATO expansion would set up a conflict with Russia. So why would you do it?
Here is another good german language article about the situation
So, do you agree to and support the implication that Western imperialist empire should be expansionist and conquer nations for warmongering purposes “to contain China/Russia”?