When talking about “whose territory” you need to clearly distinguish between what kind of frame of reference you’re using. Russian narratives are very vague and fluid on this aspect: one time they speak about internationally recognised and agreed borders, only to instantly switch to their subjective ideas of “our land” understood in terms of poorly defined moral sentiments. Under this framework basically every inch of land Russia or USSR managed to capture at some period in the past is “ours”, but of course this doesn’t work the other way around, so any land that someone once captured from Russia in the past isn’t “theirs” in Russian narrative. It’s a very childish thinking really and you can only make sense of it if you’re Russian.
Speaking from the perspective of #Poland, from legal point of view it’s neither Russia’s nor Soviet Union’s territory. It was invaded by Soviet Union in 1939 and then forcibly held in its zone of influence until 1989 under a threat of armed invasion. As a fully sovereign country after 1989, Poland has every right to join any military alliances it wished, and it did - after watching all the local wars started and fueled by Russia in 1990’s (Abkhazia, Chechnya etc) Poland applied to NATO and was accepted in 1997 along with a number of other Eastern European countries. Once again, speaking from legal point of view, it’s none of fucking Russia’s business what alliances a sovereign country of Poland joins, because it’s the whole point of sovereignty.
#Russia understands this perfectly well, because when asked about the amassing of their armed forces on the border of Ukraine in 2021 they simply said the same as I said above: it’s none of nobody’s fucking business if we amass troops on our territory, because it’s our sovereign right. Once again, in their childish thinking it’s their sovereign right but other countries like Poland or Ukraine don’t have this sovereign right.
Speaking of actual security risks, Poland never raised any territorial demands against Russia, while Russia frequently voiced various threats against Poland, for example when Poland dared to rename streets in its own towns. Therefore the only “security risk” for Russia from Poland - or #Ukraine for that matter - joining NATO is that it makes Russian invasion on these countries more difficult. And, of course, in Russian childish system of values invading another country is Russia’s sovereign right, but it’s not their right to take any measures possible to prevent that.
Russia has its own internationally recognised borders and as long as it stays within these borders nobody is going to breach them (at least, not from the western direction).
@kravietz
Ja, Sie sagen das richtig. Die russische politische technik besteht genau davon was Sie erzählt haben. Hauptsache Bedrohungen, Rache, eine selektive Geschichtsideologie, und Mystifikationen. Es wird immer anderes gedacht mit sehr viel Fantasien.
@kravietz For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.”
Genscher repeated what #Russia said they wanted at some point of negotiations. So what? No such declarations were ever placed in any official agreements, which means Russians never insisted on making them binding. As a matter of fact, in 1999 Yeltsin said, while visiting Poland, that he doesn’t see any threat in #Poland joining #NATO!
Funny how people are now cherry-picking alleged promises made to Russians, but forgetting that at the same time Russians also made plenty of promises, such as they just want peaceful cooperation and not going to invade anyone. Shortly after they not only had an armed putsch attempt by KGB to retake power in the country (1991) and shortly after started a number of hybrid wars (Abkhazia) and a hot war in Chechnya.
And of course none of today’s Putinverstehers give any fuck about an immediate threat to all the Eastern European countries that these actions by Russia created to their newly acquired independence because they only care about Russian nationalists being happy 🤷♂️
@kravietz@FortyTwo nevermind war in Chechnia that's their internal affair but backing some separatists that they themselves have created in Georgia or even backing existing separatists in Moldova or Azerbaijan constitutes Direct Military Aggression (UNGA 3314 art. 3, g)) and when they resort to bombing campaign to 'back rebels' like in 2008, that made even Ukraine consider the MAP. Though Merkel and Orban killed the idea. And eventually the invasion started exactly by claiming unmarked Russian troops in Crimea or Dombass are 'rebel separatists'
Exactly, but I was referring to the pre-NATO period in 1990’s - I know personally people who fought in Abkhazia and Russia supplied both sides with weapons there, the practically started and sustained the war only to then introduce their “peacemakers” into Abkhazia, in the same way they did in Azerbeijan. And then in 1994 in Poland we saw a huge wave of refugees from Chechnya who were talking about the slaughter imposed by Russian troops.
@kravietz@FortyTwo the real problem is those separatists looked fishy. What did Shamil Basayev do in Christian conflict between Georgians, Arminians and Abkhazians? And those neonazi Russian chauvinist Kazaks who consider all those mentioned above 'dirty churkas', they got heavy weapons! So I suspected GRU campaign, with mercs and such. That's just like in Dombass, some Kazak neonazis dig out 300 mm (!!!) rocket systems somewhere and start 'protecting' people who never asked it
Oh, of course they looked fishy! There were a huge number of stakeholders in the war in Abkhazia:
Abkhazians, who are Adyghe (North Caucasian) ethnic groups related to Circassians
The Circassians who joined the war on the side of Abkhazians because they are related
Other Northern Caucasus ethnic groups such as Chechens who joined the war on the side of Abkhazians for different reasons, including islam and solidarity within Northern Caucasus
Russia was of course playing all of these groups. I know Basayev was getting suitcases of cash from Russia, and Russia was not only supplying money and weapons to the Abkhazian side, but also facilitating movement of armed groups from Chechnya into Abkhazia on the territory of Russia. At the same time Russia was selling weapons to Georgia. GRU was likely involved at all of these stages.
@kravietz@FortyTwo I'm impressed with how you keep cool and detailed in your responses, but that guy is clearly running a trolling account, so I'm afraid your work here might be misdirected 😅
@FortyTwo@kravietz I'm sorry, but this little game of cherry-picking random quotes from THE NEGOTIATION is meaningless compared to THE TREATY THAT WAS ACTUALLY ULTIMATLEY NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED. The Soviets weren't blind morons who couldn't read the actual treaty that was agreed on in the end.
And learn what sovereignty means. It means that POLAND, not RUSSIA, decides the fate of Poland. Same for Czechia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithiuania, etc etc etc - and yes, Ukraine as well.
@FortyTwo@kravietz Countries are sovereign. Period. If Poland wants to join NATO and give Russia the middle finger, that's THE RIGHT OF THE POLISH PEOPLE. I'll repeat: POLAND decides who they want to associate with, not RUSSIA.
Eastern Europe by and large sees Russia as their former brutal colonial masters who they escaped from. THEIR decision to seek to protect themselves from their (demonstrably) aggressively expansionist neighbor is THEIR CHOICE, and not at all surprising.
@nafnlaus@kravietz you keep saying they're expansionist, but for 30 years their border has shrunk, and the only conflict we're dealing with now is over Ukrainian treatment of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine on the Russian border.
@FortyTwo@kravietz "Their border has shrunk" because during moments of weakness their conquered territories managed to break off and regain their freedom. Russia managed bit by bit to claw them back. Tatarstan, Dagestan, and Ingushetia failed to break off, despite trying. Chechnya succeeded, only to be reconquered. Moscow quickly broke off Transnistria, then later Abkhazia and South Ossetia, then Crimea, then Donetsk and Luhansk, and is currently trying to take Ukraine as a whole.
@FortyTwo@kravietz "Putin claims that Ukraine has Nazis"
Ukraine has among the WEAKEST far-right movements in all of Europe, and among the HIGHEST acceptance rates for Jews (including 3/4ths of the population voting for a Jew whose family was murdered by the Nazis).
It's beyond cynical to present "there exist greater than zero Nazis in Ukraine, a country with an abnormally weak far-right movement" as "Ukraine is a country of Nazis", while Russia itself was making heavy use of Nazi militias.
@FortyTwo@kravietz Here for example is Alexey Milchakov, founder of the Russich militia which Russia has used heavily in Donbas. Proud unabashed Neo-Nazi (talks about it repeatedly in interviews) who came to fame for murdering puppies on camera. And here he is being given an award by the quisling governor of Crimea for his service. And here's his militia posing with former "DNR" head Borodai.
@FortyTwo@kravietz While Prigozhin runs Wagner today, it was founded by neo-Nazi Dmitri Utkin. Wagner was his callsign, which he chose because Wagner was Hitler's favourite composer.
@FortyTwo@kravietz For God's sake, this Nazi (Rogozin) is Putin's personal friend who he put first in charge of Roscosmos (which makes Russia's nuclear missiles), then in charge of governing the territories conquered in Ukraine. Well known in the Russian white nationalist community for speaking at their rallies.
How long does one need to go on?
Anyway, you're on mute now for repeatedly ignoring things I've posted and acting like I never said them.
That point was often made by the leftist pro-Kremlin crowd: “You have to take the Russian wishes concerning NATO into account, because they are big and powerful”
But making alliances and voluntary cooperation is also defending yourself.
@useless_idiot@nafnlaus@kravietz correct me if I'm wrong but, Russia doesn't claim that it wants to take over the Ukraine. It's just concerned with the Donbass region and the treatment of, largely, ethnic Russians in that area.
@FortyTwo@useless_idiot@kravietz Russia literally just invaded to try to conquer Ukraine on a front stretching from Kyiv to Snake Island, including the capitol, and you have the gall to say "Russia doesn't claim it wants to take over [the] Ukraine"? 🤦♀️
There was no "civil war". Those were Russian troops, managing territorial militias. Putin admitted in 2015 it was Russian special forces in Crimea in 2015, while they admitted it in Donbas last year.
@FortyTwo@useless_idiot@kravietz 2022 poll in Ukraine. Last bar is the east, second to last bar is the south, both regions that Russia has focused heavily on conquering. Dark red is the pro-Russian position, light-orange "mainly" pro-Russian.
Donbas has been bit by bit. First started awarding soldiers medals for serving in Donbas (back in 2017 if I remember right was the first one, for Debaltseve). 2021 a Russian court found for a caterer who was contracted to provide meals for the Russian army in Donbas. In 2022 they started recognizing it as a service location back to 2014 in military IDs.
He won’t see me as I’ve blocked him, but numerous Russian obituaries in 2022-2023 mention “army service in Donbass from 2014”. They never made it a secret inside Russia, that was just a show for the external audience.
The Kremlin has been claiming for months that they had no intention to invade Ukraine before 24 February 2022. Then Putin ordered a full scale invasion of Ukraine. Then for months the Kremlin stated they wanted a.o. to secure the independence of the DPR and LPR. They on 30 September 2022 Putin annexed them.
All recent history, all very public. Why would anyone pay any attention to what the Kremlin claims?
@useless_idiot@nafnlaus@kravietz Again, I'm not claiming that Russia is innocent in all of this.
Ukraine is a corrupt shithole. In the midst of war, they've sold military aide intended for its defense on the black market, they've laundered money intended for their war effort.
Also, very recent and public.
Why would anyone trust Ukraine as the font of all truth?
You literally said: "Russia doesn't claim that it wants to take over the Ukraine. ", as if that means anything. Making it very clear that you believe what the Kremlin says.
What does the corruption of Ukraine (which is mostly caused by Russian meddling, and which the Ukrainians want to get rid of since their independence) have to do with this war? Do you really believe it will get better when Putin's friends are completely in charge?
@useless_idiot@nafnlaus@kravietz Where does Russia claim that it wants to take over the Ukraine? How can I believe what the Kremlin says when they haven't said it.
Ukraine wants to get rid of corruption sooooo bad, that they've laundered financial aide to support their war effort, sold military equipment on the black market intended to defend their homeland...
They're liars and crooks and there might be truth to Russia's side of the story.
So if it turns out the Bidens are corrupt the Kremlin can bomb the USA?
Moscow doesn't try to destroy* the Ukrainians because of corruption. Officially it's because of Denazification (kudos that you didn't fall for that), Protecting LPR/DPR (those people are fleeing over here), and Demilitarization. What do you think the Russian story is?
*yes they do, untargeted strikes, the power system, and on the Russian TV, they want to drown the Ukrainian children.
"The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either."
@FortyTwo@kravietz Gorbachev is not an idiot. You cannot just take random words from random negotiators trying to decide what to agree to and then pretend that those were the actual treaty itself that was ultimately agreed to. Russia raised no objection to the expansion (their only focus was on the basing of troops), while Bush flatly ruled out Baker's suggestion of prohibiting other states from joining NATO. Hence it was NOT included in the treaty.
@nafnlaus@kravietz so, wait, you're saying that the eastern expansion agreement was never made, or because it wasn't written down it doesn't count.
There's several people, on both sides that has said it was promised. So, I don't think you're saying it was never offered.
If you're saying it doesn't count because it wasn't written down somewhere, that just means people won't trust your word. If you'll break a verbal agreement, there's nothing stopping you from breaking a written one.
@nafnlaus@kravietz According to documents declassified in 2017, the deal essentially was that the Soviets would allow German unification with the written “ironclad guarantees”, that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward”, in the words of James Baker.
@FortyTwo@kravietz That was A PROPOSAL. How is this difficult for you to understand the difference between a proposal and a treaty? For God's sakes, the references to it are handwritten in chickenscratch.
@FortyTwo@kravietz It didn't end up in the treaty because (A) Bush absolutely refused, and (B) the Russians weren't pushing for it. IT was the Russian goal to prevent troops from being based in East Germany. And they got what they were seeking.
@FortyTwo@kravietz "The alternative" was Russia doing what they always did in the past, putting troops in other people's countries, treating them as colonial subjects who don't get a say in deciding their own fates, and raising a middle finger to anyone who objects.
@FortyTwo@kravietz In the NATO-Russia Founding Act, signed in 2002, both states affirmed, and I quote, "NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries."
@FortyTwo@kravietz Unlike before, the addition of Finland to NATO actually did add a huge amount of border between Russia and NATO. And what was Russia's response once they were finally ratified?
Claiming it's fine because they have no "territorial disputes" like they do with Ukraine. Which is a bald-faced admission that all that matters to him is seizing Ukrainian territory and not NATO.
It was Eastern European countries begging NATO to accept them as we were watching #Russia nationalism and imperialism growing back under Putin, and his dogs publicly threatening to re-invade #Poland and Baltics when we dared to change fucking street names in our own towns, remove fucking Soviet monuments or dig up bodies of people killed under Soviet occupation and call them victims of Soviet occupation! All of that predates any NATO membership by years.
So if someone threatens you, you do whatever you can to prevent the threat, and that’s precisely why everyone who could joined NATO in Eastern Europe.
@kravietz “re-invade Poland”, lmao, I can’t wait for them to make a single step on allied country’s territory
They broke all military teeth on some poor Ukraine (Kiev in 3 days, anyone?), regime about to fall, on every recent videos Putin’s hands are shaking and his voice stuttering, but ok :blobrofl:
Well, now we know that. Before 2022 most military experts preferred to be on the safe side and assumed at least Russian army is capable of something… But I was talking about the pre-NATO times for Poland.
@FortyTwo@kravietz
That is really bullsh*t 🤦🏻♀️ Russia knows very well that the NATO never had any intention to attack Russia
At the other hand terrorists state Russia has a very long track record of killing/rape/murder/stealing/slavery and destruction in their “brothers” countries
🤷🏻♀️ It’s logic that at a certain moment those life threatened East countries are choosing to join the safe shelter of NATO
Add comment