There is nothing in this that reflects the title. It’s nothing more than passive propaganda. They are relying on people to just read the title and not open the link.
What is actually said is:
And let me just end by saying that this reflects the political reality that nations are sovereign. Nations decide themselves, and Ukraine has of course the right to decide its own path. And it’s up to Ukraine and NATO Allies to decide when Ukraine becomes a member. Russia cannot veto membership for any sovereign independent state in Europe.
“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.”
my brother in none, if they wanted to use nukes they would have. they know that their equipment is shit and that the us and relevant countries have like 10 different active systems for dealing with the 5 icbms what are actually functional.
Not arguing there. But this was 80 years ago. You would think that making threats of this nature would be something that you would show restraint considering we have a history.
The U.S. is the only country on the planet that has a first-strike policy, i.e., that as a standing matter threatens to use nukes. This is not 80 years ago, this is right now.
Pine Gap – Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap (JDFPG), near Alice Springs, Northern Territory.
Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt – located on the northwest coast of Australia, 6 kilometres (4 mi) north of the town of Exmouth, Western Australia.
Robertson Barracks – located in Darwin, Northern Territory.
Australian Defence Satellite Communications Station – located near Kojarena 30 km east of Geraldton, Western Australia.
Other U.S. bases in Australia are present and this list does not include ADF bases with U.S. access. The U.S. military has access to all major ADF training areas, northern Australian RAAF airfields, port facilities in Darwin, Fremantle, Stirling naval base in Perth, and the airfield on the Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean.
Iraq
There are approximately 2,500 U.S. service members in Iraq, spread across several facilities in Iraq and other bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, being used as training bases for Iraqi and Kurdish forces as well as launching operations against targets in Syria.
Al-Anbar Governorate
Al Asad Airbase
Camp Habbaniyah
Baghdad Governorate
Camp Victory
Duhok Governorate
Atrush Field
Erbil Governorate
Al-Harir Air Base
Erbil International Airport
Nineveh Governorate
Kariz near Zummar
Saladin Governorate
Balad Air Base
Niger
The U.S. operates drone bases from three locations across Niger. These locations are staffed by several hundred U.S. Special Operations Forces in a non-combat role, aiding the Nigerien military with training and surveillance.
Arlit
Nigerien Air Base 201, Agadez
Niamey
United States Army
Belgium
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
Bosnia and Herzegovina
NATO Headquarters Sarajevo
Bulgaria
Aitos Logistics Center, Burgas Province
Bezmer Air Base, Yambol Province
Graf Ignatievo Air Base, Plovdiv Province
Novo Selo Range, Sliven Province
Cameroon
Contingency Location Garoua, Garoua
Germany
Bleidorn Housing Area, Ansbach
Dagger Complex, Darmstadt Training Center Griesheim
Edelweiss Lodge and Resort, Garmisch-Partenkirchen
Lucius D. Clay Kaserne (formerly Wiesbaden Army Airfield), Wiesbaden-Erbenheim
Germersheim Army Depot, Germersheim
Grafenwöhr Training Area, Grafenwöhr/Vilseck
Hohenfels Training Area/Joint Multinational Readiness Center, Hohenfels (Upper Palatinate)
Husterhoeh Kaserne, Pirmasens
Kaiserslautern Military Community
Katterbach Kaserne, Ansbach
Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart
Kleber Kaserne, Kaiserslautern Military Community
Lampertheim Training Area, Lampertheim
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl
McCully Barracks, Wackernheim
Miesau Army Depot, Miesau
Oberdachstetten Storage Area, Ansbach
Panzer Kaserne, Böblingen
Patch Barracks, Stuttgart
Pulaski Barracks, Kaiserslautern
Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Kaiserslautern
Robinson Barracks, Stuttgart
Rose Barracks, Vilseck
Sembach Kaserne, Kaiserslautern
Sheridan Barracks, Garmisch-Partenkirchen
Shipton Kaserne, Ansbach
Smith Barracks, Baumholder
Storck Barracks, Illesheim
Stuttgart Army Airfield, Filderstadt
Mainz-Kastel
USAG Wiesbaden Military Training Area, Mainz, Gonsenheim/Mombach
USAG Wiesbaden Training Area, Mainz Finthen Airport
Naval Facility Okinawa is one of the more controversial. There’s also Fort Magsaysay in the Philippines, along with others in the region. The US really does have China surrounded on multiple fronts.
The largest American overseas base is Camp Humphreys in South Korea, which comprises of over 500 individual buildings and cost $11 billion.
Due to the sensitive and often classified nature of this information, there is no comprehensive list with the exact number or location of all bases, stations and installations. The total number of foreign sites with installations and facilities that are either in active use and service, or that may be activated and operated by American military personnel and allies, is just over 1,000.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The number of around 1000 US foreign military bases is well collaborated, even by US professors and researchers. The existence of organisations like AFRICOM and US foreign troop deployments to countries like Germany and South Korea is well known. It’s not a matter of belief.
So you would be ok if Turkey says "we only invaded those greek islands because they had greek military bases in them"? I am just wondering, since when having military bases(your own or of allies), in your own sovereign, internationally recognized territory is an acceptable casus belli for you.
Would you be ok if the US invaded Cuba, if Cuba had russian bases? Is this what you are saying? How something like this justifies invasion?
There is only one country that used nukes against a live target, ever, and they did it twice, to civilian population centers in the middle of active peace negotiations.
There is only one country with nuclear capabilities deployed in over 80 countries under its direct control. There is only one country that has unilaterally pulled out of every nuclear treaty in history. There is only one country that publishes news articles about and has leadership in press conferences talking about winning nuclear war and about developing mini nukes. There is only one country working to undermine the MAD doctrine. There is only one country that just sent a nuclear-armed submarine to one its vassal states as a show of willingness.
They dropped a bomb on a nation that was guilty of murdering up to 10m people. They were also not the initial aggressive beligerant. They do not have control with 80 nations, they have a non aggression pact. Yep, there are parts of the US media that is screwed up. That comes with free press. Does Russia have a free press? There is only one country that is looking to test out the mad doctrine, who also sent nuclear weapons to a vassal state: Russia.
hitler-detector As always, the good and conscientious liberal is never more than two steps away from trying to justify the nuclear anihilation of two cities full of noncombatants in a country that was already surrendering. Incredible.
Next they will ignore this and continue to make things up about their state- designated “enemies” to make them sound worse. Sure, we may have lied about every war before this for profit but this time the Badguy Villainman really is Hitler 2.0, we swear! This time we really are on the right side of history, so shut up and support these Nazis!
God damn, I’ve lived in America all my life and I’m so sick of our bullshit, and I don’t even have to worry about stepping on any of the unexploded freedom we leave everywhere else. And if you live in the UK or something, no you don’t, it’s Damp America, it’s all America.
This post is dedicated to the brave Mujahadeen fighters of Afghanistan
If the west allowed the Soviet Union to bring socialism to Afghanistan, the Mujahadeen would have been a footnote in the pages of history. If you agree with no other part of the USSR, the social and gender equality aspects are surely better than current Russia/Afghanistan. Instead we have Osama doing what he did
And the brave women trying to get an education there.
Damn, maybe America shouldn’t have funded the fucking Mujahideen of Afghanistan to overthrow the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan who delivered to the women of Afghanistan their right to choose who to marry, where to work, right to education, and political rights.
Maybe if Russia/Stalin had not decided to annex half of Europe there would not have been a cold war. These people decided to sleep with the Russians. The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
If the U.S. actually gave a shit about women’s rights it wouldn’t ally with Saudi Arabia (and a dozen other countries) and wouldn’t have funded and armed fundamentalist Muslims throughout the 70s and 80s.
The U.S. view of human rights generally is that they are occasionally a useful rhetorical cudgel for browbeating skeptical liberals into supporting the war du jour.
No other country in the history of humanity dropped nukes outside of tests. No other country nukes civilians. No other country nukes civilians in a country that was surrendering. There is no way around it.
I’m not talking about the existence of subs in non-native waters. I’m talking about surfacing a sub and announcing it’s presence in South Korea as a sabre rattle. Russia didn’t surface subs off the coast of Florida, it didn’t surface subs in a port in Mexico. Because Russia isn’t trying to get in a war with the USA. It’s the USA that keeps expanding its military presence every year, believing it has the mandate to establish a command center for each region of the planet, using slogans like “the border is everywhere” to organize it’s border patrol, and expanding the presence of its nuclear capabilities into 80+ countries.
Coming onto your property. And half of it is theirs now and you’re refusing to call a truce even though youve failed your big push to retake that half and are slowly losing more ground.
Eh. It’s the metaphor. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and the argument about what Ukraine does or doesn’t do on its own soil - or who it invites over to play - being somehow justification for invasion is hypocritical tripe. Russia’s been invading other sovereign states, and stockpiles weapons in its vassel states; it’s an “existential threat” to every one of its neighbors, except the strong ones like China.
The arguments Putin used for invasion about Ukraine abusing its citizens were better, except for being lies. They should have stuck with that one, except they had no evidence and nobody believed it. It still made a better story and was less hypocritical.
Also, behaving like a communist with your country when your neighbor is an imperialist dictatorship is only a recipe for becoming a member of an imperialist dictatorship.
Firstly, I’m not sure your understanding of the meaning or relevance of ‘hypocrisy’ is very clear.
Secondly, you’re introducing a moralistic discourse about this when the first issue is what caused or explained the Russian intervention in Ukraine. Despite the evidence overwhelmingly pointing to NATO expansion, the fact that you are denying it when even Stoltenberg and Blinken are basically at the point of admitting it, implicit as those admissions may be, is pretty comic.
If you think that the Ukrainian government was not only not abusing, but in fact not committing acts amounting to ethnically cleansing Russians in eastern Ukraine, you have been living under a rock and its disgusting that you can utter such bullshit with such nonchalance and impunity. Contrary to, say, accusation of genocide in Xinjiang, for which there is no hard concrete evidence (in fact evidence and reason point to the contrary), there are mountains of evidence in every form of media, whether video, documents, government announcements, proving that there was repressive military and political action being taken against the Russophone and ethinically Russian, or simply anti-nationalist Ukrainians of the East, by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist regime. There have been mass disappearances, lynchings, bombings, assassinations, and we could go on. Again, there is too much evidence for this in every form for any one person to peruse the entirety of, so either you are pig-shit ignorant, or you are lying. Trouble is you are doing it in the wrong place.
Your last sentence is barely comprehensible quite frankly. If you think that reocognizing that a state should not aggressively expand a demonstrably imperialist organisation and in the process break all related previous agreements and promises in doing so, in a way that every party involved is fully aware will be perceived as a threat to the national security of one of the concerned countries, if one wants to avoid hot conflict, given the self-evident realities of realpolitik, is communist or marxist, then go off I guess.
Ok, so, in all seriousness, thanks for making the attempt at a rational and detailed response.
However, and I say this in all honestly, I have got to start paying better attention to the homeserver of the people I’m responding to. While I appreciate the time you put into your response, I’ve found that my mood is greatly improved when I don’t engage the hexabear swarm.
So, I apologize that you took that time and I’m just going to blow it off. My bad for not looking at the usernames more closely.
Cool, now your brother is dead and you lost half your property. Your serial killer gun nut buddy doesn’t give a damn about you so he didn’t show up to fight himself, but now he holds the mortgage to your house because he lent you weapons to fight and lose.
NATO is not a friend or friendly force, it is one of the great evils of our time, anyone arguing otherwise just wants to bomb third world countries.
Ask the citizens of Libya and Iraq how defensive and friendly NATO is.
The process of “joining NATO” is not anything equivalent to making friends, any country joining NATO essentially becomes a vassal for US interests. There’s a reason why Sweden and Finland held out for so long.
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.
At least he had some good jokes to warm up the crowd!
I think I’ve told you before that I know it’s hard to allocate money for defence, because most politicians want to spend money on health, on education, on infrastructure instead of defence.
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.
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.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
And let me just end by saying that this reflects the political reality that nations are sovereign.
I mean that’s just factually untrue. Every nations sovereignty is restricted by geopolitical realities. No nation can just do whatever they desire, including joining certain alliances. Mexico will not be joining BRICS for instance, because of the geopolitical situation. And that’s not even a military alliance, which NATO is! Europeans are not special, they have to play by the same rules as everybody else. To claim otherwise is to ignore the reality on the ground right now, both in Ukraine and globally.
Also none of this factors in that joining NATO, by definition, involves giving up some part of your nations sovereignty. NATO in reality acts as an extended arm of the US military and it’s industrial complex, and in joining, countries are subjected to this reality of Atlanticism.
Mexico will not join BRICs because they would then have to leave USMCA trade agreement. Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants. The US does not get to dictate anymore by military might. They have done in the past. To do so today would bring other trade deals into conflict. The EU would be very against this. This does not mean the US cannot use its financial might, which it clearly does and often.
Also none of this factors in that joining NATO, by definition, involves giving up some part of your nations sovereignty. NATO in reality acts as an extended arm of the US military and it’s industrial complex, and in joining, countries are subjected to this reality of Atlanticism.
Simply not true. Being part of NATO is not an aggressive pact. It is only enacted if another member is attacked. One or more members being aggressive does not mean the rest have to follow. The US and the UK attacked Iran as individual nations. The US has the biggest say in NATO because they spend more than anyone else by quite some distance. Something that is changing because of the Russian attempts to annex Ukraine into its own borders.
One or more members being aggressive does not mean the rest have to follow.
But they usually always do, because of the implication…
You are aware that the US and UK were not the only countries to deploy troops to Iraq (not Iran, as you mistakenly claim). There was a whole NATO training operation involving 13 NATO member states. 20 of the current 31 NATO members had some form of troop deployment in Iraq between 2003 and 2011.
Cuba, your nearest neighbour, can do whatever it wants. The US does not get to dictate anymore by military might. They have done in the past. To do so today would bring other trade deals into conflict. The EU would be very against this
I am not American, and it’s quite clear the US does use it’s military might when it needs to, to dictate the order of the world, and there is nothing that the EU can do about it. Precisely because their sovereignty is curtailed due to being US vassal states. Of which NATO membership is a key part. This includes actions against the EU. Unless you want to argue that the nordstream gas pipelines just spontaneously combusted.
If it was a NATO aggressive action then ALL would be involved not just a portion.
As for the US using it military might, it has been bitten enough to know it is just a waste of money. Unless you have a costed strategic end game policy, simply removing dictatorships is not enough.
The closest thing to the lie you wrote is the part where it says Putin demanded that NATO stop recognizing Ukraine as a sovereign country. So he’s invading Ukraine because NATO didn’t allow him to annex Ukraine Anschluss and annexation of Sudetenland style. And if you think that would help, remember that appeasing Putin over Georgia and, effectively, over Crimea and Donbass didn’t do shit to stop his aggression.
Besides the document implies what was already obvious, which is that, before the war, Ukraine wasn’t even going to be allowed into NATO any time soon, NATO countries just couldn’t sign an agreement that would limit Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Putin invaded because he's an autocratic piece of shit that wants to bully smaller countries into increasing his own wealth and power. I don't expect a pro Kremlin stooge to understand anything happening here though.
Sure, geopolitics doesn’t exist, it’s all just this craaaaaayzee guy twirling his evil mustache. It’s not like the Russian government has any say, or that almost everyone in it not only support the SMO but many of them think Putin is too soft on Ukraine and should commit much more of their military to it. It’s not like over 70% of the Russian public also supports the SMO and Putin’s decisions, saying they should never make concessions to return the Donbas to Ukraine. I mean, it’s not like most of the world aside from the propaganda-steeped NATO countries also side with Russia with respect to the conflict. Nope. None of that. Just that one maniacal power hungry madman!
lol. It’s so funny these fucking dweebs who can’t understand the world beyond a simplistic Saturday-morning-cartoon kind of analysis with Putin being this season’s villain.
Yet you are willing to support the actual fascists who were bombing their own people, in the most corrupt country in Europe. I wouldn’t expect an Andrews Air Base resident to understand.
Invading a non-NATO country does not do anything whatsoever to counter NATO presence near Russia. Russia has already had a land border with NATO for twenty years. Thanks to Finland joining it also just got a lot bigger, because funnily enough if Russia starts throwing its weight around everyone else is going to look for security from Russia. This reasoning doesn't even explain Russia's invasion, never mind justify it
Are you pretending that Ukraine did not apply for NATO membership, or that NATO stated they were planning to place nukes there (which we only learned because Ukraine was cheering it on Twitter)?
I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying that even if Russia fully annexed Ukraine in 24 hours flat, it wouldn't move NATO's borders any further away from Russia.
Oh they haven’t? India-Pakistan conflict did not happen then. The Cuban missile crisis didn’t happen either. I guess the US hasn’t been trying to kill Iran’s nuclear program with drone bombings and assassinations either.
I’d say open a book, but I don’t think you have the capacity to benefit from it.
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.
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.
So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Huzzah for US dominance in the world! Huzzah for nuclear escalation! Huzzah for NATO and global imperialism! Huzzah for Zelenski and all Ukrainian Nazis!
There now, you don’t have to feel so alone and surrounded by scary tankies.
Welcome, stay a while and chat with us. You can expand your horizons or you can go back to reddit where anti-imperialist analysis and opinion are censored.
Lmao I'm a leftist and was never censored in 12 years on reddit. Give me a break from your victim complex.
You shit stain tankies can keep on sucking authoritarian dick tho.
“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.”
You mean that it’s bad that the USA threatened to nuke Russia when Russia was putting missiles in Cuba, or when Russia invaded Ukraine when USA said they would put missiles in Ukraine? Was it bad the USA threatened nuclear war because Cuba wanted to defend itself from a belligerent neighbour? Russia backed off, should the US back off from Ukraine? Or “this is different”.
So you’re alright with the way the US treats Cuba then? The USA did make it very clear that they wouldn’t tolerate Warsaw Pact expansionism near their borders, and Cuba could have just surrendered after the Bay of Pigs invasion to avoid all the negative consequences that have resulted from Cuba’s decision to oppose the freedom loving USA.
Yeah and the US made it very clear that they didn’t want USSR expansionism near their borders. Doesn’t make what the US has done to Cuba alright, just like it doesn’t make what Russia has done in Ukraine alright.
The US effectively did. There’s no other explanation for why US elected and career officials were present in Ukraine during small and violent anti-government protests, and there’s no other explanation for how and why the US state department chose the next leader of Ukraine after the democratically elected and widely supported President Yanukovych was forced to flee in fear for his life. Ukraine for all practical purposes lost its sovereignty in February 2014.
If you’re talking about the small peninsula of Crimea, the residents of Crimea democratically chose to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
It’s not easy, but it’s very much worth taking some time to understand what sovereignty and democracy actually mean, both in theory and in practice.
No, the US effectively didn't. Russia actually did. It's truly incredible that you're promoting the results of a referendum held by an invading military force as legitimate and then telling me that I don't understand democracy. You can't have democracy at gunpoint. Would you be defending an American-run referendum to see if Basra wanted to join the USA in 2003? Because that is what you're doing right now.
If the election weren’t legitimate, why do Crimeans still stand by the decision they supposedly made at gunpoint to this day? Why don’t they remember there being Russian soldiers being present during the referendum? Why would Ukrainian citizens be welcomed into Crimeans communities now if this had simply been a nationalist land grab? Why didn’t Ukraine invest in Crimean infrastructure and social services between 1991 and 2014? Why would Russia invest in that same infrastructure and social services post 2014? Why weren’t Russian citizens allowed to vote in the referendum, only Ukrainians with Crimean residency?
Comparing this situation to the relationship between the US and Iraq/Basra is grotesque and intellectually dishonest so there’s no point in discussing that further.
b) you are seriously comparing an outright unprovoked invasion from US into Iraq, with one where Russia is defending Russian-speaking people against a Nazi-un government that has been bombing them for 8 years.
c) even before the invasion, these people wanted to join up with Russia. They went all the way to Moscow multiple times to beg for Russia to intervene.
d) it is obvious you know next to nothing about Ukraine and its situation. You only know what the US state department has told you and you repeat the exact same talking points.
A) It's not deflection to limit a response to the parts most relevant to what I had actually asked.
B) I compared an unprovoked outright invasion to an unprovoked outright invasion. If you can annex land because there's a civil war there and the people speak the same language as you, you'd be in favour of America annexing Ireland during the Troubles. Or Britain annexing it, for that matter. Never mind whether or not you're fomenting the civil war in the first place.
C) I'm in favour of self-determination for people - hell, I want the place I live to leave the country hat it's currently part of - but getting invaded is not self-determination.
D) Fun fact but you do not need to parrot the US State Department to think that Russia invaded Ukraine. If I was as virulently pro-America as you seem to think I am I probably wouldn't be using a thing America did as a negative comparison, would I?
A) it is when you ignore every single point except the one you can twist
B) and you were wrong
C) yet you’ve been minimizing the Ukrainian coup orchestrated by the US, and denying the right of self-determination to people in the Donbass
D) you didn’t use it as a negative at all. Nowhere in your comment do you condemn the Iraq war. In fact you are whitewashing it by implying that somehow the US should be praised for not doing ethnic cleansing (which they did, lest we forget the 1.5 million dead Iraqi)
Okay, I just want to focus on D for a moment because I genuinely can't work out how you could arrive at this conclusion. We can come back to the others afterwards. I was arguing that a referendum run by an invading army should not be considered legitimate and used a hypothetical one run by America in Basra as an example. I even specifically called the invasion "unprovoked" in my first response to you. Please explain to me how you think that this is me saying that the invasion of Iraq was praiseworthy.
Except that OP is trying to frame the invasion as justified when the reality is that Putin thought he could bully his neighbors. NATO predictably went “fuck off” and that somehow means bombing Ukrainian children was unavoidable.
Everyone who ever asked me shit like that was never interested in having a discussion, just in purity tests. What I think should happen to Putin has no bearing on what caused this. And FWIW this kind of mindless insistence on moral absolutism is why Tripoli went from the capital of the most stable country in Africa to an open-air slave market.
No it isn’t, it’s because you want to dictate the terms of the conversation, which, again, leaves zero room for any admittance that Putin isn’t the only one who caused this situation.
I live in Denmark. We’re sending absurd amounts of military aid. The commie party supports this on the basis that Ukrainians have an indisputable right to defend themselves. I agree with that, but there’s obviously room for discussing what exactly that implies in terms of support.
All billionaires should go jump off a bridge. Liberal politicians should take a trip to the Titanic, and I have a very nice wall I want to show the billionaire who bankrolled the Danish libertarian party.
I’d be more than happy to have a conversation about the conflict that isn’t just parroting neoliberal talking points, but as I said, this is a litmus test. If you can’t state unequivocally that Putin, a murderous billionaire, deserves to die, then you’re not any kind of socialist I can recognize, and I’ll have no further interest in talking with you.
Ahh yes, NATO, an alliance well known for respecting sovereignty. That’s why they invade and bomb any third world nation with a sovereign project against US interests…
And how did these nations join NATO post cold war? Surely there was no manipulation of the sovereignty of Eastern European nations at that time right?
And do NATO countries have sovereignty themselves, or are they just US vassal states? Be honest here, because the answer is quite clear. It’s gotten to the point that the US can bomb the gas pipelines of another NATO country (see nordstream) and nothing can be done about it. And every NATO country has to buy US weapons systems, engage in specific international training exercises, etc. Very sovereign.
Let’s be clear, realpolitik is all there ever was, and all there ever will be in geopolitics. The “sovereignty” of every nation on the planet is subject to this. Unless you want to do the Turkey/Cuban missile crisis again. There’s a reason Mexico can’t join BRICS, there’s a reason Cuba can’t claim Guantanamo bay as theirs, etc.
You know synonyms exist right? And “enlargement” and “expansionism” are cleary synonyms in this context.
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. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO.
Add comment