Never forget that NATO was collaborating with Nazis and performing false flag terrorist operations in Europe after WW2 to instill red panic and install pro-US leaders.
NATO is still collaborating with Nazis to this day. You can’t see a single picture from Ukraine that doesn’t have a Nazi patch and Canada recently gave a standing ovation for a “Ukrainian war hero” who, uh oh, was a general for the waffen SS. I mean, what do you expect from an institution literally started by a Nazi? The fact that people still choose not to see it leads me to the most regrettable of conclusions.
You’re right I have no idea what DDR means in the context of countries or geopolitics.
As for the claim that NATO wouldn’t expand past the DDR, all I could find were sources that say it was an oral agreement between the US and the USSR. I don’t see why the USSR (now Russia) should get to decide what unions eastern European countries decide to join, especially since after the collapse of the Warsaw pact said countries were no longer part of a defensive pact.
Based on what? NATO gave non-expansion assurances to USSR and Russia has been pretty adamant they are not the successor to the USSR. There’s no reasonable explanation why NATO shouldn’t have expanded into the former soviet states. After all those states wanted NATO to expand there.
Maybe Russia should’ve done a better job being a partner to the former soviet states. With the exception of Belarus Russia doesn’t have any positive relations in eastern europe, and even Belarus is a huge exception because Lukashenko can’t stay in power without Russia. The only former ally Russia had was Ukraine and we all know how that went for Ukraine. Russia is a huge threat to the sovereignty of those countries and Russia has had zero interest in having good relations with those countries. Is it really any wonder those countries fled under the banner of NATO? I don’t think so.
Also Russia is the top promoter of NATO. The article mentions how Sweden and Finland have maintained neutrality for over half a century. They could’ve joined NATO any time they wanted and they didn’t. But then Putin threatened both countries and within months both countries decided to join NATO. You have to go into some conspiracy theory mode to ignore the obvious cause and effect here. I will say with 100% certainty that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine and Putin had not threatened Sweden and Finland then neither country would’ve taken any steps towards joining NATO. Because why should they, why take the obligations if there’s no threat to defend yourself from?
In fact let’s not forget that prior to the Ukraine invasion the sentiment was moving towards whether NATO is even necessary anymore. Maybe 10 years from now NATO would’ve dissolved all by itself. But we won’t know that now because the invasion of Ukraine has been a signal to countries that NATO is still necessary. Russia’s actions are keeping NATO alive.
If Ukraine is of any indication the only thing NATO has done to Russia is prevent them from invading the Baltics and Poland. Do you really think that’s a bad thing?
NATO shouldn’t have expanded beyond the former DDR to provoke Russia
Never forget that NATO was collaborating with Nazis and performing false flag terrorist operations in Europe after WW2 to instill red panic and install pro-US leaders.
The cold war is over
NATO is still collaborating with Nazis to this day. You can’t see a single picture from Ukraine that doesn’t have a Nazi patch and Canada recently gave a standing ovation for a “Ukrainian war hero” who, uh oh, was a general for the waffen SS. I mean, what do you expect from an institution literally started by a Nazi? The fact that people still choose not to see it leads me to the most regrettable of conclusions.
You’re both right
Sure, it was a dumb move because it angered Russia, but it’s not a reason to murder civilians.
Ukraine murdered civilians in the eastern half of the country since the euromaiden coup, breaking the Minsk Agreements multiple times
No they did not.
Also, it’s not a coup if the president abdicates.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/22/ukraine-tymoshenko-president-protests
Removed by mod
Whether you call it a coup or a color revolution, Western fingerprints are all over it
Why shouldn’t former DDR countries sign a defensive pact? Why would Russia not want them to do that?
Since that ‘defensive pact’ was specifically created to serve as America’s spearhead against the USSR
Spearhead against what? The USSR attacking other countries?
Name one Western European country the Soviets attacked without provocation
when you definitely know what you’re talking about
this is the former DDR country, singular
Because NATO agreed not to? Because they expect agreements to be upheld?
You’re right I have no idea what DDR means in the context of countries or geopolitics.
As for the claim that NATO wouldn’t expand past the DDR, all I could find were sources that say it was an oral agreement between the US and the USSR. I don’t see why the USSR (now Russia) should get to decide what unions eastern European countries decide to join, especially since after the collapse of the Warsaw pact said countries were no longer part of a defensive pact.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/07/1078929982/a-look-at-the-debate-over-nato-expansion-eastward-thats-at-the-heart-of-conflict
https://www.france24.com/en/russia/20220130-did-nato-betray-russia-by-expanding-to-the-east
Removed by mod
Based on what? NATO gave non-expansion assurances to USSR and Russia has been pretty adamant they are not the successor to the USSR. There’s no reasonable explanation why NATO shouldn’t have expanded into the former soviet states. After all those states wanted NATO to expand there.
Maybe Russia should’ve done a better job being a partner to the former soviet states. With the exception of Belarus Russia doesn’t have any positive relations in eastern europe, and even Belarus is a huge exception because Lukashenko can’t stay in power without Russia. The only former ally Russia had was Ukraine and we all know how that went for Ukraine. Russia is a huge threat to the sovereignty of those countries and Russia has had zero interest in having good relations with those countries. Is it really any wonder those countries fled under the banner of NATO? I don’t think so.
Also Russia is the top promoter of NATO. The article mentions how Sweden and Finland have maintained neutrality for over half a century. They could’ve joined NATO any time they wanted and they didn’t. But then Putin threatened both countries and within months both countries decided to join NATO. You have to go into some conspiracy theory mode to ignore the obvious cause and effect here. I will say with 100% certainty that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine and Putin had not threatened Sweden and Finland then neither country would’ve taken any steps towards joining NATO. Because why should they, why take the obligations if there’s no threat to defend yourself from?
In fact let’s not forget that prior to the Ukraine invasion the sentiment was moving towards whether NATO is even necessary anymore. Maybe 10 years from now NATO would’ve dissolved all by itself. But we won’t know that now because the invasion of Ukraine has been a signal to countries that NATO is still necessary. Russia’s actions are keeping NATO alive.
If Ukraine is of any indication the only thing NATO has done to Russia is prevent them from invading the Baltics and Poland. Do you really think that’s a bad thing?
Ever wondered why all of those countries wanted to join NATO?