6 ms·

> but they've been sold a narrative that NATO's expansion into Ukraine was an existential threat to them When the war started there were no talking what's so e

> but they've been sold a narrative that NATO's expansion into Ukraine was an existential threat to them When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine. After the war started Finland joined NATO and it is the longest border between NATO and Russia and nobody from Russia said anything about that.

runsWphotons 3y ago
There was plenty of talking about it before the war, you just werent listening to the right channels. No one said anything about Finland joining because the bridges are already burned, it is too late.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Finland decided to join before they, too, were invaded. They have after all been here before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  Can you point us to those channels?
  - ghostwriter 3y ago
    > https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm >> We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process > https://www.dw.com/en/russia-putin-addresses-ukraine-nato-tensions/a-60237389 https://www.dw.com/en/russia-putin-addresses-ukraine-nato-te... > https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text >> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      That statement was made 7 years after the war began in 2014, not before the war, and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began, which had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO (thouh after the war started, this changed.)
      - ghostwriter 3y ago
        > and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began Are you suggesting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Are you suggeting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance? Specifically between the government in 2008 and the post-Maidan government, during which there was an arguable auto-coup followed by a definite revolution? Yeah, there is a pretty severe discontinuity, not least of all on policy toward both NATO and Russia. Also, even insofar as the post-Maidan government might be seen as in general continuity of the pre-Yanukovych government that had sought NATO membership, NATO’s decision not to extend a MAP in 2008 in direct response to Putin’s objections, cooled Ukrainian interest, even in the pro-Western faction, because NATO was seen as unwilling to stand up for Ukraine against Russia. Putin had already won on NATO expansion before launching the war.
    - bandyaboot 3y ago
      Somehow I doubt that that understanding between NATO and Ukraine that was 13 years old when Russia invaded is what OP had in mind when they referred to “plenty of talk before the war” and “not listening to the right channels”—13 years going on 100 I might add given all that had transpired during those years. I believe the OP was suggesting that there was current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO, which if true, would obviously justify Russia’s attempt to obliterate the country. /s
dragonwriter 3y ago
> When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine Ukraine adopted a policy of seeking to join NATO after the current Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014. Immediately prior to the war it had focussed on seeking to join the EU, but had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO.

runsWphotons 3y ago

There was plenty of talking about it before the war, you just werent listening to the right channels. No one said anything about Finland joining because the bridges are already burned, it is too late.

pjc50 3y ago
Finland decided to join before they, too, were invaded. They have after all been here before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
bandyaboot 3y ago
Can you point us to those channels?
- ghostwriter 3y ago
  > https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm >> We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process > https://www.dw.com/en/russia-putin-addresses-ukraine-nato-tensions/a-60237389 https://www.dw.com/en/russia-putin-addresses-ukraine-nato-te... > https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text >> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    That statement was made 7 years after the war began in 2014, not before the war, and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began, which had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO (thouh after the war started, this changed.)
    - ghostwriter 3y ago
      > and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began Are you suggesting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Are you suggeting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance? Specifically between the government in 2008 and the post-Maidan government, during which there was an arguable auto-coup followed by a definite revolution? Yeah, there is a pretty severe discontinuity, not least of all on policy toward both NATO and Russia. Also, even insofar as the post-Maidan government might be seen as in general continuity of the pre-Yanukovych government that had sought NATO membership, NATO’s decision not to extend a MAP in 2008 in direct response to Putin’s objections, cooled Ukrainian interest, even in the pro-Western faction, because NATO was seen as unwilling to stand up for Ukraine against Russia. Putin had already won on NATO expansion before launching the war.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    Somehow I doubt that that understanding between NATO and Ukraine that was 13 years old when Russia invaded is what OP had in mind when they referred to “plenty of talk before the war” and “not listening to the right channels”—13 years going on 100 I might add given all that had transpired during those years. I believe the OP was suggesting that there was current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO, which if true, would obviously justify Russia’s attempt to obliterate the country. /s

dragonwriter 3y ago

> When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine Ukraine adopted a policy of seeking to join NATO after the current Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014. Immediately prior to the war it had focussed on seeking to join the EU, but had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO.