this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2022
-14 points (38.3% liked)

World News

32081 readers
1024 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

NATO being able to put nukes in Ukraine would mean that they could reach Moscow in five minutes. This is a red line for Russia.

Serious question: why should Ukraine be a red line when NATO could already put nuclear weapons in Latvia, which is about the same distance from Moscow?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They're not happy about Latvia either, and the current demand is that NATO rolls back to where it was in the 90s. However, when Latvia joined NATO, Russia was in no position to make any kinds of demands. Situation today is very different than it was then.

[–] iagev@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Wouldn't that totally invalidate the point of NATO, if Russia (whose expansion NATO was founded to curb) can just demand that countries that already joined it should leave it?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The point of NATO was invalidated when USSR fell. NATO has been responsible for practically all the instability in Eurasia since then, and the sooner this alliance falls apart the better off the world will be. The countries NATO assimilated should've never been admitted into NATO based on the agreements made between NATO and Russia in the 90s.

[–] ArchimedesTesseract@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Agreements like Ukraine giving up it's nukes in exchange for never being invaded? Russia's word is worthless. Maybe the best thing for Ukraine is to join NATO.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

NATO already made it pretty clear that Ukraine will never join. Meanwhile, all the westerners fled Ukraine from the phantom invasion that the west invented. What Ukrainians know now beyond all doubt is that the west threw them under the bus and never intended to fight for them.

[–] ArchimedesTesseract@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It is a phantom invasion meant to distract Russia's real move in Kazakhstan. "Russian troops withdrawn in days", you say? But their mercenaries linger, to prop up their sock puppet regime with I can't imagine what kinds of violence.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

LMAO, Kazakhstan is a member of CSTO and formally invited Russia to intervene. It's absolutely shocking just how ignorant some people can be.

[–] ArchimedesTesseract@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

Formally invited once they lost control. But Russia pees in it's pants at the thought of Ukraine formally invite NATO.

[–] iagev@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

NATO has been responsible for practically all the instability in Eurasia

Can you elaborate? I can think of Kosovo, where NATO practically stopped a genocide from fully happening. Are you referring to the so-called spreading to the east?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

Yugoslavia, Georgia, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq are all NATO projects. Meanwhile, ethnic cleansing in both Kosovo and Serbia were a direct result of the destruction of Yugoslavia by NATO. Yugoslavia provided a framework that allowed peoples of different nationalities to coexist peacefully. When that framework was destroyed we saw atrocities happen both in Serbia and Bosnia.