this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
92 points (98.9% liked)

World News

34742 readers
469 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] agitated_judge@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bullshit. Russia already had NATO at its borders (baltics) and now it has more of NATO on its borders (Finland) than before the invasion.

And wait a minute, what was the plan here if that was even the case? Take over Ukraine so it has even more of NATO (Poland) on its borders?

[โ€“] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

The point was correct but poorly stated. It's not the problem of NATO at its border. It's the problem of NATO at the border with Ukraine specifically. That is the border Russia has been invaded over 3 times. Napoleon invaded Russia through that border and that's considered one of the bloodiest campaigns ever. The Third Reich also invaded Russia through that border. So Russia, appropriately, does not want a transnational nuclear military, a military without any democratic accountability, a military originally staffed with former Nazi officers by the USA, a military that trained specifically to counter and invaded Russia, a military that ran Operation Gladio... Russia appropriately doesn't want that military to be developing its logistics, recon, fortifications, and nuclear capabilities on the border that Russia cannot effectively defend without massive and constant mobilization.

But the USA believes Russia is just going to have to deal with being under constant threat of invasion and nuclear strikes. That's why Clinton said, all the way back in the early 90s, that Ukraine would remain neutral - in public. And then immediately after in private asked his generals to draft plans for getting Ukraine into NATO.