If NATO is just a harmless organization, why is Russia so against it and the US back Ukraine joining it with everything we have?

[8085]

More than 200,000 military personnel have died so far in the war in Ukraine, yet the Biden speech claims it is all about nothing.

That Ukraine joining NATO posed no threat to Russia,

despite NATO Gen Sec stating that the objective of the conflict in Ukraine was to destroy as much Russian military might as possible,
to discredit Vladimir Putin, produce regime change in Russia with an aim of breaking up Russia into a number of small republics.

While the US is saying one thing, NATO is giving an entirely different story.

Which one is right?

 

[Craig234]

aim of breaking up Russia into a number of small republics.

Link? That's what Putin said. Now, there might be arguments about the biggest country on Earth with 13 times tones IIRC, and an economy smaller than Texas (by a lot), being a lot better off broken into smaller Republics. But a stated plan to do it is another thing.

 

[Variant]

More than 200,000 military personnel have died so far in the war in Ukraine, yet the Biden speech claims it is all about nothing.

That Ukraine joining NATO posed no threat to Russia,

despite NATO Gen Sec stating that the objective of the conflict in Ukraine was to destroy as much Russian military might as possible,
to discredit Vladimir Putin, produce regime change in Russia with an aim of breaking up Russia into a number of small republics.

While the US is saying one thing, NATO is giving an entirely different story.

Which one is right?

Ukraine wasn't in position to join NATO, all mentions of such are a red herring.

The war is about Russia wanting to conquer Ukraine, destroying and discrediting Russia is merely the consequence of their ridiculous invasion.

They weren't up for that sort of fight, and still aren't. They are simply deluded into thinking they have a capable military.

 

[Loulit01]

Putin is intent on restoring Russian control over as much of eastern Europe as possible. NATO is just an excuse for the attack on Ukraine. It backfired.

 

[Phys251]

More than 200,000 military personnel have died so far in the war in Ukraine, yet the Biden speech claims it is all about nothing.

That Ukraine joining NATO posed no threat to Russia,

despite NATO Gen Sec stating that the objective of the conflict in Ukraine was to destroy as much Russian military might as possible,
to discredit Vladimir Putin, produce regime change in Russia with an aim of breaking up Russia into a number of small republics.

While the US is saying one thing, NATO is giving an entirely different story.

Which one is right?

Where do these pro-Ru$$ia posts keep coming from?

 

[Craig234]

Where do these pro-Ru$$ia posts keep coming from?

Followers of propagandists like Tucker Carlson and trump's isolationism and pro-Putin views.

 

[Davin]

More importantly is why MAGA is so hell bent on supporting Russia and their efforts in destroying NATO. MAGA is nothing more than a terrorist organization and each and every supporter should be treated as a terrorist. Every MAGA supporter should be sent to the FBI to be placed on a terrorist watch list.

 

[Tigerace117]

Link? That's what Putin said. Now, there might be arguments about the biggest country on Earth with 13 times tones IIRC, and an economy smaller than Texas (by a lot), being a lot better off broken into smaller Republics. But a stated plan to do it is another thing.

Better off according to who?

 

[Craig234]

More importantly is why MAGA is so hell bent on supporting Russia and their efforts in destroying NATO. MAGA is nothing more than a terrorist organization and each and every supporter should be treated as a terrorist.

That's both overheated, and more true than many would think.

In my opinion, MAGA is largely the result of right-wing propaganda creating people essentially terrorIZED, manipulated with fear and hate, to where some of them hear about Nancy Pelosi and others eating babies and think it's right.

That's how they become terrorists - for example, people convinced that insurrection or revolution to violently seize power is simply fighting the Democrats doing that, and preventing it, protecting the country from tyranny.

The way there's more truth to it, is that it resembles what happens with a lot of 'terrorists'. You can look from the IRA to Hamas to Chechens to others, and you find actual power forces they felt were tyrannical - England, Israel, Russia respectively - and it was there only self-defense. MAGA has even less justification as the tyranny they are fighting is mostly made up by propagandists. The real terrorists are the propagandists and their funders.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Which one is right?

The US and NATO. I hope that clears things up

 

[RaleBulgarian]

More than 200,000 military personnel have died so far in the war in Ukraine,

Where’d you come up with this ^ absurd number?

Nowhere near 200K military (Ukrainian plus Russian) deaths have been reported by any reliable source.

Ukraine: civilian casualty update 13 March 2023

Date: 13 March 20231 From 24 February 2022, which marked the start of the large-scale armed attack by the Russian Federation, to 12 March 2023, OHCHR recorded 21,965 civilian casualties in the country: 8,231 killed and 13,734 injured. This included:

www.ohchr.org

Ukraine war, already with up to 354,000 casualties, likely to last past 2023 - U.S. documents

As many as 354,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or injured in the Ukraine war which is grinding towards a protracted conflict that may last well beyond 2023, according to a trove of purported U.S. intelligence documents posted online.

www.reuters.com

yet the Biden speech claims it is all about nothing.

Lie.

That Ukraine joining NATO posed no threat to Russia,

Who attacked who?

despite NATO Gen Sec stating that the objective of the conflict in Ukraine was to destroy as much Russian military might as possible, to discredit Vladimir Putin, produce regime change in Russia with an aim of breaking up Russia into a number of small republics.

Lie.

NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg:
“Every democracy in Europe has the right to apply for NATO membership, and NATO Allies respect that right. And we have stated again and again that NATO's door remains open. And we have demonstrated that over the last years.

NATO Allies, when they met at the NATO Summit in Madrid, stated also very clearly, that we support Ukraine's right to choose its own path, to decide what kind of security arrangements it wants to be part of. Then, a decision on membership, of course has to be taken by all 30 Allies and we take these decisions by consensus.

Our focus now is on providing immediate support to Ukraine, to help Ukraine defend itself against the Russian brutal invasion. And then that's the main focus and the main effort of NATO Allies, as we speak.”

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_207788.htm

While the US is saying one thing, NATO is giving an entirely different story.

Lying continues.

“America’s goal is straightforward,” Biden wrote in the essay. “We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.”

The United States Speaks Clearly on Russia’s Ukraine War

President Biden’s essay on the Ukraine war in Tuesday’s New York Times has vitally clarified America’s interests and goals following weeks of public debate weighted with uncertainty and concern over U.S. intentions and methods in that conflict. It offers a straightforward, positive approach—one...

www.usip.org

Which one is right?

Nothing you’ve posted is right or correct.


* Whatever you’re being paid by Russia/Putin, it’s more than the bull shit propaganda you’re posting is worth.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Where do these pro-Ru$$ia posts keep coming from?

Somewhere in the “heartland” of America, is my guess.

 

[Felis Leo]

More than 200,000 military personnel have died so far in the war in Ukraine, yet the Biden speech claims it is all about nothing.

That Ukraine joining NATO posed no threat to Russia,

despite NATO Gen Sec stating that the objective of the conflict in Ukraine was to destroy as much Russian military might as possible,
to discredit Vladimir Putin, produce regime change in Russia with an aim of breaking up Russia into a number of small republics.

While the US is saying one thing, NATO is giving an entirely different story.

Which one is right?

First, who claimed NATO was "harmless"? A military alliance by its very nature can cause harm against anyone who would threaten any member nation of that alliance.

Second, what Russia considers a "threat" and what normal everyday people in civilized countries consider a threat are two very different things. We here in the West consider military attacks, blockades, etc. to be threats. Russia considers neighboring countries being able to exercise sovereignty and not kowtowing to Russian demands in the realms of their political, economic and foreign policy an intolerable threat.

 

[Deuce]

despite NATO Gen Sec stating that the objective of the conflict in Ukraine was to destroy as much Russian military might as possible,

Of course that is the goal. Russia is the aggressor. We want the invader to lose.

Are you for the invasion? The war crimes?

 

[Ug make hammer]

It's ridiculous to suggest Ukraine can join NATO while Ukraine is at war.

1. Ukraine could invoke article 5 requiring all members to declare war on Russia
2. It only takes one of the 31 current members, to veto Ukraine's entry
3. It's just not happening

 

[jnug]

If NATO is just a harmless organization, why is Russia so against it and the US back Ukraine joining it with everything we have?​

Takes all kinds.

That's all I got when it comes to questions that are for most of us likely addressed in early primary school social studies.

 

[ralfy]

 

[8085]

After the USSR quit the cold war, and the Warsaw Pact dissolved, it is difficult to justify the defensive role NATO was originally designed for.

NATO has been over 90% US run and supported, and it has mainly been used as an excuse to cover US aggression in places such as Kosovo, and Libya.
NATO also allows the US to keep nuclear weapons in NATO countries closer to Russia.

when is a nuclear deterrent more than just a deterrent and more of a threat?

 

[Loulit01]

NATO is one of the most succesful military alliances in history. Putin says NATO and Nazis are the reasons he attacked Ukraine and there are people who believe him. Nevermind that he's a 16 year veteran Lt. Colonel of the KGB. — he's the good guy.

Please.

 

[joluoto]

Russia is against NATO because they can't invade NATO members without ending up at war with all of them.

 

[Gatsby]

If NATO is just a harmless organization, why is Russia so against it

Because Russia wants to be free to bully and invade its neighbors with impunity.

and the US back Ukraine joining it with everything we have?

So that Russia cannot bully and invade its neighbors with impunity.

 

[ralfy]

NATO is one of the most succesful military alliances in history. Putin says NATO and Nazis are the reasons he attacked Ukraine and there are people who believe him. Nevermind that he's a 16 year veteran Lt. Colonel of the KGB. — he's the good guy.

Please.

Related:

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the

www.counterpunch.org

 

[Loulit01]

Related:

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the

www.counterpunch.org

I read well into the article then spent 10 minutes fighting my way out of the bullshit and back to reality.

 

[ralfy]

I read well into the article then spent 10 minutes fighting my way out of the bullshit and back to reality.

In what way is it bullshit?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Some dude had an opinion on a podcast?