This is what "Westplainers" like John Meirshmer get wrong:
"...by focusing almost exclusively on the wrongs of NATO, critics ignore the broader question of Eastern European states’ right to self-determination, including the right to join military alliances. Westsplaining ignores Eastern European history and the perspective of the Eastern Europeans, and it selectively omits facts on the ground about NATO expansion.
...NATO did not expand into “Eastern Europe.” Czechia, Poland, and Hungary in 1999 and the Baltic countries among others in 2004 actively sought membership in the alliance. This is not just semantics. For the historical reasons mentioned above, the West has been a desired political direction associated with prosperity, democracy, and freedom—despite the limitations of Western liberal capitalist democracies and the implementation of that model in Eastern Europe. Being at the receiving end of Russian imperialism, many Eastern Europeans looked forward to membership in NATO as a means of securing their sovereignty. NATO, in other words, would not have “expanded” into Eastern Europe if the Eastern European nations had not wanted it and actively pursued it.
...In the westsplaining framework, the concerns of Russia are recognized but those of Eastern Europe are not. This, again, mirrors the Russian line that “Ukraine’s current regime lacks any sovereignty,” which of course also operates within a framework inherited from the bipolar world of the Cold War. Eastern Europe is something that can be explained but isn’t worth engaging with....The result is that hard-nosed realists see the world not as it is but as it appears in their theories and, worse, that Western internationalism, which claims to stand in solidarity with the oppressed, does the opposite: It asks the subaltern to speak, only to ignore them when they ask for military support or self-determination."
So what hard line is Ukraine pursuing? Maintaining their sovereignty? Russia has not right to the now independent nation. The agreement after the fall of the USSR was that Ukraine would be a sovereign nation.
This diplomatic activity manifested in security assurances for Ukraine embedded in what has become known as the Budapest Memorandum. With the entrance of Ukraine into the international order as a non-nuclear state, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. pledged to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” The memo reaffirmed their obligation to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” The signatories also reaffirmed their commitment to “seek immediate” UN Security Council action “to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression.” These assurances upheld obligations contained in the U.N. charter and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act.
Ukraine, in turn, gave up the nuclear weapons within its borders, sending them to Russia for dismantling.
The aggressor here is Putin and Russia. They may not like Ukraine seeking NATO or EU membership but it is their right. Any suggestion that this was Ukraine's fault is just someone's opinion based on appeasing Russia.
Not bothering with the video,
but tell me, how could it possibly contain "most" experts versus "some" experts?
Again, I ask you, where do you live? Have you been to the Kremlin lately, just asking?There are a variety of experts cited in this video, not just Mearsheimer.
No, there's no automatic right for them to have a Sugardaddy called NATO. The fact is that it's NATO which is organizing them against Russia. The US taxpayer is picking up the bill for this -- but Trump dared to ask NATO countries to pay their fair share, and that triggered fury among the powerful NATO lobby, which led them to attempt Regime Change by ousting Trump through the Russia Collusion Hoax. So that means the right of self-determination of the American people is being interfered with by the NATO lobby. When the media are all organized by by these big-monied lobbies and big tech social media companies are in the tank too, then where does the ordinary American get the right to freedom of expression and self-determination?
They want the NATO money, and NATO is waving that money in their faces. The United States through NATO is trying to poke its stick farther and farther into Russia's face.
Because Trump dared to challenge this racket, he got framed with false charges by the Fake News.
The recognition of the concerns of all would have been best addressed through the non-antagonistic OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), instead of using NATO, which was created to be antagonistic towards Moscow.
No problem with trying to keep the number of nukes down and limiting who has them. The growth of NATO is because old soviet nations saw a better deal in NATO and much more freedom. They are all sovereign nations making decisions for their safety and prosperity. Russian has no claim to these free nations. What Russia is doing is a crime against humanity. Nobody did anything to purposely encourage this move by Russia.All established nuclear powers, not just Russia but all of them, wanted Ukraine's nukes taken away. The West wouldn't accept a nuclear Ukraine.
Continual NATO expansion has led the situation down the path to war -- now you're just nitpicking over who took the final steps off the precipice.
“Nitpicking”?!?All Continual NATO expansion has led the situation down the path to war -- now you're just nitpicking over who took the final steps off the precipice.
There are two types of funding used to fund NATO, direct and indirect.No, there's no automatic right for them to have a Sugardaddy called NATO. The fact is that it's NATO which is organizing them against Russia. The US taxpayer is picking up the bill for this -
These (most?) “experts” have not explained why Ukraine is being (repeatedly) attacked by Russia while the Baltic nations (which are now in NATO) are not being attacked by Russia. That seems to disprove the premise that former Russian European satellite nations would not be better off (aka avoid future Russian military attack) by remaining neutral (not joining NATO).
There are two types of funding used to fund NATO, direct and indirect.
Direct funding is paid by all member nations based on a formula agreed to by all countries. To my knowledge all members nations are current on the direct funding. It is this money that is used to run NATO administratively including command, control and planning.
Indirect funding is what countries spent on their own militaryand does not flow directly to NATO. This is the funding that many are demanding member nations increase....money spent on their own defense..
It is the direct funding that is spent on approving admissions to NATO.
Ukraine may be getting attacked, but Russia is trying to attack the regime in control of Ukraine, to oust them.
For Russia, NATO expansion into Ukraine is the final straw, for Russia. This is the clear redline.
Your argument is "when I punched you in the ear, you didn't hit me back, when I punched you in the jaw, you didn't hit me back, but now when I punched you in the nose, you're hitting me!! Why have you suddenly become so violent?!?"
It's like you just said "me waving my knife in your face and bringing it near your throat is not itself a violent action -- after all, I didn't actually cut you - yet"Joining NATO (which is not a violent action at all) has been accomplished by most of the European former USSR satellite nations. Why, exactly, were those “punches” thrown at Russia deemed acceptable?
For daring to challenge NATO members on their actual spending levels to NATO, Trump was then attacked with the fake Russia Collusion Hoax, a corrupt effort intended to oust him from power. This is because Trump had inadvertently hit a political nerve and stirred up the powerful NATO lobby like a hornet's nest.
Americans are not permitted to deviate from NATO's requirements. America the "NATO leader" is actually the NATO vassal, and must be kept firmly in place. And if you don't like that, you'll be called "Putin's agent" -- or worse -- racist.
Liberal tactics like race-baiting are now fused together with Russia-baiting McCarthyism.
It's like you just said "me waving my knife in your face and bringing it near your throat is not itself a violent action -- after all, I didn't actually cut you - yet"
Russia has historically been invaded time and time again from its western side. They have legitimate reason to be fearful for their security.
Repeated invasions of their homeland are what have made the Russians tough.
The solution here is to reduce conflict between all sides. But you don't want that -- you want a new war to fight -- because NATO was built for war, and it's been kept around to bring war back.