>Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO.
Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.
And your statement is false, before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining NATO and after 2014 the percentage grew but was very far from "almost everyone"
>It couldn't be Russia who's to blame, could it?
That's typical response. Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't?
>Just like Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan
Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
> Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.
I wonder where it came from [0][1].
> That's typical response. Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't?
World superpower (according to Russians themselves) has security concerns about checks notes Ukraine, Baltics, Georgia, Poland, Finland. Seems about right, judging by how war in Ukraine goes.
> Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Yushchenko had time machine and he decided to ask to join NATO after seeing the future in which Georgia attacked South Ossetia[0] emboldened by getting the same promise of future NATO membership?
Or Yushchenko got upset that Russia didn't let Ukraine steal Russian gas intended for European countries? Here is the quotation from the very top of the article you linked to:
"The conflict began when Russia claimed that Ukraine was not paying for gas and was diverting gas bound from Russia to the European Union from pipelines that crossed the country. Ukrainian officials at first denied the last accusation,but later Naftogaz admitted it used some gas intended for other European countries for domestic needs. "
>Seems about right, judging by how war in Ukraine goes.
So what's your point?
>My fucking eyes, lmao.
When you deal with your eye problems, maybe you could provide an example supporting your point.
He didn't. Talks about NATO's future were limited to East Germany alone and written down into the articles 4 and 5 of the so-called "4+2 treaty" from 1990, which settled the post-reunification status of East Germany. In the treaty, it was agreed that foreign NATO forces would not enter East Germany before Soviet forces had withdrawn (by 1994).
It's absurd to even suggest anything beyond that, because post-reunification Germany was to border the Warsaw Pact. Even theoretically, there was nowhere for NATO to "expand." Gorbachev's team did not foresee the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact the following year.
Your oft-cited link doesn't support the "100% NATO said they wouldn't expand" and it's a verbal statement that wasn't even ratified anywhere.
Unlike, you know, multiple treaties Russia has with, say, Ukraine.
But if you're holding verbal agreements in such high esteem, Putin himself said he doesn't care if Ukraine joins NATO.
> Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.
You mean "just some the NATO members were positive and within the country the request was so unpopular that it led to public protests".
> before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining
My statement was definitely an exaggeration. However support for joining NATO:
- before 2014 was hovering around 20% on a good day, and the request to join NATO was met with strong opposition and public protests.
- after 2014 support spiked to 50 and then to 70, and then slowly subsided. Gee I wonder why
- After 2022 it's been around 80%. I wonder why. Truly it's all the fault of the expansionist NATO.
> Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't
Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway".
Now tell me, who exactly is responsible for public opinion in Ukraine turning from "nope, we don't want NATO", to "yes, we overwhelmingly want to be in NATO"? I mean, you seem to absolve Russia of any and all responsibility.
> Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
Ahahahhahahahahahahahha. This is the literal quote of what I said: "Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan". If you claim that Russia is not complicit in this, I don't know what to tell you.
But sure, in your eyes Russia does nothing, never gets involved in everything, and that 4-year war it's waging against anither country is totally and absolutely justified because Russia.
I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward".
You argue like you haven't seen it.
>just some the NATO members were positive
That's not true, the alliance itself gave the assurances.[0]
>the request was so unpopular
The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request.
>Russia's "security concerns": "if you subhumans don't do exactly what we say, we invade you and subjugate you, you are not a real country anyway".
And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation.
>This is the literal quote of what I said
You forgot to quote "Just like". "the US "midwifing" the coup in Ukraine in 2014" isn't "just like" what you wrote. Besides, you haven't even offered any sources for your statements. Is it because you blame Russia for anything you don't like?
> I gave you a link to the video where former American ambassador to the USSR is saying "though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward".
Eduard Shevardnadze, the USSR's minister of foreign affairs at the time, clarified that the context was the potential stationing of foreign NATO troops (US, UK, etc) in East Germany after reunification. There was nowhere further "east" to move at the time, since East Germany bordered the Warsaw Pact. German reunification was agreed upon with the understanding that foreign troops would not be moved directly to the border with the Warsaw Pact, because the Pact had not yet had time to establish military infrastructure after retreating from East Germany. That was the agreement and parties adhered to it.
Shevardnadze also said that in 1990, it was unimaginable to the Soviet leadership that the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself would dissolve. Therefore, there was no reason to discuss potential NATO membership of countries and territories that were under Soviet control at the time. And according to him, this was indeed not discussed at all during his tenure (1985-1991); not internally, and not with foreign partners either.
The putinesque sob story that NATO promised never to accept any new members is an anachronistic perversion of these events.
> The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request.
Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to the request, the protests, and keep framing this as "Ukraine wanted to join NATO". Even though Ukrainian parliament was literally blocked by the issue and it was not allowed to continue further? Or that multiple NATO members opposed Ukrainian membership (you have to get approval from all NATO members)? Or that the whole thing was derailed by Russian involvement in Georgia?
> And this dismissive attitude towards legitimate security concerns of Russia led to the current situation.
I've yet to see you assign any responsibility to Russia for its actions.
> You forgot to quote "Just like".
1. you have to actually provide a source that what happened in Ukraine was a coup. Hint: Ukrainians are quite happy to remove anyone in power through popular movements
2. I clearly literally described what Russia was doing. You keep trying to move the discussion to your own very narrow (and quite invalid) definition of a coup.
3. I've yet to see you assign any reponisbility to Russia for Russia's actions. Russia is blameless, spotless, and purely justified in its 4-year invasion of Ukraine.
If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation" that literally establishes things like "inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity" and "prevents Ukraine and Russia from invading one another's country respectively, and declaring war"?
I see that you still absolve Russia of literally any and all responsibility for its actions.
As for the treaty you could read other articles in that treaty[0] while you at it:
Article 6
Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party.
Article 7
If a situation arises which, in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties, poses a threat to peace, violates the peace or affects the interests of its national security, sovereignty or territorial integrity, it may propose to the other High Contracting Party that consultations on the subject be
held without delay. The States shall exchange relevant information and, if necessary, carry out coordinated or joint measures with a view to overcoming the situation
Article 11
The High Contracting Parties shall, in their territory, take the necessary measures, including the adoption of appropriate legislative acts, to prevent and suppress any activities that constitute an incitement to violence or violence against individuals or groups of citizens, based on national, racial, ethnic or religious intolerance.
Article 12
The High Contracting Parties shall protect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity of ethnic minorities in their territory and shall create conditions that encourage such diversity.
Each High Contracting Party shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to ethnic minorities, individually or together with other persons belonging to ethnic minorities, freely to express, preserve and develop their ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious diversity and promote and develop their culture without being subjected to any attempts to assimilate them against their
will.
1. Ukraine had a very strong ipposition to joining NATO prior to 2014. And according to Putin himself, other countries (Ukraine, Sweden, Finland etc.) joining NATO is those countries' own decision and he's okay with it. If he was against it, has he called any consultation etc.? No he didnt't. He waited until all the way of the end if Yanukovich's term to bribe him... to not sign association agreement with the EU (not even NATO).
As it turns out, Ukraine should've joined NATO waaaay before 2014.
2. Any "action to affect security" calls for a consultation. Russia instead invaded and grabbed Crimea, and invaded and made Donbass a permanent gray zone. And then started a full-scale invasion
3. Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution. Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war.
To the point that National Russian Drama Theater didn't change its name or repertoire until Russia's invasion.
See how you keep absolving Russia of literally any responsibility.
>Protection of culture etc. is literally enshrined in Ukranian Constitution
The first thing Ukrainian parliament did after the coup was repelling the law protecting Russian language[0] I recommend reading the whole article, it all went downhill from there.
>Even now you can speak Russian freely in Ukraine despite the war.
Now children are beating children in kindergarten for saying "hello" in Russian. [1]
> The first thing Ukrainian parliament did after the coup was repelling the law protecting Russian language
You mean bullshit law that Yanukovich passed for populist reasons. A law that had no meaning or force. Read Ukranian Constitution. Article 10.
It went downhill from there? Really? Russia itself had literally nothing to do with that?
> Now children are beating children in kindergarten for saying "hello" in Russian.
Yes, there are bound to be issues now. I wonder, what could be the reason? It couldn't be the war Russia is waging to eradicate Ukraine, could it?
---
In 5 answers to me alone you haven't once acknowledged Russia's actions. You haven't once said that Russia bears any responsibility. You keep grasping at thinner and thinner straws to basically keep saying (through your silence) thatRusdia is pristine, blameless, and totally justified in any and all its actions.
Oh. But then in you worldview Russia "evacuates orphans from war zone" [0] (and not "removes children in war Russia itself started") and "Russia doesn't target civilians" (when Russia explicitly targets civilian buildings) [1]
So before I break HN rules by saying what exactly I think about people like you...
He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool.
>Before 2014 almost no one in Ukraine wanted to join NATO. After 2014 almost everyone wanted to join NATO.
Pro-Western Ukrainian president submitted request to join NATO in 2008 and the NATO response was positive.
And your statement is false, before 2014 there was significant minority that favored joining NATO and after 2014 the percentage grew but was very far from "almost everyone"
>It couldn't be Russia who's to blame, could it?
That's typical response. Now please tell me why the security concerns of these countries has to be respected and Russia's security concerns don't?
>Just like Russia is midwifing crises and elections actoss Europe and countries like Georgia and Azerbaijan
Russia has never supported any coups in Europe or in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
[0] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...