(Yesterday at 9:01 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:53 am)Belacqua Wrote: Oh, I see what you mean now.

But not only propagandists are interested in what they said. They made accurate predictions and warnings, and we failed to heed them. It's good to learn from history.

Thump already asked you for evidence that Europe or the U.S. was trying to bring Ukraine into NATO.  Until you present some evidence, then their predictions of such remain unfulfilled.  

I didn't see his question. It's my rule that I don't respond to vulgarity, and he often writes that way. 
To answer the question, here is a list from NATO's home page:

Quote:Evolution of NATO-Ukraine relations

~Dialogue and cooperation started when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).

~Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, and further enhanced in 2009 with the Declaration to Complement the Charter, which reaffirmed the decision by NATO Leaders at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.

~The 1997 Charter established the NATO-Ukraine Commission as the main body responsible for developing the NATO-Ukraine relationship and for directing cooperative activities. In 2023, the Commission was replaced by the NATO-Ukraine Council, where Allies and Ukraine sit as equals. This change demonstrates the strengthening of political ties and Ukraine’s increasing integration with NATO.

"strengthening of political ties and Ukraine's increasing integration with NATO."

So in 2008 there was a summit at which "NATO leaders reaffirmed the decision that Ukraine will become a member." They never made it to full member status, but you'll notice that the NATO web site doesn't say that this plan has been abandoned. 

The Ukrainian people have generally preferred neutrality, which is exactly what Kissinger said would be best.

The events of the 2014 putsch are much disputed. John McCain was there, and of course Victoria Nuland handed out cookies. There is a recorded phone call in which she is choosing who will be in the post-putsch government. You and I can't know exactly who was behind what; we can only read the various sources. 

Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, knowledgeable people have warned that aligning Ukraine too closely with the west, against Russia, would provoke conflict. George Kennan and many others knew this from the beginning. Obama said that Ukraine was not vital to US interests. But if you read Kissinger's editorial, it's clear why Russia sees it as vital. 

1997 and 2009 are a long way away from 2014 or 2022. Neither of the events you mentioned are good evidence for your claim. And note, both predate Kissinger and Pilgers remarks, and so are fulfillment of neither.

Quote:If NATO expansion were truly the trigger, why did Vladimir Putin wait until 2022 to invade? Why not in 2008, when Ukraine first sought membership, or in 2014, when NATO discussions resurfaced after Russia seized Crimea

The truth is that Ukraine was nowhere near joining NATO. There was no Membership Action Plan, and key NATO members had made it clear they were unwilling to admit Ukraine any time soon.

Ukraine’s NATO aspirations were not a provocation. They were a response to Russian aggression: the illegal annexation of Crimea, the Russian proxy war in Donbas, and Moscow’s long-standing efforts to control Ukraine politically, economically and culturally.

In his Feb. 21, 2022, speech justifying the war, Putin barely mentioned NATO. Instead, he fixated on Ukraine as an artificial state, an accident of history, a wayward part of the so-called “Russian world.” His argument had nothing to do with military threats or self-defense; it was an assertion of imperial entitlement. It echoed his 2021 essay, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” which outright denied Ukraine’s legitimacy as a sovereign nation.

Russia’s pre-invasion demands further expose the hollowness of the NATO excuse. Moscow didn’t just insist that Ukraine never join the alliance — it demanded NATO withdraw from Eastern Europe entirely, rolling back security guarantees for Poland, the Baltics and other frontline states. This was never just about Ukraine. It was a broader push to reassert Russian dominance over its former empire.

Russia’s pattern of aggression is the clearest refutation of the “NATO expansion” myth. Georgia, attacked in 2008, was not on the verge of NATO membership. Ukraine, invaded in 2014, had no realistic path to joining the alliance. Russia was not and is not defending itself against NATO — it is targeting neighbors seeking independence from its grip.

https://thehill.com/opinion/internationa...ovocation/

It's also worth noting that Putin and Russian propagandists conflate modern-day Russia with the Russia that is equated with the pre-dissolution USSR. The claims of ethnic synonymy are exaggerated.

Belacqua Wrote:So in 2008 there was a summit at which "NATO leaders reaffirmed the decision that Ukraine will become a member." They never made it to full member status, but you'll notice that the NATO web site doesn't say that this plan has been abandoned.

Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, knowledgeable people have warned that aligning Ukraine too closely with the west, against Russia, would provoke conflict.

And yet when Putin launched his invasion, he said he did it to 'denazify' Ukraine.

Not to mention that if NATO on Russia’s borders is “existential threat,” then Russia will attack next Finland & Sweden who recently entered NATO. But there's barely murmur from Russia when Finland & Norway membership brought NATO and all its weapons so threatening to Russia dramatically closer.

Because invasion wasn’t about NATO expansion but about dominating Ukraine. Russian occupational army pursues genocidal policies targeting for arrest, torture & death all who support Ukrainian sovereignty and oppose occupational regime. Further evidence that Putin’s beef with Ukraine is not just about NATO are his demands on Ukraine long went much deeper than foreign policy alliances. He objected and tried to dictate on all matters of purely domestic politics, from decentralization, to language, education, historical memory and more.

Far-right presidential candidate Sławomir Mentzen has called for an agreement with Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. He also said that Poles must stop letting Ukraine treat them as “suckers” instead of partners.

Speaking to broadcaster Polsat on Tuesday, Mentzen praised Donald Trump for “wanting to bring peace to Ukraine” and criticised Volodymyr Zelensky for refusing to compromise.

Polish fascists are always willing to bend over for trump and attack Ukrainians.

Depending on polls this walking sack of shit will be in second or third place in upcoming presidential elections and other candidates are copying his language.

(Yesterday at 2:04 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 4, 2025 at 1:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote: It's also worth noting that Bel's two prophecies were written in the immediate aftermath of Russia seizing Crimea.  Ignoring the context to suggest they were speaking to future events is misleading.  Both were addressing the then present.

But who cares enough about what Kissinger and Pilger wrote in 2014 to dig this up now?  Russian propagandists.

Kissinger was a Russian propagandist. 

OK.

Your reading skills suck, dillrod.

(Yesterday at 5:47 am)Belacqua Wrote: I'm assuming all the macho men on this forum will be signing up soon, because they think it's important to continue the war, and Ukraine is running out of soldiers.

That'd be russia.  Russia is running out of troops as they try to murder every ukranian even if that means they have to fight down to the last dagestani.  Scraping the prisons and tasing bros at nightclubs.  Ukraines problem is different.  They don't want to conscript their prime warfighters (men 18-24), but there's no way to come up with enough infantry otherwise...the whole thing being academic, because they don't have enough decent weapons to equip those new units if they did stand them up.  If you want critical views of the ukranian governments war plans without batshit kremlin talking points...try tatarigami_ua.

Quote:Why is Ukraine losing ground? Mobilization crisis and command failures exposed

“A small Soviet army cannot defeat a big Soviet army.” Once a cautionary tale, this phrase now rings prophetic. Of course, calling Ukraine’s army a “small Soviet army” oversimplifies the issue – neither Russia’s nor Ukrainian military is truly Soviet in the broad sense, but both have inherited the Soviet military’s systemic flaws.

https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/01/03/w...s-in-2025/

Quote:I didn't see his question. It's my rule that I don't respond to vulgarity, and he often writes that way. 

No you don't respond to questions you know you can't answer by people who understand what they are talking about

Quote:"strengthening of political ties and Ukraine's increasing integration with NATO."

So in 2008 there was a summit at which "NATO leaders reaffirmed the decision that Ukraine will become a member." They never made it to full member status, but you'll notice that the NATO web site doesn't say that this plan has been abandoned. 

Yup and Ukraine's right to join if they want to and none of Russia's business nor justification to invade. Also really 2008 and not being abandoned doesn't mean it's planning on being implemented. Also increasing integration doesn't mean joining lots of NATO countries are integrated with NATO. This is simply a shit statement

Quote:The Ukrainian people have generally preferred neutrality, which is exactly what Kissinger said would be best.

Baseless claim and it's certainly false now as most Ukrainians want to join NATO now so Russia has shot itself in the foot.

Quote:The events of the 2014 putsch are much disputed. John McCain was there, and of course Victoria Nuland handed out cookies. There is a recorded phone call in which she is choosing who will be in the post-putsch government. You and I can't know exactly who was behind what; we can only read the various sources. 

No they are not disputed and the Victoria Nuland recordings are nothing burger people like you take completely out of context.

Quote:Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, knowledgeable people have warned that aligning Ukraine too closely with the west, against Russia, would provoke conflict. George Kennan and many others knew this from the beginning. Obama said that Ukraine was not vital to US interests. But if you read Kissinger's editorial, it's clear why Russia sees it as vital. 

The only one who started a conflict was Russia Ukraine has every right to join NATO and Russia has no right to invade them for doing so. You whole argument is the international affairs version of "She shouldn't have been talking to that boy"



This tragic Russian dick riding is just sad at this point 

Quote:I'm assuming all the macho men on this forum will be signing up soon, because they think it's important to continue the war, and Ukraine is running out of soldiers.

I love this moron thinks this is about being "macho " what a vapid statement. Also nobody here wants the war but we don't appeasement or surrender the fact you don't understand that is one of your many faults

(Yesterday at 9:33 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:01 am)Angrboda Wrote: Thump already asked you for evidence that Europe or the U.S. was trying to bring Ukraine into NATO.  Until you present some evidence, then their predictions of such remain unfulfilled.  

I didn't see his question. It's my rule that I don't respond to vulgarity, and he often writes that way. 
To answer the question, here is a list from NATO's home page:

Quote:Evolution of NATO-Ukraine relations

~Dialogue and cooperation started when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).

~Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, and further enhanced in 2009 with the Declaration to Complement the Charter, which reaffirmed the decision by NATO Leaders at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO.

~The 1997 Charter established the NATO-Ukraine Commission as the main body responsible for developing the NATO-Ukraine relationship and for directing cooperative activities. In 2023, the Commission was replaced by the NATO-Ukraine Council, where Allies and Ukraine sit as equals. This change demonstrates the strengthening of political ties and Ukraine’s increasing integration with NATO.

"strengthening of political ties and Ukraine's increasing integration with NATO."

So in 2008 there was a summit at which "NATO leaders reaffirmed the decision that Ukraine will become a member." They never made it to full member status, but you'll notice that the NATO web site doesn't say that this plan has been abandoned. 

The Ukrainian people have generally preferred neutrality, which is exactly what Kissinger said would be best.

The events of the 2014 putsch are much disputed. John McCain was there, and of course Victoria Nuland handed out cookies. There is a recorded phone call in which she is choosing who will be in the post-putsch government. You and I can't know exactly who was behind what; we can only read the various sources. 

Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, knowledgeable people have warned that aligning Ukraine too closely with the west, against Russia, would provoke conflict. George Kennan and many others knew this from the beginning. Obama said that Ukraine was not vital to US interests. But if you read Kissinger's editorial, it's clear why Russia sees it as vital. 

None of that shows how NATO or America were compelling Ukraine to join. Try again, this time with cogency.

By the way, there was no vulgarity in my post demanding your evidence. Nice try to blame me for your own refusal to offer evidence that you knew you didn't have.