Who would have though that our dear Jens Stoltenberg is a Putin apologist; quote:

“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.

So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”

  • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Russia was already obligated by treaty to not invade Ukraine. And why would NATO refuse to accept new members?

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That doesn’t sound like apologia, that sounds like mockery & derision.

    He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.

    Putin 100% would have invaded those areas had NATO leadership been stupid.

    EDIT: Everyone point & laugh at the stupid tankie in the thread.

  • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Apologist? It sounds like NATO standing up for itself and refusing to cave to Putin’s egregious demands.

  • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not controversial to say that Putin doesn’t want NATO enlargement, or that preventing it is one of his key goals from invading Ukraine. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to interpret that statement as Stoltenberg saying that wanting to prevent NATO expansion constitutes a legitimate casus belli for invading Ukraine.

    Understanding the motivations of people like Putin is important, even if those motivations aren’t morally acceptable.

    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do think the author of that article (intentionally?) misses the point though, and arguably is an apologist - it being a motivation doesn’t mean that without NATO enlargement Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded, Putin has had overt imperialist ambitions toward Ukraine, which NATO membership would have prevented him executing. Therefore NATO expansion was less a cause of the war, than it was a push for him to start the war earlier before Ukraine was within the protection of NATO.

  • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    We also know details about Russia’s proposed peace deal with Ukraine back in early 2022… It looks really good given how the war’s gone.

    • DolphinMath@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How on earth could Ukraine ever trust a peace deal with Russia? Putin has made it clear his word is worthless and therefore any agreement is meaningless.

      Even with a 2022 “peace deal,” Russia would have continued the ”special operation” on their own timeline. Ukraine deserves to be made whole. Russia offered a false a truce because Ukraine started landing blows and fighting back.

      • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Minsk Agreements were signed with the West explicitly planning to break them and only use them to “buy time” for Ukraine.

        The 2022 peace deal would have restored Ukraine’s borders. Both sides had agreed to terms until good ol’ Boris decided to come through and fuck things up. This has been widely confirmed by officials in Germany, the US, Israel, Russia, and Ukraine.

        It’s important to understand that Russia’s goal in Ukraine isn’t to capture territory, but to protect it’s heartland from conflict (a la Cuban Missile Crisis, Monroe Doctrine, etc.) Russia’s core aim is to prevent NATO from getting ever closer to Moscow because Russian defensive doctrine relies on defence in depth and that falls apart if someone can launch a decapitating strike on your capital with conventional means. It’s important to remember that from 1983-1992, Russia had adopted a NFU nuclear policy that was only repealed once it became apparent that NATO would not adopt one in return.

    • birdcat@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      multiple peace deals. if one fails, that’s tragic – if multiple fail after foreign intervention, something’s fucky

  • Veraticus@lib.lgbt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine.

    What an absurd statement. Is invading Ukraine some kind of slippery slope that requires constant effort or else we’ll just wildly slide wildly down it? No one forced Russia’s hand here but their madman despot.

  • mihies@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t forget Cuban crisis where US was prepared to wage nuclear war of Russian nuclear missiles placed in Cuba. Actually we were 5 minutes to end of the world.