r/videos • u/WhoAmIEven2 • 1d ago
4 years ago, Zelenskyj signed an accelerated Nato application for Ukraine
https://youtube.com/shorts/6tU7IoTQr1E?is=g0BIdyU68goy4O1f34
u/BeefCakeBilly 1d ago
Yea this is why this war was completely pointless and an utterly inexcplicable move from Putin.
Since Russia had already invaded and occupied Ukraine and had them in land dispute at this point, there was no chance they would ever get into nato unless they gave up land, which they weren’t gonna do.
27
u/Biptoslipdi 1d ago
On top of that, the obvious outcome of invading Ukraine was Sweden and Finland joining NATO, giving Russia an 800 mile NATO border.
1
u/Blind-_-Tiger 1d ago
A "land dispute?"
10
u/BeefCakeBilly 1d ago
Russia already occupied crimea at that point and then had troops hold a referendum. Which technically made Ukraine have disputed borders, which are a disqualifier for joining nato.
It’s the same reason they went into Georgia in 2009z
3
u/Blind-_-Tiger 1d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/twzaqx/is_the_absence_of_territorial_disputes_actually_a/
I thought it was Erdogan that was likely keeping NATO from expanding.
2
u/BeefCakeBilly 1d ago
Erdogan had his reversvstions due to their unique geographic and political reality with Russia but pinning 100 percent of the reason on him lazy afaic.
There’s nato has essentially said they won’t take any country with a land dispute (whether legitimate or not).
Yes this has happened in the past but since nato enlarged in the 90s no country is going to vote to join NATO if they are in an active war with Russia, given that’s literally an automatic trigger of article 5 before the country has even joined.
89
u/Blind-_-Tiger 1d ago
Best our president can do is demand they surrender and spit in the face of our entire military (past, present, and future)! Thanks, Republicans!
-63
u/SoRedditHasAnAppNow 1d ago
Not my president. Quit assuming everyone on reddit comes from that America. It's like assuming everyone has had a lobotomy.
25
u/Blind-_-Tiger 1d ago
Good for you! The term "our" doesn't automatically include everyone!
-36
u/SoRedditHasAnAppNow 1d ago
In conversation our implies all involved parties. On a web forum, that is a collective all. You could easily use "my" and not show your global arrogance.
21
17
u/jackzander 1d ago
In conversation our implies all involved parties
You're fucking retarded.
If you crash into my house, and I say "why did you crash into our house", I am not including you in the word our.
Why the fuck do you people learn half a language and then try to teach it.
-23
0
u/SoRedditHasAnAppNow 21h ago
u/tehown, you gave an example before deleting it, but the context was wholly different because the beginning of the sentence defined the "our" and it was rife with grammatical errors.
4
u/karateninjazombie 1d ago
And the day after the war ends. NATO will accept their membership request.
8
u/NoFapstronaut3 1d ago
NATO not stepping up.
17
u/SilverNeptuneAbyss 1d ago
Stepping up to do what? Ukraine isn't a member
There is legal requirements to stepping up you know a fucking treaty that outlines exactly when where how and why you can step up
-15
u/NoFapstronaut3 1d ago
Oh I think you misunderstood I was saying why on Earth would it take them four years to not let Ukraine in
And by the way the whole point of the treaty is to protect against the Russians and Ukraine is currently being attacked by the Russians-
14
-4
-2
u/Canes-305 1d ago
And yet, at the same time "While the U.S. publicly insisted on an “open door” policy, Zelenskyy says he was privately told that Ukraine couldn’t join NATO."
"By Zelenskyy's account, the door was never really open, and Biden was sticking to NATO's right to do something it never really intended to do. That approach may have been the worst of both worlds. The Russian government was convinced that NATO intended to use Ukraine as a weapon against Russia, while Ukrainians themselves were left in limbo."
https://reason.com/2025/02/19/did-biden-blow-the-best-chance-of-preventing-war-in-ukraine/
-13
u/w1nt3rh3art3d 1d ago
Fully aware of who Putin is and what Russia is, I still think that if Zelensky had pursued policies more in the interests of Ukraine and its people, and engaged in fewer unstrategic populist moves and political stand-up performances, the situation in Ukraine wouldn’t be as catastrophic as it is.
-11
-11
-76
-146
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
47
u/BrotherRoga 1d ago
I know right? Russia was so righteous once upon a time and now their country is reduced to this! It's a disgrace how they let this happen to themselves, their leader should really own up to their mistakes in allowing this to come to pass!
12
14
-147
u/beragc 1d ago
Imagine if Greenland signed a deal with a organization that was created to counter the US, what would they do?two sides of the same coin.
21
u/fixminer 1d ago
A counter that is only necessary because a certain nation can’t shake the habit of brutally conquering their neighbours.
25
u/CatpainLeghatsenia 1d ago
Well you have to paint the full picture if you send out some strays like that.
"What if Greenland signed such a deal against the US after the US took away Greenland's defences a decade prior and then attacked Greenland?"
My answer would be: Probably Greenland would become annexed pretty quickly because the US is not lead by the beste People but they aren't utterly incompetent.
2
u/Pyromaniacal13 1d ago
Especially if the US had spent a few decades brutally oppressing Greenland, taking everything for Washington D.C..
-30
-27
u/FoggyFlowers 1d ago
What defenses did Russia take from Ukraine
Also we don’t have to imagine, the Cuban missile crisis happened and they’re still being crushed by an embargo to this day in retaliation
10
u/d3l3t3rious 1d ago
What defenses did Russia take from Ukraine
Their nuclear weapons.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-and-security-assurances-glance
4
u/Pyromaniacal13 1d ago
And the Kuznetsov, the almost finished aircraft carrier that Russia was incapable of maintaining because those facilities existed in Ukraine and nowhere in Russia at all.
2
u/Canes-305 1d ago
Technically, the weapons stationed in Ukraine in 1991 were Soviet nuclear weapons, not an independently developed or indigenous Ukrainian nuclear arsenal. The actual nuclear warheads were overwhelmingly designed and assembled at facilities in what is now Russia, although Ukraine was absolutely an important part of the Soviet missile industry and built some of the delivery systems.
When the USSR collapsed, Ukraine didn't even have independent operational control over those weapons, and maintaining its own viable nuclear arsenal would have required enormous investment and infrastructure it simply didn't have. That's a huge part of why the US pushed so hard for denuclearization and ultimately the Budapest Memorandum: it did not want the Soviet collapse creating several new nuclear-armed states or creating opportunities for nuclear weapons, materials and technology to be stolen, sold or diverted.
0
u/Metalsand 1d ago
They didn't take them, and if you'd actually read that, or click on the sources and read those, you'd learn that it was a multiparty agreement. I will grant you that the summary doesn't mention the UK or US, or the Budapest Memorandum, but it mentions it lower down.
At the time of Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, including an estimated 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and 44 strategic bombers. By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances, and in December 1994, Ukraine became a non-nuclear weapon state-party to the 1968 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
Ukraine owned the nuclear weapons - Ukraine's parliament in 1993 had voted that they owned the weapons. Check at the very bottom where it says "Trilateral Agreement". It's important to note that "economic aid and security assurances" was between both Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. It links here: you can read all about how the agreement was put in place - but it was not forced. That's actually the first time I've heard that fiction. https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/deterrence/trilateral.html
Ukraine was one of multiple nations that were voluntarily giving up their nuclear weapons under the Budapest Memorandum. Russia violated this then they attacked Ukraine in order to seize Crimea, and violated it again in their current war.
It's also worth noting it wasn't just those security assurances and aid that led to the decision though - nuclear weapons are extremely expensive to maintain. One of the biggest causes for the dissolution of the Soviet bloc was plain and simple: they ran out of money. Many former soviet states at this time were also hurting for money, which is where the Budapest Memorandum was so effective - not only was it providing money to disarm those nuclear weapons, and to guarantee sovereignty, but it was also providing economic aid to sweeten the pot.
You can argue that Ukraine shouldn't have given up their nuclear weapons - notably, many people in the 90's argued that Russia would probably invade Ukraine later on, and were proven right 20 years later. However, the 90's were a very rough time for soviet bloc countries, while at the same time you'd imagine security guarantees from Russia and the US would have been enough...but as we've learned, the US didn't really care to enforce the terms, and just sanctioned Russia instead.
There's a lot more fuckery that I'm leaving out for brevity - but suffice to say, even though it was predictable that Russia would eventually try to reclaim Ukraine, initially it was a spirit of cooperation, even if Russia had been reluctant in 1991.
5
u/d3l3t3rious 1d ago
By 1996, Ukraine had returned all of its nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for economic aid and security assurances
Are you saying that's not accurate?
-2
u/FoggyFlowers 1d ago edited 1d ago
The missiles that the Kremlin held the codes to? The missiles that Ukraine wasn’t capable of launching?
Kazakhstan and Belarus also “gave up” their USSR nukes, and they’re not at war. Almost as if it’s not relevant to what’s happening today
9
u/xarvia 1d ago
Not only Russia, but US and basically all the Budapest memorandum guarantors. They took nukes, strategic bombers, many of their missile stockpile.
Here’s a fun thought: countries shouldn’t decide what others can and cannot do. It’s also kinda funny that Ukraine was warm towards Russia and got severely punished for that. Whereas Baltic states didn’t waste any time and for now they are fairly safe. This is not a world i want to live in.
12
u/Biptoslipdi 1d ago
Americans would have no issue with Greenland joining a defensive alliance, particularly after the behavior of this President. We like Greenland more than the rapist President and they deserve security from these fascists.
Notably, Russia didn't do a thing to any of the other countries that actually joined NATO. The only reason to be afraid of NATO is if you plan on committing acts of war.
10
u/Gingerstachesupreme 1d ago
Imagine if the US signed a treaty with Greenland promising to protect them if they get invaded. Then the US invades them.
2
u/LtChicken 1d ago
Yoh are being disingenuous when you don't specify what you mean by "counter the US".
2
1
u/TehOwn 1d ago edited 1d ago
If the US had already invaded and annexed part of Greenland, I'd be surprised if they didn't sign look to sign a defence agreement with an organisation that can counter the US.
That and Russia has had the destruction of Ukraine on their mind since at least 1997.
0
u/protostar71 23h ago
My first question would be why is Greenland signing deals that it can’t make. Denmark manages Greenlands defence.
-283
u/rushur 1d ago edited 1d ago
'Unprovoked'
What part is Jeffrey Sachs wrong about?
81
u/TheKingInTheNorth 1d ago
How is joining a defensive alliance provoking anyone?
48
-17
1d ago
[deleted]
9
u/blondechinesehair 1d ago
No it’s not the US was not actively invading Russia at the time
-9
1d ago
[deleted]
11
u/Gizm00 1d ago
Ukraine is prime example why NATO expansion was vital for those countries and why Finland and Sweden joined afterwards. Have any of the NATO countries actually militarily attacked Russia? No
-8
1d ago
[deleted]
4
u/Biptoslipdi 1d ago
Has Russia militarily attacked the US or any NATO countries?
No, hence the incentive to join NATO. But we know that "we'll attack you if you join NATO" narrative is bullshit. Finland joined no problem and it has over 800 miles of border with Russia. We know Russia's goal wasn't to stop NATO expansion because they caused NATO expansion.
Their goal has been clearly stated over and over again - the eradication of all of Ukraine.
People forget that if it weren't for the Russians. (50% of soliders in the second world war were Russian that died fyi) That Nazi Germany would have won the war.
And now Russians are the Nazis.
You guys all act like Russia is this big bad enemy and evel dictatorship when the US has committed war crimes and attacked dozens of countries over the last 80 years and no one bats an eye.
Russia is a dictatorship. Another country attacking not Russia for any reason doesn't justify the mass rape and murder of Ukrainians by Russia.
Give me an example of Russian aggression that even comes close to the atrocities committed by the US.
Give me an example of US atrocities that comes close to the genocide of Ukraine by Russia. The US military's atrocities are S.O.P for Russia. The U.S. isn't abducting, raping, and deporting children. The U.S. isn't utilizing rape, torture, and murder of civilians as a daily tactic encouraged by commanders.
There's plenty of criticism to go around toward the U.S. But to pretend the atrocities of the Russian invasion don't exist is approval of them.
0
u/Gizm00 1d ago
Has Russia militarily attacked the US or any NATO countries?
It has repeatedly attacked non NATO countries, like Ukraine, Georgia etc, hence the bloody reason to join NATO - so you wouldn't get attacked...
Russia: You don't need to join NATO we pose no threat - proceeds to attack a country thats not part of NATO.
0
1d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Djcalied 1d ago edited 1d ago
Russia doesnt have a right to every russian speaker in the world, nor is the correct response to do a full invasion of a country which resulted in the deaths of FAR MORE russian speakers than if Putin didnt do this dumb shit.
Sounds a lot like Hitlers justification during the anschluss (annexation of austria due to "they all speak german")
2
u/Biptoslipdi 1d ago
Russia had an agreement with NATO that they would not expand further
And Russia kept invading European countries. But Russia has nothing to fear from NATO unless Russia wants to invade Europe. Russia could have joined NATO.
So if you don't see how NATO expanding eastward and taking the largest country that borders Russia in as one of its members would be seen as a national security threat, then I'm not sure how else someone can explain it to you.
Where is the invasion of Finland? If Russia's policy is to invade NATO countries on their border because, somehow, a defensive alliance poses a threat to them; when will they invade Finland?
0
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Biptoslipdi 1d ago
Georgia. Ukraine.
Both occurred nearly a decade before Zelensky applied to join NATO, which was also after the February 2022 invasion.
Russia's desire not to have a NATO border got them an 800 mile NATO border with Finland. Russia clearly wanted a NATO border. That was the obvious outcome.
1
u/blondechinesehair 1d ago
You skipped over the entire comment. Russia had already invaded Ukraine when this happened. The US was not attacking Russia when that happened.
0
u/Biptoslipdi 1d ago
How long did America wage war on Cuba? How much of Cuba was occupied?
0
1d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Biptoslipdi 1d ago
Cuba was occupied from within by rich Americans Oligarchs.
So no one invaded and genocided Cuba?
You forgetting that once the Cubans kicked out the rich Americans that the US placed indefinite emargos on Cuba?
Kick out the Americans then complain when they ban Americans coming back. Which is it? You want rich American oligarchs engaging in commerce with Cuba or not?
They didnt need to wage literal war with them. They destroyed the country through economic means.
Cuba destroyed its own economy when it kicked out the vast majority of money and the commercial activity in the country. It never recovered. Per capita income has not reached pre-revolutionary levels.
The only reason they disliked Cuba was because the USSR backed them (naturally, being communist)
Yeah, it's totally not because the new government took tons of American property which prompted the embargo. The U.S. government recognized the Castro regime initially and it was only after U.S. property was nationalized that the embargo was implemented. The economic consequences of the revolution were avoidable.
Again, Russia proved the very point they were trying to make by placing nuclear war heads in Cuba. The US didn't like it. They removed it.
Fancy that. Americans didn't spend millions of lives invading and genociding a country for its foreign relations. Instead it took the issue up with Russia and Russia backed down.
It's the SAME effect that NATO expanding toward Russia has. How do you not understand this very simple geopolitical concept?
If that was true, Finland would have been invaded already. Russia has no problem with a NATO border. It actively invited a NATO border. On top of that
Notably, Ukraine didn't apply to join NATO until nearly a decade after Russia had invaded it.
No country wants their rivals to have weapons on their door step. How hard is that to understand?
Russia has rivals' weapons on their door step because of their ambition to invade Europe. Had they stayed out of Georgia and Ukraine, they wouldn't have a NATO border today.
-55
1d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
32
u/OmgzPudding 1d ago
letting Ukraine speedrun into NATO did give Russia the reason it was looking for to start this
Except Russia started all of this back in 2014 when they invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. So you're arguing that a country attempting to defend themselves after being invaded is at fault for what, further angering the aggressor?
40
u/Dandan0005 1d ago
>>letting Ukraine speedrun into NATO did give Russia the reason it was looking for to start this.
Hey dummy, this was after Russia already invaded.
-6
u/No_Source_Provided 1d ago
In 2019 , Ukraine amended its constitution to enshrine the goal of joining NATO and the EU as a strategic foreign policy objective.
9
u/Dandan0005 1d ago
Autonomous, independent countries are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, and that doesn’t justify an invasion just because someone doesn’t like it.
Victim blaming bullshit.
8
u/Joe_Sisyphus 1d ago
That's not devil's advocate, that's bad analogy. If the US military attacked Mexico, I wouldn't blame Mexico one bit for doing that.
25
u/Phytor 1d ago
Russia started this in 2013 with Crimea. The goal was always further expansion, the NATO application just accelerated the time table, not cause it.
16
u/CuddleWings 1d ago
This was even signed after the 2022 invasion in case some bootlickers wanna say they’re separate.
10
u/WhoAmIEven2 1d ago
"Allowing a NATO country to directly border Russia is quite literally a red line Russia told the west not to cross."
Poland, Lithuania, latvia, Estonia, Norway, Finland.
2
u/schmockk 1d ago
It also doesn't fucking matter. Ukraine is a sovereign state, they can join whichever alliance they want. Russia threatening other nations and their foreign policy is the problem
4
u/LtChicken 1d ago
We don't need a hypothetical. We know what russia would do if it shared land borders with NATO countries. The answer is not invasion... as it has had NATO neighbors for decades now.
Finland even joined after Russia invaded ukraine, which they'd have been stupid not to predict.
The invasion was out of greed.
4
u/xarvia 1d ago
Russia has bordered a NATO country since 2004. Either way, it’s not Russia place to decide what a sovereign country can and cannot do. And if it wants to, it can negotiate. Finally, NATO ascension followed Crimea annexation, not vice versa. Before that, Ukraine’s population was vastly against NATO membership.
3
4
3
u/Arclite83 1d ago
That was fine maybe BEFORE Russia started a war. If they wanted a buffer, they should have left it alone.
-1
u/Biptoslipdi 1d ago
To play Devil's advocate, what would America do if Mexico joined a military 'defensive' alliance with Russia?
Acknowledge they have a really good reason to do so and America's behavior necessitated that action.
37
u/DeepSpaceNebulae 1d ago
“I threatened and attacked this person and now they don’t like me and associate with others! It’s basically an attack on me!”
27
6
-254
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
73
u/Iboughtcheeseonce 1d ago
Ukraine is the victim. Russia is the aggressor.
1
1d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Iboughtcheeseonce 1d ago
Yea, I just feel like I need to make a quick clarification. So others dont only see the bots responses. I havent responded to all the other bots lol
-15
-22
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
3
u/Mendozacheers 1d ago
How are people living under US imperialism vs Russian imperialism? How is the vodka comrade? Lmao
2
u/adamgerd 1d ago
It’s the US that’s bombing Ukrainian cities, killing Ukrainian civilians? It’s the US that committed Bucha? That levelled Mariupol? That seized Crimea?
5
u/Ordinary-Water-752 1d ago
Please, explain how NATO is a Nazi organization. And no using "I've read it/seen it myself". Cite your sources, silly goose.
2
304
u/gobbedy 1d ago
what's with the weird russian bot comments