NATO: Difference between revisions

From Liberpedia
Line 208: Line 208:
** [https://svenska.yle.fi/a/7-10026748 Försvarets underrättelsetjänst: Tunga ryska förluster i Ukraina minskar hotet mot Finland], January 19, 2023
** [https://svenska.yle.fi/a/7-10026748 Försvarets underrättelsetjänst: Tunga ryska förluster i Ukraina minskar hotet mot Finland], January 19, 2023


=== Norwegian border ===
* https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1703136363493658742


== [[russian invasion of Ukraine]] ==
== [[russian invasion of Ukraine]] ==

Revision as of 15:30, 16 September 2023

“Russland öffnet Ukraine den Weg in die Nato”, January 2, 2005

“ Does the right to sovereignty also mean for Georgia and Ukraine, for example, that Russia would have nothing against their accession to the EU and NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: That is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners, to decide for itself which organization to join. We assume that they will consider for themselves how they develop their politics and economy and which partners and allies they rely on.

— “Russland öffnet Ukraine den Weg in die Nato”, January 2, 2005

Founding and goals

“ It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

— A Short History of NATO

Enlargement

NATO
“Russian state-owned propaganda outlet RIA published the new programmatic article with the title ”What Russia must do with Ukraine“. The article reveals a detailed plan for a genocide, starting from full elimination of Ukrainian state.” Что Россия должна сделать с Украиной

“ A careful evaluation of recent history illustrates that the claim that US and NATO expansion threatens Moscow’s existence is an exaggeration. That Russia would inflate fears of NATO to pursue its global aspirations is understandable. What is less comprehensible is the degree to which influential Western thinkers, particularly on the anti-imperial US left, have promoted this narrative. This paper will examine the work of prominent US anti-imperial leftists who view the Russo-Ukrainian war through a US-centric lens, a conceptual framework that distorts the historical record. It will first document how these commentators’ explanatory models give outsized attention to US maneuvers, while neglecting regional fault lines, Russian irredentism and historical nuance. Consequently, many US anti-imperial leftists conclude that the US/NATO alliance is to blame for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This paper will explore Russia-NATO interactions and Moscow’s imperial discourse to demonstrate that the blame NATO stance obfuscates the historical record.

— Carl Mirra, “Not One Inch, Unless It Is from Lisbon to Vladivostok” (pdf)

“ This leads us to the second point: 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.

As 2020 Pew Research Center data show, Eastern European members generally see NATO favorably. Fifty-three percent of Czechs have a positive opinion about NATO, as do 77 percent of Lithuanians. NATO’s most enthusiastic supporters are Poles, with 88 percent supporting the alliance. Fifty-three percent of Ukrainians view NATO favorably, compared to 23 who view it negatively. …

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.

— Jan Smoleński and Jan Dutkiewicz, “The American Pundits Who Can’t Resist ‘Westsplaining ’Ukraine”, March 4, 2022

“ Does the right to sovereignty also mean for Georgia and Ukraine, for example, that Russia would have nothing against their accession to the EU and NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: That is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners, to decide for itself which organization to join. We assume that they will consider for themselves how they develop their politics and economy and which partners and allies they rely on.

— “Russland öffnet Ukraine den Weg in die Nato”, 2. Januar 2005

“ I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.

— Vladimir Putin, “Press Statement and Answers to Questions at a Joint News Conference with Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma”, May 17, 2002

Poland

Baltics

“I have the honor to offer my best wishes to the signatories of the North Atlantic Pact, and to express my confidence that they, inspired by the ideals of democracy, of individual liberty, and the rule of law, will strive relentlessly for peace with justice, which excludes peace at any price. Therefore, I express the belief that countries which were forcibly deprived of self-government and independence will benefit by this noble endeavor.”

Ukraine

russia

Treaties with russia

“ The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO’s nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need to do so.

— Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation, signed in Paris, France, May 27, 1997


Popular support - votes and polls

Membership votes

1949: "The Senate [...] approved the treaty on July 21 by a vote of 82 to 13"

If you could vote for or against your country’s membership in NATO, how would you vote?

Political support

Here is a list of the GOP lawmakers who voted “no”[1]

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022364

Andy Biggs, Arizona Dan Bishop, North Carolina Lauren Boebert, Colorado Madison Cawthorn, North Carolina Ben Cline, Virginia Michael Cloud, Texas Warren Davidson, Ohio Matt Gaetz, Florida Bob Good, Virginia Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Morgan Griffith, Virginia, Thomas Massie, Kentucky Tom McClintock, California Mary Miller, Illinois Ralph Norman, South Carolina, Matt Rosendale, Montana Chip Roy, Texas Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey

USA

UK

Finland

Ukraine

“Anyone who says that NATO provoked russia to attack Ukraine is either stupid, brainwashed or simply doesn’t know the history. To the contrary, a simple cause-and-effect analysis shows that it was russia who pushed Ukraine towards NATO.”

russian troops

Finnish border

Norwegian border

russian invasion of Ukraine

Funding

  • Funding NATO: US contribution is around $560 million per year

Interventions

More

Retrieved from "https://en.liberpedia.org/en/index.php?title=NATO&oldid=12877"