Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Zidane98]

 

[ferball]

Mmmhmmm, that is exactly why Russia have invaded, those swell anti-Nazi crusaders.

Nazism exists basically everywhere, I have no idea what your argument even is except USA = bad, so by default Russia = good.

The Russians didn't invade cos of Nazis. They invaded because the US was supplying lethal aid and training to Ukraine.

The fact Ukraine is under the influence of the far right should be a concern (but I guess it isn't, considering those other European countries with huge far right influences.)

 

[ferball]

I dont get it?

You think the Russian invasion of Ukraine is justified because Roma have been treated badly in Ukraine?

Feel free to quote me saying the invasion is justified let alone by the treatment of Roma.

Do you think that the historic poor treatment of Roma is related to Nazism? I hate to break it to you, but mistreatment of, and hostility towards Roma predates nazism by centuries. Nazism co-opted it as it co-opted much hatefulness, but using the existence of anti Roma sentiment in Ukraine as evidence for either Nazism or US involvement in the dissemination of Nazism in Ukraine is just a long winded way of saying you dont have a clue.

How much evidence of Roma persecution in Russia do I need to post for you to conclude Russia must be fascist due to the American spread of fascism, because there is lots available. Would this justify attacking Russia?

I mean, do you imagine that Russians, who hate the Roma, are going to treat them better? Or that Russia was upset at how they were being treated, and wanted to protect them?

Eastern Europe is full of racist scumbags. In Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary in fact most of Europe has its fair share of racist scum. That's why the far right is on the rise across the continent. They're not just racist tho. They're violently homophobic as well, in Russia and Ukraine.

Neither side deserves my support.

 

[jatz14]

The "Nazi shit in Ukraine is" absolutely NOT " BS".
Yes the US has a Nazi problem (does that not ring alarm bells for you??)
And Ukraine does as well.

As Ferball has indicated, in fact ever since the end of WW2, the US has been involved in supporting and encouraging fascist militias/tendencies in Ukraine.

(The Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a fascist militia, continued to wage a war against the Soviet Union until 1956 - it was funded by the US.)

US support for fascist forces went into hyperdrive during and after Maidan 2014.

Finally, everyone here needs to evaluate their critical thinking skills. If Nazism is an issue in the US (the heart of global capitalism), how can we then possibly think that Nazism is not a problem in other countries which are closely allied with US imperialism?

The Nazis in Russia concern me more,

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Zidane98]

It was 'on the agenda', you're just using your specific definition

Ukraine's constitution didn't allow it until 2019. Not sure why you are even arguing this. Ukraine did not apply to join NATO and the reason it eventually changed its constitution and applied for NATO is largely down to Russia's actions and breaking of all security agreements.

USSR centre was Moscow, so was the Russian Federation. The bulk of the population of the USSR was in the Russian federation. Not exactly 200IQ thoughts here

The Soviet Union was a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the Security Council. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, its UN seat was transferred to the Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_United_Nations

I honestly don't get why you are arguing this point, but this applies to most of your posting

Ukraine are currently looking at legal avenues regarding Russia being considered a sucessor state to the USSR. To be a permanent member of the UNSC one must agree to:

This article explains it pretty well and one of the conditions of accepting the permanent UNSC seat was that Russia would respect the territorial integrity of its neighbors:

Expelling Russia from the UN Security Council — a How-to Guide

Russia’s permanent membership of the world’s most powerful international forum has been a cause for despair, but there is a way to unseat Putin’s diplomats.

cepa.org

Yeh, security and stability from some two bit newly independent state with thousands of nukes. Are you pro proliferation?

This is exactly what Russia was at the time. Let's also not forget the long list of nuclear disasters USSR inflicted on the world not least Chernboyl. What a fine nuclear safety record the USSR has!

I bet they would have, probably approved of a Russian invasion if Ukraine refused

No one can be trusted in geopolitics, that's the first step. Libya and Iraq got invaded after abandoning nuclear programs, does this prove the US is not a trustworthy security partner? Yep

Libya & Iraq were governed by murderous dictators. Just like Russia is now. No wonder you are upset about the fate of those two dictators.

I'm tired boss, i've linked all the articles before, cbf

Thanks mate

For nuclear power my dude. It's a few percent for power, 90+% for bombs. Why do you think everyone is tracking Iran's % enrichment level

If Ukraine wanted to it could easily adapt their enrichment program for nuclear weapons. As they have signed the NPT they are not.

Well they haven't launched a nuke yet, which was my argument. 'Security partner'? You'd be really annoying in meetings

Still didn't launch a nuke

Your heroes in the USSR glory days did this during weapons production:

Kyshtym disaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I bet in this instance you won't be claiming USSR's history on this though.

I mean BRICS just met (with half the worlds population under them) and the UN sec gen rocked up. Is that a pariah state?

I think this was a troll tbh. But I'd say it's when NATO says yes you are on the pathway to joining

Nope, not according to the EU

https://www.reuters.com/article/wor...r-with-russia-eu-backed-report-idUSTRE58T4MO/
An independent report blamed Georgia on Wednesday for starting last year's five-day war with Russia

Self determination ends where Russia begins it would appear

Only a fool would argue Transistria & Crimea as examples of self determination. Armed forces counting votes in a referndum at gunpoint is not self determination.

 

[jatz14]

Why was NATO formed? Think man, think

Well I'd say the bits Russia currently controls will be

I'd think 10/10 would prefer not to die

Yes, why does that amaze you?

BRICS summit went well, China-India border dispute has been taken off the boil, Russia still not collapsed from economic sanctions. Going alright I'd have thought

NATO was formed to militarily bind the European powers together to reduce the risk of another war in Europe, and to guard against an avowably expansionist power, with a penchance for catering revolution and chaos in other countries, in the USSR.

If you would argue this description would also apply to the US, I would agree, but nevertheless, it was for collective security, stability, and stopping the expansion westward of the USSR.

It wasn't formed to contain the Russian Federation, and if the Russian Federation has no desire to expand Westward, then NATO is an irrelevance to it.



On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[wannabejack]

Roma, Nazi, corruption, homophobia, etc. are not things that are just isolated to Ukraine so let’s not talk about them as if they are. It seems as some here keep mentioning Ukraine’s short comings (problems) as if they’re isolated to Ukraine.

Because of the war, a large number of Roma have moved from Ukraine into neighbouring countries. They are experiencing problems in these countries and some are returing to Ukraine.
Roma people living in Ukraine are fighting on the front lines and in high numbers, many as volunteers, to defend the country against Russian aggression.

Nazi’s are a problem world wide, not just isolated to Ukraine.
Unlike most Eastern European countries which saw far-right groups become permanent fixtures in their countries' politics during the decline and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the national electoral support for far-right parties in Ukraine only rarely exceeded 3% of the popular vote
..the Right Sector―won only 2.15% of the vote combined and failed to pass the 5% threshold. As a result, no party was able to win a proportional seat. One party – the Svoboda party – was able to secure a single constituency seat.

Ukraine isn’t the most corrupt country but also not the least corrupt but are working on corruption.

Homophobic Russia and Ukraine. Both countries are not the same! But still mentioned as if they are the same.
Ukraine
In the 2011 UN General Assembly declaration for LGBT rights, Ukraine was the only East Slavic country to express its support. In late 2022, parliament unanimously approved a media regulation bill that banned hate speech and incitement based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In March 2023, a parliamentary bill was introduced for civil unions.
Russia
Russia’s Supreme Court ruled today that the “international LGBT movement” is an “extremist organisation,” jeopardizing all forms of LGBT rights activism in the country, Human Rights Watch said today.
In a closed hearing, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Justice Ministry’s lawsuit accusing the “LGBT movement” of inciting social and religious discord.

 

[barreness]

NATO was formed to improve the collective security of Europe in the aftermath of WW2 when Europe was rebuilding and communist USSR was considered a threat.

Yes good, now who's the successor state?

Communist USSR is history. There is nothing specifically anti-Russia about NATO at all. Infact NATO helped build up the Russian military with many joint exercises up until the security partner agreement was suspended.

Oh I see

If that were to happen the cost to Russia would be enormous and probably not worth it. Ukraine invasion already isn't worth it, the only reason it continues is because your leader is a dictator with absolute power.

And yet here we are, perhaps your deductions are incorrect?

Exactly the reason why they will not live under Russian subjugation anymore, thankyou for proving my point.

Lol, this is hilarious. BRICS went so great for Putin apart from China, India demanding Putin end the war in Ukraine



And the best one of all




Have a guess who MBS met with instead.

Yeh random twitter links aren't great sources mate. Try official releases or some actual journalism

Saudis are pretty staunch allies of the US, the surprise was that they'd even consider being involved in BRICS

How did Putin go in attending the South Afrifcan BRICS Summit in July last year btw? Surely he was going to attend right being that as you claim Russia is not a pariah state.

Any reason Putin didn't attend the BRICS summit in South Africa tovarisch?

Because of the ICC/J warrant out for his arrest silly

Did Mongolia arrest him? The US seemed to ignore Bibi's crimes when he was addressing congress

This would be the equivalent of NATO secertary general not attending a NATO summit. If you can find me an example of a NATO secretary general not being represented at a NATO summit I promise to send you a bottle of vodka. Your choice on the brand.

Ah yes, you've created some criteria for me to fulfil to disprove your argument, well done again.

The crayons are in the back, I think you like the blue ones, try to avoid eating them

 

[barreness]

NATO was formed to militarily bind the European powers together to reduce the risk of another war in Europe, and to guard against an avowably expansionist power, with a penchance for catering revolution and chaos in other countries, in the USSR.

Yep. Keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out

If you would argue this description would also apply to the US, I would agree, but nevertheless, it was for collective security, stability, and stopping the expansion westward of the USSR.

The US is the heart of NATO though

It wasn't formed to contain the Russian Federation, and if the Russian Federation has no desire to expand Westward, then NATO is an irrelevance to it.

NATO expanded when Russia was weak and so too when Russia was strong(er). There is a few in this thread and within the western security apparatus that has called for the assassination of Putin and the balkanisation of Russia. It's difficult to say they're not a threat to Russia(yes of course, if they were the Russia we wanted it wouldn't be, self determination and all that)

 

[Zidane98]

Yes good, now who's the successor state?

Oh I see

And yet here we are, perhaps your deductions are incorrect?

Yeh random twitter links aren't great sources mate. Try official releases or some actual journalism

The official website of BRICS telling attnedees to use Euros & dollars instead of their own currencies you mean. Lol.

Saudis are pretty staunch allies of the US, the surprise was that they'd even consider being involved in BRICS

Saudis seek power for themselves. Their extent of interest is what they can achieve in return from BRICS members for controlling production of oil. Putin has begged Saudi recently to reduce production but this request has fallen on deaf ears because Russia has nothing to offer Saudi Arabia.

Because of the ICC/J warrant out for his arrest silly

Did Mongolia arrest him? The US seemed to ignore Bibi's crimes when he was addressing congress

So Russia are a pariah state, thanks for agreeing. Mongolia not arresting Putin being painted as a win by yourself shows just how far Russia has fallen.

Ah yes, you've created some criteria for me to fulfil to disprove your argument, well done again.

The crayons are in the back, I think you like the blue ones, try to avoid eating them

So you won't be taking my offer of a free bottle of vodka than I presume?


The leader of BRICS not being able to attend a BRICS summit tells you everything you should need to know about Russia and its place on the international stage. A mafia state run by an official war criminal that uses threats & aggression to achieve anything instead of diplomacy.


How are you going with sourcing new passenger jets btw? What Uralls oil price doing tovarisch? How did Russia go at the last Olympic games? I see you got 300 gold medals at BRICS games, pretty hard to beat that effort.

 

[Zidane98]

Yep. Keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out

The US is the heart of NATO though

NATO expanded when Russia was weak and so too when Russia was strong(er). There is a few in this thread and within the western security apparatus that has called for the assassination of Putin and the balkanisation of Russia. It's difficult to say they're not a threat to Russia(yes of course, if they were the Russia we wanted it wouldn't be, self determination and all that)

NATO did not expand anywhere, this is a lie.


NATO members apply to join, are only accepted after a thorough MAP and all member states must agree on a new member joining.


Russia is to blame for post Soviet states seeking NATO membership. Not NATO.


And as we can see, they have been proven right in every way by pursuing NATO membership.

 

[barreness]

The official website of BRICS telling attnedees to use Euros & dollars instead of their own currencies you mean. Lol.

Saudis seek power for themselves. Their extent of interest is what they can achieve in return from BRICS members for controlling production of oil. Putin has begged Saudi recently to reduce production but this request has fallen on deaf ears because Russia has nothing to offer Saudi Arabia.

So Russia are a pariah state, thanks for agreeing. Mongolia not arresting Putin being painted as a win by yourself shows just how far Russia has fallen.

So you won't be taking my offer of a free bottle of vodka than I presume?


The leader of BRICS not being able to attend a BRICS summit tells you everything you should need to know about Russia and its place on the international stage. A mafia state run by an official war criminal that uses threats & aggression to achieve anything instead of diplomacy.


How are you going with sourcing new passenger jets btw? What Uralls oil price doing tovarisch? How did Russia go at the last Olympic games? I see you got 300 gold medals at BRICS games, pretty hard to beat that effort.

This is actual shitposting mixed with agreeing with basic geopolitics, there's no point picking it apart

 

[barreness]

NATO did not expand anywhere, this is a lie.


NATO members apply to join, are only accepted after a thorough MAP and all member states must agree on a new member joining.

They didn't expand, IT JUST GOT BIGGER.

Do you see how dumb this sounds?

Russia is to blame for post Soviet states seeking NATO membership. Not NATO.


And as we can see, they have been proven right in every way by pursuing NATO membership.

The US empire once again being completely benign. You get a military base, you get a military base .oprah gif

 

[Jamolad]

Barreness, why did those other countries join NATO, causing NATO's expansion?

Can you list which country(ies) were forced to join NATO against their will, and how they were forced to join? Were there any that were forced to join under duress or were unfairly coerced or 'hood-winked'?

And those that joined NATO voluntarily, what benefit did they see for their country in joining NATO? Were they afraid of someone/something - why did they join (what was their motivation)?

And lastly, who should decide whether a country applies for NATO membership? Should applying for NATO be the decision of the government of the country considering applying for membership?

Answering this will help me understand why NATO expansion is a big issue for you but a non-issue for me; so please correct me where I am wrong because from where I sit my thoughts are:

• No country has ever been forced to join NATO, they've joined voluntarily;
  
  
• Countries join NATO willingly as they believe it is in the best interest's of their country's safety/security; and
  
  
• Each individual country is the sole decision maker as to whether their country applies for NATO membership. Sure, NATO members (other countries) will ultimately decide if the applicant country is eligible and approved to join NATO, but as to whether they get to apply should be decided by the applicant country and not their neighbour(s). I have this theory that whether a country gets to apply should be decided by that country, and should not be decided by a country poised to attack/invade the applicant country, crazy as that seems.

 

[jatz14]

Yep. Keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out

The US is the heart of NATO though

NATO expanded when Russia was weak and so too when Russia was strong(er). There is a few in this thread and within the western security apparatus that has called for the assassination of Putin and the balkanisation of Russia. It's difficult to say they're not a threat to Russia(yes of course, if they were the Russia we wanted it wouldn't be, self determination and all that)

NATO expanded when Russia was unable to militarily compel the countries in its orbit, to remain, against their will, in its orbit.

We agree. This is a good thing, no?

Countries able to decide their own fate. Sounds appealing, no wonder Russia hates it.

I would agree, that Russia should be able to meddle and compel the countries around it, in the interests of its own security, the day I would be willing to accept Indonesia suddenly declaring that they considered Australia in their security orbit, and that they should have a say in our government, security alliances, and sovereignty. All for legitimate Indonesian security concerns of course.



On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[barreness]

NATO expanded when Russia was unable to militarily compel the countries in its orbit, to remain, against their will, in its orbit.

We agree. This is a good thing, no?

One empire expanded as another contracted, a tale as old as time

Countries able to decide their own fate. Sounds appealing, no wonder Russia hates it.

I guess if they buy it it counts. Germany giving up cheaper energy would be an example of nations acting outside of their own interests because they're a vassal. Australia jumping into every war America starts for whatever reason another

I would agree, that Russia should be able to meddle and compel the countries around it, in the interests of its own security, the day I would be willing to accept Indonesia suddenly declaring that they considered Australia in their security orbit, and that they should have a say in our government, security alliances, and sovereignty. All for legitimate Indonesian security concerns of course.

You think Aus and Indonesia don't have an active interest in each other. Indo murdering millions of commies got them a lot of credit with the US and then the US overthrew our socialist prime minister. We're on the same side by most measures

 

[Aussie in exile]

Barreness, why did those other countries join NATO, causing NATO's expansion?

Can you list which country(ies) were forced to join NATO against their will, and how they were forced to join? Were there any that were forced to join under duress or were unfairly coerced or 'hood-winked'?

And those that joined NATO voluntarily, what benefit did they see for their country in joining NATO? Were they afraid of someone/something - why did they join (what was their motivation)?

And lastly, who should decide whether a country applies for NATO membership? Should applying for NATO be the decision of the government of the country considering applying for membership?

Answering this will help me understand why NATO expansion is a big issue for you but a non-issue for me; so please correct me where I am wrong because from where I sit my thoughts are:

• No country has ever been forced to join NATO, they've joined voluntarily;
  
  
• Countries join NATO willingly as they believe it is in the best interest's of their country's safety/security; and
  
  
• Each individual country is the sole decision maker as to whether their country applies for NATO membership. Sure, NATO members (other countries) will ultimately decide if the applicant country is eligible and approved to join NATO, but as to whether they get to apply should be decided by the applicant country and not their neighbour(s). I have this theory that whether a country gets to apply should be decided by that country, and should not be decided by a country poised to attack/invade the applicant country, crazy as that seems.

He can't, but no doubt waffle on with his pro Russian propaganda.

 

[rodney86]

NATO expanded east because countries that had just suffered under half a century of Russian control had no interest in it happening again.

 

[Zidane98]

 

[jatz14]

One empire expanded as another contracted, a tale as old as time

I guess if they buy it it counts. Germany giving up cheaper energy would be an example of nations acting outside of their own interests because they're a vassal. Australia jumping into every war America starts for whatever reason another

You think Aus and Indonesia don't have an active interest in each other. Indo murdering millions of commies got them a lot of credit with the US and then the US overthrew our socialist prime minister. We're on the same side by most measures

Aus and Indonesia do have an active interest in each other, they are even security concerns to each other.

This makes the relative lack of bombing very odd, given how you see security concerns.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jatz14]

One empire expanded as another contracted, a tale as old as time

I guess if they buy it it counts. Germany giving up cheaper energy would be an example of nations acting outside of their own interests because they're a vassal. Australia jumping into every war America starts for whatever reason another

You think Aus and Indonesia don't have an active interest in each other. Indo murdering millions of commies got them a lot of credit with the US and then the US overthrew our socialist prime minister. We're on the same side by most measures

If you join at the end of a gun, it's an empire, if you volunteer to join because doing so benefits you, it's a co'op.

Finland joining NATO doesn't make NATO an empire, Ukraine joining Russia does make the Russian Federation and empire, see how it works?

The British Empire was an empire because people didn't send them a letter saying, look her old chap, we would like to join this little empire thing you have going.

The European union isn't an empire, because you get in by applying, and you can vote to leave.

Finland applied to join NATO, and they can leave. Ukraine didn't apply to join Russia, and if absorbed, they aren't going to be able to apply to leave.

I know I am labouring this point, which seems obvious, like 3 and 12 not being the same. But you aren't seeming to get it, and a failure to understand can have some serious life consequences, like not knowing the difference between 3 and 12.

Like going around and equating countries applying to join NATO, and Russia invading places. People might think your weird.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[barreness]

Barreness, why did those other countries join NATO, causing NATO's expansion?

It's good to be under the US nuclear umbrella, article 5 etc

Can you list which country(ies) were forced to join NATO against their will, and how they were forced to join? Were there any that were forced to join under duress or were unfairly coerced or 'hood-winked'?

Forced? no not really. Has the US installed friendly regimes in ex warsaw pact countries, yes. These US friendly govts obviously would choose to join NATO if possible

And those that joined NATO voluntarily, what benefit did they see for their country in joining NATO? Were they afraid of someone/something - why did they join (what was their motivation)?

I'm not sure fear drives much of it, economic and arms trade benefit most likely. the US empire has the global currency and the best military kit in the world, there's massive benefits to joining them

And lastly, who should decide whether a country applies for NATO membership? Should applying for NATO be the decision of the government of the country considering applying for membership?

Sure, in an ideal world every country has self determination, but its not a utopia

Answering this will help me understand why NATO expansion is a big issue for you but a non-issue for me; so please correct me where I am wrong because from where I sit my thoughts are:

• No country has ever been forced to join NATO, they've joined voluntarily;
  
  
• Countries join NATO willingly as they believe it is in the best interest's of their country's safety/security; and
  
  
• Each individual country is the sole decision maker as to whether their country applies for NATO membership. Sure, NATO members (other countries) will ultimately decide if the applicant country is eligible and approved to join NATO, but as to whether they get to apply should be decided by the applicant country and not their neighbour(s). I have this theory that whether a country gets to apply should be decided by that country, and should not be decided by a country poised to attack/invade the applicant country, crazy as that seems.

You're trying to dance around an issue I don't deny; Yeh (western particuarly) Ukraine definitely wanted to join NATO and feared a Russian invasion, obviously their fear was correct

The US becoming the kingmakers in Ukraine was a step too far for the Russians, hence they invaded and annexed. It's not really a moral choice, it's a clash of empires

 

[Aussie in exile]

It's good to be under the US nuclear umbrella, article 5 etc

Forced? no not really. Has the US installed friendly regimes in ex warsaw pact countries, yes. These US friendly govts obviously would choose to join NATO if possible

I'm not sure fear drives much of it, economic and arms trade benefit most likely. the US empire has the global currency and the best military kit in the world, there's massive benefits to joining them

Sure, in an ideal world every country has self determination, but its not a utopia

You're trying to dance around an issue I don't deny; Yeh (western particuarly) Ukraine definitely wanted to join NATO and feared a Russian invasion, obviously their fear was correct

The US becoming the kingmakers in Ukraine was a step too far for the Russians, hence they invaded and annexed. It's not really a moral choice, it's a clash of empires

How did the free elections go in Russia last time and why did little legs have so many of his opponents locked up?

 

[jatz14]

It's good to be under the US nuclear umbrella, article 5 etc

Forced? no not really. Has the US installed friendly regimes in ex warsaw pact countries, yes. These US friendly govts obviously would choose to join NATO if possible

I'm not sure fear drives much of it, economic and arms trade benefit most likely. the US empire has the global currency and the best military kit in the world, there's massive benefits to joining them

Sure, in an ideal world every country has self determination, but its not a utopia

You're trying to dance around an issue I don't deny; Yeh (western particuarly) Ukraine definitely wanted to join NATO and feared a Russian invasion, obviously their fear was correct

The US becoming the kingmakers in Ukraine was a step too far for the Russians, hence they invaded and annexed. It's not really a moral choice, it's a clash of empires

It must be comforting, knowing that if a previously non democratic country, with a government installed by the Russian military rolling in, elects a pro democracy pro Western government, they can be just dismissed as, installed by the US.

Otherwise you might have to take peoples wishes into account when deciding what should happen to them, and who the **** wants to do that.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[IlovethePies]

Let's have a look at the history of NATO, since there are many here who claim that the expansion of NATO is some kind of benign tendency aiming only to counteract the evil Putin regime.

NATO was founded in 1949 less than four years after the end of World War II, in the initial years of the Cold War, as an alliance aimed against the Soviet Union.

At the time it was established, the claim was made that NATO was an alliance purely to serve the "defence" and "security" of Europe. This was a lie, from the very beginning.

At the same time as NATO was founded, the Chinese revolution had just triumphed. All the imperialist member nations of NATO pursued brutal unrestrained violence in colonial wars in Indochina, Korea, Algeria, Africa and beyond. NATO supported right wing coups in Greece and Turkey, and against left wing nationalist governments in Latin America.

In 1991, the Soviet Union was liquidated by its own ruling elite, and the Warsaw Pact was also dissolved. However, NATO did not dissolve itself, despite the fact that it justified its own existence on the threat supposedly posed by the Soviet Union.

And this is because, in fact, NATO was not fundamentally directed against just the Soviet Union. It was a vehicle through which US and European imperialism ultimately aimed to resubjugate world after their temporary retreat post WW2 caused by the successful colonial revolutions of the 60's and 70's which led to the former colonies establishing a certain, very limited degree of resistance to the ravages of imperialism.

Imperialism never gave up on its drive to take revenge on the Russian Revolution, and subject the former Soviet Union to colonial domination. Even though Gorbachev, Yeltsin and then Putin opened the doors to capitalism, this was not enough. The imperialists have never relinquished their aim to batter the doors entirely down. They failed the first time when they organised the intervention of the White Armies, and have been waiting for the opportunity ever since.

America’s European allies, pursuing their own imperialist interests, followed its lead. NATO is the instrument with which they pursue this goal. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO or its members have been waging war practically without interruption.

Let's look at the record of NATO, - supposedly according to the posters here, an institution for "democracy and freedom"

The US first attacked Iraq in 1990. In 1999, NATO bombed Serbia without a UN mandate—in violation of international law—and forced the secession of Kosovo. In 2001, NATO invoked the mutual defence clause, for the first and only time, and occupied Afghanistan, conducting a war that lasted 20 years and ended with the destruction of the country and the return of the Taliban. Although subsequent wars against Iraq, Libya and Syria took place outside the official NATO structures, they were supported by most NATO member states.

Parallel to the wars in the Middle East, NATO systematically advanced towards Russia and incorporated the whole of Eastern Europe and—with the Baltic states—parts of the former Soviet Union.

The world’s most powerful military alliance grew from 12 to 32 members. Last year, it spent $1.3 trillion on defense, or 60 percent of global military spending. The US military budget alone totalled $905 billion, more than the next 15 countries combined. In contrast, China only spent $220 billion and Russia $109 billion on defense.

From its very inception, NATO was a vehicle aiming to spearhead imperialist domination.

With this historical record, the claims that NATO is only concerned about "freedom and democracy" for the people of Ukraine are contemptible and laughable.