data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/05836/05836e7accb13cb0adcbb8972dcc9792c2d262e0" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5a64f/5a64f8e02084d4b565d5df2c33e210f7f28ef3ad" alt=""
Those countries, in practice, applied to join, and many are still stuck in the application process. Just because it’s called an “invitation” doesn’t make it so.
Don’t think I can make it any more concise than that.
Those countries, in practice, applied to join, and many are still stuck in the application process. Just because it’s called an “invitation” doesn’t make it so.
Don’t think I can make it any more concise than that.
Err, as a Finn, we didn’t want to join for decades and neither did Sweden, and neither of us received any invites. When we did want to join, invitation was part of the process, probably the last step but I really don’t remember. Several other countries wanting to join, some for a long time, have not been invited. How is it a bullshit argument?
You do realise it’s an invitation in name only, not extended unless the aspirant country wants it?
True, refusing to accept is always possible. But NATO is not pushing itself, countries want to or don’t want to join of their own agenda. Which doesn’t really make it “expansionist”, just “accepting”.
Yes, this massive Nato expansion, almost as bad as the EU expansion, forcing one country after another to join then.
Also the verbal agreement to not situate military stuff in former DDR, in a time when the Soviet Union was alive and the situation was “slightly” different, clearly applies today. Do you want to bring the Warsaw pact back too, I’m sure there are agreements somewhere?
So, Russia gains all their prime objectives through offensive warfare, and Ukraine is forced to keep kowtowing to Russia in some semblance of neutrality (finlandization was not fun, you know).
Tell me again how this is a compromise. Also how this is not a full return to “might makes right”, the final nail in the coffin of the fragile East-European stability agreed to in the Helsinki accords.
It is relevant to claims of NATOs “expansionist” nature. But we can drop that topic.
I’d just like to point out that the “Russia was provoked” arguments are based on the realism school of foreign affairs, which boils down to “might makes right”. Seeing fellow lefties more radical than me espouse it with such glee is always such a sad thing.
Now I don’t quite know what you want me to do with that list. Yes, they were (probably, haven’t checked but will take you at your word) members of NATO at the time. Do you want me to find sources for them aspiring to become members of NATO well before the invite? But that would be going back to the “NATOs expansionist nature” debate. Do you want to discuss the relevance of the “not one inch eastward” comments? But there are plenty of sources articulating that better than we could.