Great article. Well done sir.

Two things.

But what we know of its existence is inextricably bound by and to the mind we have, and so, in that sense, reality is not straightforwardly objective. It is not solely constituted by objects and their relations. Reality has an inextricably mental aspect, which itself is never revealed in empirical analysis ¹. Whatever experience we have or knowledge we possess, it always occurs to a subject — a subject which only ever appears as us, as subject, not to us, as object.

Is this not assuming the subject/object dichotomy? I have a feeling you’re quite beyond that, but this paragraph left me unsure.

Secondly, a lot of this sounds like Kant, who you reference and credit as developing this “central insight.” Can you flush out a little more how what you’re saying differs from him?

This isn't funny. — baker

Then don’t laugh.

I find it hilarious.

Lol!

“Your guru Aristotle” said that.

Indeed I claimed/argued that BOTH the following arguments of yours are non sequiturs — neomac

Because you don’t know what it means. If you do, then you’ve failed to understand what was said. I’m not interested in holding your hand in explanation. You’re worth the minimal amount of time.

But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.
— Mikie

Some more dogmatic claims. — neomac

No, just pure logic. But it does presume I’m dealing with a non-pathological adult, so I can see why you’ve struggled with it.

it would still be a non sequitur, because propositional logic has nothing to do with interpreting claims literally or non-literally, but with FORMAL logic links between propositions. — neomac

That wasn’t the numbered statement, which you used to show us all your poor understanding of freshman logic. That was the statement you incorrectly claimed was a non sequitur.

At least try to get that right.

Anyway, the argument stands: the US has been pushing a plan for Eastern Europe for years. That includes NATO membership.

It’s no coincidence that Russia reacted in 2022, especially after NATO training, weapons supplies, military drills and, significantly, the reaffirming the position from Bucharest in September 2021.

If you want to pretend there’s some other reason, fine— go with that. There’s partial truth in it. But to disregard what a country has been saying for years is stupid, assuming we’re against war. Likewise, continuing the war instead of pushing for negotiations or at least a ceasefire is also morally bankrupt.

By conveniently chopping my quotation you overlooked 2 points: 1. — neomac

Yeah, because I stop reading after you show you have no clue what you’re talking about.

I see in there 4 main claims and no argument in their support — neomac

Yeah, I’m really not interested in what you consider an argument or not an argument. You’ve shown so far to have the understanding and conversational style of a high schooler who thinks he’s in a debate, and “winning.” The reality is that you’re just embarrassing.

- I need however a (plausible enough) argument for “assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, — neomac

Then go read a book. I couldn’t care less about what you “need.” I’m certainly not going to explain it to a child who thinks he’s in debate class.

And conveniently so because you are unable to properly argue and counter-argue. — neomac

Says the guy doing nothing except making random claims and bickering over statements he doesn’t understand.

You’re a waste of time. Do me a favor: read a book about logic and Ukraine. You can use it. Then grow up a little.

Maybe repeat “your guru Mearsheimer” for the thousandth time. Solidify your place in the running for goofiest forum members.

“Because Russia had stated, for years, that NATO membership in Ukraine was considered a red line. There was no reason to do so” is not a non sequitur. — neomac

Sure. "There was no reason to do so" is a general statement, which I believe true. Clearly I don't mean "any reason whatsoever," as there can always be reasons given about anything. But no (good) reason, no. It's obvious that is implied. But I understand that if you're reading everything literally, like a 10-year-old, it'll set you off into a tangent about what you think are fancy-sounding "fallacies."

“Intellectualizing”? Dude, maybe you are not familiar with the nuances of propositional logic 101 — neomac

Yes, intellectualizing. We’re all impressed that you took freshman logic, I’m sure. You seem to know less about logic than you do about Ukraine, but in any case it’s totally irrelevant since it wasn’t a syllogism. But like with “non sequitors” and the like, you’re just confused. The following is a good example:

Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington — Mikie

You wrote: “I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it”, the question is why on earth China or Russia should hear your advise “however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington”?! — neomac

First, I’m not literally saying I would “give advice” to China or Russia. So that’s ridiculous.

Second, the statement about reasoning behind the fears refers to the Monroe Doctrine, and how it doesn’t matter if one thinks it is irrational or rational. Why? Because it is, in fact, a policy.

So you completely failed to understand what was written, and then embarrassingly preface your silliness with “let me teach you English nuance.” Lol.

The biggest egomaniacs turn out to be the most delusional. Yours is a good example.

If the US considers nuclear weapons in CUBA a threat, then the USSR doing so anyway, despite these warnings, is a mistake[/b].
— Mikie

Why mistaken?! — neomac

Depends on the goals. I assume starting conflicts and wars isn’t the objective, and if it is it’s wrong. But assuming the USSR didn’t want to cause nuclear war, then putting missiles in Cuba was a mistake — and was extremely risky and foolish if done for other reasons (like getting weapons out of Turkey, which I also think was a mistake on the US’s part).

USSR’s move was indeed effective to counter the military nuclear threat coming from the US — neomac

That it turned out OK doesn’t make it a good decision. This is a common mistake in decision-making.

That I even have to point this out further shows I’m dealing with an intellectual child.

The problem is that “it'd be nice” is expressing your best wishes, your preferences. As I anticipated the reality may very well differ from what we prefer. — neomac

Once again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Mine wasn’t a statement about reality. It was expressing a basic value, and assuming other non-pathological people also share that value. Not wanting the world to be engulfed in nuclear Holocaust is a pretty minimal and non-controversial expectation.

Try to make sure you understand what you’re reading before writing 5 tedious paragraphs. Save yourself time, because I skip everything you write after it’s clear you completely misunderstood.

I rely more on geopolitical analysts — neomac

You rely on one person, your guru Brzezinski— and do so poorly.

BTW, so much for your threat to “leave [me] to it.”

Now if you don’t mind, I’d like to get back to a better conversation with Jabberwock, who at least makes an attempt to understand what others are saying, and converses like an adult.

Collective action = lots of people reducing their carbon footprint. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yep, including Big Oil and corporate America.

The very short counterargument is that individual acts of thrift and abstinence won’t get us the huge distance we need to go in this decade. We need to exit the age of fossil fuels, reinvent our energy landscape, rethink how we do almost everything. We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good.

But the oil companies would like you to think that’s how it works. It turns out that the concept of the “carbon footprint”, that popular measure of personal impact, was the brainchild of an advertising firm working for BP. As Mark Kaufman wrote this summer:

British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

The main reason to defeat the fossil fuel corporations is that their product is destroying the planet, but their insidious propaganda, from spreading climate-change denial to pushing this climate footprint business, makes this goal even more worthwhile.

From the article above.

Again, nice to see even when you pretend to care about this issue you can't help but repeat stupid propaganda from BP. :up:

Seems a ridiculous thing to do. But if he did so on purpose— fine. Prosecute.

It’s just hilarious that MAGA wants to scream about it. It’s just pure vengeance and hypocrisy, since they don’t care about the rule of law anyway.

If whining and complaining and blaming others could solve CC/GW then there wouldn't be a problem. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah, except no one is advocating that. It’s just another mental block you can’t seem to overcome.

This will not be solved individually. We need collective action and governmental action. You announcing that you’ve fallen for the BS oil propaganda isn’t surprising, but isn’t very interesting either.

“Non sequitur” is a Latin expression not English — neomac

I know what non sequitur means. You apparently don't. You've also proven my point about misunderstanding English nuance.

everyone with a functioning brain, including Russia, are aware that “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO” is about Ukraine and Georgia’s perceived historical threats coming from Russia. — neomac

I'm not talking about Ukraine or Georgia's perceptions. I'm sure they have their reasons, which I respect. To argue it was mostly about "historical threats" is at best haIf-truth. But try to stay on topic.

I'm talking about Russia's perception, right or wrong. Everyone knew they considered NATO expansion a threat.

but because Brzenzinski was an actual prominent national security advisor of American administrations, — neomac

And this is a reason to take him more seriously?

You do you.

By analogy, if YOU want to sensibly claim it’s US/West/NATO’s fault to provoke Putin because he perceives Ukraine joining NATO as a security threat, then YOU (not the Russians) have to provide strong reasons to support such threat perception. — neomac

I already did. China making the exact same moves in Mexico that the US/NATO has done in Ukraine, and you bet your ass the US would react. I would consider that playing with fire on China's part.

And I don't have to give reasons for the threat perception, any more than I have to give reasons for Georgian threat perceptions of Russia. I simply look at what they say, and if it makes some sense, I take it seriously. In this case, it seems to me Russia has some reason for concern. But in any case, it's not what I think -- it's what THEY think. Which I've repeated several times.

What would the threat be if China offered a military pact to Canada, trained Canadian troops, supplied weapons, and conducted military drills along the US border? Why would the US consider this pact a threat? Can you guess? Or would you dismiss that claim as well? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, what's the difference? — Mikie

I noticed you couldn't answer this. Too bad.

Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington
— Mikie
.
To assess if your fears are rational, you have to be at least able to reconstruct the reasons of your fears. — neomac

Good god, can you read?

I'll repeat: Regardless of what *I* myself believe about the Monroe Doctrine, it is in fact a foreign policy of the US. So the question isn't about "rationalizing" fears, especially not my own. If you had taken a few extra seconds to read what was written, you'd quickly see your response was irrelevant.

And again you don't know what that means — Mikie

And again you don't know what “non sequitur” means — neomac

:snicker: How original.

(1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
(2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake. — Mikie

I'll make it clearer how embarrassingly poor your reasoning is from a logic point of view, step by step. Ready? — neomac

:lol: I can't wait.

In the second case, the propositional logic form of your comment is something like: “p ⊢ q” or “q (syntactically) derives from p”. In other words, from the premise p one can syntactically derive q by applying transformation rules governing logic propositional operators. — neomac

lol. Oh how smart! I guess you're really showing me a thing or two!

So, in propositional logic, your argument would be definitely false (q doesn’t follow from p, non sequitur). — neomac

You really are embarrassing yourself.

I'll repeat, again, what was said:

(1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
(2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake.

The numbering was not meant to imply this is a syllogism. What I'm saying is obvious, but let's change the labels:

If the US considers nuclear weapons in CUBA a threat, then the USSR doing so anyway, despite these warnings, is a mistake.

If you're struggling with WHY it's a mistake, I'll tell you: because it'd be nice not having World War III. In the case of Russia, it'd be nice not having Russians and Ukrainians killed and billions of dollars spent on weapons.

Now maybe it would have happened without NATO involvement, as Jabberwock seems to believe, but at least the US would be nearly blameless.

too ignorant about logic to understand how logically confused your claim is. — neomac

Intellectualizing something rather straightforward doesn't have the affect you think it does.

It makes you look like this guy:

To which I have asked how do you know that. I am glad now that you do admit that you cannot know that. — Jabberwock

So your entire argument rests on the fact that I can only give an opinion, not definitive proof, of what might have happened. An odd line to take.

Yes, you got me. Maybe had I not driven to work yesterday, my car would have still run out of gas. I can’t definitively prove otherwise — but I view it as unlikely.

NATO was the most convenient pretext this time for increasing the ongoing hostilities. But as we know from the Russian invasion of Crimea, any other pretext will do. — Jabberwock

Why pretext? A pretext that was known and warned about for years, and such even several experts agreed would likely happen if such activities continued?

Seems like a very elaborate ruse.

Let me sum them up: you carefully ignore the fact that Russians got hostile at Ukraine in 2004, then in 2008 NATO supposedly provokes Russia, but Russia does nothing but protest (even though provoking Russia with NATO expansion supposedly causes wars - if it was worth the war then would be the time!), then Russia takes a break from being threatened and provoked by NATO expansion, invades Ukraine for related but distinctly different reasons (without even mentioning NATO expansion!), then goes back to being threatened by NATO expansion and invades again in 2022.

If that summary somehow misrepresents your views, please correct me. — Jabberwock

Appreciate the effort.

NATO is one line of US influence, and an important one. There are others. Why does the US want to expand NATO, support overthrowing a president, etc.? It's part of a very clear strategy for eastern Europe.

President Yanukovych was elected earlier this year, vowing to end Ukraine's Nato membership ambitions and mend relations with Russia. — BBC

As I understand, from your suggestion that I read about his position, you have a citation where Yanukovych says something completely opposite? Can you provide it? — Jabberwock

When did I say that? Your citation is correct: he was against NATO membership. Very clear. I don't see where the confusion is.

Was there a Russian invasion of Ukraine prior to the NATO provocation of 2008? — Mikie

Was there a war after the 2008 provocation? Because if the war in 2022 is the reaction to 2008 provocation, then it must be... how you put it? Oh, yes: 'Quite a delayed reaction'. — Jabberwock

There were two aggressions after 2008, yes. 2014 and 2022. That doesn't prove that they wouldn't have occurred anyway -- but it certainly doesn't disprove that Bucharest didn't have lasting impacts. Which it did.

There were other impacts as well. Remember, NATO was one part of US strategy in the region. Just happened to be the "red line" for Russia -- which you disregard.

So why was there such a delay? Because things changed and escalated. First, Russian military capacity changed. Second, the US supported pushing out a pro-Russian president. Third, and leading directly to all-out invasion, NATO provided training (for YEARS), weapons, and conducted drills -- and then, to top it off, in 2021, reaffirmed its position from 2008.

So if that seems like odd timing, you're just not paying attention. In fact the Russians were screaming about this for months, if not years -- to no avail. Because they're just liars and thugs, after all, so who cares what they say or think? Besides, everyone knows NATO is "defensive," and is no threat to Russia. "Just look at the Baltics." And so forth.

If Russia invaded Ukraine in 2005, my position would be wrong.
— Mikie

Well, by that logic, given that Russia did not invade Ukraine right after 2008, your position is also wrong. — Jabberwock

Ok, I'll put it this way: if they invaded at any point from 2000-2008, or especially after 2004-2008, I'd be wrong. If they cited NATO expansion, that would be very odd. They could have cited US influence, however.

I care about Putin's pretexts of post-USSR conflicts (because there were many) about as much as I care about Bush's pretexts of Iraq's second invasion. In today's world attacking other countries without casus belli is frowned upon, so they always try to come up with something. — Jabberwock

True, and we should listen and see if there's any truth to it.

What you, in my opinion, fail to see is that the conflict runs much deeper and NATO expansion is just one of the points, not decisive one. The underlying issue is that Putin is no longer willing (or cannot afford) to allow losing Russian influence in the former republics, even against the will of their populations. — Jabberwock

Of course it runs deeper. Of course there are complexities. To argue the Ukraine invasion of 2022 had IittIe to do with NATO is simply ignoring the facts, in my view. If China were training troops and conducting military driIIs in Mexico, and then China announces it would push for a pact -- despite warnings of the US -- I think the response by the US would be not that surprising, and one would say China's involvement was a decisive factor indeed. True, we could aIso make up other stories, and of course there'd be some truth in them, but to ignore the gIaringIy obvious just isn't serious.

So when BBC wrote that Ukraine 'effectively rejects any ambition to join Nato', they were completely wrong. I see. — Jabberwock

So military training, weapons, Operation Sea Breeze, and the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership (September of 2021) -- aII of this we should ignore because at some point the BBC said -- God knows when -- that Ukraine rejects any ambition to join NATO?

Again, this just isn't serious.

Insurrection versus accidentally pulling a fire alarm. It’s a wash.

The cultists sure are desperate these days.

Individuals need to look at their own carbon footprint — Agree-to-Disagree

Straight from Big Oil’s boardrooms to your brain. What a shocker.

Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook

I'm pretty sure those attacking it have no idea what it is or much appreciation of academic thought in general as they seem incapable of formulating a coherent argument that might discredit it. — Baden

Yeah, it’s just a catch-all term for “everything we hate,” real or imaginary. Mostly imaginary.

Critical race theory. :lol:

The latest engineered outrage from the right, trickled down to internet trolls.

long before any talks of NATO resurfaced again — Jabberwock

This is incorrect. Which is why I asked about NATO activities after 2014. If you’d like to move on to that now, I’d be happy to. Because it’s very relevant to the 2022 invasion and thus what’s happening today.

NATO never “resurfaced” because it never went underground. It was there all along — in fact more so after Crimea.

you are supposed to argue to support your claim: that there would be no war without the talk of NATO expansion. — Jabberwock

There was no war in Ukraine prior to 2008. So there — I just proved it.

How silly.

NATO was the most direct cause of the war in Ukraine. There’s plenty of evidence for this. Now you ask me to show that in an alternate universe, where NATO expansion wasn’t on the table, that there wouldn’t be war. No, I can’t do that, because I don’t possess the magic.

if you think the 2014 invasion and and the 2022 are unrelated then it is just bizarre — Jabberwock

Uh…

not 2014, which is related but not the same. — Mikie

These are not two different wars, these are just the stages of the same conflict. — Jabberwock

True — they are all a result of 2008 and US influence in the region.

No, it did not start at the Bucharest summit, which you yourself have acknowledged, citing as one of the causes the Orange Revolution, which happened in 2004. — Jabberwock

No, it did start at the Bucharest Summit. I mentioned the OR in response to your irrelevant perplexity at why claims differed in 2008 from 2002.

To be clear, by “it” I’m referring to 2022.

And how exactly I have 'ignored' the ouster of Yanukovych, given that I have cited the Euromaidan as the reason — Jabberwock

Yes, which is different than specifically mentioning Yanukovych and his stance on NATO, which is the connection you claim doesn’t exist (“NATO had no involvement”).

And no, Yanukovych's stand was not regarding NATO, it was about the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement. I understand you do not make huge distinctions, but you are aware that the EU and the US are not the same? — Jabberwock

Then I suggest you read about Yanukovych and his position regarding NATO expansion. It’s relevant indeed. So yes, NATO was always in the background as a threat— since 2008. That is not to say it was the most direct cause of Crimea, as I said repeatedly. But it was still a major factor in the regime change.

So yes, you still need that argument that Russia would not invade Ukraine again if not for NATO. — Jabberwock

Was there a Russian invasion of Ukraine prior to the NATO provocation of 2008?

Notice these things happened after 2008, when NATO was a looming threat— even during a relatively Russian- friendly time under a character like Yanukovych.

It has invaded Crimea, then it supported an armed rebellion on the territory of Ukraine for eight years (which you are seemingly unaware of) and then moved to open hostilities again. — Jabberwock

I’m happy to get to events after 2014. But you’re the one who diverted the conversation back to Crimea, not me.

So clearly I have referred to your own quote about Crimea. — Jabberwock

:up: I won’t argue it — if that’s what you meant, fine. I must have misread it.

Yes, you do have to, because it is your claim that without NATO expansion the war would NOT happen. — Jabberwock

I never once made that claim, which is ridiculous — because I’m not a wizard.

The claim I made was that NATO involvement was the most direct cause of the war (the current war).

What would have happened if NATO wasn’t training troops, providing weapons, conducting drills, etc? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe there would be war still. Maybe Ukraine would invade Russia. Who knows? I don’t see it as being likely— but I don’t have a Time Machine to tell you definitively one way or another.

That the cause was NATO is just your assertion, which is seriously undermined by the facts: the hostile attitude toward Ukraine started at least after the Orange Revolution, not after 2008 as your claim, — Jabberwock

I’m not talking about hostile attitudes, I’m talking about actions.

If Russia invaded Ukraine in 2005, my position would be wrong.

So give me the alternative. You clearly don’t care about what Putin or his diplomats say— you don’t care what the US ambassador says. So what’s the “real” reason to suddenly become hostile to Ukraine? Changing internal politics in Russia? Okay — unpack that a little, and give some evidence. Because it seems very obvious NATO expansion was considered a red line, and that reactions would happen the more they pushed. You seem to think they’re lying and it’s just a cover for something else.

I also think you mistakenly believe I’m putting the entirety of this war on NATO. I’m not. That happened to be the most direct cause — not the ONLY one. I also focus on it because I’m a US citizen, and so I criticize them more so than other countries, who may indeed share in some responsibility.

But military doesn't make it a product for the civilian market. — ssu

Packaging research and innovation that is publicly funded into a pretty package for consumers isn’t that valuable in my view. The claim was that innovation comes from entrepreneurs. That’s not the case with the internet.

If (and when) you have a lot of entrepreneurship, these people won't be for trade unions. — ssu

Who cares? Unions don’t exist for owners’ interests.

Small businesses aren’t the problem. Most don’t need unions because they get along fine. Everyone knows each other.

Anne Case and Angus Deaton, the Princeton University economists who pioneered the study of deaths of despair, tell me that one factor in the rise of such deaths has been the decline of unions and the related loss of good working-class jobs.

Like many educated professionals, I used to regard labor unions warily. They insisted on rigid work rules, impeded technological modernization, suffered corruption scandals (which have dogged the U.A.W.) and sometimes engaged in racial and gender discrimination. They periodically manipulated overtime hours and leveraged the threat of disruption to rake in staggering sums.

In 2019 two Oakland, Calif., police officers “earned” more than $600,000 in pay and benefits, through absurd amounts of overtime; meanwhile, full-time dockworkers on the West Coast reportedly earn more, on average, than many lawyers or dentists in America, and dock foremen average more pay than physicians.

Yet executive pay seems even more scandalous, and I shed my disdain for unions as I reported on the crisis in America’s working class over the past 15 years. Having lost too many working-class friends to substance use and related pathologies and having witnessed the consequent crumbling of families and communities, I’ve come to believe that unions are good not only for individual workers but also for America itself.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/opinion/uaw-strike-unions.html

You could, had I talked about my feelings. But I don’t. I assume no one is interested in my gut-feeling predictions.

You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing except “I don’t feel it’ll happen.” Okay, cool. Thanks for announcing that.

Really? I guess that’s changed over the years.

In any case, in honor of RATM, I’ll drop this here in the off chance you haven’t seen it:

But I don't have faith that humans will achieve what they hope for. — Agree-to-Disagree

Who gives a damn about how you feel about this. This isn’t about personal feelings of optimism or pessimism or “faith in humans.”

lol I had to click through 2 warnings about how harmful that song is to see what it was. — Moliere

:roll: Naturally.

The point is exactly what you mentioned: if they do it, we’ll do it too— regardless of evidence.

The point of the shutdown is, as usual, to create as much chaos as possible so that they can blame the democrats for being so dysfunctional. It’s worked before — but I’m not sure if it’ll work this time.

You are supposed to argue that Russia would NOT attack Ukraine if not for NATO expansion. — Jabberwock

So I’m supposed to argue for something that didn’t happen. No thank you.

No, I don’t think there would be a war today if it weren’t for NATO involvement in Ukraine — if that’s what you’re asking. But you keep switching topics. Above I was referring to the current war in Ukraine, the invasion of 2022— not 2014, which is related but not the same.

No, it was not, because the conflict started when Ukraine's prospect of joining NATO were dim. — Jabberwock

It started at the Bucharest summit and escalated from there. But if you’re referring to Crimea, then yes— that occurred for a different reason which you deliberately ignored: the ouster of Yanukovych, which the United States supported. All the while, in the background, NATO membership was of course still on the table.

The connection here is obvious, and you want to gloss over with word games: “Well NATO wasn’t directly involved with overthrowing Yanukovych, so clearly it wasn’t a factor in annexing Crimea.” But you know very well what Yanukovych’s stand was regarding NATO.

So no, NATO prospects were far from dim after the “coup” (according to Russia) that the US and its allies supported.

So much for Crimea. What I’ve been discussing, however, is the current war. The prospects of NATO were there all along, and played a significant (but varied) role in various events prior. The most direct result of the current war was NATO provocation, in the years after 2014 but especially 2021.

The most direct cause of Crimea was Yanukovych‘s overthrow. But again, that’s not the same thing— and in any case, NATO was still a significant factor. The world is complex, and these things are connected. I don’t make a huge distinction between NATO and general “US influence,” as I’ve said. If that’s confusing, fine — I’ll be more precise. But anyone who can’t see how these things are at least interrelated isn’t paying attention.

In any case, the events after 2014 are also interesting. Was this also a time when NATO expansion was off the table? You would think so, after Crimea. But no -- the push continued, even stronger.
— Mikie

No, Putin did not invade Ukraine out of the blue, as I wrote, it was the reaction to Euromaidan. Did you skip that part? — Jabberwock

I assume you saw “after Crimea.” So by “Ukraine invasion” you’re referring to 2022, which is a reaction to Euromaidan? That’s your explanation? Very odd. Quite a delayed reaction.

I was just pointing out that it was part of a bigger process in which the stance of NATO was only a minor point. — Jabberwock

The reaction to the Bucharest Summit was over NATO. This occurred in 2008. So I really don’t know what you’re talking about here.

So, again: make the argument that Russia would NOT invade Ukraine if it e.g. tried to join the EU or broke its ties with Russia. — Jabberwock

I don’t have to, since it didn’t happen. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 — which was different from 2022. Both involved US influence, but the latter’s cause (of the much larger war) was mostly NATO.

So we can see the differences based on reaction. When the EUUAA was signed — a pretty big deal to Russia— there wasn’t the level of reaction of 2022.

Maybe there would be one if Ukraine tried to join the EU— who knows? If so, then that would be the direct cause of the reaction. But since it hasn’t happened, there’s no point discussing it.

So are you denying that “non sequitur” means “it doesn’t follow” or that it is used as a label for a “logic fallacy”, prof? — neomac

I'm sorry that your reading comprehension is poor. But that's not my fault. I assume you're not a native English speaker, and in that case I'm not making fun -- I certainly wouldn't be good at understanding the nuances of Russian or Spanish.

So it’s false your claim that NATO didn’t expand because of the “Russian threat” . — neomac

What was the threat in 2008, and why was it never mentioned? If kept quiet about, where is the evidence that Russian invasion or aggression was imminent at that time?

I won't hold my breath -- because there was none. Just vague appeals to old tensions, most of them within Ukraine itself (which was deeply split, as is seen from election results/language distribution comparisons).

So if there was no imminent threat from Russia, why did NATO expand? Well, they told us why at the Bucharest Summit. No mystery.

Brzeziński — neomac

Shouldn't that be "your guru Brzenzinski"?

why NATO’s Article 5 [1] (which is clearly defensive) is a security threat aimed against Russia? — neomac

Ask the Russians. They’ll tell you. And it’s they who get to determine what’s threatening to them and what isn’t— not you and me.
— Mikie

No no I’m asking you, because you take Putin’s alleged rationale to actually have not only explanatory but also justificatory power for the origin of this war, not as a convenient lie just to persuade “useful Idiots” in the West, right? — neomac

So you ask me, not the Russians, because you assume I'm going to repeat what the Russian's have said about this?

Your logic is baffling.

The Russian position on NATO was clear that they considered it a threat. You ask why they felt it was a threat, as if this hasn't been explained a thousand times.

What would the threat be if China offered a military pact to Canada, trained Canadian troops, supplied weapons, and conducted military drills along the US border? Why would the US consider this pact a threat? Can you guess? Or would you dismiss that claim as well? If so, I applaud your consistency. If not, what's the difference?

In this case, how could you even complain about Western dirty propaganda, if you fall so candidly to foreign dirty propaganda? — neomac

Perhaps the rationale for the Monroe Doctrine is indeed "dirty propaganda." That's worth exploring, sure. But it's still very real, and I wouldn't advise China or Russia to go testing the United States on it -- however flimsy the reasoning behind it is, however much I think it to be based on unfounded fears, or whether or not I feel I have a direct look into the soul of Washington.

As I argued I’m TOTALLY convinced that Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be “threatening” to Russian security — neomac

Okay…so what’s the issue?
In that case, 2008 was a mistake. The US should not have continued pushing NATO membership for years. Period.
— Mikie

Another non sequitur. — neomac

And again you don't know what that means, or you fail to see the connection. I'll assume the latter, so I'll make it clearer:

(1) If it is true that Russia considered NATO expansion to be a threat (and a "red line"), then
(2) The United States pushing NATO expansion anyway, despite these warnings, was clearly a mistake.

Apparently you're arguing it wasn't a mistake, that somehow pushing for NATO expansion, despite Russian warnings, was a good move. So I assume you think this war is a good thing too. I don’t share that sentiment.

I suppose you believe it was wise for the USSR to put nuclear weapons in Cuba, right? That wasn't a mistake either, by your logic.

As I said one can take “Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be ‘threatening’ to Russian security” as a premise to support NATO expansion as well. — neomac

So when a war finally breaks out because of this expansion, we still think it's just fine?

You'd fit right in with the Washington crowd.

No one said that. But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — but there are others.
— Mikie

How exactly can you know that? — Jabberwock

Because it was stated explicitly, for years, that there would be consequences and that Russia would react to further provocation. When they actually did, it should have come as no surprise -- especially after Biden administration actions in 2021. (Which we could go over if you like -- but I'm not getting into the weeds on any issue when the general argument isn't even understood. If this gives the appearance that I am "unaware" of history, I don't care.)

That's the most direct cause. But there are others, as I've repeatedly said. Incorporating Ukraine wasn't restricted to NATO. That was simply the most threatening. Attempts to liberalize and join the EU were others.

Russian stance on NATO was known clearly in 2008, when this began. It was known by the United States, in fact. Again:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

The above is not Russian propaganda. It was Bush's own ambassador. So Burns was wrong, but you, who act as if you're the only one who's read up on this subject -- apparently consisting of a few Wikipedia articles -- are privy to the "true" motives of Putin's. And the evidence given is that he has supposedly changed his position since 2002. Too bad you weren't around to inform Germany and France that Russian warnings should be ignored, and given them lectures about how the "real" motives were fear of democracy.

Your claim was that the expansion of NATO was provocation to war. If you want to change your mind and say that it was actually general US influence and not the expansion as such, just say so. — Jabberwock

NATO membership is one part of overall US influence, yes. How you think I'm changing my mind on this is baffling. NATO isn't part of United States influence? I see them as one and the same thing -- but even if we're to separate the two somehow, NATO expansion on it's own was the main driver of the Ukraine war.

But irrelevant. Why? Because we don’t continue plans to welcome Ukraine to NATO when Russia, and our own ambassador, warns explicitly (rather than reading minds) that it would be considered a provocation. That is very clear. Which is why all you have in response that’s concrete — and not a nice story — are reports from 2002, six years prior.
— Mikie

And that is exactly what happened - after 2008 the plans of Ukraine joining NATO were shelved and in 2010 Ukraine adopted legislation that would prevent it from joining military alliances. Yet in 2014 Russia has still invaded it, taking Crimea. Given that NATO expansion could no longer serve as a pretext, they have made up different ones. So it seems giving up on NATO does not prevent Russian invasions. — Jabberwock

For someone who feels entitled to give lectures on history, you sure do leave out of a lot when it's convenient. So nothing else happened in 2014 that may be relevant to this story, huh? Putin just decided, out of the blue, to invade Crimea. Is this supposed to be serious? What were the reasons given, and should we at least know them, if not take them seriously? Do you know what they were? Or do you not care, given that you have a direct line to Putin's soul?

In any case, the events after 2014 are also interesting. Was this also a time when NATO expansion was off the table? You would think so, after Crimea. But no -- the push continued, even stronger.

You just pretend that the change of the policy did not happen, because the explanation for that change undermines your whole narrative. — Jabberwock

What change in policy?

To quote the one source in which you have so far based your entire argument:

But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged. — President of Russia

But again, it's really not worth arguing over that. I've already granted you that point. So I hardly am "pretending" otherwise. What I've repeatedly said is that it has nothing to do with 2008. The position then was quite clear. You want to pretend that position, in 2008, can be ignored because of the 'sudden change of heart' from 2002. I think that is and was a grave mistake.

If China, today, announces that they support Taiwan independence, how should we react? Should we say, "Well just last year their stance was completely different"? Should we ignore what they say because it's a change from statements in the past? I don't think so. I think we should listen and take it seriously.

Anything else you feel like wanting to embarrass yourself with? — neomac

It wasn’t close to a non sequitur. Try learning what words mean before trying to sound smart.

The only one embarrassing themselves is you.

Because to me it’s a textbook example of dismissive comment about the relevance of historical evidences behind NATO expansion against the Russian threat. — neomac

NATO didn’t expand because of the “Russian threat,” which is the point. I’ll go with what was actually said over what long-winded stories you want to share.

why NATO’s Article 5 [1] (which is clearly defensive) is a security threat aimed against Russia? — neomac

Ask the Russians. They’ll tell you. And it’s they who get to determine what’s threatening to them and what isn’t— not you and me.

Maybe Canada joining a “defensive” military alliance with China would be fine in the US— who knows? But I’m guessing the US would consider it a threat— and if I were China, or Canada, I would take that seriously.

declared intentions — neomac

No one is talking about “declared intentions,” only what was considered a provocation and threat — which was clear enough for our own ambassador to understand.

As I argued I’m TOTALLY convinced that Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be “threatening” to Russian security — neomac

Okay…so what’s the issue?

In that case, 2008 was a mistake. The US should not have continued pushing NATO membership for years. Period.

your guru Mearsheimer)
— neomac

your guru Mearsheimer
— neomac

your guru Mearsheimer
— neomac

So, are you just ignorant or what? Hard to take you seriously when you repeatedly sound so silly. — Mikie

your guru Mearsheimer’s — neomac

So you’re just an ignoramus I guess. Oh well.

Russian imperialists are not so much threatened by the former republics joining a military alliance, but by the very idea of their independence. — Jabberwock

Russian imperialists? I guess that’s just assumed. Given that, we can make up a nice story that removes any US responsibility. How convenient.

Thus the idea that if there were no NATO expansion plans, Russia would happily live peacefully along its neighbors, has little to do with reality. — Jabberwock

No one said that. But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — but there are others.

this had nothing to do with NATO — Jabberwock

US influence isn’t restricted to NATO. The US’s plans for Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, had several aspects. The “democratization” pretext is always there. Making the world safe for freedom, etc.— like Iraq and every other country we interfere with.

So no, NATO did not provoke the conflict, the conflict at its core is caused by Ukraine's (and other republics) drive to sovereignty. Whether it chose to join NATO, EU or just tightened informal cooperation with the West while ditching Russian influence, the result would be the same. — Jabberwock

That’s nice. Whether it’s true, who knows? Maybe, maybe not.

But irrelevant. Why? Because we don’t continue plans to welcome Ukraine to NATO when Russia, and our own ambassador, warns explicitly (rather than reading minds) that it would be considered a provocation. That is very clear. Which is why all you have in response that’s concrete — and not a nice story — are reports from 2002, six years prior.

So your entire point was to fill in the “gaps” with the typical United States propaganda. I figured.

“Hey Russia is telling us Ukraine is a red line. Our ambassador agrees. Let’s go ahead and push for it anyway, because they were fine with it years ago and they’re real motive is that they hate freedom.”

No, sorry.

Yes, Putin said one thing in 2002 and quite another in 2008, even though nothing much happened that had to do with NATO. That is the exact issue I am drawing your attention to. — Jabberwock

Not completely accurate, but irrelevant in any case.

On the contrary, quite a lot happened to justify his change of heart, but it has very llitle to do with NATO. — Jabberwock

Whatever the causes of Russia’s stance, it was indeed their stance in 2008, which is where this current crisis began in earnest.

Whatever point you’re trying to make with 2002, or the lead up to 2008, just state it outright. Maybe Putin found God. Maybe he decided to take over Eastern Europe. Whatever speculation you have, it’s still irrelevant. Russia’s position was clear in 2008. (In fact clear since the 90s, but that’s not relevant so there’s no need discussing it.)

The very fact that you believed that Putin in 2002 was unaware of the planned 2004 expansion — Jabberwock

He was very well aware, yes. Never said otherwise.

on your theory it is completely inexplicable — Jabberwock

No, there are explanations. But all of them are completely irrelevant.

The Kremlin realizes it doesn't have the power to force the West to reverse its recognition of Kosovo's independence or persuade Washington to drop its plan to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.

"Georgia's accession into NATO will be seen here as an attempt to trigger a war in the Caucasus, and NATO membership for Ukraine will be interpreted as an effort to foment a conflict with Russia," said Sergei Markov, a Russian parliament member with close links to the Kremlin.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080410213408/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_eu/russia_vs_nato_1

What is unclear about the bolded part?

What’s the response? “Well 6 years ago Putin said something different and nothing has happened to justify a change in heart.” Again, is this serious?

Yes, because militarily NATO in Ukraine is not much different than NATO in the Baltics. — Jabberwock

It is very different in fact.

So it is not about NATO as such and it never was. — Jabberwock

It has been all along. But things do change at different points in time— which you’re apparently unwilling to understand.

2004, when the three countries you mentioned joined NATO, was after your 2002 quote. That changed things too, but Russia couldn’t do much about it.

but you still have failed to explain what NATO actually DID in that period that would change them — Jabberwock

From the Russian point of view — not mine. I can run through the history if you’d like, but there’s plenty of resources available.

Orange Revolution, but it is not something that NATO did, and Kosovo, which does not really explain the turnabout. — Jabberwock

The 2004 enlargement was one. Orange revolution wasn’t caused by NATO, but neither was Nosovo independence — but NATO supported it, and even led troops there. This did not go unrecognized.

But I don’t really see the sense in this. What are you arguing? Not that the Russians didn’t say it was a threat, but that they were lying — or had no actual reason to fear NATO? If the latter, that’s not up to us to say. Maybe the US has nothing to fear if China decides to make a military pact with Mexico — but listening to the US’s concerns would be wise regardless.

Again, listen to our own ambassador. Was he lying too? If not, then 2008 was the beginning of a great mistake, with foreseeable consequences.

I am glad you feel that way, but Putin has clearly stated that it would not 'cloud the relations' and it is really Ukraine's choice. — Jabberwock

He didn’t say it in 2008, did he? If he did, I’d agree that the reaction to Bucharest would be baffling indeed.

But he didn’t. So apparently you’re much more interested in listening to Putin when it fits your purposes—in 2002– but unwilling to do so from 2008, which is far more relevant, when he says that NATO including Ukraine is a “direct threat.”

Also from 2008:

So, about Kosovo. Mr. Сhairman has said that everybody respects Resolution 1244, but if everybody respected Resolution 1244, there would not be any one-sided declaration of independence. But I do not want to discuss this issue, we have discussed it at the G8, as well as at other forums, and we made a decision that we consider it illegal and able to cause serious consequences. But, if you noticed, we do not force anything. We formulated our position, and our position is open, but we do not go off into hysterics on this issue, and you should have paid attention to how reserved we were in the Caucasus on this issue. Of course, this policy puts us into a very complicated position at the post-Soviet space, because we have there enough situations similar to that with Kosovo – it is Transdniestria, Southern Ossetia, Abkhazia, Karabakh – there are many such situations. And you put us into a very complicated position, but we are trying to wriggle and behave very carefully, without destroying the situation there and without provoking military conflicts. That is why, however sad it may seem, but we here are also ready to look for any consensus, or a way out of the situation. Now I do not specify which exactly situation, I do not want to anticipate anything, in any case, we are ready to hear you, ready to think, ready to work somehow together.

As for the policy of expanding the alliance, we have been attentively watching your discussion yesterday. On the whole, of course, we are satisfied with your decisions, which took place. But If I speak about Georgia and Ukraine, it is clear that the matter concerns not only security issues. For our Georgian friends, of course, it is one of means to restore their territorial integrity, as they believe. Besides, by means of force, under the aegis of NATO. It is an old, many-years, lasting for more than a hundred years, ethnic conflict between Georgians, between Abkhazians (it is a small ethnic group, it numbers a mere 200 thousand people), between Ossetians, for a hundred years, and more, these conflicts are ethnic. To solve these problems they need not to enter NATO, they should have patience, establish dialog with small ethnic groups. And we have been trying to help them, besides, to help Georgia restore its territorial integrity. And even despite the decisions on Kosovo, we will not recognize the independence of these quasipublic formations, though they have been calling on us since long ago, for decades already. We have been very responsible, very weighted, and call on you to be careful as well.

But in Ukraine, one third are ethnic Russians. Out of forty five million people, in line with the official census, seventeen millions are Russians. There are regions, where only the Russian population lives, for instance, in the Crimea. 90% are Russians. Generally speaking, Ukraine is a very complicated state. Ukraine, in the form it currently exists, was created in the Soviet times, it received its territories from Poland – after the Second World war, from Czechoslovakia, from Romania – and at present not all the problems have been solved as yet in the border region with Romania in the Black Sea. Then, it received huge territories from Russia in the east and south of the country. It is a complicated state formation. If we introduce into it NATO problems, other problems, it may put the state on the verge of its existence. Complicated internal political problems are taking place there. We should act also very-very carefully. We do not have any right to veto, and, probably, we do not pretend to have. But I want that all of us, when deciding such issues, realize that we have there our interests as well. Well, seventeen million Russians currently live in Ukraine. Who may state that we do not have any interests there? South, the south of Ukraine, completely, there are only Russians.

https://www.unian.info/world/amp-111033-text-of-putin-s-speech-at-nato-summit-bucharest-april-2-2008.html

The President stressed that Russia has taken numerous steps to build confidence and hoped for a similar response from NATO, but has so far yet to see it. Russia will defend its positions, he said, but is always open to cooperation based on equality and mutual trust.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/44078

No, it is not the most direct cause, as it was not a cause of war with Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. — Jabberwock

Is this serious?

NATO did not actively do anything in that period that would make it a bigger threat to Russia. — Jabberwock

Oh good — glad you feel that way. The Russians felt differently. Our own ambassador acknowledges the sentiment in the memo I cited above. I guess none of that matters, since according to some internet dude Russia had no reason to view NATO as a threat. :up:

Thus the difference between 'Ukraine in NATO is not a big concern to us' in 2002 and 'it is a grave threat' in 2008 has nothing to do with its location. — Jabberwock

But it does have to do with the events that occurred after 2002.

And the idea that Russia was OK with Ukraine membership in NATO in 2002 is flawed anyway— and contradicted by the same article. But even accepting it wholesale, there’s a concept called “time”, and so things change between one year and the next. Worth paying attention to.

The proponents of the theory 'it is all because of NATO expansion' are just content with stating that he suddenly in 2008 started to see Ukraine in NATO as a vital threat, while he was and is perfectly calm about the Baltics or the Scandinavian countries. They feel no need to explain that difference, even though such view is absurdly irrational. — Jabberwock

It’s not all because of NATO expansion. But that’s the most direct cause.

Also, it wasn’t “sudden.” As explained earlier. You seem to ignore changes from 2002 to 2008.

Lastly, the differences are obvious. Russia doesn’t like any of it, as they were promised NATO wouldnt expand in the 90s, but Ukraine is unique. Look at a map and you’ll see why.

if it was not a vital threat in 2002, why would it be in 2008? — Jabberwock

He didn’t say it wasn’t a threat in 2002. But recall this was after 9/11, and the issue was terrorism. Yes, things changed between 2002 and 2008. Is that not obvious?

What happened? The Orange Revolution, for one. But there were other tensions, including issues with Nosovo at the beginning of 2008. Any cooperation with NATO was out the window long before the Bucharest summit.

This is a non sequitur. — neomac

Learn what these words mean before using them.

your dismissive attitude toward overwhelming historical evidences — neomac

Nope. That was your projection.

Pls fill in a few of the most unequivocal quotes from Putin 2000-2008 presidency explaining why Ukraine is a “red line” and what that implies, what is going to happen if it is crossed — neomac

I just did above. Plenty more.

The appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc ... will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country's security,

Again what do you mean by “Russia was such a threat”, — neomac

That Russia has imperial ambitions, that they seek to conquer not just Ukraine but other countries, etc. Claims that have been made by the US and others since 2014, and retroactively made as justification for 2008 — which isn’t true.

NATO is a hegemonic security supplier and Ukraine is a non-hegemonic security seeker (from Russian threats), that is how they met each other. Anyone with a working brain would get that knowing the history of Russia and the history of Ukraine. — neomac

I’ve already acknowledged this.

Indeed American as any hegemon can commit mistakes and very big ones, but even in this case that doesn’t necessarily mean that NATO involvement was not justified AT ALL. It can simply mean that NATO involvement was poorly planned and/or executed. — neomac

It wasn’t poorly planned, and of course there are reasons and justifications given. The actual reason is that the US wanted to make Eastern Europe like Western Europe, and figured Russia was to weak to do anything about it. So in 2008, despite warnings, they started the process anyway.

You can buy the US rationale if you want to. I don’t. But either way, the outcome was clear: it would provoke Russia. This was known since the early 90s, in fact.

but the latter PRESUPPOSES that Russia was interested in preventing NATO expansion in Ukraine — neomac

Are you really not convinced that at least by 2008, Russia considered NATO expansion in Ukraine to be threatening to Russian security? They said so explicitly. It’s not about what you or I feel, it’s about how they felt about it. The US knew, and has known for years, and made the decision to go forward with expansion anyway. So Crimea and now the Ukraine War shouldn’t be a mystery.

As I quoted above, the US’s own ambassador knew this and warned the secretary of state (Rice):

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

your guru Mearsheimer) — neomac

your guru Mearsheimer — neomac

your guru Mearsheimer — neomac

You seem obsessed with this guy. I haven’t cited him once— except in response to your referencing him. He’s hardly a “guru” of mine, although he’s a valuable resource.

So, are you just ignorant or what? Hard to take you seriously when you repeatedly sound so silly. Makes it easier to ignore most of your cumbersome writing though.

"The appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc ... will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country's security,"

That’s fairly straightforward. This is 2008.

It wasn’t just Putin, of course.

The US ambassador, William Burns, said as much in his memo to the secretary of state:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/28/did-the-us-really-take-russias-nato-concerns-very-seriously/

But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged. — President of Russia

And what was that position exactly?