Better for Ukraine to get the US/NATO out of "his" country.
We fomented a Ukraine revolution/coup in 2014, caused a civil war and sided with the neo-Nazis and Ukrainian nationalists that wanted to exterminate the ethnic Russian population.
We encouraged Ukraine to ignore the Minsk Agreement it signed that would have brought peace to the region.
We armed Ukraine with offensive weapons, teased NATO membership for Ukraine (Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on dismantling the eastern Soviet bloc on condition that we would not bring countries bordering Russia into NATO) and opened biological weapons labs there.
Then we built the Ukrainian army into the largest army in the NATO zone besides us, and massed it for deployment in the area of the Donbass in obvious preparation for an attack.
And finally, when Russia responded to all that, we claimed they invaded Ukraine for no good reason to annex territory.
Lets for the sake of arguement assume everything you said is truth:
We fomented a Ukraine revolution/coup in 2014, caused a civil war and sided with the neo-Nazis and Ukrainian nationalists that wanted to exterminate the ethnic Russian population.
And? how is that Russia’s business? And how does that justify their invasion of another country?
We encouraged Ukraine to ignore the Minsk Agreement it signed that would have brought peace to the region.
And? how is that Russia’s business? And how does that justify their invasion of another country? The region WAS peaceful until Russia invaded.
We armed Ukraine with offensive weapons, teased NATO membership for Ukraine (Reagan and Gorbachev agreed on dismantling the eastern Soviet bloc on condition that we would not bring countries bordering Russia into NATO) and opened biological weapons labs there.
And? how is that Russia’s business? And how does that justify their invasion of another country? It’s crazy talk to even think for a second there was any plan by NATO to invade Russia. Nuts.
Then we built the Ukrainian army into the largest army in the NATO zone besides us, and massed it for deployment in the area of the Donbass in obvious preparation for an attack.
And? how is that Russia’s business? And how does that justify their invasion of another country? Donbass? you mean the last area of Ukraine Russia invaded?
LOL
all your agreements are lame and make no sense.
Russia has no right to the Donbass or any part of Ukraine, Russia has ZERO to fear from NATO. NATO is a defensive pact. And NO ONE wants that Piece of crap country Russia.
Good reply! Just remember that you never will convince some people whose mind are made up, they just don’t want to hear or see the truth even if it stares them in their face.
Even if most of the false statements you used as a predicate were true they still are not a reason to invade a neighboring country.
E plurilies unum, you are constantly repeating the lie about q non existent promise to Gorbachev.
Gorbachev himself denied the lies you posted.
E pluribus unum “(Gorbachev agreed on dismantling the eastern Soviet bloc on condition that we would not bring countries bordering Russia into NATO”
That’s a lie which even Gorbachev said was a lie and no such promise was made.
Why do you keep repeating a lie?
The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:
1. Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.
2. There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.
3. Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.
When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech http://nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance.
Here is a link to Gorbachev’s interview http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.”
There was mo promise made especially considering that in 1989 Gorbachev didn’t agree on “dismantling the eastern bloc” just about german reunification.
Why are you repeating lies?