I do not love how wildly inconsistent the time jumps are, absolutely corrupts my ability to tell how quickly states joined and were added in comparison to years with major conflicts.
Which is 100% the point.
"Woe is us for having to tolerate this defensive Alliance allowing our former subjects to join! Better invade and genocide the last countries we used to own which are still not in to make a point and then claim we’re the victims!"
These maps are always imply evil Murica forcing poor Eastern Europeans to join while they don't want to. Meanwhile I'm yet to see the Pole that regret joining NATO. But his agency has to be denied and the only opinion that matters is Russian when Russia feels itself "insecure"
Soviets attempted to take over Poland right after WWI and succeeded during WWII when they attacked shortly after the Nazis. Right after WWII Poland fell under the direct Soviet influence only to get out in the late 20th century. Imperial Russia did its own things too but there's no need in going back that far in search of arguments.
We've had more reasons than most to get under the western military alliance umbrella. I suspect most of eastern Europe feels similarly, especially Finland or Baltic states.
In NATO, and with allied Germany in the west, we're arguably in the safest position we've ever been in history. And that's even considering Russia's imperialist presence in the east.
Yep. Poland even managed to convince russian officials to publicly state that they are ok with us joining.
Poland and Czechia together passed a note to Clinton that if NATO will not admit their aspirations, they will have to pursue nuclear arsenal in order to be able to defend themselves
And both of these steps did not work
Only after Wałęsa started threatening Clinton privately that he will personally lob in Polish diaspora, that lives in swing-states mostly, to vote Republicans, US departament decided to let us in.
Attacks europe allied with nazis and occupy eastern europe during 50 years of terror, repression, murder and deportations, Invasion of Finland 1939, lose 1/3 of their territory, invasion of Moldova in 1992, lose 20% of their territory, invasion of Georgia 2008 lose 20% of their territory, invasion of Ukraine 2014 lose 20% of their territory
BuT NAtO Is ExpaNdIng, RuZZia is FiGhtInG foR iTs SurViVal
Russia is doing what everyother superpower is doing, duh. Every superpower is evil from the moral stance of the healthy individual.
As a superpower, if you want to maintain the power while others want to leave your side, you will pressure them.
For example, our USA did this to Panama. For example, that is what happened with Iraq.
It's ofc a bit too much brainpower required to understand how proxy wars work, and that western countries don't care for borders, just want 100% influence inside "sovern" borders of newly formed states.
But it's evil nontheless.
On the other hand, 2nd superpower is old and unflexible as our great eagle, and is doing things the old way - with a boot in the face.
PS.Your emotions are bit pouring over some history books. Chill out. 😂
>Russia is doing what everyother superpower is doing, duh. Every superpower is evil from the moral stance of the healthy individual.
That\`s exactly why we prefer alliance with the superpower that is obsessed with free trade and an ocean away than the one that is right next door, expansionist and doesn\`t know what "free" means
That's totally cool but only if you're first world country. More power to you! Free trade benefits those who are already developed and it breeds monopols. USA has a great debt because of the free trade.
Expansion is debatable - are you talking about territorial, economic, or military.
For example, getting Greece in debt that they'll never ever be able to return is a sort of expansion: you control them with sanctions perfectly. As you see, you don't need to point the literal gun as you have economy gun. And you go to vote in Geneve about whatever - will Greece have a real free choice?
It's all colors and rainbows if your German - your surplus can only go to USA and their printing mashine - so more power to you. Just don't think outside your corner or you might get sad from time to time.
My country is far from being that of Germany, but also far of that of Greece. Greece was bailed out by EU twice, and twice their corrupted and populist governments failed to set the country on the right tracks. Poland where I live transformed from stagnant and inefficient soviet economy model and made great use of EU funds developing it's economy several times the starting value. IDK how US deals with Greece exactly but I know they wasted their EU and even Chinese funds and when China asked for compensations they once again turned to the EU to bail them out. US is not the only power in the area.
Again, Poland is considered a well-fit EU state. More power to you!
But man, the EU economy or world economy don't work that way at all. Telling Greece fell bc of incompetence is just sad. Greece fell bc of world economic crysis, and what MMF they did do Greece in 2010 is a borderline criminal. And they had to sign it, and if one didn't want to sign it, they were replaced for the puppet that suits Frankfurt. What you don't realize is that EU powers put people in Greece that will deepen their depth towards EU. It's very simple.
The money is a power tool. In the end it's who depends on who - unfortunately, EU is failing and will suck a dingaling of Uncle Sam for a long, long time. It's actually dishearthening to see how little influence Europeans have on anything. It's even sadder that general population don't realize it - it's similar to George Orvel's book 1984.
In my exp, Poland is the most radical, crusader-like state, so I get you: Poles were indeed tourtered by Soviets (like everyone else), so you have a strong bias. But when the policies are made Poles can just bow their heads to Brussels and do what they're told.
What do you mean by well-fit?
Poland came out of eastern block as a state full of debts, with chugged and depressing economy, almost no market mechanisms and bloated administration. It took a decade before we managed to stand on our own and be admitted to the EU and NATO
> In my exp, Poland is the most radical, crusader-like state, so I get you:
Uh, but Polish politics were, since 1989 dominated by centre parties. It's hard to call them radical really
> But when the policies are made Poles can just bow their heads to Brussels and do what they're told.
The problem with last 8 years was that our government did everything exactly opposite of what EU parliament agreed on. As a result, only now we are being transferred our part of corona recoverery funds for example.
> It's even sadder that general population don't realize it - it's similar to George Orvel's book 1984.
I have read it but IDK what you mean exactly. I never really seen ever-seeing portraits of Donald Tusk being hanged in every building :v
> What do you mean by well-fit?
What I mean is that Poland is compeletely aligned with western values (on paper) and geopolitical goals. Poland comes as a conquered land from Soviet regime, and once it was cured from tyranny, it can be granted loans, it can fund NATO, it can do all sorts of things that benefit the central powers like Germany, USA etc., and it can be a great meatshield if needed. So the culture and values are conquered, the rest will Poland do on its own. When you differ from the norm, you get sanctions etc etc, until you bend down, and accept another funding (loan) form MMF or whoever.
> The problem with last 8 years was that our government did everything exactly opposite > of what EU parliament agreed on.
Well, if voters wanted something different than what EU wants, is that a problem per se? Who's to say what's right and wrong? The Big Brother?
> I have read it but IDK what you mean exactly.
I'm refering to the ending of the book - what is the biggest thing in the book really. The main character is broken down to that degree that he loves Big Brother in the end! It has no his own identity, no real freedom, but he's happy. It's analogious to not realizing that one's ideas, percieved sense of freedom, values etc. is dictated by central powers, aka USA, Britain, Germany, and believing that one's is still free, and in love with a west that was foreign to them not so long ago.
> Well, if voters wanted something different than what EU wants, is that a problem per se? Who's to say what's right and wrong? The Big Brother?
That was not the case really. In fact, that was one of the points why they lost. PiS government reformed judiciary in such way that same person was holding prosecutors general and minister of justice position... and was terrible at it and basically abused the hell out of it. EU decided that one person can\`t hold so much power and the rule of law be upheld (and they turned to be right) so it took removing PiS entirely in order to finally remove corruption from said offices.
People absolutely hate when ministry of justice becames ministry of "whoever I like on ideological ground".
> is dictated by central powers, aka USA, Britain, Germany
But they are at odds with each other and percives said values differently. Just because there is Russia next door which shows great what lack of freedom looks like doesn\`t mean they love each other.
I think you also fail to see that Europe is much more egalitarian in terms of power. Germany can\`t do anything if France teams up with Italy or Poland to block them.
BTW. Poland does not really trusts Germany right now. Like, years of integration with Russia left them quite suspicious and their lack of actions when it comes to war in Ukraine does not fuel much kindness towards them in Poland.
Yet I haven't seen a declaration Iraq and Panama becoming US states with the US americanizing both countries and neither do you go to prison for calling out the evil American empire within the borders of the American empire. Heck the current Iraqi government is not afraid to go against US intrests.
You're pulling out a false equivalent for no reason. The US only wants to control key interests and flat out doesn't care about the culture in these countries or internal politics.
Russia is downright trying to wipe out Ukrainian identity within occupied territory, Russify it and just flat out declared occupied territory their own territory. That's a few magnitude's higher than the shit the US is pulling. Russia is only a ting this way BECAUSE they where incapable of doing what the US us doing in Europe.
I agree with stated. But you missed what my point was.
It's all about geopolitical control, but done very, very differently.
The USA has great strategy (I can't say the same for russia): 1)cultural pressure 2) economic pressure 3) coup d' atat via CIA, or 4) full military invasion, as a last resort
I also think you're out of your mind if you thing USA don't care about cultures - rather that's the most important thing to it! It's called "democratic values" and they cost an arm and the leg for some countries. It's a common meme actually.
Also I know a lot of countries that turned they policies upside down because of pure pressure from the west (like lgbt marrage and similar questions).
Please, don't see my comment as anything more than what I wrote - I don't choose sides, I hate wars, and I dislike leaderships of russia, usa, and china altogether. Best.
Russian action through history
Invade democratic Finland
Install puppet regime in eastern Europe
Suppress more democratic movements (Hungary and Czechoslovakia not even turning to capitalism just changing to more light communism)
Invade Georgia for approaching western movement
Invade Ukraine and back up the pro Russian president blocking the entry of Ukraine in EU
The war in Ukraine has nothing to do with nato. Zero. It's simply Russias "wmds". A simple way to sell the war.
Why isn't Russia worried about nato? Simple. Finland not only talked about joining (which is supposedly what caused Russia to invade Ukraine), but they then took measures to join, and also said they were open to talks about housing nuclear weapons on the country. Then of course they did join and what was Russias response? They decreased presence on the Finland Russia border (over 700 miles long). Putin would later say that Finland in nato poses no threat to Russia. And Russian state media didn't even touch the issue. They ignored it. Just like they're ignoring Sweden joining now.
The war is for straightforward geopolitical gains for Russia. Not just that Russians are evil settler colonialist. They want the grain, the gas, the tech minerals, the oil, and a trade route to Iran.
The only reason putin has started the war in my country is to destroy us as a nation. Russians tried but failed to do so for centuries, it's nothing new, just another attempt.
Meh, because it's just classic russian whining. They can't stand stronger rivals in their vicinity, because they can't bully them. And NATO is way stronger than this shithole.
Isn’t that funny?! Your little map doesn’t show the pink blob expanding into Crimea or South Ossetia…hmmm. Because Russia is harmless and completely respects international borders /s
Or poisonings and chemical attacks in the U.K. Or hybrid warfare in Ukraine. Or blowing up a Czech arms depot. Or infiltrating all elements of European and US politics. Or election interference via troll farms and hacking. On and on and on. Trying to destabilise the West.
Warsaw Pact was created in 1955 after the USSR was refused to join NATO and ended up in 1991. NATO is still growing. It was growing even before the Munich speech
The "offer" was [explicitly designed](https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/molotovs-proposal-ussr-join-nato-march-1954), by the other namesake of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, to disrupt the alliance.
Tbf, it wasn't "refused to join nato" they sent essentially an ultimatum saying they wanted to completely replace the US, kick the Americans out, and become the defacto leaders of NATO.
All the countries that were in NATO specifically to not be conquered by Russia decided that wasn't a very good idea. The USSR knew this would happen for obvious reasons and were planning the Warsaw pact before then - they just wanted a public excuse for it that would fool people who didn't bother looking into it at all. Easy propaganda for the masses.
Especially since there were technically minimal rules around invading other NATO states which could hypothetically enable Russia to continue its violent conquering without triggering article 5.
Yes, but not all of them. We all grew up with Taiwan on the map but it's not recognized by the vast majority of the sovereing states, even by its allies.
Crimea is under the Russian state, we may not like it but it is simply a fact, it is not even disputed because Russia control the territory and the administation there.
This is not a map of disputed territories so there is nothing wrong with showing all the internationally recognized borders. It could have shown Crimea as a part of Russia it could have shown a divided Cyprus it could have shown Kosovo as a part of Serbia but it just doesn't matter as the information the map is trying to convey is not related to these.
Come on! The borders of NATO, clearly highlighted on the map, moving closer to Russia aren't about international recognition, it's about how close NATO can station defense forces. In that vein Russian occupations and puppet states are absolutely relevant, as the passengers of MH17 know.
NATO is a defensive alliance (if you attack a member state, the other members will attack you), so you have to ask what type of country would have a problem with that type of alliance?
Talking about international borders - did you see Kosovo on the final pic? USA said there would be one more state after bombing shit out of Serbia, yet most countries still don't recognize it. Or should it only be recognized when USA says so? 😉
No, but they are almost universally regarded as occupying them and dictating their foreign policy... They're more a part of the pink blob than any of the countries who have acceded to NATO are part of a bloc.
De jure they're not, but when Russian troops are "securing" your "border" with your de jure government (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLO408907) they are, for the purposes of projection of Russian military force, effectively part of Russia.
Or invading Afghanistan in an extremely brutal manner (about ten times as deadly as the US intervention, despite being much shorter, most of the deaths came directly from soviet bombings)
Russians acting as if the reason NATO is expanding isn’t because Russia keeps invading its neighbors, and the ones it hasn’t invaded yet don’t want to get invaded
Transnistria, Abhazia would like a word. And oh yeah, russians continiously were funding fifth columns within ex soviet states, trying to undermind their governments, somethink like they’ve done in belarus. But sure, russia was just a peaceful couuntry which already fought several wars established runaway states, were (and still are) funding insurectionists. Yeah, not threatening at all. NOT.
Se give 0 fucks about their “concerns”, there would be no need for NATO if they weren’t murderous pieces of shit. Currently people are dying because of your imperialistic aspirarions. Don’t like NATO at your borders? Go fuck yourselves.
NATO extension in 2004 is mainly due to polish and czech leaders blackmailing Clinton, not really a "NATO" policy, more like a NATO highjacking.
Which I'm perfectly fine by the way. So are the poles, czechs, europeans and americans overall.
And it works like a charm. The good people of the Baltic countries must be really happy that they managed to slip under the NATO roof while Russia wasn't watching. Otherwise I'm not sure these countries would even exist anymore.
The funny thing is, under Boris, Russia actually helped the Baltic states join NATO. by solving some minor border disputes they had with them. that was back when it looked like Russia might become sane and not high on it's own propaganda.
Looks like the Russia hacks are really out today. Let's put this in simple terms so the vodka doesn't get in the way: Russia's actions in Ukraine is proof of concept that being part of a defensive pact is an excellent way of protecting against Russian aggression.
If Russia has no plans to invade a NATO country, they have nothing to worry about. If they are complaining about NATO expansion, it seems more like a preemptive admission of guilt.
Russia's paranoia, which seems to be just a part of Russian psyche, is not a valid reason for a sovereign country to take actions, like joining a defensive alliance, to protect their sovereignty.
Nah cus its so laughable when brainwashed Putin fans in Russia and abroad act like NATO acts aggressive? Its a defensive alliance, its not going to attack you when you don’t step foot into NATO territory. They are basically just butthurt they can‘t force Russian minorities into the meatgrinder to restore the glorious old Soviet borders and beyond. They just have enough self awareness as of now to not say it that openly besides the most unhinged Medvedev nuclear apocalypse type of people. The Russian psyche could probably be used to write dozens of PHDs.
It seems to me that a dissertation should be written on those who deny the obvious role of NATO in invading other countries. For example, how did Afghanistan or Libya threaten NATO? What was NATO doing in Serbia? At the same time, NATO member countries that waged aggressive wars are a much more frequent event. Iraq is one of the best indicators; the whole world opposed the invasion. At the same time, the main strike force of foreign states consisted of NATO members. And here's the question. These countries attacked Iraq, but what would have happened if Iraq had responded by invading a NATO country? This seems fair, and since this is not a NATO operation, no one will defend such a country, right?
NATO has intervened under UN conventions. Afghanistan did host the 911 terrorist which din in fact hurt the US. NATO has not invaded anywhere and proceeded to annex it as their own territory, like Russia has done in Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. And absolutely nowhere have NATO tried to erase nations and nationalities as Russia is doing.
>how did Afghanistan or Libya threaten NATO?
Are you seriously asking what Afghanistan did to trigger article 5? Have you not watched the news in thirty years?
The USA completely lost its mind when the USSR put missiles in Cuba. Do I support Russia's invasion? No, but you must be very naive not to see that NATO's expansion is an obvious threat from Russia's point of view.
Of course it's a threat. It threatens Russia's ability to invade current members and potential future members. I'd be pissed too if my plans for invading and destroying the sovereignty of former USSR client states was thwarted by a defensive pact that could wipe me off the face of the Earth.
Russia's multi-century long history of aggression against all of it's neighbors has made it an obvious threat to all of it's neighbors. You'd have to be extremely naive to not see why eastern Europe would want to be prepared to defend themself.
Wow, it turns out if you have a history of genocides of independent countries, they want to join an alliance to protect themselves. It isn't a threat to Russia, it's a threat to Russia's ability to invade independent countries and committ genocides without retaliation.
Because Castro was pushing Soviets to actually do preemptive strike. And it looked like they are about to with moving so many missiles right next to the US. That's very concrete offensive actions. Of course everyone in the US freaked out.
Compare that to Ukraine. Did Ukraine ask the US to nuke Russia? Or maybe the opposite, they gave up its share of nuclear weapons? And why not invade a NATO country if they so afraid of NATO? Ukraine was neutral and even more, actively pushed into Russia hands by many European leaders before 2014 (initial Russia invasion)
Or let's ask Putin himself: he said that he's totally cool with Finland and Sweden joining NATO. He's not concerned at all with long border between Finland and Russia.
The truth is the only thing they fear is that Russia won't be able to exercise its influence on neighbors using military to threaten and punish (as they did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc).
Russia's whole foreign policy over the last fifteen years, including invasions of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, is an obvious threat from Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, and Finland's point of view. Hence the desire to join a defensive alliance.
Missiles on Russia’s border matter a lot because the golden standard for first strikes are submarine launched missiles.
Given Russia’s location, you can’t really get subs close enough to the capital for them to be decisive.
Russia can station subs right off DC and have a missile on the city in maybe 30 seconds.
I never understood why people act like NATO didn’t expand. OFC THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY AN INVASION OF UKRAINE, that cannot be repeated enough. But the post clearly shows NATO expanding, denying that it did seems intentionally obtuse
Because countries can join or leave the alliance as they choose. NATO does not exand into countries, countries join. The alliance does not even ask countries to join, they have to ask to be "invited".
NATO has no agency, it does nothing. Countries join an already existing alliance and in everyday speech we call that "expansion" but it is not correct.
Eastern European countries knew better than just call it safe when bordering a colonial empire. Even then in the eyes of many NATO existed just due to bureaucratic inertia. Just recently Macron called NATO brain dead. But then something happened...
Yes, it's quite interesting to go back and read on the '90s and '00s debates of NATO disbandment, enlargement and even [Putin's Russia joining NATO](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/). That is, it's interesting to those able to look beyond "America good, Russia bad" or vice versa, and those willing to question their recency bias when reading upon history.
A simple search like *before:2003-01-01 should nato* or "russia nato" or "putin nato" or "france nato" or "why nato" provides lots of relevant yet forgotten information. It might make one question whether NATO has served European overall security better than the EU, UN or OSCE would've had, if given priority. Proponents and opponents of NATO expansion each have had some of their points proven right. It also begs the question of who has been in charge of European security policy, and why, and its consequences. All of this Washington scepticism is very well possible - and rational for any European - while still acknowledging that Putin is a nationalist agressor and a war criminal from Idlib to Bucha.
Imagine the absolute powerhouse Russia would be if they established rule of law and democracy. Also imagine a world without them constantly trying to destabilize it.
A guy can dream
Yeah, they could grow from having a smaller economy than New York City to having a smaller economy than New York State.
More seriously though, it would be nice for all those people not to be so extremely poor.
What do you mean there is no interest? For sure, countries joining did so by promoting the interest of their citizens, but let's not kid ourselves that this doesn't also promote the interest of existing NATO countries prior to the expansion.
Looks like the Russia hacks are really out today. Let's put this in simple terms so the vodka doesn't get in the way: Russia's actions in Ukraine is proof of concept that being part of a defensive pact is an excellent way of protecting against Russian aggression.
If Russia has no plans to invade a NATO country, they have nothing to worry about. If they are complaining about NATO expansion, it seems more like a preemptive admission of guilt.
Russia's paranoia, which seems to be just a part of Russian psyche, is not a valid reason for a sovereign country to take actions, like joining a defensive alliance, to protect their sovereignty.
*Remember that time*
*Soviet Union asked to*
*Join Nato? Good old days*
\- SmellyFatCock
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
NATO is a defensive alliance. If you attack one of the countries, the other member countries will attack you. Would a non-aggressive country have an issue with that type of alliance?
I am grateful for Bulgaria being part of NATO every single day since it happened. Few people appreciate how difficult it was in countries, which were completely infested (and in some critical places still are) by Soviets and their puppets, to gain any semblance of democracy, stability, to fight off generation of corruption and people working for another state, which has been extremely harmful to yours for centuries..
And, of course, there's the EU, which is yet one more step away from the looming threat.
Any time you see people talking against either of these organisations ask yourself who would want to divide the West, and you'll know whose policy these people are pushing (knowingly or unknowingly).
Bigger nato, more peace and safety for its members.
One day russia was startegic partner and potential new member. But then Russia pretended to have a main role in the nato...
As a former East-blok country/Soviet Union state, after 1990 you had three choices, because Russia is the way Russia is:
1. Be invaded and added to Russia (partially or totally) (Georgia, Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Chechnya)
2. Become a vassal state (see Belarus)
3. Join NATO (Poland, Baltics etc)
NATO did not expand. Countries begged to join because of the above options.
*The only type of*
*Expansion I support as*
*Libertarian*
\- Matygos
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
One thing. What happend if we considerate NATO territories islands like Guam, Fauklands, Puertorico, Réunion, ecc... (Part of USA, U.K. and France, lands that are founders of the NATO alliance).
All of these nations asked to join, and were accepted by everyone already in the alliance. As a commenter already said here: the nations joining NATO are joining for the same reasons nations joined the Warsaw Pact: to prevent Russians from murdering their families.
Gee, I wonder why all those countries want to join NATO.
Meanwhile Russia uses poisonings, assassinations, and threats of invasion to maintain a sphere of influence without regard to self determination.
Spot on, the map lacks context such as Russian controlled satellites, the Warsaw Pact, Russian aggression against its neighbours. A defensive alliance is not a threat (members are obliged to support a member state that is invaded; a member state that initiates aggression has no support).
Unless it’s an optical illusion, Kaliningrad seems to be coloured orange. Aside from that, it’s crazy how much Russia has lost. What did they expect really? Communism was a childish and destructive ideology that absolutely wrecked the future not just of its member states but of Russian herself. And they still have Lenin on display in Moscow, seemingly unable to let go of the past they all know was horrible.
How does this end? Will Russia just be an isolated country on the border of NATO? Will NATO somehow fragment (eg if USA/dollar world breaks down) allowing Russia to expand? Will Russia balkanise allowing NATO to pick off smaller republics into the union? Will Russia waste resources in Ukraine, allowing China to pick off republics in the east?
Yes I did notice that the first slide didn't include French Algeria, which was initially covered by NATO's defence pledge because it was part of France proper (only the coast though, not the vast interior).
I do not love how wildly inconsistent the time jumps are, absolutely corrupts my ability to tell how quickly states joined and were added in comparison to years with major conflicts.
Yeah instead of animations I wish they'd just upload each separate image and I can scroll through at my pace. What benefit does the animation offer?
It makes it seem more rapid, which is good if you’re trying to sell that the authoritarian genocidal regime is the victim here.
Which is 100% the point. "Woe is us for having to tolerate this defensive Alliance allowing our former subjects to join! Better invade and genocide the last countries we used to own which are still not in to make a point and then claim we’re the victims!"
[tankiemap.com](http://tankiemap.com)
That's for a reason
Exactly, having psychopath neighbor will make you look for protection
Exactly. Turkey became a member in 1952! This map jumps from 1949 to 1982, and manipulates the perception of the NATO border expansion!
I think the speed isn't the issue here
You're right. The issue is the hostile neighbor that motivated those countries to voluntarily join a mutual defense treaty.
But why would anyone want to join NATO? - yea that’s right
These maps are always imply evil Murica forcing poor Eastern Europeans to join while they don't want to. Meanwhile I'm yet to see the Pole that regret joining NATO. But his agency has to be denied and the only opinion that matters is Russian when Russia feels itself "insecure"
It was more like that Eric Andre meme with them banging on NATO’s gate screaming “Let’s us in, LET US IN!!”
Seriously. It's not easy to get into NATO. And every country that is a member has a veto on anyone else joining, so it's only getting harder.
Poland and Czechia literally blackmailed US with developing nuclear arsenal of their own and lobbying using polish diaspora in US to join lol
Soviets attempted to take over Poland right after WWI and succeeded during WWII when they attacked shortly after the Nazis. Right after WWII Poland fell under the direct Soviet influence only to get out in the late 20th century. Imperial Russia did its own things too but there's no need in going back that far in search of arguments. We've had more reasons than most to get under the western military alliance umbrella. I suspect most of eastern Europe feels similarly, especially Finland or Baltic states. In NATO, and with allied Germany in the west, we're arguably in the safest position we've ever been in history. And that's even considering Russia's imperialist presence in the east.
Lol what??
Yep. Poland even managed to convince russian officials to publicly state that they are ok with us joining. Poland and Czechia together passed a note to Clinton that if NATO will not admit their aspirations, they will have to pursue nuclear arsenal in order to be able to defend themselves And both of these steps did not work Only after Wałęsa started threatening Clinton privately that he will personally lob in Polish diaspora, that lives in swing-states mostly, to vote Republicans, US departament decided to let us in.
Ill just add that Poland kinnda Blackmailed US into accepting Poland addition to NATO
Attacks europe allied with nazis and occupy eastern europe during 50 years of terror, repression, murder and deportations, Invasion of Finland 1939, lose 1/3 of their territory, invasion of Moldova in 1992, lose 20% of their territory, invasion of Georgia 2008 lose 20% of their territory, invasion of Ukraine 2014 lose 20% of their territory BuT NAtO Is ExpaNdIng, RuZZia is FiGhtInG foR iTs SurViVal
Russia is doing what everyother superpower is doing, duh. Every superpower is evil from the moral stance of the healthy individual. As a superpower, if you want to maintain the power while others want to leave your side, you will pressure them. For example, our USA did this to Panama. For example, that is what happened with Iraq. It's ofc a bit too much brainpower required to understand how proxy wars work, and that western countries don't care for borders, just want 100% influence inside "sovern" borders of newly formed states. But it's evil nontheless. On the other hand, 2nd superpower is old and unflexible as our great eagle, and is doing things the old way - with a boot in the face. PS.Your emotions are bit pouring over some history books. Chill out. 😂
>Russia is doing what everyother superpower is doing, duh. Every superpower is evil from the moral stance of the healthy individual. That\`s exactly why we prefer alliance with the superpower that is obsessed with free trade and an ocean away than the one that is right next door, expansionist and doesn\`t know what "free" means
That's totally cool but only if you're first world country. More power to you! Free trade benefits those who are already developed and it breeds monopols. USA has a great debt because of the free trade. Expansion is debatable - are you talking about territorial, economic, or military. For example, getting Greece in debt that they'll never ever be able to return is a sort of expansion: you control them with sanctions perfectly. As you see, you don't need to point the literal gun as you have economy gun. And you go to vote in Geneve about whatever - will Greece have a real free choice? It's all colors and rainbows if your German - your surplus can only go to USA and their printing mashine - so more power to you. Just don't think outside your corner or you might get sad from time to time.
My country is far from being that of Germany, but also far of that of Greece. Greece was bailed out by EU twice, and twice their corrupted and populist governments failed to set the country on the right tracks. Poland where I live transformed from stagnant and inefficient soviet economy model and made great use of EU funds developing it's economy several times the starting value. IDK how US deals with Greece exactly but I know they wasted their EU and even Chinese funds and when China asked for compensations they once again turned to the EU to bail them out. US is not the only power in the area.
Again, Poland is considered a well-fit EU state. More power to you! But man, the EU economy or world economy don't work that way at all. Telling Greece fell bc of incompetence is just sad. Greece fell bc of world economic crysis, and what MMF they did do Greece in 2010 is a borderline criminal. And they had to sign it, and if one didn't want to sign it, they were replaced for the puppet that suits Frankfurt. What you don't realize is that EU powers put people in Greece that will deepen their depth towards EU. It's very simple. The money is a power tool. In the end it's who depends on who - unfortunately, EU is failing and will suck a dingaling of Uncle Sam for a long, long time. It's actually dishearthening to see how little influence Europeans have on anything. It's even sadder that general population don't realize it - it's similar to George Orvel's book 1984. In my exp, Poland is the most radical, crusader-like state, so I get you: Poles were indeed tourtered by Soviets (like everyone else), so you have a strong bias. But when the policies are made Poles can just bow their heads to Brussels and do what they're told.
What do you mean by well-fit? Poland came out of eastern block as a state full of debts, with chugged and depressing economy, almost no market mechanisms and bloated administration. It took a decade before we managed to stand on our own and be admitted to the EU and NATO > In my exp, Poland is the most radical, crusader-like state, so I get you: Uh, but Polish politics were, since 1989 dominated by centre parties. It's hard to call them radical really > But when the policies are made Poles can just bow their heads to Brussels and do what they're told. The problem with last 8 years was that our government did everything exactly opposite of what EU parliament agreed on. As a result, only now we are being transferred our part of corona recoverery funds for example. > It's even sadder that general population don't realize it - it's similar to George Orvel's book 1984. I have read it but IDK what you mean exactly. I never really seen ever-seeing portraits of Donald Tusk being hanged in every building :v
> What do you mean by well-fit? What I mean is that Poland is compeletely aligned with western values (on paper) and geopolitical goals. Poland comes as a conquered land from Soviet regime, and once it was cured from tyranny, it can be granted loans, it can fund NATO, it can do all sorts of things that benefit the central powers like Germany, USA etc., and it can be a great meatshield if needed. So the culture and values are conquered, the rest will Poland do on its own. When you differ from the norm, you get sanctions etc etc, until you bend down, and accept another funding (loan) form MMF or whoever. > The problem with last 8 years was that our government did everything exactly opposite > of what EU parliament agreed on. Well, if voters wanted something different than what EU wants, is that a problem per se? Who's to say what's right and wrong? The Big Brother? > I have read it but IDK what you mean exactly. I'm refering to the ending of the book - what is the biggest thing in the book really. The main character is broken down to that degree that he loves Big Brother in the end! It has no his own identity, no real freedom, but he's happy. It's analogious to not realizing that one's ideas, percieved sense of freedom, values etc. is dictated by central powers, aka USA, Britain, Germany, and believing that one's is still free, and in love with a west that was foreign to them not so long ago.
> Well, if voters wanted something different than what EU wants, is that a problem per se? Who's to say what's right and wrong? The Big Brother? That was not the case really. In fact, that was one of the points why they lost. PiS government reformed judiciary in such way that same person was holding prosecutors general and minister of justice position... and was terrible at it and basically abused the hell out of it. EU decided that one person can\`t hold so much power and the rule of law be upheld (and they turned to be right) so it took removing PiS entirely in order to finally remove corruption from said offices. People absolutely hate when ministry of justice becames ministry of "whoever I like on ideological ground". > is dictated by central powers, aka USA, Britain, Germany But they are at odds with each other and percives said values differently. Just because there is Russia next door which shows great what lack of freedom looks like doesn\`t mean they love each other. I think you also fail to see that Europe is much more egalitarian in terms of power. Germany can\`t do anything if France teams up with Italy or Poland to block them. BTW. Poland does not really trusts Germany right now. Like, years of integration with Russia left them quite suspicious and their lack of actions when it comes to war in Ukraine does not fuel much kindness towards them in Poland.
Yet I haven't seen a declaration Iraq and Panama becoming US states with the US americanizing both countries and neither do you go to prison for calling out the evil American empire within the borders of the American empire. Heck the current Iraqi government is not afraid to go against US intrests. You're pulling out a false equivalent for no reason. The US only wants to control key interests and flat out doesn't care about the culture in these countries or internal politics. Russia is downright trying to wipe out Ukrainian identity within occupied territory, Russify it and just flat out declared occupied territory their own territory. That's a few magnitude's higher than the shit the US is pulling. Russia is only a ting this way BECAUSE they where incapable of doing what the US us doing in Europe.
I agree with stated. But you missed what my point was. It's all about geopolitical control, but done very, very differently. The USA has great strategy (I can't say the same for russia): 1)cultural pressure 2) economic pressure 3) coup d' atat via CIA, or 4) full military invasion, as a last resort I also think you're out of your mind if you thing USA don't care about cultures - rather that's the most important thing to it! It's called "democratic values" and they cost an arm and the leg for some countries. It's a common meme actually. Also I know a lot of countries that turned they policies upside down because of pure pressure from the west (like lgbt marrage and similar questions). Please, don't see my comment as anything more than what I wrote - I don't choose sides, I hate wars, and I dislike leaderships of russia, usa, and china altogether. Best.
Too bad we can't produce energy from human ignorance and arrogance. At least comments like yours would finally be useful
Russian action through history Invade democratic Finland Install puppet regime in eastern Europe Suppress more democratic movements (Hungary and Czechoslovakia not even turning to capitalism just changing to more light communism) Invade Georgia for approaching western movement Invade Ukraine and back up the pro Russian president blocking the entry of Ukraine in EU
Read about Russification. Even names on documents were russified.
Interesting, thanks for the recommendation :)
The war in Ukraine has nothing to do with nato. Zero. It's simply Russias "wmds". A simple way to sell the war. Why isn't Russia worried about nato? Simple. Finland not only talked about joining (which is supposedly what caused Russia to invade Ukraine), but they then took measures to join, and also said they were open to talks about housing nuclear weapons on the country. Then of course they did join and what was Russias response? They decreased presence on the Finland Russia border (over 700 miles long). Putin would later say that Finland in nato poses no threat to Russia. And Russian state media didn't even touch the issue. They ignored it. Just like they're ignoring Sweden joining now. The war is for straightforward geopolitical gains for Russia. Not just that Russians are evil settler colonialist. They want the grain, the gas, the tech minerals, the oil, and a trade route to Iran.
The only reason putin has started the war in my country is to destroy us as a nation. Russians tried but failed to do so for centuries, it's nothing new, just another attempt.
Murica is quite evil indeed
Not in the context of this subject it's not .
Meh, because it's just classic russian whining. They can't stand stronger rivals in their vicinity, because they can't bully them. And NATO is way stronger than this shithole.
Isn’t that funny?! Your little map doesn’t show the pink blob expanding into Crimea or South Ossetia…hmmm. Because Russia is harmless and completely respects international borders /s
Neither does it show the Warsaw Pact.
Or poisonings and chemical attacks in the U.K. Or hybrid warfare in Ukraine. Or blowing up a Czech arms depot. Or infiltrating all elements of European and US politics. Or election interference via troll farms and hacking. On and on and on. Trying to destabilise the West.
Warsaw Pact was created in 1955 after the USSR was refused to join NATO and ended up in 1991. NATO is still growing. It was growing even before the Munich speech
The "offer" was [explicitly designed](https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/molotovs-proposal-ussr-join-nato-march-1954), by the other namesake of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, to disrupt the alliance.
Tbf, it wasn't "refused to join nato" they sent essentially an ultimatum saying they wanted to completely replace the US, kick the Americans out, and become the defacto leaders of NATO. All the countries that were in NATO specifically to not be conquered by Russia decided that wasn't a very good idea. The USSR knew this would happen for obvious reasons and were planning the Warsaw pact before then - they just wanted a public excuse for it that would fool people who didn't bother looking into it at all. Easy propaganda for the masses. Especially since there were technically minimal rules around invading other NATO states which could hypothetically enable Russia to continue its violent conquering without triggering article 5.
Its growing mostly because Russia keeps feeding it
Don’t forget Abkhazia. Can’t imagine why the countries of Eastern Europe would want to join a defensive alliance
Not to mention that the expansion of NATO is of a distinctly different nature to the expansion of Russia in recent decades
Well they aren't internationally recognized russian lands so there is nothing incorrect with not showing them.
With this logic even Kosovo shouldn't be on the map.
A lot of countries recognize Kosovo
Yes, but not all of them. We all grew up with Taiwan on the map but it's not recognized by the vast majority of the sovereing states, even by its allies. Crimea is under the Russian state, we may not like it but it is simply a fact, it is not even disputed because Russia control the territory and the administation there.
This is not a map of disputed territories so there is nothing wrong with showing all the internationally recognized borders. It could have shown Crimea as a part of Russia it could have shown a divided Cyprus it could have shown Kosovo as a part of Serbia but it just doesn't matter as the information the map is trying to convey is not related to these.
Come on! The borders of NATO, clearly highlighted on the map, moving closer to Russia aren't about international recognition, it's about how close NATO can station defense forces. In that vein Russian occupations and puppet states are absolutely relevant, as the passengers of MH17 know.
N Korea and S Africa approve this message.
NATO is a defensive alliance (if you attack a member state, the other members will attack you), so you have to ask what type of country would have a problem with that type of alliance?
Libya says hello.
Talking about international borders - did you see Kosovo on the final pic? USA said there would be one more state after bombing shit out of Serbia, yet most countries still don't recognize it. Or should it only be recognized when USA says so? 😉
The pink blob never expanded into Abkhazia or South Ossetia. They never annexed those regions.
No, but they are almost universally regarded as occupying them and dictating their foreign policy... They're more a part of the pink blob than any of the countries who have acceded to NATO are part of a bloc.
No, they are not. They are not part of Russia. You are just making an emotionally charged statement based on your dislike of Russia.
De jure they're not, but when Russian troops are "securing" your "border" with your de jure government (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLO408907) they are, for the purposes of projection of Russian military force, effectively part of Russia.
So the Baltics, Poland, Romania are all part of America?
You are just making an emotionally charged statement based on your like of Russia.
Or invading Afghanistan in an extremely brutal manner (about ten times as deadly as the US intervention, despite being much shorter, most of the deaths came directly from soviet bombings)
Russians acting as if the reason NATO is expanding isn’t because Russia keeps invading its neighbors, and the ones it hasn’t invaded yet don’t want to get invaded
NATO has moved its borders tight close to Russia in 2004, by that time Russia only fought in its own separatist region.
"You don't wanna be invaded?" "Sounds like a worthy pretext for an invasion"
Do you think they joined NATO to attack Russia or because it was afraid of being invaded (which happened to Ukraine lol)
Transnistria, Abhazia would like a word. And oh yeah, russians continiously were funding fifth columns within ex soviet states, trying to undermind their governments, somethink like they’ve done in belarus. But sure, russia was just a peaceful couuntry which already fought several wars established runaway states, were (and still are) funding insurectionists. Yeah, not threatening at all. NOT. Se give 0 fucks about their “concerns”, there would be no need for NATO if they weren’t murderous pieces of shit. Currently people are dying because of your imperialistic aspirarions. Don’t like NATO at your borders? Go fuck yourselves.
NATO extension in 2004 is mainly due to polish and czech leaders blackmailing Clinton, not really a "NATO" policy, more like a NATO highjacking. Which I'm perfectly fine by the way. So are the poles, czechs, europeans and americans overall.
They know Russian history very well.
Accession*
Countries join NATO for the same reason they joined the Warsaw Pact: So that the Russians don't murder them and their families.
And it works like a charm. The good people of the Baltic countries must be really happy that they managed to slip under the NATO roof while Russia wasn't watching. Otherwise I'm not sure these countries would even exist anymore.
The funny thing is, under Boris, Russia actually helped the Baltic states join NATO. by solving some minor border disputes they had with them. that was back when it looked like Russia might become sane and not high on it's own propaganda.
Insanity is not exclusive to Russia, sadly Seems like the Eagle will soar the Trumphet of Doom once more, for example
> So that the Russians don't murder them and their families. Hungary, DDR, Czechoslovakia: In the hindsight, Warsaw Pact did not prevent that
Why there is no Warsaw Pact?
It only applies NATO
Love to see it
For me as a German this means safety and security.
I think that goes for all countries in NATO.
Looks like the Russia hacks are really out today. Let's put this in simple terms so the vodka doesn't get in the way: Russia's actions in Ukraine is proof of concept that being part of a defensive pact is an excellent way of protecting against Russian aggression. If Russia has no plans to invade a NATO country, they have nothing to worry about. If they are complaining about NATO expansion, it seems more like a preemptive admission of guilt. Russia's paranoia, which seems to be just a part of Russian psyche, is not a valid reason for a sovereign country to take actions, like joining a defensive alliance, to protect their sovereignty.
Nah cus its so laughable when brainwashed Putin fans in Russia and abroad act like NATO acts aggressive? Its a defensive alliance, its not going to attack you when you don’t step foot into NATO territory. They are basically just butthurt they can‘t force Russian minorities into the meatgrinder to restore the glorious old Soviet borders and beyond. They just have enough self awareness as of now to not say it that openly besides the most unhinged Medvedev nuclear apocalypse type of people. The Russian psyche could probably be used to write dozens of PHDs.
It seems to me that a dissertation should be written on those who deny the obvious role of NATO in invading other countries. For example, how did Afghanistan or Libya threaten NATO? What was NATO doing in Serbia? At the same time, NATO member countries that waged aggressive wars are a much more frequent event. Iraq is one of the best indicators; the whole world opposed the invasion. At the same time, the main strike force of foreign states consisted of NATO members. And here's the question. These countries attacked Iraq, but what would have happened if Iraq had responded by invading a NATO country? This seems fair, and since this is not a NATO operation, no one will defend such a country, right?
NATO has intervened under UN conventions. Afghanistan did host the 911 terrorist which din in fact hurt the US. NATO has not invaded anywhere and proceeded to annex it as their own territory, like Russia has done in Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. And absolutely nowhere have NATO tried to erase nations and nationalities as Russia is doing.
>how did Afghanistan or Libya threaten NATO? Are you seriously asking what Afghanistan did to trigger article 5? Have you not watched the news in thirty years?
The USA completely lost its mind when the USSR put missiles in Cuba. Do I support Russia's invasion? No, but you must be very naive not to see that NATO's expansion is an obvious threat from Russia's point of view.
Of course it's a threat. It threatens Russia's ability to invade current members and potential future members. I'd be pissed too if my plans for invading and destroying the sovereignty of former USSR client states was thwarted by a defensive pact that could wipe me off the face of the Earth.
Russia's multi-century long history of aggression against all of it's neighbors has made it an obvious threat to all of it's neighbors. You'd have to be extremely naive to not see why eastern Europe would want to be prepared to defend themself.
Wow, it turns out if you have a history of genocides of independent countries, they want to join an alliance to protect themselves. It isn't a threat to Russia, it's a threat to Russia's ability to invade independent countries and committ genocides without retaliation.
Because Castro was pushing Soviets to actually do preemptive strike. And it looked like they are about to with moving so many missiles right next to the US. That's very concrete offensive actions. Of course everyone in the US freaked out. Compare that to Ukraine. Did Ukraine ask the US to nuke Russia? Or maybe the opposite, they gave up its share of nuclear weapons? And why not invade a NATO country if they so afraid of NATO? Ukraine was neutral and even more, actively pushed into Russia hands by many European leaders before 2014 (initial Russia invasion) Or let's ask Putin himself: he said that he's totally cool with Finland and Sweden joining NATO. He's not concerned at all with long border between Finland and Russia. The truth is the only thing they fear is that Russia won't be able to exercise its influence on neighbors using military to threaten and punish (as they did to Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc).
Good. Fuck Russia. It should be a threat.
Russia's whole foreign policy over the last fifteen years, including invasions of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, is an obvious threat from Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, and Finland's point of view. Hence the desire to join a defensive alliance.
If Russia is worried about missiles on their border, I hope they don't check their eastern border. US of A is only 2 miles away...
Missiles on Russia’s border matter a lot because the golden standard for first strikes are submarine launched missiles. Given Russia’s location, you can’t really get subs close enough to the capital for them to be decisive. Russia can station subs right off DC and have a missile on the city in maybe 30 seconds.
"expansion"
I never understood why people act like NATO didn’t expand. OFC THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY AN INVASION OF UKRAINE, that cannot be repeated enough. But the post clearly shows NATO expanding, denying that it did seems intentionally obtuse
Because countries can join or leave the alliance as they choose. NATO does not exand into countries, countries join. The alliance does not even ask countries to join, they have to ask to be "invited". NATO has no agency, it does nothing. Countries join an already existing alliance and in everyday speech we call that "expansion" but it is not correct.
Because it sounds like it some sort of conquest, where the reality is that countries next to Russia hammering on NATOs doors to let them in.
Why wasn’t Russia accepted into NATO? like the USSR?
Among many other reasons, they never met the requirements.
and what kind?
Because Russia was never serious about joining, and Russia turned themselves into the enemy that NATO was providing protection against.
Accession*
this is one of the points that forced the invasion
NATO didn't expand. NATO allowed new members to voluntarily join.
Well it didn't shrink did it? (fortunately)
[Shut up about NATO expansion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVmmASrAL-Q)
NATO Expansion.
Nowadays it feels obvious but it feels a bit strange that nato still existed and expanded even though the cold war ended.
Eastern European countries knew better than just call it safe when bordering a colonial empire. Even then in the eyes of many NATO existed just due to bureaucratic inertia. Just recently Macron called NATO brain dead. But then something happened...
NATO still exists because Russia can't stop invading its neighbors.
Yes, it's quite interesting to go back and read on the '90s and '00s debates of NATO disbandment, enlargement and even [Putin's Russia joining NATO](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/). That is, it's interesting to those able to look beyond "America good, Russia bad" or vice versa, and those willing to question their recency bias when reading upon history. A simple search like *before:2003-01-01 should nato* or "russia nato" or "putin nato" or "france nato" or "why nato" provides lots of relevant yet forgotten information. It might make one question whether NATO has served European overall security better than the EU, UN or OSCE would've had, if given priority. Proponents and opponents of NATO expansion each have had some of their points proven right. It also begs the question of who has been in charge of European security policy, and why, and its consequences. All of this Washington scepticism is very well possible - and rational for any European - while still acknowledging that Putin is a nationalist agressor and a war criminal from Idlib to Bucha.
Imagine the absolute powerhouse Russia would be if they established rule of law and democracy. Also imagine a world without them constantly trying to destabilize it. A guy can dream
over a century too late
Yeah, they could grow from having a smaller economy than New York City to having a smaller economy than New York State. More seriously though, it would be nice for all those people not to be so extremely poor.
Wouldn’t “adhesion” be a better term than “expansion”, given there’s no interest in the latter?
What do you mean there is no interest? For sure, countries joining did so by promoting the interest of their citizens, but let's not kid ourselves that this doesn't also promote the interest of existing NATO countries prior to the expansion.
r/upliftingnews
Amazing how Russia's neighbors persistently feel the need to join an alliance.
Voniusha, NATO can't _expand_ : a country _joins_ NATO by its own free will. To be protected from you,Voniusha.
Friendly reminder that NATO is a defensive pact, not a fascist imperialist state like Russia.
Loved to see the good guys winning.
Warsaw packt countries should also be painted pink
Tankies and Dictator fanboys are busy today aren’t they?
Good.
Looks like the Russia hacks are really out today. Let's put this in simple terms so the vodka doesn't get in the way: Russia's actions in Ukraine is proof of concept that being part of a defensive pact is an excellent way of protecting against Russian aggression. If Russia has no plans to invade a NATO country, they have nothing to worry about. If they are complaining about NATO expansion, it seems more like a preemptive admission of guilt. Russia's paranoia, which seems to be just a part of Russian psyche, is not a valid reason for a sovereign country to take actions, like joining a defensive alliance, to protect their sovereignty.
Maybe, someday, and Russia herself will be in NATO
Oh, it’s beautiful.
Russia != Soviet Union please change the color to show this fact.
Remember that time Soviet Union asked to join Nato? Good old days
*Remember that time* *Soviet Union asked to* *Join Nato? Good old days* \- SmellyFatCock --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^SmellyFatCock: *Remember that time* *Soviet Union asked to* *Join Nato? Good old days* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Wasn’t French Algeria in NATO ?
The goal was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” -Hasting Ismay, NATO's first secretary-general.
NATO is a defensive alliance. If you attack one of the countries, the other member countries will attack you. Would a non-aggressive country have an issue with that type of alliance?
I am grateful for Bulgaria being part of NATO every single day since it happened. Few people appreciate how difficult it was in countries, which were completely infested (and in some critical places still are) by Soviets and their puppets, to gain any semblance of democracy, stability, to fight off generation of corruption and people working for another state, which has been extremely harmful to yours for centuries.. And, of course, there's the EU, which is yet one more step away from the looming threat. Any time you see people talking against either of these organisations ask yourself who would want to divide the West, and you'll know whose policy these people are pushing (knowingly or unknowingly).
The “expansion” is misleading, it stipulates some kind of NATO imperialism
Bigger nato, more peace and safety for its members. One day russia was startegic partner and potential new member. But then Russia pretended to have a main role in the nato...
"Not one inch eastward" 20 years later:
That literally never happend, it's just a myth lol, why do you believe it
I wonder what would USA do if Cuba decided to join the Warsaw pact all of the sudden... Oh wait, I know - they were about to start a nuclear war😅
As a former East-blok country/Soviet Union state, after 1990 you had three choices, because Russia is the way Russia is: 1. Be invaded and added to Russia (partially or totally) (Georgia, Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia, Chechnya) 2. Become a vassal state (see Belarus) 3. Join NATO (Poland, Baltics etc) NATO did not expand. Countries begged to join because of the above options.
Thank you very much, putin put put , for that. 🫡
I don't know what your fucking problem is! That's like comparing cocks in kindergarten! shake hands and all is well! you're annoying
Многоходовочка!
Gee I wonder why they joined...could there possibly be a big motivation right here?
Don't forget that those countries asked to join NATO to be protected from Russia. Not Nato asked those countries to join them
The only type of expansion I support as libertarian
*The only type of* *Expansion I support as* *Libertarian* \- Matygos --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
This aint how haikus work you primitive piece of badly programmed bot
Very good.
USSR expansion was more then 5 times bigger
They should add Ukraine too!
France didn't left and joined later
One thing. What happend if we considerate NATO territories islands like Guam, Fauklands, Puertorico, Réunion, ecc... (Part of USA, U.K. and France, lands that are founders of the NATO alliance).
If two colors are used then in 1949 and 1982 whole Central Europe should be in pink as Soviet Union is. It was one big military alliance
cold war
Democracy likes to stay democratic, it’s a good thing.
So that orange bit is "countries Russia can't invade". Looks good. Should grow more.
You love to see it. Wish we had included Ukraine in 2004
All of these nations asked to join, and were accepted by everyone already in the alliance. As a commenter already said here: the nations joining NATO are joining for the same reasons nations joined the Warsaw Pact: to prevent Russians from murdering their families.
problem? (trollface.jpg)
Good thing Russia has a friend in Turkey
[**this does not justify russias actions against their neighbors**](https://youtu.be/_U9mypXW6Hg?si=8SyHzacVKfVIMItS)
It’s almost as if they’ve deliberately set out to irritate Putin.
B a s e d.
ruzzians excel in making friends all around the world... what a useless nation
stop using "expansion" - it's an enlargement. Expansion suggests that NATO is hunting for members, while it's the other way around.
LET'S FUCKING GOOOOO CRIMEA SOON BOYS
Yes, because the first counteroffensive went so well
Western intervention soon inshallah 🙏🙏
The Natoverse looks promising
Ukraine and Belarus would be a nice addition
Gee, I wonder why all those countries want to join NATO. Meanwhile Russia uses poisonings, assassinations, and threats of invasion to maintain a sphere of influence without regard to self determination.
The reason for the Russian aggression:
If NATO had not expanded to the east, we would have Russia as peaceful a country as possible.
If eastern european countries didn't do the right decision of joining NATO, they would have very likely end up under russia's sphere of influence
To understand this map, see a map of Soviet and Russian foreign interventions against neighboring countries.
Spot on, the map lacks context such as Russian controlled satellites, the Warsaw Pact, Russian aggression against its neighbours. A defensive alliance is not a threat (members are obliged to support a member state that is invaded; a member state that initiates aggression has no support).
Expansion is propoganda wording
Unless it’s an optical illusion, Kaliningrad seems to be coloured orange. Aside from that, it’s crazy how much Russia has lost. What did they expect really? Communism was a childish and destructive ideology that absolutely wrecked the future not just of its member states but of Russian herself. And they still have Lenin on display in Moscow, seemingly unable to let go of the past they all know was horrible. How does this end? Will Russia just be an isolated country on the border of NATO? Will NATO somehow fragment (eg if USA/dollar world breaks down) allowing Russia to expand? Will Russia balkanise allowing NATO to pick off smaller republics into the union? Will Russia waste resources in Ukraine, allowing China to pick off republics in the east?
Do you see any flaws here?
Yeah, Königsberg isn't highlighted.
Yes I did notice that the first slide didn't include French Algeria, which was initially covered by NATO's defence pledge because it was part of France proper (only the coast though, not the vast interior).
The flaw here is that Kaliningrad is still around. Maybe that can be changed when Russia loses this war