- Joined
- Apr 27, 2014
- Messages
- 30,017
It is relevant if you read the last two pages. NATO understood that its advances in Ukraine would be viewed as hostile by Russia. There's no getting around that even if you think NATO and Ukraine were/are in the right.This is getting silly now. The first two sentences, I don’t really know what to say. By your logic anything which needs approval somehow means the approver could be seen as making the original decision? Please, don’t die on that horse but that’s your call.
The second point is not relevant because those advances only occurred because of Ukraines desire to join NATO. If Ukraine says no, those NATO “advances” (totally incorrect word again, by the way), don’t happen.
This is worth reading/listening to:
https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/update...d-haass?utm_medium=social_owned&utm_source=tw
It has nothing to do with approval, and everything to do with de facto militarization which is admitted openly. That's where the provocation comes in, whether you think it just or not.
Last edited: