World News

35662 readers

5 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml

jackmarxist@lemmy.ml

zephyreks@lemmy.ml

OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml

NATO Proposes $100 Billion, Five-Year Fund to Aid Ukraine (www.bloomberg.com)

submitted 2 years ago by intelshill@lemmy.ca to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russia isn't in NATO, but they are it's most successful recruiter.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Which is why I'm baffled why people still spread the myth that Russia invaded to 'stop nato aggression.'

Like, firstly you're fucking wrong, but if you want to wear that L like a medal then go for it. Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I am very confused by your comment. Are you saying Putin never said that, or are you saying he was lying?

From Putin's actual mouth:

ON DECISION TO LAUNCH 'SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION'

"We saw military infrastructure being ramped up, hundreds of military advisers working and regular deliveries of modern weapons from NATO. (The level of) danger was increasing every day. Russia preventively rebuffed the aggressor. It was necessary, timely and ... right. The decision of a sovereign, strong, independent country."

Just to be clear, he definitely said that, but he was definitely lying.

(source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-speaks-victory-day-parade-moscows-red-square-2022-05-09/)

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Because that's what Russia has been repeating for the past two years. Some people believe lies whan they're repeated often enough.

A major reason may have been to stop Ukraine's entry in Nato though.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not sure who would say that it was to 'stop NATO aggression', but it's not hard to imagine it as a some kind of response to NATO's continued expansion around them.

NATO hasn't been in any direct operations against Russia but they have been involved in the ME where they have been active.

I think of it a lot in the same way as the US's pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I'm not sure who would say that it was to 'stop NATO aggression'

I think the line might be "in response to" or similar, but it's parroted by tankies and russophiles.

NATO's continued expansion around them.

Can we imagine any reasons why Russia's neighbors might want to join a defensive pact to protect against Russia? No? Oh well, must be US imperialism then.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 2 years ago

I'm not saying there isn't reason for those countries to want to joint an alliance against their imperialist neighbor, but honestly it's kinda hard not to see how NATO's influence has been abused for purposes other than defense.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

Which happened first? NATO expansion, or Russian invasion?

There’s your answer.