Her actual response:
It only means Russia will have one less plane flying to Ukraine to strike and kill Ukrainians.
There’s more. Her full statement is:
It only means Russia will have one less plane flying to Ukraine to strike and kill Ukrainians. … Our job as politicians is to explain what will happen if we do not make such a decision. It is necessary to realize that in such a case, the Russian army will go to the western border of Ukraine, up to the Polish border. These troops will then be directly in front of the NATO border, which we are also defending. If we don’t stop Putin, then, as a result, our territory and our military will be jeopardized. Because if [Russia] attacks Poland or another NATO country, such as the Baltic states, we Germans will also be drawn into the war. If you don’t want that, you have to make life difficult for Putin.
It’s an aspect I had not considered – “I don’t want a hostile military alliance coming right up to my country’s border” cuts both ways.
It’s an aspect I had not considered – “I don’t want a hostile military alliance coming right up to my country’s border” cuts both ways.
Its been Putin’s argument for invading Ukraine, except Ukraine wasn’t hostile militarily to Russia until Russia started seizing Ukrainian land in Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk.
Ukraine was fine turning its back on Russia and embracing the rest of Europe economically, not militarily. Russia was NOT fine with that and started invading.
Yeah. You can actually look at the timeline, and there was an extensive debate inside Ukraine about whether or not they should make any kind of attempt at NATO, with the “not” side being initially pretty strong, and for pretty much exactly the reason you’d expect. And then, every time Russia did some unprovoked horrifying military aggression nearby or directly to them, the eagerness for NATO within Ukraine got a lot greater, until at this point, they and the West are both firmly in favor of it once things stabilize to a non-WW3 level of safety to do that.
The whole “Russia responded after the West tried to get Ukraine into NATO, which Ukraine had no independent desire for” thing is backwards in two whole separate different ways.
Yes, that’s the full statement. Her answer to the question in the post title, is what I quoted.
Sounds like the consequences of Russia’s actions are catching up to it. You can’t just violently ignore your neighbors borders and expect them to respect yours.
I mean you can expect whatever you want.
As commonly happens, step 1 “I AM STRONG, I SHALL DO AS I LIKE, FUCK YOU, WHAT YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT” has progressed by step 3-4 into “However could you be so rude, this is definitely not allowed, won’t someone think of the rules and how unfair it is that this is happening to me?” I honestly don’t know why that exists as a general rule but it is definitely a noticeable pattern in the world.
It means the Western signatories of the Budapest memorandum are keeping their word to defend Ukraine’s sovereign in exchange for Ukraine surrendering its nuclear weapons in 1994.
signatories of the Budapest memorandum are keeping their word to defend Ukraine’s sovereign
Is that actually something they promised in the Budapest memorandum?
My knowledge on the topic is very limited, but based on Wikipedia i was under the impression that signatories essentially only promised to not attack themself (which Russia clearly violated) and offer assistance only in the limited case where nuclear weapons are used (which isn’t the case). Also “assistance” can mean defense, but doesn’t necessarily, making it quite vague and the point about consultations when questions arise makes it even less binding.
In case peopke forgot “Donbass separatists” shot down a civilian airliner with Russian weapons. That Rubicon was crossed almost a decade ago.
