In today's #vatnik soup and the newest edition of "You pronounced this nonsense, not me", I'll talk about the NATO expansion and how - according to Russia - NATO and the West are actually at fault for the war in Ukraine.
1/13
In 2007, around the same time when Russia started their "economic war" against Europe, Putin held a fiery speech at a Munich Security Conference in which he accused the West of expanding NATO, thus breaking a "solemn pledge" given by a US secretary ...
2/13
... of state James A. Baker to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. According to some, Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand to the east if Russia accepted Germany's unification.
But this was never agreed. What Baker actually promised was that NATO would expand ...
3/13
... "not one inch eastward", but he was referring to Germany, not Eastern Europe. No agreements on hindering NATO expansion were signed, and Gorbachev himself confirmed that NATO's enlargement was not discussed.
Allegedly Putin never forgave Gorbachev for his "blunders".
4/13
Instead,the only formal agreement between the USSR and NATO countries was the Treaty of Final Settlement with Respect to Germany,which related only to troop placement & nuclear weapons inside Germany and former East Germany - & the promise made with this treaty has been kept.5/13
While some of the old Warsaw Pact countries were asking for membership to join NATO in 1997, the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed at the same time. The act stated that "NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries" and that NATO expansion ...
6/13
... is "a process that will continue". Before this, in 1993, Boris Yeltsin's wrote a letter to Bill Clinton saying that "Any possible integration of east European countries into NATO will not automatically lead to the alliance somehow turning against Russia."
7/13
Yet, academics like Stephen Cohen, John Mearsheimer, the Grayzone bloggers and other pro-Russian propagandists refer (or referred) to the Baker-Gorbachev "agreement" all the time, stating that the US and NATO betrayed Russia's trust.
8/13
Now, it's worth mentioning that NATO does not force anyone to join its ranks. Each country can put in their membership applications, and after it has been ratified by all other members, the country gets to join NATO. So, completely voluntary.
9/13
NATO has carried out an offensive military operation without the UN Security Council mandate once, in 1999 in Yugoslavia. This triggered some discussions on the operations legitimacy: its critics argued that the campaign violated international law and supporters argued...
10/13
... that the attack brought an end to the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's Albanians.
During the 90's Russia had no interest (or resources) to stop the NATO expansion, and Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland joined the alliance in 1999.
11/13
Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia joined the club in 2004, as did Slovakia. Actually, of the members added between 1990 and 2020, all were either formerly part of the Warsaw Pact or former Yugoslavia.
12/13
It's strange how all these countries, previously oppressed by the USSR, wanted to join NATO as soon as they could.
For example in Hungary, 85% of voted in favor of joining NATO. It's almost like they were still afraid of Russia's imperialistic endeavours.
In this 5th Debunk of the Day, we’ll discuss something that sounds great in theory, but was completely turned upside-down by the tankie kind of vatnik: anti-imperialism. More consistent anti-imperialists call this the “anti-imperialism of idiots”. 1/5
“Anti-imperialism” was popularized by Lenin, who saw imperialism as the ultimate stage of capitalism. Ironically, the largest empire is now… Putin’s Russia, proud heir to both Lenin’s Soviet Union and to the Tsarist Empire. 2/5
Indeed, Russia is an empire that is still ruled by a de facto all-powerful Tsar, that still proudly flies its imperial flag, that still dreams of expanding its already huge territory through brutal conquest and colonization. 3/5
In this 4th Debunk of the Day, we’ll refute an absolute classic of vatnik BS, the crown jewel of peak dishonesty: whataboutism.
Now, not everything that looks like whataboutism is wrong. Seeking consistency or comparing actions or responses is normal. 1/5
But when someone pulls some completely unrelated event, that happened to completely different people, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, you know what you’re dealing with: a crass denial of the problem at hand, a bad-faith attempt to derail the topic. 2/5
Logic or chronology plays no role here, nor your opinion on these other topics. You could be the staunchest critic or supporter of these other actions thrown into the discussion, it doesn’t matter. It is irrelevant whether these other things are true or not, or bad or not. 3/5
In this 3rd Debunk of the Day, we’ll talk about… “ending” the war by surrendering or ceding territory.
Nearing four years of the 2-day “special military operation”, Russia is desperate to obtain through other means what they failed to conquer on the battlefield. 1/5
An endless army of vatniks therefore tries to demoralize both Ukrainians and supporters.
They sound noble: “anti-war” or concerned about the fate of Ukraine’s civilians, soldiers and cities. They claim that if we just stop fighting or helping, this horror would magically end. 2/5
What they never mention is… WHO started the war, WHO murders Ukrainians, WHO destroys Ukrainian cities: the same monsters they suggest Ukrainians be at the mercy of. Surrendering wouldn’t end the atrocities of the occupation, it would enable them. Surrendering wouldn’t even…3/5
In today’s Debunk of the Day (2), we’ll look at… nuclear blackmail. Vatniks love using Russia’s nuclear threats as a reason for surrendering or for not lifting a finger to help Ukraine: “see, they have nukes, we have to give them whatever they want”.
The argument is absurd: 1/5
Nuclear deterrence has been a reality for decades. Both the US and Russia have lost wars without resorting to nukes. We are not submitting to the whims of Pakistan or North Korea either. For vatniks, it’s just an insidious way of siding with Putin. 2/5
We can’t just give in to the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail, to the threats their officials and propagandists make five times a day to scare us into letting them have something they know perfectly well is not theirs, with no limit to their appetite. 3/5 vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-thr…
In today’s Vatnik Soup, we introduce a Ukrainian “scholar” and social media activist, Marta Havryshko (@HavryshkoMarta). She’s best known for spreading anti-Ukraine and pro-Kremlin narratives online, along with a habit of spotting neo-Nazis everywhere in Ukraine.
1/20
Marta hails from Ukraine, where she studied history at Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. She received her PhD in history in 2010. Her academic work focused on gender-based violence and wartime atrocities, including publications on sexual crimes in occupied Ukraine.
2/20
She is currently working as a visiting Assistant Professor at the Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies at Clark University in the US. According to the center’s website, Marta teaches courses on antisemitism, racism, and gender-based violence in armed conflicts.
In today’s (first) Debunk of the Day, we’ll talk about… “realistic expectations”.
Russia has the GDP of Italy. NATO — which Russia claims to be fighting — has 20 times their GDP, and a much stronger and more modern military. 1/5
Russia’s full scale invasion was supposed to take 2 days, but we’re nearing 4 years. They’ve lost a million men. Their economy is in shambles.
And yet we're letting them set their red lines instead of massive sanctions, strong support for Ukraine, and an immediate sky shield. 2/5
Russia thought their war was “realistic” because we’d let them get away with it. It wouldn’t be “realistic” to invade a European nation and redraw borders by force if the West had a strong and united response.
What’s “realistic” is what public opinion tolerates and accepts. 3/5