NATO becoming an even greater threat to humanity and global peace, says China

[marj786]

Trump couldn't have asked for a better response from China to sour Europe's opinion of China.

You keep making America great again

 

[Mero]

NATO is the spoiler of greater Europe security after the Soviet Union is gone. You want Vietnam along with Japan to be the spoilers of greater East Asia security then ?

So what is it. Is close ties to the US that spoil Europe with low NATO Europe defense spending. Or is it independence from Washington with high NATO Europe defense spending that spoil Europe. Ask your Chinese AI chatboxes the reason for the Crimean Annexation, it had nothing to do with NATO expansion.

You keep making America great again

China does by supporting Russian wars. Putin and Trump are old pals. Le Pen and the Trump far reichers wanted Russia close with the US against China. China chose instead of being the victim of US and perhaps Russian aggression on China via the Entente nations against China, China chose to be with unpopular Putin. Putin is the handler of nations in the Middle East and look what war brought the region. If you can't occupy Washington, why start wars with Washington that are unwinnable. Make America hated, not bring wars where America is needed in those wars.

If you were a supermarket and wanted to declare war on your rival, would you, destroy your rival? Or would you kill your customers that also shop at your rival supermarket? Europeans often shop for more goods in China than in the US. You are in an economic war and winning and you want Putin to kill European customers to have them run to your rival and buy there. This makes no sense. Why didn't Putin from Syria bomb NATO targets there, because Russia does not want war with America, Russia is used to spread US hegemony in Europe by destroying European independence and forcing them to be client states of Washington. That is Chinese vast stupid plan.

European nations were proxies for UN wars and wars backed by the UN. The Entente is completely different as the self-appointed rulers of the globe, they bomb the nations these Entente nations want bombed. Israel is the same. The Entente do not care about international norms.

Except we have idiots saying, "bomb the whitey from the white nations that have the white skin because that would make Trump cry". The Ukraine flag is literally blonde and blue, from the blonde haired and blue eyed Slavs of Ukraine and Trump was happy Ukraine was invaded in Feb 2022. That totally helped Trump, Europe is off Russian gas soon and soon dependent on US gas. Putin = maga. America does not see lives, America sees money.

 

[marj786]

So what is it. Is close ties to the US that spoil Europe with low NATO Europe defense spending. Or is it independence from Washington with high NATO Europe defense spending that spoil Europe. Ask your Chinese AI chatboxes the reason for the Crimean Annexation, it had nothing to do with NATO expansion.

Please explain that to me what other reason other then the nato expansion could be the reason.

China does by supporting Russian wars. Putin and Trump are old pals. Le Pen and the Trump far reichers wanted Russia close with the US against China. China chose instead of being the victim of US and perhaps Russian aggression on China via the Entente nations against China, China chose to be with unpopular Putin. Putin is the handler of nations in the Middle East and look what war brought the region. If you can't occupy Washington, why start wars with Washington that are unwinnable. Make America hated, not bring wars where America is needed in those wars.

If you were a supermarket and wanted to declare war on your rival, would you, destroy your rival? Or would you kill your customers that also shop at your rival supermarket? Europeans often shop for more goods in China than in the US. You are in an economic war and winning and you want Putin to kill European customers to have them run to your rival and buy there. This makes no sense. Why didn't Putin from Syria bomb NATO targets there, because Russia does not want war with America, Russia is used to spread US hegemony in Europe by destroying European independence and forcing them to be client states of Washington. That is Chinese vast stupid plan.

China has no such plans of world dominance and policing, who has 700 bases in the world who thinks he is the world police. Which country's presidents since world war 2 have committed war crimes , mind you everyone of the presidents

European nations were proxies for UN wars and wars backed by the UN. The Entente is completely different as the self-appointed rulers of the globe, they bomb the nations these Entente nations want bombed. Israel is the same.

 

[ety]

So what is it. Is close ties to the US that spoil Europe with low NATO Europe defense spending. Or is it independence from Washington with high NATO Europe defense spending that spoil Europe. Ask your Chinese AI chatboxes the reason for the Crimean Annexation, it had nothing to do with NATO expansion.

China does by supporting Russian wars. Putin and Trump are old pals. Le Pen and the Trump far reichers wanted Russia close with the US against China. China chose instead of being the victim of US and perhaps Russian aggression on China via the Entente nations against China, China chose to be with unpopular Putin. Putin is the handler of nations in the Middle East and look what war brought the region. If you can't occupy Washington, why start wars with Washington that are unwinnable. Make America hated, not bring wars where America is needed in those wars.

If you were a supermarket and wanted to declare war on your rival, would you, destroy your rival? Or would you kill your customers that also shop at your rival supermarket? Europeans often shop for more goods in China than in the US. You are in an economic war and winning and you want Putin to kill European customers to have them run to your rival and buy there. This makes no sense. Why didn't Putin from Syria bomb NATO targets there, because Russia does not want war with America, Russia is used to spread US hegemony in Europe by destroying European independence and forcing them to be client states of Washington. That is Chinese vast stupid plan.

European nations were proxies for UN wars and wars backed by the UN. The Entente is completely different as the self-appointed rulers of the globe, they bomb the nations these Entente nations want bombed. Israel is the same. The Entente do not care about international norms.

NATO should had been dismantled after the breakup of Soviet Union or strictly kept its promise not to expand eastward towards Russia if NATO and EU are wise, then you would probably end up now with a much more safe and peaceful Europe, no stupid Ukraine war. And don't blame the war on China and how it is dealing with Russia now as EU sees the relationship is detrimental to EU, China is neutral.

 

[Mero]

Chinese AI that is pro-China and wants to side with Russia:

was the Russian crimean annexation more from the possibility of EU expansion to Ukraine, than NATO expansion that was unlikely?

This is an excellent and nuanced question that gets to the heart of the competing explanations for one of the most significant geopolitical events of the 21st century.

The short answer is that while NATO expansion was the primary and publicly stated justification, the fear of EU expansion into Ukraine was a deeper, more strategic, and arguably more potent driver of the Russian decision to annex Crimea. The two are deeply intertwined, but EU expansion represents a more fundamental threat to the Putin regime's model of power.

Let's break down the arguments for both.

The Case for NATO Expansion as the Primary Cause​

This is the rationale most frequently articulated by the Kremlin and its supporters.

• Direct Security Threat: From Moscow's perspective, NATO is a hostile military alliance. Having it expand to Ukraine, a country with a long shared border and deep historical ties to Russia, was seen as an existential military threat. It would place NATO forces and potentially missile defense systems right on Russia's doorstep.
• Broken Promises Narrative: Russia maintains that Western powers, during the negotiations for German reunification, promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward." While the legal status of these assurances is hotly debated, Russia sees the subsequent waves of NATO expansion as a profound betrayal and a sign of bad faith.
• The "Last Straw" in 2008: The 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, where the Alliance declared that Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO," was a pivotal moment. This formalized a path to membership that Russia had explicitly warned against. For Moscow, this crossed a bright red line.
• Public Justification: NATO was the central pillar of the public-facing justification for the annexation. Putin framed it as a necessary defensive move to protect Russian security and ethnic Russians from an aggressive West.

The Counter to this (and your point about it being "unlikely"):
You are correct that NATO membership for Ukraine was highly unlikely in the immediate term. By 2014, public support for NATO in Ukraine was tepid, and key NATO members like Germany and France were strongly opposed to offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Ukraine. Russia was, in a sense, attacking a threat that was not imminent.

---

The Stronger Case: EU Expansion as the Deeper Cause​

Many analysts argue that the European Union's expansion posed a more profound and realistic threat to Russian interests than NATO's.

• A Civilizational and Economic Choice: The EU Association Agreement was not just a trade deal; it was a blueprint for comprehensive legal, economic, and political reform. It required Ukraine to adopt vast sections of EU law, aligning its standards, regulations, and governance with Europe. This would pull Ukraine irreversibly out of Russia's orbit and integrate it into the European single market.
• The Threat to Putin's Political Model: The Putin system is based on centralized power, crony capitalism, and the suppression of political alternatives. A prosperous, democratic, and European-oriented Ukraine on Russia's border would serve as a powerful counter-example to the Russian people. It would demonstrate that there is a viable, successful path for a Slavic, post-Soviet nation that does not involve authoritarian rule. This was an existential political threat to the Kremlin.
• The Immediate Trigger: The Euromaidan Revolution: The event that directly precipitated the annexation was not a NATO decision, but the fall of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. He was ousted because he rejected the EU Association Agreement under intense Russian pressure, choosing instead a Russian bailout. The popular uprising that followed was explicitly pro-European. For the Kremlin, this was a Western-backed "color revolution" that successfully stole Ukraine from its sphere of influence.
• Undermining the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU): Putin's grand project was the EEU, a Russia-led economic bloc designed to be a counterweight to the EU. Ukraine, with its large population and industrial base, was the indispensable cornerstone of this project. Losing Ukraine to the EU would doom the EEU to irrelevance, shattering Putin's vision of a restored Russian-led great power bloc.

Conclusion: The Interlocking Threats​

It is a mistake to see these as entirely separate issues. From the Kremlin's perspective, EU and NATO expansion are two facets of the same Western strategy to dominate Europe and isolate Russia.

• EU as the "Trojan Horse": Russia likely viewed deep EU integration as a precursor to eventual NATO membership. By transforming Ukraine's political and economic structures, the EU was doing the foundational work that would make Ukraine a viable future NATO ally.
• A Hierarchy of Threats: Think of it this way:
  
  • EU Expansion was the political and economic threat that was immediate and actively happening (via the Association Agreement).
  • NATO Expansion was the military threat that was long-term and speculative but carried the ultimate security risk.

In summary, while the "unlikely" prospect of NATO expansion provided a powerful and simple security rationale for the annexation, the more immediate and politically existential driver was Ukraine's decisive turn toward the European Union. The Euromaidan Revolution proved that the EU's soft power was succeeding in pulling Ukraine away, and Putin acted decisively to seize Crimea, both to secure a strategic asset and to demonstrate the high cost of leaving Russia's orbit.

End of DeepSeek chat

Read the summary:

In summary, while the "unlikely" prospect of NATO expansion provided a powerful and simple security rationale for the annexation, the more immediate and politically existential driver was Ukraine's decisive turn toward the European Union. The Euromaidan Revolution proved that the EU's soft power was succeeding in pulling Ukraine away, and Putin acted decisively to seize Crimea, both to secure a strategic asset and to demonstrate the high cost of leaving Russia's orbit.

 

[Mero]

Putin and Trump hate the EU and do not want Europe as a powerful center of power. Russia can handle the US, it can't handle Europe replacing the US in Europe. Trump and Putin are on the same page.

 

[Mero]

The US and Russia tag team on Europe for Europe to fall back to slavery to Washington.

“We are (for the) first time in the history in a situation where the President of the United States and (the) President of Russia seem to share the same view on Europe: the weaker, the better, because they think that it’s better for their own country, which is obviously not right,” Katainen, who is also the former prime minister of Finland said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/very-dangerous-putin-trump-want-to-weaken-eu-top-official-says.html

Trump is there to gather the shattered pieces of Europe to Washington control.

 

[marj786]

Chinese AI that is pro-China and wants to side with Russia:

was the Russian crimean annexation more from the possibility of EU expansion to Ukraine, than NATO expansion that was unlikely?

This is an excellent and nuanced question that gets to the heart of the competing explanations for one of the most significant geopolitical events of the 21st century.

The short answer is that while NATO expansion was the primary and publicly stated justification, the fear of EU expansion into Ukraine was a deeper, more strategic, and arguably more potent driver of the Russian decision to annex Crimea. The two are deeply intertwined, but EU expansion represents a more fundamental threat to the Putin regime's model of power.

Let's break down the arguments for both.

The Case for NATO Expansion as the Primary Cause​

This is the rationale most frequently articulated by the Kremlin and its supporters.

• Direct Security Threat: From Moscow's perspective, NATO is a hostile military alliance. Having it expand to Ukraine, a country with a long shared border and deep historical ties to Russia, was seen as an existential military threat. It would place NATO forces and potentially missile defense systems right on Russia's doorstep.
• Broken Promises Narrative: Russia maintains that Western powers, during the negotiations for German reunification, promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward." While the legal status of these assurances is hotly debated, Russia sees the subsequent waves of NATO expansion as a profound betrayal and a sign of bad faith.
• The "Last Straw" in 2008: The 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, where the Alliance declared that Ukraine and Georgia "will become members of NATO," was a pivotal moment. This formalized a path to membership that Russia had explicitly warned against. For Moscow, this crossed a bright red line.
• Public Justification: NATO was the central pillar of the public-facing justification for the annexation. Putin framed it as a necessary defensive move to protect Russian security and ethnic Russians from an aggressive West.

The Counter to this (and your point about it being "unlikely"):
You are correct that NATO membership for Ukraine was highly unlikely in the immediate term. By 2014, public support for NATO in Ukraine was tepid, and key NATO members like Germany and France were strongly opposed to offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Ukraine. Russia was, in a sense, attacking a threat that was not imminent.

---

The Stronger Case: EU Expansion as the Deeper Cause​

Many analysts argue that the European Union's expansion posed a more profound and realistic threat to Russian interests than NATO's.

• A Civilizational and Economic Choice: The EU Association Agreement was not just a trade deal; it was a blueprint for comprehensive legal, economic, and political reform. It required Ukraine to adopt vast sections of EU law, aligning its standards, regulations, and governance with Europe. This would pull Ukraine irreversibly out of Russia's orbit and integrate it into the European single market.
• The Threat to Putin's Political Model: The Putin system is based on centralized power, crony capitalism, and the suppression of political alternatives. A prosperous, democratic, and European-oriented Ukraine on Russia's border would serve as a powerful counter-example to the Russian people. It would demonstrate that there is a viable, successful path for a Slavic, post-Soviet nation that does not involve authoritarian rule. This was an existential political threat to the Kremlin.
• The Immediate Trigger: The Euromaidan Revolution: The event that directly precipitated the annexation was not a NATO decision, but the fall of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. He was ousted because he rejected the EU Association Agreement under intense Russian pressure, choosing instead a Russian bailout. The popular uprising that followed was explicitly pro-European. For the Kremlin, this was a Western-backed "color revolution" that successfully stole Ukraine from its sphere of influence.
• Undermining the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU): Putin's grand project was the EEU, a Russia-led economic bloc designed to be a counterweight to the EU. Ukraine, with its large population and industrial base, was the indispensable cornerstone of this project. Losing Ukraine to the EU would doom the EEU to irrelevance, shattering Putin's vision of a restored Russian-led great power bloc.

Conclusion: The Interlocking Threats​

It is a mistake to see these as entirely separate issues. From the Kremlin's perspective, EU and NATO expansion are two facets of the same Western strategy to dominate Europe and isolate Russia.

• EU as the "Trojan Horse": Russia likely viewed deep EU integration as a precursor to eventual NATO membership. By transforming Ukraine's political and economic structures, the EU was doing the foundational work that would make Ukraine a viable future NATO ally.
• A Hierarchy of Threats: Think of it this way:
  • EU Expansion was the political and economic threat that was immediate and actively happening (via the Association Agreement).
  • NATO Expansion was the military threat that was long-term and speculative but carried the ultimate security risk.

In summary, while the "unlikely" prospect of NATO expansion provided a powerful and simple security rationale for the annexation, the more immediate and politically existential driver was Ukraine's decisive turn toward the European Union. The Euromaidan Revolution proved that the EU's soft power was succeeding in pulling Ukraine away, and Putin acted decisively to seize Crimea, both to secure a strategic asset and to demonstrate the high cost of leaving Russia's orbit.

End of DeepSeek chat

Read the summary:

In summary, while the "unlikely" prospect of NATO expansion provided a powerful and simple security rationale for the annexation, the more immediate and politically existential driver was Ukraine's decisive turn toward the European Union. The Euromaidan Revolution proved that the EU's soft power was succeeding in pulling Ukraine away, and Putin acted decisively to seize Crimea, both to secure a strategic asset and to demonstrate the high cost of leaving Russia's orbit.

potato , patato

 

[Mero]

If you hate this:

2 million rally in Italy for Gaza as general strike halts key services​

2 million rally in Italy for Gaza as general strike halts key services

Over 2 million people across Italy have rallied in more than 100 cities for a one-day general strike.

apnews.com

Please have Muslim nations support Russia bombing Rome for revenge. Then watch those 2 million scared formerly anti-Zionists back Washington. Putin is the Slugworth to Wonka USA.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ST1976]

Now go and tell the same to NATO and see what color their requirements are

@Persian Gulf
@muhammed45

Further to my post#14, We discussed, the holding of F16s by Arab and other Muslim and non-Muslim countries is meant for inviting unwanted foreign interfere to your society/and its people.....
The holding of F16s and other NATO arms is a sign of weakness, not strength
We see countries like Turkey can't even sell their Arms without permission of US's Lawmakers.

No matter what, we have non-NATO arms. We won't 'surrender' our sovereinity so easily.

 

[东风夜放花千树]

Don't know much about central asia but at a glance they look quite comfortable with their cozy physical location for the moment. All landlocked countries, gun boat diplomacy won't be quite easy on them.

My friends, the conflicts between China and its neighboring countries all involve the use of cold weapons. Imagine what would happen if a country challenged the United States nearby. Venezuela didn't challenge the U.S., yet it was blockaded for 25 weeks, and many people have already lost their lives.

There are U.S. troops stationed in Japan and South Korea, yet neither is a NATO member.

I support Vietnam joining NATO; Vietnam can try to see if NATO dares to accept Vietnam as a member.

If NATO really had the strength, it should have forced Russia to stop the war long ago. But what we see is that Russian drones have flown over NATO airspace multiple times, yet NATO countries do not dare to shoot them down.

 

[东风夜放花千树]

Please explain that to me what other reason other then the nato expansion could be the reason.

China has no such plans of world dominance and policing, who has 700 bases in the world who thinks he is the world police. Which country's presidents since world war 2 have committed war crimes , mind you everyone of the presidents

My friend, you have a very clear understanding. The root of all this is NATO's five expansions, which affected Russia's security and forced Russia to start the war.

China does not provide military support to Russia; this is Western propaganda slandering China. China has a large amount of equipment to counter drones, but drones have caused heavy casualties for the Russian military.

To explain using a Chinese diplomat's statement: if China were providing military support to Russia, the battlefield would definitely not look like it does now.

 

[ST1976]

My friends, the conflicts between China and its neighboring countries all involve the use of cold weapons. Imagine what would happen if a country challenged the United States nearby. Venezuela didn't challenge the U.S., yet it was blockaded for 25 weeks, and many people have already lost their lives.

There are U.S. troops stationed in Japan and South Korea, yet neither is a NATO member.

I support Vietnam joining NATO; Vietnam can try to see if NATO dares to accept Vietnam as a member.

If NATO really had the strength, it should have forced Russia to stop the war long ago. But what we see is that Russian drones have flown over NATO airspace multiple times, yet NATO countries do not dare to shoot them down.

I remember the Vietnam as that poor country which was below to Bangladesh in 70s also.
Even the Poland could buy F16s, as newly induced NATO country.
The infrastructure of F16s? A living standard is needed, with "Tax Payers", who may pay for this Air Defense

The Vietnam got foreign investment just as a country with "cheapest" labour cost for the purpose of reduced manufacturing cost. ..... The Vietnam won't be better than its elders of 70s. The true living standard? as compared to low cost manufacturing source for Western MMCs

 

[东风夜放花千树]

I remember the Vietnam as that poor country which was below to Bangladesh in 70s also.
Even the Poland could buy F16s, as newly induced NATO country.
The infrastructure of F16s? A living standard is needed, with "Tax Payers", who may pay for this Air Defense

The Vietnam got foreign investment just as a country with "cheapest" labour cost for the purpose of reduced manufacturing cost. ..... The Vietnam won't be better than its elders of 70s. The true living standard? as compared to low cost manufacturing source for Western MMCs

Vietnam has industrial products, but what does India have? Indian fighter jets? Getting on those planes is like going to your death.

Vietnam fought much better than India in its war with China.

I think India cannot beat the Vietnamese army.

 

[ST1976]

Vietnam has industrial products, but what does India have? Indian fighter jets? Getting on those planes is like going to your death.

Vietnam fought much better than India in its war with China.

I think India cannot beat the Vietnamese army.

Good day gentlemen
We find The India - Phillipines -Malaysia among "Newly Industrialized Countries" , but not Vietnam, and why?

This is the same Vietnam who was below to even "Least Developed Countries" like Bangladesh till 70s-80s? And why?

This is the concept of sifting the "High Energy Consuming" 'parts', only, to China-Vietnam since 80s, with Generating taxes in OECD economies under "Value Added" concepts of West/US since 80s.....

We proud on "home demand" based growth of India-South Asia ,
as compared to export order based growth of other Asian Tigers since even 80s, including the NICs like Seoul-Singapore-Tokyo-Taipe since 60s

We used to discuss in Australia, the US- West used to do "date" of women of Panty-Bro "made in US/UK" and "made of Japan" till 1990? While now we date women in "made of China"

I myself proud on my first "made in Japan" Sony Laptop during my Master of Engineering Management studies/degree from UTS in Sydney 2003-2004. The expansive is better, our learning since my childhood, since the time my father's "made in Japan" time, has now ended with nowadays "made in China's" commonly seen products in Australia
My father was a "Class 1" officer, my first school was of East UP since mid 1980