0 like 0 dislike
by Hero (15.5k points)
edited by
You are jumping around again.

The Ukrainians declared intent to join a hostile military alliance against Russia in 2008.  Putting it in the Constitution just proves they were totally serious about it.

Also, Donbas & Crimea were limited deals in 2014, hardly conquest and genocide to ethnic Russians

1 Answer

0 like 0 dislike
by Titan (20.6k points)
selected by
 
Best answer

This assertion is pretty misleading. It's true that NATO did welcome "Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO" and agreed "that these countries will become members of NATO" at the 2008 Bucharest Summit. Further, Zelenksy's predecessor Petro Poroshenko later reinforced this commitment when he signed a constitutional amendment pledging to join NATO and the European Union, as reported by the AP.

However, describing NATO as a "hostile military alliance against Russia" represents a subjective interpretation rather than an objective assessment. NATO operates as a defensive alliance, and notably, the organization decided not to offer immediate membership to Georgia and Ukraine at the 2008 summit—demonstrating restraint rather than hostility. In its "Debunking Russian Disinformation on NATO" factsheet, NATO asserts that it "does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia, or any other nation. NATO did not invade Georgia in 2008. Russia did. NATO did not invade Ukraine in 2014, and again in 2022. Russia did."

Additionally, characterizing the 2014 events in Donbas and Crimea as "limited deals" significantly minimizes their scope and impact. According to the Stanford Report, "Russia's illegal seizure of Crimea in 2014 was the biggest land grab in Europe since World War II, and it violated many commitments that Russia had made to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity." Other sources like ABC News and the New York Times have also described Russia's seizure of Crimea as illegal.

Exaggerated/ Misleading

Community Rules


• Be respectful
• Always list your sources and include links so readers can check them for themselves.
• Use primary sources when you can, and only go to credible secondary sources if necessary.
• Try to rely on more than one source, especially for big claims.
• Point out if sources you quote have interests that could affect how accurate their evidence is.
• Watch for bias in sources and let readers know if you find anything that might influence their perspective.
• Show all the important evidence, whether it supports or goes against the claim.
...