PitBackle

How to counter Vatniks. A thread that will expand in the future. NATO expansion to the EAST / Ukrainian NATO membership claims. a. The comparison between Russia and NATO does not hold. Russia is an autocracy/dictatorship, whereas NATO is an alliance of democratic countries that decides unanimously on new membership. Countries themselves choose to join. In former Soviet states, the peace movement even played a leading role, because NATO membership was seen as a guarantee of peace. NATO does not have its own army but relies on the contribution of the member states. (...) NATO can only expand when a potential candidate is accepted with unanimity by the other NATO members. They have fulfilled certain requirements. These include: - functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; - the fair treatment of minority populations; - a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts; - the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; - a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures. There is only one country today that invades its neighbor with military force and thus advances towards NATO/EU members: Russia Every day, the threat to the EU grows. - b. “Not one inch eastward” The alleged promise by James Baker, the U.S. Secretary of State, to Gorbachev has no legal value whatsoever. Oral agreements are not legally binding according to the International Court of Justice (ICJ): legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/sic… Moreover, Gorbachev himself has denied the claim (x.com/olddog100ua/st… ), and Baker acted without a NATO mandate. They were merely exploratory talks that ultimately led to the treaty on German reunification. “The talks were about German reunification, not about NATO enlargement. When German reunification was laid down in the 4+2 Treaty (the two Germanys plus the Allies, including the Soviet Union), NATO was in fact not mentioned at all. Gorbachev had not secured any written guarantee. All that remained was an oral promise made during confidential talks. According to Gorbachev, that promise was not about NATO enlargement but about Germany. In a 2014 interview, he said it had always been about the stationing of NATO troops in the former GDR, nothing more and nothing less.” vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022… 9 February 1990: Promise by Baker. 31 May – 3 June 1990: Bush tells Gorbachev that the United States supports a “Europe whole and free” and cannot accept agreements limiting nations’ rights to choose alliances 1 June 1990: At a joint press event, Bush reiterates the principle of free choice for all European states, with no mention of limiting NATO enlargement. This is a public, on-record signal to the Soviet delegation. = There was no official, recorded, legally binding limit on the number of NATO members who can democratically decide to join. - c. The Budapest Memorandum provided security assurances for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, Included by Russia and including specific commitments by Russia and others not to use force or economic coercion against Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises four substantially identical political agreements signed at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The four memoranda were originally signed by four nuclear powers: Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom.[1] France and China gave individual assurances in separate documents “The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Congress Center with U.S. Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, ‘except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_… - d. The situation in Ukraine did not arise from possible NATO membership but from the refusal to sign a trade agreement with the European Union: on 21 November 2013, protests broke out in response to President Viktor Yanukovych’s sudden decision not to sign the political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), while in February of that year the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) had approved the EU deal by an overwhelming majority. Instead, Yanukovych leaned towards closer ties with Russia, which pressured Ukraine to reject the EU deal and to join the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). The president acted against the will of the people, even though he had previously fully committed himself to securing a trade agreement with the EU. Ukraine had never initiated an application for NATO membership. Only after the start of the war, in 2022, did Ukraine begin this process. --- Some examples of Russian hypocrisy or its willingness to unlawfully control other sovereign democratic neighboring countries, in a timeline: 1994: Signature on 21 October 1994 of the Agreement between the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation on the withdrawal of the Russian Fourteenth Army out of Moldova. osce.org/sites/default/… 1999: We welcome the commitment by the Russian Federation to complete withdrawal of the Russian forces from the territory of Moldova by the end of 2002. osce.org/sites/default/… In 2025, Russian military forces are still present in Moldova, so what value do Russian commitments have? 1999: Putin says he doesn’t want to take Crimea and that such an idea is “absolutely stupid” x.com/nexta_tv/statu… 2002: Putin said he had no problem with Ukraine joining NATO—because, in his own words, Ukraine is a sovereign nation and can decide for its own. x.com/United24media/… Only after the Orange Revolution, when a pro-Western leader was elected, did Russia change its position regarding Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. 2004: The Orange Revolution was a series of mass protests and acts of civil resistance in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005, triggered by widespread reports of corruption and electoral fraud in the presidential run-off between Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych. Centered in Kyiv but supported nationwide, the movement forced Ukraine’s Supreme Court to annul the original results and order a new vote on 26 December 2004, which was judged free and fair and resulted in a clear victory for Yushchenko with about 52% of the vote against Yanukovych’s 44%. Yushchenko was declared the official winner and with his inauguration on 23 January 2005 in Kyiv, the Orange Revolution ended. Shortly after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, which brought the pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko to power, Russia abruptly halted gas supplies to the country. The The conflict started in March 2005 and ended in January 2006. The Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko has announced, following the conflict over Russian gas supplies, an independent nuclear programme with the production of nuclear fuel. To reduce dependence on Russian energy supplies, Ukraine must expand its own gas production and reconsider its current coal policy. In the dispute over the drastically increased purchase price of Russian gas for Ukraine, the Kremlin temporarily suspended at the beginning of the year (1 January 2006) all gas supplies destined for neighbouring countries. oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-conte… nieuwsblad.be/buitenland/joe… Russia disliked the election results and initiated economic revenge. Its vision of Ukraine joining NATO also changed: Russia suddenly realized it was starting to lose its influence over Ukraine and could not let this happen. 10 FEB 2007: Munich Conference. Attended by Putin. The main topics of his speech were criticism of the unipolar world order and of the role of the OSCE, NATO's eastward expansion, disarmament and the Iranian nuclear program. President Vladimir Putin's speech was seen as Russia's message to the West that it would not accept a subordinate role in international affairs. "First, the relationship between Russia and NATO must be clarified and further developed before Ukraine can join NATO, and not the other way around. Otherwise, NATO will be an enemy to Russia” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Muni… 02-04 APR 2008 Bucharest NATO summit Russian President Vladimir Putin was invited to the summit, and he arrived on the second day (3 April) to participate in bilateral NATO–Russia talks. He opposed the US plans to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, which was discussed at the summit. Russia also opposed Georgia and Ukraine's NATO membership bids. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Buch… Russia has no say over other sovereign, democratic countries. They may dislike it, but that's their problem. And about the missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic: One country has recently placed nukes (!) closer to the other: Russia. In 2023 in Belarus. Where was the outrage about that? European Countries next to countries with Russian Nukes: 7 (8 if you include Sweden bordering Kaliningrad by Sea) Russia next to European Countries with nukes: 0 And Russia want to have a say in the missile defense capability of European nations? Why should we allow this? Kaliningrad -in between European countries- has nukes. Belarus has nukes since 2023. Why is this not a threat to us? Where is our aggressive outrage? Russia is the aggressor, but its information manipulation makes it sound otherwise. Russia took all the aggressive steps over the last decade. 8 August 2008: Russian-Georgian war. The Russian pretext started before, with Separatists... and infiltrating Russian soldiers... (Sounds familiar?) "On 1 August 2008, the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces started shelling Georgian villages, with a sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the area. Intensifying artillery attacks by the South Ossetian separatists broke a 1992 ceasefire agreement. To put an end to these attacks, Georgian army units were sent into the South Ossetian conflict zone on 7 August and took control of most of Tskhinvali, a separatist stronghold, within hours. Some Russian troops had illicitly crossed the Georgia–Russia border through the Roki Tunnel and advanced into the South Ossetian conflict zone by 7 August before the Georgian military response. Russia falsely accused Georgia of committing "genocide" and "aggression against South Ossetia"—and launched a full-scale land, air and sea invasion of Georgia, including its undisputed territory." 2008: Putin: “Crimea is not disputed. The problems with the population (Tartars, Slavic Russians, etc) is a problem for Ukraine itself.” x.com/adnashmyash/st… x.com/PitBackle/stat… 2013: Putin: “We will not send in troops (in Crimea)” x.com/adnashmyash/st… x.com/PitBackle/stat… 2014: Putin: "The troops in Crimea are not 'Russian'"(soldiers) x.com/PitBackle/stat… 2014: Armed men (Back then ’separatists’ but know we know these were Russian soldiers) seized Simferopol’s Parliament building in Ukraine’s Crimea region. nytimes.com/video/world/eu… 2014: The Crimean status referendum was a Russia-manipulated total scam: there was no choice. a) The official result from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a 97 percent vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation, with an 83 percent voter turnout, and from Sevastopol there was also a 97 percent vote for integration with Russia, with an 89 percent voter turnout. In earlier opinion polls from 2009 and 2010, support for joining Russia ranged between 50% and 65%, depending on the exact wording of the question, and moreover, the Crimean Tatars were predominantly opposed to joining. A result of 97% is therefore simply not credible. b) The March 16 referendum's available choices did not include keeping the status quo of Crimea and Sevastopol as they were at the moment the referendum was held. The choices were only “rejoin Russia as a federal subject” or “restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine”. Both provided referendum choices would result in de facto separation from Ukraine, so the referendum choices were only “Against Ukraine” c) Before, during and after the referendum was proclaimed, the Crimean peninsula saw Russian soldiers take over public buildings and Ukrainian military installations. Finally, armed Russian military personnel – at the time still officially referred to as “separatists” – were present at the polling stations, which from the very beginning seriously undermined the free exercise of the right to vote. - 2014: Igor Girkin, an important Russian figure among the separatists in Donbas, working for the FSB, himself states that people were forced to vote for annexation at gunpoint. x.com/cossackgundi/s… 2014: Putin: "After the annexation of Crimea, Russia does not plan to further divide Ukraine." x.com/adnashmyash/st… 2014: Putin: "Our soldiers were in Crimea." x.com/PitBackle/stat… In short: 2008: “Crimea is not disputed” 2013: “We will not send troops to Crimea” Early 2014: “The troops are not Russian.” Later 2014: “The troops were Russian.” (Next will be Part 2: The Minsk agreements and the start of the massive illegal invasion in 2022.)

I did say these things about Ukraine and Zelensky and I am not deleting my posts because I’ve realized, I was wrong. I was living in a media echo chamber and I was propagandized by Russian media on social media to believe those things. So I came to Ukraine to see the country for myself. I am going to try to find evidence for the propaganda I’ve been fed, and if I don’t find it, I will let everyone know so they too can come to see the light. On day one, I’ve already seen photos of dead priests in Bucha murdered by Russia and I saw the mass grave where the bodies of murdered Christians were placed after Russia sent forces from Chechnya to massacre innocent people. I spoke with officials who rescue POWs and they showed me photos of Ukrainian POWs who had swastikas engraved into their forehead by Russians. Who are the Nazis? 🤔 I was lied to for years. I realized Ukraine and @ZelenskyyUa aren’t the jihadi apologists… but Russia and Putin are! I was wrong! I have a responsibility to correct the record. Russia is very good at information warfare.

@Stoonbrace onder andere... idd.

@PitBackle Bartje die maandenlang om bEwIjs vroeg 😅

Ook Vatniks ontkenden dit met klem.

Laura Loomer: "I just arrived in Ukraine, it took forever to get here thanks to Russian terrorists who destroyed the airspace, and after 30 hours of travel, I now look forward to showing millions of Trump supporters and Americans how brutal Russia is and why the United States is next if we don’t wake up to the cancer of multipolarity."

@DjozzieD79421 @KurtVanBraband dat was voor bekend was dat die separatisten Russische militairen waren... snul.

@KurtVanBraband @PitBackle Dit zal gewoon verder gaan.

Een nieuw dieptepunt is bereikt. Iemand die er trots op is dat we ons snel overgaven aan de nazi's in WOII... "Alles voor slachtoffers te vermijden" zelfs als je daarvoor onder een dictatuur moet leven... is een populair pro-Russisch narratief. Dat de makkelijkste manier is dat Rusland zich terugtrekt, dat gaat er niet in. Deze mensen zijn een even grote dreiging voor onze normen en waarden als bvb moslimextremisten. Extreem rechtse schaapjes.

@DjozzieD79421 @KurtVanBraband Rusland kan hem elk moment stoppen. 🤷‍♂️ Zolang Rusland niet stopt moeten er zoveel mogelijk Russen sneuvelen. Zij zijn de agressor.

@KurtVanBraband @PitBackle Deze mens geniet van een oorlog die vele levens eist aan beide kanten, ik wil hem daarvan bewust maken dat elk leven een kostbaar leven is, ook als het het zijne niet is. Een oorlog die gevoerd wordt om wanbeleid te maskeren en een graai naar grondstoffen en macht.

Voor wie denkt dat DD geopolitics een betrouwbare bron is... DD staat voor....

@Balladin Neen. Zwaar geïnformeerd.

@PitBackle Ge zijt zwaar toegetakeld

Dat mensen nog steeds het narratief gebruiken van "Ja maar NAVO uitbereiding..." is echt geschift. Rusland, een dictatuur, heeft niet te bepalen wat andere democratische landen moeten doen. En daar stopt het eigenlijk al. Er is maar één land dat kernwapens dichter bij zijn mogelijke tegenstander heeft geplaatst in de laatste jaren: RUSLAND (In Wit-Rusland) Er is maar één land dat met militaire macht opschuift naar zijn potentiële tegenstanders: RUSLAND Er is maar één land waarvan de officiële communicatie constant leugens bevat: Ze gingen niet binnenvallen, ze waren niet aanwezig in de Donbass, Ze hebben geen BUK's, ze hebben al 100 HIMARS uitgeschakeld, etc. Leugens dag in dag uit. RUSLAND. Dit zijn allemaal feiten. Maar niet volgens Vatniks. Vatniks leven in hun eigen droomwereld. Collaborateurs van de toekomst. Leven in vrede onder een dictator.

@DD_Geopolitics @LauraLoomer DD Geopolitics, this you? A traitor and a lying engagement farmer. You know what the sanction is for Treason in the US? Good luck.

@LauraLoomer Это потому, что ты злобная стерва, и тебе в России не рады.

Я не в России, потому что я не пропагандист.

Hahahaha fucking looser. Solovyev zou eens naar het front gestuurd moeten worden.

Russian propagandist Solovyev says Russia should get ready for strikes on Russia's energy infrastructure and suggested that Russians from Kursk and Bryansk region are relocate to the Far East. All signs of the "special military operation" going exactly according to plan.

O comentarista suíço David Lemos, encerrou a transmissão resumindo com precisão os problemas desta Copa do Mundo, ele foi perfeito. 🗣️"Não há dúvidas de que esta foi a Copa do Mundo mais comercial da história e também uma das mais politizadas." "Não esqueceremos os preços que pessoas sem grande poder aquisitivo tiveram de pagar para viver sua paixão pelo futebol." "Em alguns casos, sequer puderam entrar no país por causa de sua nacionalidade, fossem torcedores, jornalistas ou até árbitros, como o somali Omar Artan." "Também lembramos do tratamento inaceitável dado à seleção do Irã, que não pôde defender suas chances de forma adequada durante o torneio." "E há ainda o caso de Folarin Balogun. Vimos um presidente se vangloriar de ter ligado para o presidente da FIFA para conseguir retirar a suspensão de um jogador." "A política se infiltrou no coração do futebol, embora a FIFA afirme querer mantê-la acima de tudo. Fica claro que isso só vale até certo ponto." "Foi uma Copa do Mundo em que todas as partidas foram disputadas em quatro tempos, e cuja final teve um intervalo de quase 30 minutos." "A crise tem dois nomes: dinheiro e poder. Hoje existe uma crise de confiança entre muitos dos envolvidos no futebol e a FIFA." "Nas próximas semanas, muito dinheiro será distribuído a diversas federações e a muitos agentes do futebol, que serão educadamente convidados a permanecer em silêncio." "Esperamos que tudo isso seja levado em consideração e que não volte a acontecer."

@DjozzieD79421 @KurtVanBraband Want u kent de waarheid? 🤣

@KurtVanBraband @PitBackle Ik ben niet voor Rusland en niet voor Oekraïne, ik ben teleurgesteld in Theo omdat hij jullie de waarheid niet zegt en hij als het echt gevaarlijk wordt veilig alles leidt vanuit het buitenland met zijn familie en wij hun conflict uitvechten.

Worth remembering that the Kremlin spent months calling reports of North Korean troops ‘fake news’ and a ‘Western fabrication’.

*Gecheckt: Francken bezorgde een filmpje aan Het Laatste Nieuws over drones, dat later een helikopter bleek. Het leverde hem forse miserie op. Maar iedereen bevestigde toen wel dat het drones waren.* “Francken, het ongeleid projectiel uit Lubbeek, heeft vrij spel gekregen over 11 miljard euro defensiebudget.” En nog meer: “Hij verspreidde fake news en zaaide paniek, om een bevriend bedrijf te bevoordelen.” Het waren bijzonder straffe woorden van Kamerlid Staf Aerts (Groen), in april dit jaar, na de uitzending van een Pano-reportage, die suggereerde dat minister van Defensie Theo Francken de boel belazerd en gemanipuleerd zou hebben. Om snel ‘zijn’ anti-droneaankopen van 50 miljoen euro door de kern te krijgen, zou er een verhaal van drones op Zaventem zijn ‘opgeklopt’, zo suggereerde ook het onderzoeksprogramma Pano. Omdat Aerts bleef aandringen, en de wet van openbaarheid van bestuur inriep, moest het kabinet van Defensie nu alle documenten rond heel het incident lossen. Die pleiten Francken nu wel vrij van de forse beschuldigingen. Alles draait immers rond een reeks van waarnemingen op 4 november, op de luchthaven van Zaventem. Die kwam er nadat eerder al boven verschillende militaire domeinen in België drones gespot waren, en minister Francken effectief op 2 november al aankondigde “nu zo snel mogelijk” die aankoop van anti-dronemateriaal te willen doen. Op die bewuste 4 november was er echter sprake van een grotere impact: het luchtverkeer op de nationale luchthaven werd twee keer stilgelegd, 50 vluchten werden geannuleerd, 48 werden er omgeleid. Op de website van HLN verscheen ook een filmpje, dat een drone voorstelde. Rond dat filmpje kwam achteraf bakken miserie, voor Francken, die het bezorgde aan de krant. Het was achteraf immers dé reden voor de oppositie en ook Pano om te stellen dat het dossier “kunstmatig opgeklopt was, om vervolgens snel een aankoop te kunnen plaatsen”. Wat blijkt: er waren wel degelijk drones op Zaventem, maar ook een video met heli. Pas op 12 november werd dat op het kabinet besproken. Het was om 23 uur die dag dat het kabinet via WhatsApp een video van Skeyes, de luchtverkeersleiding op Zaventem, binnenkreeg. Daarin een groot vliegend voorwerp dat oplichtte in het donker, en waarvan men meldde dat het een grote drone was. Het kabinet van Defensie vraagt expliciet of ze “zeker zijn dat het niet de ‘Dafa Heli’ is?”, de helikopter van de federale politie. Die is immers uitgestuurd om te gaan kijken of zij iets konden zien, nadat er meldingen waren binnengelopen. “Was zeker niet de Dafa Heli”, zegt Skeyes bevestigend. Diezelfde nacht krijgt het kabinet een mail van de Joint Staff Director van Defensie zelf: die deelt de bevindingen mee van Readiness & Operations, over wat gebeurde op Zaventem de dag voordien. Hun inschatting: ze hebben het over een drone, “type quadcopter, propeller 14-15 inch”, zo is te lezen. Defensie ziet het als een gestuurde missie, een “overt ‘show the flag’-operation”. Een openlijk machtsvertoon dus, van een actor die wil laten zien wat ze kunnen, zo is de inschatting. De federale politie heeft de volgende ochtend om 7.45 uur telefonisch contact met het kabinet, en bevestigt: “Het ging niet om onze helikopter.” Op 6 november, twee dagen na de heisa op Zaventem, wordt het dossier van de aankoop van de anti-drones goedgekeurd op de kern. Op dat moment heeft geen van de betrokken diensten al informatie doorgespeeld aan het kabinet om te twijfelen aan de beelden van de drones. Een ‘hetze’ was het ook niet: uit de documenten die nu geopenbaard zijn, blijkt andermaal dat er wel degelijk drones waren boven Zaventem die bewuste 4 november. De militaire veiligheidsdienst ADIV bevestigt dat, maar tegelijk is er nooit een fysiek persoon gepakt die de drones liet vertrekken of terug binnenhaalde. 1/2

Boem.

Say hello to the 64 Russian soldiers that “liberated” five Ukrainian villages west of Hulyaypole in Zaporizhzhia region. At least the 64 survivors of the Russian general staff PR strategy to “capture” more Ukrainian land with flags …

The latest EU sanctions package also targets Alexei Khavetsky, head of security at Penal Colony No. 7 in Pakino, Russia.    Ukrainian POWs under his authority were subjected to electric shocks, deliberate starvation, sexual violence and humiliation.    Such atrocities cannot be met with silence.

@Jaco04068751 Ja ik ben akkoord op juridisch niveau. Maar het is niet omdat het niet bewezen kan worden dat het niet zo is. 🤷‍♂️ En belangrijk: het waren dus niet de Oekraïners of iets anders, waarover het ging in het begin van deze post.

@PitBackle 2/2 Als dat laatste wél bewezen was, waren ook de verantwoordelijke bevelhebbers of de Russische leiding vervolgd. Dat is niet gebeurd omdat daarvoor onvoldoende wettig en overtuigend bewijs was.

Vatniks en Nederlandse Wappies: "MH17 is niet neergeschoten door de Russen, het is neergeschoten door de Oekraïners." Niet alleen hebben de separatisten in de dagen voordien Oekraïnse vliegtuigen neergehaald...(wat een vergissing dus logisch maakt) zowel de "separatisten" (tussen haakjes want Girkin was werkzaam voor de FSB = Rusland) als de Russische TV hebben het neerhalen triomfantelijk aangekondigd... voor ze wisten dat het een passagiersvliegtuig was. En dan hebben we het nog niet over de gebruikte BUK die meermaals gefilmd is mét en zonder 1 raket. (...) Vatniks zijn domme mensen die totaal blind zijn voor feiten en hun eigen waarheid willen geloven, of het nu waar is of niet.

Ukrainian 225th Assault Regiment has 64 prisoners captured during a sweep of infiltrators from Ternuvate, Kosivtseve, Rizdvyanka, Verkhnyaya Tersa and Vozdvizhivka.