Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Jeffrey Sachs and why he is WRONG" video.

NATO doesn't have to invade - it just gets its minions to do it, same as the bosses of any other protection racket would.
11
@brianferguson7840 Yes, there are recently declassified documents that show U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward. This assurance was given during their meeting on February 9, 1990. These documents are available in the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
7
For which we should be thankful.
6
NATO is just a glorified protection racket. It doesn't need to invade itself, it just sends in its minions to do the job.
3
Sachs is completely right. When Russia emerged reeling from finally shedding the shackles of Communism, instead of greeting it as an ally, the West saw it as prey. Continued US/NATO aggression for more than thirty years has resulted in several serious wars, the latest being the current tragedy in Ukraine. Instead of imagining ourselves to be on the side of truth and justice we should realise we have been pawns in a cynical takeover bid - and one which has finally failed.
3
@killerkally7080 The idea that Ukraine had no army is a complete myth. The US and other NATO countries had poured billions of dollars into creating a new Ukrainian army which was, in fact, stronger than the Russian invasion force.
3
@ The minutes of meeting are pretty clear. I agree that it doesn't amount to much, but then again the Budapest Memorandum which Ukraineophiles wave about so frequently is little more than the minutes of a number of meetings in condensed form. All treaties and agreements tend to become less and less relevant as time goes on, and situations change.
2
@ I agree. These references to past agreements which may or may not have been made, or promises that may or not have been kept, are of little relevance once the tanks are on the road. I think I'm right in saying that all Russian leaders - Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin - made tentative enquiries about joining NATO but were instantly rebuffed. After all, what's the point of having a defensive alliance if there's no-one to defend against?
2
@tsunemi4869 Russia insists that these areas are, in fact, Russian. It is a claim with a certain historical and political validity.
2
What if he had stolen these things himself, and they were simply being taken back by their rightful owners? How does your silly analogy cope with that?
2
@ Try me.
1
@RK-yo6ou Russian companies own most of the mineral resources in Eastern Ukraine, which the EU and the US are trying to take away from them. They have similar historical and economic interests in Georgia and other former Soviet countries. They may not "own" the countries, but Russian companies own a great deal of the resources they contain.
1
@ But they are not "sovereign natural resources" - whatever that means. It was Russian investment and Russian labour which developed the mineral resources of Donbass .Ukrainians only arrived later, to farm previously poor land now enriched by new fertilisers. The area has always been Russian, apart from the past thirty years or so, when it was mistakenly included in the territory of the new country of Ukraine. Ukraine was offered numerous opportunities to rationalise the situation peacefully but - influenced by Western desires to lay hands on these Russian resources - it refused and so laid itself open to the invasion. It is difficult to see what else Russia could have done in the circumstances, other than meekly surrender trillions of dollars to the US and the EU.
1