The Ukraine war won’t end until NATO withdraws troops from the Baltics, a top Russian official has warned.

Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister responsible for U.S. relations, nonproliferation and arms control, made the remarks in an interview with state-run news agency Tass.

Ryabkov’s comments mark a shift in the Kremlin’s position. He suggested that the conflict’s roots lie not only in Ukraine itself but in NATO’s eastward expansion. According to Ryabkov, the withdrawal of NATO forces from the Baltics would help bring an end to the war.

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    Ah yes “NATO pls if you’ll just surrender and go away, we pinky-promise not be bad anymore”

    With Operation Spider’s Web, (and Russia trying to launch massive counterattacks against civilian populations and still only managing to kill only two people) is showing that Russia might not have as strong of a position as they think they do.

  • mercano@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 days ago

    Russia doesn’t get to dictate who other sovereign nations choose to associate with.

  • wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 days ago

    NATO can’t pull out of the baltics. NATO isn’t in the baltics. The baltics are NATO.

    “Moscow should pull out of Russia” is a equally nonsensical statement.

  • matlag@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    The only good answer to that:

    “No, that won’t happen. So I guess we’re in this for another year. Here’s the list of wapons that we will deliver to Ukraine, as well as spare parts and ammo that go with them. And here’s the list of new sanctions we’ll apply against Russia. See you next year, except if you have a change of heart”.

    But that’s not going to happen…

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The Baltics are part of NATO because they didn’t want to be part of the failed Soviet Union or the modern Russian Federation. And with Russia invading Ukraine, twice now, it isn’t very hard to see why.

    Get fucked Russia.

    • GhostArmorX@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      The Baltics weren’t voluntarily part of Soviet Union. They were occupied. So after they regained independence, obviously they joined NATO to get security from Russia occupying again.

  • TryingSomethingNew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    3 days ago

    NATO should say they promise not to once Russia hands over its nuclear weapons. You know, like Ukraine did. Use the exact same paperwork that Ukraine signed in 1994 (NPT), with the word Ukraine taped over so it’s super obvious.

    • Lembot_0003@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      3 days ago

      Who said “instead”? Putin wants all. And NATO has serious problems with articulating “No”.

      • furry toaster@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        unlike ukraine the baltics are in the EU, they have choosen to, taking this to the baltics is escalating it further, NATO cant withdraw from baltics, the baltics are part of EU thus NATO

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          3 days ago

          NATO has nothing to do with being in the European Union, not every E.U. country is in NATO and vice versa. NATO is an alliance, which you must apply for, separately from the E.U.

          • SMillerNL@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Given the EU has a mutual defence agreement that I understood to be stronger than NATOs. An attack on the Baltic states would be an attack on NATO. Even if they were not in it.

            • warm@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yes, it’s the Treaty of Lisbon. The difference is still important to make, not only for educational purposes, but because it does affect which countries would be required to aid depending on who is attacked. Not to mention USA/Canada who are very much a part of NATO and not the E.U.