• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and “signing a treaty” does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don’t count because they were never allies.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                a fairly significant sign they are an ally.

                And the US funding and training the other groups was “a fairly significant sign that they were allies,” but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then “fairly significant signs” are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren’t allied. You don’t have to read into the signs, it’s an objective fact.

                “Security guarantees” aren’t alliances. Or if they are, then we’re using the term informally, and it’s therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people.

                Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don’t get to have it both ways.

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            3 months ago

            The CIA using the ISI to transport some weapons and train soldiers isn’t “this ISI did everything therefore the Mujahedin weren’t supported by the US”, it’s “the ISI were a tool of the CIA”, the operation was run out of Washington. It had US media providing glowing coverage of the Mujahedin as they committed war crimes.

              • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                3 months ago

                I don’t know why you are being so obtuse. Aparantly, you can only be called an ally of america if you are being paraded around Washington or something.

                Americans providing weapons and training doesn’t count, because the structure for providing this isn’t to your standards.

              • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                The Mujaheddin did need help, they needed weapons, bombs, intelligence, diplomatic support, booby traps specifically procured by the CIA. The US provided it.

                And then back home, they used their contacts in the media to make sure everyone knew that the Mujaheddin were the good guys worthy of America’s support, even if they were not officially receiving it. Americans, Mujaheddin, and Soviets all understood the US supported the Mujaheddin, even if there was a layer of plausible deniability. It’s why the Soviets asked the US to stop the attacks on Soviet soldiers during the pullout and not Pakistan.

                The american people were told to see the Mujaheddin as their ally, and the Mujaheddin understood it was the US supporting them.