Posted on 12/21/2022 11:34:55 PM PST by Cathi
Isn’t this interesting?!?
Another Putin deception: look over here despite Ukraine losses, ignore Putin continuing to expand Arctic defenses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yag0tPiXpG0&t=42s
How does what Scott did in his personal life matter with his opinions from his professional expertise? If he is wrong, you can counter him, but how does gripe with his personal life refute the points he is raising?
This is not Biden’s proxy war. This is for (thought corrupt) democracy, sovereignty and preserving national borders of a nation-state (that has never existed geographically other than in context of now defunct USSR and not even recognized by UN). This is to punish Russian aggression and expansionism (never mind the aggressive expansionism of NATO to encircle Russia and belligerence of Ukraine to join it forcing Russia to react with aggression). It is not avoidable and it must be funded to take it to its logical conclusion. We have heard these from proponents and opponents of both sides. It has divided conservatives - in Biden’s politics, its a win-win.
Need more?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/28/patriot-missiles-are-made-in-america-and-fail-everywhere/
If Putin decides to go to war with NATO, it will be over much faster. For him.
Breathtaking asininity in light of the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine.
This of course is then matched by even more idiotic claims about the Patriot missile system, which did shoot down a number of Scuds. At the time it just didn't destroy the warheads which continued to fall. There have been many improvements since. And it won't take months to train the Ukrainians on how to use them, although units will probably need to be cycled through Poland if they need extensive maintenance.
Ritter is simply a shill for Putin, none of whose predictions of Russian victory have yet to pan out.
They are now learning their lesson the hard way.
You can't, because it doesn't exist. And with what was NATO encircling Russia with, a wet noodle? Apart from equipping the eastern Europeans with a modicum of Western weaponry while they continued to use upgraded Soviet era arms, neither NATO nor the US established any permanent new bases in the East.
The notion that NATO was ever going to attack Russia was and always has been nonsense, at least until Russia invaded Ukraine this time.
I served in the 70s, 80s and 90s...
I try to temper my own thoughts regarding Russia, as yes, old Cold Warriors usually have that baggage.
But, I can't stand to see all the phony posturing and lies about this whole war, with all the opinion dressed as news with blog sites and videos that each side promotes.
Looking at this scientifically, as a student of the military arts and history, it is apparent that the Russians are not 10 feet tall like we were all led to believe back in my career.
I think a lot of Cold Warrior reactions were based on this, as we all thought that the Soviets were are biggest rival and the Russians would also remain the same. A lot of "hate" for Russia is just fear.
However, it is plain to see they are having MASSIVE problems executing the war to their expectations. The Russians also have massive demographic issues--not enough babies being born for the past 25-30 years. That equates into manpower and soldiers but if they use human wave type tactics developed from the Soviet days today--they are in trouble. People, not machines and supplies, are their biggest vulnerability.
Again, I ask you to look at the war from a neutral standpoint. The Ukes have not quickly succumbed like we all thought they would.
They may yet, but why is it so they're still fighting? Are they the brink of collapse?
Is Russia winning?
You cannot find REAL answers on these threads because people's opinions are at stake.
My answer to those questions is that Russia will not win, nor will Ukraine. I wish Zelensky would accept a peace that sees the Donbas and Crimea go over to the Russians. You can call it an additional clean up after the Fall of the Soviets. The same thing happened to Eastern Europe between the World Wars and after. Sudetenland, Danzig, the Chekchs versus the Slovaks, all of Yugoslavia, were not "done" just based on the lines drawn in 1919.
Also, I think Russia owes Ukraine a massive $$$ to clean up the damage, but this can be mitigated by simply surcharging renewed gas sales to Europe.
I wish both these things--Ukraine gives up the territory that doesn't want them, and Russia pays for the damage, but those are just wishes on my part. From a purely neutral standpoint, neither is likely to happen. The war will go on without a win for either side. Death, destruction and horrible loses.
It will also be over in 30 minutes after the first launch detection.
“This time, WE might be the bad guys.”
I know some very patriotic people who have started to realize this and it really disturbs them. They aren’t sure what to think anymore.
Check
+1
you repeat the lie about “expanding NATO” — no promise was made
Gorbachev and the documents show ZERO promise not to enlarge
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
What the Germans, Americans, British and French did agree to in 1990 was that there would be no deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former GDR. I was a deputy director on the State Department’s Soviet desk at the time, and that was certainly the point of Secretary James Baker’s discussions with Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze. In 1990, few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought.
The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:
1. Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.
2. There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.
3. Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.
When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech
http://nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm
cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance.
Former Soviet President Gorbachev’s View
We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev,http://rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March, there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. Since March, NATO has increased the presence of its military forces in the Baltic region and Central Europe.
Putin is not stupid, and his aides surely have access to the former Soviet records from the time and understand the history of the commitments made by Western leaders and NATO. But the West’s alleged promise not to enlarge the Alliance will undoubtedly remain a standard element of his anti-NATO spin. That is because it fits so well with the picture that the Russian leader seeks to paint of an aggrieved Russia, taken advantage of by others and increasingly isolated—not due to its own actions, but because of the machinations of a deceitful West.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany
to summarize , it means that Soviet forces would withdraw from East Germany, and that no foreign forces would be stationed there afterwards. In other words, after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, only the German military would be allowed to be stationed in the former East Germany.
NOTE — not in the former East Germany.
Absolutely NOTHING about going to Poland, the Baltics etc.
So stop repeating the lie about “promised to not go one inch further east”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.