Posted on 05/29/2015 2:52:39 PM PDT by bob_denard
The special request has been already approved by the Latvian government. Latvian Prime Minister, Laimota Straujuma confirmed the permanent presence of the NATO military force in the country. Generals from Lithuania and Estonia are also reported to request NATO deploy several thousand ground troops in their countries. As Lithuanian military spokesman Captain Mindaugas Neimontas said: "We are seeking a brigade-size unit so that every Baltic nation would have a battalion."
However, the deployment of permanent forces flies in the face of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation which was signed in Paris, France on 27 May 1997.
It declared that "NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries" and that the two parties will work together to prevent any potentially threatening build-up of conventional forces in agreed regions of Europe, to include Central and Eastern Europe.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.pravda.ru ...
LOL, what a fake out piece of propaganda.
Anything about the Budapest Memorandum in the article?
Q: Some NATO members are against the permanent stationing of troops in Eastern Europe, arguing that it would violate the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. Are they right?
Mr. Kornblum: The first important thing is that this is not a treaty. It’s not something legal. An act is an agreement of political commitments people make. It’s not legally binding. The Germans are twisting that around by saying ‘We can’t violate the act.’ But there’s nothing to violate.
Q: If it’s not binding, what was the purpose of the act?
Mr. Kornblum: The NATO Russia Founding Act was a statement by NATO and Russia as to how they were going to regulate relations. It was all done in terms of political commitments. It isn’t written in the terms of a legal commitment. It’s written as a political intention.
Q: In that case, it should be easy to cancel the agreement, correct?
Mr. Kornblum: It says if conditions change, all bets are off. There are all kinds of escape clauses if the other side isn’t sticking to its commitment. Clearly, the Russians have broken virtually all of theirs. There’s no way you can say the conditions are as harmonious as when it signed.
Yeah, sure we have an extra brigade that’s not doing anything.
Hopefully we will always have a Brigade available to prevent WWIII.
We haven’t gone that anti-Reagan and totally lefty, yet.
Russia now has troops in the Ukraine, but it wants us to focus on troops outside it’s borders.
Even Putin probably wouldn’t be stupid enough to buy this propaganda, as stupid as he is.
Putin’s not stupid, but he is certainly betting heavy that WE are. Ever read the New York Times?
My brain is in Riga mortis after this information.
Nah. Not buying it.
He’s an ignoramus.
I'm pretty sure Germany does. NATO doesn't have to mean American.
Posting from “Pravda” ... that’s odd.
I wonder if a wwIII has to come Russia must have two plan one offensive and one defensive
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.