"Oh ____, Putin WARNS of direct clash with U.S., NATO readies forces

Clayton Morris: Washington's Dangerous Policies Have Put U.S. and Russia on the Brink of Direct Clash - Diplomat. All out war and it sounds from the United States side that they are ramping up this rhetoric instead of trying to tamp it down. What do you make out of these words coming out of Moscow over the past 24 hrs.

Scott Ritter: Well, I mean we have to understand where the United States is coming from first. We're losing in Ukraine. We have double downed; we've taken the mortgage, the kid's college fund and everything and we have placed it on a losing bet. We are going to lose. Ukraine will be defeated and decisively. NATO will be humiliated and the United States will be left holding the broken pieces. This is a reality. Now what does America do for that. There is going to be a lot of rhetoric, of course designed to shape a narrative. A hope that somehow Russia can be persuaded to seek a diplomatic solution...an offramp to this conflict. And so, rather than moderating their approach, rather than adopting the language of compromise, the United States is being aggressive.

The most recent aggressive move is the decision to provide Ukraine with Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries. But, when you think about it the first Patriot isn't going to show up on the battle field for months. This was is going to be over by then. It's a meaningless gesture and the United States knows it is a meaningless gesture. You'd have to train up an extraordinarily large number of Ukrainian forces....each battery takes 90 men...on the complexities of a system that doesn't work. Let's just be clear about the Patriot system...it doesn't work. It didn't work in the Gulf War. It didn't shoot down any of Iraq's scuds. It shot down more ally aircraft during Operation Iraqi Freedom than Iraqi missiles and was unable to protect Saudi Arabia's Aramco oil fields from the Huti drone attacks a couple years ago. This system has an abysmal combat record. Even if it did work it could not be incorporated into the Ukrainian Air Defense Network which is a Soviet era network right now being sort of patchworked with Western systems that are incompatible. There is no unified command and control, etc.

So the Patriot will go in. It won't work. It will be destroyed. Ukrainians will die. This is the outcome. But, from the Russian perspective this is just one more example of the United States upping the ante. And the Russian point of view is...to what end? Why does the United States keep doubling down on stupid? Doubling down on failure? At some point in time if you keep doing this the trajectory leads to the inevitability of a conflict...a military contact between Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO. So I think Russia is doing it's due diligence by calling the Americans out on this. By saying "This is a very dangerous direction you are heading on. You might want to think twice about continuing down this path."

I think that's it. Too many old Cold Warriors, (and I served in the Navy in the 80s), have been led to believe that Russia is just the Soviet Union 2.0.

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.

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.

Here is the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany

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.