Posted on 02/12/2022 5:20:58 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Russia has accused both the US government and Western media outlets of stoking military tensions and rebuked claims that it plans to attack Ukraine early next week.
“Hysteria at the White House is revealing more than ever. The Anglo-Saxons need war. At any cost. Provocations, disinformation and threats are [their] favorite method of solving their own problems,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Friday evening.
“The whole world is watching how militarism and imperial ambitions are exposing themselves,” Zakharova said, adding that “the propaganda brigade led by Bloomberg” is complicit in the ongoing escalation. Media outlets name another ‘Russian invasion’ date Read more Media outlets name another ‘Russian invasion’ date
The statement came after the New York-based news agency quoted US sources as saying that Moscow could invade Ukraine as soon as Tuesday. Last week, Bloomberg accidentally published and then retracted a headline reading: “Russian invades Ukraine.”
Politico and Der Spiegel published similar stories that quoted US officials as warning their European allies about a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 16. This coincided with a speech by White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who told reporters Moscow could launch missiles and airstrikes into Ukraine before invading it with ground troops.
Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s ambassador to the US, dismissed Sullivan’s words as part of a “propaganda campaign.” He reiterated that Moscow has no plans to attack anyone.
(Excerpt) Read more at endtimeheadlines.org ...
This is a fabrication from the Russian side. No promises have ever been made to the Russians about NATO expansion. This is even supported by Gorby himself who was allegedly the one who received the promise!:
RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”
M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
Rule 1 of how to deal with claims by the Russians: Assume they're lying because their mouth is moving.
NATO should have been disbanded in 1993.
Why?
All it does is ensure Europe’s defense is underwritten by the US taxpayer and it’s primary purpose died with the end of the USSR.
The Russians, Chinese, North Korea, Iran, etc., have made it clear they are our mortal enemies. Russia and China have more nukes than all of NATO combined. There are Chinese generals who have given speeches about killing every single American with bioweapons. There are Russian KGB defectors who state that the Russians and Chinese actively have war plans against us that involve killing every single one of us, with the Russians taking Alaska and China being given the lower 48.
Why would you want to dismantle NATO under these conditions? Wouldn't it be better to force Europe to pay their fair share rather than to dismantle NATO and permit the Russians and Chinese to quite literally pick off our allies one by one?
“Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context.”
Uh, just force deployment was discussed?
Nobody discussed “NATO Expansion”, because as Condi Rice said...nobody thought it possible. But deployment of NATO military assets was definitely discussed and agreed would not occur.
Those discussions were limited to East Germany. And in any case, the Russians have violated every single arms agreement they have signed since the 1990s and now hare more nukes than the US, UK and France combined. Why is Russia free to ramp up their armaments by "cheating us shamelessly," even putting short range nukes that can annihilate all of Europe, but Romania can't have an almost irrelevant NATO presence that wouldn't actually defend them from a Russian strike nor pose any threat to Russia?
Let Europe defend themselves. They need to grow up. We have our own borer problems.
Note that you do not answer my question and also don't seem to have any clue of what it means for the USA to be isolated without any help or presence in Europe. Essentially you are denying that any threat exists and that it is just a "European" problem. This position is even more retarded than what the Pacifists and Pro-Communists say who have long wanted NATO to be destroyed.
What is your GD question? NATO is a waste of our money. We DEFENED them and not the other way around. You have little understanding of the how the world works.
I asked you why NATO should be dismantled when there is still an axis of evil in the form of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc., that is a mortal threat to the United States.
Your reply is that it is a "European problem." Not that NATO should be reformed so that it should better serve our national interests.
You see this is what I mean, sorry but your question is stupid. Why? NATO is irrelevant in defending against China, North Korea, Iran. Moreover it is possibly a hindrance.
I didn't say China, North Korea and Iran, Putinist. I said Russian, China, North Korea and Iran. They are all allies.
How is NATO irrelevant to defending us from these countries?
Have you EVER read the NATO Charter? I don't think so.
The second best thing after completely disbanding NATO would be for the USA to withdrawal from NATO. This action BTW does not make those NATO counties our enemies. All it does is separate Western EU from burdening US taxpayers. It simply means we will no longer have a standing presence in Europe. Let Europe take care of Europe.
Why would those countries be obligated to retaliate with nuclear missiles if the USA is a victim of a nuclear first strike? How do we retaliate at all with our air and ground power if we have no "standing presence" in Europe? And why do you keep not answering my question but just making retarded assertions?
Dude, we have enough nukes to turn the world into ceramic. All NATO does is let Europe stay in the hammock and tariff our exports to them at the same time!!! F that. Why is the USA required to retaliate with air and ground power in a European conflict? LOL! What a rube.
USA clean your own house, clean up your elections, close your borders.
What do you know about our nuclear forces, poser? Russia has more nukes than the US, France, and the UK combined. After breaking every arms agreement they have ever signed, they have the most advanced nuclear forces in the world. China, officially, has very few nukes, but unofficially likely has thousands beneath the "underground wall". Meanwhile, most of our nuclear weapons are degrading and close to their expiration dates with no plans to replace them with anything that comes close to what the Russians have.
A nuclear first strike on the United States could cripple our ability to respond, and we may not even have the arms to respond even if we could.
a European conflict
If the United States is getting hit by nuclear weapons, it is a USA conflict. And if Russia dismantles Europe and NATO, we have no way to extend force into Europe to fight the Russians. Nor would we benefit from the missile defenses, weapons and military power of the UK, France and other allies.
Nuclear weapons are bluff weapons and a relic of the old Cold War. Grow up. End NATO now.
Bluff weapons? You are a true clown. Piss off, Putinist.
Wait, you didn't call me a racist first? LOL!!!
You can support Biden's Wag-The-Dog war, I am not.
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.