Posted on 12/18/2021 11:43:25 AM PST by Navy Patriot
I don’t disagree.
Putin, enjoy the Senile old man... We won’t let him win again!! Then we will tell you that we will put them wherever we want them to be so F you!
Real Communists stick together when “threatened” by Fabian Socialists. And yes, Virginia, Putin and Xi are both Communists.
All I’m saying is Kennedy would not accept nuclear missiles in Cuba and nearly went to war over it, Putin is not going to accept a similar situation in the Ukraine
Putin's claim that NATO is a threat to Russia is hogwash. It is only a threat to his desire to re-establish the Russian Empire.
I’m of the opinion that the NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization FAR OUTSTRIPS its charter. Bombed Syria, Libya and other Med states. Admitted or in-process-of many former FSU Warsaw Pact Countries as “aspirants” and is toting the water for a supposed EU EDF that should be spending their own money on defense instead of tugging at NATO. Screw them. Let them deal with the Bear...
Indeed.
Nuclear or not, would we tolerate Russian or Chinese Troops based in Mexico ??
Especially if those troops were more than just advisory and extended beyond a company size contingent ??
What about a naval base in Mexico capable of hosting Russian or Chinese Submarines....
Anyone who thinks about the issue could imagine a scenario if Ukraine became part of NATO, NATO would or could moved nuclear capable missile there in no time....
No one may be proposing it now, but we have no idea what might get proposed 5 years from now...
It has been known that the Europeans did not mind “migrants” being murdered on the way, as long as this happens in remote places (South Sudan, particularly)...
Doing this in Europe is new.
And I’m intrigued if the soldier is telling the truth about murders of Polish migrant “helpers”.
Not passing a moral judgement, this may well be within the Polish right to self-defense, but curious.
It seems to me these present a lot of reasons why NATO and Ukraine should increase their defensive postures and why Russia's claims of being "threatened" are nonsense used to justify an already well established pattern of aggression.
And any number of former soviet bloc countries are NATO countries, like Poland, Estonia, etc....
Meanwhile, Russia has watched the USA invade Iraq, Afghanistan, overthrow a government in Libya, and attempt to oust Assad in Syria by funding many of the same people we once we fought against....
My point, I have no love for Russia, but the actions of the USA over the last 20 years have been less than peaceful...
With Iraq we already had military assets providing a no-fly zone, etc.
The biggest difference is that the US hasn't been invading any neighbors to seize territory, which is what Putin is doing.
As far as NATO expansion goes, the alliance was created to stem Russian aggression and the new members were not coerced into joining. I do not see why Russia should have veto over the security choices of states it has brutalized since the Tsars.
If Russia wants "peace and stability" in Europe perhaps it should honor its treaty commitments and stop invading European countries.
We occupied Afghanstan for 20 years, we still have troops in Iraq and Syria...
We were told our goal in Afghanistan was to topple the Taliban Government, we did that with a small team of SF operators, yet we stayed for 20 years and spent trillions...
We were told Iraq had WMD, we spent trillions and are still there...
When the Soviet Union fell we agreed to not expand NATO up their borders of Russia, but we’ve done exactly that...
I’m no fan of Putin, we have been needlessly pushing him into a corner and pushing for a war that would potentially be a complete crap show...
Apart from the example of Crimea, which is a very special case, there are no examples of “Russia expanding its borders”.
The Ukrainian borders including Crimea were recognized by Russia at the time on the promise of Ukrainian neutrality and the lease of the Navy base in Sevastopol, which Russia has operated since the 1780s.
Calls to end the lease of the base and bring NATO into Sevastopol were voiced by the coup government very early in 2013.
It is not fair to consider Russian obligations towards the Ukrainian borders legally binding, while the obligations of the other side as pure technicalities.
Not to mention that Crimea never wanted to be a part of Ukraine to start with. The secession movement dates back to 1991 and the number of Ukrainian loyalists was in single digits.
NATO wasn’t established to stem Russian aggression. It was created against the USSR and had to be dissolved in 1991, yet it has expanded between 1997-2004 to the very Russian border, where Ukraine and Georgia were influenced to be parts of it in 2007.
Would you mind telling me what “Russian aggression” took place between 1991-2007 to justify it?
The seizure of part of Georgia under the pretense of supporting "Ossetian independence" was the trial run for what is going on in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian borders including Crimea were recognized by Russia at the time on the promise of Ukrainian neutrality and the lease of the Navy base in Sevastopol, which Russia has operated since the 1780s.
So Russia violated its internationally recognized treaty obligations.
Calls to end the lease of the base and bring NATO into Sevastopol were voiced by the coup government very early in 2013.
I pay close attention to news from Eastern Europe and don't recall any such statements on the part of the Ukrainian government. Sounds like Russian propaganda.
It is not fair to consider Russian obligations towards the Ukrainian borders legally binding, while the obligations of the other side as pure technicalities.
So exactly what actual violations did Ukraine supposedly make?
Not to mention that Crimea never wanted to be a part of Ukraine to start with. The secession movement dates back to 1991 and the number of Ukrainian loyalists was in single digits.
Irrelevant. And what about the Tartar minority? I hardly think they had any desire for reintegration with Russia.
NATO wasn’t established to stem Russian aggression. It was created against the USSR and had to be dissolved in 1991, yet it has expanded between 1997-2004 to the very Russian border, where Ukraine and Georgia were influenced to be parts of it in 2007.
NATO wasn't dissolved in 1991 because both the Europeans (especially the former Warsaw Pact members) and the US took it to be a bulwark against future Russian revanchism, as it has turned out to be.
Would you mind telling me what “Russian aggression” took place between 1991-2007 to justify it?
The disparity in land military power between Europe and the Soviet Union and then Russia and centuries of Russian aggression strongly suggested (correctly) that dissolution of the alliance would be foolish and everyone knew that the former Warsaw Pact countries would clamor for admission. I would also point out that NATO did not permanently station out of area forces in the former Warsaw Pact states until the invasion of Ukraine.
What you have just written is NATO propaganda.
Here is the comprehensive analysis of the whole situation, although a little-bit Euro-centric, but mostly correct.
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Die-Krim-Separation-von-2014-4297856.html
Claiming that Russia violated the agreement when the other side undermined its entire principle first is intellectually dishonest.
Why should Russia abide when the other side doesn’t? All the agreements are null and void in this case.
Not to mention that no annexation in the military sense took place.
Crimean parliament declared independence from Ukraine, where the majority of the population voted to reunite with Russia.
There was no such vote in Kosovo and yet nobody considers its separation from Serbia illegal.
Tatars are 10,17% of the Crimean population. Why should their opinion be the most important?
Not to mention that they are a group where the support of the Russian administration has grown the most since “annexation”.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/07/09/to-russia-with-love/
That’s because Russia is much more advanced on religious and civil rights compared to Ukraine and no persecution the Ukrainian propagandists threatened the Muslims with took place.
As for “the centuries of Russian aggression in Europe” give me a break. Do you mean the poor victims Napoleon and Hitler or what?
Your idea that Russia is naturally a threat to Europe due to its size and military might is the most laughable.
Do you think they are going to agree to disappear to satisfy your insecurity?
You’re basically engaging in the favorite liberal fallacy of putting the causes and effects upside down.
According to you, the Russian reaction to the threats coming from the alliance established specifically to threaten it is the justification for threatening Russia.
How stupid is this?
When talking about “Russian revanchism” you are ignoring the fact that the Cold War wasn’t finished by the military defeat of either side. To the contrary, Russia acknowledged that her system was wrong and voluntarily moved its forces out of Europe for the promise of peace.
What “revanchism” has NATO countered between 1997-2007 when the NATO enlargement to the very Russian border took place, in spite of verbal promises not to?
To call whatever reaction “revanchist” is more intellectual dishonesty.
The Russian reaction is indeed modest and calm, whereas NATO is hysterical to its own provocations.
Making noise out of the movement of Russian troops within Russian territory is particularly hypocritical, where NATO builds upon the very Russian border.
Take into account that Russia is very well equipped to produce the very same sort of threats and probably more effective, but for some reason chosen not to, holing to see adults in charge in the West in near future.
Russia can easily foment coups in Latin America and influence the regimes on damaging the American interest. They too can educate Latin Americans on the damage the US allegedly inflicted on their societies, as Peace Corps educators have done in Ukraine and Central Asia for three decades. They can do it in the US proper but don’t do it for some reason. I am sure their missiles would be welcomed on Cuba and Venezuela as well.
What is the point of all this hysteria?
It isn't NATO that invaded and annexed territory from its neighbors, Russia has. NATO hasn't moved 100,000 troops to Ukraine's borders, Russia has.
What NATO should do is move 100,000 troops to the edge of the Kaliningrad Oblast.
You, as usual, failed to address any of my points. Who cares where Russia moves troops within the Russian borders? Not to mention that the exercises are taking place in Yelnya, which is not anywhere near the Ukrainian border. Ukraine at the same time is moving troops to the DMZ in Donbas and NATO rides tanks in Estonia 300 ft away from the Russian border? Isn’t it queer?
Russia has proven track record of invading its neighbors and stealing territory, so Russia's moving troops around to its borders is a justifiable source of concern, especially as there is no credible threat of an attack on Russia.
Stop lying.
Why are there 30,000 Polish and UK troops on the Belarusian border? Do you believe they are to counter 700 Kurdish migrants?
Why are there Tomahawks in Poland?
The entire story of the prepared “Russian invasion” appears every 6 months since 2016, the last time in April this year.
This time the hysteria is too hysterical, probably some deflection from something else takes place.
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.