Posted on 04/28/2022 9:54:32 AM PDT by Az Joe
"MOSCOW, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Russia said on Tuesday it would insist that Western governments respect a 1999 agreement that no country can strengthen its own security at the expense of others, an issue it argues is at the heart of the Ukraine crisis. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he raised the matter in a conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and that Blinken accepted the need to discuss it further."
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
At its most crude, it means security should be seen as a collective concept so if the actions of one state threaten the security of another, the principle of indivisible security is breached. Therefore no state should strengthen its security at the expense of another.
The principle was first set out in the 1975 Helsinki Act, but also appears in the 1990 Charter for a New Europe and in the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security â all treaties signed by the west and Russia.
Why are the US and Australia concerned with a security pact between China and the Solomon Islands?
So an invasion is now called a standoff?
How, exactly? And I'm asking for a rational response that makes logical sense, not simply someone's subjective view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands_campaign
It's great that our Russian bots know nothing about American culture or history.
It makes outing them so much easier.
I’m a Russian bot, not a US Veteran…you got me.
The Solomon Islands invited the Chinese and signed a security pact.
I’m sure you’ll be treated to a nice colorful map of the Wehrmacht‘s invasion route in 1941. Fought between two states that no longer exist. Oh, and no map of the Soviet invasion map of Poland either.
“The Solomon Islands invited the Chinese and signed a security pact.”
Pretty much. Yep.
The issue is a questionable government in the Solomons that has been leveraging foreign power to itself remain in power.
Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare of the Solomons is correctly defending his country from unwanted and illegal immigration from other countries and when liberal Western countries like Australia balked at the politically incorrect notion of national sovereignty China saw an opportunity.
The Chinese have offered a security pact to preserve the Solomons for the Solomon people (at least for now) and this also gives China a base in the region to threaten longtime adversary Australia.
While I am not supporting China here I am definitely assigning blame to Australia for expecting the Solomons to tolerate a level of illegal immigration and colonization that Australia itself will not tolerate.
Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare is often accused of being corrupt and that may well be. But such accusations these days are often mere propaganda so forgive me if I do not consider these epithets as meaningful for this discussion.
Are you saying that the United States should pay no mind to foreign affairs?
That’s the problem, “threatened” is just like the SJW define “offensive”. There is no objective standard, and anybody can choose to invoke it for anything they don’t like, and hence it’s a useless pact.
I’m saying that Putin saying the Ukraine joining NATO is a threat, is the same as we see China in the Solomon Islands as a threat.
We have stated US military action won’t be ruled out.
We are hypocrites.
Not really. China is a threat. NATO is an excuse.
They are easy to spot. Great for a laugh.
“The Solomon Islands invited the Chinese and signed a security pact.”
Yes. Now, the Solomon’s will be on the losing side of a future war and they will get the consequences of their actions.
So, all of the Warsaw Pact countries invited NATO. Glad to see you’re on board with that. At the conclusion of this war, we should airlift Patriots into Ukrain, an armored division, set up Harpoons to the South and extend NATO invitation to Ukraine. Afterall, they have invited NATO and desire membership.
You’re just a warmongering NeoCon.
Not at all. But you are an Appeasing Putin jackboot licker.
Treaty?
The Russians are talking about a Treaty when it comes to Ukraine?
Like the Treaty they signed to not attack Ukraine when it gave up it’s thermonuclear warheads?
Like the Treaty the Russians signed when they said the territory of Ukraine was autonomous and sovereign?
Russians sound like Progressives here in the US, they only like laws and Treaties that help them in the moment, and ignore everything else and everyone rights.
If you reversed the roles with a purely hypothetical scenario, with perhaps the U.S. & Mexico, you might just answer your own question, using your own rational thoughts.
If Mexico partnered with a committed & admitted Nazi group, for example, to gang up on American ex-pats living in Mexico yet were loyal to the U.S. These ex-pats were being constantly under attack, given formal recognition and acceptance by Mexico to these Nazis, to run rough shod over Americans living in Mexico.
Would you say that the U.S. would be justified in leading an armed invasion force into Mexico to stop the violence being committed upon these ex-pats?
That scenario is exactly what has been occurring in Eastern Ukraine for the past eight years.
I’m having a hard time parsing your patronizing neoconservative bullshit...are you saying WW2 provides legitimate precedent for Western security interest in the Solomon Islands?
Why wouldn’t that logic apply to Russia in Ukraine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper%E2%80%93Carpathian_offensive
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.