Putin points to NATO threat in new security strategy
Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: CNN
(CNN)Russian President Vladimir Putin has endorsed a new security strategy, which points to NATO expansion as a threat to the country.
The document outlines the national interests and strategic priorities of the nation. Putin signed the executive order Thursday, establishing a new posture toward the NATO bloc, which has seen its relationship with Russia deteriorate since the crisis in Ukraine, which began in 2014.
Russian news agency Tass quotes the strategy, which cites a NATO military buildup, and "the alliance's approach to Russia's borders," as a threat to Russia's national security. The document says the organization is illegally extending its reach.
"The buildup of the military potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and vesting it with global functions implemented in violations of norms of international law, boosting military activity of the bloc's countries, further expansion of the alliance, the approach of its military infrastructure to Russian borders create a threat to the national security," it says.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/01/world/putin-nato-security-strategy/index.html
Ugh. If anything is a threat to Russia, it's Putin himself.
EDIT: He's not a treat to Russia.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)Breaking a promise we made.
Igel
(35,197 posts)Or discussed formally.
It was a possible concession that was mentioned in impromptu discussions. It wasn't a topic for serious discussion and wasn't part of any agreement.
This is Gorbachev's account.
All the talk of "promise" comes from people not present when it was supposed to have been made, based on Gorbachev's account and hearsay. It was rumored enough that it's all but achieved fabled treaty status in the Russian media, thrice ratified by the US Senate and blessed by two Popes and the Grand Mufti and by Stalin's ghost himself, and cited as gospel by those for whom the West can do few things right but who fail to understand why any part of a former empire twice enslaved, for centuries the first time and for decades the second would fear a resurgence and third annexation by the same country. (Of course, these are often those who understand why a country in Latin America, after the extensive annexation and subjugation at the hands of the US harbor animosity.)
LS_Editor
(893 posts)Igel
(35,197 posts)He also thinks that independence in Russia's sphere of influence is bad.
Think Monroe doctrine but with permanent US bases and veto power over the governments. For the last 220 years. MakesUS imperialism in the area seem slight.
LS_Editor
(893 posts)His direct intervention in Syria was a bad move, which the right-wing lunatics have convinced me even more with their support of his "tough" actions.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)Goddamn autocorrect.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Putin's statement isn't really anything new and is probably more for domestic consumption then some major change in foreign policy.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)Is there any basis for Russia's paranoia?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Just off the top of my head, Russia has been invaded by: Sweden, Poland, Germany, France, the Mongols, Japan, Great Britain and the United States.
According to Wikipedia, during WWII the Soviet Union lost 27 million dead and that one person in four of the ENTIRE country was killed or wounded. There are still people in Russia young enough to remember what their country went through.
*My comments are not meant as support of Putin or meant to ignore Russia's history of invading other countries.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)NATO membership is open to any other European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.
NATO also has what it calls the Membership Action Plan, which offers aspiring members practical advice and targeted assistance. In turn, aspiring members are expected to meet certain key requirements.