General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSlate: Don’t Accept Putin’s Version of History. The West didn’t provoke Russia...
Excellent article by Slate's Anne Applebaum. Since the fall of the USSR, the US and NATO did everything to reassure Russia and make Russia feel like a part of what was going on in the world. Putin and his government did nothing but take advantage of that. Ms. Applebaum lays out the history.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/10/nato_and_eu_expansion_didn_t_provoke_vladimir_putin_american_triumphalism.html?wpisrc=obinsite
.
.
.
But one Western policy stands out as a phenomenal success, particularly when measured against the low expectations with which it began: The integration of Central Europe and the Baltic States into the European Union and NATO. Thanks to this double project, more than 90 million people have enjoyed relative safety and relative prosperity for more than two decades, in a region whose historic instability helped launch two world wars.
.
.
.
For the record: No treaties prohibiting NATO expansion were ever signed with Russia. No promises were broken. Nor did the impetus for NATO expansion come from a “triumphalist” Washington. On the contrary, Poland's first efforts to apply in 1992 were rebuffed. I well remember the angry reaction of the U.S. ambassador to Warsaw at the time. But Poland and others persisted, precisely because they were already seeing signs of the Russian revanchism to come.
When the slow, cautious expansion did eventually take place, constant efforts were made to reassure Russia. No NATO bases were ever placed in the new member states, and until 2013 no exercises were conducted there. A Russia-NATO agreement in 1997 promised no movement of nuclear installations. A Russia-NATO council was set up in 2002. In response to Russian objections, Ukraine and Georgia were in fact denied NATO membership plans in 2008.
Meanwhile, not only was Russia not “humiliated” during this era, it was given de facto “great power” status, along with the Soviet U.N. Security Council seat and Soviet embassies. Russia also received Soviet nuclear weapons, some transferred from Ukraine in 1994 in exchange for Russian recognition of Ukraine's borders. Presidents Clinton and Bush both treated their Russian counterparts as fellow “great power” leaders and invited them to join the G-8—although Russia, neither a large economy nor a democracy, did not qualify.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)knr
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)invading Ukraine.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You can't turn your back to the slights endured by the Russian empire because you have to oppose the European empires! Because they were empires! And even though the Czarist empire is defunct the sins of the European empires -- who are also defunct -- remain as indictments!
And Nuland cookies!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)For Putinistas, accusing Ukraine of being a governement of Neo-Nazis is their "Benghazi!!!!!11!!1!elevens!"
7962
(11,841 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)They are like Maoist caricatures.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I'll wait to see what RT or Robert Parry has to say about this.
FSogol
(45,456 posts)
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)And yet, it was repeated over and over by those willing to apologize for Putin's actions.
Fact is, if Russia had not invaded Crimea, Ukraine would not be in the crisis it currently is. Of that, I am certain.
MBS
(9,688 posts)
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I read and highly recommend Applebaum's book Gulag[/].
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)...
""After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via "Europe"
."
...
Backgrounded by oil company logos more prominent than the flag of the country she supposedly works for...
Octafish
(55,745 posts)High principles dominate the rhetoric on freedom-loving Ukraine, writes JP Sottile. But more mundane realities - like the interests of US oil corporations and Ukraine's vast shale gas capacity - might just be part of the volatile equation.
JP Sottile
TheEcologist.org, 18th March 2014
In Ukraine, Chevron's deal continues a long tradition of intermarriage between 'national' and corporate interests under the guise of national security.
Some say it's about freedom and the right to self-determination. Some say it's about standing up to aggression and halting a dictator's march.
Some say it's about the future of everything-from Syria to North Korea to Iran's nuclear program - and, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, it all stems from Obama's failure to kill the people who killed Americans at Benghazi.
But the most-revealing voice in the chorus is Condi Rice. She penned a tension-filled op-ed on Ukraine for the Washington Post - the newspaper of broken records.
Her nostalgic, "Baby, It's a Cold War Outside" ditty on the "Ukrainian Problem" came just two days after a Teflon-coated Henry Kissinger opined about the "art of establishing priorities" in his own Ukraine-themed op-ed for the Post.
Why should we care about Condi?
As the world learned through painful experience, Condi Rice, much like Henry Kissinger, was all about establishing priorities. But now that she's out of power, why should anyone waste any time considering Ms. Rice's opinion about anything, much less about the 'crisis' in Ukraine?
Why? Because it's telling. Like most American Exceptionalists, her bluster and posturing can be reverse-engineered to find the banal truth about US foreign policy.
For example, her steadfast belief that Ukraine "should not be a pawn in a great-power conflict but rather an independent nation" might have something to do with Chevron's 50-year lease to develop Ukraine's shale gas reserves.
CONTINUED...
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2325091/ukraine_chevron_condi_rice_and_shale_gas_join_the_dots.html
Sorry, Pooty-Toot. You're wearing the wrong tie.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)It's a distraction for you, not for me. Speak for yourself.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Our first mistake was treating them like they were normal. Same mistakes have been made with N Korea. To a slightly lesser extent, China. ALL countries have their underhandedness to some degree, but you just CANNOT trust these 3 to abide by ANY agreement. Ukraine is proof of that; giving up their nukes for "peace". And what did it get them?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It was the corrupt government's breaking of faith with its own people.
Very sad that we have authoritarians here who support fascism in Russia and denounce people holding their government accountable.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
She handed out cookies and money to show our support of violent right-wing protesters and destabilize the current regime for profit. And was quite open about it until we started getting our own crap handed back to us.
Talking about spin must make your head turn backwards. You won't have anything else to say to me.
pampango
(24,692 posts)
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Tell the people who were killed by them.
?w=720
Just not me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)including false and misleading accusations at those who tried to hold their own government accountable is duly noted.
Team Putin never fails to disappoint.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)Hence the "Pants on Fire" rating.
Handing out cookies does not mean we overthrew Yanukovych. Nor does pointing out a 20 year period of NGO investment in the region. You can't make up a narrative that isn't actually there.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Ukrainians overthrew their government because we gave them cookies. You realize how absurd that sounds, right?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)You can count on me not trusting a dictator no matter what the fuck he says. 
Paolo123
(297 posts)After the end of the cold war we could have entered a new order of international cooperation. Instead we entered one where the US bombed, attacked, or droned anyone and everyone against international law, including in instances that were against the interests of Russia.
To see how obviously this is bullshit just imagine how we would react if Russia behaved around the world for the last 20 years as we have.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)a very kind and gentle one.
That has nothing to do with our policies elsewhere.
Paolo123
(297 posts)If Russia was being nice to you while romping around the world invading, killing, and droning anyone they pleased and then financing a coup in Mexico while already having put troops along our border you don't think we would be a bit defensive?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Georgia and Ukraine have been after EU and NATO membership since at least 2008. That is not the US or EU or west fomenting the reasons for rebellion. They existed for a long time.
Paolo123
(297 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Georgia's effort to join NATO began in 2005. NATO and Georgia both signed an agreement on the appointment of Partnership for Peace (PfP) liaison officer on February 14, 2005. The liaison office between them came into force then and was assigned to Georgia. On March 2, 2005, the agreement was signed on the provision of the host nation supporting and aiding transit of NATO forces and NATO personnel. On March 6–9, 2006, the IPAP implementation interim assessment team arrived in Tbilisi. On April 13, 2006, the discussion of the assessment report on implementation of the Individual Partnership Action Plan was held at NATO Headquarters, within 26+1 format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#History_of_relations
Relations officially began when Ukraine became the first CIS country to enter NATO's Partnership for Peace program in February 1994.[21][22] In the summer of 1995 NATO stepped up to help to mitigate consequences of the Kharkiv Drinking Water Disaster. This was the first cooperation between NATO and Ukraine.[23] On May 7, 1997 the first-ever official NATO Information and Documentation Center opened in Kiev, aimed to foster transparency about the alliance.[24] A Ukrainian public opinion poll of May 6 showed 37% in favor of joining NATO with 28% opposed and 34% undecided.[25] On July 9, 1997, a NATO-Ukraine Commission was established.
Easily researched historical facts are against you and in a big way.
Paolo123
(297 posts)I am well aware of them. If Mexico wanted by choice to align with Russia I guarantee you that we would not put up with it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)These are the reasons the people of Ukraine revolted against Russia's toady.
Paolo123
(297 posts)The fact is that for the past 20 years the US has been rampaging around the world against all international law and expanding it alliances right up to Russias borders and putting troops on Russia's borders. When it looked like Ukraine might balk we supported the coup of an elected government there.
If Russia did the same to us we would have been at war a long, long time ago.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)which on its own is pretty pathetic of you, don't you think?
Another country was "forced" to initiate a war of conquest where they conveniently annexed part of another country's land?
You really ought to be ashamed of trying to push that kind of garbage.
Pre-emptively looking after your own interests is what every country has done since the dawn of time.
The Russians saw the writing on the wall. The warfare state which spent the last 20 years rampaging across the globe without regards to international law fomented a revolution in Ukraine. Russia said "no way" would their be NATO troops in the Donbas or Crimea and acted.
The US would have done the same thing if Russia was moving to put troops on the Rio Grande.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Your entire narrative, including that of Mexico is debunked by easily researched history.
But it is instructive to everyone reading our exchange how much work you put in to apologizing for an unprovoked war of aggression.
Paolo123
(297 posts)Did we put up with the Russians having a satellite country in Nicaragua?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)anything about research or logic. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5802794
Paolo123
(297 posts)After I asked a question that you couldn't answer.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)about the things you believe.
Paolo123
(297 posts)So why don't you answer the original question that you failed to answer?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You can support your hypothesis with objective citations rather than simplistic, subjective guesswork, yes?
Paolo123
(297 posts)Do you disagree that the US has rampaged around the world with total disregard for international law?
Do you disagree that there are US troops on Russia's borders?
Do you disagree we supported the coup of the elected government in Ukraine?
and..
Do you think the US would just put up with it if the roles were reversed?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I merely thought you had objective sources with which to support your hypothesis. You don't, and you guessed. No harm, no foul. 
Paolo123
(297 posts)Do you disagree with the first three things I said?
After that obviously to state how the US would react to the reversed situation is a hypothetical so there is nothing to cite.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Paolo123
(297 posts)That's not true.
The fact is that:
1. We have rampaged around the world without regard for international law.
2. We have placed troops on Russia's border.
3. We supported the coup of the elected government of ukraine.
Do you disagree with any of those three facts?
Please say yes or no (with elaboration as you please) as opposed to your tactic of changing the discussion when it doesn't suit you.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Paolo123
(297 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You appear to not understand the differences between an hypothesis, a premise and a conclusion. It's a good bit knowledge to have. And now, I'll leave you to your continuing guesswork.
do you disagree with the three facts:
1. The US has been rampaging around the globe without regard to international law for the last 20 years
2. The US has placed troops on Russia's border.
3. The US supported the coup of the elected government in Ukraine?
Let's keep it simple this time so that you answer the question at hand.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)Unless there's something I'm missing here.
Paolo123
(297 posts)Yes I think you are missing something.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)Paolo123
(297 posts)As far as I know a guy seeing the writing on the wall and fleeing the day or so before he is removed is still a coup. I guess you are saying that it is not a coup unless he waits around to be removed?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)Oil paintings, vases, etc. Literally truckloads of it. There's video of it on the internet. Then he gets in his personal fleet of helicopters and flies away.
Certainly there was no imminent threat to his life to force him to flee. He made the decision to leave voluntarily.
Paolo123
(297 posts)It's not a coup if a guy sees the writing on the wall and leaves early.. is that your argument?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)Would Yanukovych had preferred to stay in power if the situation was ideal for him? Sure.
But it wasn't. The protesters were not stopping their protests, despite everything he did to try to shut them down. He was the most hated man in the country. So he made a calculated decision to leave. He knew he was still filthy rich and most likely Putin had already offered him sanctuary in Russia at that point, and that he could live very comfortably as a private citizen there without the hassles of the presidency. So he packed up all his goodies--taking his sweet time in doing so--and left under his own willpower in his own helicopters.
The thing is, even if you want to claim he was forcibly removed by "seeing the writing on the wall", it still wouldn't constitute a coup as the word is defined. Coups have a small, organized group doing the overthrowing. But in Ukraine, there was no cadre of opposition leaders or military generals who conspired to remove him. All there was was hundreds of thousands of people in the center of Kiev, and millions more who supported them. Certainly, no small organized group with a scheme.
A revolution, yes. A coup, no.
There is a difference, you know.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The presidents own party of Regions and the rest of the democratically elected Rada voted to remove him after he took several days to pack his art and other loot and have Russia help him leave the country and abdicate his elected post. The interim Government held democratic elections as promised and not the have also had a new Rada democratically elected also. Both of these elections were held with nearly 100 international observers by numerous recognized agencies. This is quite unlike the self appointed leaders in the east.
So bottom line, no coup
Paolo123
(297 posts)Did all of the country participate in these elections?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The Rada did not elect representatives in the areas that were not safe for the poll workers due to threats of death. They also could not hold elections in the occupied Crimea. All of those seats are open and not filled. They will be filled when Ukraine can hold safe and free elections in those areas.
The pro-Russians in the east were scared to allow a vote in the presidential election and intimidated voters and poll workers and smashed ballot boxes. How very democratic of them. I am sure you must agree with them, right?
Outside the Donetsk regional administration building, which has been occupied by government opponents since early April, a group of masked men drove up carrying confiscated ballot boxes and made a show of smashing them in front of a journalist's camera.
One polling station in the city opened in the morning, but minutes later a group of gunmen arrived and forced the election commission out, its chief, Nadia Melnyk, said on Ukraine's Channel 5.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/25/ukraine-presidentialelections.html
Paolo123
(297 posts)"The pro-Russians in the east were scared to allow a vote in the presidential election and intimidated voters and poll workers and smashed ballot boxes. How very democratic of them. I am sure you must agree with them, right? "
The seceded. They don't want to be a part of Ukraine anymore.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)when they signed the Minsk agreement. Remain part of Ukraine. Elections under Ukrainian law (point 9). Special status for the rebel held areas (point 3). By the way Ukraine passed that legislation living up to their part of the agreement. seems to me they are not living up to many parts of the agreement they signed. (point 4, point 5, point 10
Sucks to actually have live by the agreements you sign. Of course Moscow broke the Budapest agreement when they invaded and annexed Crimea.
Paolo123
(297 posts)forever?
Why do you think that people should be forced to live in political boundries they don't want to be in? Should the US still be part of England?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They should peaceably petition to leave under the laws and constitution of the sovereign state of Ukraine. If they feel that bad they can also just move to Russia if they want to be there so bad. Should Chechnya been allowed to leave Russia? Were you for or against Russia then? How about Dagastan, should they be allowed to separate from Russia? Russia should not invade a sovereign state and annex a portion of that country breaking agreements and international laws. There was not an issue in the east until Russia started putting the little green men in to foment trouble. Now they are supplying some of the latest military hardware and Russian military personnel to assist the pro-Russian rebels that were getting their ass handed to them until about two months ago.
>They should peaceably petition to leave under the laws and constitution of the sovereign state of Ukraine.
People have the right to self-government. Period. If you need the sovereign to agree then, well, we would still be a part of england.
>If they feel that bad they can also just move to Russia if they want to be there so bad.
Why should they have to? Why don't they have the right to choose their own form of government?
>Should Chechnya been allowed to leave Russia?
Yes of course
>Were you for or against Russia then?
Against
>How about Dagastan, should they be allowed to separate from Russia?
Yes
>Russia should not invade a sovereign state and annex a portion of that country breaking agreements and international laws.
OK, but they felt they had to in order to prevent NATO bases and troops in these critical areas.
>There was not an issue in the east until Russia started putting the little green men in to foment trouble.
I disagree. Ukraine is a failed state shithoe there the standard of living is way below Russia. The people of historically russian areas with historically russian heritage would rather be a part of Russia (it appears.. I am in favor of a UN sponosred vote). Why do you have a problem with that?
>Now they are supplying some of the latest military hardware and Russian military personnel to assist the pro-Russian rebels that were getting their ass handed to them until about two months ago.
OK, and Ukraine is shelling civillians because they want to choose their own form of government.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,155 posts)The average person living in Eastern Ukraine wanted the country to remain unified.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/
Paolo123
(297 posts)Would you be in favor of a UN monitored vote in eastern ukraine to resolve the issue then?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)What needs to happen is for Russia to withdraw, and in 2 years have a vote after a campaign where all sides can make their cases.
That and Putin and his cronies need to be tried as war criminals
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts) adminsLanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You seem to be under the impression I am taking one side or the other. I'm simply attempting to determine whether posters use objective sources to support their arguments or guess.
Your hypothesis is a guess rather than an objective and supported statement.
As to whether I agree or disagree with your guesses is (wait for it) your guess.
Paolo123
(297 posts)My objective and supported statements are:
1. The US has rampaged around the world for the last 20 years with impunity, ignoring all international law.
2. The US has placed troops on russias border
3. The US supported the coup of an elected government in Ukraine.
Do you disagree with that?
Given that, I hypothesize that if the roles were reversed we would be at war already. What do you think?
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)You don't get an answer because you're right of course. (It's more than 20 years though)
Many Americans have bought the "Exceptional" line and think they really are. That their country can do what you have listed above at any time to any other people and it's somehow their right. Any objectors are terrorists and or delusional, dumb serfs who should be working/paying taxes rather than thinking anyway.
They ignore the recent history of their governments agencies and what they have done such as the CIA:
1 During the Cold War
1.1 Communist states 1944–89
1.2 Syria 1949
1.3 Iran 1953
1.4 Guatemala 1954
1.5 Tibet 1955–70s
1.6 Indonesia 1958
1.7 Cuba 1959
1.8 Iraq 1960–63
1.9 Dominican Republic 1961
1.10 South Vietnam 1963
1.11 Brazil 1964
1.12 Chile 1970–73
1.13 Afghanistan 1979–89
1.14 Turkey 1980
1.15 Poland 1980–89
1.16 Nicaragua 1981–90
1.16.1 Destablization through CIA assets
1.16.2 Arming the Contras
2 Since the end of the Cold War
2.1 Iraq 1992–96
2.2 Venezuela 2002
2.3 Iraq 2002–03
2.4 Iran 2005–present
2.5 Syria 2012–present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
The Establishment Mouthpiece Ted Koppel rambled on for 444 nights about "The Hostages" never even once mentioning the 1953 Iranian Coup- the reason for the hostage taking to begin with. It was classified, and anyone that did connect the dots was a Conspiracy Theorist.
Regime changes, drone bombing children, "sanctioning" here and there, character assassinations - it's all fine.
People in other countries are paying attention though- like Vinnie in New Zealand:
"You've gone from being the most intelligent, literate, morally back-boned citizenry in the history of the world to the laziest, dumbest, most capitulating human trash that has ever existed"
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)I'm not shocked.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Cha
(296,889 posts)Oh, that's right..he was previously banned for something else.
All you ever seem to do is rag on our President and apologize for the fucking putin. Poor misunderstood little dictator.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)How much is Putin paying you to spew this crap?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)And that's where this horseshit from Slate crashes and burns.
For a moment, it seemed, the distrust and antipathy of the Cold War were fading.
Then, just weeks later, Bush announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so that it could build a system in Eastern Europe to protect NATO allies and U.S. bases from Iranian missile attack. In a nationally televised address, Putin warned that the move would undermine arms control and nonproliferation efforts.
"This step has not come as a surprise to us," Putin said. "But we believe this decision to be mistaken."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/us-putin_n_5185987.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/us-missile-defense-fantas_b_1157936.html
Read this. It should clear up the propaganda. Those who cling to revisionism can't be helped.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Sikorski is also known for being loyal to friends, regardless of their political or social capital. After Oxford, he went on to become a war correspondent for The Spectator in Afghanistan, during which time he courted his future wife, the American-born journalist Anne Applebaum. When Guppy stood trial for jewellery theft fraud in 1993, an article appeared in The Spectator decrying the media’s attacks on him, reportedly penned by Applebaum under a pseudonym. Guppy’s mother Susha repaid the favour with a generous review of Sikorski’s book The Polish House in the Independent on Sunday.
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/the-sikorski-set-the-polish-foreign-minister-has-locked-horns-with-cameron--but-their-history-goes-back-to-the-bullingdon-club-9564492.html
"It is downright harmful, because it creates a false sense of security ... Complete bullshit. We'll get in conflict with the Germans, Russians and we'll think that everything is super, because we gave the Americans a blow job. Losers. Complete losers."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/22/poland-foreign-minister-alliance-us-worthless
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)jakeXT
(10,575 posts)didn't mention it .
Authors: James M. Lindsay, Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair, and Michael E. O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution
November 26, 1999
The New York Times
...
The idea is sound, but a politically motivated rush to carry it out could do more harm than good. The technology for a missile shield isn't ready, and there's another, larger problem: Building it too fast risks damaging our relationship with Russia and could fuel nationalist fervor just as a Russian presidential election approaches.
http://www.cfr.org/defense-and-security/missile-shield-could-backfire/p6297
The Russian leader told the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy that the reasons the U.S. cited in favor of deploying a missile defense system in Europe are not convincing enough, as launching North Korean ballistic missiles against the U.S. across western Europe would be in conflict with the laws of ballistics.
"This clearly contradicts ballistics laws. Or, as we say in Russia, it's the like trying to reach your left ear with your right hand," he said.
http://www.sputniknews.com/world/20070210/60519251.html
Interviewee: Pavel Felgenhauer, Defense Columnist, Novaya Gazeta
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org
March 18, 2009
---
Yes, it's seen as very undesirable by Moscow. The Russian military has been telling its political leaders that this missile plan is actually not what the Americans say it is. The Russian military says that these missiles will be nuclear-armed because the Russian military doesn't believe that non-nuclear defensive missiles are possible. At least most of them don't.
Please explain.
Russia has its own deployed missile defense shield. This is its nuclear defense. A nuclear warhead, a megaton-quality capable of exposing a couple of kilometers of targets, can disable incoming nuclear warheads. The Russian military believes that such a missile defense is more or less possible, but the American notion of non-nuclear warheads, "bullets hitting bullets," is a smokescreen. They believe that nuclear missiles will be deployed in Poland near Russia and these nuclear missiles will have also a first-strike capability and could hit Moscow before [Russia's response] could get airborne, so this is going to actually be seen not so much as missile defense as a deployment of first-strike capability.
And that's why Russia is so nervous.
That's why Russia is so insistent that there should be Russian inspectors on the site to see that there is no nuclear deployment. What made Moscow so nervous specifically about the [planned] deployment in Poland is that, as a missile defense, it cannot really threaten Russia at all. But it's seen differently as a nuclear first strike threat.
http://www.cfr.org/missile-defense/russians-see-us-missile-defense-poland-posing-nuclear-threat/p18813
NATO officials are considering deploying a long-planned missile defense system -- aimed at protecting Europe from attacks from the Middle East -- against Russia as well, SPIEGEL has learned.
Calls for such an expansion to the system's remit, which is backed by the United States, are growing in Poland as well as in NATO member states Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. In the run-up to next week's NATO summit, the four countries called for the remaining members to agree on language at the summit that would pave the way for the plan. They feel threatened by Russia's intervention in Ukraine.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/nato-considers-missle-shield-directed-against-russia-a-987899.html
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)jakeXT
(10,575 posts)http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/30/poland-defence-idUSL6N0PB4WM20140630
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)"But one Western policy stands out as a phenomenal success, particularly when measured against the low expectations with which it began: The integration of Central Europe and the Baltic States into the European Union and NATO."
Nothing quite says completely disconnected from reality than to describe the EU as a phenomenal success. However, it actually got worse, which is pretty impressive with a start like that.
"Before joining the EU, each adopted laws on trade, judiciary, human rights. As a result, they became democracies. This was “democracy promotion” working as it never has before or since."
Just don't try to practice that democracy or Merkel will cut off the funding.
" But Poland and others persisted, precisely because they were already seeing signs of the Russian revanchism to come."
Naked assertion with no facts offered to support it. I find it interesting that this particular time period, 1992, is chosen to make a claim of Russian revanchism given the fateful events of the very next year.
"Russia also received Soviet nuclear weapons, some transferred from Ukraine in 1994 in exchange for Russian recognition of Ukraine's borders."
No mention that it was deemed wiser to put all the nukes in one place than have every ex-Soviet republic selling them to the highest bidder. It makes it sound like the US was doing Russia a favor when it benefited the US just as much to have those nukes under our client's control (Yeltsin).
"Presidents Clinton and Bush both treated their Russian counterparts as fellow “great power” leaders and invited them to join the G-8—although Russia, neither a large economy nor a democracy, did not qualify.
During this period, Russia, unlike Central Europe, never sought to transform itself along European lines. Instead, former KGB officers with a clearly expressed allegiance to the Soviet system took over the state in league with organized crime, seeking to prevent the formation of democratic institutions at home and to undermine them abroad."
That section is just dishonest. It's dishonest because it neglects to mention the rather large role the US played in creating a Russia of kleptocrats. To hear this author tell it, Yeltsin never illegally attacked his elected parliament with the army with the full support and backing of Bill Clinton. You'd think he was never a quasi-dictator of Russia, supported by organized crime which was as ruthless as any ever seen in the world. He did all this with American support. How many experts, how much money, how many photo ops? How about the fact that Vladimir Putin was Yeltsin's last, drunken gift to the world?
"Our mistake was not to humiliate Russia but to underrate Russia's revanchist, revisionist, disruptive potential. "
Actually, no, it was supporting a drunken dictator who reigned over a country with declining birth dates, accelerating death rates, rampant corruption, rampant disease, organized crime as the government, etc. The mistake wasn't not expanding NATO, as this author would have you believe, it was in ever supporting Yeltsin.
So, what's the point of the above? US policy toward Russia has been a succession of failures since 1989. Learn what we actually did and don't fucking do it again. This author would have us stare down Putin and I have no idea why. For Europe? Man, Merkel and the EU do exactly what Putin does, but they use the ECB and IMF instead of the army. For freedom? Whose? For Ukraine? The people of Ukraine or the plutocrats busy running it into the ground, with our full support? If you can't answer those questions honestly, you have no business dicking with Putin or anybody else because you're clearly not serious about the matter.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)about Obama. You're free to do what you please with the facts I've presented.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)What do they have to say?
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)might have to say.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Will I have to wait for the weekend per usual for you to post your propaganda?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)Obama?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)you can joyously proclaim their factiness, but you can't magically cleanse their authors and spouses to suit your purposes. They are what they are.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And your repeated attempts to apologize for an unprovoked war of aggression by an authoritarian dictator continue to be noted.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)never cease.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Is Putin One of Us?
Tuesday - December 17, 2013 at 1:37 am
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative?
In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us?
While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the Russian president’s state of the nation address.
With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, “In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered.”
.
.
.
---------------------------------------
Which not only makes it clear you are supporting a paleoconservative, you are throwing LGBT folks under the bus to do it. I hope you are proud.
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)the emptiness of your arguments.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)correct. And that is what you are supporting.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Pretty much universal agreement there. He is a neocon and that is what you are supporting
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)of you, Cleverbot. I respect your freedom to keep posting links to deflect from your support of the neocon project, but life calls. Keep trying because while you're still not passing the Turing test, you're getting a little closer. Kind of.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)How does it feel to have thrown one of the most vulnerable minorities globally under the bus to support someone simply because they are anti-US?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And kick!
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Obama has ruled out intervention and Russia will never allow NATO so close to Moscow. I've been comparing the fighting forces on both sides. Kiev conscripts are no comparison to angry, hardened, Eastern rebels. Kiev has to resort to hired mercs and these guys are dying too. Has there been much talk about dividing the country, officially?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Cha
(296,889 posts)