Topic: NATO vs. RUSSIA? (Read 1098 times)

There is no such deal. BTW... are you referring to the Budapest Memorandum which was signed in 1994? It is not even close.

http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

Ukraine wanted to join NATO before all the current issue. Just retreat would be a sign of weakness.

Plus there is an signed deal about NATO help Ukraie in case of russian aggression and stuff.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8650547

Hmm. Let's see. The customary one-sided story, failing to address the realities, and designed to black-paint Russia. Let me try to bring a little balance into it.

Cameron deliberately fails to mention several thousand Ukrainian soldiers that crossed into Russian territory, both armed with malicious intent, and unarmed seeking refuge. All are being repatriated back to Ukraine, with due diplomatic notes. But why mention it, when such facts will detract from a nice prefabricated narrative of "bad Russia"?

Furthermore, the border between Ukraine and Russia is as clear as the border between Belgium and Netherlands or between Oklahoma and Texas. Families live on both sides of the border. A guy might go from Russia further down a road to visit his girlfriend in Ukraine; your son-in-law might come come across a field from Ukraine to help you with your harvest in Russia.


Sana, I see you fall for the same demonisation/black myth strategy by applying the stigmas of "tyrant" and perverting the name of a leader. I don't know if you do it with malicious intent or just parroting.

I have started a thread back in April, when I started seeing signs of escalation of aggressive verbal assaults against Russia and its leaders, that was characteristic for the times before all previous invasions of Russia. I called it "Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again?" (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-the-west-gearing-up-to-invade-russia-once-again-584031)

Sana, what would you say about Yeltsin, then? An "angelic wonderful leader", who is associated with the chaotic "wild" 90's and total economic collapse, subjugating Russia politically and economically to the West. You see, each and every time during the last centuries, when a Russia leader is called "good" by the West, Russia ends up on a brink of total destruction. Conversely once a leader does something right for Russia, the West screams "megalomaniacal tyrant".

More on it here:
"An antidote to the Western poison of defamation and black myths about Russia"
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/an-antidote-to-the-western-poison-of-defamation-and-black-myths-about-russia-740020

And to counter your statement further: Russia is also a guarantor of Ukraine, and as your "tyrant" tried to get the conflicting parties to talk, and suggested peaceful solutions, the West slammed them down, so the democratic ethnic cleansing took to the worse and worse.

So, Russia did make a promise to Ukraine, "Probably not the best promise to make, considering it doesn't account for a" Western puppet having been installed by the West through coup d'etat that would proceed to ruthlessly kill the population of Ukraine.

Also, if NATO wishes to continue to exist, it needs a reason - missions do change (be they for better or for worse) - especially if the alternative is to become obsolete.

Anyway, I think the concern here is not another cold war, but actually a hot one.  A very hot one potentially.

Now, whether NATO would actually go to war - I think what plays into this is not simply another nation encroaching onto Ukraine - but that it is Russia, and that it seems to be one piece in a bigger plan.
So, given how Europe did not stand firm prior to WW II at the start, it may be they will feel the need to do so here; I do not know.

Nah, it's Obama who tears Obama down, and its tens of millions of us who are thankful the fool is a Liberal, and not one of us!Very true, and it is not my place to do that. Obama is the one who made all his 'un-kept' promises, not me.

"IF" Putin can get away with continued aggression, that may lure others to try their luck.

You elected the ObamaFOOL, and you own him.

The language is very clear. NATO should stay the fuck out of Ukraine. Else don't complain when Russia places it's nuclear-capable Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in Cuba or selling advanced weaponry to Iran. Anyway I don't think NATO will involve directly in Ukraine as long as Barack Obama remains as the POTUS. Things can change in 2016, when Hillary becomes the POTUS.

Ah, found it.  Not so quickly.  Ok, it seems to depend on how point #4 is read.  Bold faced is mine.   Does seem like Russia is breaking some of the other points, as an addendum.

http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

You love to tear the President down, but you have NEVER provided one single idea of what you or any other person could effectively do to stop Putin's aggression. Put up or shut up.

True - and what was linked to was an English translation of the agreement.  I was pointing out that we were obliged regardless back when, and I think it was Sana8410 that posted the link.  I will see if I can find it - be curious to hear your input.

The entire world must now fear Putin since the US has an inept, incompetent FOOL as president. We do enjoy watching Putin piss in Obama's face, and get away with it. Vastly different than the job performance of John Kennedy, a great American Statesman!

Putin must know he is only guaranteed two more years of severe American weakness and an incompetent President. He MUST complete all his expansion invasions before then.

I thought it was regardless, because their nuclear deterrent from invasion was what they were giving up.  And if they were attacked using nukes, let's face reality - there wouldn't be much left anyway - either there OR here. That's why Russia can be bold with them - with a mad man at the helm in still nuclear Russia, just how much would we do?

And it did seem it was contingent on the use of nukes.  That said, currently, perception is that it is a promise regardless, and it may also be that NATO sees this as but the first step by Russia, to be dealt with now or later - not sure.

My understanding is that the promise was if nuclear weapons were used againsg Ukraine.  I had been thinking it was regardless, but someone then posted the link to the actual agreement.  I don't have that link offhand.

The problem we have right now, is that we  (NATO) promised Ukraine that we'd protect them if they were willing to give up their nuclear arsenal after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Probably not the best promise to make, considering it doesn't account for a megalomaniacal  tyrant like Puten to come into power in Russia, but we did it. Now we have to decide which is worse - going back on our word and letting Ukraine fall, or risking all out nuclear war with the Mad Man of Moscow (AKA, hero of the American conservative movement).

Would NATO actually go to war with Russia to save Ukraine even though she is not a member? Wouldn't that be against their long established principles of staying out of scraps between non member states? If that was the case what would stop NATO from going after Isis [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria? Is the fact they are preparing a possible conflict with Russia suggest that NATO's mission has changed? Should it change? Is this a new reality? A second cold war? What do you think is going on here?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/01/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1