NATO Isn’t What It Says It Is

[ralfy]

 

[Tiger]

I'm the American in this.

I tell you what American interests are.

No, you are the Ukrainian. All you are doing is regurgitating the little dictator Zelinsky's talking points.

It's clearly in Zelinsky's and Ukraine's interest to have America play the role of world policeman yet again. However, the fact is that Ukraine has never been in America's national interest. Prior to the Biden's proxy war, Ukraine was never a significant trading partner. Ukraine has never been a military ally of America. Ukraine has never been in America's sphere of influence, although it has been largely controlled and/or allied with Russia for as long as America has been an independent nation.

Ukraine's top 5 import sources (2021 Data prior to current war)		Ukraine's top 5 export destinations: (2021 Data prior to current war)
China	13.3%	China	8.0%
Russia	12.0%	Russia	9.5%
Germany	9.6%	Germany	6.2%
Poland	9.4%	Poland	5.6%
Belarus	7.5%	Turkey	4.9%

I've pointed out already that you need to see Ukraine lose -- you're pressing very hard for it going to the extreme of throwing nuclear bombs around. This is the same thing they're doing in the Kremlin trying to scare Ukraine and NATO to back down and off. None of this is in America's interests.

All the same however everyone is entitled to his wrong opinions no matter how hard driving and one sided as they may be.

As the old saying goes, I don't have a dog in this hunt. Unlike you, I've been calling for a ceasefire and peace settlement talks along the lines of Minsk I and Minsk II. My reasons for posting recent news articles about tactical nuclear weapons are (1) to refute your falsehoods that Russia is no longer threatening to use its "escalate to deescalate" nuclear strategy, and (2) to refute your arguments that we should even consider entering into a war with Russia if they use nuclear weapons. Since the end of World War II, our nuclear strategy was guided by Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) which recognized that neither America nor Russia (or the former USSR) could win a nuclear war.

Your posts haven't any appreciation of how UAF and people have stood firm in the defense of their homeland where Putin is executing His Barbarian War. Indeed, rather than have any good words for Ukraine and the US led NATO you keep throwing Russian nukes at us while hollering about America's supposed interests. By your rules throwing nukes at Europe itself would come next wouldn't it. Europe & USA.

I haven't denigrated the valor of the Ukrainian troops. One has to respect their resolve. It's obvious that the Biden regime is willing to fight it's proxy until the last Ukrainian soldier dies. However, recognizing that despite the tenacity of Ukraine's troops, they are having no success in dislodging Russia's forces despite receiving billions of dollars in advanced NATO and American weaponry.

 

[Tiger]

Here's what the late Ambassador Kennan wrote about NATO's ill-fated expansion of NATO in his NYT op-ed/

A Fateful Error
By George F. Kennan
Feb. 5, 1997

In late 1996, the impression was allowed, or caused, to become prevalent that it had been somehow and somewhere decided to expand NATO up to Russia's borders. This despite the fact that no formal decision can be made before the alliance's next summit meeting, in June.

The timing of this revelation -- coinciding with the Presidential election and the pursuant changes in responsible personalities in Washington -- did not make it easy for the outsider to know how or where to insert a modest word of comment. Nor did the assurance given to the public that the decision, however preliminary, was irrevocable encourage outside opinion.

But something of the highest importance is at stake here. And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.
[...]
Russians are little impressed with American assurances that it reflects no hostile intentions. They would see their prestige (always uppermost in the Russian mind) and their security interests as adversely affected. They would, of course, have no choice but to accept expansion as a military fait accompli. But they would continue to regard it as a rebuff by the West and would likely look elsewhere for guarantees of a secure and hopeful future for themselves.

It will obviously not be easy to change a decision already made or tacitly accepted by the alliance's 16 member countries. But there are a few intervening months before the decision is to be made final; perhaps this period can be used to alter the proposed expansion in ways that would mitigate the unhappy effects it is already having on Russian opinion and policy.

 

[Tangmo]

All you are doing is regurgitating the little dictator Zelinsky's talking points.

It's clearly in Zelinsky's and Ukraine's interest to have America play the role of world policeman yet again. However, the fact is that Ukraine has never been in America's national interest.
As the old saying goes, I don't have a dog in this hunt. Unlike you, I've been calling for a ceasefire and peace settlement talks along the lines of Minsk I and Minsk II.
It's obvious that the Biden regime is willing to fight it's proxy until the last Ukrainian soldier dies.

Your posts refuse to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine and for conducting a WW II manner of barbarian war in the center of Europe. A direct consequence of the barbarian war is that Putin had to cancel his routine attendance at the upcoming G-20 meeting in Brazil -- which is a founding member of the ICC -- because he'll be arrested by his Brics chum Lula and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Putin's Dogs of War meanwhile bark loudly throughout your every post that accepts Russia remaining in Ukraine. As to Your Beloved Russian Nukes, the US made clear to Putin what NATO will do if he uses even one tactical nuke, which is to sink the Black Sea Fleet and kill every Russian Soldier in Ukraine that NATO can find -- which you dismiss out of hand tut tut. Putin has not tested this and wisely so for a change.

 

[Tiger]

Your posts refuse to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine and for conducting a WW II manner of barbarian war in the center of Europe. A direct consequence of the barbarian war is that Putin had to cancel his routine attendance at the upcoming G-20 meeting in Brazil -- which is a founding member of the ICC -- because he'll be arrested by his Brics chum Lula and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Putin's Dogs of War meanwhile bark loudly throughout your every post that accepts Russia remaining in Ukraine. As to Your Beloved Russian Nukes, the US made clear to Putin what NATO will do if he uses even one tactical nuke, which is to sink the Black Sea Fleet and kill every Russian Soldier in Ukraine that NATO can find -- which you dismiss out of hand tut tut. Putin has not tested this and wisely so for a change.

What part of being against the war don't you understand? Let me translate that into your native tongue: Війну потрібно закінчити зараз угодою про припинення вогню, а потім мирними переговорами по лініях Мінськ-1 і Мінськ-2.

Ukraine's civil war started with Obama and Victoria Nuland's color revolution coup in 2014. Now that the war has expanded, why are you shocked that both Russia and Ukraine are fighting with the same military tactics that they both trained for? Russia defeated Germany, liberating their land by use of the same tactics. Ukraine tried to follow NATO tactics with NATO weapons, but after 4 weeks of training, couldn't coordinate it. Hence, they abandoned their NATO training and are returning to the Russian style of fighting they know by relying primarily on artillery.

 

[Tangmo]

What part of being against the war don't you understand? Let me translate that into your native tongue: Війну потрібно закінчити зараз угодою про припинення вогню, а потім мирними переговорами по лініях Мінськ-1 і Мінськ-2.

Ukraine's civil war started with Obama and Victoria Nuland's color revolution coup in 2014. Now that the war has expanded, why are you shocked that both Russia and Ukraine are fighting with the same military tactics that they both trained for? Russia defeated Germany, liberating their land by use of the same tactics. Ukraine tried to follow NATO tactics with NATO weapons, but after 4 weeks of training, couldn't coordinate it. Hence, they abandoned their NATO training and are returning to the Russian style of fighting they know by relying primarily on artillery.

Well Tiger my native language is English. I haven't any clue what you wrote in Russian which is a major reason why the posting language is English.

The "artillery" you refer to is missile artillery, the Storm Shadow cruise missiles that hit both targeted bridges. The Storm Shadow is an Anglo-French missile to Ukraine that has an English name. These strikes are jamming up and isolating Russian forces in this area.

Ukrainian forces struck two key road bridges along critical Russian grounds lines of communication (GLOCs) connecting occupied Crimea and occupied Kherson Oblast on August 6, causing Russian forces to reroute road traffic from shorter eastern routes to longer western routes.

Ukrainian strikes on bridges along critical Russian GLOCs are a part of the Ukrainian interdiction campaign focused on setting conditions for future decisive counteroffensive operations.

Russian forces conducted one of the largest missile and drone strike series on Ukraine in recent months on the night of August 5-6.

International talks aimed at drafting the main principles for a future settlement to the war in Ukraine continued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on August 6.

Ukrainian forces continued counteroffensive operations on at least two sectors of the front on August 6.

Russian forces conducted offensive operations along the Kupyansk-Svatove-Kreminna line, near Bakhmut, along the Avdiivka-Donetsk City line, in the Zaporizhia-Donetsk Oblast border area, and in western Zaporizhia Oblast August 6 and made advances in certain areas.

Institute for the Study of War

Ukrainian forces struck two key road bridges along critical Russian grounds lines of communication (GLOCs) connecting occupied Crimea and occupied Kherson Oblast on August 6, causing Russian forces to reroute road traffic from shorter eastern routes to

www.understandingwar.org

Your posts keep talking up negotiations but they never mention any, any place, any time, any issues. Your posts are all talk I'm afraid.

 

[ralfy]

 

[Fledermaus]

So?

 

[iguanaman]

A lot of things happened in the '90's and a lot of promises were made that were broken. Including Russia recognizing Ukraine's sovereignty. Putin has said he does not abide by that promise so why should we worry about ours? NATO was formed to face Russian aggression and that aggression has grown since we made that statement. NATO membership is strictly voluntary and when nations feel threatened who are we to ignore them?

When did Russia acknowledge Ukraine independence?
From 2 December 1991 onwards, Ukraine was globally recognized by other countries as an independent state. Also on 2 December, the President of the Russian SFSR Boris Yeltsin recognized Ukraine as independent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukrainian_independence_referendum#:~:text=From 2 December 1991 onwards,Yeltsin recognized Ukraine as independent.

 

[iguanaman]

More old news by dead people. If Putin abided by the agreements that Russia made in the '90's maybe it would actually make any sense but I doubt it.

 

[ralfy]

More old news by dead people. If Putin abided by the agreements that Russia made in the '90's maybe it would actually make any sense but I doubt it.

Right. It has be new news from people who are alive. Otherwise, it's just fake.

 

[ralfy]

NATO wants Asia - Pearls and Irritations

Not content with expanding its membership from 12 to 31 nations, NATO is making a grab for a presence in the Asia Pacific.

johnmenadue.com

After the summit however, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan denied that the trilateral security pledge represented a ‘new NATO for the Pacific’. He was well aware that any such alliance would not attract non-aligned Southeast Asian nations, and its provocation of China would not be welcomed by those, including the AP4, which seek to maintain important trade relationships with Beijing. Michael Green, who heads the US Studies Centre in Sydney, concluded that although China’s show of strength requires a regional alliance for the first time in seven decades, there’s no certainty about a full-fledged anti-China alliance. Yet he thought a collective security bloc suddenly looked more plausible, warning ‘Never Say Never to an Asian NATO’.

Both Korea and Japan have recently signed military cooperation agreements with Australia that might mean steps towards joining an Asian NATO. Prime Minister Albanese and Defence Minister Marles have agreed to a long succession of measures, from embedded intelligence, export controls, and technology dominance, to influential investments favouring the US and UK, as Mike Scrafton has pointed out here. (Australians need to know what lies beneath the new era of US-Australia strategic cooperation – Pearls and Irritations. 7 December 2023). Aligning Australian and American regulatory frameworks could ‘surrender any sovereignty capability’ according to Bill Greenwalt, the former US Under Secretary for Defense and an expert on America’s defence procurement laws. Dr Greenwalt told the ABC that in cooperating with the US, Australia will surrender to control by the US bureaucracy. Australia is left only to hope ‘that the US will remove process barriers that will allow the US to essentially steal and control Australian technology faster’.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes. This is the true objective for forming the NATO alliance - a U.S -led World Order. American protection served as leverage.

Nature abhors a vacuum. A place without order will demand it.

The world is like a small global village today- but with no mayor or sherrif. Given the various ways it can be ordered, I am OK with a US-let order- based on American values like liberal democracy, free markets, and protection of basic human rights for all peoples (current anti-American GOP values here in America he US notwithstanding).

Why? Not because I’m some kind of nationalist, or racist, or ethno-centrist, etc… but because those American/western systems have proved more economically and politically stable, prosperous, and happy than alternatives like dictatorship, theocracy, oligarchy//plutocracy or other available alternatives out there today.

Which kind of world order would you prefer if you had your choice? Because “I don’t care” is not an option. There WILL be some kind of order. It’s just a question of who’s order.

 

[multivita-man]

The principles and benefits of neutrality is the same today as it was in 1791.

Nobody messes with Switzerland. They are wise to stay out of other countries' affairs and not become entangled in alliances (except for trade). U.S. should do the same.

The United States of America was founded on the idea of expansion, and expansion inevitably means entanglements. The Founders might have envisioned a nation that ended somewhere just on the other side of the Appalachians but that was before the Louisiana Purchase. Oh well...

 

[SkyChief]

Nature abhors a vacuum. A place without order will demand it. . .

Order is comforting to some people who are content being subservient to government , but Order can be disturbing to people yearning to be free.

Personally, I prefer liberty and freedom. I don't want some non-elected oligarch in Austria deciding what types of firearms I'm allowed to own and use.

. . . Which kind of world order would you prefer if you had your choice? Because “I don’t care” is not an option. There WILL be some kind of order. It’s just a question of who’s order.

That's a fairly totalitarian view of a World Order. The problem with that is that having unelected leaders controlling the world flies in the face of democracy.

The leaders of ANY body of people (including the world) should be elected by the People, and these leaders must perform to a degree of excellence, OR be removed and replaced. (IMO)

 

[iguanaman]

Right. It has be new news from people who are alive. Otherwise, it's just fake.

What is fake is any treaty or agreement that Russia has agreed to. They are not bound by their word and feel free to violate any treaty they sign.

The Russian Federation has violated about 400 international treaties since 2014.

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-po...ut-400-international-treaties-since-2014.html

 

[ralfy]

What is fake is any treaty or agreement that Russia has agreed to. They are not bound by their word and feel free to violate any treaty they sign.

The Russian Federation has violated about 400 international treaties since 2014.

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-po...ut-400-international-treaties-since-2014.html

Russia wants to be like the U.S.

Costs of War | Brown University

watson.brown.edu

But that's also "old news" and involving "dead people," so for you that's fake news, too.