Putin Apologists Meme on NATO not listening are wrong...

[maxparrish]

Feb. 16 (UPI) -- Russia's opposition to NATO expansion -- one of the issues that's fueled concerns about an invasion of Ukraine -- is something that's evolved over the past decade and has not always been Moscow's position, experts testified at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

Four experts appeared before the House oversight committee on Capitol Hill to testify at the hearing, titled, "Defending U.S. Allies and Interests Against Russian Aggression in Eastern Europe."

Michael McFaul, director of Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, told the panel that Russia also once considered joining NATO, after the fall of the Soviet Union, but has since grown hostile to the defensive alliance under President Vladimir Putin.

McFaul, U.S. ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, also noted that former Russian President Boris Yeltsin talked openly about NATO expansion.

"NATO wasn't considered a threat because Russia was a democratic country at the time," he said. "In 1997, we were not in a battle or in the Cold War posture we are in today."

He added that even Putin spoke favorably about NATO before he became Russia's president.

Another expert, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, director of the Transatlantic Security Program for the Center for a New American Security, told the committee members that the Kremlin has taken such an aggressive stand in Eastern Europe that it's created the very thing it fears -- other countries in the region wanting to join NATO.

"They are asking to join a defensive alliance," Kendall-Taylor said. "If Putin wasn't taking just an aggressive approach toward his neighbors, there wouldn't be such a demand from countries to join."

 

[Phys251]

Feb. 16 (UPI) -- Russia's opposition to NATO expansion -- one of the issues that's fueled concerns about an invasion of Ukraine -- is something that's evolved over the past decade and has not always been Moscow's position, experts testified at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

Four experts appeared before the House oversight committee on Capitol Hill to testify at the hearing, titled, "Defending U.S. Allies and Interests Against Russian Aggression in Eastern Europe."

Michael McFaul, director of Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, told the panel that Russia also once considered joining NATO, after the fall of the Soviet Union, but has since grown hostile to the defensive alliance under President Vladimir Putin.

McFaul, U.S. ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, also noted that former Russian President Boris Yeltsin talked openly about NATO expansion.

"NATO wasn't considered a threat because Russia was a democratic country at the time," he said. "In 1997, we were not in a battle or in the Cold War posture we are in today."

He added that even Putin spoke favorably about NATO before he became Russia's president.

Another expert, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, director of the Transatlantic Security Program for the Center for a New American Security, told the committee members that the Kremlin has taken such an aggressive stand in Eastern Europe that it's created the very thing it fears -- other countries in the region wanting to join NATO.

This line is everything:

"They are asking to join a defensive alliance," Kendall-Taylor said. "If Putin wasn't taking just an aggressive approach toward his neighbors, there wouldn't be such a demand from countries to join."

 

[lemmiwinx]

This appears to a man made crisis. And that man is who W. Bush lovingly called Pootie Poot. Bush said I looked in his eyes and I knew his soul. Bush was wrong Putin doesn't have a soul.

 

[Schism]

I don't have any problem with a defensive alliance; in fact I support defense. Everything Ukraine is doing to defend themselves is honorable and admirable. If their neighbors want to band together and support them directly or indirectly, I agree with that as well.

My only issue is US involvement in the affairs of others and leading the threats and aggression. When you say NATO, you're talking about the US military with minimal EU support. I would advocate for EU leading with the US taking a supporting role at most.

I will always stand against US hegemony and modern day colonialism, installing western puppets, or fighting secret wars in Africa and the ME. I will always support US defense of our borders and territorial waters.

 

[maxparrish]

Forgot to post link in op:

Experts, former officials tell House panel Russia's fears about Ukraine a crisis of its own making - UPI.com

Russia's opposition to NATO expansion, one of the issues that's fueled concerns about an invasion of Ukraine , has evolved over the past decade and has not always been Moscow's position, experts testified Wednesday.

www.upi.com

 

[maxparrish]

This appears to a man made crisis. And that man is who W. Bush lovingly called Pootie Poot. Bush said I looked in his eyes and I knew his soul. Bush was wrong Putin doesn't have a soul.

Every President has shares a measure of ignorance when dealing with Putin. When Putin was appointed as Prime Minister, he became popular for his "unrelenting" approach in in the Second Chechen War.

GW Bush was a back slapper cheerleader persona, and a poor judge of others character. Putin charmed him with 'home on the range' at Bush's BBQ. By 2008 things turned sour, espe. with the invasion of Georgia. Hillary Clinton blamed it on Bush, and promised a "reboot" or "reset" with Russia. She became Sec of State, and her "reset" and "reboot" fell apart...therein should have been the first hint that this guy was a huge turd.

Obama's awakening came in 2013/14 with the first invasion of Ukraine. Still, on a certain level, Obama and the allies were in some denial. They didn't see or accept his ultimate aims, and settled for some sanctions. And we know about Trump then, and now.

This is a moment of clarity; the water is under the bridge. No point in disputing the past. The point is now everyone should know, the man is a foaming madman who's now willing to do anything to complete his goal of a new Russian empire. He is now going to place forces and nuclear weapons in Byelorussia -- so much for the phoney excuse that he didn't want Nato forces next door. He is the moving in next door with nukes.

Once again, we see the consequence of denial, of endless spinelessness promoting one's own danger and perhaps suicide. NOW we know the ABM system for Poland should have gone forward over Russian objections. Now we know the sanctions were insufficient (as I said on a politics board then). Now we know NATO made a huge mistake in stripping away most of its forces and sending almost all land-based nukes home. Now we know Ukraine should have been trained and armed to the teeth, if not immediately admitted to Nato after Crimea.

If the west has finally roused out of its slumber, out of its denial, out of its fear THIS is the time to (belatedly) pour on the opposition. And that will include doing its very best to turn Ukraine into a sink hole for over extended Russian forces. The western Ukraine and its mountains will be like the passes from Afghanistan connecting to supply in Pakistan. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria...one or all will feet the Ukrainian freedom fighters in their mountain bases.

The cold war has returned, expenditures must be made, realism must prevail.

I stand with Ukraine.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Every President has shares a measure of ignorance when dealing with Putin. When Putin was appointed as Prime Minister, he became popular for his "unrelenting" approach in in the Second Chechen War.

GW Bush was a back slapper cheerleader persona, and a poor judge of others character. Putin charmed him with 'home on the range' at Bush's BBQ. By 2008 things turned sour, espe. with the invasion of Georgia. Hillary Clinton blamed it on Bush, and promised a "reboot" or "reset" with Russia. She became Sec of State, and her "reset" and "reboot" fell apart...therein should have been the first hint that this guy was a huge turd.

Obama's awakening came in 2013/14 with the first invasion of Ukraine. Still, on a certain level, Obama and the allies were in some denial. They didn't see or accept his ultimate aims, and settled for some sanctions. And we know about Trump then, and now.

This is a moment of clarity; the water is under the bridge. No point in disputing the past. The point is now everyone should know, the man is a foaming madman who's now willing to do anything to complete his goal of a new Russian empire. He is now going to place forces and nuclear weapons in Byelorussia -- so much for the phoney excuse that he didn't want Nato forces next door. He is the moving in next door with nukes.

Once again, we see the consequence of denial, of endless spinelessness promoting one's own danger and perhaps suicide. NOW we know the ABM system for Poland should have gone forward over Russian objections. Now we know the sanctions were insufficient (as I said on a politics board then). Now we know NATO made a huge mistake in stripping away most of its forces and sending almost all land-based nukes home. Now we know Ukraine should have been trained and armed to the teeth, if not immediately admitted to Nato after Crimea.

If the west has finally roused out of its slumber, out of its denial, out of its fear THIS is the time to (belatedly) pour on the opposition. And that will include doing its very best to turn Ukraine into a sink hole for over extended Russian forces. The western Ukraine and its mountains will be like the passes from Afghanistan connecting to supply in Pakistan. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria...one or all will feet the Ukrainian freedom fighters in their mountain bases.

The cold war has returned, expenditures must be made, realism must prevail.

I stand with Ukraine.

Excellent synopsis.

 

[joluoto]

The problem many Western leaders (not only US presidents) is that they often believed the bad relations with Russia was their predecessor's problem and that they can "fix" it. Dubya looked into Putin's "soul", and thought he saw an ally. Obama certainly fell into the "I can fix this" trap. Trump was going to fix US relations with Russia because he liked Putin (especially his money), but in the end wasn't able to change the mind of Congress that not only were steadfast in keeping Obama era sanctions around but acutally expand them (though Trump tried to fight it).

 

[oneworld2]

So to the " experts" in the OP

Another expert, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, director of the Transatlantic Security Program for the Center for a New American Security, told the committee members that the Kremlin has taken such an aggressive stand in Eastern Europe that it's created the very thing it fears -- other countries in the region wanting to join NATO.

Who is this outfit he works for ?

the CNAS = Center for a New American Security

Shortly after CNAS formed, it was noted by the Wall Street Journal and others that it was “rapidly emerging as a top farm team for the incoming Obama administration.” [34] This was concerning since nearly 30 defense contractors, including Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon; NATO; several foreign governments, including Taiwan and United Arab Emirates; the oil companies BP and Chevron; investment banks including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase; technology firms, such as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft; the U.S. Department of State, and two different Pentagon offices primarily fund the organization-creating a conflict of interest.[35]

When co-founder, Kurt Campbell, was questioned by Jim Webb before Congress about the potential for conflict, he replied, “We’ve kept a very clear line. Not one of our publications, not one of our public advocacies ever touches on anything that these companies worked on.” [36] However, CNAS frequently violates their own stated ethics policy and does so without acknowledging the violation.[37] For example, CNAS scholars did not disclose they received $100,000 to $249,999 in funding from Taiwan in the fiscal years proceeding a 2020 report to Washington on “Rising to the China Challenge," where they advised America should invest "considerable amounts of money, senior-level attention, and bureaucratic focus" to, among other things, "strengthen its diplomatic and security relationship with Taiwan" by doing things such as prioritizing "a bilateral investment treaty and free trade agreement with Taipei," changing "existing DoD policy to commence bilateral military exercises," and "supporting or partnering with Taiwan on efforts to counter China’s influence over local media."[38][39] The CNAS gets around any ethical concerns by refusing to take responsibility for the materials it publishes and pushing that responsibility solely on the authors, and it pools all donor money together into a general fund and claims since the money is not directly funding the reports that removes the conflict.[40]

Center for a New American Security - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Funded by NATO, the US state dept,pentagon offices, arms companies, the Taiwan gov and classed as a " conflict of interest" in the above

Victoria Nuland, who was the former CEO of CNAS. mmmmm

 

[oneworld2]

He added that even Putin spoke favorably about NATO before he became Russia's president.

Before he became president being the timeline from his previous support and his now "hostility." to it.

Lets see who has joined NATO since that time

1999 – Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland

2004 – Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia

2009 – Albania, Croatia

2017 – Montenegro

2020 – North Macedonia

Recall too that both Georgia and Ukraine where invited to join by the US , despite objections by France and Germany, and that in the aftermath of a NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 the wording, on the insistance of the USA, in the summary stated that they would both become members in the future.

If he changed his view on NATO during that time it might well have something to do with the above and what he considers to be " legitimate" Russian security concerns. Funny how that was missing from the expert opinion at least in the cited article in the OP

 

[maxparrish]

Before he became president being the timeline from his previous support and his now "hostility." to it.

Lets see who has joined NATO since that time

1999 – Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland

2004 – Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia

2009 – Albania, Croatia

2017 – Montenegro

2020 – North Macedonia

Recall too that both Georgia and Ukraine where invited to join by the US , despite objections by France and Germany, and that in the aftermath of a NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 the wording, on the insistance of the USA, in the summary stated that they would both become members in the future.

If he changed his view on NATO during that time it might well have something to do with the above and what he considers to be " legitimate" Russian security concerns. Funny how that was missing from the expert opinion at least in the cited article in the OP

I'm not sure what the point of your timeline is. The article stated that "has not always been Moscow's position, experts testified at a congressional hearing Wednesday." TRUE.
Putin spoke highly of NATO before he became President: TRUE

When did he become so unfriendly to the notion NATO that he would tell the west bluntly that if one more nation is even making application to be added there would be war against that nation? Not sure if he did till the 2021 or 2022. There wasn't a clear "Putin Doctrine", apparently because he didn't want to revel his thinking and planning.

And these were not surprises. In February of 1991, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia formed a group and began a push for European integration under both the European Union and NATO. Like others to follow they sought approval for good reason, they feared Russia and had no fear of Germany, US, France, UK etc. (Apparently long before Nato was an issue in Putin's mind).

In 1999, the already established relationships in many states resulted in new guidelines for membership for "Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.[31]" And "In May 2000, these countries joined with Croatia to form the Vilnius Group in order to cooperate and lobby for common NATO membership, and by the 2002 Prague summit seven were invited for membership, which took place at the 2004 Istanbul summit.[32] Slovenia had held a referendum on NATO the previous year, with 66% approving of membership.[33]"

Unsurprisingly, conquered and subjected peoples have memories. Poland (1945), Hungry (1958), and Czechoslovakia (1968) as well as observance of the post Soviet and Russian involved "First Chechen War, Transnistria War, and War in Abkhazia" and their decades as tributary states under Soviet/Russian control made this a no brainer, Russia was the only nation in Europe that it had the means and the will to quash its neighbors' aspirations for independence.

Anyway, no reason to go through the rest of the list. The point is everyone joining NATO didn't fear western European nations, they all had a mortal fear of Russia and wanted to be "Europeanized".

Who didn't resent or hate the Soviet Union/Russia?

No doubt Putin was projecting on the prospect of the former subject nations ready to inflict revenge...which in his world view is only logical.

 

[joluoto]

What Putin is actually against is having democracies on his border.

 

[Juin]

What Putin is actually against is having democracies on his border.

Turkey is Putin's neighbour. Both appear to get along rather well, and appear to operate from same playbook.


You don't like Putin very much, do you?

 

[oneworld2]

I'm not sure what the point of your timeline is. The article stated that "has not always been Moscow's position, experts testified at a congressional hearing Wednesday." TRUE.
Putin spoke highly of NATO before he became President: TRUE

Like all propaganda there has to be truth in it or its just too easy to expose it as propaganda. What the article ( and they themselves ?) fails to disclose it that from his none hostility to NATO days to his hostile days to NATO it could be argued that 13 countries had joined the military alliance, 4 of which had direct mutual borders with the Russian state and another two that had the same shared border with Russia had been virtually promised NATO member state status in the future

That's why the timeline I gave was to show that when Putin was okay with NATO was BEFORE his presidency, That would figure seeing as prior to his inauguration only 3 former Warsaw Pact nations had actually joined NATO. In just 9 years after that another 9 nations would be full NATO members and crucially, in the aftermath of the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, both Ukraine and Georgia would be told ( along with Russia listening in ) that they too will be NATO members at some point in the future.

I have asked, and largely been ignored, that if the Warsaw Pact was still together and it had swallowed up all of Latin and Central American nations with the exception of Mexico ,would the people and leaders of the USA not think that the joining of Mexico to that vast military alliance would pose a threat to the national security of the USA ? Of course they would and I would understand why they should. There would be no talk of Mexican sovereignty and the right to choose etc etc

You also have to understand why things were the way they were up until around 2009. The USA had announced a global war on terror and everyone else, including Putins Russia, had seen the chance to use it as a fig leaf, just as America has done, to attack those that have been irking them, Putin in the 2nd Chechen war and Erdogan against the Kurds ( which invluded a suspension of the no fly zone in Iraq so his forces could cross and sticjk it to the Kurds for a couple of days)

I don't see any of these critical points being included in the " expert" analysis and I have barely looked into it.

 

[oneworld2]

Turkey is Putin's neighbour. Both appear to get along rather well, and appear to operate from same playbook.


You don't like Putin very much, do you?

This is how the public opinion is shaped in the " free society"

I live in the UK and the coverage of the Russian attack on Ukraine is enjoying a level of coverage I have never witnessed before with a complete absence of any attempt at background etc etc They war in Yemen in which hundreds of thousands of people have died and British/western arms and assistance have played a huge roll in their deaths .....zilch, virtually nothing.

All the same monkeys who got told to clap the NHS wrt the Covid situation are running around doing the same virtue signalling but now over Ukraine. We see the same thing here, with people who have had no interest using this war as an opportunity to elevate their standing in the group with visual props and slogans.

The same people, if you told them to, would publicly clap anyone and anything wearing only their underwear , ginger wigs and rabbit ears if it made them feel like they are part of the mass cultural event.

 

[Juin]

Like all propaganda there has to be truth in it or its just too easy to expose it as propaganda. What the article ( and they themselves ?) fails to disclose it that from his none hostility to NATO days to his hostile days to NATO it could be argued that 13 countries had joined the military alliance, 4 of which had direct mutual borders with the Russian state and another two that had the same shared border with Russia had been virtually promised NATO member state status in the future

One doesn't have to be a Russian to perceive that approach of a military alliance as a threat.

That's why the timeline I gave was to show that when Putin was okay with NATO was BEFORE his presidency, That would figure seeing as prior to his inauguration only 3 former Warsaw Pact nations had actually joined NATO. In just 9 years after that another 9 nations would be full NATO members and crucially, in the aftermath of the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, both Ukraine and Georgia would be told ( along with Russia listening in ) that they too will be NATO members at some point in the future.

This was always crazy. And it is funny that the British who, historically, have always moved to spoil any continental coalition in Europe- be it Napoleon or Germans- pretends today they cannot understand the same exact Russian concerns.

Britain is genetically allergic to the presence of any rising power, or combination of powers on the European continent. Some even ascribe her aversion to the EU on this age old allergy.

I have asked, and largely been ignored, that if the Warsaw Pact was still together and it had swallowed up all of Latin and Central American nations with the exception of Mexico ,would the people and leaders of the USA not think that the joining of Mexico to that vast military alliance would pose a threat to the national security of the USA ? Of course they would and I would understand why they should. There would be no talk of Mexican sovereignty and the right to choose etc etc

Its a difficult question to honestly address without conceding that Russians had a valid concern.

 

[oneworld2]

Its a difficult question to honestly address without conceding that Russians had a valid concern.

Absolutely it is, hence why I asked it and hence why it was virtually ignored/derided. BTW I am not the only one to have made the point. I saw others make it and with the same result.

The message to be had from this?

We don't want no stinking honesty, we just want another "truth" that doesn't undermine our devotion to our nation and/or highlight its crimes that are even worse than Putins.

 

[Juin]

Absolutely it is, hence why I asked it and hence why it was virtually ignored/derided. BTW I am not the only one to have made the point. I saw others make it and with the same result.

The message to be had from this?

We don't want no stinking honesty, we just want another "truth" that doesn't undermine our devotion to our nation and/or highlight its crimes that are even worse than Putins.

Truth be the first casualty in war. And some of the ex Generals invited to give expert opinion on discussions are worse than the journalists.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Russia signed on to this Treaty in 1997.....

Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France

www.nato.int

 

[oneworld2]

Russia signed on to this Treaty in 1997.....

Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France

www.nato.int

OSCE supported Minsk2

 

[Rogue Valley]

One of Putin's staunch supporters here at DP.

 

[oneworld2]

One of Putin's staunch supporters here at DP.

You cited an article discussing the OSCE but negelected to mention that it supported the MInsk 2 agreement/proposal. The only well supported diplomatic option on the table. Do you always prefer war or is it only war with Russia you want ?

 

[Juin]

One of Putin's staunch supporters here at DP.

Give it a rest!

 

[Rogue Valley]

And the bookend.

 

[oneworld2]

Truth be the first casualty in war. And some of the ex Generals invited to give expert opinion on discussions are worse than the journalists.

There's a line of thought that goes something along the lines of.........you don't have to censor most western journalists because of what they write all by themselves. I think it has a lot of credibility. If they didnj't hold the views and outlooks they do, they wouldn't be where they are.