NATO is a US aggressive military force and should be disbanded. It is responsible for dividing Europe and has caused havoc throughout the middle east region with millions of innocent civilians killed and scores sectarian killings every day. Its cost is astronomical and is a heavy burden placed on the people of the US and Europe. It requires perpetual wars to justify its existence. The corporate media owned by billionaires provides it with cover by justifying its killing. The world is crying out for peace. NATO requires war. PEACE NOW.
1
@eustace
Do you actually know anything about World History??? -- You might want to take a cursory glance at it before coming up with some of the notions you entertain about NATO being responsible for dividing Europe and causing havoc in the Middle-East.
Sorry. But you couldn't be more wrong.
Do you actually know anything about World History??? -- You might want to take a cursory glance at it before coming up with some of the notions you entertain about NATO being responsible for dividing Europe and causing havoc in the Middle-East.
Sorry. But you couldn't be more wrong.
1
It looks like the insubordinate US generals like Breedlove with their blatant lies have achieved what they wanted.
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/
As the low expenditures for defense in the Baltics make clear these countries aren't really worried. But they certainly will welcome the stimulus to their economy that this NATO deployment will offer.
As for Poland: It only borders Russia's Kalinigrad where the unimpressive force of 11,000 soldiers is stationed.
During and shortly after World War II Poland and the Baltics had some bad experience with Russia. But to address the resulting fears we would do better to send therapists than soldiers.
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/
As the low expenditures for defense in the Baltics make clear these countries aren't really worried. But they certainly will welcome the stimulus to their economy that this NATO deployment will offer.
As for Poland: It only borders Russia's Kalinigrad where the unimpressive force of 11,000 soldiers is stationed.
During and shortly after World War II Poland and the Baltics had some bad experience with Russia. But to address the resulting fears we would do better to send therapists than soldiers.
4
Estonia spends 2.1% of her GDP, at the Nato recommended level, but one should remember that she has a conscript army. Young men make an in-kind donation on top of the 2.1% by serving 8 or 11 months effectively for free.
www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-p...
www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-p...
1
The NATO nation with the biggest Russian population is Latvia.
They are concerned about Russia's aggression and the memory of Russia's occupation was not long ago. My mother came here during the Soviet occupation through the Displacement Act. Your comment about sending therapists is offensive.
They are concerned about Russia's aggression and the memory of Russia's occupation was not long ago. My mother came here during the Soviet occupation through the Displacement Act. Your comment about sending therapists is offensive.
One thing we cannot lose sight of is that Putin and Russia are not afraid to use military might as an integral part of Russia's foreign policy. We have also seen that Putin, in particular, thinks it is best for Russia to do what it wants and then beg for forgiveness, if necessary. That tactic has worked remarkably well for Putin in recent years as the US has been weak and indecisive in its response. It was often not even necessary for Putin to try to seek forgiveness.
We still live in a world where might makes right, and there is no such thing as political correctness when it comes to international dealings. National interest is the standard. When we deal with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc., our politically correct approach is seen as weakness and indecision. We pay a price for that, not to mention the accompanying loss of respect.
Becoming more aggressive with Russia is the right thing to do under the circumstances. We need to do even more, before Putin becomes even more adventuresome. If Putin does something that we cannot forgive, the options are very limited and very high stakes.
We still live in a world where might makes right, and there is no such thing as political correctness when it comes to international dealings. National interest is the standard. When we deal with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc., our politically correct approach is seen as weakness and indecision. We pay a price for that, not to mention the accompanying loss of respect.
Becoming more aggressive with Russia is the right thing to do under the circumstances. We need to do even more, before Putin becomes even more adventuresome. If Putin does something that we cannot forgive, the options are very limited and very high stakes.
1
Correct. Putins a madman. His methods are of dissenters is murderous and always unsolved. His radioactive poisoning of a former agent in London. His paranoia that someone will do unto him what he does, reflected in his refusal to eat food not controlled by his staff on all occasions and trips.
While military preparedness and resolution from the NATO side may be part of a process of ensuring peace in Europe, a bigger part is being neglected and that is to restore dialogue, transparency and predictability to the various military maneuvers within NATO's eastern flank and on Russia's side near the same area. The Cold War in its later phases was kept 'cold' through just these sorts of confidence building and reassurance measures. Without them, the Alliance's buildup could just trigger a commensurate build up on the Russian side with no net gain of security at all.
3
It's obvious that Putin is playing dangerous games at every turn. It's largely NATO related. NATO expresses unity against Russia and Putins extreme aggression everywhere. Today, the very next day June 7th, a US diplomat was attacked and tackled at the entrance struggling to make it to the door of the US Embassy in Russia. That's a slap to all diplomacy and protocol. Every boundary has been crossed. Will a Russian sub and warships come to the US coast within our waters violating boundaries. Will Russian fighter planes fly over NY or Los Angeles?
If you say ridiculous, wake up as there not much more "slap in the face" room left.
In the Middle East, in our awful ally and horribly anti Semitic Ukraine where Russian troops fought in uniform without insignia and where a commercial airliner was shot down by them. All over NATO and the retaking of Ukrainian land on the sea because that was to become a NATO base with Ukraine a member. What next from the anti American, anti West, anti democracy Russia. The unprecedented dangerous fly by's over our war ships and carriers. Putins KGB mindset it to regain new territory and regain territory they got in deals with the the US and England for their part in the war
If you say ridiculous, wake up as there not much more "slap in the face" room left.
In the Middle East, in our awful ally and horribly anti Semitic Ukraine where Russian troops fought in uniform without insignia and where a commercial airliner was shot down by them. All over NATO and the retaking of Ukrainian land on the sea because that was to become a NATO base with Ukraine a member. What next from the anti American, anti West, anti democracy Russia. The unprecedented dangerous fly by's over our war ships and carriers. Putins KGB mindset it to regain new territory and regain territory they got in deals with the the US and England for their part in the war
1
The response to the NATO alliance and historic resentments now becoming overt and dangerous hostile gestures. Sadly an incident could occur with fighter jets and our ships and carriers. Yet with a world gone mad, with the horrifying tragic police atrocities here on tonight's news, with the Middle East, with every third quirks country"hands out" yet slamming us we remain the greatest, yes flawed but still greatest nation and the only revolution that led to greatness. Imagine the Russian close calls with our military that we never hear about. Putin is a monster we know.
Russians hate us, yes the people, but all want to come live here and then criticize us in the only country that tolerates that Every single other nations population wants to come. A mad world is an understatement highlighted further by our presidential political race. Russia's timing considers that fiasco as well. Can we remain safe and can we remain strong?
Russians hate us, yes the people, but all want to come live here and then criticize us in the only country that tolerates that Every single other nations population wants to come. A mad world is an understatement highlighted further by our presidential political race. Russia's timing considers that fiasco as well. Can we remain safe and can we remain strong?
1
There's a sense of irony that Poland holds another historic summit, since the one in 1955, which saw the founding of the Warsaw Pact - an alliance of communist states led by the Soviet Union, aimed at countering the threat posed by NATO during the Cold War.
This year's NATO summit in Warsaw is the first post-Brexit gathering, amid tensions with Russia and the raging war in Syria, with spillover effects in Europe's southern backyard. Poland in general and its Baltic neighbours in particular, which have a significant number of Russian speakers, are worried about their security, as Russian tanks seem rolling westwards, instilling fear of another "hybrid war" like the one going on in Eastern Ukraine.
NATO's southern members - Italy, Greece Turkey are more concerned with the chaos and instability across the Mediterranean, since the 2011 Arab uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East.
Another crucial issue is Britain's role in the Alliance. It is by far the strongest military actor within the EU. Although it vows to remain a major player in Nato, there are worries that Brexit could send a signal of disarray at a time when the West needs to present a united front. Strong ties between the EU and NATO should bolster European defence as well.
This year's NATO summit in Warsaw is the first post-Brexit gathering, amid tensions with Russia and the raging war in Syria, with spillover effects in Europe's southern backyard. Poland in general and its Baltic neighbours in particular, which have a significant number of Russian speakers, are worried about their security, as Russian tanks seem rolling westwards, instilling fear of another "hybrid war" like the one going on in Eastern Ukraine.
NATO's southern members - Italy, Greece Turkey are more concerned with the chaos and instability across the Mediterranean, since the 2011 Arab uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East.
Another crucial issue is Britain's role in the Alliance. It is by far the strongest military actor within the EU. Although it vows to remain a major player in Nato, there are worries that Brexit could send a signal of disarray at a time when the West needs to present a united front. Strong ties between the EU and NATO should bolster European defence as well.
2
Putin likes to move miniature infantry and artillery pieces around a board before actually doing it.
1
No to mention his only aircraft carrier that can't take to the sea without tugboats!
But he's built warships and nuclear subs at a an astronomical unparalleled rate. His war machine is ever expanding
Please ask the president Andrew Duda why he does not respect polish law? Why he is now the crimilan? What happended with the constitution in Poland? And finally why they work in parliament in the nights in the hurry?
2
Let's see now. WE've financed the overthrow of a legitimate government in Ukraine. We are ringing Russia with missles and troops. Russia did not invade Crimea. They were already there. They are very close with the people there. Even though we promised not to push NATO eastward, NATO is now on their doorstep.
And we call Russia aggressive.
And we call Russia aggressive.
19
The legitimate parliament in Ukraine went on, and voted to impeach president Yanukovych. Even his own Party of the Regions had 36 deputies voting in favor of impeachment. The vote took place the day after the president had agreed to step down
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/ukraine-president-says-deal-has-be...
and after, to everybody's surprise, he fled to Russia instead.
While it is true that the impeachment did not follow the time limits and detailed formalities as stated in the constitution, the parliament did have the right to impeach the president. The new presidential elections were arranged immediately
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/25/petro-poroshenko-ukraine-president...
and the parliament measured the acceptance level of its unconstitutional behaviour by dissolving itself and arranging early parliamentary elections
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/ukraine-votes-in-parliamentary-ele...
It is hard to see how these events, however regrettable they were, can be called something as harsh as 'overthrowing of a legitimate government'. Much less how US can be said to have financed it.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/ukraine-president-says-deal-has-be...
and after, to everybody's surprise, he fled to Russia instead.
While it is true that the impeachment did not follow the time limits and detailed formalities as stated in the constitution, the parliament did have the right to impeach the president. The new presidential elections were arranged immediately
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/25/petro-poroshenko-ukraine-president...
and the parliament measured the acceptance level of its unconstitutional behaviour by dissolving itself and arranging early parliamentary elections
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/26/ukraine-votes-in-parliamentary-ele...
It is hard to see how these events, however regrettable they were, can be called something as harsh as 'overthrowing of a legitimate government'. Much less how US can be said to have financed it.
3
Maybe by rioters storming the presidential palace before the vote occurred and hours after he fled can make it seem somewhat less than peaceful. Maybe the violence that russians faced inside ukraine during the election and still face today. Or have we forgotten when Pro Russian protesters were locked in a burning building in Odessa while the fire department and police sang patriotic songs as 30+ people died. Or the attacks on russian MPs in the streets of kiev. It is not possible to be a pro russian politician in ukraine right now, I fail to see how that is more legitimate than a succession vote in crimea. Arguably less so.
1
The timeline is crucial here.
One day AFTER Yanukovich agreed to ALL the demands of the opposition and a national reconciliation agreement was signed (amnesty, early Presidential elections, etc.), the same opposition decided not to abide by said agreement.
The impeachment doesn't work retroactively.
As for Y. fleeing, well, can you blame him not wanting to end up, like Ghaddafi, or Saddam Hussein?
One day AFTER Yanukovich agreed to ALL the demands of the opposition and a national reconciliation agreement was signed (amnesty, early Presidential elections, etc.), the same opposition decided not to abide by said agreement.
The impeachment doesn't work retroactively.
As for Y. fleeing, well, can you blame him not wanting to end up, like Ghaddafi, or Saddam Hussein?
It is foolish to think that Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe. Look what they did in Ukraine. If they though they could get away with it, they would take Poland in a heartbeat.
Forget about diplomacy. History proves that a show of force is the only thing that will keep Russians at bay.
While NATO in its current form is obsolete, and while Europe should take the lead financially and militarily, NATO's mission is more vital now than it has been since the end of the cold war.
Forget about diplomacy. History proves that a show of force is the only thing that will keep Russians at bay.
While NATO in its current form is obsolete, and while Europe should take the lead financially and militarily, NATO's mission is more vital now than it has been since the end of the cold war.
11
You are either incredibly naive, or so brainwashed, you can't even tell a table from a chair.
Tell me, PLEASE! what on Earth would Russia (or anybody else) gain by invading Poland? Seriously, what?
As for Ukraine....well, in hindsight, I bet there are MILLIONS there who wish they didn't vote for independence after the USSR fell apart. Being part of a larger entity is always better, than trying swim all by yourself (and as history shows, Ukraine didn't make much of itself between 1991 and 2014.)
NATO is nothing, but a loose dog, running around and barking at everyone, hoping somebody will bark back.
Tell me, PLEASE! what on Earth would Russia (or anybody else) gain by invading Poland? Seriously, what?
As for Ukraine....well, in hindsight, I bet there are MILLIONS there who wish they didn't vote for independence after the USSR fell apart. Being part of a larger entity is always better, than trying swim all by yourself (and as history shows, Ukraine didn't make much of itself between 1991 and 2014.)
NATO is nothing, but a loose dog, running around and barking at everyone, hoping somebody will bark back.
3
@waldo
Having lived through the Cold War in a divided Europe, I can guarantee you that Poland and the other Baltic states have every reason to err on the side of caution when it comes to the stationing of allied troops in the vicinity.
NATO may be a "loose dog", but it's bark might make its bite unnecessary.
Having lived through the Cold War in a divided Europe, I can guarantee you that Poland and the other Baltic states have every reason to err on the side of caution when it comes to the stationing of allied troops in the vicinity.
NATO may be a "loose dog", but it's bark might make its bite unnecessary.
2
Any close study of the history of the post war period shows that diplomatic engagement with the USSR played a huge role in diminishing tensions and ultimately laying the groundwork for the end of the Cold War.
2
NATO has outlived its usefulness - ever since the end of the Cold War, it's languished.
Russia is not a threat to Poland - it's almost laughable to think Russia has any interest whatsoever in the Country.
It does have interest in the Ukraine and other former Republics, which is understandable.
NATO only antagonizes the Russians - they've retaliated against recent moves by NATO over the years. Putin is an autocrat who will side step any NATO initiatives.
There was a great article by Gorbochev a year or so ago; he said NATO only has exacerbated the division between Russia and the West.
We have greater concerns for national security than worrying about Russia!
Russia is not a threat to Poland - it's almost laughable to think Russia has any interest whatsoever in the Country.
It does have interest in the Ukraine and other former Republics, which is understandable.
NATO only antagonizes the Russians - they've retaliated against recent moves by NATO over the years. Putin is an autocrat who will side step any NATO initiatives.
There was a great article by Gorbochev a year or so ago; he said NATO only has exacerbated the division between Russia and the West.
We have greater concerns for national security than worrying about Russia!
18
I must disagree. Vladimir Putin is still playing from the old KGB handbook.
The Cold War has not ended.
The Cold War has not ended.
2
The NATO expansion naysayers need reminding that no nation has been forced to join NATO. The former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact nations clamored for NATO protection because of their long, tragic histories with Russia, and the resurgence of Russian nationalism and imperialism. To oppose voluntary NATO expansion is, in essence, to oppose national self-determination.
8
You are dead wrong. Force (to join NATO) was applied in a more subtle form - by waving the accelerated ascension to the EU as a carrot at the end of a stick.
2
Once your head is out of the sand, my friend, you'll find that it's all about money skimmed off by top military and political officials. Great power comes with accession to NATO for the chosen few wearing stars on their shoulders or in their eyes.
Let's face reality. No need for Vladimir Putin to threat Baltic states. Brexit has done a superb job to further weaken NATO, a cold war relic military alliance.
Now is time for diplomacy to take center stage and settle down Ukaine's border litigation with Russia.
Now is time for diplomacy to take center stage and settle down Ukaine's border litigation with Russia.
10
While trying to settle the border between Russia and Ukraine, how about Ukraine giving back Eastern Poland to the Poles, Trans-Carpathia to the Slovaks (and Hungarians) and Bessarabia to the Romanians?
4
Ukraine has no "border litigation with Russia" Russia, in violation of multiple treaties, annexed part of Ukraine and invaded another part, while brazenly lying about both.
Until Putin demonstrated he was happy to use military force to redraw the borders of Eastern Europe, NATO did indeed appear to be somewhat of a Cold War relic. Not any more.
Until Putin demonstrated he was happy to use military force to redraw the borders of Eastern Europe, NATO did indeed appear to be somewhat of a Cold War relic. Not any more.
5
We need to stop this provocation of Russia.
With V Nuland's not-so-clever move on Ukraine, we have started a new arms race that we certainly do not need.
Find attached two informative articles laying out the background.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the-united-stat...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-dea...
With V Nuland's not-so-clever move on Ukraine, we have started a new arms race that we certainly do not need.
Find attached two informative articles laying out the background.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the-united-stat...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-dea...
5
It's it's about time.
1
Russia is not a threat to Europe. So WHY is NATO (aka the US) pushing for a heightened and provocative presence at Russia's borders? Is it to prevent a possible (and what would otherwise be a natural) rapprochement between Europe and Russia? Imagine the economic threat that such a block would pose to the US? The problem is that in the interest of the dollar, we are risking war, perhaps the last one to be waged on this planet.
5
The US always had a Russian 'itch'. Back in the 1920's the US openly supported the whites in the civil war and didn't recognise the USSR until 1935 (!).
1
If Russians stayed on their side of their borders, they wouldn't get surrounded by enemies. Ever thought of that, genius?
1
@waldo
WHAT kind of "itch" are you talking about???
You do realize there's always (at least) two sides to a conflict.
And no need to go back as far as the Bolsheviks to make a point (if there is one)... We're talking about the 20th & 21st century here.
WHAT kind of "itch" are you talking about???
You do realize there's always (at least) two sides to a conflict.
And no need to go back as far as the Bolsheviks to make a point (if there is one)... We're talking about the 20th & 21st century here.
1
"several countries are still balking at financing the alliance at the agreed-upon level"
Can you really blame them? This is a huge waste of money, simply to accommodate the paranoia of Poland and the Baltic States against Russia. These countries are not really threatened by anyone.
Can you really blame them? This is a huge waste of money, simply to accommodate the paranoia of Poland and the Baltic States against Russia. These countries are not really threatened by anyone.
8
I don't think building up tensions against Russia is in the interest of Europe.
With Britain gone, the continent should consider its own defense priorities and leave NATO if necessary.
With Britain gone, the continent should consider its own defense priorities and leave NATO if necessary.
7
We always plan for the return of a previous war instead of taking a hard look at what is staring us in the face.
8
The USSR mostly dissolved on its own with a minimum amount of bloodshed. Many Russians think they went too far and lost Russian speaking areas like eastern Ukraine and a few others. Just like in the middle east where borders were routinely made up by war lords, dictators and worse.
Unless they (nato) and we want to get involved in another Iraq, Syria or Afgan., Nato and especially the US should stay as far away from those borders as they can get. It is territory disputes between Russia and a few boarding nations that go back for centuries.
Nato should be use as a mediator and only get involved if was crimes or other atrocities are being committed.
Learn from Lincoln or forever be condemned to repeating the worst of history. That is why he did not get involved in a war with England when they were trading with the rebels. He said we will fight one war at a time...don't get involved in foreign entanglements unless America is directly threatened or war crimes are being committed.
Unless they (nato) and we want to get involved in another Iraq, Syria or Afgan., Nato and especially the US should stay as far away from those borders as they can get. It is territory disputes between Russia and a few boarding nations that go back for centuries.
Nato should be use as a mediator and only get involved if was crimes or other atrocities are being committed.
Learn from Lincoln or forever be condemned to repeating the worst of history. That is why he did not get involved in a war with England when they were trading with the rebels. He said we will fight one war at a time...don't get involved in foreign entanglements unless America is directly threatened or war crimes are being committed.
9
Sure, just stand by and watch the far-right KGB state annex more European territory, fund more far-right parties in Europe, murder more Europeans.
1
Trump is right about NATO. It has become a dependency, not an alliance.
Very few of our "allies" are investing what they themselves committed to defense. If they met their own commitments, it would add about $80-100 billion per year to NATO's defense spending. Instead, our European partners are spending this money on social welfare, while living under our defense umbrella. In the case of Germany, they can do this while running a balanced federal budget.
Trump has called for an immediate NATO summit to determine if our allies will do what they've promised. If they won't, then perhaps they aren't really so committed to NATO, and perhaps we shouldn't be either.
Trump's plan is actually just an extension and expansion on the small steps that Obama has already taken in this direction. The problem so far is that without a credible willingness to withdraw from NATO, none of our partners has actually taken the U.S. seriously.
NATO has been and continues to be an important force for global stability. It is up to Europe to determine if it is still needed in the future.
Very few of our "allies" are investing what they themselves committed to defense. If they met their own commitments, it would add about $80-100 billion per year to NATO's defense spending. Instead, our European partners are spending this money on social welfare, while living under our defense umbrella. In the case of Germany, they can do this while running a balanced federal budget.
Trump has called for an immediate NATO summit to determine if our allies will do what they've promised. If they won't, then perhaps they aren't really so committed to NATO, and perhaps we shouldn't be either.
Trump's plan is actually just an extension and expansion on the small steps that Obama has already taken in this direction. The problem so far is that without a credible willingness to withdraw from NATO, none of our partners has actually taken the U.S. seriously.
NATO has been and continues to be an important force for global stability. It is up to Europe to determine if it is still needed in the future.
7
Trump has no understanding of foreign affairs at all. NATO has been and primarily is and extension of the US and serves the US. If it didn't, we wouldn't be supporting it. Trump knows nothing.
8
"Britain has agreed to take command of a battalion to be based in Estonia and Germany and placed in Lithuania. It is expected that the United States will not only command the troops, but also make up the bulk in a force to be stationed in Poland."
What? Who's in command?
What? Who's in command?
3
What is on second base.
Who's on first.
Who's on first.
6
This is so obviously how big wars get started, the slow ratcheting up of mutual posturing. Both sides seem to have forgotten that we are now in a world of nuclear weapons, and more to the point, tactical nuclear weapons.
8
Russia's continued belligerence? Rather, NATO's increasing belligerence. One has to be blind or blinded not to see that. If Russia wanted to attach the Baltic countries, it could have done so for years. Not waiting for NATO forces to be moved near its borders. A little war with Russia might make Europeans forget Brexit, the wave of migrants over whelming the continent, the inability of European leaders and the European Commission to act with purpose. Just a hypothesis. LIke the one forwarded as truth about Russia's belligerence.
16
As far as I see the so-called Nato's 'belligrence' only started after the conflict in Georgia and annexation of Crimea showed that one cannot create a military vacuum in Europe. Before those incidents the US had withdrawn its last tanks from Europe...
www.stripes.com/news/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-germany-1.214977
Germany had cut its main battle tank force from 2 350 to the staggeringly low 250, and Obama was proposing a world free of nuclear weapons
www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/05/nuclear-weapons-barack-obama
Someone obviously saw an opportunity.
www.stripes.com/news/us-army-s-last-tanks-depart-from-germany-1.214977
Germany had cut its main battle tank force from 2 350 to the staggeringly low 250, and Obama was proposing a world free of nuclear weapons
www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/05/nuclear-weapons-barack-obama
Someone obviously saw an opportunity.
6
Your beloved neutrality did not keep Putin from sending his subs and planes around you. Keep that in mind...
"an increasingly pugnacious Russia"
"Russia's continuing belligerence"
These reports are becoming sillier by the day, both in tone and content.
NATO is like a loose dog, running around, trying to provoke other dogs (especially the biggest one behind the fence) to a fight. The big dog will - surprise, surprise - bark back.
Now the loose dog (or shall we call it loose cannon?) is hatching plans on what to do, if the big dog had enough and breaks out.
Regarding Crimea, the referendum/annexation whatever you call it wouldn't have taken place, had the new Kiev leadership not taken the direction it did.
Remember, there was no talk of Russia being forced out from their base there during the first revolution, nor after Yanukovich came to power.
I wonder, if there are any sane heads left in Brussels.
"Russia's continuing belligerence"
These reports are becoming sillier by the day, both in tone and content.
NATO is like a loose dog, running around, trying to provoke other dogs (especially the biggest one behind the fence) to a fight. The big dog will - surprise, surprise - bark back.
Now the loose dog (or shall we call it loose cannon?) is hatching plans on what to do, if the big dog had enough and breaks out.
Regarding Crimea, the referendum/annexation whatever you call it wouldn't have taken place, had the new Kiev leadership not taken the direction it did.
Remember, there was no talk of Russia being forced out from their base there during the first revolution, nor after Yanukovich came to power.
I wonder, if there are any sane heads left in Brussels.
9
Goebbels' school of propaganda- if you repeat a lie enough, people will start believing it.
7
Indeed, one should remember the existence of places like this:
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll...
Proxy servers can be used to make one appear to be posting from any country or any continent.
Having said this, I think that the comments should be agreed with or disputed on the basis of substance and facts. Calling some particular writer 'a troll' is not fruitful.
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll...
Proxy servers can be used to make one appear to be posting from any country or any continent.
Having said this, I think that the comments should be agreed with or disputed on the basis of substance and facts. Calling some particular writer 'a troll' is not fruitful.
So the annexation of Crimea wouldn't have happened if the new Kyiv leadership had continued to do Putin's bidding, as Yanukovich did... stellar logic there.
You are also factually incorrect regarding "no talk of Russia being forced out from their base there during the first revolution" Actuallhy, following the 2005 Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian government indicated that it wished to terminate the agreement regarding the Sebastopol Russian navy base at the end of the existing agreement.
When Yanukovych was elected in 2010, he promptly negotiated an agreement to renew the lease for the Russian Navy for several decades. In exchange Ukraine was to receive beneficial gas pricing from Russia. As usual when you make a deal with Russia, the beneficial gas pricing disappeared in a few months.
There is absolutely no honest defense of Russia in this situation.
You are also factually incorrect regarding "no talk of Russia being forced out from their base there during the first revolution" Actuallhy, following the 2005 Orange Revolution, the Ukrainian government indicated that it wished to terminate the agreement regarding the Sebastopol Russian navy base at the end of the existing agreement.
When Yanukovych was elected in 2010, he promptly negotiated an agreement to renew the lease for the Russian Navy for several decades. In exchange Ukraine was to receive beneficial gas pricing from Russia. As usual when you make a deal with Russia, the beneficial gas pricing disappeared in a few months.
There is absolutely no honest defense of Russia in this situation.
2
Follow. the. money.
Who benefits from an "enhanced forward presence" in Russia's back yard? The enhanced forward presence is just going to make Russia respond by increasing its own military. Then the US is finally justified to not only maintain but to increase our own ridiculous military budget.
Who benefits from an "enhanced forward presence" in Russia's back yard? The enhanced forward presence is just going to make Russia respond by increasing its own military. Then the US is finally justified to not only maintain but to increase our own ridiculous military budget.
12
Eastern Europe is no Russian 'back yard', nor is Cuba 'America's backyard'. Your stupid comment is downright insulting to Eastern Europeans. It shows that you still have a Berlin Wall stuck in your small head.
One has to wonder who wrote the photo caption referring to the "increasingly aggressive" Russian leadership? The line make sense if two assumptions are at play. The first is that the West having "won" the cold war has the prerogative to dictate policy to Russia and all the former Warsaw pact countries. The second assumption is that American triumphalism has arrived and the rest of the world is destined to serve as its vassal states. This later point was central policy of the Bush neocons.
Since 1989 NATO, a military alliance has expanded to the boarders of Russia. Bush followed this gambit by withdrawing from the ABA treaty, expanding anti-missle technology and making preparations to deploy weapons in space. Obama continued this flawed policy by extending ABM sites into Poland with plans to place them in other Eastern European countries as well. Add to this our trillion dollar ten year plan to revitalize and miniaturize our nuclear arsenal.
These are all facts, most gleaned from the pages of the NYTimes. So when Russia responds to the US sponsored coup in the Ukraine by predictably protecting its only warm water port in Crimea, how is this characterized as "aggressive" while NATO's surrounding of Russia with military units and advanced nuclear capability seen as a merely a response to aggression rather than aggression itself?
The Times would be better served saving this for the opinion page rather than as basic news. The flaws in this story are obvious.
Since 1989 NATO, a military alliance has expanded to the boarders of Russia. Bush followed this gambit by withdrawing from the ABA treaty, expanding anti-missle technology and making preparations to deploy weapons in space. Obama continued this flawed policy by extending ABM sites into Poland with plans to place them in other Eastern European countries as well. Add to this our trillion dollar ten year plan to revitalize and miniaturize our nuclear arsenal.
These are all facts, most gleaned from the pages of the NYTimes. So when Russia responds to the US sponsored coup in the Ukraine by predictably protecting its only warm water port in Crimea, how is this characterized as "aggressive" while NATO's surrounding of Russia with military units and advanced nuclear capability seen as a merely a response to aggression rather than aggression itself?
The Times would be better served saving this for the opinion page rather than as basic news. The flaws in this story are obvious.
18
If you believe the events in Ukraine were a "US sponsored coup" you should try broadening the sources of your information.... You've obviously been exposed to far too much Russian propaganda.
4
Post-Brexit European unity could be best ensured through diplomacy and forming an effective international alliance and strategy to fight global terror menace rather by following the Ill-conceived Warsaw advice for deploying more NATO forces and weapons on the eastern front against Russia. Instead, the transatlantic alliance of Western nations should ask Poland and other East European member countries to focus on more internal democratisation and capacity building than keeping their people distracted from domestic governance failure by always wolfcrying on Russia.
9
Professor,
Agreed. The only ones happy are our Strangeloves and arms manufacturers.
Both Russia and Eastern Europe need economic development; not bombs.
Agreed. The only ones happy are our Strangeloves and arms manufacturers.
Both Russia and Eastern Europe need economic development; not bombs.
13
NATO is just another extension or forward operating base for the U.S. military. There has never been a single military action under NATO that was not commanded by a U.S. General and whose military composition was overwhelmingly American.
Let's not forget President Obama's massive (both in numbers and taxpayer money) overhaul and upgrade of our gigantic nuclear arsenal that also includes tactical nuclear weapons which only encourages their use.
"... Russia's continued belligerence" does not even come close to the unilateral military aggression by the U.S. military around the globe.
Let's not forget President Obama's massive (both in numbers and taxpayer money) overhaul and upgrade of our gigantic nuclear arsenal that also includes tactical nuclear weapons which only encourages their use.
"... Russia's continued belligerence" does not even come close to the unilateral military aggression by the U.S. military around the globe.
15
We seem to be on the same track and my first name is Paul too.
Cheers!
Cheers!
1
I view this article part of a belligerence of the cold warriors full of inaccuracies and omissions.
“NATO is the last European institution standing" What? NATO's dominant force is the US, Canada is not in Europe. The European nations are bound by secret protocols to toe the NATO line even if it is against their own interests. The last supreme allied commander, General Breedlove (no joke), quite openly undermined the White House in pushing for more belligerence against Russia and made up facts in the Ukraine conflict that the Europeans rejected. Since the end of the Soviet Union, NATO is encroaching on Russia ever closer and the Ukraine conflict started when the US was pushing for this country to join NATO and the EU, crossing a line the Russians were not willing to accept.
The Baltic states have a sizeable Russian population that is made stateless, has no passports and can't vote. Of course this is an open affront to Russia which freed those countries from Nazi barbarism. How the EU ever got to accept those countries can only be chalked up to NATO interests, since this treatment of minorities is so against EU principles.
Why is it in our interest to force the Russian populations of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea to remain inside Ukraine, a country unimaginably corrupt and incompetent and with a fascist faction that is openly hostile to their Russian minority?
Lastly I want to point out that any power that tried to subdue Russia in the last 300 years was wiped out.
“NATO is the last European institution standing" What? NATO's dominant force is the US, Canada is not in Europe. The European nations are bound by secret protocols to toe the NATO line even if it is against their own interests. The last supreme allied commander, General Breedlove (no joke), quite openly undermined the White House in pushing for more belligerence against Russia and made up facts in the Ukraine conflict that the Europeans rejected. Since the end of the Soviet Union, NATO is encroaching on Russia ever closer and the Ukraine conflict started when the US was pushing for this country to join NATO and the EU, crossing a line the Russians were not willing to accept.
The Baltic states have a sizeable Russian population that is made stateless, has no passports and can't vote. Of course this is an open affront to Russia which freed those countries from Nazi barbarism. How the EU ever got to accept those countries can only be chalked up to NATO interests, since this treatment of minorities is so against EU principles.
Why is it in our interest to force the Russian populations of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea to remain inside Ukraine, a country unimaginably corrupt and incompetent and with a fascist faction that is openly hostile to their Russian minority?
Lastly I want to point out that any power that tried to subdue Russia in the last 300 years was wiped out.
21
"The Baltic states have a sizeable Russian population that is made stateless, has no passports and can't vote."
Before WW2 Estonia had a historical russian minority of 8%, then Stalin occupied the country on the basis of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact made with the Nazi Germany, but not all occupiers or immigrants left the country at the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is understandable, as many with the russian descendacy were born there and have roots nowhere else. Hence there is a ~30% russian-speaking minority nowadays.
Requirements for becoming citizens of the newly independent Estonia were (i) the skiil on the estonian language, (ii) knowledge on the constitution and (iii) a pledge of loyalty to Estonia. These requirements are very similar to the naturalization process in the US or in the Russian Federation, too. The major part of the russian-speakers in Estonia have nowadays fulfilled the requirements, so that there is only 6.8% of the population who have chosen to not take the citizenship tests.
http://estonia.eu/about-estonia/society/citizenship.html
Martin, many fear here that your country might consider the 6.8% as evidence of 'subduing Russia', and as a pretext for wiping out the relevant countries. I hope this is not the case.
Before WW2 Estonia had a historical russian minority of 8%, then Stalin occupied the country on the basis of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact made with the Nazi Germany, but not all occupiers or immigrants left the country at the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is understandable, as many with the russian descendacy were born there and have roots nowhere else. Hence there is a ~30% russian-speaking minority nowadays.
Requirements for becoming citizens of the newly independent Estonia were (i) the skiil on the estonian language, (ii) knowledge on the constitution and (iii) a pledge of loyalty to Estonia. These requirements are very similar to the naturalization process in the US or in the Russian Federation, too. The major part of the russian-speakers in Estonia have nowadays fulfilled the requirements, so that there is only 6.8% of the population who have chosen to not take the citizenship tests.
http://estonia.eu/about-estonia/society/citizenship.html
Martin, many fear here that your country might consider the 6.8% as evidence of 'subduing Russia', and as a pretext for wiping out the relevant countries. I hope this is not the case.
2
Indeed, the Soviet Union freed the Baltics from Nazi barbarism, only to be enslaved by autocratic Communist rule. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are now free nations, but live in the shadow of an increasingly aggressive Russian bear. NATO might not be the ideal answer, but its the best game in town for the Baltics.
What a terrible waste of NATO resources. Instead of planning to address global terrorism, they occupy themselves with the Polish disdain for Russia. Putin has no interest in invading Poland. This is not WWII. If anything, Russia has proven time and again to be able to do Europe's dirty work of getting rid of terrorists. Such a lack of vision.
16
The Polish have been bad Europeans and on the wrong side of history since they days of the Irak war. Rumsfeld praised them to be part of the good 'new Europe' vs the 'old Europe' countries like France and Germany who both were against going to war in Irak. Poland right now is under an undemocratic, xenophobic right wing regime and should be told to get in line with European values and interests or ..leave!
2
Why is the NYTimes publishing and NYT Picking comments that are clearly written by Trolls?
3
"Poland right now is under an undemocratic, xenophobic right wing regime and should be told to get in line with European values and interests or"
Replace Poland with Russia and add that they should be told to stop murdering their neighbors and annexing European territory and you're about right.
Replace Poland with Russia and add that they should be told to stop murdering their neighbors and annexing European territory and you're about right.
I question if Russia is really the long term, existential threat to the European continent
24
I asked the same question and my answer is no.
1
Imagine if Russia wasn't the 'existential threat' that the MSM strive to portray it as, but rather was anxious, with China, to be an economic partner with the European countries -- what would be the need for NATO to continue to exist? Would the European countries continue to submit to US 'urging' to spend a higher proportion of their GDP's on their defense budgets and to buy American armaments?
2
If anything this is a time for heightened diplomacy, as Putin shown to be capable of cooperation against ISIS even while the US is moving bases closer to his border (would we tolerate that?).
Please get the old cold warriors out of business. We have too many Strangeloves and need to quit pretending it's not so. The next president is going to have all of them insisting military action is needed everywhere possible.
Please stop demonizing Russia. It's not supported by unbiased facts.