Posted on 08/31/2022 1:27:16 AM PDT by Cathi
It’s true.
Official NATO founding charter -
Pop quiz, hotshot. Count how many times Russia, or Soviet, appears ANYWHERE in it.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
You’ll find NONE. Because the entire point of NATO was to create a subset of the United Nations WITH A MUTUAL DEFENSE CLAUSE.
The primary threat at the time was the Soviet Union, but there was nothing in the charter to limit its mission to ONLY the Soviets.
And even if it had done, the end of the Soviet Union allowed ALL states formally in the Soviet Union to join the club if they so wished.
At one point, Putin even entertained the idea of joining the club. Unfortunately, as we can see with his flagrant disregard for UN Charter principles, he disqualified Russia from joining.
Because signatories to the NATO alliance have to abide by these three paragraphs:
“The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.”
Russia doesn’t believe in any rules-based world order other than its own - and has said so at the UN. It’s only because of some idiotic oversight during the formation of the UN that Russia hasn’t already been kicked off the Security Council, and some would not be unhappy if it were booted out of the General Assembly.
“They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.”
There’s literally not a single word of that, that Putin can reasonably be expected to comply with. He’s a rampant ethnonationalist with fascist mates, running an authoritarian regime where even calling his war a war can get you fifteen years in prison.
“They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.”
Russia keeps saying that it wants demilitarisation of NATO. Well, then Russia has disqualified itself from membership of NATO.
you’re still not making much sense but I guess you are in the Putin man bad, Zelensky man good camp
NATO is a powerful organization/bureaucracy. Bureaucracies don't willingly cut back, shrink, disband, or dissolve.
aaahhh yes... skim the surface and be a hero. but if what has transpired below the surface, did not occur, well the results would have been different as well... ie... ukraines money laundering service for the US...
I’#m making perfect sense, to anyone who can do basic level critical thinking.
I’m in the camp of,
1. Putin doesn’t serve Russia; Putin serves only Putin.
2. Ukraine was very poorly served by both Yanukovych (Putin’s bitch) and Poroshenko (Nazis’ bitch).
3. Ukraine was (even by the admission of the DPR civilian administration in 2019, 2020 AND 2021) doing a whole lot better at de-escalating things under Zelenskyy than EITHER of the previous leaders.
Zelenskyy fell short of implementing all of Minsk 2 - but at least he implemented SOME of it. That’s more than Russia ever did, and Putin was the one who tore the deal up, not Zelenskyy.
And yes, America and Europe deserve some of the blame there too. But I think the reinvention of Zelenskyy as some massively evil Soros puppet is laughably childish, and typically Russian, bullshit.
Putin’s more likely to be a Soros puppet (or co-conspiritor) than Zelenskyy.
Why on earth would Soros pin all his hopes on a TV comedy actor running on a “none of the above” Presidency ticket and who was predicted to come nowhere in the election, when he could’ve picked a professional politician?
Why would Trump go begging to Zelenskyy for dirt on Biden during an election, if he thought for one minute Zelenskyy was an embedded Biden plant?
Face it. This whole Zelenskyy conspiracy thing is straight out of Russia.
If there were no children to molest, there’s be no criminal record for Scott Ritter.
Well said and spot on. The sooner Putin exits the ranks of the living, the better.
“If women would just give themselves freely to their potential rapists, there would be no rape. Problem solved!”
And to continue your Ukraine analogy, if women stopped wearing shirts that said “Please Rape Me”, they would be far less likely to be raped.
There are slime on both sides of this issue.
“That took place in an 18 above certified chat room where he was led to believe the girl was a woman pretending to be a girl and he was going along with it”
Agree, CLASSIC entrapment, as punishment for his earlier activities. Nothing new or different here from our government.
“And billions don’t (watch them).”
Ever wonder why, considering their track record is far, far, better than the ‘experts’ that the Western Media puts on - the ones telling us that Russia is nearly out of weapons and their economy is collapsing - when Russia is flooded with cheap fuel, full store shelves (other than for Gucci’s), and is earning record Western dollars on exports, particularly fuel exports.
Perhaps your media has failed you, by putting on people who flat-out lie to you - and you don’t realize that yet?
…the strategy [of consolidating control over Eastern Europe] is not meant to create new dividing lines in Europe. The aim is to anchor a vulnerable, insecure zone in the certainty of a stable and prosperous and free Europe, and over the long time [sic] this vision includes a democratic Russia. But the pathway to reform in Moscow might just begin with choices that are made in Kiev, Chișinău, Yerevan, and Tbilisi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=424&v=kI4QDm5G-pE&feature=emb_imp_woyt
For over twenty years, Wilson has helped shape U.S. strategy and national security policy in regards to NATO and US-European relations to advance freedom and security around the world. He is an advocate for strengthening democratic alliances to address security challenges, believing “US interests are best served when Washington and its allies act in unison.”[21] Wilson views authoritarian Russia and China as “the main geopolitical challenge of the 21st century,” and that “there is no possible successful strategy to confront Putin’s aggression without a strong NATO.”[22][23]
From July 2001 to January 2004, Wilson served as Deputy Director of the Office of the NATO Secretary General, assisting Lord Robertson to transform the Alliance by enlarging NATO membership, implementing the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and adapting Allied capabilities to face modern threats.[24] In this role, Wilson also supported NATO efforts to broker the Ohrid Agreement to avert civil war in Macedonia.[25][26]
From January 2004 to November 2006, as Director for Central, Eastern and Northern European Affairs at the National Security Council, Wilson coordinated U.S. interagency policy on Ukraine during the Orange Revolution, directed efforts to deepen engagement in Central and Eastern Europe, including the expansion of secure visa-free travel, and promoted close consultation with coalition partners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also played a leading role in implementing the Belarus Democracy Act.[27] In 2007, Wilson served as the executive secretary and chief of staff at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, where he helped to manage the largest embassy in the world and implement a ‘civilian surge’ throughout Iraq. From December 2007 to January 2009, as Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, Wilson led U.S. government efforts to advance a Europe whole, free and at peace. He notably managed interagency policy on NATO, the European Union, Georgia, Ukraine, the Balkans, Eurasian energy security and Turkey, and helped plan numerous presidential visits to Europe, including the Bucharest NATO Summit and the 2008 US-EU Summit.[28]
From 2009 to 2011, Wilson directed the International Security program at the Atlantic Council think tank,[29] transforming it into the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.[30] In 2011, he was promoted to the role of Executive Vice President.[31] At the Atlantic Council, Wilson championed American leadership,[32] a strong NATO,[33] continued NATO enlargement,[34][35] support for democratic reforms in Ukraine and the Balkans, positioning US and NATO forces in the Baltic states,[36][37] and efforts to counter authoritarian powers Russia and China.[38] He also defended global LGBT rights, hosting global leaders for Pride and launching several diversity and inclusion programs within the organization.[39][40] During his tenure, he helped launch the Millennium Leadership Program,[41] the Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East,[42] the Europe Center,[43] the Balkans Forward Initiative,[44] and the Digital Forensic Research Lab.[45]
In June 2021, Wilson was named as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Endowment for Democracy, succeeding Carl Gershman.[46] During his first few months, he managed the safe passage of 923 Afghan grantees, staff and their family members during the 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of U.S. troops.[47][48] In December 2021, alongside USAID Administrator Samantha Power, Wilson moderated a session on human rights and press freedom during the Summit for Democracy.[49][50]
Wilson lives with his husband in Washington, D.C. and part-time in Charleston, SC. His mother, Mary Thornley, is President of Trident Technical College in Charleston, SC.[61]
Can't imagine why Putin would be concerned. /s Did someone say globohomo?
NATO is also a defacto economic alliance. Properly managed that will bring a lot of good jobs to the US. Our doctrine is supposed to be America First and not America Alone.
Great map. Now do one with graves of those murdered by Russia. Then you will understand why all those countries justifiably want to lean west.
Seriously...just stfu.
Is it too much to expect Europe to take care of their own defense, including paying for it?
Yeah, I’m in that camp too. If you oppose the U.S. supporting Ukraine, state your reasons. But don’t blame NATO expansion. Putin’s lived with NATO for decades. He doesn’t see NATO as a aggressor.
And like all successful alliances between free countries, NATO manifests not just common self-interest but bonds of respect and sentiment that ought not to be discarded because they might seem uneeded in mankind's all too infrequent eras of peace.
Recall, for example, an incident that occurred shortly after the 9/11 attack. An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, the Winston Churchill, was off the British coast when a nearby German destroyer, the Lutjens, approached to bid farewell to the NATO ally she had been training with.
As is naval custom, the Churchill’s crew manned the rails and port bridge wing to wish their foreign comrades well. As the Lutjens pulled alongside, the Star Spangled Banner was flying with the German flag at half-mast and the crew at the ship’s rails in their blue dress uniforms. As both vessels steamed alongside each other with sailors rendering honors with crisp salutes, a banner came into view on the German warship: “We Stand by You.”
NATO has its faults, but it is an extraordinary achievement that has joined former enemies together and become a key to peace and security in Europe. As it was, NATO support and expansion helped vulnerable post-communist democracies in East Europe to reform and consolidate politically and to establish new militaries with NATO standards. After the 9/11 attack, NATO countries supported US counter-terror operations, with Britain and even Poland participating in the invasion of Iraq. Germany sent units to help the US in Afghanistan.
Most of all, NATO expansion eastwards came at the urging of the new member countries eager to have effective military allies against post-Soviet Russian aggression. This seems wrong of course if one assumes like Putin that Russia has a right to dominate and rule over her neighbors. I do not. And since Russia kept and updated the massive Soviet era nuclear arsenal aimed at the US and renewed the USSR's anti-American political alignments and activities, I am all for sticking it to Putin and Russia.
As for Scott Ritter, his pro-Iraq and pro-Saddam statements came after he got into legal trouble and became friendly with and received loans that were never paid back from an Iraqi businessman. Funny how that works, with dollops of cash so often seeming to trigger changes in political alignment and point of view.
More broadly, there is a sucker's argument at work here. Really, does the Leftism and globalism of the EU make NATO unworthy to oppose thuggery by Russia and Putin against Ukraine? Some conservatives seem to think so, just as there are conservatives -- yes, I'm talking about you, Pat Buchanan -- who seem to toss hearts and flowers toward Hitler and Nazi Germany because America was led in WW II by the reviled FDR, with the UN a result of the Allied victory.
As always, one must be careful not to take up a point and argue it past the limits of good sense. Maybe NATO expansion was ill-chosen -- I disagree -- but NATO expansion does not in any way validate Putin and Russia in attacking Ukraine. On balance, events have proven NATO's expansion eastwards to be not just correct but perhaps too timid.
Stronger NATO ties with Ukraine might have deterred Putin to general good effect. Even Putin now regrets the attack on Ukraine and must boil with fury about how sly America and NATO are in seeming lethargic until some line has been crossed that triggers action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.