Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia’s accusations - setting the record straight
NATO ^ | April 2014 | NATO

Posted on 04/26/2014 4:33:56 PM PDT by WhiskeyX

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has led to Russia’s international isolation, including NATO’s suspension of all practical cooperation with Russia. To divert attention away from its actions, Russia has levelled a series of accusations against NATO which are based on misrepresentations of the facts and ignore the sustained effort that NATO has put into building a partnership with Russia. Russia has also made baseless attacks on the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities and has used force to seize part of Ukraine’s territory. This document sets the record straight.

(Excerpt) Read more at nato.int ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Russia
KEYWORDS: nato; russia

1 posted on 04/26/2014 4:33:56 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Here is the other side to the story. Bush41 assured Gorbachev that NATO would be disband after Warsaw Pact was disbanded and the Soviet Union dissolved and replaced with Security Council of Europe. Russia would be part of it. Instead NATO still exist and is used by EU to attack Yugoslavia and US to attack other nations in the world. When we kept NATO we promised Yelsin not to add former Warsaw Pact nations to NATO. Today Poland, the Balkins (Romania, Bulgaria) and Baltic states are members of NATO. Then the US assured Russia that we will not make any former Soviet states part of NATO or EU. Then EU/US used NGO to influence the elections in Ukraine and Georgia.


2 posted on 04/26/2014 4:51:32 PM PDT by Fee ( Big Gov and Big Business are Enemies of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fee

Those are interesting accusations. They are not worth the paper they are written on...

You do have copies of these treaties... right?

Just as Putin’s assurances, in written treaties, that Russia would respect Ukraine’s borders in return for it disarming.

Just like Obama refusing to honor the U.S. committment to protect Ukrainian borders, and the U.S. committment to put in place the anti-missile defenses that Obama unilateraly canceled.

And, for your benefit, just like the NATO charter’s promise not to go outside of NATO unless it was attacked... Then it went into the Balkans on the side of the Islamicists.

It just shows that these agreements and treaties are worthless without the raw power to back them up.


3 posted on 04/26/2014 5:00:00 PM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fee

Well, that’s a good reason for Russia to invade its neighbors.


4 posted on 04/26/2014 5:00:28 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fee
“Here is the other side to the story. Bush41 assured Gorbachev that NATO would be disband after Warsaw Pact was disbanded and the Soviet Union dissolved and replaced with Security Council of Europe.”

Newsflash. WP was disbanded because all Russia's “allies” wanted to stay as far away from them as it is possible. NATO was expanded for the very same reason.

5 posted on 04/26/2014 5:58:04 PM PDT by Grzegorz 246
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fee

Isn’t that another propaganda myth with no basis in credible evidence? How for instance, was the POTUS supposed to unilaterrally order all of the other member states to disband their organization without a formal treaty written on paper and ratified by each member state of NATO?


6 posted on 04/26/2014 5:59:59 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
After the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO outlived its founding purpose. But like all government programs, it went looking for another mission to justify its existence and a new/old bogeyman to justify its funding. With no more threat of Soviet invasion looming over its Western European members, NATO morphed itself from a defensive alliance into an expansionist bloc with twelve new member nations right up to the borders of Russia itself.

Just imagine if Russia, China or any other power signed mutual defense treaties with Mexico, Cuba, the Bahamas or with Quebec or British Columbia. And imagine if that hostile alliance threatened our viable defense of our only year-round warm water port -- that's what Sevastopol in Crimea is to Russia. In the past we have invoked the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and driven outsiders from our hemisphere. What makes Russia less entitled to the security of its own borders against a hostile alliance?

As Americans, we need to question whether we're just as committed to total war on behalf of Slovenia, Bulgaria or Croatia as we are for the Brits, Germans, Italians and Dutch. NATO has inflated its treaty membership into meaninglessness, with Americans committed to fight for people we've never known and whose events do not threaten our security one bit. This is ludicrous, and it is very dangerous.

7 posted on 04/26/2014 6:03:44 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grzegorz 246

Are you living in Poland or a Polish expat in the United States?


8 posted on 04/26/2014 6:18:44 PM PDT by wetphoenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix

LOL—please provide me with information so that I may personally attack you. You Russians are funny.


9 posted on 04/26/2014 6:31:11 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Just imagine if Russia, China or any other power signed mutual defense treaties with Mexico, Cuba, the Bahamas or with Quebec or British Columbia.

Okay, I'm imagining that. So. What.

10 posted on 04/26/2014 6:35:09 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Can someone indicate to me when the demise of the Monroe Doctrine took place?


11 posted on 04/26/2014 6:40:14 PM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I’m not asking for any personal information, just curious. I know many people from Poland, even had a Polish girlfriend, none of them was so toxically anti-Russian.


12 posted on 04/26/2014 6:44:51 PM PDT by wetphoenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix

A Chukchi expat in Pernambuco.


13 posted on 04/26/2014 6:44:51 PM PDT by Grzegorz 246
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix

Were your friends Russian occupiers?


14 posted on 04/26/2014 6:52:57 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

What?


15 posted on 04/26/2014 7:08:39 PM PDT by wetphoenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Okay, I'm imagining that. So. What.

Do you understand what the Monroe Doctrine is and its almost two centuries of enforcement? The United States considers any such outside meddling in our hemisphere as an act of war against the United States itself. Yet Russia is supposed to relax as a hostile alliance seeks to encircle it with forces along its borders? Who has been provoking whom for the past twenty years?

16 posted on 04/26/2014 7:32:38 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: morphing libertarian
Can someone indicate to me when the demise of the Monroe Doctrine took place?

Practically speaking, on Election Day, 2008.

17 posted on 04/26/2014 7:44:32 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Do you understand what the Monroe Doctrine is and its almost two centuries of enforcement?

Russia promised to honor Ukraines borders in the Budapest Memorandum 20 years ago.

They broke that promise.

Anyway here's the FreeReign Doctrine.

Russia can't annex Ukraine, Georgia..any country.

US can't annex Canada, Mexico...any country.

Beyond all of that any country as the inalienable right to ask anybody to help DEFEND itself.

Do you understand inalienable rights.

18 posted on 04/26/2014 8:02:44 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

The declaration of the end of the Cold War was always unwarranted by the geo political reality that Russia remained a hostile state towards the members of NATO. Furthermore the NATO mission included maintaining the peace among the members of NATO and not just an adversarial position against the former Soviet union. So, pretty much everything you cited is a repetition of the communist dogma that falsely claimed NATO serves no legitimate purpose.


19 posted on 04/26/2014 8:22:08 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
I don't think we irritate them enough.

Apparently you think they have been delightful global partners at some point in the past.

Got news for you......lol

This entire mess is due to Russia's strategic desire to wake the “Bear” from it's 20 year sleep.

There is not a single country in the region that wants that to happen because they have memories that are not all that old.

For the US to turn it's back while a past and present foe tries to rebuild it's power base and black sea fleet, and resume it's longer term strategic goals using it's signature threat and intimidation model, would be just about the dumbest move ever made by any western power.

20 posted on 04/26/2014 8:42:24 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The US, EU and Russia agreed on Ukraine borders in return for Ukraine eliminating the Soviet nukes they inherited. But there was also an understanding that Ukraine will not be EU or NATO. If the EU did not push for pro EU Ukraine via Soros Orange Revolution, Russia would not be playing hardball to win it back via election thuggery. EU/US was pushing the boundaries of Russian patience in Yugoslavia, moving NATO up to the Russian border by accepting Poland, Baltic States and Balkans. Pushing into Georgia and Ukraine would be Russia’s last straw. Anyone who understands geopolitical history of Russia will know that Russian patience is running out the way the US/EU keeps pushing eastward.
When the Soviet Union fell, the average Russian hated Communism and loved the US. In a space of 30 years our gov manage to rekindle hatred of the US amongst average Russians and help push China and Russia together (largest population with the largest landmass) into an alliance that we spent most of the Cold War pulling apart. Between the lack of post Cold War vision of Clinton and the ill conceived neocons of GWB we manage to rekindle a new Cold War at a time when our nation needs rest and ability to pay down our debt. Today we will face Russia/China with our economy in shambles and gov (state, federal, local) debt equal to the annual GDP of the US. The only thing saving our debt ridden asses is the Russian GDP is only $ 2 trillion and the US/EU combined GDP is $ 30 trillion. Even if we manage to win, more damage is done to our debt and economy.


21 posted on 04/26/2014 9:23:30 PM PDT by Fee ( Big Gov and Big Business are Enemies of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
Beyond all of that any country as the inalienable right to ask anybody to help DEFEND itself. Do you understand inalienable rights.

Of course Ukraine has the inalienable right to ask for whatever it wants. But it does not gave the inalienable right to claim that it is another's duty to provide what it asks. Are you just as eager to fight for the inalienable rights of Ugandans, Burmese or North Koreans?

US can't annex Canada, Mexico...any country.

How do you think we got California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Colorado? The short answer is that we bought those territories for $18,500,000 in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but the full answer is that we invaded Mexico in a two year war, occupied the capital of Mexico City, and dictated the treaty's terms to the vanquished Mexican government.

There is nothing that can happen in Ukraine that can threaten the security of the United States, therefore its affairs are none of our business. On the other hand, the alignment of Ukraine is vital to Russia's defense and worth fighting over to Russia. This calculation should be instructive.

I was perfectly willing to fight to protect Great Britain, West Germany, Holland and Italy from Soviet invasion, but I am not willing to waste one American life for Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia or Croatia in some accidental war instigated by our treaty-bound new "allies." The original NATO franchise has been inflated and devalued by the addition of so many new countries that we have no real intention to defend in a fight to the finish.

22 posted on 04/26/2014 11:00:58 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

~The declaration of the end of the Cold War was always unwarranted by the geo political reality that Russia remained a hostile state towards the members of NATO~

Please, name any aggressive acts toward NATO and it’s allies from Russian side in a period of 1992-2008?
Then name any positive acts toward Russia from NATO side for that same period of time?
Would you?
Do you still remember a purpose of NATO?
Which Russian-led alliance is countering it right now if any?


23 posted on 04/26/2014 11:29:27 PM PDT by wetphoenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix

“Please, name any aggressive acts toward NATO and it’s allies from Russian side in a period of 1992-2008?”

ROFLMAO...that has to be one of the most stupid questions you could possibly have come up with to support your wildly false propaganda. Russia has been engaging in a war by proxies against NATO virtually without letup from 1916 to the present. Russia’s invasions of the Ukraine is an aggressor’s armed attack and annexation of the territories of a NATO Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) partner. So too was Russia’s aggressor attack upon and partition of another NATO Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) partner, Georgia. Going back to 1992 we have Russian military personnel serving covertly in the armed forces of Saddam Hussein and firing missiles at U.S. and NATO aircraft conducting peacekeeping operations. We also have covert Soviet/Russian military personnel pretending to be FRY/Serbian volunteers conducting ethnic cleansing operations in the Yugoslav civil wars and Kosovo War. Then there was the overt Russian military operation that led to a direct military confrontation with NATO forces at the Pristina airport during the peacekeeping operations there. Russian covert military personnel provided military support to Saddam Hussein in the 2003 Gulf War, and Russian Spetnaz troops helped to remove evidence of Russian aid for weapons of mass destruction as the NATO military campaign against Iraq was underway. Russia threatened the United States and NATO when it adopted the paranoid belief for a time that the submarine Kursk was sunk by them. Russia has conducted extensive covert espionage and sabotage against the Internet assets of NATO headquarters and NATO members. Suffice it to observe the list of Russian aggressions against NATO members and partners would fill one or more books. So, your propaganda statement is wildly absurd.


24 posted on 04/27/2014 4:05:39 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Russian troops along the Saddam’s forces? You must be smoking some serious stuff.


25 posted on 04/27/2014 4:09:35 AM PDT by wetphoenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix

Clandestine Russian soldiers were included in some Iraqi radar units and SAM air defense units. This is typical practice with many Soviet-Russian export weapons systems. I don’t know whether or not any of the Scud SSM units included Russians. Soviet (Russian) fighter pilots piloted Egyptian fighter aircraft against Israel in the Arab-Israeli wars. Soviet (Russian) pilots piloted North Korean and Chinese fighter aircraft in the Korean War. A Soviet (Russian) air force provided fighter and bomber operations in China supporting the Chinese Communists against Nationalist Chinese and japanese forces in the 1930s. Russian Cossack cavalry units fought in China in the 1930s. In other words, post-Soviet Russia has continued the generatons old Soviet and pre-Soviet practice of conducting covert military operations against the West and other targets, and they used proxies with the assistance of Russian military personnel as before. Putin is simply continuing the traditional Russian hostility against the victims it would target.

Let us also not forget the recent suspected Russian assassination of the Polish leadership at Smolensk with the destruction of their aircraft and subsequent murdering of the survivors of the crashed aircraft seen in video recordings on YouTube.


26 posted on 04/27/2014 4:40:26 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
“Do you understand what the Monroe Doctrine is and its almost two centuries of enforcement? The United States considers any such outside meddling in our hemisphere as an act of war against the United States itself. Yet Russia is supposed to relax as a hostile alliance seeks to encircle it with forces along its borders? Who has been provoking whom for the past twenty years?”

Grandpa but you see, Canada will never join an anti-American alliance... why ? Because It doesn't feel threatened by America... why ? Because civilized countries usually get along well.

Russia's only allies are shitty dictatorships, often installed by Russians themselves. The whole idea of “it's our fault, we have been provoking them” is nonsense. NATO was expanded because the whole bunch of countries was begging to be allowed in. Why ? Because they felt threatened by Russia, which found their independent existence alone to be provocative. And they were proved right, at this point Estonia would have been very likely re-annexed Crimean style If they weren't a part of NATO.

27 posted on 04/27/2014 5:18:11 AM PDT by Grzegorz 246
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Grzegorz 246; Cold Heat; WhiskeyX
Russia's only allies are shitty dictatorships, often installed by Russians themselves. The whole idea of “it's our fault, we have been provoking them” is nonsense. NATO was expanded because the whole bunch of countries was begging to be allowed in. Why ? Because they felt threatened by Russia, which found their independent existence alone to be provocative. And they were proved right, at this point Estonia would have been very likely re-annexed Crimean style If they weren't a part of NATO.

What I am telling you is that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not give a rat's ass about all the new treaty members that NATO has added since the collapse of the Soviet Union -- not enough to send our sons and daughters to die for them. We made a sober, rational decision to defend our Western European partners against a possible Soviet invasion, but the American people have not signed on to this Central and Eastern European vendetta against Moscow. These new NATO members remind me of a chihuahua barking at a pit bull from the safety of an automobile; they expect America to sail to their rescue and finish their fight when the pit bull has had enough of their yapping.

President Washington warned us against getting involved in entangling foreign alliances for good reason, as they can easily lead to wars that were never intended to be fought. For two decades after the Soviet collapse, we Americans thought we would be invincible forever and that all potential enemies would tremble at our words. In the process, we wrote more checks – payable in American blood and treasure – than we could ever cover. Our many enemies around the globe are beginning to understand this, and we now face a run on the bank of American military might, financial strength and political will. If you were one of these little chihuahuas that trusted us to protect you from Russia, you were a fool. We are tired, we are broke, and we don't give a damn. Bow down to Brussels or Moscow and make your own peace.

28 posted on 04/27/2014 8:01:03 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

LOL ! Grandpa, take it easy or you will get hiccups.


29 posted on 04/27/2014 9:19:21 AM PDT by Grzegorz 246
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

“I ain’t noways tired...”

Can’t afford to be..

The cost would be far too high.


30 posted on 04/27/2014 11:40:57 AM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Grzegorz 246

I’m not your grandpa, pal. Your condescension could be dangerous in real life, so politeness is a prudent virtue.


31 posted on 04/27/2014 5:09:30 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat

Our armed forces are worn out, as is our equipment. Two decades of perpetual small war has depleted our ability and will to wage a major war. We wasted our birthright.


32 posted on 04/27/2014 5:14:49 PM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
This includes the NATO-led operation of 2011 to protect civilians in Libyan.

Man, couldn't NATO get anyone to proofread this cruddy thing?

How were they "protecting civilians", anyway? That was always their spin, when in reality they were taking sides in a civil war.

33 posted on 04/28/2014 4:58:15 AM PDT by PaulCruz2016
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Well, the financial health of the country is one thing, regarding the equipment.

We had far less in 1969, but I agree, it's a current cluster F____.

As to being worn out.....

Now that is a argument that can be made both for and against. IMO worn out is a psychological mood of assessment as it has nothing to do with physical fitness. I think the worn out is due to the idiotic total withdrawal from Iran, making it appear that we did it for nothing and certainly will have to do it again at some point, and now the same in Afghanistan (but that was not a place we should have been except for fire bases near the pass.

Our soldiers had that worn-out look and feel in 1970-72 after some years of wasted efforts in Nam caused largely by civilian leaderships total inability to win a friggin war of any kind. One step forward and 2 back for years...with memories still somewhat fresh from Korea of the same thing.

I don't think it's the tasks that are causing these issues,(too hard, too long) I firmly believe it's the hysterical and convoluted nature of American body politic, that is directed by the American people and the Pied Piper Media.

I have ideas on how to repair that, but all of them seem to say that the return to a Republic from what seems to be a nanny statist mess.

This fix would not only help in determining how our conflicts are fought, but will help determine what conflicts we get involved with in the first place.

34 posted on 04/28/2014 8:34:19 AM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cold Heat
Cold Heat, my reference to "worn out" was to military equipment such as airframes and vehicles, which have been overtaxed beyond their already-advanced ages by two decades of perpetual war. This problem will take a lot of time and money to fix, if it is to be fixed at all.

I didn't even mention the severe depletion of critical weapons systems and ammunition stocks that has resulted from these wasted adventures, but it is also a significant problem. Last week's revelation of the critically low stock of Tomahawak missiles is probably not a singular problem. Even more troubling is the Administration's intention to discontinue production of that critical weapon system, which is a key deep-strike offensive weapon.

Lack of will to wage a war is difficult to gauge, but Americans are tired enough of small wars, and it will be a tough sell to convince them that a new and bloodier major war is absolutely necessary. Indifference is the most difficult attitude to overcome.

35 posted on 04/28/2014 11:15:31 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Sure....that's a reality that has to be mitigated with several years of heavy spending to replace stocks, weapons and yes, we need more people. Obama is never going to do that.

Now we would not need those things if our strategic plan for the next 50 years is to sit on our hands and use a microphone, which is what it appears to be.

If that is what the country wants, then that is what they will get. But I don't think that our strategic foes will allow us to do that for very long, and it has been too long already if I am reading the tea leaves correctly.

We currently have a third rate president, a third rate congress and a third rate voting majority.

This has decimated our military readiness. It has scared the hell out of our allies and emboldened our enemies. it has also divided our country.

It is possible, in fact likely that this situation will become the norm in the new normal. If that is true, then is follows that the United States has exhausted it's supply of patriots, incurred impossible debt, and has deteriorated to the level where we cannot survive as a intact country for much longer than a 50 year period.

This may indeed be intentional. I don't know, but it might as well be.

36 posted on 04/28/2014 2:09:16 PM PDT by Cold Heat (Have you reached your breaking point yet? If not now....then when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson