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

Skip to comments.

NATO Secretary-General believes that because of the Crimea Russia can no longer be believed
InfoResist ^ | 10 hours ago | InforResist

Posted on 05/17/2014 2:25:04 AM PDT by WhiskeyX

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen believes that no one will longer believe Russian guarantees of security.

He said about this on a press conference in Bucharest, where he arrived to commemorate an anniversary of Romania’s accession to the Alliance, reports Radio Svoboda.

The Head of NATO stated that in 1994, where an international agreement was reached about the non-nuclear status of Ukraine, Russia as one of the participant of the agreement pledged to support Ukrainian sovereignty.

However, after the annexation of the Crimea, according to Rasmussen, there is no longer possibility to trust Moscow’s guarantees.

In Bucharest Rasmussen had negotiations with the leadership of Romania, including the President of this country Traian Basescu


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Russia
KEYWORDS: crimea; russia; un

1 posted on 05/17/2014 2:25:05 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I still cannot figure out what NATO is doing in the Ukraine.

Just doesn’t make sense to me is all.


2 posted on 05/17/2014 2:30:52 AM PDT by wonkowasright (Wonko from outside the asylum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright

“I still cannot figure out what NATO is doing in the Ukraine.”

“Just doesn’t make sense to me is all.”

That is a false representaiotn and a strawman argument, given the fact NATO has no military force in the Ukraine. It also ignores the fact the Ukraine and Russia are formal partners in the NATO organization, and the Ukraine conducts military operations with NATO and United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Russia has no right to invade and annex the Ukrainian territories it made a formal agreement to respect in 1994 under international law, which Russia is now flagrantly violating in the worst ways possible.


3 posted on 05/17/2014 3:14:17 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright

Not clear on the concept, are we? Let’s go over it again. NATO, at least in principle, is a mutual defense pact. It was obvious a lot of little countries could not withstand the pressure of the Soviet Union. NATO was formed to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.

Any country bordering the Warsaw pact, and willing to commit resources to mutual defense, was welcomed. NATO was formed so that no one country would have to face the Soviet Union alone.


4 posted on 05/17/2014 4:07:27 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (This is known as "bad luck". - Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I don’t believe anything from any government or an organization. Especially the United States Government. So this is no big deal for me.


5 posted on 05/17/2014 4:45:07 AM PDT by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

” It also ignores the fact the Ukraine and Russia are formal partners in the NATO organization”

They are? Since when?


6 posted on 05/17/2014 5:04:33 AM PDT by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Since at least as far back as the nineteen fifties, Russia has indicated in its military doctrine that it would do whatever it took to keep control of Crimea.

Bar nothing.

I believed them during the cold war, and I still do.


7 posted on 05/17/2014 5:32:57 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
NATO was formed so that no one country would have to face the Soviet Union alone.

That mission was accomplished about 25 years ago. Today NATO is just a huge mismanaged drain on the American taxpayer who derives no material benefit from it.

Let the European socialist freeloaders pay for and fight for NATO if they're still afraid of the Russians. Without US money and muscle, NATO would fold up like a cheap suit.

8 posted on 05/17/2014 5:38:16 AM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“They are? Since when?”

Russia joined the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council on 28 May 2002.

Ukraine joined the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) on 9 July 1997.

Since Russia’s illegal, invasion, occupation, and annexation of the Ukraine’s Crimean territory, Russia’s partnership in the EAPC has been suspended except with respect to the maintenance of ambassadorial level contact.


9 posted on 05/17/2014 5:39:49 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Euro-Atlantic Partnership is NOT NATO membership. It is merely a discussion forum.


10 posted on 05/17/2014 5:56:52 AM PDT by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Where is Captain Obvious when you need him?


11 posted on 05/17/2014 6:03:03 AM PDT by cashless (Obama told us he would side with Muslims if the political winds shifted in an ugly direction. Ready?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

“Since at least as far back as the nineteen fifties, Russia has indicated in its military doctrine that it would do whatever it took to keep control of Crimea.”

“Bar nothing.”

“I believed them during the cold war, and I still do.”

Whatever claims Russia once had upon the Crimea were permanently surrenderd by the uathority of international law with the 1954 transfer of the territory to the Ukrainian Soviet Socilist Republic, the 1991 agreement to dissolve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR/CCCP), the Russian recognition of Ukrainian territorial integrity in the Budapest Agreement 1994, and the subsequent Russian agreements for leasing bases in the Crimea 1997 and 1998. Anyone who repudiates those legal acts is committing a punishable crime.


12 posted on 05/17/2014 6:37:37 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Russia has no right to invade and annex the Ukrainian territories it made a formal agreement to respect in 1994 under international law,

Lol...so why don't the "aggrieved" parties take that case into international court?

13 posted on 05/17/2014 6:41:10 AM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“Euro-Atlantic Partnership is NOT NATO membership. It is merely a discussion forum.”

You are being dishonestlty deceptive by trying to falsely mislead the readers into thinking I represented Russia and Ukraine as being NATO members. I wrote, “It also ignores the fact the Ukraine and Russia are formal partners in the NATO organization....” Russia and Ukraine are formal partners in the NATO Euro-Atlantic APartnership Council (EAPC) just as I said. I never said and I never imlied Russia or Ukraine wee members of NATO.

Furthermore, being a NATO partner invovles far more than just some participation in discussion forums. NATO Partners, including Russia and Ukraine, have participated in joint combat and/or anti-criminal operations with NATO military forces.

Russia had every opportunity to participate in NATO operations in the role of a NATO Partner with the authority of consensus decisionmaking. Instead Russia has chosen to engage in criminal acts and prey upon its NATO Partners and their territories as conquests in flagrant violations of international law.


14 posted on 05/17/2014 6:52:58 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

“Lol...so why don’t the “aggrieved” parties take that case into international court?”

With respect to subject matter that is within the jurisdiction of the international courts without the cooperation of Russia, the Ukraine has initiated legal proceedings.

However, the larger issues such as the right of sovereignty over the Crimea is not subject to the jurisdiction of the relevant internatonal court/s without the Ukraine and Russia agreeing to that jurisdiction. Since Putin and Russia are not about to agree to the jurisdiction of an international court, nothing the Ukraine can do will compel Russia to submit the issue to such a court.


15 posted on 05/17/2014 6:59:10 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Welcome to a vocabulary lesson.

“Bar nothing” means that Russia will use any means to retain Control.

The only way Russia will surrender Crimea is if all of their arsenal is exhausted and they can’t come out on top.

This means that diplomacy is window dressing at best and a humiliating display of international masturbatory at worst. Every one who has paid attention knows that to court removal of Crimea is to flirt with a war that has every likelihood of extending to NBC if Russia is pressed, since there is zero chance that they will back down.


16 posted on 05/17/2014 7:10:30 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
....the Ukraine has initiated legal proceedings.

I seriously doubt the puppet fascists in Kiev want to appear anywhere near an international court.

Do you have a source for your assertion or are you just taking a WAG at it?

17 posted on 05/17/2014 7:13:58 AM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
The question is can you believe NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Whoever he is.
18 posted on 05/17/2014 7:19:50 AM PDT by McGruff (What if I told you your leaders were lying to you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

“Welcome to a vocabulary lesson.”

It is yourself who needs the vocabulary test, because the gross and massive violations of international law can and often does have grave consequences for the aggressor, sooner or later as discovered by such criminals as Hitler, Goering, Ribbentrop, Saddam Hussein, and others. The people of Russia need to take immediate heed of those potential consequences and terminate the careers of their leaders engaging in these crimes before Russia and its people suffer the consequences of their aggressions and victimization of the rest of the world.

In the past, even the most criminal leaders of the Soviet Union recognized the risks they were taking and eliminated their leader/s when they got too far out of control. Stalin was apparently assassinated by Beria and others when Stalin appeared ready to purge them in preparation for engaging the Western Allies in a nuclear war for control of Europe.


19 posted on 05/17/2014 7:22:14 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

“The question is can you believe NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Whoever he is.”

It is already a done deal, because Russia’s NATO Partnership was suspended except for ambassadorial contact as a consequence of Russia’s adversarial role and aggressions against the Ukraine and other NATO Members and Partners.


20 posted on 05/17/2014 7:25:14 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

“I seriously doubt the puppet fascists in Kiev want to appear anywhere near an international court.”

“Do you have a source for your assertion or are you just taking a WAG at it?”

The sources have already been posted in a number of other threads on FR, so you can take you Russian criminal disinformatoin and false propaganda for a long walk off of a short pier. Your disrespectful rhetoric is dismissed.


21 posted on 05/17/2014 7:28:53 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

In the past, Russia has always taken any action required when it believes its survival is at stake. Including in Crimea.

Crimea is in no way analogous to Soviet forays in Afghanistan. Potentially it is a new Saint Petersburg.

And we have known this for sixty years.


22 posted on 05/17/2014 9:05:27 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright

NATO was formed as a reaction to Russian aggression.

They keep up with what Russia is invading.


23 posted on 05/17/2014 9:50:21 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

“In the past, Russia has always taken any action required when it believes its survival is at stake. Including in Crimea.”

So did Germany, and we all saw how that worked out for them. Russia’s criminal actions are what threatens Russia’s survival, and not the status of the Crimea. Russia can survive quite well without the Crimea, especially when it stops threatening its neighbors with criminal invasions and conquests.

“Crimea is in no way analogous to Soviet forays in Afghanistan. Potentially it is a new Saint Petersburg.”

At the rate Putin is going, the old St. Petersburg is liable to end up in a foreign separatist state of expatriate Russians who want nothing further to do with aggressive totalitarian Kremlin leaderships.

“And we have known this for sixty years.”

We’ve also known how North Korea’s criminal leadership has wanted to conquer and despoil South Korea for sixty years, and Russia’s criminal conduct threatening conquests is no more acceptable in moral, legal, or actual terms than the North Korean criminal behavior.


24 posted on 05/17/2014 10:17:19 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Under what rock had this person been living if he believed Russia could be trusted in the first place.


25 posted on 05/17/2014 10:19:55 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (The media must be defeated any way it can be done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

“Under what rock had this person been living if he believed Russia could be trusted in the first place.”

It makes no difference whatsoever what rock this or any other person had been living under, because the peace overtures of the other nations to post-Soviet Russia required treating the new Russian state as an equal partner in peace regardless of Russia’s true intentions. Call it an application of the principle of “due diligence” or whatever else you wish, the other nations were offering Russia the opportunity of joining their ranks as a nation at peace and exercising good will with the other nations. Russia has now spurned the opportunity to live in peace with its neighbors, and is now in the process of guaranteeing Russia can never be trusted no or in the future when it comes time to make decisions about relatons with Russia or any further separatist states which emerge from today’s Russia.

In other words, Putin and his regime are now guaranteeing the future dissolution of Russia as it is known today. It is now only a question of time, treasure, and bloodshed by all parties involved before we see Russia permanently fall apart as a consequence of its criminal conduct.


26 posted on 05/17/2014 10:35:42 AM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets; ansel12; WhiskeyX
@ Lonesome : Not clear on the concept, are we? Let’s go over it again. NATO, at least in principle, is a mutual defense pact.

Very clear on concept, you are right thats why it was formed as a mutual defense pact. Now it seems its gone into full expansion mode instead of defense.

@ansel12 : NATO was formed as a reaction to Russian aggression. They keep up with what Russia is invading.

Now we are the ones expanding into new territory and now knocking on Russias border. Thats certainly not what NATO was all about.

@WhiskeyX : Russia has no right to invade and annex the Ukrainian territories

We have no right to back militant uprisings that unseat elected governments either. But yet we do.

We have swallowed the coolaid of "we can do nothing wrong" and "its only wrong if Russia does it".

Right and wrong have taken a backseat to mindless sputtering "but but but its Russia"
27 posted on 05/17/2014 10:57:54 AM PDT by wonkowasright (Wonko from outside the asylum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright

I wasn’t aware that we were invading European nations, but I am aware that the evil empire is.

Reagan would be doing his best to prevent this KGB man from reconquering and enslaving those Reagan, and NATO, freed.


28 posted on 05/17/2014 11:07:10 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Let me acknowledge that I have no dog in any fight between Russia & the Ukraine. Hopefully, they will sit down and work out a solution to a problem, which was created before most of the present leaders were born. But your pontifications contribute very little to an understanding of the actual problems, while they contribute nothing towards any possible solution.

Stalin deliberately settled millions of ethnic Russians into the Ukraine, after World War II, for the purpose of undermining social cohesion. A great many Ukrainians had openly sided with the Germans during World War II, and this was Stalin's way to suppress their capacity to resist their return to the Bolshevik yoke. (Remember that he had earlier designed the murder of millions of Russian & Ukrainian farmers--setting back agriculture, before the war--because those farmers had resisted collectivization.)

The Crimea is a special case, as others have pointed out; both because of its long-term relationship to Russia, and its strategic importance to Russia. But there was a far stronger reason to accept the wish of a predominantly Russian Crimea to return to Russia; and Americans unwilling to stand up to those who have deliberately allowed a flood from Mexico to pour into the South West, will ignore that reason to our terrible peril.

From an American standpoint, this problem is not addressed by the distraction of trying to demonize Putin, who has been reviving religious Faith in Russia, even as our leaders are doing their utmost to suppress religious Faith in America. (For a few thoughts on our problem, see Crimea.)

As for the rest of the actual, traditional Ukraine, we would be kindly disposed to pray that the nations involved find Divine help to resolve issues, coldly & deliberately foisted on the generations to come by a sociopathic Stalin.

William Flax

29 posted on 05/17/2014 11:08:21 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright
See my reply #29.

With respect to your comments on the changing role of NATO, which incidentally flowed out of the Clinton/Blair war on Serbia in the 1990s, see American Foreign Policy At The Crossroads.

With respect to references to Ronald Reagan, in this thread, it is important to point out that it was not Reagan who turned NATO from a defensive alliance against Soviet Communism into an aggressive promoter of international conformity--far from it. Again, it was Clinton & Blair, and Serbia was the target. (The Serbs referred to Clinton as "Adolph Clinton" at the time.)

There is, of course, an ocean of difference between a Russia that was the central cog in a Communist conspiracy to force Marxist collectivist uniformity on mankind, and a Russia that simply celebrates a Russian heritage. It is very sad that some people cannot understand the distinction.

William Flax

30 posted on 05/17/2014 11:22:21 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Fly off into the clouds all of the time?

German’s war of conquest was acknowledged to be just that. There was no German delusion of self protection as they entered Poland. This lunacy is typical of your posting on other threads though, so at least your fantasies are consistent.

You do not have either the intellect or the integrity to debate the topic at hand. When faced with a set of facts that do not lead where you want to go. You simply try to make things up. That doesn’t help you and military people will of necessity dismiss you.

You babble incessantly but do not study.

Russia’s actions on this matter will cause them no grief.
they are up against it with the European Union (who started a mess they lack both the means and the will to win) but the rest of the world cares little and quite properly so.

This would cool down if the European Union backs off.
Nobody has their back. That might even ultimately result in the rest of Ukraine remaining independent.

We aren’t going to help them, nor should we.
If Push comes to shove , China would side with the Russians. Given the circumstances India might as well.


31 posted on 05/17/2014 11:33:36 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan

Agreed. That Nato action in Serbia was stunning and did mark a large shift. And yes there is a large misunderstanding of what Marxism was. Some cannot seperate ideology from geography and forget there was a time prior to Marxist times when Russia stood with us, even helping in our civil war by harboring ships here to defend against potential british aggression at the request of Lincoln.


32 posted on 05/17/2014 11:48:17 AM PDT by wonkowasright (Wonko from outside the asylum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wonkowasright

Yes. Actually, the Clinton/Blair bombing an independent nation, to as a result take away a far, far larger part (percentagewise) of Serbia than the relationship of the Crimea to the Ukraine, was a far better analogy to the antics of the former “Soviet Union,” than anyone could even by the most contorted reasoning, attribute to President Putin over the Crimea.


33 posted on 05/17/2014 12:50:21 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

It was a fluke Crimea belonged to Ukraine...an empty gesture by Khrushchev.


34 posted on 05/17/2014 12:52:52 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

You said they were “formal partners” in an attempt to no doubt stipulate they must act in concert with NATO. They do not.


35 posted on 05/17/2014 2:09:53 PM PDT by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“You said they were “formal partners” in an attempt to no doubt stipulate they must act in concert with NATO. They do not.”

That was a rather ridiculous attempt to misrepresent what was said. I said they were “formal partners” because that is precisely what they are: “formal” because the partnership is a formal written agreement and “partner” because the agreements say they are a NATO Partner in the NATO “Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC).” It hardly seems to be possible to be any more literal, accurate, and succinct than that. Your comment was also rather ridiculous given how the NATO Partners are free of a NATO Member’s obligation to act in concert with the consensus decision of the NATO Member councils which Russia has so often demonstrated in practice in the partnership NATO-Russia Council. See:

NATO - Russia relations

Russia claims that NATO has spent years trying to marginalise it internationally.

Since the early 1990s the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative relationship with Russia on areas of mutual interest, and striven towards a strategic partnership.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO began reaching out, offering dialogue in place of confrontation, as the London NATO Summit of July 1990 made clear (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue and cooperation by creating new fora, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia (PfP founding documents here and here).

As a sign of Russia’s unique role in Euro-Atlantic security, in 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, creating the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002 they upgraded that relationship, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC). (The Founding Act can be read here, the Rome Declaration which established the NRC here.)

Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning. No other partner has been offered a comparable relationship.

Far from marginalising Russia, NATO has treated it as a privileged partner.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_109141.htm


36 posted on 05/17/2014 9:28:14 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Your post #26 was spot on. Good reasoning!


37 posted on 05/18/2014 6:33:59 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (The media must be defeated any way it can be done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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