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
“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.
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.
NATO was formed as a reaction to Russian aggression.
They keep up with what Russia is invading.
“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.
Under what rock had this person been living if he believed Russia could be trusted in the first place.
“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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
It was a fluke Crimea belonged to Ukraine...an empty gesture by Khrushchev.
You said they were “formal partners” in an attempt to no doubt stipulate they must act in concert with NATO. They do not.
“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
Your post #26 was spot on. Good reasoning!
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.