The Ukraine Crisis
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 12387
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:39 pm
- I am a fan of: Firing Mark Farley
- A.K.A.: Bikinis for JSO
- Location: The Panther State
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
I thought we sanctioned Russia?
Russian fertilizer sales are exempt from the sanctions imposed by US and EU in response to the war on Ukraine, and some shipments are entering the US, according to cargo data tracked by Bloomberg.”
https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/202 ... declining/
Russian fertilizer sales are exempt from the sanctions imposed by US and EU in response to the war on Ukraine, and some shipments are entering the US, according to cargo data tracked by Bloomberg.”
https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/202 ... declining/
If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. Ronald Reagan, 1975.
Progressivism is cancer
All my posts are satire
Progressivism is cancer
All my posts are satire
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59463
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Ugh. CID would be chiming in on strategic industries about now. Globalism is inevitable but it still has many warts.HI54UNI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:12 am I thought we sanctioned Russia?
Russian fertilizer sales are exempt from the sanctions imposed by US and EU in response to the war on Ukraine, and some shipments are entering the US, according to cargo data tracked by Bloomberg.”
https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/202 ... declining/
- Winterborn
- Supporter
- Posts: 8812
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2016 2:33 pm
- I am a fan of: Beer and Diesel Pickups
- Location: Wherever I hang my hat
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
And he would be right. Then again some of the same reasons we haven't built a new refinery in the U.S. applies here.kalm wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:38 amUgh. CID would be chiming in on strategic industries about now. Globalism is inevitable but it still has many warts.HI54UNI wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:12 am I thought we sanctioned Russia?
Russian fertilizer sales are exempt from the sanctions imposed by US and EU in response to the war on Ukraine, and some shipments are entering the US, according to cargo data tracked by Bloomberg.”
https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/202 ... declining/
“The best of all things is to learn. Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.” – Louis L’Amour
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.” - G. Michael Hopf
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious.” – Albert Einstein
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59463
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Globalism is NOT what Adam Smith had in mind.Winterborn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 6:14 amAnd he would be right. Then again some of the same reasons we haven't built a new refinery in the U.S. applies here.
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.
https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:
1) Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.
2) Secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23276
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Fucking COMSYMPsSeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:25 am Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.
https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:
1) Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.
2) Secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
You're bored, aren't you?houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:34 amFucking COMSYMPsSeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:25 am Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.
https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/
Graham E. Fuller is a former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA with responsibility for global intelligence estimates.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59463
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Are Russia’s red lines their border or country’s they’ve invaded, or?SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:25 am Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.
https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:
1) Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.
2) Secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.
NATO is potentially hostile to Russia. Russia chooses the hostility.
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Well, as you can read in the quote and the article, the former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA says:kalm wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:51 amAre Russia’s red lines their border or country’s they’ve invaded, or?SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:25 am Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.
https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/
NATO is potentially hostile to Russia. Russia chooses the hostility.
This bolded statement tells me the red lines preceded Russian borders. I'll take his experience as an expert as to what precipitated this war.provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18062
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Man, if that's the types of places that you go to for your information then I do worry about you. As for the arguments:SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:25 am Won't read this perspective in many places. This guy understands what is going on. Not a very long read.
https://grahamefuller.com/some-hard-tho ... t-ukraine/The war in Ukraine has dragged on long enough now to reveal certain clear trajectories. First, two fundamental realities:
1) Putin is to be condemned for launching this war– as is virtually any leader who launches any war. Putin can be termed a war criminal–in good company with George W. Bush who has killed vastly greater numbers than Putin.
2) Secondary condemnation belongs to the US (NATO) in deliberately provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia. This war did not have to be if Ukranian neutrality, á la Finland and Austria, had been accepted. Instead Washington has called for clear Russian defeat.
1) I don't recall Bush implementing genocide or declaring an American Empire. For all his faults, Iraq still has the same territory today that it had before any American forces were there, as does Afghanistan.
2) NATO is a "hostile military organization"? That demands some kind of explanation, which of course is lacking in what you linked. How many offensive wars has NATO prosecuted since its inception almost 75 years ago? I'm pretty sure that number is well below the number of offensive wars Russia has in the same time. Russian red lines that existed so that they could have free reign to interfere with and end other nation's sovereignty are not really red lines that anyone should accept. Russia had already long violated Ukraine's neutrality by repeated interferences with their internal politics (which isn't a huge deal, since many people had hands in internal Ukrainian affairs), as well as unilaterally determining that parts of Ukraine (i.e. Crimea) could be taken at will whenever they wanted them (which is a big deal and part of the issue with Russia and it's demand to have parts of the world set aside so that Russia can exert dominance over those parts, contrary of course to the wants and wishes of the people who live in those parts).
As for the rest of that essay, it sounded like the whining of an old man who's no longer part of the game and is bitter that he didn't have a bigger impact on things (or that what he did have impacts on didn't have lasting effects) when he was part of the game. Russia and China have been shaping to be counters to the US for about the past 6 decades, so it's not like Ukraine all of a sudden made them realize they have some common goals. As for his views on Europe, again, no new ground - everyone knows Europe is always fickle to actually get involved to stand up to things they say are wrong but don't always have the will to back it up. Heck, Kosovo was right in their own backyard and they dithered on that for quite some time.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18062
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Again, red lines that say that Russia gets to have full sway to do with another sovereign country whatever they want, regardless of the wishes of the people in that particular sovereign country, aren't really valid red lines. Ukraine hasn't been part of Russia since 1992 or so, like so many other regions freed from Soviet oppression, and has not indicated in anyway that they want to change that since then. Again, tell me how NATO is hostile as a military organization? As for experience, isn't this guy part of the group that initiated the Iran-Contra deal under Reagan? I hold the Reagan presidency up as, overall, a pretty good 8 years. But no one really thinks the Iran-Contra thing was a good thing.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:00 amWell, as you can read in the quote and the article, the former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA says:
This bolded statement tells me the red lines preceded Russian borders. I'll take his experience as an expert as to what precipitated this war.provoking a war with Russia by implacably pushing its hostile military organization, despite Moscow’s repeated notifications about crossing red lines, right up to the gates of Russia.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20129
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
And to add to the discussion, while we shouldn't have attacked Iraq under Dubya, it's dishonest to compare that to how Russia has gone attacked Ukraine. Dubya built a coalition of other countries and had widespread support for the invasion. Putin ignored the world before and after he took Crimea and again for this latest invasion. Dubya's invasion of Iraq hardly justifies Russia's invasions of Ukraine.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20129
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Putin: The mask is off. Europe is next
Oops, it's not about Nazis or self-defense. It's about Putin's ego and perceived place in history.When Putin started the war, he tried to shift the blame to NATO, calling it the instigator. He argued that Russia had no choice but to defensively launch the war to prevent NATO from surrounding Russia from all sides.
The reality, of course, was very different. NATO was a sclerotic, toothless, mission-less defense (not offense) alliance in retirement, collecting its “peace dividend” from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Most of its European members maintained their defense spending below NATO charter rules.
...
Another excuse Putin used to sell the war to Russians was that the mighty Russian army was purifying Ukraine from Nazis and drug addicts. This was a lie. Ukraine has about as many Nazis as any other country in Europe, no more and no less. I wrote a lengthy essay on this topic. And if Putin was really worried about drug addicts, Russia should have invaded San Francisco instead.
A few days ago, Putin finally lifted his veil of pretense. He compared himself to Peter the Great and the war in Ukraine to Russia’s 21-year war with Sweden. He said (I am paraphrasing) that Peter had returned land to and fortified Mother Russia, and he added that now it was his time to do the same. Putin openly wants to be Vlad the Great, and Russia looks at Europe as its oyster.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
A brief walk down history lane shows red lines have been crossed for years. From George Washington university's national security archive.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 59463
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Yes…how dare we go back on Thatcher’s assurances.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:28 am A brief walk down history lane shows red lines have been crossed for years. From George Washington university's national security archive.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20129
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
The biggest red line that was crossed was the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and that was crossed by Russia invading Ukraine twice.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:28 am A brief walk down history lane shows red lines have been crossed for years. From George Washington university's national security archive.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:35 amThe biggest red line that was crossed was the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and that was crossed by Russia invading Ukraine twice.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:28 am A brief walk down history lane shows red lines have been crossed for years. From George Washington university's national security archive.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... ders-early
I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- UNI88
- Supporter
- Posts: 20129
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:30 am
- I am a fan of: UNI
- Location: the foggy, woggy banks Of the Limpopo River
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
We disagree and I have at least two reasons:SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:08 pmHad to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.
I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University
1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.
2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
We agree to disagree! I'll take it.UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:36 pmWe disagree and I have at least two reasons:SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:08 pm
Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.
I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.
1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.
2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
- GannonFan
- Level5
- Posts: 18062
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
- I am a fan of: Delaware
- A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Like I said before in another post - I don't give a crap what was said in conversation by leaders during the breakup of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. The Soviet Union dissolved, and people in these areas made the decisions on their own to rule themselves as they pleased. That's how we got to all the different countries that came into being after the yoke of Soviet domination was taken away. Eventually, many of these countries, fearful of exactly what we're seeing now - renewed Russian diplomatic and military aggression with the goal of re-dominating these areas against their will - decided, again, on their own, to seek protections to ensure future self-rule. NATO didn't expand, Russian aggressions forced countries to seek the only defense they could rely on to ensure they could remain as independent countries for the future. NATO isn't attacking anyone - Russia is. Russia, and you apparently, seem to think it's perfectly fine and acceptable to have a slew of countries teed up for Russia to do with what they please, kill whoever they want, force any government or systems on the population therein, with zero regards for the people who live in those countries.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:08 pmHad to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.
I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University
Like I said, NATO hasn't expanded, Russia, through solely its own actions, has forced countries to seek refuge there. Ukraine's biggest mistake is not doing that as well and relying on Russia's good graces not to invade and subjugate their country. Oops.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
You did and I apologize for not replying directly. I'm stuck on my phone and hate typing out long responses. Was hoping my post would cover your questions/statements.GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:44 pmLike I said before in another post - I don't give a crap what was said in conversation by leaders during the breakup of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. The Soviet Union dissolved, and people in these areas made the decisions on their own to rule themselves as they pleased. That's how we got to all the different countries that came into being after the yoke of Soviet domination was taken away. Eventually, many of these countries, fearful of exactly what we're seeing now - renewed Russian diplomatic and military aggression with the goal of re-dominating these areas against their will - decided, again, on their own, to seek protections to ensure future self-rule. NATO didn't expand, Russian aggressions forced countries to seek the only defense they could rely on to ensure they could remain as independent countries for the future. NATO isn't attacking anyone - Russia is. Russia, and you apparently, seem to think it's perfectly fine and acceptable to have a slew of countries teed up for Russia to do with what they please, kill whoever they want, force any government or systems on the population therein, with zero regards for the people who live in those countries.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:08 pm
Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.
I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.
Like I said, NATO hasn't expanded, Russia, through solely its own actions, has forced countries to seek refuge there. Ukraine's biggest mistake is not doing that as well and relying on Russia's good graces not to invade and subjugate their country. Oops.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23276
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 7:43 amYou're bored, aren't you?
Graham E. Fuller is a former Vice Chair of the National Intelligence Council at CIA with responsibility for global intelligence estimates.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
-
- Level5
- Posts: 23276
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:14 pm
- I am a fan of: SIU
- A.K.A.: houndawg
- Location: Egypt
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Unfortunately it also appears that assurances to Ukraine also died after they surrendered the USSR's nuclear equipment.UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:36 pmWe disagree and I have at least two reasons:SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:08 pm
Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.
I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.
1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.
2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.
The best way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - Noam Chomsky
- SeattleGriz
- Supporter
- Posts: 16557
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:41 am
- I am a fan of: Montana
- A.K.A.: PhxGriz
Re: The Ukraine Crisis
Took me a little while to find this document. Does a Clinton signed Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France in 1997 matter?UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:36 pmWe disagree and I have at least two reasons:SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:08 pm
Had to delete my last post. It was a mess. Restart.
I would have to say that over 600 miles of encroachment when it was stated "not one inch" is a far bigger red line than the annexing of the Republic of Crimea, especially since said encroachment started in 1990.
1) A nation voluntarily requesting to join NATO and being accepted is far less egregious then a nation twice violating the sovereignty of a nation that it had agreed to not threaten or use military force or economic coercion against it.
2) Those assurances were given to the USSR. The USSR no longer exists, the assurances died with the USSR.
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/offi ... _25468.htm
There was quite a bit of additional stationing of substantial combat forces since 1997. They also weren't the USSR when this was signed by Clinton.NATO reiterates that in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.
In addition:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its member States, on the one hand, and the Russian Federation, on the other hand, hereinafter referred to as NATO and Russia, based on an enduring political commitment undertaken at the highest political level, will build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security.
NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goal of overcoming the vestiges of earlier confrontation and competition and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation. The present Act reaffirms the determination of NATO and Russia to give concrete substance to their shared commitment to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, whole and free, to the benefit of all its peoples. Making this commitment at the highest political level marks the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between NATO and Russia. They intend to develop, on the basis of common interest, reciprocity and transparency a strong, stable and enduring partnership.
Everything is better with SeattleGriz