Pentagon Gets Called on Blaming Putin for Moving Russia Closer to NATO

a reply to: bjarneorn

Did you forget to take your meds or you seeing the world through pot or crack?

All right personal attacks.

So anything that has to do with what is being discussed in the OP?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Why i am not surprised at your response. Ah the same Countries that helped NATO during the war in Libya yup yup.

I would say I am amazed at the post you have presented, but your right on track with having to bring the ME into a thread that has nothing to do with it...And nothing that has any relevance to the topic at hand.

At least you are consistent.

Glad I'm not the only one...

Peace

a reply to: 02bmw76

There never was any agreements between Russia and nato.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: 02bmw76

There never was any agreements between Russia and nato.

So what did they sign in 1997? Christmas cards?


Even if there was no agreement or commitment not to expand NATO to Russia's borders, the very fact that NATO has gone and expanded to Russia's borders, is a direct threat to Russia.

It is a move which has cut down Russia's sphere of influence and positioned NATO forces on Russia's borders.

NATO wasn't created to organize picnics with the Russian's.

While the USSR and Warsaw Pact fell apart, NATO did not. And NATO took advantage of a weakened Moscow and expanded relentlessly.


The Russian's have every right to be pissed off, they have every right not to trust anything coming out of Western leaders mouths. And vice versa.

a reply to: mortex

Nato never signed any agreement with Russia over NATO expansion.

As to your smartass question was signed in 1997.

Feel free to post what you are referencing.

Thete is no agreement / treaty / what have you.

a reply to: jude11

ha ha ha

made to look like a bafoon with simple sound 2 + 2 logic.

I love it.

You made my morning OP.

As i think of the idea of Russia as a
member of NATO, i come to think
about Civilisation Calssifications...

We are 0 now...
But that membership would be a step or
ten closer to 1...

Imagin Putin as Commander of Nato forces...

originally posted by: Miccey
As i think of the idea of Russia as a
member of NATO, i come to think
about Civilisation Calssifications...

We are 0 now...
But that membership would be a step or
ten closer to 1...

Imagin Putin as Commander of Nato forces...

Russia demanded special treatment if they were to join NATO. Since no other members get special treatment, Russia was not given any. Russia then took its marbles and went home.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: mortex

Nato never signed any agreement with Russia over NATO expansion.

As to your smartass question was signed in 1997.

Feel free to post what you are referencing.

Thete is no agreement / treaty / what have you.

Where in the hell am I being a smart ass?

Just because you're so delusional and naive that you think anything our western leaders say is gospel and you fail to question your own governments motives and agendas.

I never said there was an agreement.
Comprehend the words you are reading before attacking people.
Something was signed, go and Google what it was. I'd post what it was, but I don't feel like helping out someone so rude.

Either way, whatever was signed, the Russian's were lead to believe that NATO wouldn't expand to the former Soviet bloc up to Russia's borders. But that's what's happened.

Why does NATO need to expand and encircle Russia? That's the important question here.
After all, they were apparently supposed to be partners, no?

originally posted by: mortex
Where in the hell am I being a smart ass?

In that sentence the key would be "Christmas Cards".

originally posted by: mortex
Just because you're so delusional and naive that you think anything our western leaders say is gospel and you fail to question your own governments motives and agendas.

Yet there never was a treaty preventing NATO expansion East. Thats not me being delusional, its me having the correct facts while others ignore it.

originally posted by: mortex
I never said there was an agreement.

Then when you stated -

So what did they sign in 1997? Christmas cards?

You were implying what?

originally posted by: mortex
Comprehend the words you are reading before attacking people.

Comprehend what you type before posting it.

originally posted by: mortex
Something was signed, go and Google what it was. I'd post what it was, but I don't feel like helping out someone so rude.

and once again you have flipped your position. They signed in 1997, then the "I never said they signed anything, and now finally something was signed. There were a lot of things signed in 1997. However none of those signed items prevented NATO from expanding.

How about you post the link to "whatever was signed".

originally posted by: mortex
Either way, whatever was signed, the Russian's were lead to believe that NATO wouldn't expand to the former Soviet bloc up to Russia's borders. But that's what's happened.

There was no agreement that prevent NATO from expanding.

Do you always make a beeping sound when you back up like that?

originally posted by: mortex
Why does NATO need to expand and encircle Russia? That's the important question here.

Why does Russia need to invade its smaller neighbors? That's an equally important question. If we look at the facts and factor in history, Russia "surrounded" herself with her actions, and by that I am referring to former SSR's hauling ass to the EU / NATO when the USSR failed and collapsed.

Secondly Russia is not surrounded. As a matter of fact they have a very large northern border that opens to the ocean. The same holds true in its Asian areas. A large chunk is a border with China, the kerplakistan countries.

It would seem the argument of "surrounded" is nothing more than science fiction and can be located right next to the book on "something was signed, no I never said something was signed, yes something was signed in 1997". By the way the "surrounded" argument is bs and was used when Iran was on the front page. Its a fallback position that is based not on reality, but wishful thinking.

originally posted by: mortex
After all, they were apparently supposed to be partners, no?

Russia was offered a seat on NATO. Russia refused because they did not like the idea of a nation the size of Estonia having just as much authority as a nation the size of Russia.

Even though Russia did not join NATO, they have had a permanent military liaison group assigned to NATO headquarters. To this day Russia refused to allow a NATO liaison group to be stationed at their headquarters.

A bit one sided from russia I would say. It also does little to build confidence with Russia's neighbors.

Mehh, I've got no interest in engaging in a debate where someone dissects a post sentence by sentence.
If you can't debate coherently in a structured manner then stop.

originally posted by: mortex
Mehh, I've got no interest in engaging in a debate where someone dissects a post sentence by sentence.
If you can't debate coherently in a structured manner then stop.

So you make a claim, get called out, try to backtrack and get called out. I spent the time answering your accusations and all you can say is I cant debate coherently.

Maybe you should read the post before replying.

You made claims that were untrue. My position is not incoherent and to suggest it is tells me that maybe you should not make claims you can't support.

Maybe you should stop positing until you get your act together.

a reply to: mortex

Mehh, I've got no interest in engaging in a debate where someone dissects a post sentence by sentence.

Welcome to ATS, as sometimes that is the best way.

If you can't debate coherently in a structured manner then stop.

New member telling a fairly established member how to discuss topics...I love ATS.

Look if you can't handle a debate I wouldn't engage in it the first time, as it saves headaches all around.

Just a little friendly advice.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: mortex

Mehh, I've got no interest in engaging in a debate where someone dissects a post sentence by sentence.

Welcome to ATS, as sometimes that is the best way.

If you can't debate coherently in a structured manner then stop.

New member telling a fairly established member how to discuss topics...I love ATS.

Look if you can't handle a debate I wouldn't engage in it the first time, as it saves headaches all around.

Just a little friendly advice.

Where's the debate?
One guy saying nup, it's Russia's fault, and not giving any reasons why he thinks that. Yep, great debate.
Just a pro-American sheep, like that other guy whose pro-Russian and fights with anyone who isn't.

And to the guy who thinks he called me out..that made me laugh.

Well the Pentagon should get called out & grilled from their moronic statement. . .


Russia is NOT on NATO's doorstep. . .


What kind of tripe is that? No wonder U.S. need Psaki & Kirby to sell that load of bs.

* - Guess that will be the new norm. Get rid of Carney, replace w/ Psaki - Psaki can't cut it so, they'll combine Psaki & Kirby lol. . .




. . . Yeah, Russia is encroaching upon NATO.

a reply to: mortex

Where's the debate?

In a debate you counter the other's points with your own...and you don't seem to do that so that's why there is no debate.

One guy saying nup, it's Russia's fault, and not giving any reasons why he thinks that. Yep, great debate.

And he has given you the reason it's Russia's fault, but you and other 's seem to overlook the facts and decide to go on an anti american crusade yet can't prove your points without the petty name calling and personal attacks.

Just a pro-American sheep, like that other guy whose pro-Russian and fights with anyone who isn't.

Ah yes, the way you show you have nothing to bring to the debate, so you go with the name calling...classic.

And to the guy who thinks he called me out..that made me laugh.

And it makes me laugh when seeing new members come into a thread and start throwing personal attacks and nonsense without actually contributing to the thread.

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

Russia is NOT on NATO's doorstep. . .

And NATO wouldn't be getting closer to Russia if they would just stop encroaching on sovereign countries that were once part of the federation, yet do not want to be there again.

You understand those countries want NATO help, it isn't NATO that says hey were coming to take over so we can be closer to Russia.

If Russia didn't do what they have been doing as of late NATO wouldn't be where they are. It is also amazing that you and others seem to miss the fact that Russia was in good terms and had a working relationship with NATO until they annexed a sovereign nations territory.

SO this crap about how NATO is treating Russia is just crap as Russia brought all this on to themselves, and Putin knows this but just only cares about himself and how he can become the ultimate Russian leader. If he cared about his people he wouldn't lie about Russian troops being in UKraine, and he wouldn't be taking away the little freedoms the people had.

I posted the info in another thread but I will repeat it here since it fits in.

Putin gave a speech where he stated the Russian annexation of Crimea was within international / UN law. His supporting evidence was to state the borders of Ukraine were illegal and that Crimea was illegally given to Ukraine in the 1950's.

As has been stated before and ignored by pro Russians...

To the Pro Russians I say this -
We told you so.

Putin gave a speech where he stated the Russian annexation of Crimea was within international / UN law. His supporting evidence was to state the borders of Ukraine were illegal and that Crimea was illegally given to Ukraine in the 1950's.

Oh please, the USSR ran the whole thing then. "legality" was a total fiction for what the dictator wanted dictated, just as it is now in Russia. Shooting the Tsar was also illegal, but that didn't stop Bolsheviks.

Here's something that Putin never thought about: buying Crimea. Yes, it is mostly Russian, but they could have made a decent offer which might have been accepted peacefully.

Right now, I think Ukraine should sue them for damages and loss to income.

Putin gave a speech where he stated the Russian annexation of Crimea was within international / UN law. His supporting evidence was to state the borders of Ukraine were illegal and that Crimea was illegally given to Ukraine in the 1950's.

Oh please, the USSR ran the whole thing then. "legality" was a total fiction for what the dictator wanted dictated, just as it is now in Russia. Shooting the Tsar was also illegal, but that didn't stop Bolsheviks.

Here's something that Putin never thought about: buying Crimea. Yes, it is mostly Russian heritage. Putin could have made a decent offer which might have been accepted peacefully---and the Ukrainians sure needed the money. Right now, I think Ukraine should sue them for damages and loss to income.

Putin is still in the abusive dictator mode and doesn't believe his smaller neighbors get a will or say. He never thought about how to make Ukraine voluntarily LIKE Russia and want to be part of its 'sphere'. And he thought of it as zero-sum, if Ukraine is friendly with EU then it is automatically unfriendly with Russia.

Putin didn't care about what Ukrainians wanted or their economic goals---Putin just cared that EU lost, and screw Ukraine.

It's just like what Talleyrand said about the Bourbons after the French Revolution: "they had learned nothing and forgotten nothing".

And THAT"s why many of the Warsaw Pact countries skipped over to NATO.