NATO - Russia relations: NATO Facts verse Russian Falsehoods

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Xcathdra

What exemptions? Considering NATO is owned by the US and was created to fight Russia I can't blame them. Can you explain the exemptions so I can make an informed comment on whether Russia was reasonable or not?

NATO is not owned by the US.

Secondly NATO members are treated as equal, meaning the smallest member of NATO can affect the entire alliances direction.

Russia did not like the idea of a smaller nation being able to wield equal authority to the largest members.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Weird, I thought it was the American version of the Warsaw Pact. In other words the tool for American control of Europe.

Even so can you provide a link for Russia's demands that isn't directly from NATO. They aren't a credible source on the subject.

a reply to: tavi45

NATO was formed prior to the Warsaw pact - 1949. The Warsaw pact was a direct result of NATO - 1955.

If it were Americas tool then why has the US removed the bulk of US forces from Europe?

The last part of your question -

March 2010 - The Atlantic Council Russia: NATO Member? By James Joyner

Somewhere over the Rainbow by Roland Oliphant

2002 - NATO offers Moscow seat at meetings

BERLIN — After months of internal discussion, NATO has offered Russia a new form of relationship that will see a Russian ambassador at meetings on significant issues of mutual concern, NATO officials and diplomats said Monday.

But NATO will retain the right to make its own decisions and to meet with only its 19 full members in attendance. Russia will not have a veto over any NATO political or military policies, the officials said.

Any decisions that prove too difficult to make in consensus with Russia can be pulled off the agenda at the request of a member nation, the officials said.

The new NATO-Russia Council would be a parallel body to NATO's North Atlantic Council, where the alliance makes decisions, and it will not replace it.

The proposal has been presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Washington and NATO want a better, more consensual relationship with Russia, officials emphasize, trying to build on common interests such as fighting terrorism, controlling weapons proliferation, conducting rescue operations and peacekeeping.

NATO is trying to put a new institutional framework around the more cooperative relationship that developed with Moscow after Sept. 11.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I said nothing about the dates of either organization. Would you prefer I said the Warsaw Pact was the Russian version of NATO. My point was equating the two. They were both treaty systems for proxy warfare. They still are. Except there is no Warsaw pact, meaning now NATO is a tool for oppressing a Russia that hasn't engaged in imperialism in a while now.

We removed the bulk of our forces because we are throwing Europe under the bus to attain our hegemonic goals. We are trying to bait Russia into making an aggressive act of war so we can bring the hammer down while pretending to be the just defenders. It's a tactic we've used over and over and over.

As for answering my last question none of your sources answered it at all. I read each one. Can you point out where Russia made demands or refused membership. They talk if making an offer or thinking of making an offer or speculating on why Russia might not accept. I saw nothing about Russia making demands. Can you point out the Russian demands for me? Maybe I'm bad at reading.

originally posted by: tavi45
I said nothing about the dates of either organization. Would you prefer I said the Warsaw Pact was the Russian version of NATO. My point was equating the two. They were both treaty systems for proxy warfare. They still are. Except there is no Warsaw pact, meaning now NATO is a tool for oppressing a Russia that hasn't engaged in imperialism in a while now.

I provided the dates because you stated NATO was the American version of the Warsaw Pact. It cant be a version since it was formed before the Warsaw pact was. Secondly the US was just one of the founding members of NATO so its not an American entity.

NATO has not oppressed Russia. Since you think it has can you explain to me how it has oppressed Russia?

originally posted by: tavi45
We removed the bulk of our forces because we are throwing Europe under the bus to attain our hegemonic goals.

We removed forces because we didnt need them to counter a country who could barely feed itself. We removed forces because of the end of the USSR.

originally posted by: tavi45
We are trying to bait Russia into making an aggressive act of war so we can bring the hammer down while pretending to be the just defenders. It's a tactic we've used over and over and over.

Can you provide me some examples? Secondly Russia invaded Ukraine, not the US. We have a President who prefers predator drones over military action. To try and argue the US is trying to bait Russia ignores the facts about our President.

originally posted by: tavi45
As for answering my last question none of your sources answered it at all. I read each one. Can you point out where Russia made demands or refused membership. They talk if making an offer or thinking of making an offer or speculating on why Russia might not accept. I saw nothing about Russia making demands. Can you point out the Russian demands for me? Maybe I'm bad at reading.

But NATO will retain the right to make its own decisions and to meet with only its 19 full members in attendance. Russia will not have a veto over any NATO political or military policies, the officials said.

Any decisions that prove too difficult to make in consensus with Russia can be pulled off the agenda at the request of a member nation, the officials said.

The new NATO-Russia Council would be a parallel body to NATO's North Atlantic Council, where the alliance makes decisions, and it will not replace it.

The proposal has been presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

If NATO was the war mongering threat to Russia as Putin claims then why would they make the offer to Russia about NATO?

a reply to: Xcathdra

From Your last post.

Russia was never asked if they wanted to become a full member of NATO. They were only offered a seat within NATO. As i have been mentioning in my past posts.

But NATO will retain the right to make its own decisions and to meet with only its 19 full members in attendance. Russia will not have a veto over any NATO political or military policies, the officials said.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As far as NATO not expanding, well it seems they did agree not to do so.
From Foreign Policy:

On January 31, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher publicly declared that there would be “no expansion of NATO territory eastward” after reunification. Two days later, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker met with Genscher to discuss the plan. Although Baker did not publicly endorse Genscher’s plan, it served as the basis for subsequent meetings between Baker, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. During these discussions, Baker repeatedly underlined the informal deal on the table, first telling Shevardnadze that NATO’s jurisdiction “would not move eastward” and later offering Gorbachev “assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward.” When Gorbachev argued that “a broadening of the NATO zone” was “not acceptable,” Baker replied, “We agree with that.” Most explicit was a meeting with Shevardnadze on February 9, in which Baker, according to the declassified State Department transcript, promised “iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.” Hammering home the point, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl advanced an identical pledge during meetings in Moscow the next day.

And from Global Research:

After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: “We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.” And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: “As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.”

Shevardnadze replied that he believed “everything the minister (Genscher) said.”

It paints us in a bad light that we can't be trusted,by the Indians knew that already.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So you still haven't addressed the claims you made of Russia making demands of NATO. I've asked 2 or 3 times now. Since you can't support your own points (the ones that matter, not the irrelevant obvious points like the date it was founded), I'm done here.

If you address the point I've asked about two or three times already I'll come back. Until then youve forfeited any credibility in my eyes.

To the rest of you battling his propaganda have fun. I doubt it will go anywhere.

a reply to: tavi45

I did answer it... Its been raised in 2 threads now. you can use the link below or I can copy and paste it here for you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stop being pissy.

a reply to: Dimithae

There was no agreement between NATO and Russia on expansion.

The Germans do no speak for the entire NATO alliance. Any agreement of that magnitude would require all NATO members to sign off on it. That never occurred because NATO never made the offer.

Here is the entire situation instead of the specific part you picked.
Not whether but when - The US decision to enlarge NATO.

Page 14 - German Expansion


It can also be found here -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Last Paragraph.

a reply to: Xcathdra

"The Germans do no speak for the entire NATO alliance."

I never said they did,in fact as you read the link you see that several countries were involved in the agreement,THOSE THAT COUNTED.

"There was no agreement between NATO and Russia on expansion. "
Okay,after reading those quotes I want you to explain to me what in there tells YOU that there was no agreement. All I am seeing is that they did have an agreement that they would not expand any further.

They knew Russia would never agree to NATO moving closer so they made this agreement to clinch the deal. Now if you are trying to infer that there was no agreement because it wasn't in writing,we still come out looking bad. BECAUSE WE CAN'T BE TRUSTED. This shows beyond any doubt that the USA will say or promise or lie or anything else it takes to get what it wants. Then afterwards DUCK. Because we haven't changed not one iota from the days our government was lying and stealing from Indians. And if anyone thinks that a contract would change anything,you haven't dealt with a lawyer.

There is a difference in saying that there is no treaty on this and saying that there was no agreement on it. Nothing was signed because the Russians were stupid enough to believe us.But then they also believed we were trying to help them set up their democracy when the carpetbaggers moved in with all those wonderful contracts that only paid Russia 20 cents on the dollar for their own oil. Then it was sold off for a HUGE profit,and oh how the money rolled in, for other companies,not Russia.

Which brings up the sticking point of why the USA loves painting Putin as this mad ruler. It has nothing to do with whether he is a good or bad guy,after all we propped up the Shah of Iran,remember? He was as bad as Sadam Hussein.At one point we backed Hussein as well,thanks to Hillary we also backed at one time Boko Haram. We love despots,we hug them and squeeze them and call them George. No what Putin REALLY did was totally unforgivable, he cancelled contracts that were ripping off Russia. OMG!!!

When he became President he wondered where was all of Russia's money going? People were starving and were unemployed and companies were sitting not producing. The economy was in a shambles. He started looking at the contracts that not only we had with him but companies from other countries as well. What he saw was appalling. Russia was paying other countries companies to come in and pump out the oil and gas and sell it. They only paid Russia 20 cents on each dollar and were draining the country of everything. In the meantime there were all kinds of contracts going that money had been borrowed under Yeltsin and pocketed and had to be paid back. OUR Oligarchs were having a field day over there. He started off doing something worse than starting a war.... he CANCELLED those contracts earning him the hate forever of our oligarchs. If he walked on water now they would still hate him and bash him every chance they got.

Russia is STILL paying on some of those contracts, why I don't know. I would tell them to piss off myself.We saw the same thing happen here after the civil war. The south was basically being raped and the north supported it. It brought about a deep seated hatred that lasted for a long long time.

Now having been in quite a few posts with you, I know that you will not answer to everything I have posted here. I also am aware that you have a tendency to ignore any proof that people bring in links,videos,interviews,etc. that support their viewpoint. you ask for proof of something then ignore what they posted and only answer one point.Your above post is an example of this,you choose to only answer that Germany is not NATO and can't answer for it ignoring the other info as talking points.That may be your right,but it does nothing to support your stance. I did do and have been doing research on Russia,Ukraine and our roll in it. I did not just one day say to myself, oh I think I'll take Russia's side.

What I did decide to do, is to research what happened,how it unfolded,and what part we played in it good or bad. My conclusions are based on what I have found. If I suspected the source, I went and found others sources that either refuted or backed up the first one. I am disabled and have time on my hands being that I can't work. To simplify what I found, this is just more of the US doing back door deals for oligarchs. They have had they're hands in our foreign affairs for a long time now,and the state of the world is directly due to them. Our government is backing and supporting whatever they want. The USA has been bought and paid for by these corrupt evil fools that use our politicians as puppets.

I use my resources like a detective,there are good and bad ones. You can take the evidence and make it fit your suspect,or you can go WHERE EVER the evidence leads you and catch the right person. I choose the latter.My views are multicultural. I am neither for nor against any country or culture. I am for right. All countries do bad things. There is no perfect one,but democracy can only stand around 200 years due to its weakness of becoming corrupt. It is the nature of the beast.And we ARE the beast. I truly wish for the impossible, I want to live in a non-country. No alliances,no foreign policies,no drama,no nonsense. The whole no anything. But while I live here,I'm going to keep pricking people and try to wake them up. Have nice day.

a reply to: Dimithae

There are no "those that counted" in NATO. Since its inception its an all or nothing body and not one country can override another.

One nation cannot make an agreement for NATO.
There never was a treaty that prevented NATO from expansion and my post / source shows that.

Simply repeating the same false claims over and over don't make them true. NATO never agreed not to expand.

Amazing how the U.S. is demonized for invading Iraq but on ATS Russia gets a pat on the back for doing the same thing with The Ukraine. Really exposes the true agenda around here...

originally posted by: jaffo
Amazing how the U.S. is demonized for invading Iraq but on ATS Russia gets a pat on the back for doing the same thing with The Ukraine. Really exposes the true agenda around here...

Its up there with them bitching about civilian deaths they blame on Kiev yet say nothing about the Asssad government slaughtering his own people.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia at least is protecting its own people. There are many many ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

Iraq cost the lives of millions of Muslims and thousands of Americans for nothing except money and furthering the policy of regional destabilization.

Do you give Lincoln crap for the deaths in the American civil war? No? Then don't blame Assad either.

originally posted by: tavi45
Russia at least is protecting its own people. There are many many ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

Yes yes we heard these words before with Hitler just prior to them starting World War II. It was not true then and its not true now. How do we know? Because Russia still has failed to provide evidence to the UN regarding the initial claims of ethnic Russians being in danger in Ukraine.

Its like Russian Ambassador Cherkin going off on the Ukraine UN Ambassador over the OSCE mission. Ironic that Russia will tout the plan as theirs with the OSCE while at the same time they are blocking the mission from moving forward along the border.

originally posted by: tavi45
Iraq cost the lives of millions of Muslims and thousands of Americans for nothing except money and furthering the policy of regional destabilization.

Yes many people were killed in Iraq when Hussein was in power. Any particular reason you ignore those facts? Or are you saying you supported Hussein's tactics towards his own people? Secondly If I remember right Russia also provided aid and weapons to Hussein. Another point you ignore.

originally posted by: tavi45
Do you give Lincoln crap for the deaths in the American civil war? No? Then don't blame Assad either.

Our civil war was fought over states rights and not Abe Lincoln or Jefferson Davis's desire to remain in absolute power at any cost.

If you are going to try and invoke history please learn about it first.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes many people were killed in Iraq when Hussein was in power

Seems like you have ignored the war crimes which America did create in Iraq. Many people lives were killed and damaged when America started the invasion and occupation.

Its not a surprise why Iraqis wanted Americans gone from there lands.

Another point you ignore.

Seems like you supported the War in Iraq while claiming to oppose Syria and Libya ironic.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Just as you supported Russia unprovoked invasions of Chechnya - twice - while ignoring Russian war crimes.

ironic.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Disinformation at its supreme "unleaded" best. Thanks for revealing your bias again.

This country has been using the "dirty commies" and "Red menace" excuse since before I was born.

a reply to: intrptr

Here is a novel concept you and other should try.

Refute the information instead of the typical personal attacks. You guys might just learn something instead of going through life being ignorant of whats going on.