It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For those argueing whether Russia was promised no NATO expansion......

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae



That during Reagan's term,it would have never been done like this,and he tells how they did handle issues that came up. It is well worth the time to watch it.


Different leaders, different temperaments, different world.
We can't say we should do it the way they would have, if everything is not the same.
edit on 28-3-2015 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: WineAndCheese9
Your problem and those like you
Is that you assume Russians are stupid


So nice. Your problem is you assume too much.

Russia cannot accept that the world has moved on. Is Russia's grievance with the EU and NATO about the fact they have absorbed much of the area that the Soviet Union controlled through repression or is it that they countries when faced with a choice have decided to turn their backs on their old masters?

All other nations in Europe, with the exception of Belarus, that is run by a dictator, have decided to frustrate Russia's belief that the world should have been fixed in the 1990s.

Russia can cry about the expansion of the EU and NATO, but this has happened because of Russia's policies.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: greencmp

So I feel the need to ask at this point, what does American exceptionalism mean TO YOU. How do you feel about it and what does it mean as far as you are concerned? He pointed out that to other countries it means that we feel we are above the laws that are there for all countries. No country wants to deal with someone like that.They may HAVE to,but they don't want to. And in Europe,they have a lot more history than us,so they know to sit back and wait,governments rise and fall,and our time is coming.

We on the other hand,have people here in the US that feel that it means that we can do what we want in other countries and they just have to deal with it.Remember,Hitler also claimed that the Aryan race(true Germans)was exceptional.This is not a really good mindset to have. We are just one country out of 198 in this world. We can do a lot of damage and we have.This is what he was explaining in his talk,he wasn't trying to define what it is really supposed to mean, he was saying as how others perceive it.

As far as being capitulative,are we not supposed to work out problems with other countries? Does it always mean that if we don't get along with someone,they have to die? What kind of foreign policy is that? With all these countries in this world,it is not about MAKING them be the countries that WE want.It is about dealing with their country as it is. This thinking is what has us in the mess we are in now.




A reasonable assertion by an attendee that Putin is “the richest thug in the world” which was responded to by the statement that it is not our concern.


And is it? Is it anyone in Russia's business how much Hilliary Clinton has? No,just like its not our business what their leader has.Us sticking our nose into others business causes a lot of headaches and misunderstandings.

I understand that with your honesty about your bias,you won't see what all he is trying to tell people.That basically American needs to get its nose out of the worlds problems. Every problem is not a nail and we don't need to be a hammer. We are breeding resentment everywhere we go. I do appreciate the time you took to watch the video and comment on it.Thank you


It is attributable to Alexis de Tocqueville who called America "exceptional" due to its relatively enlightened and well educated population, republican government and vast natural resources.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
The myth of victimhood being nurtured by Russia over alleged guarantees that NATO would not expand are just that - a myth.

Granted, in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the dissolving of the military Warsaw Pact and the reunification of Germany et al, there may have be discussions about hypotheticals, but there was no written guarantee. No treaty. No accord. No MOU. Nothing.

Russia uses NATOs expansion as a pretext for antagonism and belligerence towards what friendly neighbours they have left. They use the myth as an excuse.

Russia need to ask "why" do all of Russia's ex allies want so much to join the West - the EU and NATO.


You should also ask why NATO, which is first and foremost a defensive organization, expanding is such a problem.

If they aren't planning on attacking their neighbors, it shouldn't matter if they are in NATO or not.

Oh wait, they obviously intent to continually keep attacking their neighbors.

That must be why it is such a problem.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: paraphi

Watch the video please,he was there and he explains what all happened.
second line


Just finished watching it, it was a lot of info.

He did warn in the beginning he was putting 40 mins of stuff into 20 mins, and that still only scratched the surface.

His insight was amazing.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: johnwick

You watched a one and a half hour video in 10 min, how'd you pull that off?


I clearly stated I didn't because I had been drinking.

I did try but couldn't do it..



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaxnmarko
a reply to: Dimithae

NATO was formed to create allies against Russian aggression and Empire desires. There would BE no NATO if Russia acted like a civilized country and didn't want hegemony over other countries. As Russia acts, NATO responds. When Russia pushes, NATO must hold firm or push back. The only way to deal with a bully. Putin, with his deep set paranoia, is taking his country to places that are bad for Russia. Ruining relations with neighbors and other countries, including ones previously under their thumb with absolutely NO desire to be there again. Spending crucial resources on military equipment instead of a healthy economy and citizens. The average life span of a male Russian has been dropping for years and Putin is not the answer to their country, only the answer to megalomania.


I say this comment right here best sums up my feelings on the matter.

NATO is a defensive organization, if Russia isn't planning on attacking their neighbors it shouldn't matter if they are Russia's neighbors.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: WineAndCheese9
a reply to: paraphi

Your problem and those like you

Is that you assume Russians are stupid

That they can't see US plans to use NATO as puppets and ultimately destroy Russia, after that they would probably start taking out China

Yeah everyone is stupid while US goes and takes over the world.


If the US wanted to destroy Russia, why didn't they do it after Russia's economy collapsed?

Why instead of destroying it did the US prop up Russia and give them billions to maintain their military and nuclear arms?

The US has not and does not want to destroy Russia.

Honestly who would even care about Russia in the west if they weren't attacking their neighbors?

Hint, nobody!!!!

The west cares about Russia and thinks about Russia as often as we think about Africa.

It is only when Russia begins threatening nuclear war and attacking their neighbors we even look in their direction.

Sorry bro, but you guys are not important enough to even think about 99% of the time, get over it.



posted on Mar, 28 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Dimithae



That during Reagan's term,it would have never been done like this,and he tells how they did handle issues that came up. It is well worth the time to watch it.


Different leaders, different temperaments, different world.
We can't say we should do it the way they would have, if everything is not the same.


I do admit, that us a good point, though you forget Obama is a spineless coward of a shill.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
If the US wanted to destroy Russia, why didn't they do it after Russia's economy collapsed?


Because US already owned Russia through oligarchs

If US doesn't want Russia destroyed, why take out their allies one by one, why foster revolution in Kiev and install anti Russia puppets

Sorry bud but I am too informed to fall for your version of events



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: WineAndCheese9
Because US already owned Russia through oligarchs


So you're telling me that the Russian Oligarchs are working for the US??? Is there anything to confirm that? I think you're seeing the US boogeyman behind every corner.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Well,how about this......

nato.int...


The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.


I would say they are letting Russia know they won't go to Russia's doorstep.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae

This was on Russia Today a while back...quite interesting




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

This is interesting,but I only believe what is on RT that is live.Anything I have to go investigate. I will check into this further and get back to you with what I found.Thank you for the info.



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum

I have investigated it and it seems to be legit. The implications are mind boggling.We are talking about complete and total world domination here. It will make all other nations merely 'serfs' to us. We DO NOT need to be in this position. No country on earth should have this much dominance over the world. What the hell mad scientist did they turn loose in Washington?



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
I would say they are letting Russia know they won't go to Russia's doorstep.


I did not read this into the speech at all, even though the speech was made well before the Soviet Union officially fell to bits. The speech, if anything, was a clear reminder of the need to peacefully transition to democracy for those parts of Europe that had been under the jack boot of Soviet oppression. If I was Russian, I would have taken it as an indication that the alliance would support change.


3.to build a new security system for the whole of Europe;


6.as in the past, to prevent war and to make the threat of military aggression pointless.


Source

Perhaps you can point to the part where "Russia's doorstep" is mentioned?
edit on 30/3/2015 by paraphi because: Edit to add above



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Please do not waste my time when it is obvious that I paraphrased something into my own words. That is just picking at things to be picking,not because you want a serious discussion on it.I had siblings growing up that I would fight back and forth with,and am well aware that when someone is losing a point they resort to picking at the smallest things to detract from the main issue and think they aren't losing. This is neither constructive nor seeking of solutions.

The whole reason for there being no point to military aggression and Europe being secure is because Russia would have no reason to feel threatened with them not expanding NATO east.I will post the important part that pertains to main issue again:


The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.

edit on 30-3-2015 by Dimithae because: misspelled word



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join