Russia and China unite against NATO

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
become allies or else...

That mindset / policy works for Putin sooooo....

Your deflection to "Putin" is sooooo standard.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
become allies or else...

That mindset / policy works for Putin sooooo....

Your deflection to "Putin" is sooooo standard.

Well when its the truth.........

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
become allies or else...

That mindset / policy works for Putin sooooo....

Your deflection to "Putin" is sooooo standard.

Well when its the truth.........

Ministry of Truth is it? Cold War rhetoric. You can't say "Soviets" anymore, sooooo.... manufacture a 'new' enemy for a 'new' generations.

a reply to: intrptr

Tell that to Putler, who still thinks the Soviet Union is real and that he somehow matters.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

Tell that to Putler, who still thinks the Soviet Union is real and that he somehow matters.

I know who the bad guys are this time round. Can't get fooled again.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: intrptr

I don't understand. The majority of joint Russian-Chinese exercises revolve around either defending against NATO aggression or Counter-Terrorism related stuff, given the US interference in the South China Sea this one seems to fall into the former, so I'm not sure where these accusations are coming from.

china have the russian sunburn missile making a naval assault rather mute.

considering if a nato attack were to be launched against russia, the likelihood would be a nuclear assault rather than a ground war, so unless their training to dig a grave in under three minutes overall its a rather pointless exercise.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

Tell that to Putler, who still thinks the Soviet Union is real and that he somehow matters.

I know who the bad guys are this time round. Can't get fooled again.

Based on your position it appears you already have been fooled again.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

Again NATO is a defensive alliance. If a NATO member launches an attack article V does not apply. Also if you guys took the time to actually read the NATO charter you would also notice it spells out the specific geographic areas article V applies in.

But why worry about facts when you can just make crap up?

First of all NATO has nothing to with China. China is not in the North Atlantic. Second China was just a part of the US lead month long RIMPAC exercise, the largest in the world that includes 28 navies from the North and South American.

And before Russia invaded Crimea it used to join NATO military exercises.

originally posted by: MrSpad
And before Russia invaded Crimea it used to join NATO military exercises.

They did more than that. Russia was a NATO Partner for Peace member.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Again NATO is a defensive alliance.

Yah, needs constant reminding, because its a lie.

The truth is NATO, US and German tanks are all the way into Poland right up against the Russian border, just like before WWII.

Defensive my ass, warmonger. Are you insane?

How is it we are the Nazis this time around?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

Again NATO is a defensive alliance.

Yah, needs constant reminding, because its a lie.

The truth is NATO, US and German tanks are all the way into Poland right up against the Russian border, just like before WWII.

Defensive my ass, warmonger. Are you insane?

How is it we are the Nazis this time around?

Those were Soviet and German tanks up against the Polish before WW2. The US was not involved at that point and NATO did not exist. Maybe you remember the deal where Germany and Russian invaded Poland and cut it in half. Also the Soviets got to invade the Baltic states. This after invading Finland.

You know the reasons all those nation do not trust Russia and have NATO ties now.

And NATO has 4 Battalions spread among the Baltic states and Poland. That is 4000 troops spread through 4 nations. That is not even a defensive force much less an offensive force. Finland and Sweden are getting close with NATO because the see NATO as an aggressive threat. All those eastern states that have joined NATO did not do so because they feared an aggressive NATO.

Anyone who thinks that NATO forces are in an offensive posture knows absolutely nothing about military tactics or even history.

I know you are in a terrible postilion trying to defend Russia's actions in Ukraine and its threats against other states. I mean not even China supports Russia on Ukraine, they are to busy helping revive Ukraine's defense industry.

a reply to: MrSpad

While you put that eloquently and to a certain extent I agree with you. It is my opinion (I'm no expert), that putting troops over there may force Russia to retaliate. I understand the intent is to defend that region, but Crimea was an anomaly. Russia needs the black sea fleet and whether they are right or justifying, hold us responsible for the attempted coup in Ukraine. Also if I remember correctly, their were talks of Ukraine possibly joining NATO. Either way we didn't hold to out end of our treaty with Ukraine to defend them understandably as it would have resulted in WWIII.

I know we all think we are right but at the end of the day it is a precarious situation. One Noone has the answers to, and Noone is in the right on the events that took place, again IMHO.

a reply to: MrSpad

Those were Soviet and German tanks up against the Polish before WW2. The US was not involved at that point and NATO did not exist. Maybe you remember the deal where Germany and Russian invaded Poland and cut it in half. Also the Soviets got to invade the Baltic states. This after invading Finland.

Anything Stalin did was to counter or appease Hitler and wouldn't have occurred without Hitler dominating Europe (the pre world war part you left out) in the first place. Same today. Crimea was a defensive posture response to US / EU (NATO) meddling in Ukraine. The same struggle occurred during WWII for Sevastopol the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet. You expected Russia to just forgo centuries of occupation there, this time around?? Geography doesn't change, neither does greed for power and conquest, same thing different era.

The Nazis were defeated, the Russians went home and now NATO fills the vacuum left behind.

Now NATO expands towards Russia, not the other way round.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: MrSpad
And before Russia invaded Crimea it used to join NATO military exercises.

They did more than that. Russia was a NATO Partner for Peace member.

Yah, before the US lied repeatedly about regime change and humanitarian interventions in the Middle East, Balkans and Africa.

They're not blind. After Ukraine and the current mess in Syria they have taken a firmer stance. The cats out of the bag. Or did you miss what they did in Syria?

a reply to: intrptr

Yeah try again.. Randomly making false claims doesn't support your position. I know Putin relies on lies and distorting history but like him people don't buy that bs either.

NATO is pushing it. NATO needs to break apart before they drag the rest of the neutral countries to war and end up being under suppression of more US military. Non- of the SEA countries trust China because they want to maintain capitalism. Once Communism is gone expect Fascism or Corporatism to come out of all Capitalistic countries. Rich will eventually back stab rich. In the end US may win because they've been playing that game for a long time.

NATO = North American Take Over. Excluding Canada nad Mexico. Both countries are already under pressure of US huge military might.

a reply to: MrSpad

In this day and age, you don't need NATO. We have internet, satellite, and fast communication radio to see who is invading who. NATO should just completely be disbanded and a new treaty should be impose on the world. If one NATO country does something bad, it can drag the rest of the other countries in NATO through war using false flag attacks. This is a mere repeat of 8 nation alliance. Blame one country and drag the rest in. Each country needs to be neutral and have its own personal defense and satellite to seek the truth instead of following orders under NATO.

a reply to: makemap

Mexico is not a member of NATO. If you are going to try and assign blame / responsibility to NATO maybe understand what the alliance is and is not first.

Canada and the US military are already intertwined and would remain that way if NATO did not exist. Its one of the only nations with military overflight rights in the US without permission and one of the only countries whose military can operate inside the US at the request of a Governor (and vice versa).

NATO is a defensive alliance. Article V is not applicable if a NATO member starts a war. Someone people seem to not understand when trying to make NATO out to be the problem

If NATO were such a threat then why did the former East bloc nations sprint towards membership when the USSR failed and collapsed? If NATO is such a threat why are the neutral nordic nations looking to join NATO. It seams to me Russian action is the reason why nations want into NATO.

Does that not make Russia the threat?

a reply to: makemap

Why should it be disbanded? Why get rid of something that works and helps member nations with an added ability to resolve differences.

Russia can not take on the whole of NATO and it has demonstrated in Ukraine why the alliance is relevant. Plus Russia never had issues with NATO when Russia was a NATO partner for peace member.

and, again, NATO is a defensive alliance. If a NATO member starts a fight article V does not apply. I find it amazing you attack something you clearly dont understand.


NATO charter

First and foremost - It places the UN Charter first

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article V again references the UN Charter. It also references the geographic region the NATO Charter applies in - in article VI.

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer; on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Reference the constant bickering by some over Turkey and Greece -

Article 8

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

As you can see the NATO treaty does not apply to the issues between Greece and Turkey.

The NATO charter has 14 articles and thats it. Its designed like that for good reason. As I already said if your going to go after NATO maybe educate yourself before making claims that arent supported by facts. The basis of the NATO treaty is the UN Charter.