It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The Russian ambassador came in and specifically said that for their part, it’s not a retaliation that is directed against Canada, nor against the Canadian diplomats," Cannon said. "It's a retaliation based on … the events that took place a couple of weeks ago with the members of the NATO alliance. So, it just happened that the two information officers are Canadian."
Originally posted by whiteraven
hint why is harper in afg and kaj going to be on CNN with Wolf?
By the way Wolf is out of the closet,,,is the prez,,,lol
[edit on 7-5-2009 by whiteraven]
reply to post by 13Etznab
It is for a surprise visit to our good soldiers you fool, what else!!?!
Rock on those who do duty for God and Queen.
Relations have gone awry for two reasons. First, Russia expelled two Canadian diplomats from Nato’s mission in Moscow this week. The expulsions were a tit-for-tat retaliation against Nato’s expulsion of two Russian envoys after a spying scandal in which Nato secrets were passed to Moscow.
There have also been heated words between the Kremlin and Nato this week as the alliance went ahead with a long-planned military exercise in Georgia, which Moscow deeply resented as another interference in its own sphere of influence.
Originally posted by wiredamerican
The USA will not Allow you you remove yourselves from NATO.
NATO is coming up on its 60th anniversary, and it is completely bereft of a raison d’être. The organization has changed from a military alliance directed at protecting U.S. security to the international equivalent of a gentleman’s club. Only Washington has serious duties, to protect everyone else.
In 1999 NATO went to war against Serbia, which had neither attacked nor threatened to attack a member state. In practice it was an American operation. So too is Afghanistan. The British, Danes, and Canadians really fight, but most NATO contingents operate under bureaucratic rules of engagement, or “national caveats,” and often far from where they are needed. Resistance to Washington’s call for additional troops for Afghanistan demonstrates the limits of NATO’s supposed role. Even worse, countries like Albania and Estonia provide minuscule numbers of troops for one operation or another and expect aid money and security guarantees in return. The Economist magazine hilariously called such nations “valued allies in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan—small in numbers, but strong in symbolism.” The emphasis should be on the small, and often very small, “in numbers.” The U.S. bears the primary burden of combat operations, as “NATO” really stands for North America and The Others
Third, NATO expansion in any direction multiplies liabilities rather than assets. While the original alliance members spend as little as possible on the military, Britain and France, at least, nevertheless maintain competent and well-equipped militaries. None of the newer NATO members are able to defend themselves let alone make a meaningful combat commitment overseas. But all have a variety of internal weaknesses, border disputes, and international conflicts. Bringing countries like Albania, Georgia, and Macedonia into the alliance creates ever new risks with no corresponding advantages.
Originally posted by 13Etznab
I always thought we were some kind of a backup land or a card in their pocket. Vast land, ressources... and population waiting for gov to tell what they have to do.
Medvedev's predecessor Vladimir Putin, who is now Russia's powerful prime minister, often accused the West in the past of trying to expand its clout in the ex-Soviet nations and push Russia out of its traditional sphere of influence. The Kremlin has fiercely opposed NATO's plans to incorporate its ex-Soviet neighbors, Ukraine and Georgia.
"I think what happens is we put NATO at risk," he said in response to a question about the implications of weak NATO political leadership. "One, it will weaken. And then ultimately I think it's at risk to potentially a stronger regional organization, a rival — the EU, if you will."