OT subject but worth a main-stream read- OT News Feeds...

nolaegghead

Poor wibble russia just needs a nap after annexing tiresome Crimea, they are treated so unfairly by bully nato - bad, bad people!

Top Five Russian Myths Debunked

Myth 1: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War

Fact: Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 – and that has never changed. This “Open Door Policy” is enshrined in Article 10 of NATO’s founding treaty, which says “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” can apply for membership. Decisions on membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. No treaty signed by the United States, Europe and Russia included provisions on NATO membership.

The idea of NATO expansion beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed. This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."

Declassified White House transcripts also reveal that, in 1997, Bill Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that no former Soviet Republics would enter NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so…NATO operates by consensus."

Myth 2: NATO is aggressive and a threat to Russia

Fact: NATO is a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect our members. NATO’s official policy is that "the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia." NATO didn’t invade Georgia; NATO didn’t invade Ukraine. Russia did.

NATO has reached out to Russia consistently and publicly over the past 30 years. We worked together on issues ranging from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency planning – even during periods of NATO enlargement. However, in 2014, in response to Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine, NATO suspended practical cooperation with Russia. We do not seek confrontation, but we can’t ignore Russia breaking international rules, undermining our stability and security.

In response to Russia's use of military force against Ukraine, NATO deployed four multinational battlegroups to the Baltic States and Poland in 2016. These units are not permanently based in the region, are in line with Allies’ international commitments, and amount to around 5,000 troops. They do not pose a threat to Russia’s 1,000,000 strong army. Before Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, there were no Allied troops in the eastern part of the Alliance.

NATO remains open to meaningful dialogue with Russia. That is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has invited all members of the NATO-Russia Council to a series of meetings to discuss European security, including the situation in and around Ukraine, NATO-Russia relations, and arms control and non-proliferation. 

Myth 3: Ukraine cannot join NATO

Fact: NATO Allies welcome Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO and they stand by the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance.

Decisions regarding NATO membership are up to each individual applicant and the 30 NATO Allies. No one else. Russia has no right to intervene and cannot veto this process.

Like every country, Ukraine has the sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. This is a fundamental principle of European security, one that Russia has also signed up to, including through the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the Charter of Paris (1990), the NATO-Russia Founding Act (1997) and the Charter for European Security (1999).

Myth 4: NATO is encircling and trying to contain Russia

Fact: NATO is a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect our member states. Our exercises and military deployments are not directed against Russia – or any other country.

This myth also ignores geography. Only 6% of Russia’s land borders touch NATO countries. Russia has land borders with 14 countries. Only five of them are NATO members.

Outside NATO territory, the Alliance only has a military presence in Kosovo and Iraq. The KFOR peacekeeping mission is carried out with a United Nations Security Council mandate.

NATO's non-combat mission in Iraq contributes to the fight against terrorism and is carried out at the request of the Iraqi government, with full respect for Iraq's sovereignty. In contrast, Russia has military bases and soldiers in three countries – Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine – without the consent of their governments. Russia also has amassed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border and is threatening to invade Ukraine.

Myth 5: NATO's interventions in the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo and Libya prove that the Alliance is not defensive

Fact: The former Yugoslavia did not break up because of NATO. The Alliance did not use military force to change borders in the former Yugoslavia. From 1992-1995, NATO conducted several military operations in Bosnia, including enforcing a no-fly-zone and providing air support for UN peacekeepers. These activities were mandated by the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia is a member. NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions in 1995 helped pave the way for the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia that had killed over 100,000 people. From 1996 onwards, NATO led multinational peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, which included troops from Russia. The European Union took over that mission in 2004.

The NATO-led operation in Libya in 2011 was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), 1970 and 1973, neither of which was opposed by Russia. UNSCR 1973 authorized the international community "to take all necessary measures" to "protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". This is what NATO did, with the political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.

NATO’s operation in Kosovo in 1999 followed over a year of intense diplomatic efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to end the conflict. The UN Security Council repeatedly branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's mission helped to end large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians. KFOR, NATO’s ongoing peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, has a UNSC mandate (UNSCR 1244) and is supported by both Belgrade and Pristina.

alaskanassasin

I am fairly certain the democrats are only acting because they don't want to be perceived as weak. Besides that as sad as it is war = money.

Botch

alaskanassasin said:

Besides that as sad as it is war = money.

It is... curious... that just months after our military/industrial complex lost their $300M/day it was earning in Afghanistan, this comes up.    

nolaegghead

IMO the best thing to do here is just ignore the whole situation.  Putin is acting out, wants the attention - like a child. It distracts from how miserable the average Russian's life is.

Kayak

Botch said:

alaskanassasin said:

Besides that as sad as it is war = money.

It is... curious... that just months after our military/industrial complex lost their $300M/day it was earning in Afghanistan, this comes up.    

There just isn't much money to be made in a war on terror as there is in a nice cold war with real countries. You don't need bombers, aircraft carriers, submarines, tanks, a whole nuclear missile triad... It's much more profitable to have real enemies. The Ukraine has opened up a whole new market we thought was just going to be for western capital to take over!

JohnInCarolina

It sure is impressive how the US government and military-industrial complex has tricked Putin into assembling 90% of his military along the Ukraine border… 

nolaegghead

I don't think we need to be worried....unless you live in one of these places:

alaskanassasin

Don't leave out Wright Patt AFB

lousubcap

@nolaegghead - I grew up around 20 miles from a USAF SAC base in Plattsburgh, NY.  Within around a 20 mile radius of the base were 12 Atlas ICBM loaded missile silos.  Closest to my house was 3 miles away.  This was early  1960's.  We knew we were wearing a target.  

Kayak

JohnInCarolina said:

It sure is impressive how the US government and military-industrial complex has tricked Putin into assembling 90% of his military along the Ukraine border… 

First off, the Russian military numbers somewhere north of 1Million, so 90% is a little 'off'. And no one said we tricked them to do it. I don't know why you would say that. If you don't think there is more money to be made in submarines than M-16's, I would point you to the well-known difference in defense spending of the US vs the rest of the world, and our position as the number one exporter of arms, also worldwide. That's a lot of bullets!

Ignoring world events like possible wars, or making jokes about them is a natural response for people who have next to no power to do anything about them, but you don't have to get all superior about it.

The only stick I have up my butt concerns the absolute stranglehold our government has on our opinions about the rest of the world. If you looked at that video of Mike Lee questioning Ned Price at the State Department event, you saw a perfect example of what the rest of the news folks don't do. Ask for evidence. State department says Russia is going to invade Ukraine, everybody reports it without asking questions. Russia says they aren't, that's obviously propaganda. Was Iraq that long ago? Our media, and I don't mean the 'lamestream' media, but most of it, accepts the opinions of those in our government as 'the experts', and never subjects them to the kind of critique they would give any statement by one of our official enemies. It's as true for Democratic administrations as it is for Republican.  

JohnInCarolina

Kayak said:

JohnInCarolina said:

It sure is impressive how the US government and military-industrial complex has tricked Putin into assembling 90% of his military along the Ukraine border… 

First off, the Russian military numbers somewhere north of 1Million, so 90% is a little 'off'. 

My mistake.  I think they have close to 90 percent of what would be needed for a full invasion of Ukraine:



But I’m sure this is just a random occurrence because Putin likes to move his troops around so much, and not because he’s actually considering doing anything with them.  

Kayak

So, where did you get the number of 100k being a good number to invade with? I'm sure the experts all said it. Perhaps those troops were moved there for another reason? No need to even consider it. I hear the Russians were also planning a false flag operation to justify the invasion. Good thing we discovered it so they can't do that anymore. Maybe your next map could show the disposition of Ukrainian troops, particularly in March and October of last year. You might see another reason why Russian troops were moved into the area then. 

JohnInCarolina

Kayak said:

 Perhaps those troops were moved there for another reason? 

Yes, you are right.

alaskanassasin

Don’t argue with @JohnInCarolina he doesn’t put any thought into responses, he will pick one sentence out of a paragraph to counter, disregard the whole context and then quote a internet article, then when he draws you down to arguing the validity of a useless article he will be condescending. He is really lazy at this save your breathe 

Botch

alaskanassasin said:

Don't leave out Wright Patt AFB

Disagree.  

alaskanassasin

He is balancing being superior, provoking and lazy.

Kayak

alaskanassasin said:

He is balancing being superior, provoking and lazy.

Well, we're all hanging out here because it's more work to write about cooking. I'm just here for the arguing, and I like most of the people here from their postings. I can think of a few I really find off-putting and won't fake an 'in real life, we'd get along great' response.

alaskanassasin

Hopefully John is not one of those, he seems like a outstanding individual I have never met in person though I would consider him a friend. I just don’t see the need to argue with him online for the aforementioned reasons.

JohnInCarolina

alaskanassasin said:

Don’t argue with @JohnInCarolina he doesn’t put any thought into responses, he will pick one sentence out of a paragraph to counter, disregard the whole context and then quote a internet article, then when he draws you down to arguing the validity of a useless article he will be condescending. He is really lazy at this save your breathe 

This is a bbq forum.  The number of instances when there is genuinely something of value in an “argument” here between two people, a give and take of ideas instead of two people talking past one another (the format hardly lends itself to much else), is few and far between.

But if people don’t like the way I argue and decide not to argue with me accordingly, that is completely fine with me.  It’s a free country.

JohnInCarolina

alaskanassasin said:

He is balancing being superior, provoking and lazy.

Guilty as charged, lol

alaskanassasin

Botch said:

alaskanassasin said:

Don't leave out Wright Patt AFB

Disagree.  

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on Wright Patt @botch I know you have spent some time there.  My knowledge of the place does not expand beyond the absolute national treasure that is The National Museum of the USAF. That and a outstanding annual air show with terrible parking/air park logistics.

Botch

@alaskanassasin, WPAFB has the Aeronautical Systems Division (probably renamed a few times by now), where new aerospace systems are developed; that is a long, slow process and not a "combat" threat (that's Area .  Areas A and C have the Air Materiel Command HQs, an Intel unit, a tanker unit (when I was there) and Maintenance depot for Air Mobility Command; again, not a priority during an attack.  
I'll have to peruse Wiki and see if they've added/changed any missions; those things change, especially after 35 years!  

Kayak

Uh oh, I think we can establish a flaggot.

JohnInCarolina

Kayak said:

Uh oh, I think we can establish a flaggot.

Oh yeah, that's been obvious for some time now.  

alaskanassasin

Botch said:

@alaskanassasin, WPAFB has the Aeronautical Systems Division (probably renamed a few times by now), where new aerospace systems are developed; that is a long, slow process and not a "combat" threat (that's Area .  Areas A and C have the Air Materiel Command HQs, an Intel unit, a tanker unit (when I was there) and Maintenance depot for Air Mobility Command; again, not a priority during an attack.  
I'll have to peruse Wiki and see if they've added/changed any missions; those things change, especially after 35 years!  

Thanks @Botch that would be the only thing that has changed in Dayton fwiw

JohnInCarolina

Getting back to this mess with Ukraine, there was a discussion recently here at Duke by some of our own faculty whose expertise overlaps this area:

https://today.duke.edu/2022/02/neither-war-nor-quick-solution-expected-russia-ukraine-standoff-experts-say

 Thought you might find it interesting, @lousubcap

lousubcap

Thanks @JohnInCarolina.  A good read and youtube commentary.  

Kayak

If I admit to finding that discussion somewhat reasonable, with exceptions, does it make me inconsistent? I'm not sure the prospect of a "prosperous, western-oriented market democracy" would really threaten Putin and his position and his legacy. That seems to go right along the lines of the "Putin is an egomaniac who rules Russia with an iron grip" belief. Too much opinion in the west is based on that, instead of them having a deeply developed government that runs most of the place. Good read, though.

JohnInCarolina

Interesting/concerning analysis here, @lousubcap

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/peacefield/620e84969d9e380022bf6059/russia-answers-nato/

lousubcap

@JohnInCarolina - thanks for that read (in English)!  I don't see an exist strategy for Putin right now although I don't think he wants a protracted conflict in Ukraine.  He remembers well the USSR and Trashcanistan war back in the 70's-80's.  His economy is weak and will only suffer more if he rolls in.  
But if he can use this to drive a wedge between the US and NATO then he will have achieved something.  And the next move is???