- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Ukrainian Counter Offensive
Posted on 7/5/23 at 6:21 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 7/5/23 at 6:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
(1) There is no question re: "the promise" not to expand NATO eastward.
(2) You're waYyYyYyyy too trusting of Rice-Brzezinski revisionism of the Baker-Shevardnadze DOCUMENTED 1990-91 discussions
The idea an agreement continues to exist after one of the two entities involved no longer exists AND there was no language in the agreement to cover such an eventuality is simply daft. If one argues the agreement runs to the countries that made up the USSR then the "USSR" chose to move NATO closer when Estonia, Latvia, and Lituania chose to become part of NATO.
2
Posted on 7/5/23 at 7:33 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
The idea an agreement continues to exist after one of the two entities involved no longer exists AND there was no language in the agreement to cover such an eventuality is simply daft. If one argues the agreement runs to the countries that made up the USSR then the "USSR" chose to move NATO closer when Estonia, Latvia, and Lituania chose to become part of NATO.
Diplomats are negotiating what to do with a unified Germany. Why in the world would the participants in the negotiations believe that when Baker said not one inch eastward that applied to the Warsaw Pact?
Why would NATO covet them? After all Russian trooos were in those countries just as they were in East Germany.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:27 pm to Obtuse1
quote:You're swinging at air; there is no such surviving "idea."
The idea an agreement continues to exist after one of the two entities involved no longer exists AND there was no language in the agreement to cover such an eventuality is simply daft.
So yes, daft indeed.
As it is, so then is the idea that America did not lie through its teeth in 1991. Just as was done in misrepresenting the Minsk Accords. Just as was done in catalyzing the Euromaidan, and installing a Ukrainian junta.
In the days of Reagan, the US fell victim to the USSR, Red China, and other communist nations duplicitously breaching agreements. For the past 30yrs that equation has reversed.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News