- 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 7:33 pm to Obtuse1
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.
1
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:01 pm to doubleb
Baker and the Bush I team recognized Eastern Europe as being in Russias sphere of influence. There was no desire to lunge eastwards. It would end in pointless conflict. The few neocons in that administration who wanted to, like Cheney, were roundly considered crazy.
But everything changed under Clinton, the neocons dominated his administration, and we went from detente, to the offensive.
But everything changed under Clinton, the neocons dominated his administration, and we went from detente, to the offensive.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News