- 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 6:11 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 7/5/23 at 6:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Indeed, the only formal agreement signed between Nato countries and the USSR, before its breakup in December 1991, was the Treaty of Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The promises made specifically relate to Germany, and the territory of the former GDR, which were on the deployment of non-German Nato forces into eastern Germany and the deployment of nuclear weapons – and these promises have been kept.
LINK
Now we do have a signed agreement from 1994 which Russia signed agreeing to respect Ukrainian sovereignty.
In 1994 Russia wasn’t concerned with NATO and the old Warsaw Pact countries. They like the west wanted nukes under control. Nothing was said then about NATO.
Now along comes Putin who invents a reason to invade Ukraine so he can regain lost Russian power. He violated a written agreement just because he can.
2
Posted on 7/5/23 at 6:15 pm to doubleb
Cry harder simp
Posted on 7/5/23 at 6:17 pm to doubleb
quote:smh
signed agreement
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.
Posted on 7/5/23 at 7:22 pm to doubleb
Neither Franklin, Davis or Churchhill laundered money for some crooked Bitcoin bro or took a timeout for a photoshoot in the middle of a war.
He is as crooked as the Z and S in his name.
He's not even a poor man's Charles De Gaulle.
He is as crooked as the Z and S in his name.
He's not even a poor man's Charles De Gaulle.
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 3:01 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.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:14 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
sive by Lima WhiskeyBaker and the Bush I team recognized Eastern Europe as being in Russias sphere of influence
Yes
quote:
There was no desire to lunge eastwards.
Correct[
quote]But everything changed under Clinton, the neocons dominated his administration, and we went from detente, to the offensive. [/quote]
Actually times changed. The USSR collapsed. The Warsaw Pact got a get out of jail free card. They wanted protection from Russia. Protection via NATO was granted.
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.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
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
Your belief that the United States could even legitimately enter into any type of agreement with Russia or the Soviet Union that prevents sovereign, third-party nations from exercising their own foreign policy is just hilarious.
NATO has been an open-door organization from the day it was founded.
This post was edited on 7/6/23 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:40 pm to Indefatigable
Good googley moogley the insanity in this thread is beyond belief.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:46 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
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.
Did the US sign the Minsk accords? Did Russia?
Did Russia sign the Budapest accords? Did the US?
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:46 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
NATO has been an open-door organization from the day it was founded.
We should never have pushed NATO expansion. It was a dumb policy.
This post was edited on 7/6/23 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:48 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
We should never have pushed and supported NATO expansion. It was a dumb policy.
I'm not following. The idea that we should tell other nations who want to enter into the defensive framework to frick off because Russia likes to occasionally feign outrage over it is mind-blowing to me.
It is truly unbelievable to me that there are humans who think that Russia invaded Ukraine because they were worried about NATO expansion.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 3:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I'm not following. The idea that we should tell other nations who want to enter into the defensive framework to frick off because Russia likes to occasionally feign outrage over it is mind-blowing to me.
Honestly, I could see a legitimate debate on this issue.
quote:
It is truly unbelievable to me that there are humans who think that Russia invaded Ukraine because they were worried about NATO expansion.
True
Posted on 7/6/23 at 4:02 pm to doubleb
Amazing how people cheer on JFK over the Cuban missile crisis, yet don't see how Russia and NATO is the exact same thing.
And now I will have to hear the leftist say they never agreed with JFK there.
And now I will have to hear the leftist say they never agreed with JFK there.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 4:04 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Amazing how people cheer on JFK over the Cuban missile crisis, yet don't see how Russia and NATO is the exact same thing.
How many people are you applying this statement to, exactly?
quote:
And now I will have to hear the leftist say they never agreed with JFK there.
Effectively zero people on this board were alive and/or politically cognizant in 1962.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 4:13 pm to omegaman66
quote:
don't see how Russia and NATO is the exact same thing.
NATO was formed to counter the threat of the Soviet Union. Is there anything surprising that countries that had been subjugated by Russia, for decades or longer, want to join?
I don't get the "poor pitiful Russia was lied to" reasoning.
No one is forced to join NATO unlike the Warsaw Pact.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 4:14 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Effectively zero people on this board were alive and/or politically cognizant in 1962.
Wow you get dumber by the post. Were you alive during the civil war? NO! I guess you never heard of it and don't have an opinion on it, right.
Posted on 7/6/23 at 4:16 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Wow you get dumber by the post. Were you alive during the civil war? NO! I guess you never heard of it and don't have an opinion on it, right.
I’m not the one referencing “leftist” opinions from the 60’s, or inventing whole populations of made up opinions whereby lots of “people” are lauding JFK for the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Sorry for calling your straw-man bullshite.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News