- 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: US Tells Russia That NATO May Continue Expansion East, Russia Says It May Use Force
Posted on 1/10/22 at 4:35 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 1/10/22 at 4:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I don't even consider Georgia to be a real option (2008 NATO opportunistic posturing aside), and would oppose their membership on any number of grounds regardless of Russia's position.
Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine and stole their lands, all while both were considering joining NATO. Not a coincidence.
Both would be a much better member than Turkey though. Those rat bastards attacked Greece and by the NATO laws should have been attacked and wiped out of existence back in 1974.
NATO seems like a mostly US organization for decades now, nobody else pays their dues or ponies up the percentage of troops they are supposed to. At least Trump tried to get them to pay.
1
Posted on 1/10/22 at 4:40 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It's basically a game of chicken. Russia should have every right to have their troops right up on the border if they are on their own soil. Likewise, Ukraine can do whatever they want with troops on their soil- including allowing NATO forces be stationed there. Neither is a defacto declaration of war on the other.
I largely agree. It is an escalation, however, and some brinkmanship.
I can see a situation where agreements are reached but not made public whereby Russia promises not to invade Ukraine and the US promises not to admit Ukraine as a member in the near future. At least I hope that is the case.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 4:44 pm to Bearcat90
quote:
Both would be a much better member than Turkey though. Those rat bastards attacked Greece and by the NATO laws should have been attacked and wiped out of existence back in 1974.
Agreed. Turkey has positioned themselves as the wild card yet again. They always find a way to be strategically in the middle of any major conflict ready to screw over one side of the other unless given an incentive not to.
The Turks were hugely influential in driving the Syrian refugee crisis and attempted to use the Syrian Civil War to reclaim lands lost post WW1 under the Sykes Picot Agreement.
They also rode the fence in the Cold War so that they could get big money from the U.S. to not allow Russian missile sites in their territory.
Crazy to think that they were nearly added to the eurozone and Schengen area back in the 2000's.
This post was edited on 1/10/22 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 1/10/22 at 4:46 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
quote:
Uh does the Cuban middle crisis not ring a bell? How about all the proxy wars in Central and South America during the 80s and 90s disguised as a war on drugs? Russia has done the same thing and China is doing so economically instead of militarily.
Well, that’s kind of my point but in a different view from yours.
My point is the US would view Russian and Chinese presences as unacceptable in a similar manner as Russia views American and nato presences as unacceptable.
And everyone knows the US was dirty as hell in Central and South America for decades.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 4:47 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
I can see a situation where agreements are reached but not made public whereby Russia promises not to invade Ukraine and the US promises not to admit Ukraine as a member in the near future. At least I hope that is the case.
I mean, the original agreement was that the U.S. and NATO would protect Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasions in exchange for Ukraine voluntarily giving up their nuclear weapons. We all saw how well their western allies held up their end of the deal when Russia stole Crimea. NATO is a paper tiger with zero political will to wage war. It's nothing but a money-laundering operation for Europe to take American tax dollars to fund their welfare states.
This post was edited on 1/10/22 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 1/10/22 at 4:54 pm to LuckyTiger
We went from this….
George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1796
To this….
There is no reason for the NATO to expand in any direction, especially east toward Russia. The only result would be a useless war.
quote:
Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities... it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world
George Washington’s Farewell Address in 1796
To this….
quote:
US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman has told reporters that Russia’s proposed limit on the expansion of NATO further into Eastern Europe is a “non-starter.”
There is no reason for the NATO to expand in any direction, especially east toward Russia. The only result would be a useless war.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:00 pm to NPComb
quote:
NATO pushing of Ukraine membership is what's causing the unrest.
Hmmm, I seem to remember NATO actually rejecting Ukraine's request.
"During NATO's 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, the issue was discussed and, after opposition from France and Germany, a decision was made to offer neither Ukraine nor Georgia a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) — essentially a path for Ukraine to receive membership — at that moment. Vague promises of NATO membership in the future were made, but the United States later appeared to drop its support for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. "
LINK
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:06 pm to kingbob
Crimea had been part of Russia for centuries, is 70% Russian and 15% Ukrainian in population, and voted in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and join Russia.
Now, we can argue that the referendum vote was a joke but given the demographics of the electorate it isn’t shocking that the vote would produce such a result. Moreover, given our own elections here in the US and our support for secession acts in numerous places such as East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo, etc, etc, we would look quite hypocritical in opposing it.
Regardless, I wouldn’t send Americans to die over Crimea.
Well, except for maybe Hunter Biden.
Now, we can argue that the referendum vote was a joke but given the demographics of the electorate it isn’t shocking that the vote would produce such a result. Moreover, given our own elections here in the US and our support for secession acts in numerous places such as East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo, etc, etc, we would look quite hypocritical in opposing it.
Regardless, I wouldn’t send Americans to die over Crimea.
Well, except for maybe Hunter Biden.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:09 pm to kingbob
quote:
Crazy to think that they were nearly added to the eurozone and Schengen area back in the 2000's.
Truly. No way that happens now or in the foreseeable future.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:10 pm to kingbob
quote:
the original agreement was that the U.S. and NATO would protect Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasions in exchange for Ukraine voluntarily giving up their nuclear weapons.
That was not really the agreement. NATO wasn’t a party to any of those documents, and none of them obligated the US to protect Ukraine militarily. We had a long thread on here a while back about it.
There are a lot of misunderstandings on what the Budapest memorandum and the subsequent bilateral treaties with Ukraine actually say. They are short, go read the text. It’s diplomatic legalese with no teeth and no enforcement mechanisms.
This post was edited on 1/10/22 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:11 pm to LuckyTiger
They'll kill us. Y'all seen the new leadership?
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:11 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Hmmm, I seem to remember NATO actually rejecting Ukraine's request.
That was 14 years ago lol.
And the US needed Russia not to make much fuss over our foreign wars that we were waging around the globe and our withdrawal from the ABM Treaty so we could pursue missile defense.
The dynamics that drive these events have changed and the situation then has almost no bearing on the situation today.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:12 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
Crimea had been part of Russia for centuries
And the Ukraine also has been its own country, at least in name, for a century. For that entire century, Crimea was a part of the Ukraine.
quote:
Now, we can argue that the referendum vote was a joke but given the demographics of the electorate it isn’t shocking that the vote would produce such a result.
If Russia has to send armed soldiers in order to conduct the vote, there's a pretty good chance that the results of said vote would not have been the same without said armed soldiers.
quote:
Moreover, given our own elections here in the US and our support for secession acts in numerous places such as East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo, etc, etc, we would look quite hypocritical in opposing it.
Most of those were secession movements where the residents of those spaces requested autonomy from the larger country to which they were a part. None were requesting to secede from one country just to join a larger neighbor to which their original country was geopolitically opposed.
quote:
Regardless, I wouldn’t send Americans to die over Crimea.
Same. Sucks for The Ukraine, though. The Ukrainian civil war (which has essentially been a proxy war between East and West) has resulted in a massive migration of Ukrainians West to Britain. The Ukrainization of rural English towns was a major factor in Brexit, as once the Ukrainians reached fellow Schengen area nation Hungary, there was nothing Great Britain could do to repel the migrants. Ukrainian migrants were driving wage deflation and taking up service industry jobs, basically becoming the Mexicans of the UK for lack of a better analogy.
This post was edited on 1/10/22 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:17 pm to kingbob
Not to mention Turkey has been banned from the F 35, is buying Russian missile systems and weapons, and has turned the Hagia Sophia back into a mosque from a museum.
They are looking more divergent from us with each passing year.
They are looking more divergent from us with each passing year.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:22 pm to LuckyTiger
Yet, they still rattle sabers with Russia, occasionally shoot down their planes, and resist reincorporation of Turkish held portions of Syria back into Assad-led government control.
Like I said, the Turks are playing both sides of this geopolitical war. There's also a ton of shenanigans ongoing between the Turks, Greeks, and Israelis over disputed Maritime borders. Within those borders are both massive natural gas deposits and multiple planned pipelines to Europe. This has caused a recent re-escalation of the Greek/Turkish conflict, but the media has largely blacked out this issue, and finding any information about it on Youtube is almost impossible.
Like I said, the Turks are playing both sides of this geopolitical war. There's also a ton of shenanigans ongoing between the Turks, Greeks, and Israelis over disputed Maritime borders. Within those borders are both massive natural gas deposits and multiple planned pipelines to Europe. This has caused a recent re-escalation of the Greek/Turkish conflict, but the media has largely blacked out this issue, and finding any information about it on Youtube is almost impossible.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:24 pm to kingbob
quote:
Like I said, the Turks are playing both sides of this geopolitical war
Their national pastime. The Turks simply cannot be trusted.
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:25 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
And I’m just offering a worldview by stepping outside the shoes of an American and pointing out the obvious: that it would be unacceptable to the US and we would wage holy hell if China and Russia began to mass a military presence around our borders, regardless of whether or not Mexico or Cuba or Guatemala decided they wanted to bring them into their countries. We would see it as unstabilizing, threatening, and aggressive, and we would oppose it and fight it through multiple means.
You mean like the Chi-comms and Russia having massive influence in Central and South America the past decade? Or just that the Chi-comms are buying ports all around us in the Caribbean?
Posted on 1/10/22 at 5:26 pm to Bearcat90
Or when the Russians fomented a coup against an American-backed government 60 miles off of our coast and then tried to place missiles there?
Posted on 1/10/22 at 6:44 pm to LuckyTiger
Honestly, at this point I would invite Putin to invade the U.S.
He's less communist than the Dim's and at least we would know our leader had balls
He's less communist than the Dim's and at least we would know our leader had balls
Posted on 1/10/22 at 7:11 pm to kingbob
quote:
Like I said, the Turks are playing both sides of this geopolitical war.
Why wouldn't they? They have every incentive to play both sides. They only bought Russian S-400 missile systems after asking the US, in the year 2000, for Patriot missile systems, with an agreement in place that the US would help build up the native Turkish defense industry. The US waffled on that stipulation for a decade, and the realities of the Syrian Civil War forced Turkey's hand, which is at least the Turkish viewpoint.
Erdogan was able to gain concessions by threatening to unleash Syrian refugees in Europe, but if I recall, it was only after European countries agreed to help, and then reneged on some agreements to help Turkey with its border issues with Syria.
Turkey's issues with Greece has to do with Greece wanting to redefine the maritime borders of several islands, which would severely limit Turkish access to the Mediterranean. Turkey is on opposite sides from Egypt in the Libyan conflict, and wants open access from Istanbul to Libya, while on the other side Greece, Israel, Cyprus and Egypt are trying to box Turkey out of any possible natural gas projects in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Turks are more aggressive in that theater, but we will see what happens there.
For a long time, it was very unclear what the Turks were going to do in Syria. Their stated reasons, which is to secure the border region to prevent any PKK or other Kurdish group from launching an attack on Turkish soil, fits in nicely with some of Erdogan's Neo-Ottoman rhetoric in the 2010s. The possible land grab was always going to be the end result of their stated security issues.
A more skilled diplomat than Erdogan may have been able to play both sides even more, but it seems obvious that Turkey is limited by its economic prospects, which Erdogan bungled. Those economic limitations might force the Turks to scale back some of their aims. They've gone from trying to be friendly with everyone in the region (their stated goal in 2010) to playing the same insane geopolitical game everyone in the MENA region has played for a long time. It's hilarious to look back at that rhetoric.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News