DescentBB

Ya, and Hitler said the same thing about the Sudatenland. They were mostly Germans and he was protecting those people.

those that forget their past are doomed to repeat it.

TC, 'communism' wasn't the impetus for creating NATO. the bad things people with big guns do to weaker people was the reason. Communism was merely the motivation they seemed to operate under. They are still bad people with big guns. Just go ask anyone in Putins way...or their surviving family members...

sigma wrote:If I understand correctly, you refuse to admit that Ukraine and Georgia were US intelligence project for the expansion of NATO?

We don't need either country for intelligence gathering...we have the NSA.

Will Robinson wrote:TC, 'communism' wasn't the impetus for creating NATO. the bad things people with big guns do to weaker people was the reason. Communism was merely the motivation they seemed to operate under. They are still bad people with big guns. Just go ask anyone in Putins way...or their surviving family members...

Will, simply because I think you are not stupid man, I'll give you the real information about the reasons for the transformation of the USSR into the largest nuclear weapon state. After the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons, there is a real threat that the United States would use it against the USSR. Of course, the Russian special services immediately stolen in the United States and Germany, technical documentation, which will reduce the time to develop nuclear weapons in the USSR. I want you to know the truth, just out of respect for you.

Will Robinson wrote:TC, 'communism' wasn't the impetus for creating NATO. the bad things people with big guns do to weaker people was the reason. Communism was merely the motivation they seemed to operate under. They are still bad people with big guns. Just go ask anyone in Putins way...or their surviving family members...

Read the history then, because Soviet expansionism was one of 3 big reasons, given the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, which only fueled the anti-communist fervor in the U.S. during the 1950's and 60's. It was a VERY big deal back then, I assure you. I lived through it. Plus, in 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Soviet nuclear missiles were moved into Warsaw Pact states that were pointed directly at Europe, which destroyed any last vestiges of detente. It wasn't until the Gorbachev administration did the ice start to thaw between our nations.

http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html

Of the other 2, preventing the revival of military nationalism (mostly German) was a no brainer. We didn't need yet another world war started by nationalist German fervor, and you know that's what was going through their minds when they formed NATO back then. Never another world war started by Germany. They'd already started 2 and nearly destroyed Europe.

But the final reason, establishing a North American presence in Europe, is, and was, most certainly considered a direct threat by the Russians. Sigma has stated it many times here and his perspective IS a Russian perspective. Europe as an extension of the U.S. Nice thought for the Russians to consider. The continuing expansion of a democratic Europe eastward after the fall of the Soviets and the Berlin Wall was obviously perceived as a direct threat to Russian sovereignty. How do you think the U.S. would feel if Russia decided to establish a military presence in say Canada as a way to push Russian sovereignty into North America? Oh wait, we already saw our reaction in the early 1960's when the Soviets sent missiles to CUBA. We went batsh*t and nearly started WWIII. Maybe a start would be for the U.S. to pull out of NATO and let Europe handle it's own military affairs.

I just don't get the continued expansion of NATO into Russian territory, Ukraine being the most recent. And yes, Ukraine does have a Russian population, that actually likes Russia. Shocking, isn't it CUDA? Some people LIKE Russia, even a few Crimeans. Let both countries deal with their geopolitical divisions THEMSELVES. And sigma, that goes for Russia too. Neither of us should be the worlds police, especially the U.S. We look like a bunch of irritating meddlers in the affairs of others. Not everyone likes US or our way of living either. Are we so full of our own capitalist system is so much better than Russia's that we are willing to rub it into Russia's face constantly, militarily if necessary, and perhaps start another world war over it? Why can't we accept a non-communist Russia as a world power in it's own right and trade with them as partners and friends, like any other superpower nation?

Plus, I'd like to know why are we even talking and trading with the still communist, repressive, expansionist and nuclear capable Chinese, who I doubt consider us as friends anyway? They've already got the nuclear capability to reach the U.S., just in case they want us out of their hair.

TC wrote:Why is there still a NATO?

Ask the Eastern European countries that continue to petition for membership.

Well, why are WE involved as the de facto king of the whole thing? They're big kids now and can create their own coalition and manage and defend themselves if they feel the need to. Maybe they can even ask Russia to join as a major player since Russia is part of the same continent and WANTS to trade with Europe anyway. That might assuage some of Russia's fears of everything being an American military plot. Oh wait, none of the countries can even agree on whether to use the Euro as a common currency amongst themselves.

tunnelcat wrote:Maybe they can even ask Russia to join as a major player since Russia is part of the same continent and WANTS to trade with Europe anyway.

How is Russia going to defend Eastern Europe against Russia? NATO is a military alliance.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:TC, 'communism' wasn't the impetus for creating NATO. the bad things people with big guns do to weaker people was the reason. Communism was merely the motivation they seemed to operate under. They are still bad people with big guns. Just go ask anyone in Putins way...or their surviving family members...

Read the history then, because Soviet expansionism was one of 3 big reasons ....

What you have cited doesn't refute the distinction I was pointing out to you. The correction I was making to the premise of your question:

tunnelcat wrote:You know, that's a damn good question. Why is there still a NATO? Russia is no longer a communist nation, so why still have what amounts to a military organization of European countries

The absence of "communism" isn't a good reason to abandon NATO. Russia is still a threat to expand. Take a look at the evening news if you don't believe me...

sigma wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:TC, 'communism' wasn't the impetus for creating NATO. the bad things people with big guns do to weaker people was the reason. Communism was merely the motivation they seemed to operate under. They are still bad people with big guns. Just go ask anyone in Putins way...or their surviving family members...

Will, simply because I think you are not stupid man, I'll give you the real information about the reasons for the transformation of the USSR into the largest nuclear weapon state. After the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons, there is a real threat that the United States would use it against the USSR. Of course, the Russian special services immediately stolen in the United States and Germany, technical documentation, which will reduce the time to develop nuclear weapons in the USSR. I want you to know the truth, just out of respect for you.

sigma, I'm sure the U.S. developing and putting to use a nuclear weapon...twice..was a good reason for Soviet worries and for their building up weapons and we don't fault you for doing that. You would have been foolish to not build up your strength. And that is no secret here in America, we learn about the build up of both nations in grade school as children.

None of that, however, does away with the fact that NATO is a relevant defense against Russia's military might and her history of erasing borders after they storm across them.
Just because we gave you a good reason to go get your own arsenal doesn't mean we should pretend you don't have it, or use it..

Will Robinson wrote:The absence of "communism" isn't a good reason to abandon NATO. Russia is still a threat to expand. Take a look at the evening news if you don't believe me...

WHY? The only reason Russia is an enemy is because we still SEE them as an enemy and treat them as such. The Russians still see the U.S. as an enemy because we're still invading every other country in the world as "peace keepers" and "police", it seems. Doesn't work out for us mostly does it? There's no reason we NEED to be enemies when we could be economic partners. We were allies during WWII. Now that the Soviets are gone, why not be allies again? The Russians aren't boogeymen. They like their country just as we like ours and we could just as easily be friends.

I don't agree completely with TC, but her thinking isn't all that wrong, either. That such a case can be made is evidence of why I support a re-think of the assumptions which US foreign policy has been based upon for 3 decades or more.

I completely agree with the Cat. The existence and expansion of NATO only spurs concern Russia with all the consequences of this threat.
In my view, the United States continues to create a mythical enemy in Russia, to frighten countries - NATO members to make money on the arms market. As we know, the United States forced other countries - NATO members to regularly buy, increase and upgrade weapons. Everyone knows that it's ridiculous measures that will not work in case of a new global war. Europe is still in a deep economic crisis, and yet, they are forced to buy nobody wanted and useless, expensive weapons. In my opinion, it appears that the United States simply harm the EU economy.

Will, NATO has long lost its relevance, if you talk to military experts. Any BMD can catch only 60 - 70% of ballistic missiles, it is known to every soldier. Furthermore, a nuclear weapon is not necessarily huge capacity ballistic missiles. Even during the Soviet Union after the Cuban missile crisis was invented compact portable nuclear devices that can fit in a suitcase or a sports bag. Such devices are in service with the Russian special services. Power of such a device would be enough to blow up half of New York and vicinity infect radiation in a radius of 300 kilometers (God forbid, of course). Do you know how many of these devices are now in the United States? I also do not know. But, I think the NSA has little information about it.
How correctly to say Cat, USA only make a big deal that nobody needs. In the end, the planet is not much natural energy resources to spend so poorly for the content of huge armed forces.

So Ukraine agreed to disarm in a nuclear weapons sense. Their conventional forces not a threat to Russia and the U.S led NATO deterrence under Obama's control was not looking like a threat either.
So, in light of this non confrontational posture, did Russia:

A) engage in trade with Ukraine?
B) engage in war with Ukraine?

Unilateral disarmament is fine if you are faced with Buddhists. Putin? Not so much.

I understand since WWII the Russians have a good reason to fear the might of the U.S.
If we were to turn on them it would be very bad for them regardless of how badly they in turn could hurt us. However we didn't take over the world with force. Have you looked at a map of the world from the 1920's and then looked at it at the height of the ColdWar? One of us had grown substantially...

The transition to NATO not being relevant will be slow and require some changes on both sides.
Unilaterally backing off and leaving a vacuum is worse policy than the confrontational policy we have now.

Regarding our presence in foreign places we can meddle less and help set up defenses and alliances based solely on a need for deterrence without strings attached for trade Then engage in trade with Russia and others to earn respect that is both for our capability to defend against aggression as well as our willingness to do fair business deals. And they can do the same. Good fences make good neighbors and all that.

Personally I think we have an amicable relationship with Russia as far as nations go considering who they were a short time ago. I'm not buying into the hype that sigma is spoon fed. Stopping an invading U.S. (that is very very unlikely to ever invade Russian turf... and they know that...) isn't the only reason they want to build up their power.

Will, I'm just amazed at your incompetence. In American schools in general is such a thing as history? You know what the Ukraine for Russia? If you do not know, I'll tell you that Ukraine and Russia is synonymous. Ukrainians are Russian. Because of the strong influence of the West, Ukraine is now experiencing hard times. Russia will fight for Ukraine up to extreme measures, because the Ukrainians - they are our brothers. Although now in Ukraine established an extremist government. While the actions of the United States are dictated solely by economic interests. In my opinion, the international community need long to find leverage over the United States, which are already just the personification of banditry and extortion under the guise of good intentions, such as democracy.

excuse me for jumping in, Sigma, but the Ukraine and Russia are NOT the same, nor have they historically been so. Ukranian-Americans are pretty plentiful up in the coal regions of Pennsylvania where I used to live, and they are ADAMANT that they are VERY separate from Russia. In fact, those I knew, fished with and spent time around would be positively insulted if someone mistook a Ukranian person for being Russian. The eastern part of Ukraine has some ethnic Russian populace, mostly with a history that only goes to the Soviet era, but for you to savage Will over his lack of historical knowledge or education while exposing your own shortcomings, preconceptions and prejudices is sort of laughable.

callmeslick wrote:excuse me for jumping in, Sigma, but the Ukraine and Russia are NOT the same, nor have they historically been so. Ukranian-Americans are pretty plentiful up in the coal regions of Pennsylvania where I used to live, and they are ADAMANT that they are VERY separate from Russia. In fact, those I knew, fished with and spent time around would be positively insulted if someone mistook a Ukranian person for being Russian. The eastern part of Ukraine has some ethnic Russian populace, mostly with a history that only goes to the Soviet era, but for you to savage Will over his lack of historical knowledge or education while exposing your own shortcomings, preconceptions and prejudices is sort of laughable.

I know about this. I'm not afraid to look unpatriotic, I always tell the truth. With regard to what you said, Ukrainians are more Russian than even the Russian. BUT!!! This applies to real Ukrainians who today in arms to protect Ukraine from the invasion of the pro-American government. I very love Ukraine and Ukrainians, it just breaks my heart when I see what is happening there now. In my opinion, initially cause of all of this tragedy was the impact of Russian corruption on government of Ukraine.

Add: I perfectly understand why the Ukrainian elite wants to join the EU. Russian oligarchs acted too harshly against the Ukrainian government. I understand that it was necessary to help Ukraine by the international community, if Ukraine wants to gain independence from Russian influence. Frankly, I would be happy to Ukraine became a member of the EU. But Europe has offered so onerous conditions for Ukraine's accession to the EU that Ukraine simply could not agree to this. The United States has long wanted to use the contradictions in the government of Ukraine, but they did Bench unprofessional, especially when they started bombing the opposition, it makes you wonder what the representatives of the American elite simply do not correspond to positions that they occupy. In my opinion, this tunnelcat need to work at the United States Department of State, and not Jennifer what's-her.
In short, the EU and the United States are to blame, that have done so much intolerable errors, the cause of which was that they sincerely believe Ukrainians pigs, not people. Thus, Russia is in any case looks more attractive than the United States and the EU together, for Ukraine as a state.