@no1marauder saidWell I’m sure Ukraine is over the moon about not getting NATO membership.
Russia did not "demand ...... rolling NATO back to its 1994 borders". It proposed:
"Article 4
[b]The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces sta ...[text shortened]... ates-intended-for-rejection/
This hardly seems the unreasonable deal breaker Kev acts like it is.
You are allowing / encouraging an authoritarian regime with a history of military occupation of its neighbouring states to dictate what security alliances and arrangements they can take.
Has anyone demanded that the Russian federation disband itself?
The idea that Russia can at one at the same time allude to NATO and by association it’s European members as a threat it will need to deal with, whilst demanding that those states relax their defensive posture vis a vis the Russian federation is outlandish in the extreme.
NATO did not invade Russia ever but Russia invaded and ruled over every country between itself and Germany.
NATO, thanks entirely to Putin, is about to increase its posture on its eastern flank.
“ " From 1997 to 2014, NATO deployed virtually no troops or equipment in new member states."
You mean until after Russia invaded and annexed the territory of a neighbouring sovereign state on NATO’s border.
You do realise you are actually proving my point about NATO being a purely defensive alliance in Eastern Europe with no intention of attacking the Russian federation in any way.
It is Russias aggressive invasions of its western neighbours that have caused NATO to abandon its almost ghostlike presence in the region.
I’m old enough to remember the NATO posture during the soviet days and it’s presence in Europe now bears no comparison whatsoever to what it was then. NATO has tiptoed around an aggressive resurgent Russia under Putin and Ukraine is paying the price for that stupidity.
If you get your way Poland and the Baltic states will be next to pay it. Poor Georgia will likely be Putin’s next target if he isn’t bogged down in Ukraine until he dies of old age or in a palace coup 🤞
@kevcvs57 saidYou really need to read a history book to cure you of your illusion that Russia has been an aggressive invader of the rest of Europe; the opposite is invariably true.
Well I’m sure Ukraine is over the moon about not getting NATO membership.
You are allowing / encouraging an authoritarian regime with a history of military occupation of its neighbouring states to dictate what security alliances and arrangements they can take.
Has anyone demanded that the Russian federation disband itself?
The idea that Russia can at one at the same time ...[text shortened]... utin’s next target if he isn’t bogged down in Ukraine until he dies of old age or in a palace coup 🤞
The USSR agreed to loosen its grip on Eastern Europe and even allow the unification of a nation that waged a war of extermination against it based on assurances from Western leaders that they wouldn't shove a military alliance to Russia's borders. Not only was that pledge repeatedly violated, but NATO itself has engaged in a series of aggressive military adventures in service to the neoconservative worldview of Western domination. Any rational Russian leadership is going to view that alliance as a threat.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@no1marauder saidSo the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was an illusion? What about Hungary in the 50's? How about just the political repression in general imposed by the Soviet Union on Eastern Europe. Georgia anyone? And now Ukraine.
You really need to read a history book to cure you of your illusion that Russia has been an aggressive invader of the rest of Europe; the opposite is invariably true.
The USSR agreed to loosen its grip on Eastern Europe and even allow the unification of a nation that waged a war of extermination against it based on assurances from Western leaders that they wouldn't sho ...[text shortened]... w of Western domination. Any rational Russian leadership is going to view that alliance as a threat.
Look I'm not saying NATO are choir boys but to try to even suggest that Soviet Union and subsequently Russia have not been aggressive invaders ...... well let's just say you really have to work out to spin that one.
Which you are. But hey can't blame you for trying I guess?
@ullr saidThe Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, but it was invaded by Western forces and Poland soon after its founding, stripped of much of its territory by a peace imposed by Western leaders at Versailles and then suffered 25 million or so dead when attacked by the Germans.
So the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was an illusion? What about Hungary in the 50's? How about just the political repression in general imposed by the Soviet Union on Eastern Europe. Georgia anyone? And now Ukraine.
Look I'm not saying NATO are choir boys but to try to even suggest that Soviet Union and subsequently Russia have not been aggressive invaders ...... we ...[text shortened]... ly have to work out to spin that one.
Which you are. But hey can't blame you for trying I guess?
It insisting on an Eastern European zone of control was surely reasonable under such circumstances. It was willing to forego that zone and allow Germany to unify based on assurances from Western leaders that they would not push a military alliance to its borders. This pledge was broken without hardly a second thought.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@no1marauder saidNo it was invaded by Germany and Poland (not "western" forces). Germany also invaded France at the same time as you well know.
The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, but it was invaded by Western forces and Poland soon after its founding, stripped of much of its territory by a peace imposed by Western leaders at Versailles and then suffered 25 million or so dead when attacked by the Germans.
It insisting on an Eastern European zone of control was surely reasonable under such circumstances. I ...[text shortened]... not push a military alliance to its borders. This pledge was broken without hardly a second thought.
I have little sympathy for what happened to the Soviet Union on WWII after they cynically helped carve up Poland and gave Hitler the green light with the heinous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I don't want to quite go so far as to say they got what they deserved as the punishment was certainly higher than the crime but you reap the wind ...
There was nothing reasonable about the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It was aggressive political repression and nothing more. As is their invasion of the Ukraine now.
As far as NATO's expansion to the East and whether or not that was broken promises or even wise insofar as western self interests are concerned is all debatable. I'm not 100% sure of it myself to be honest. However, from the viewpoint of Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Baltic States, etc. I'm guessing they are glad to be part of NATO at this point based on how aggressive their rather large neighbor apparently is (despite you and Metal Brain's strange downplaying of that reality).
Edit: One thing I'll add to my comments, because this point seems to get glossed over in all of this: why is it that Eastern European countries have come into the arms of NATO and the EU and let's just say the "western" world in general? Because it's a better life than what is possible being part of and dominated by Russia's sphere of influence. Surely these people should be allowed the choice to have a better existence.
@ullr saidI don't have time now to correct all the laughable historical errors in your post. Maybe later though someone as ignorant of history as you really should try reading some books.
No it was invaded by Germany and Poland (not "western" forces). Germany also invaded France at the same time as you well know.
I have little sympathy for what happened to the Soviet Union on WWII after they cynically helped carve up Poland and gave Hitler the green light with the heinous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I don't want to quite go so far as to say they got what they ...[text shortened]... s sphere of influence. Surely these people should be allowed the choice to have a better existence.
@kevcvs57
"NATO did not invade Russia ever but Russia invaded and ruled over every country between itself and Germany."
An example of an utter nonsense. It was the Soviet Union that ruled the Easter Europe, not Russia. Moreover, both Russia and the Alliance let their military bases in the Europe after the second world war.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia withdraw its military from the Easter Europe. But the US still keeps its military bases in Germany.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@no1marauder saidIn other words your afraid to engage in debate with someone that clearly knows what he's talking about and so you resort to insults and claim you have no time. Despite the fact that you clearly have the time to post on this forum far more than I do based on how often you do it. Okay, pick up your marbles and go home then.
I don't have time now to correct all the laughable historical errors in your post. Maybe later though someone as ignorant of history as you really should try reading some books.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@eintaluj saidPlease. Russia is to the Soviet Union what the USA is to NATO. Without Russia there was no Soviet Union. Sorry you don't get to claim innocence for Russia over what the Soviet Union did. Russia was the core of the Soviet Union. I can't believe this is where this discussion has led.
@Ullr
This person is convinced that Russia is the Soviet Union. It is meaningless to discuss with such a person.
@ullr saidNo, it means I was at a place where I didn't have time to correct your many historical errors. Now I am.
In other words your afraid to engage in debate with someone that clearly knows what he's talking about and so you resort to insults and claim you have no time. Despite the fact that you clearly have the time to post on this forum far more than I do based on how often you do it. Okay, pick up your marbles and go home then.
To start: I said the Soviet Union was invaded soon after its founding by "Western forces"; you denied this. But:
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
In fact, the total number of invaders was more than a quarter million.
You allowed that Germany invaded the USSR but claimed it invaded France "at the same time". Of course it did not, the invasion of France took place in May 1940; Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi attack on the USSR (aided by many of the Eastern European nations that are now part of NATO), didn't start until June 1941.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/world-war-ii-key-dates
As far as the start of WWII, let's set the record straight: the USSR tried to keep a united military front against German expansion up until the last minute but was rebuffed by Britain, France and Poland.
It was the USSR that sent troops to Spain to battle the Fascists who were aided by German and Italian military contingents; the Allies did nothing.
It was the USSR that entered into an agreement with France to mutually defend Czechoslovakia if the latter was attacked; it was the French who ignored that agreement when they and their British partners sold out the Czechs at Munich (a conference the Allies attended even though the USSR was barred by Hitler from attending).
Despite this, and despite Poland grabbing a piece of Czechoslovakia itself, the Soviets indicated an intention to aid Poland in case of German attacks. At military talks almost on the eve of invasion, the Soviets committed to sending 100 divisions in that scenario while the British stated that would have two divisions ready for war. But the Poles steadfastly refused to accept any Soviet troops on their soil even if attacked by the Nazis:
"When the military talks began in mid-August, negotiations quickly stalled over the topic of Soviet troop passage through Poland if the Germans attacked, and the parties waited as British and French officials pressured Polish officials to agree to such terms.[3][36] However, Polish officials refused to allow Soviet troops on to Polish territory because they believed that once the Red Army entered their territory it might never leave.[37] The Soviets suggested that Poland's wishes be ignored and that the tripartite agreements be concluded despite its objections.[38] The British refused to do so because they believed that such a move would push Poland into establishing stronger bilateral relations with Germany.[39]"
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
The Soviets knew the German invasion of Poland was imminent and Poland refused to accept their aid. So, yes, they cut a deal with the Germans. In light of later events, it was a wise move as their occupation of the territories pursuant to the agreement (almost all of which had been part of Russia prior to its punishment at the Treaty of Versailles) increased their strategic depth hundreds of miles and probably saved Moscow and Leningrad from Nazi occupation.
Your insinuation that the Russian People deserved 25 million dead from Nazi invasion because somehow the USSR caused the war to be started is typical of the irrational hate directed at Russia and her People based on historical ignorance from swallowing propaganda.
@ullr saidIt isn't "debatable" that Western leaders broke promises not to expand NATO if the Soviets allowed German reunification and loosened their grip on the rest of Eastern Europe - the historical record is clear:
No it was invaded by Germany and Poland (not "western" forces). Germany also invaded France at the same time as you well know.
I have little sympathy for what happened to the Soviet Union on WWII after they cynically helped carve up Poland and gave Hitler the green light with the heinous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I don't want to quite go so far as to say they got what they ...[text shortened]... s sphere of influence. Surely these people should be allowed the choice to have a better existence.
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
@no1marauder saidOkay I'll admit I stand corrected on this point. I was thinking of Germany's war against Russia in WWI happening at same time as vs. France/UK etc. Without getting into this any further I'll just accept that I was wrong on this point. Partly I misunderstood your point. Clearer now. I'm in agreement with you on this.
No, it means I was at a place where I didn't have time to correct your many historical errors. Now I am.
To start: I said the Soviet Union was invaded soon after its founding by "Western forces"; you denied this. But:
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War
In fact, the total number of invaders was more than a quarter million.