• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US, NATO Troops Parade Near Russian Border in Estonia

Montecresto said:
Sure, apparently Gorbachev failed to trust but verify!

Second, NATO’s expansion antagonized Russia, which thought its goodwill in ending the Cold War had not been reciprocated. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov referred to this sentiment when he wrote that “various attempts are being made to contain Russia, including through the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in vio- lation of previous assurances given to Moscow.”3

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-608.pdf

What were these assurances? Russians, with some American support, insist that when the Cold War ended and they agreed to the reuni- fication of Germany within NATO, they received verbal assurances that NATO would not expand further. “Any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable,” Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev told Secretary of State James Baker in 1990. “I agree,” Baker replied.4 But there is some confusion about what the discussions actually meant, especially since positions changed over time. The Russians were furious they had been careless or, worse, misled. “The current collision between Russia and NATO could have been avoided if the Soviet leadership had at that time . . . codified [American and German] intentions not to expand NATO,” observed foreign affairs ana- lyst Alexei Pushkov. “The Russian leadership is saying that it will not be fooled again.”5

Brush up on just who the separatists in eastern Ukraine are, and what it is they're fighting for.

Ukraine: The Pro-Russian Separatists Running Eastern Ukraine
Click to expand...

Your second link is year-old propaganda rendered laughable by subsequent events. Your first link is even more outdated, and is irrelevant.

The Soviet Union demonstrated no goodwill in ending the Cold War. The USSR was defeated, and surrendered. The Soviets were in no position to demand or expect anything. We owed them nothing.
 
flogger said:
Like I've said often before. Why should Russia's security concerns take precedence over those of her neighbours ? Historically Its not like Russia does not have some form in this area after all. In light of what has happened to Ukraine I view the alliance of these smaller Eastern European nations as very prudent move on their part. They knew it would only be a matter of time before the return of the Russians and life as a 'buffer zone' was a none too utopian experience for them last time.
Click to expand...

Welcome back. Long time no see.

Russian "security concerns" are like wolves worrying that sheep will gang up on them.
 
Simpleχity;1064383280 said:
What I find odd (and extremely hypocritical) is your insistence that NATO honor a verbal agreement when you have no problem with Russia violating signed documents.

United Nations Charter
Declaration No. 142-Н of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union
Belavezha Accords
The Alma-Ata Protocols
Helsinki Final Act
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
Click to expand...

Not at all. I think that Russia should honor any agreements that they sign. However, you and I disagree that Russia's responses in Ukraine are breeches of those agreements, see?
 
Jack Hays said:
Your second link is year-old propaganda rendered laughable by subsequent events. Your first link is even more outdated, and is irrelevant.

The Soviet Union demonstrated no goodwill in ending the Cold War. The USSR was defeated, and surrendered. The Soviets were in no position to demand or expect anything. We owed them nothing.
Click to expand...

Somehow I think that Putin's expectations don't take your positions on this into account, and that he will continue to ensure that any further NATO expansion will come at a price, that he no doubt hopes will be considered too steep for the EU. Whether you think NATO has any right to push, or continue to push eastward has no bearing on Putin's perception that it does not.
 
Montecresto said:
Somehow I think that Putin's expectations don't take your positions on this into account, and that he will continue to ensure that any further NATO expansion will come at a price, that he no doubt hopes will be considered too steep for the EU. Whether you think NATO has any right to push, or continue to push eastward has no bearing on Putin's perception that it does not.
Click to expand...

I agree. That is why he must be compelled.
 
Jack Hays said:
I agree. That is why he must be compelled.
Click to expand...

At all costs! No, I think not. Nothing he's doing is worth outright or proxy war. Life is too precious, more so,than real-estate .
 
Montecresto said:
At all costs! No, I think not. Nothing he's doing is worth outright or proxy war. Life is too precious, more so,than real-estate .
Click to expand...

It won't come to that. In gaining their own freedom the Ukrainians will help us all.
 
Montecresto said:
Not at all. I think that Russia should honor any agreements that they sign. However, you and I disagree that Russia's responses in Ukraine are breeches of those agreements, see?
Click to expand...

And you are wrong of course as has been highlighted multiple times now. At the time this alleged 'verbal' agreement was made with the west where was the reciprocal agreement by Russia not to attempt to invade or annex its neighbours ? Oh thats right she had already signed multiple agreements to that effect hadn't she ?
 
flogger said:
And you are wrong of course as has been highlighted multiple times now. At the time this alleged 'verbal' agreement was made with the west where was the reciprocal agreement by Russia not to attempt to invade or annex its neighbours ? Oh thats right she had already signed multiple agreements to that effect hadn't she ?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how many times you mischaracterize Putin's response to Western intrigue in Kiev the fall of 2013, he's not listening.
 
Montecresto said:
It doesn't matter how many times you mischaracterize Putin's response to Western intrigue in Kiev the fall of 2013, he's not listening.
Click to expand...

No its you thats not listening nor do you want to. You are here to preach the Kremlin gospel nothing more :roll:
 
flogger said:
No its you thats not listening nor do you want to. You are here to preach the Kremlin gospel nothing more :roll:
Click to expand...

What are you, about 5'5", lol?
 
Wiggen said:
Not only do I remember it - I more or less lived it. My dad was stationed at a SAC base in North Dakota and I went to sleep at night listening to the B-52's orbiting the base, waiting for the go signal.
Click to expand...

It's much cheaper and safer to have aircraft secure on the ground, fueled with crews on standby, waiting for the go signal, than to have them burning tons of fuel, orbiting.

So you acknowledge the larger point, that the US felt very threatened by the presence of Soviet hardware and advisors 90 miles off the Florida coast, and defended the Monroe Doctrine.

Raising the question, "why should the Russians today not feel similarly threatened by the presence of US hardware in their backyard?"
 
Henry David said:
It's much cheaper and safer to have aircraft secure on the ground, fueled with crews on standby, waiting for the go signal, than to have them burning tons of fuel, orbiting.

So you acknowledge the larger point, that the US felt very threatened by the presence of Soviet hardware and advisors 90 miles off the Florida coast, and defended the Monroe Doctrine.

Raising the question, "why should the Russians today not feel similarly threatened by the presence of US hardware in their backyard?"
Click to expand...

Nothing on Cuba was threatening except the missiles. Once those were gone, Cuba became a ho-hum situation, easily countered with forces based in Florida.
 
Wiggen said:
Not only do I remember it - I more or less lived it. My dad was stationed at a SAC base in North Dakota and I went to sleep at night listening to the B-52's orbiting the base, waiting for the go signal.
Click to expand...

My father was to fly the lead aircraft in the troop carrier formation dropping the 82nd Airborne on Havana.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nothing on Cuba was threatening except the missiles. Once those were gone, Cuba became a ho-hum situation, easily countered with forces based in Florida.
Click to expand...

In those days I lived very close to the FEC railroad tracks at a point about 100 miles north of Miami. As kids we used to play on those tracks, putting pennies on the rail for the trains to flatten. By random luck we would sometimes find one--usually they were shot far away.

During the buildup, almost all the trains going by were carrying military equipment in preparation for a potential invasion. Tanks, missiles, personnel carriers and trucks.

We were prepared to invade, and even a child could understand that.
 
Henry David said:
In those days I lived very close to the FEC railroad tracks at a point about 100 miles north of Miami. As kids we used to play on those tracks, putting pennies on the rail for the trains to flatten. By random luck we would sometimes find one--usually they were shot far away.

During the buildup, almost all the trains going by were carrying military equipment in preparation for a potential invasion. Tanks, missiles, personnel carriers and trucks.

We were prepared to invade, and even a child could understand that.
Click to expand...

Oh, I quite agree. My father said he thought every aircraft in the US inventory was in Florida. His aircrew joked that the state was going to sink because of all the extra weight. JFK came to visit and passed to review the formations as aircrew stood at attention in front of their aircraft. he saluted each formation as he passed. My father, a lifelong Republican, always said thereafter, "At that moment, THAT was a President."

All that dissipated immediately once the Soviets agreed to withdraw the missiles.
 
Jack Hays said:
My father was to fly the lead aircraft in the troop carrier formation dropping the 82nd Airborne on Havana.
Click to expand...

I was 16, and like all 16year olds, I wasn't particularly worried because I knew I was immortal. Ah, the innocence of youth.
 
Henry David said:
It's much cheaper and safer to have aircraft secure on the ground, fueled with crews on standby, waiting for the go signal, than to have them burning tons of fuel, orbiting.

So you acknowledge the larger point, that the US felt very threatened by the presence of Soviet hardware and advisors 90 miles off the Florida coast, and defended the Monroe Doctrine.

Raising the question, "why should the Russians today not feel similarly threatened by the presence of US hardware in their backyard?"
Click to expand...

Ahh, if only the Strategic Air Command had been as smart as you.

As far as Russian sensibilities are concerned, screw them.
 
As I thought Wiggen...
 
Wiggen said:
I was 16, and like all 16year olds, I wasn't particularly worried because I knew I was immortal. Ah, the innocence of youth.
Click to expand...

I was 12, but when my dad moved all the military rations into our basement before he left I suspected something was up.
 
Henry David said:
Raising the question, "why should the Russians today not feel similarly threatened by the presence of US hardware in their backyard?"
Click to expand...

Because that presence has almost gone. US personnel numbers in Europe are a small fraction of what they were 25 years ago and continue to decline. The Russians are talking up a non existent threat in order to justify a spot of empire rebuilding at Ukraines expense :(
 
Henry David said:
It's much cheaper and safer to have aircraft secure on the ground, fueled with crews on standby, waiting for the go signal, than to have them burning tons of fuel, orbiting.
Click to expand...

On the contrary during what was called operation Chrome Dome from the late fifties until the mid sixties SAC kept 4 -6 B52s in the air at all times fully armed and ready to strike at a moments notice

Operation Chrome Dome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Henry David said:
It's much cheaper and safer to have aircraft secure on the ground, fueled with crews on standby, waiting for the go signal, than to have them burning tons of fuel, orbiting.

So you acknowledge the larger point, that the US felt very threatened by the presence of Soviet hardware and advisors 90 miles off the Florida coast, and defended the Monroe Doctrine.

Raising the question, "why should the Russians today not feel similarly threatened by the presence of US hardware in their backyard?"
Click to expand...

They are meant to feel threatened, or at least warned. That's the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom