• 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!

Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

Putin is running around with a rusty pistol, trying to seem relevant.
 
With his rusty pistol he just destroyed an exemplarily NATO army, put NATO members against each other;
and now he is waiting for the next wooden forehead to bump into it, - it seems there is a whole number of those wooden foreheads who are still willing to try here.
 
Putin's looking at the strategic situation. He got away with that Georgian mess, no matter who started it, he got away with it.

He's looking at Obama and I'm SURE he's smiling in pleasure. He see's NATO as militarily weakened, and politically neutered.

Russia will do whatever the hell it wants too, and ain't NO ONE gonna do more then talk about it.
 
Georgia is not a NATO member. Nor was their military exemplary.

I'll give you the rest.

The status de-juro does not change de-facto even a bit. The rusted pistol still has the same capabilities for all de-facto members and wooden foreheads who want to try. Try again.
 
Putin's looking at the strategic situation. He got away with that Georgian mess, no matter who started it, he got away with it.

He's looking at Obama and I'm SURE he's smiling in pleasure. He see's NATO as militarily weakened, and politically neutered.

Russia will do whatever the hell it wants too, and ain't NO ONE gonna do more then talk about it.

For Putin it does matter who started.

As even BBC accepts there are some who wants to do more, like France, Italy and Germany at least, and quite possible Chech Republic. It seems like they are giving a thought about stopping the madness of military and political confrontation against Russia; not only because they are afraid of the rusted pistol, but because they are more afraid of the madness, like the one expressed by you.
 
Link
BBC NEWS | Europe | Nato wary of Russian treaty plan

A very interesting article.
Any comments?

Clearly a very anti-Russian article..

1. Russian intervention in Georgia was justified, those regions wanted independence from a suppressive and insane Georgian state. Look at the Georgian leader for some symptoms of why they wanted to break free of Georgia.
2. Clearly any view that Russia is the aggressor for responding aggressively to the US anti-missile shield in eastern Europe is anti-Russian and bias for the US and the west.
3. Not everyone understood that Russian unilateral intervention in Georgia was a warning to the west that it cannot do the same without giving Russia those rights, and referring to Iraq.
4. Not developing a closer relationship to Russia would be wrong of Europe, we should try to develop as good and as stable and influential a relationship with Russia as we can. Any statement against this is just anti-Russian and US bias.. Why in the world should we not seek good relations with Russia?
5. The US stubbornness over the missile shield even when Russia threatens with nuclear war as retaliation is clearly a bad move from the US, not Russia.

None of these things were reflected in the article, just the opposite, the usual pro western bias that every UK and American paper takes, rather than a rational approach.. Russian newspapers are the same way, but even worse, so I still prefer a basket of media from many different nations in different languages to get a proper overview of the situation in an unbiased light.
 
Putin is running around with a rusty pistol, trying to seem relevant.

Yeah, and that rusty pistol could destroy the US and the rest of the world, easily. Perhaps you could consider that before making ignorant comments.
 
Clearly a very anti-Russian article..

1. Russian intervention in Georgia was justified, those regions wanted independence from a suppressive and insane Georgian state. Look at the Georgian leader for some symptoms of why they wanted to break free of Georgia.

Unilateral Russian intervention in an area within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia? That is a stretch. As for Georgia being insane? That is obvious bias you have against the DEMOCRATIC state of Georgia. You really like dictatorships don't you, or are you going to similarly argue that Russia is a democracy like Iran?

2. Clearly any view that Russia is the aggressor for responding aggressively to the US anti-missile shield in eastern Europe is anti-Russian and bias for the US and the west.

Hold on, Russia invaded Georgia without reasonable provocation. That seems pretty aggressive to me. All of the fighting was on GEORGIAN soil, none on Russian. Georgia never attacked Russia, yet Russia attacked Georgia. Seems pretty aggressive on Russia's part to me.

3. Not everyone understood that Russian unilateral intervention in Georgia was a warning to the west that it cannot do the same without giving Russia those rights, and referring to Iraq.

Actually, Russia was referencing Kosovo more than Iraq. As for Iraq, there were several UN Security Council resolutions regarding it and there was legal authorization from the UNSC to invade Iraq - though some dispute that fact. There is no such resolution or authorization regarding Georgia.

4. Not developing a closer relationship to Russia would be wrong of Europe, we should try to develop as good and as stable and influential a relationship with Russia as we can. Any statement against this is just anti-Russian and US bias.. Why in the world should we not seek good relations with Russia?

We should see good and constructive relations if and only if Russia shows it wants to respect international norms. Invasions of small neighbors like Georgia doesn't cut it. Threats toward Ukraine also don't cut it. Russia is beginning to behave like it did in the old days. There is no reason to develop constructive relations with The Bear until it shows it can live within the international rule of law.

5. The US stubbornness over the missile shield even when Russia threatens with nuclear war as retaliation is clearly a bad move from the US, not Russia.

Russia manufactured the missile shield issue. It was clearly targeted toward rogue regimes in the Middle East. The small number of anti-missile bateries involved wouldn't even dent the Russian arsenal and is completely misplaces vis a vis possible Russian missile attacks on the US (which would follow the Great Circle route over the pole)

None of these things were reflected in the article, just the opposite, the usual pro western bias that every UK and American paper takes, rather than a rational approach.. Russian newspapers are the same way, but even worse, so I still prefer a basket of media from many different nations in different languages to get a proper overview of the situation in an unbiased light.

I agree that I prefer a variety of sources - I read English, French, Chinese, Indonesian, and Japanese sources with varying degrees of regularity. However, the rules state OP links must be in English and I believe most users of DP are mono-lingual and ENglish is the only common language we all have, so we have to stick with that. Unless, MZ, you would like me to start making posts in Traditional Chinese?
 
Long list of lies and verbal fallacies, as usual.
 
Clearly a very anti-Russian article..
None of these things were reflected in the article, just the opposite, the usual pro western bias that every UK and American paper takes, rather than a rational approach.. Russian newspapers are the same way, but even worse, so I still prefer a basket of media from many different nations in different languages to get a proper overview of the situation in an unbiased light.


You have to learn how to read newspapers. Russians have ability to read their papers you don't have ability to read yours. They used to read Soviet papers – and extract truth – between the lines, not in the lines. The article most likely refers not to the statements and positions of Western politicians, but rather to the positions of new members of NATO/EU = former members/satellites of the USSR. Many of them came to power on the wave of anti-Russian propaganda and they still use Russia as a escape goat for their failers as well as the leveler to extract money/help from the West.

Why in the world should we not seek good relations with Russia?



5. The US stubbornness over the missile shield even when Russia threatens with nuclear war as retaliation is clearly a bad move from the US, not Russia. .

Because that would be appeasement to the idea of a multi-polar world where the US would loose its power to dictate its good and bad decisions to the rest of the world. The West first had that idea to resist the US by organizing into the EU, it did not work so well. Now when Russia emerges as a very powerful/smart player it undermines the idea of spreading democracy around the globe by the US. It is pity to see the US making pathetic moves.
 
Unilateral Russian intervention in an area within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia? That is a stretch. As for Georgia being insane? That is obvious bias you have against the DEMOCRATIC state of Georgia. You really like dictatorships don't you, or are you going to similarly argue that Russia is a democracy like Iran?

Whats your problem with anything else than the US and democracy? Do you think only the US and democracy is "right"? Russia went to Georgia to help the breakaway regions and avoid Georgian military suppression of those regions.


Hold on, Russia invaded Georgia without reasonable provocation. That seems pretty aggressive to me. All of the fighting was on GEORGIAN soil, none on Russian. Georgia never attacked Russia, yet Russia attacked Georgia. Seems pretty aggressive on Russia's part to me.

The situation with the breakaway regions in Georgia and intra Georgian conflict was getting out of hand. Russia going there without the approval of the security council was a strong signal to the US that if they have those right, Russia will also have those rights. Georgia was in military conflict with those regions, Russia stopped that, and let the people have their independence as they wanted, from the horrible regime in Tiblisi.


Actually, Russia was referencing Kosovo more than Iraq. As for Iraq, there were several UN Security Council resolutions regarding it and there was legal authorization from the UNSC to invade Iraq - though some dispute that fact. There is no such resolution or authorization regarding Georgia.

:lol:
Your memory is clearly flawed, there was no approval in the security council for a war in Iraq. The Us effectively made the security council invalid, and thus allowing Russia the freedom to also take unilateral actions like the US did in Iraq.


We should see good and constructive relations if and only if Russia shows it wants to respect international norms. Invasions of small neighbors like Georgia doesn't cut it. Threats toward Ukraine also don't cut it. Russia is beginning to behave like it did in the old days. There is no reason to develop constructive relations with The Bear until it shows it can live within the international rule of law.

Perhaps it also time then for Europe to reconsider their relations with the US, since they are also not respect international norms.

Russia manufactured the missile shield issue. It was clearly targeted toward rogue regimes in the Middle East. The small number of anti-missile bateries involved wouldn't even dent the Russian arsenal and is completely misplaces vis a vis possible Russian missile attacks on the US (which would follow the Great Circle route over the pole)

Are you sure about that? What if the US manufactured the missile shield issue? They were the ones who took the first steps and most likely to be the ones manufacturing the issue if anyone did that.. Why are you so blindly favorable for the US and to blindly against Russia? I am only trying to be rational here and say "open your eyes, Russia is not all bad, and the US is not all good".

What would the US feel if Russia placed missile shields in Cuba? Or again placed missiles there?

I agree that I prefer a variety of sources - I read English, French, Chinese, Indonesian, and Japanese sources with varying degrees of regularity. However, the rules state OP links must be in English and I believe most users of DP are mono-lingual and ENglish is the only common language we all have, so we have to stick with that. Unless, MZ, you would like me to start making posts in Traditional Chinese?

Lol.. I would love to learn Mandarine Chinese.. Actually I will embark on it some years from now. But having English as a main language on this forum do not mean we have to be blindly pro-US and blindly anti everything that is not like the US.
 
You have to learn how to read newspapers. Russians have ability to read their papers you don't have ability to read yours. They used to read Soviet papers – and extract truth – between the lines, not in the lines. The article most likely refers not to the statements and positions of Western politicians, but rather to the positions of new members of NATO/EU = former members/satellites of the USSR. Many of them came to power on the wave of anti-Russian propaganda and they still use Russia as a escape goat for their failers as well as the leveler to extract money/help from the West.

I wasnt talking about politicians but about media and journalists, reflecting the people.. You clearly misunderstood me..
 
Would you be alive to see that? you or any of your friends?
 
4 questions:
So, it is better not to drive Russia insane, isn’t it?
You do not want to apprach it like you have something better than its rusty pistol, do you?
Such an apprach would be insane, wouldn't it?
You are not insane like American, aren't you?
 
Whats your problem with anything else than the US and democracy? Do you think only the US and democracy is "right"? Russia went to Georgia to help the breakaway regions and avoid Georgian military suppression of those regions.

I love democracy and the rights of the people. It doesn't have to be U.S. style democracy, though I do believe it is preferable to the Parliamentary system. I prefer systems that reflect the will of the people and grant civil and political rights to citizens and legal residents of the country. When comparing GEorgia and Russia on this score, while Georgia has a ways to go, it is clearly superior to Russia.

Those "breakaway regions" were legal parts of Georgian territory as recognized by the international community and were its borders at the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union. How would Russia like foreign troops getting involved in the multitude of areas in Russia with ethnic minorities just itching to break away from the Russian bear.

The situation with the breakaway regions in Georgia and intra Georgian conflict was getting out of hand. Russia going there without the approval of the security council was a strong signal to the US that if they have those right, Russia will also have those rights. Georgia was in military conflict with those regions, Russia stopped that, and let the people have their independence as they wanted, from the horrible regime in Tiblisi.

It was an INTRA-Georgian conflict. Russia went in and has now effectively taken away two parts of Georgia, including nearly one half of its coastline.


Your memory is clearly flawed, there was no approval in the security council for a war in Iraq. The Us effectively made the security council invalid, and thus allowing Russia the freedom to also take unilateral actions like the US did in Iraq.

Read UNSC resolutions 678 and 1441 VERY CLOSELY! Then, come back to me.

Perhaps it also time then for Europe to reconsider their relations with the US, since they are also not respect international norms.

See aforementioned comments. Kind of funny considering how there were some European countries involved in that action.

Are you sure about that? What if the US manufactured the missile shield issue? They were the ones who took the first steps and most likely to be the ones manufacturing the issue if anyone did that.. Why are you so blindly favorable for the US and to blindly against Russia? I am only trying to be rational here and say "open your eyes, Russia is not all bad, and the US is not all good".

You are being silly now. As for the missiles in Poland, those are CLEARLy aimed at a rogue regime with a very small number of missiles. Even if they were targeted at RUssia, the sheer number of Russian missiles could overwhelm such a modest system. Furthermore, the DEFENSIVE missiles would have had NO impact on missiles targeting the US as they would cross the polar Great Circle route to North America.

Is the US all good? You know better than that. I have been critical of the US when I think they are wrong. Check out the thread on the ICJ decision on the MExicans and the State of Texas. I came squarely against the US and Texas on that thread.

What would the US feel if Russia placed missile shields in Cuba? Or again placed missiles there?

For what states purpose, to shield Cuba against Venezuelan missiles? :rofl


Lol.. I would love to learn Mandarine Chinese.. Actually I will embark on it some years from now. But having English as a main language on this forum do not mean we have to be blindly pro-US and blindly anti everything that is not like the US.

And if you look at my full body of posts, I am NOT always blindly pro-US. I am critical of the US and any other democracy WHEN I THINK IT IS WARRENTED. However, I am not going to blindly attack the US or any other democracy when it is NOT WARRENTED. Fair enough?

As for Chinese, it is a hard language to learn, especially the writing. But it is endlessly fascinating.
 
Non response signifying he has nothing to say and can't accept the facts - AS USUAL!

You just quoted me and then you say – non-response.

What did you quote, if not the response?


And what facts are you talking about? Lies= half truth and verbal fallacies are not facts.
 
The status de-juro does not change de-facto even a bit.

Let's see

Did Georgia have a mutual security pact with NATO members?

No.

Did Georgia routinely practice with NATO members?

No.

Was Georgia included in meetings with NATO members?

No.

Was Georgia privy to the intelligence shared between NATO members?

No.

Did NATO members aside from the US suggest any direct military aid?

No.

What de-facto state are you talking about?

Try again. And learn what NATO does and what membership includes.
 
When you keep pushing the borders of your influence and membership right up to the borders of such a large and important state as Russia what do you expect? They are going to be pissed off.

NATO, if it is still relevant, should have more sense and stick to its own area. It is classic balance of power stuff.
 
I love democracy and the rights of the people. It doesn't have to be U.S. style democracy, though I do believe it is preferable to the Parliamentary system. I prefer systems that reflect the will of the people and grant civil and political rights to citizens and legal residents of the country. When comparing GEorgia and Russia on this score, while Georgia has a ways to go, it is clearly superior to Russia.

Perhaps you arent 100% blindly pro-American, but you are pretty blind to reality about it, democracy especially in the US is becoming a sham, a joke. And democracy in general gives the people no actual power, it does in some ways reflect their will when you have elections. But then again, their votes are controlled by the media and the parties and all of their lies to gain the votes and so on, and the whole circus election bull**** in the US especially, thats not healthy democracy at all in my opinion, and your blind pro-US stand, will probably make you angry at me for saying so, and deny that reality, like it always does when I say things arent perfect in the US, or even Europe when it comes to democracy. I love the thought of a functioning democracy, but I hate the way democracy is in the US in particular right now, but also most parts of Europe.

Those "breakaway regions" were legal parts of Georgian territory as recognized by the international community and were its borders at the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union. How would Russia like foreign troops getting involved in the multitude of areas in Russia with ethnic minorities just itching to break away from the Russian bear.

Russia felt differently just like the US felt differently about Iraq.. So they went in, no difference there. At least those regions are happy now, and got rid of the "suppressive regime"..
Did you know the leader of Georgia is a democratic elected maniac just like the leader of Iran. Complete mental case, just like Ahmedinajan.

It was an INTRA-Georgian conflict. Russia went in and has now effectively taken away two parts of Georgia, including nearly one half of its coastline.

And now there is peace and not intra or any other Georgia conflict. The murder of their own people has stopped.


Read UNSC resolutions 678 and 1441 VERY CLOSELY! Then, come back to me.

Lol, none of them justifies war.. You know this, you can be as technical as you want, but you also know there was no security council approval for the war, and you also know France didn't join your war efforts because of it.

You are being silly now. As for the missiles in Poland, those are CLEARLy aimed at a rogue regime with a very small number of missiles. Even if they were targeted at RUssia, the sheer number of Russian missiles could overwhelm such a modest system. Furthermore, the DEFENSIVE missiles would have had NO impact on missiles targeting the US as they would cross the polar Great Circle route to North America.

Of course they are not aimed at Russia, but then why was Russia not brought in on the plans and for approval of the system? What if Russia placed missiles in Cuba to defend them from any potential attacks? What if they placed a missile defense system in south and central America to protect those states from Cuba?
You know the politics of the missile shield is shady, and the US broke the anti ballistic missile treaty over it, which is another point Russia is trying to make if you arent so blindly pro-American.

Is the US all good? You know better than that. I have been critical of the US when I think they are wrong. Check out the thread on the ICJ decision on the MExicans and the State of Texas. I came squarely against the US and Texas on that thread.

I know better than that, but do you know where to find neutral ground when the news and the politics is about the US, or any of its perceived "enemies", or do you then blindly listen to US politics against those enemies, or do you indeed listen to what those "enemies" are saying? And in general you do take a very anti-Russian stand, and a very pro-US stand, and of course you do have the incredibly blind anti-Iranian stand to think of, which I think is the result of listening ONLY to the US side about things, JUST like your president do not even negotiate with Iranian politicians, a retarded way of conducting politics by your previous regime.

Mexico and Texas and the US? Wow.. Yo for once showed a neutral way of thinking rather than blind pro-US way like you always have on this forum, and 90% of the people on this forum have?


And if you look at my full body of posts, I am NOT always blindly pro-US. I am critical of the US and any other democracy WHEN I THINK IT IS WARRENTED. However, I am not going to blindly attack the US or any other democracy when it is NOT WARRENTED. Fair enough?

Why arent you critical of the poor way democracy is developing in the west, the decline of real democracy and the enhancement of "circus politics exploitation of the dumb" democracy? Do you really want political elections to be about everything except politics?
Do you really want politics do matter less than drama, scandals, tv facing time and so on? Do you want money and who has it be the most important part of an election? Do you find the two party system a functioning system? Increased political and social polarization and so on.. All these things is also increasingly happening in European democracies, and I find it horrific. I dont want so sound like a grumpy old man, but elections should definetely not be about fun and entertainment, like it has become, to accommodate all the morons of our societies.

Elections should be about politics strictly, and everyone should have the same sponsored money to run their platform and media should be less involved.


As for Chinese, it is a hard language to learn, especially the writing. But it is endlessly fascinating.

Definitely, even Japanese seems easy in comparison.. I did try some basics of both just to get a feel, and Chinese was just incredibly difficult, even in the beginning, Japanese was comprehensible and learnable.
But then again, I do want to learn Chinese some time, when I have the time and dedication for it, I refuse to give that up. Perhaps Japanese could be a stepping stone?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom