Ukraine Thread

[Brenus]

“For one so critical of NATO as you it would be not a shame, but hypocrisy. Morally, one can't get paid by someone and then go about saying how you hate what in fact is being done with your participation.” Oh, so you think that because one is paid by an organisation, one can’t be critical of the same organisation… So, if you work for Health Services and you see something wrong, you can’t report it? You have strange points of view on how things work. Someone working for CIA has to agree with torture?
But, as you acknowledge, and contrary of what you wrote in order to disqualify what I am saying, that is not my case, so not really in debate, at least for me…

“All the promises you mention (afaik) never took the shape of a treaty, while Russia's promises (concerning Ukraine) did at least twice (Budapest memorandum of 1994 and Russia-Ukraine treaty of friendship and cooperstion of 1997). Bridges you may build, but Russia will have a terrorist with an explosive ticking under each of them.” Yeah, but the same can be said for the Internationally Recognised Borders that NATO didn’t hesitate to cross illegally (then changed) when needed… So Russia might have a terrorist under the bridges, NATO might have a drone/airplane above the bridges equipped with armed bombs.

“Clearly Russia wins - wars in Transdniestria, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Chechnya (inside Russia) and now Ukraine” None of these wars (low level conflicts) was initiated by Russia. However, Iraq, Afghanistan, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya were initiated by NATO. I might as well put Ukraine in the bag, as it was the Coup d’Etat initiated by if not NATO (but as you do not hesitate to add internal conflicts in Russian backyard, why shouldn’t I?), by it diplomacy and secret services. So NATO wins the contest without appeal. Just with Iraq, NATO aggression succeeded to destabilise the entire Middle-East, not bad for an organisation supposed to act defensively.

“No. SO the answer to your question will bring you directly to answering this one: should Ukraine become a NATO member?” Up to Ukraine and NATO to decide. However, due to the success record of the latest NATO interventions, if I would be Ukraine, I would think twice, after seeing what happened in Libya, Kosovo or Iraq… Do note that these countries didn’t crumble under Putin’s evil hand but all by themselves…

“So lifting limitations on the number of weapons is not against de-escalation?” No, not as such, especially when you read the article. I find the reason quite compelling. Treaty was signed when promises not to extend NATO was made, so including new Countries in NATO de facto increased NATO capacities, so Russia sees no reason to keep her part of the deal when clearly NATO is not.
Or perhaps you will tell now that NATO didn’t include new members?