ALERT RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE - Consolidated Thread

jward

passin' thru
The US Must Prepare for War Against Russia Over Ukraine
By Evelyn N. Farkas

7-9 minutes​


Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces, the military reserve of the Ukrainian Armes Forces, take part in a military exercise near Kiev on December 25, 2021.

Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces, the military reserve of the Ukrainian Armes Forces, take part in a military exercise near Kiev on December 25, 2021. SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images

President Vladimir Putin is more likely than not to invade Ukraine again in the coming weeks. As someone who helped President Barack Obama manage the U.S. and international response to Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and our effort to keep Moscow from occupying the whole country into 2015, I am distressingly convinced of it.
Why? I see the scale and type of force arrayed by the Russian military, the ultimatums issued by Putin and his officials, the warlike rhetoric that has until recently saturated Russian airwaves, and the impatience with talks expressed by his foreign minister. Add to that the likely anxiety produced in Putin by the demonstrations last week in Kazakhstan—and Moscow’s success in tamping them down.

But the basic reason I think talks with Russia will fail is that the United States and its allies have nothing they can immediately offer Moscow in exchange for a de-escalation.
The United States must do more than issue ultimatums about sanctions and economic penalties. U.S. leaders should be marshalling an international coalition of the willing, readying military forces to deter Putin and, if necessary, prepare for war.
If Russia prevails again, we will remain stuck in a crisis not just over Ukraine but about the future of the global order far beyond that country’s borders. Left unrestrained, Putin will move swiftly, grab some land, consolidate his gains, and set his sights on the next satellite state in his long game to restore all the pre-1991 borders: the sphere of geographical influence he deems was unjustly stripped from Great Russia.

The world will watch our response. Any subsequent acceptance of Russian gains will spell the beginning of the end of the international order. If Europe, NATO, and its allies in Asia and elsewhere fail to defend the foundational United Nations principles of sanctity of borders and state sovereignty, no one will. Any appeasement will only beget future land grabs not only from Putin, but also from China in Taiwan and elsewhere. And if the world’s democracies lack the political will to stop them, the rules-based international order will collapse. The United Nations will go the way of the League of Nations. We will revert to spheres of global influence, unbridled military and economic competition, and ultimately, world war.
Yes, this is alarming, but it’s not alarmist. We should be alarmed. Nuclear Russia is a revisionist, revanchist power acting already as if there is no international order or United Nations, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, Helsinki Accords or any of the host of regional agreements Moscow has signed.

I believe Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is even more likely after watching Russian forces quell the current round of demonstrations in Kazakhstan. The demonstrations in Almaty and throughout the country likely only intensified Putin’s alarm for democratic uprisings, or what he calls “color revolutions,” and renewed his commitment to use armed forces against them throughout the region.
Today’s mustering of American and European forces in response to Russia’s military and political aggression must be described for what it is: a fight to preserve the international order and the United Nations established to protect it, including NATO. Remember, the Western alliance was established under the umbrella of the UN Charter, which recognizes a role for regional security organizations to help keep the peace. But lately those organizations and their member states have proven unable to stop Russian expansion.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago last month, the Russian Federation has fought gradually to maintain and regain dominance of the Soviet republics and the former East Bloc, especially after Putin came to power. Russia has established military bases in Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Moldova. Russia encouraged secessionists in Moldova and Georgia to create breakaway territories and in 2008 invaded Georgia, still occupying 20 percent of the state’s territory. In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea, declared the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine henceforth revised through military force. This was the first time military force had been employed to change borders in Europe since Hitler’s invasions and occupations. It was an audacious rebuke of the world order established at the end of the World War II.

The United Nations and international community condemned the 2014 landgrab, much as it did when Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait in 1990. In the latter case, the international community demanded Iraq’s immediate withdrawal—and didn’t stop there. Nations authorized the use of military force in the event that Iraq refused to withdraw by Jan. 15, 1991. The international community united in the defense of international borders and Kuwait’s sovereign rights.
By contrast, when Putin limited his landgrab to Crimea, much of the international community decided the immediate threat had been eliminated, or limited to Ukrainians. As a result, the Russian leader is now making larger demands. He wants two new treaties that would prevent NATO from accepting new members, stationing military forces in member states that joined after 1997, placing nuclear weapons in members’ territory, and embarking on any activity in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

We are now, as a former U.S. ambassador put it in a recently, “at a moment of truth.” If Putin refuses to negotiate about things that are negotiable, like arms controls, and insists on curtailing NATO membership and military basing and operations, we will be a diplomatic standstill. If that happens, our best bet is a new Cold War.
The only way to reassert the primacy of international law and sanctity of international borders, and contain Russia, may be to issue our own ultimatum. We must not only condemn Russia’s illegal occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, but we must demand a withdrawal from both countries by a certain date and organize coalition forces willing to take action to enforce it.

To be sure, nuclear-armed Russia is far more powerful than Saddam’s Iraq. But from my 96-year old father who witnessed world war, I learned si vis pacem, para bellum: he who wants peace must prepare for war. Only a balance of military power—a deterrent force and the political will to match—can keep war at bay and the military dynamic frozen.
The horrible possibility exists that Americans, with our European allies, must use our military to roll back Russians—even at risk of direct combat. But if we don’t now, Putin will force us to fight another day, likely to defend our Baltic or other Eastern European allies.

When this week’s talks end and Moscow moves its military forward, the United States and our allies around the world must take all of the steps the Biden administration has laid out including sanctions, export controls of technologies, and arming Ukraine. But that’s not enough. Biden should go to the United Nations immediately to rally the global community of nations. We must build a new coalition of the willing to enforce the state sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter.
Dr. Evelyn N. Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia in the Obama administration, and as former senior advisor to the Supreme Allied Commander, NATO.


 

coalcracker

Veteran Member
The US Must Prepare for War Against Russia Over Ukraine
By Evelyn N. Farkas

7-9 minutes​


Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces, the military reserve of the Ukrainian Armes Forces, take part in a military exercise near Kiev on December 25, 2021.

Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces, the military reserve of the Ukrainian Armes Forces, take part in a military exercise near Kiev on December 25, 2021. SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images

President Vladimir Putin is more likely than not to invade Ukraine again in the coming weeks. As someone who helped President Barack Obama manage the U.S. and international response to Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and our effort to keep Moscow from occupying the whole country into 2015, I am distressingly convinced of it.
Why? I see the scale and type of force arrayed by the Russian military, the ultimatums issued by Putin and his officials, the warlike rhetoric that has until recently saturated Russian airwaves, and the impatience with talks expressed by his foreign minister. Add to that the likely anxiety produced in Putin by the demonstrations last week in Kazakhstan—and Moscow’s success in tamping them down.

But the basic reason I think talks with Russia will fail is that the United States and its allies have nothing they can immediately offer Moscow in exchange for a de-escalation.
The United States must do more than issue ultimatums about sanctions and economic penalties. U.S. leaders should be marshalling an international coalition of the willing, readying military forces to deter Putin and, if necessary, prepare for war.
If Russia prevails again, we will remain stuck in a crisis not just over Ukraine but about the future of the global order far beyond that country’s borders. Left unrestrained, Putin will move swiftly, grab some land, consolidate his gains, and set his sights on the next satellite state in his long game to restore all the pre-1991 borders: the sphere of geographical influence he deems was unjustly stripped from Great Russia.

The world will watch our response. Any subsequent acceptance of Russian gains will spell the beginning of the end of the international order. If Europe, NATO, and its allies in Asia and elsewhere fail to defend the foundational United Nations principles of sanctity of borders and state sovereignty, no one will. Any appeasement will only beget future land grabs not only from Putin, but also from China in Taiwan and elsewhere. And if the world’s democracies lack the political will to stop them, the rules-based international order will collapse. The United Nations will go the way of the League of Nations. We will revert to spheres of global influence, unbridled military and economic competition, and ultimately, world war.
Yes, this is alarming, but it’s not alarmist. We should be alarmed. Nuclear Russia is a revisionist, revanchist power acting already as if there is no international order or United Nations, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, Helsinki Accords or any of the host of regional agreements Moscow has signed.

I believe Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is even more likely after watching Russian forces quell the current round of demonstrations in Kazakhstan. The demonstrations in Almaty and throughout the country likely only intensified Putin’s alarm for democratic uprisings, or what he calls “color revolutions,” and renewed his commitment to use armed forces against them throughout the region.
Today’s mustering of American and European forces in response to Russia’s military and political aggression must be described for what it is: a fight to preserve the international order and the United Nations established to protect it, including NATO. Remember, the Western alliance was established under the umbrella of the UN Charter, which recognizes a role for regional security organizations to help keep the peace. But lately those organizations and their member states have proven unable to stop Russian expansion.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago last month, the Russian Federation has fought gradually to maintain and regain dominance of the Soviet republics and the former East Bloc, especially after Putin came to power. Russia has established military bases in Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Moldova. Russia encouraged secessionists in Moldova and Georgia to create breakaway territories and in 2008 invaded Georgia, still occupying 20 percent of the state’s territory. In 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea, declared the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine henceforth revised through military force. This was the first time military force had been employed to change borders in Europe since Hitler’s invasions and occupations. It was an audacious rebuke of the world order established at the end of the World War II.

The United Nations and international community condemned the 2014 landgrab, much as it did when Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait in 1990. In the latter case, the international community demanded Iraq’s immediate withdrawal—and didn’t stop there. Nations authorized the use of military force in the event that Iraq refused to withdraw by Jan. 15, 1991. The international community united in the defense of international borders and Kuwait’s sovereign rights.
By contrast, when Putin limited his landgrab to Crimea, much of the international community decided the immediate threat had been eliminated, or limited to Ukrainians. As a result, the Russian leader is now making larger demands. He wants two new treaties that would prevent NATO from accepting new members, stationing military forces in member states that joined after 1997, placing nuclear weapons in members’ territory, and embarking on any activity in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

We are now, as a former U.S. ambassador put it in a recently, “at a moment of truth.” If Putin refuses to negotiate about things that are negotiable, like arms controls, and insists on curtailing NATO membership and military basing and operations, we will be a diplomatic standstill. If that happens, our best bet is a new Cold War.
The only way to reassert the primacy of international law and sanctity of international borders, and contain Russia, may be to issue our own ultimatum. We must not only condemn Russia’s illegal occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, but we must demand a withdrawal from both countries by a certain date and organize coalition forces willing to take action to enforce it.

To be sure, nuclear-armed Russia is far more powerful than Saddam’s Iraq. But from my 96-year old father who witnessed world war, I learned si vis pacem, para bellum: he who wants peace must prepare for war. Only a balance of military power—a deterrent force and the political will to match—can keep war at bay and the military dynamic frozen.
The horrible possibility exists that Americans, with our European allies, must use our military to roll back Russians—even at risk of direct combat. But if we don’t now, Putin will force us to fight another day, likely to defend our Baltic or other Eastern European allies.

When this week’s talks end and Moscow moves its military forward, the United States and our allies around the world must take all of the steps the Biden administration has laid out including sanctions, export controls of technologies, and arming Ukraine. But that’s not enough. Biden should go to the United Nations immediately to rally the global community of nations. We must build a new coalition of the willing to enforce the state sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter.
Dr. Evelyn N. Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia in the Obama administration, and as former senior advisor to the Supreme Allied Commander, NATO.

So, jward, I got curious about the author of this article. Evelyn N. Farkas

Part of her biography:

Her publications include journal articles and opinion pieces in The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, Defense News, and The Boston Globe, and on sites including The Daily Beast, Foreign Policy.com and Politico.com, as well as commentary on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News…
091FB5AF-A07F-407C-A0FD-B05EF196732D.jpeg
Farkas is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, International Institute for Security Studies, and Women in International Security Studies and is on the advisory board for the Harold Rosenthal Fellowship in International Relations and the Aspen Institute Socrates Program.[8] In 2005 she served on a Council of Foreign Relations task force chaired by Samuel R. Berger and Brent Scowcroft that produced a monograph In the Wake of War: Improving U.S. Post-Conflict Capabilities.
————-

Knowing that, it makes me wonder even more. The controlled media are working diligently to paint a narrative, aren’t they?

And note the Council on Foreign Relations.:bhd:
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Ah. As Gary Dee used to say about himself, 'A face perfectly suited for Radio.'

Remember, we haven't been in the Ol' US of A for at least 2 years, now. We're CLEARLY here enjoying Clown World.
 
Last edited:

jward

passin' thru
First messages after NATO-Russia Council:

US Mission to NATO
@USNATO


Today’s NATO-Russia Council is the first such meeting since 2019. It’s an important platform for dialogue, especially when tensions are high as a result of Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine.
View: https://twitter.com/USNATO/status/1481252547654475782?s=20

In talks with Russian counterparts, Allies stressed that @NATO remains committed to our dual-track approach of dialogue and deterrence. We'll keep our defenses strong, standing united to deter further aggression against , while remaining open to meaningful dialogue & diplomacy.
View: https://twitter.com/USNATO/status/1481252556575850500?s=20
 

Marie

Veteran Member
For war you have to show up. How come there has been little troop movement on our part?
Gotta wait for that pearl harbor/ 9-11 trigger.
They use the same playbook every time. This won't be a small war. And since the asleep are worried about what gender to dress for each day or how the dip$hit in chief is so much better than bad man orange. Most don't know anything that's going on over there.
 

OldAndCrazy

Pureblood Forever
First messages after NATO-Russia Council:

US Mission to NATO
@USNATO


Today’s NATO-Russia Council is the first such meeting since 2019. It’s an important platform for dialogue, especially when tensions are high as a result of Russia’s aggression toward Ukraine.
View: https://twitter.com/USNATO/status/1481252547654475782?s=20

In talks with Russian counterparts, Allies stressed that @NATO remains committed to our dual-track approach of dialogue and deterrence. We'll keep our defenses strong, standing united to deter further aggression against , while remaining open to meaningful dialogue & diplomacy.
View: https://twitter.com/USNATO/status/1481252556575850500?s=20

Bloviating platitudes. What a bunch of asses.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
McCaul, House Republicans Introduce Legislation to Support Ukraine and Hold Russia Accountable
Press Release 01.10.22
Media Contact 202-225-5021
Washington, D.C. – House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul (R-TX), House Armed Services Committee Lead Republican Mike Rogers (R-AL), House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Lead Republican Mike Turner (R-OH) and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) released the following statement on introducing the Guaranteeing Ukrainian Autonomy by Reinforcing its Defense (GUARD) Act of 2022. This bill will ensure Ukraine is provided with the military and diplomatic support it needs in the face of Russia’s destabilizing military buildup in and around its borders. The legislation would also hold Vladimir Putin accountable for his aggression by immediately sanctioning the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to stop it from ever becoming operational. Reps. McCaul, Rogers, Turner and Stefanik were joined by Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) and Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY).
“Diplomacy has little chance of success unless approached from a position of strength – yet the Biden Administration has been much too slow in sending additional military assistance to Ukraine and has capitulated on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline,” said Rep. McCaul. “This legislation firmly rejects this pattern of weakness that has dangerously emboldened Putin by immediately providing Ukraine with the support it needs to ensure the Kremlin understands a further invasion of Ukraine would come at a terrible cost. Vladimir Putin must take note that Congress will not stand for the reconstitution of Russia’s sphere of influence nor the abandonment of Ukraine and our other NATO allies and partners in Central and Eastern Europe.”
“For months, I’ve been pleading with the Biden administration to rapidly accelerate the flow of lethal aid to Ukraine. In response, the White House has ignored my requests and continued to stare at the situation in the vain hope it won’t get worse. This is the definition of paralysis-by-analysis and will only invite further aggression from the Kremlin. This legislation would dramatically increase funding for lethal aid to Ukraine, specifically for anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, that the Ukrainians will need to deter Russia. It also makes clear that Putin’s demands, such as a veto over who can join NATO, and a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range missiles to Europe, are non-starters and run contrary to U.S national security interests,”
said Rep. Rogers.
“Russia has grossly violated its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum by posturing to invade Ukraine once again while President Biden is failing to adequately arm Ukraine and deter Russia’s military buildup. In fact, his inaction has emboldened Putin and prompted absurd proposals such as the withdrawal of NATO forces from NATO member states in Central and Eastern Europe. These failures have resulted in a weak hand for the Administration going into negotiations with Moscow. Congress must act swiftly to support Ukraine and that is why I am supporting the GUARD Act. We must stand up against authoritarian regimes, like Russia, while strengthening those who stand for democracy,” said Ranking Member Turner.
“President Biden’s consistent weakness towards our adversaries around the world has encouraged Putin’s latest military aggression and has endangered the territory of Ukraine. While the last two Democrat administrations have been reluctant to provide necessary support to Ukraine, I am proud to join my colleagues in taking strong action to provide support to our partners on the frontlines against Russian aggression. As a sovereign, democratic state, Ukraine must be free to choose its own future, including its economic and security relationships, without fear of Putin’s retribution,” said Rep. Stefanik.
This legislation would:
  • Significantly and immediately increase military support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including funding for weaponry and training.
  • Designate Ukraine as a “NATO Plus” country to ensure the expeditious consideration of the sale of a range of U.S. defense articles and services.
  • Strengthen targeted sanctions on Nord Stream 2, a Russian malign influence project designed to undermine Ukraine and threaten European energy security.
  • Establish stronger Congressional oversight over the Biden Administration’s use of Russia sanctions by:
    • Providing Congress a veto over the removal of a wider range of Russia-related sanctions, including those related to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the Biden Administration’s April Executive Order 14024 (Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities Of The Government Of The Russian Federation).
    • Establishing a mechanism to require the Administration to review certain persons submitted by Congress for eligibility for Russia-related sanctions.
  • Establish diplomatic and military deterrents to counter Russian aggression by:
    • Reaffirming NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration supporting Ukraine and Georgia’s bid to become members of the alliance.
    • Rejecting Russia’s proposal for a deployment moratorium of intermediate-range ground-launched missiles in Europe and requiring a strategy on cooperation with NATO allies on conventional intermediate-range missiles.
    • Calling on the Administration to move expeditiously to submit a nominee for the Ambassador to Ukraine.
    • Requiring a determination on whether the Government of Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism.
    • Limiting security risks related to U.S.-Russian military cooperation.
  • Authorizing $155 million for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to combat Russian disinformation and information operations in the Former Soviet Union for the year 2022.
  • Reaffirming U.S. policy of unwavering commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty.
You can find the text of the bill here.
This bill is the House companion bill to the Senate Guaranteeing Ukraine’s Autonomy by Reinforcing its Defense Act (GUARD Act).
 

jward

passin' thru
ALL media is controlled and painting narratives is what they do... although I'm almost old enough to remember when 'value neutral' reporting was really a real standard :(

as to your complaints re: the article you'll have to take them up with Daniel, I just c/p content for him,
..the assumption though is always that the readers here well understand the first step of analysis is always asking "who is saying what, to whom and why" - "follow the $"

Knowing that, it makes me wonder even more. The controlled media are working diligently to paint a narrative, aren’t they?

And note the Council on Foreign Relations.:bhd:
 
Last edited:

danielboon

TB Fanatic
The Russia-NATO talks have ended. They lasted more than three hours
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
"This was not an easy discussion, but that is exactly why this meeting was so important," @jensstoltenberg says in remarks after the NATO-Russia Council meeting. He says there was a "very serious and direct exchange" about the situation in and around Ukraine
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
"We are ready to sit down" on arms control but Russia made clear today it's not ready to schedule such meetings, @jensstoltenberg tells reporters
 

CaryC

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Mostly background material:

Buchanan: Where Does NATO Enlargement End?
print-icon

Authored by Pat Buchanan,
After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Warsaw Pact dissolved, the breakup of the USSR began. But the dissolution did not stop with the 14 Soviet “republics” declaring their independence of Moscow.
Decomposition had only just begun.

Transnistria broke away from Moldova. South Ossetia and Abkhazia seceded from Georgia. Chechnya broke free of Russia but was restored to Moscow’s control after two savage wars. Crimea and the Donbass were severed from Ukraine.
Besides these post-Cold War amputations, assisted by Russia, what do Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia have in common?

All seek admission to NATO, and with it Article 5 war guarantees that oblige the United States to wage war against Russia to restore their sovereignty and territorial integrity if attacked.

It is easy to understand why these nations would want the U.S. obligated to fight on their behalf. What is not understandable is why the U.S. would issue such war guarantees. Why would we commit to risk war with a nuclear-armed Russia on behalf of nations no one has ever regarded as vital interests of the United States of America?
Consider how many nations have been admitted to NATO, and thus received U.S. war guarantees, after 1991.

There are 14: Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.

These 14 newest members of NATO represent an expansion of U.S. war commitments riskier in ways than the original creation of NATO, when we were obligated to defend 10 nations of Western Europe.

Today, we defend 29 nations, stretching far into Eastern Europe.

Still, further NATO expansion may be in the cards.

As mentioned, Georgia and Ukraine are looking to join NATO and have the U.S. thereby obligated to fight Russia in their defense. Two other nations, Sweden and Finland, are talking of abandoning their traditional neutrality for NATO membership and U.S. war guarantees.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is also a candidate member of NATO. Its capital is Sarajevo, where an assassin’s bullet fired in 1914 killed the Austrian archduke, an incident that led directly to the First World War.

Mikhail Gorbachev, at the end of the Cold War, reportedly told U.S. Secretary of State James Baker that Russia would agree to unification of East and West Germany if the U.S. would guarantee that NATO would not be moved further east.

Baker is said to have told Gorbachev, “Not one inch.”

Whatever the truth, can we not understand why a Russian nationalist like Vladimir Putin would feel his country was being corralled and imperiled, if a NATO alliance created to contain Russia had lately added 14 members, most of which were former allies or republics of the USSR?

As The New York Times editorialized on Monday:
“Mr. Putin’s concerns cannot be entirely dismissed. Were Ukraine to join NATO, the alliance would then have a 1,200-mile land border with Russia, a situation no major power would abide, no matter how loudly the Atlantic alliance claims to be purely defensive.”
Here is the precise language of Article 5.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith … such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Apparently, “the North Atlantic area” now extends to the eastern Baltic and the Balkans.
If Ukraine and Georgia are admitted to NATO, the North Atlantic area would include the Caucasus, and five of six nations on the Black Sea. Only Russia would be outside NATO.

Friday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “NATO never promised not to admit new members; it could not and would not.”
But this is nonsense. There is no requirement that the U.S. admit to NATO any or all nations that apply for admission.
For whatever reasons we choose, we can veto any applicant. And avoiding war with Russia might constitute one of those reasons.

With NATO’s continuous post-Cold War expansion into Central and Eastern Europe, America has to ask: If the risk of war with Russia grows with each new member on its borders admitted to NATO, why are we doing this? Is there no red line of Putin’s Russia we will not cross?

Do we believe Putin will indefinitely accept the encirclement and containment of his country by nations united in an alliance created to keep Russia surrounded?

Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan disagreed often but did agree on this: U.S.-NATO war guarantees stopped at the Elbe. Beyond the river in Germany, we battled the USSR with weapons of diplomacy, politics and economics, not weapons of war.
How would we have reacted if, after losing the Cold War, we were treated to Russian warships on Lake Ontario and Moscow giving Canada war guarantees?

Buchanan: Where Does NATO Enlargement End? | ZeroHedge
 

CaryC

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Russia Lays Out Security Demands At NATO HQ Amid 'Live Fire' Exercises Near Ukraine
print-icon

Coming off the initial day of talks between Russia and NATO wherein the US informed the Kremlin side that its central security demands are a "a non-starter", the continuing dialogue which moved to Brussels Wednesday began with little expectation for any breakthroughs.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko went to NATO headquarters in Brussels where he was received by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. Despite new Russian military live-fire exercises which took place near the border on Tuesday, the Kremlin has reiterated that there are no plans for any offensive on Ukraine.

Speaking from Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov tried to assure the good faith nature of its engaging with NATO this week. "We are not negotiating from a position of strength; there is not, and nor can there be, any place for ultimatums here," he said as the talks in Brussels were initiated Wednesday. This amid continued accusations that its troop build-up is all about forcing NATO to the table and forcing leverage to protect Moscow's red lines.

But he underscored that Russia must see that the West is taking its demands seriously and implementing positive action, according to Reuters. Also according to Reuters, the Russian side again emphasized its central request of no further NATO eastward expansion, which it's further seeking written security guarantees to ensure:
Grushko, a former Russian ambassador to NATO, has said Russia wants to avoid confrontation. His direct colleague Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov - who held talks with the United States in Geneva but who was not in Brussels on Wednesday - has said Ukraine must never be allowed to join NATO.
NATO has no immediate plans to admit Ukraine, but says Russia cannot dictate its relations with other sovereign states.
NATO diplomats, meanwhile, have sought to present this week's talks as not a "negotiation" but as an initial "dialogue" and have said they would be deemed successful if they simply led to more open talks. This while calling the draft proposals submitted by Moscow thus far "unacceptable".

The West is still sticking firmly by its charge that Moscow precipitated the current standoff and crisis over Ukraine, which has seen Washington prepare far-reaching sanctions in the event of any military offensive. Concerning Tuesday's drills, Moscow Times details:
The Defense Ministry said 3,000 troops and 300 tanks and infantry fighting vehicles have been deployed across three western Russian regions bordering Ukraine and one bordering Belarus.
The military’s Western Military District said the motorized rifle drills will involve T-72B3 main battle tanks and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles. The drills stretch across western Russia’s Voronezh, Belgorod, Bryansk and Smolensk regions.
Jens Stoltenberg is expected to brief reporters after exiting Wednesday's negotiations in Brussels. Live feed:

"Let's be clear: Russian actions have precipitated this crisis. We are committed to using diplomacy to de-escalate the situation," U.S. envoy to NATO Julianne Smith said at a press conference Tuesday night. She said of the alleged some 100,000 Russian troops mustered near the Ukrainian border: "We want to see ... Russia pulling back its forces."

Russia Lays Out Security Demands At NATO HQ Amid 'Live Fire' Exercises Near Ukraine | ZeroHedge
 

coalcracker

Veteran Member
ALL media is controlled and painting narratives is what they do... although I'm almost old enough to remember when 'value neutral' reporting was really a real standard :(

as to your complaints re: the article you'll have to take them up with Daniel, I just c/p content for him,
..the assumption though is always that the readers here well understand the first step of analysis is always asking "who is saying what, to whom and why" - "follow the $"

I appreciate what both you and daniel are doing for all of us on this thread. You guys rock. My post wasn’t meant as a complaint. I just thought the background of that particular writer was important for understanding that article.

The globalist network is extensive, and they all have roles to play in the script, as you know. We can learn a lot from reading their narratives and applying our critical thinking skills to analyze what they’re planning.

That particular article you posted may be the most telling on this entire thread! Well worth the read.
 
Top