US tanks arrive in Germany to help Nato defences

1. European forces entered Russia in 1918 on behalf of the Russian government. Is Russia invading Syria?

2. Until you define your standards for what does and does not constitute a legitimate government, any discussion of the topic is pointless.

3. The US does not rule NATO. NATO policy is democratically decided by the alliance members as a whole. An agreement by the US alone is not binding for the rest of the alliance. The countries of Eastern Europe decided of their own free will to enter into a mutual defense treaty with the US and European allies.

How is that defensive treaty "aggression"?

4. So you believe treaties with governments are still binding even if that government no longer exists?

5. So when it was in US interests to enter into a mutual defense treaty, the Founders did so. So why would they have a problem with the mutual defense treaty we have today given that a free Europe in our sphere of influence is in our interests?

 

Over 100,000 dead russians.

Over 500,000 dead Afghans.

 

If we want to understand US forign policy and NATO's strategy we should listen to/read this book:

[video=youtube;aQ36S-Vi2CA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ36S-Vi2CA[/video]

Mr Brezezinski was kind enough to detail our anti-Russian paranoia but it's not limited to Russia. They want to keep any one nation or group of nations from gaining the ability to challenge US hegemony. (Supposedly to avoid another world war.) The irony here is they're pushing us into another world war with this agenda. We're basically in a proxy war with Iran, China and Russia as we speak. The west has been going after smaller nation states aligned with Russia/China/Iran. Mostly in the Middle East and Africa but eastern Europe as well. Brezezinski said Ukraine was a key "pivot" nation- if Russia got Ukraine they would be a superpower again. That's why we facilitated regime change in Ukraine. They want to push Ukraine into NATO and possibly the EU down the line.

"However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia."

-Brezezinski

Viktor Yanukovych attempted to shelve Ukraine's plan to join NATO. That's why the west ousted him. The new Ukrainian government made joining NATO a top priority. This is all part of the larger agenda to "contain" Russia, China and Iran. Iran is being targeted by Sunni extremists in the Middle East. Any nation that has close relations with Russia/China/Iran is targeted. Assad is too close to Russia.


Gaddafi was planning on fighting World Bank/AFRICOM/NATO's plans for Africa.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/06/natos-war-on-libya-is-an-attack-on-african-development/

For years Saddam was used to target Iran but turned on his masters. It was a "lesson" for leaders in the region to fall in line or be deposed. He bit the hand that fed him.




It's all about economics and power. Neoliberal globalization vs developing counties thinking about aligning with Russia/China/Iran:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

World Bank/IMF is competing with BRICS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

Things like the TPP were meant to help "contain" China. China has huge plans to develop westward and south into Africa:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-...g-nearly-1-trillion-to-rebuild-the-silk-road/

It's all about trade, development and the power that comes with economic influence.

 

Which doesn't matter. 2,000 warheads is more than enough to destroy every city in russia with a population greater than 50,000.

 

So you do not believe one people have a right to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them?

 

It certainly has nothing to do with Russia invading a US ally.

 

defend what ?

 

I believe freedom is usually won with blood and that nations don't compromise their territorial integrity based on a vote or proclamation.

 

You really need to revisit history.
At the start of the war yes. But at the end we were supplying everyone. And at the end we become the number 1 economy in the world.

 

Good old Neville did it. So hey what the hell lets go for round 2.

 

On behalf of a monarchy that was desperate to quell a populist uprising, you mean.

You're the one who asserted the "legitimacy" of a government, not me. I merely took to demonstrating why your conception of legitimacy was morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Utter nonsense. The US is the glue that holds NATO together. Without US influence, it would fall apart.

Already explained several times.

They pledged to defend the nation of France, not just its monarchy.

It may be in our "interest", but it's certainly not worth the immense blood and treasure we've had to expend, to say nothing of the corrupting influence it has on our political system.

 

Well said. At least someone gets it.

You said Gorbachev was different and that he was a peacemaker. Well, he blames the USA, not Putin, for the new cold war. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

You didn't really answer my question.

 

The US was trying to push Ukraine into NATO. Ukraine's president Viktor Yanukovych rejected this (along with a majority of Ukraine at the time) so the west filled Ukraine with NGO's in order to shift peoples political views then pushed regime change. We funded far right fascists in order to oust Yanukovych. These people also sought to attack ethnic Russians in Ukraine.









[video=youtube;tHhGEiwCHZE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHhGEiwCHZE[/video]


These Ukrainian fascists wanted an ethnically pure Ukraine. If it were up to them they would've "cleansed" Ukraine of ethnic Russians. Russia's involvement in Ukraine was two fold. First, they wanted to keep Ukraine from joining NATO. Then they wanted to protect ethnic Russians from the far right Ukrainian fascists (that the west used to push Ukraine into NATO).

 

I am in agreement with that, however, since we've been there 24/7, there has been no more world wars. So I got mixed reactions.

 

1. In 1918, the Czar had already abdicated in favor of the Duma and the elected government under Kerensky. In fact, he was already dead before most allied troops even arrived in russia.

2. Yes, and I am using the standard definition of legitimate government in international relations, that being that it is recognized by the majority of other nations in the world.

3. Except the US does not decide all of NATO's policies. Our agreement with Russia wasn't even a signed treaty. It wasn't binding on America, let alone the rest of the alliance.

4. The "nation of France" was the monarchy. Do you not know what absolute monarchy is?

5. What "immense blood and treasure"?

 

I know of no other way to answer it. I'm a Right leaning Jeffersonian Libertarian, and an Atheist, but I'm also enough of a realist to know how Nations operate. You don't get Freedom or Independence merely by proclaiming it, regardless of any Rights.

BTW: FWIW my background is in Soviet and Eastern European Studies, was married to a Soviet National for 19 years, and was heavily involved in the immigrant community, so I do have some insight into the Russian mindset and culture.

 

And Gorbachev apparently is ignoring the invasion by Russia of a US ally in 2008.

 

I think nukes are that deterrent. I think when the world saw what happened when we dropped them on Japan they thought "ok, dam. no one will be able to take over the world now"

 

Islamic fundamentalists don't think this way.

 

Different kind of war.

That's not a conventional war. That's terrorism. Thus, not causing a 'world war' as he stated

 

They're backed by state actors.

 

Still 100% different type of war. There's no conventional fighting on their end. They hide under sheets and blow up civilians.

 

Haha, you are so predictable. Don't forget that Canada, United Kingdom also sends soldiers and tanks to Russia's doorstep.

 

This is the new face of war in the 21st century. Well, it started during the cold war. State actors use proxy forces.

 

Not to deploy soldiers would be a provoke.