Ukraine crisis heating up, NATO says it will intervene if Russia goes in

[calfoxwc]

with "little green men"

 

Putin denied Russian soldiers were in Crimea, later admitted it.

 

2 mi long convoy of Russian trucks with aid are to go to E. Ukraine....

 

while Russia is threatening to cut off heating oil to the Ukraine...

 

while the leader of the "russian" rebels says they are getting a bunch of tanks

and soldiers from Russia.....

 

and after an armored convoy snuck into the Ukraine, prompting the Ukraine

army to take it out...

 

war is close, and the M.E. is just as volatile.

 

6 yrs of a void of U.S. leadership is going to let all hell break loose, maybe.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-respond-militarily-crimea-style-infiltration-general-153724901.html

[Browns149]

with "little green men"

 

Putin denied Russian soldiers were in Crimea, later admitted it.

 

2 mi long convoy of Russian trucks with aid are to go to E. Ukraine....

 

while Russia is threatening to cut off heating oil to the Ukraine...

 

while the leader of the "russian" rebels says they are getting a bunch of tanks

and soldiers from Russia.....

 

and after an armored convoy snuck into the Ukraine, prompting the Ukraine

army to take it out...

 

war is close, and the M.E. is just as volatile.

 

6 yrs of a void of U.S. leadership is going to let all hell break loose, maybe.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-respond-militarily-crimea-style-infiltration-general-153724901.html

who cares?

 

Let them fight amongst themselves and let the USA stay out of it.

 

For once can't we just stay out of other peoples problems?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

When will people learn we can't stay out of it. We are a part of NATO and have agreements. Part of being a Super Power. We tried to stay out of WW2 also. Good thing we didn't.

[Browns149]

When will people learn we can't stay out of it. We are a part of NATO and have agreements. Part of being a Super Power. We tried to stay out of WW2 also. Good thing we didn't.

Is the Ukraine part of NATO?

[Browns149]

I looked it up and the Ukraine is NOT in NATO. And neither is Russia. SO let them fight without our help?

 

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/nato_countries.htm

[calfoxwc]

Being a part of NATO requires intervention.

 

But even though they are not a NATO member, their charter still

mentions more than just being a NATO member.

 

And I was referring to the words of the current secretary general.... from Denmark.

 

***********************************************

 

 

NATO), headquartered in Brussels, Belgium.

Facts:
The organization's charter states that the signing parties will "seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area", and will "unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security."

April 4, 1949 - Established when 12 nations sign the North Atlantic Treaty in a ceremony in Washington, D.C.

2009-present - The current secretary general is Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark.

[Browns149]

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is back, thanks in large part to Russian President Vladimir Putin. His invasion and annexation of Crimea and his sustained aggression against eastern Ukraine have revived NATO, imbuing the bloc with the sense of mission it lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Ukraine is the primary beneficiary of this revival. In effect, Putin, an inveterate NATO opponent, has walked into a strategic trap of his own making.

In 1947, when NATO was formed to provide collective defense for its members, the threat was clear: the Soviet Union. And the need for U.S. leadership was not in doubt either. World War II battered the Europeans, but the United States emerged from the fighting a global superpower. By 1992, however, the Soviet Union was no more. The Russian Federation formally succeeded the USSR, inheriting its United Nations Security Council seat and nuclear weapons, but Russia was still in the throes of a systemic breakdown that lasted more than a decade. As the threat from the Soviet Union disappeared, NATO’s core mission also appeared less relevant. Why maintain the alliance if there is no enemy?

By the mid-1990s, Europe was no longer the impoverished place that emerged from the war. While the Soviet collapse made United States the world’s sole superpower, the Europeans quickly acquired enough wealth and began questioning the necessity of U.S. leadership.

In the last two decades, NATO has searched for alternative missions, shifting its focus toward the fight against terrorism and deployments outside Europe. The realignment worked, but only up to a point, as Europe’s participation in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved desultory and spotty. The central problem was obvious: How Americans and Europeans defined threats differed. As a global economic and military power, the U.S. faced global threats. As a regional economic power, the European Union did not necessarily agree that its core interests were also at stake.

NATO essentially became an alliance without a purpose.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea changed all that. By violating the postwar international order and unilaterally annexing foreign territory, Putin reconstituted Russia as a threat. By vowing to protect all Russians living abroad, Putin repositioned Moscow as a menace to Europe. Estonia and Latvia, both NATO members, have significant Russian populations, and Russia has enormous economic interests across Eastern and Western Europe.

Collective defense

By supporting anti-Ukrainian militants in eastern Ukraine, Putin effectively arrogated the right to wage war in a Europe, where it had been considered unthinkable. Why, then, shouldn’t he wage war against other members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace, such as Moldova and Georgia? With Crimea’s economic collapse and possible transformation into a major Russian military base, Moscow has signally affected the balance of power in the Black Sea region, potentially threatening NATO members Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Greece.

“Changing borders with military means is what alarms us,” a highly placed NATO official told me recently. “I think it’s astounding to see people close their eyes and pretend the dinosaur doesn’t exist.”

With collective defense against a resurgent Russia once again its raison d’être, NATO is beginning to flex its muscles. NATO officials, including its Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, have been vocal in supporting Ukraine and condemning Russia. At a recent briefing for a civilian expert group at NATO headquarters, one of NATO’s leading Ukraine-Russia analysts dismissed a suggestion that both Russian and Ukrainian narratives be taken into account in developing policy toward eastern Ukraine. “[There are] no two competing narratives,” the NATO analyst said. “The situation is black and white, and we shouldn’t be afraid to say it.”

NATO is developing mechanisms for helping Ukraine. A 20-person Crisis Action Team Ukraine has been set up to monitor the Russian intervention and provide daily analyses to key NATO policymakers. Several trust funds intended to bolster key aspects of Ukraine’s security are in the process of being established. NATO’s focus will be Ukraine’s communications and information systems, cybersecurity, logistics and standardization, and the retraining and resettling of former soldiers. NATO expects still unspecified lead nations to provide the initial funding and hope to funnel some unspent money from the current budget into those funds.

NATO might also be considering more hands-on approaches to bolster Ukrainian security. One NATO official at the briefing with the group of civilian experts was tight-lipped about the specifics, repeatedly saying she “had nothing to say” about what NATO was doing. While still unclear, such measures may involve sending military advisers to Ukraine. During a visit to a camp near Kiev where Ukraine’s all-volunteer Donbass Battalion was stationed, soldiers told me that they received training from Bulgarians, Georgians and Israelis.

Ukraine’s membership in NATO is still many years away, but thanks to Putin, it’s now on the table.

NATO’s ace in the hole remains Putin. The only way to undo the enormous damage to his and Russia’s reputations is to return Crimea to Ukraine — and that, obviously, will not happen anytime soon. He could help improve relations with the West by ending his support for the militants in eastern Ukraine, but that too would be difficult, as it means enabling Kiev to re-establish control over territories he has labeled “New Russia.” Given these realities, his rhetorical support of peace and negotiations appears hypocritical.

That is not all. Putin continues to meddle in the affairs of his non-Russian neighbors. As Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite recently revealed, Russia proposed reducing the price of oil and gas for Estonia and Latvia if they left NATO. Putin’s offer demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Baltic sentiments toward Russia. The Balts would rather die than exchange the West for Moscow.

Last but not least, by engaging their country in war, Putin has imbued Ukrainians with a remarkable solidarity and unprecedented patriotism.

The greatest irony is that Putin is driving Ukrainians to embrace the West. A public opinion poll conducted from April 23 to 25 by the Razumkov Center in Kiev showed that more than half of Ukrainians “favor steering Ukraine’s foreign policy toward the European Union.”

The survey also showed favorable sentiments about NATO. Traditionally, more than half of Ukrainians opposed joining NATO and only 10 to 15 percent supported membership. But in the latest poll, 36 percent were in favor of NATO membership (with 42 percent opposed).

Ukraine’s membership in NATO is still many years away, but thanks to Putin, it’s now on the table. Although he continually invokes NATO as a military threat to Russia, the fact is that NATO has no army, and its ability to deploy forces is wholly dependent on member nations’ willingness to supply them. But NATO has political authority, and its voice does not go unheard. As a vast bureaucracy, NATO can act as a powerful pro-Ukrainian lobbyist within Europe’s corridors of powers. Although NATO’s anti-Russian stance is more outspoken than that of most European countries, it roughly coincides with the views of the United States. It helps — both NATO and Ukraine — to have the world’s only superpower on your side.

 

 

I still don't like it, but after reading this I now see why NATO might have to get involved.

[calfoxwc]

Where is the UN in all this world crisis hot spots?

 

It's worthless. Seriously, it's time to just forget it and quit

funding it.

[miktoxic]

NATO???

 

 

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 

 

ooooh. we'z a scared.

[The Cysko Kid]

Ukraine has been part of the Soviet sphere for hundreds of years. I hate to seem insensitive especially due to my views on isis, but America has no interests or responsibilities in this region. I'm tempted to say leave Russia to their own business.

 

We have an obligation to the iraqi people to bail them out. Our president and government fostered and nurtured the monster which is now threatening that region. We have no such obligations to Ukraine

[The Cysko Kid]

Ukraine has been part of the Soviet sphere for hundreds of years. I hate to seem insensitive especially due to my views on isis, but America has no interests or responsibilities in this region. I'm tempted to say leave Russia to their own business.

 

We have an obligation to the iraqi people to bail them out. Our president and government fostered and nurtured the monster which is now threatening that region. We have no such obligations to Ukraine

[calfoxwc]

Back in the day, we stood by while Stalin and Russia starved out millions of

those in the Ukraine.

 

Unchecked evil comes back, eventually, to make you regret not stopping it earlier.

 

Look at how many died in WWI and WWII.

[Taco918]

NATO???

 

 

hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 

 

ooooh. we'z a scared.

[Taco918]

Back in the day, we stood by while Stalin and Russia starved out millions of

those in the Ukraine.

 

Unchecked evil comes back, eventually, to make you regret not stopping it earlier.

 

Look at how many died in WWI and WWII.

Look at how many Russian's died in WWII. Their casualties make ours look like child's play.

 

The Russian's had every reason to be pissed at us after the war. The second front we promised them took years to be realized while they were being slaughtered.

 

With that said, we had a great strategy. Our armed forces weren't prepared for a war on two fronts and our entry into North Africa and the Mediterranean both helped to turn our forces into a legitimate fighting force and take away assets from the Nazi's.

 

However we couldn't have won the war without Russia. They were able to hold a stalemate until we got our shit in order and starting doing work, opened the second front, and put Hitler into a pincer he couldn't survive. Honestly think about it. If Russia fell to the Nazi's early on, not only would we be fighting the them on the eastern front, we'd be fighting them and the Japs on the western front. Russia allowed us the time to win the war. That's not opinion, that's fact.

 

If you can't see why our supposed ally during the war had some hard feelings towards us afterwards your blind.

 

Don't get me started one WWI. The treaty of Versailles fucked over the Germans, pissed off the Japs, and America, the country that won the war, had little say in it.

 

So basically you're entire argument is null and void.

[Taco918]

Ukraine has been part of the Soviet sphere for hundreds of years. I hate to seem insensitive especially due to my views on isis, but America has no interests or responsibilities in this region. I'm tempted to say leave Russia to their own business.

 

We have an obligation to the iraqi people to bail them out. Our president and government fostered and nurtured the monster which is now threatening that region. We have no such obligations to Ukraine

You seem to forget the very reasoning for this crisis. The Ukrainian people and their parliament were ready to sign a deal to either become a member of the EU, or close in towards it. The PM, who was previously in support of the plan, then had a "change of heart" and decided to decline to sign it. This set off a series of protest which resulted in his removal from office, the installation of a pro-EU government and the Russian backed separatist movement that has accompanied it.

 

While the Ukraine might not be a member of NATO, they are a major trading partner, an ally, and a potential future member of a government which constitutes a majority of our NATO allies. We can't shrug this off. NATO was created to counter Russian aggression in our European backyard and we have convinced quite a few former Soviet bloc members to join our side. By not backing the Ukraine, how do you think Poland, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Estonia, etc. are going to react? Without Western backing and a powerful country they can't fight a legitimate war against, what would they do? Would you prefer to have newly recruited countries to our alliance back out due to the fear that we won't uphold our end of the bargain?

 

Would you not be outraged at our country's lack of moral fortitude if that occurred? Part of building an Alliance that large is taking part in its bylaws. We are much more obligated to intervene in the Ukraine than we are in Iraqi.

 

Bottom line, the Ukrainian's want us there now, along with us to have a constant presence in the future. The Iraqi's only want us when they are getting their ass beat.

 

For a more personal comparison, Ukraine is similar to a woman you meet and is going through a tough time. You met her through some friends and she's getting her shit straight but she had a little bump in the road with an ex. Any real man wouldn't mind putting in the effort to take her mind off of that douche bag, especially since she's been seeking shelter with your good friends and they've been pretty fucking happy to see her around more often. She's also got some plans for the future which will benefit not only your good friends, but yourself as well.

 

Iraq is more like a shitty ex who dumped you but has no problem hitting you up when shit hits the fan for her. You helped her get her out of of an abusive relationship, and had a decent, if not bumpy run. She decides to dumps you after you point out that she needs you, and give her an ultimatum. She, obviously, thinking she's got shit figured out, dumps you and proceeds to piss off all of her friends and co-workers and builds herself up as a "goddess." Then her friends and co-workers decide it's high time your ex got her comeuppance. She tries to act like she's got shit under control but eventually realizes she's in over her head and calls you in a panic. She tells you how everyone is plotting against her but it becomes pretty obvious it's all her own doing. You reach out a bit in an attempt to show some faith but your not really going to risk yourself for this crazy bitch are you?

 

Then you hear that her roommate, a pretty reserved, but solid girl is baring the brunt of your ex's shit. So you step in and do what's right. Your ex is trying to get her shit together but you're going to wait and see her prove it.

 

Which girl deserves more attention?

[calfoxwc]

So basically you're entire argument is null and void. Taco

************************************************

Sure, when you misinterpret my entire argument. The deliberate starving of millions of those in the Ukraine happened

after WWI and before WWII. That is what happens when good countries like us decide to just ignore

evil in the world because it isn't right here.

 

As to my point about all those U.S. soldiers dying, - our U.S. tried desperately to stay out

of both WWI and WWII. Go look it up. And what happened? Those wars got bigger, and bigger,

and more and more serious, and THEN we had to go in and stop it after it was too late.

 

You are missing the point - of course, Russia wishes they hadn't had to fight both wars.

But they had no choice, when Germany declared war on them. And WWII is a clusterfook,

where russia, er...Soviet Union, actually invaded Poland, initially, WITH the Germans.

 

The point is, waiting until problems become a world war is disastrous, and millions of soldiers and people die.

 

The beginning of WWI was not a world wide problem, but look what it turned into after.

My point is fine. Your interpretation is null and void.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[DieHardBrownsFan]

If Germany hadn't declared war on Russia and the USA Europe would look completely different now.

[Browns149]

If Germany hadn't declared war on Russia and the USA Europe would look completely different now.

They would all be speaking German if they would have left us alone.

[Westside Steve]

They would all be speaking German if they would have left us alone.

They?

Actually had we not participated in the blockade keeping the Japanese from getting oil lots of things would have been different.

If in fact the cat had not stopped to shit it would have caught the mouse.

WSS