Ukraine to join NATO

[TC Pilot]

Like who?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Since the demise of the Soviet Union the alliance formed primarily for the purpose of opposing Russia has been growing - Why should the Russian's feel all fine and dandy about that?

I like how you act like deterring the Communist Bloc nations was the only purpose behind NATO, rather than being a deterrence against any enemy nation.

Schatten, how does it change that the Soviet Union is still on the list of enemy nations? Or is it because you want to feel noble?

[K. A. Pital]

I like how you act like deterring the Communist Bloc nations was the only purpose behind NATO, rather than being a deterrence against any enemy nation.

In 1954 the USSR applied for NATO. It wasn't let in because of course any peaceful initiative by the USSR is a dastardly ploy. Next year, Warsaw Pact was created.

Tell me again which nation was NATO specifically formed to contain and oppose.

[Patrick Degan]

I like how you act like deterring the Communist Bloc nations was the only purpose behind NATO, rather than being a deterrence against any enemy nation.

In 1954 the USSR applied for NATO. It wasn't let in because of course any peaceful initiative by the USSR is a dastardly ploy. Next year, Warsaw Pact was created.

Tell me again which nation was NATO specifically formed to contain and oppose.

You forget, Stas, the threat posed to Europe by the Barbary States on the North African coast. There's also the Ottoman Empire —which obviously only pretended to break up after World War I. The threat of space aliens might have had something to do with it as well.

[Sidewinder]

I wonder about the timing of Bush's remarks. Is he voicing support for a friendly government that's having PR problems, comparable to American support of Musharraf despite his unpopularity in Pakistan? Is it in reply to Russia's recent hawkish behavior, e.g., the resumption of long-range patrols by Russian strategic bombers and protests against American ABM tests? A last-minute appeal to those nostalgic for the 1980s so the Republican Party will gain more support in the 2008 elections?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I wonder about the timing of Bush's remarks. Is he voicing support for a friendly government that's having PR problems, comparable to American support of Musharraf despite his unpopularity in Pakistan? Is it in reply to Russia's recent hawkish behavior, e.g., the resumption of long-range patrols by Russian strategic bombers and protests against American ABM tests? A last-minute appeal to those nostalgic for the 1980s so the Republican Party will gain more support in the 2008 elections?

The moron is probably worried that he is running out of time to carry out his dreams and fulfill some messianic prophecy he made for himself.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I like how you act like deterring the Communist Bloc nations was the only purpose behind NATO, rather than being a deterrence against any enemy nation.

In 1954 the USSR applied for NATO. It wasn't let in because of course any peaceful initiative by the USSR is a dastardly ploy. Next year, Warsaw Pact was created.

Tell me again which nation was NATO specifically formed to contain and oppose.

Stas, I know you're not illiterate, so stop strawmanning me. I said, NATO was not formed only to oppose the USSR, not that opposing the Soviet Union was not a purpose of the organizations. Once again, Stas strawmans an arguement.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, I know you're not illiterate, so stop strawmanning me. I said, NATO was not formed only to oppose the USSR, not that opposing the Soviet Union was not a purpose of the organizations. Once again, Stas strawmans an arguement.

Okay, look Shatten, you're not illiterate either and I suggest you drop it now, since atg said

the alliance formed primarily for the purpose of opposing Russia

If you try to argue that NATO's primary and most important goal was not opposing USSR - and can't read what he actually said - you fail. If you reply to his argument with "like deterring the Communist Bloc nations was the only purpose behind NATO", you fail to read what he wrote - he said it's the main purpose, not "the only".

So I suggest dropping that now.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Okay, look Shatten, you're not illiterate either and I suggest you drop it now, since atg said
-snip-
If you try to argue that NATO's primary and most important goal was not opposing USSR - and can't read what he actually said - you fail. If you reply to his argument with "like deterring the Communist Bloc nations was the only purpose behind NATO", you fail to read what he wrote - he said it's the main purpose, not "the only".

So I suggest dropping that now.

I said you, I wasn't specific, but I will clarify that meant more than one person, you included. I said that you guys act like that was it's only purpose, since a number of people are stating that it should disband without exploring the other purposes of the organization.

[K. A. Pital]

I said that you guys act like that was it's only purpose, since a number of people are stating that it should disband without exploring the other purposes of the organization.

Did I say "disband NATO"? I didn't, neither did atg as far as I see. You've already lost the moment, the best time to do this would be around 1991-1993.

If you were talking about NATO's current situation - the loss of main purpose - and the search for new ones - you should've been more clear, that is all.

[Vympel]

Did I say "disband NATO"?

No, but Ron Paul did

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution calling for the further expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia. NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the Cold War, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state.

This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US, in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of “exporting democracy” has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.

NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The “modernization” of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing.

Mr. Speaker, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.

[Vympel]

More directly in relation to the topic, "MAPs" for Ukraine and Georgia have been scuttled - Putin wins, one last time - until he's President again.

Link

Russian President Vladimir Putin scored a major diplomatic coup by scuttling the NATO membership bids of Ukraine and Georgia even before he reached the NATO summit.

NATO's plan to expand further into former Soviet turf collapsed Thursday when leaders — anxious to avoid angering Moscow — opted not to put the strategically important nations on track for membership.

Putin had strongly warned the military alliance against moving to bring Ukraine and Georgia aboard. He even threatened that Russia could point its nuclear missiles at Ukraine if it joins NATO and hosts part of a U.S. missile defense system.

In the waning days of his eight years as president, Putin demonstrated his strength — successfully driving a wedge through the NATO alliance.

The United States, Canada and Central and Eastern European nations backed the membership bids of Ukraine and Georgia. But Germany, France and some others resisted it for fear of damaging ties with Russia, a key energy supplier to the continent.

NATO pledged Thursday to embrace Ukraine and Georgia some day, but the failure to grant them a specific route to membership was a major foreign policy success for Putin just over a month before he steps down as president.

Russia has been unable to prevent Western recognition of Kosovo independence or to block U.S. missile defense plans. The collapse of NATO's expansion plan marks the first time since the Soviet collapse when Russia got the upper hand in a dispute with the West.

"Clearly Putin is victorious," said Sergei Karaganov, a Russian political analyst with close ties to the Kremlin. "He has changed the tone of relations between Russia and the West."

Putin's coup comes after the Kremlin closed a series of pipeline deals, dashing Western hopes of easing the EU's dependence on Russian energy.

Last fall, Russia signed an agreement with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan for a pipeline that will carry Central Asian gas via Russia, draining the main source for the U.S.-backed Nabucco natural gas pipeline. It has also struck deals with Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary and Serbia.

Konstantin Kosachev, the head of foreign affairs committee at the lower house of Russian parliament, said NATO's failure to grant membership action plans to Ukraine and Georgia showed Germany, France and some others bear a "responsible attitude."

For the expansion plan to succeed, all 26 bloc members must approve. Even backing from President Bush, who stopped in Ukraine on his way to Bucharest, failed to persuade the reluctant NATO members to drop their objections.

"It was a victory for those who didn't want destabilization in Europe, and it was a defeat for those outside of Europe who were seeking to destabilize it," Karaganov said.

Looking upset, Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko said Thursday that his nation's membership bid was a test for the alliance. He tried to put on a brave face, declaring: "I'm convinced that Ukraine will be in NATO."

Andriy Parubiy, a lawmaker from Yushchenko's faction in parliament, criticized Germany and France, saying: "Their decision was based on economic blackmail by Russia."

Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili, warned that snubbing his U.S.-allied nation would be a "bad sign."

"It would not help our reform process," he said in an interview published in the German daily Handelsblatt. "But either way, we will stick to the Atlantic perspective."

Putin was to dine with NATO leaders and summit guests Thursday evening, and will attend a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council on Friday.

Russia and NATO signed a partnership agreement in 2002 envisaging cooperation in combating terrorism, curbing proliferation of mass destruction weapons and other issues. But Russia's ties with the West worsened amid various disputes, and Putin grew increasingly critical of NATO.

Russia has strongly opposed U.S. plans to deploy missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Last year, it suspended its participation in a Cold War-era arms control treaty limiting the deployment of conventional weapons on the continent.

Ukraine and Georgia were part of the Russian Empire for centuries before becoming Soviet republics, and their importance is underlined by key westbound energy pipelines.

___

Associated Press writers Mike Eckel in Moscow, Maria Danilova in Kiev, Ukraine, and Alison Mutler in Bucharest contributed to this report.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, so much for GWB's attempt at cheap point scoring.

"I am mega-Putin! George, I'm sorry but I shall thwart your plans!"

[Shroom Man 777]

This is good. And I hope that pipeline deal will help better Russia's economy as well.

[Thanas]

It should be worth noting that Germany and France did not just stop the Ukraine because of Putin, but also because they do not want - or need - another USA-backing nation within NATO or the EU. Look at the trouble with Poland.

[Kane Starkiller]

The idea that Russia can somehow coerce EU to do it's bidding strikes me as questionable at best. The door swings both ways: EU needs a seller and Russia needs a buyer. Besides how come Canada can't pressure USA over anything?

[Imperial Overlord]

Besides how come Canada can't pressure USA over anything?

1) The US is the most powerful country in the world and hard to pressure.

2) Harper loves the taste of Bush's cock.

[Patrick Degan]

Well, so much for GWB's attempt at cheap point scoring.

"I am mega-Putin! George, I'm sorry but I shall thwart your plans!"

So far, he's had a better track record than Ernst Stavo Blofeld.

[K. A. Pital]

The idea that Russia can somehow coerce EU to do it's bidding strikes me as questionable at best. The door swings both ways: EU needs a seller and Russia needs a buyer. Besides how come Canada can't pressure USA over anything?

Yeah, that's kinda stupid. I think most established EU member nations don't really like new constituents (especially poor, conflict-ridden like Ukraine) since they would be a drain on the economy for the most part. I remember Germany and France having some of the most vocal opposition to new poorer EU members.

[Darth Raptor]

It'd be great if Grand Moff Paul could be "President of Foreign Policy" with no domestic authority whatsoever. That way he wouldn't actually do anything but periodically bitchslap the imperialists.

[Ma Deuce]

Besides how come Canada can't pressure USA over anything?

A couple reasons: First, no matter how hard we pressure them, they can pressure back ten times harder. Besides, it's not as if the Canadian government has the same control over our oil industry as is the case in Russia. More importanly, thanks to NAFTA, the economies of the USA and Canada are so thoroughly integrated they can almost be thought of as a single economy, making it extremely difficult for one country to use trade as a political weapon against the other.

[Sidewinder]

Georgia wanting to join NATO while giving Russia the finger is understandable, considering Russian support for South Ossetian separatists. Ron Paul's concerns, i.e., that US troops may end up participating in a Georgian-Ossetian conflict, make sense for once.

By the way, can someone with detailed info tell me why Ukraine wants to join NATO, BESIDES the obvious "the US government is backing the Ukrainian one," "the Ukrainians want the US to give them billions of dollars in aid," etc.? Fear that Russia may try to annex Ukraine? A dispute over trade?

[Vympel]

It should be worth noting that Germany and France did not just stop the Ukraine because of Putin, but also because they do not want - or need - another USA-backing nation within NATO or the EU. Look at the trouble with Poland.

Damn good point. As the two major powers in continental Europe and the alliance, a pro-American Ukraine would afford them absolutely no advantage, together with annoying Russia, with whom both have good relations.

[Vympel]

By the way, can someone with detailed info tell me why Ukraine wants to join NATO, BESIDES the obvious "the US government is backing the Ukrainian one," "the Ukrainians want the US to give them billions of dollars in aid," etc.? Fear that Russia may try to annex Ukraine? A dispute over trade?

Well it's not "Ukraine", it's just the government, which AFAIK, draws all it's support from the west of the country, whereas the East is staunchly pro-Russian and anti-US/NATO etc.

[Thanas]

Thursday's paper had more background on the whole Bush desaster.

According to it the plan was not made because of any strategic considerations, but because Bush wanted to promote his legacy of bringing democracy and prosperity to poor nations. Furthermore, he failed to coordinate such a plan with NATO members like Germany and France beforehand, which is even more damning considering Bush had previously tried to bully those nations to accept Turkey into the EU (and look how that turned out).

Those factors pretty much killed any chance of the plan ever being accepted.