world

Russia sets out tough demands for security pact with NATO

41 Comments
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV and LORNE COOK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


41 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

The existance of NATO itself is an abomination. NATO was the counterpart to the Sovjet Union and its Warsaw Pact. The SU ceased to exist, and so did the Warsaw Pact. Why does NATO still exist? Who is it supposed to fight? RIght now, NATO is a dinosaur that has no other function than warmongering and wasting money.

-19 ( +15 / -34 )

These tensions are all the result of the midget thug Putin trying to bully his way about the “near abroad” Now the midget thug is doubling down by issuing demands he can’t possibly expect to be accommodated.

Either this is the poison pill (how appropriate for Russia) that allows it to justify its military aggression, or Russia is desperate to extricate itself from a losing position and save Putin’s pride. To be fair, it could be both.

Either way, the Russians can pound sand. The midget thug is going to rue the day he doubted NATO’s will

9 ( +23 / -14 )

Why does NATO still exist? 

Why don’t you ask the former involuntary members of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ? They’ll tell you with one voice “Russia.”

18 ( +31 / -13 )

Well, Japan can forget about acquiring Kurils back from Russia, since it's obvious Putin is interested in taking territories, not giving what Russia already has.

-11 ( +14 / -25 )

Why don’t you ask the former involuntary members of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ? They’ll tell you with one voice “Russia.”

Thanks for being honest and finally recognizing that NATO’s main goal is to conquer Russia.

-14 ( +12 / -26 )

Putin is just looking for attention. He doesn't control the American president anymore like he did the last four years, he's feeling depressed. He knows if he enters Ukraine the ruble will go into the septic tank like it did when Obama crippled the Russian economy with sanctions.

He can't fight a war with no money. That's why he left his ambition of reconstituting the Soviet Union after the Obama sanctions and went to fight Assad's war as a mercenary.

6 ( +19 / -13 )

Zaphod

The existance of NATO itself is an abomination. NATO was the counterpart to the Sovjet Union and its Warsaw Pact. The SU ceased to exist, and so did the Warsaw Pact.

You do realise that Putin was a spy during the USSR years.

Why does NATO still exist? Who is it supposed to fight?

If Putin wasn't in power, it may have disbanded by now, but clearly he has too much interest in a land grab for what he sees as Russia's territory.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

The days of the US capitulating to and appeasing Putin are over now that 45 is no longer in office.

How is it you manage to take all the known facts and then turn them upside down fit you own reality. If you look at a map of expansion of NATO countries vs Russia, the picture is crystal clear. Russia is not expanding into Eastern Europe, but NATO is.

-10 ( +8 / -18 )

Clearly the formerly subservient involuntary members if the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact fear an aggressive expansionist Russia that does not respect their national sovereignty.

Claims to the contrary are laughable.

There’s a reason that countries want to join NATO. Be a they want to be free if Russian interference.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

While U.S. intelligence has determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin has made plans for a potential further invasion of Ukraine

After the Afghanistan disaster, who can trust this so-called intelligence?

-8 ( +8 / -16 )

The existance of NATO itself is an abomination. NATO was the counterpart to the Sovjet Union and its Warsaw Pact. The SU ceased to exist, and so did the Warsaw Pact. Why does NATO still exist? Who is it supposed to fight? RIght now, NATO is a dinosaur that has no other function than warmongering and wasting money.

Bingo!

-13 ( +8 / -21 )

GdTokyo:

"Why does NATO still exist?" 

Why don’t you ask the former involuntary members of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ? They’ll tell you with one voice “Russia.”

Exactly. The name is changed but its same - an anti-democratic authoritarian military state.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

zichiToday  09:32 am JST

Even if America were to withdraw, NATO will continue without it.

Ahhh, yeah.

Right.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Even if America were to withdraw, NATO will continue without it.

Lol, good luck with that. That would put a smile on Vlad’s face.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Russia is not expanding into Eastern Europe, but NATO is.

the big difference being that the Eastern European countries were forced to join the Soviet Union (or be invaded)

Now, they are choosing to join NATO

4 ( +9 / -5 )

I’m going to try to split the difference of opinion being expressed here.

On the one hand, it’s not hard to see why NATO expansion would be viewed as threatening by Russia. They’ve been invaded numerous times in history from the west and their whole security mindset has long been trying to prevent that from happening again, which makes sense. NATO has been pretty aggressive about this over the past 30 years and not really taken valid Russian concerns into account.

On the other hand, one can also understand why countries like Poland, Lithuania, etc would view Russia as an extreme threat which they desperately wanted protection from and why they would have been clamoring for NATO membership, and also why the US would reasonably want to grant it to fellow democracies.

Ukraine is unfortunately stuck in the worst of both worlds since its obviously threatened by Russia on the one hand, but not a NATO member on the other.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

More and more we're seeing the far-right in American co-opted and siding with Russia, China, and other autocratic governments who shun democracy and democratic values...

Now we have a war within the far-right media-shere on who is more "Russia-friendly"....

Newsmax’s Grant Stinchfield said Thursday that he doesn’t believe Fox News’ Tucker Carlson is defending Russian President Vladimir Putin of his own free will. Instead, he suggested, Carlson must have “liberal” bosses.

“Fox News’ lurch to the left is maddening for nearly every conservative, including myself, and I wonder now if the leftist leaders of this Trojan horse of a so-called conservative network have compromised Tucker Carlson,” Stinchfield said.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/newsmax-grant-stinchfield-blames-liberal-142206941.html

So, for our far-righters here, who is right? Newsmaxx or Fox?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Well, that's going to be a hard "No" from every NATO member nation and partner nation. Russia has no right to try and dictate who can and cannot join NATO. But he's going to try anyway because he's desperate. Russia's economy is in a poor state, and its military has been hit hard as a result. They're trying to keep up with US technology but have depressingly insufficient funding to keep all their hardware and personnel combat-ready. That was why Putin invaded Crimea. He needed to try and seize land and therefore resources as well as more people to tax. That cash balloon has been deflated, now he's looking to try again with a bigger target. But, as long as Ukraine has NATO protection, Russia won't suicceed in taking Ukraine. They can try, and they may make some progress, but ultimately they'll be routed, the operation will fail, and the cost of that failure will be devastating. Putin's stuck between a rock and a hard place, but he's too prideful and obsessed with appearing strong to take the diplomatic route. His time in power is basically over, and those like him won't do any better.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Before the fall of the USSR NATO agreed not to expand eastwards, but it lied.

America unilaterally withdrew from the INF treaty covering intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) and it also says it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict."

It is hardly surprising that Russia does not want warmongering NATO on its doorstep, armed with American missiles.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

As someone who has NATO soldiers back in their home country, we don't want them.

Ukraine is desperately trying its very best to be US' buddy but in all seriousness is nothing but a puppet. I mean, the president is a literal ex-comedian.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Russia has no right to try and dictate who can and cannot join NATO.

Let's say Venezuela decided to join SCO and host a Chinese or Russian military base, would the US be ok with that? If no, why not?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Russia should join NATO.

Let's say Venezuela decided to join SCO and host a Chinese or Russian military base, would the US be ok with that? If no, why not?

Monroe Doctrine from the 1820s. Russian military has been in Cuba for 50+ yrs. They had a base there until 2002. A few of the "stans" had Russian bases into the 2010s, but when money is tight and the places with the bases are very poor, it is difficult to maintain foreign bases.

A number of authoritarian African and middle eastern countries have Russian bases currently being built. The most shocking to me was Egypt, since I attended school with Egyptian military kids for a few years while their parents were getting fighter training in the US.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Monroe Doctrine from the 1820s

Yes, exactly, the Monroe doctrine. So if the Russians have a similar principle in place (as I am sure most countries do), then it's easy to understand why they want NATO to stay as far from its borders as possible.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

That would put a smile on Vlad’s face.

And if Vlad smiles, his far right followers around the globe will smile with him, after all Vlad's a hero to the far right extremists while he and his pal Xi among other despots finance and support anti-democracy pro-authoritarian movements in their ongoing attempts to further undermine democracies around the globe, not just in the nations that were historically part of one of the Russian empires, like the USSR. Vlad + Xi and perhaps their mutual pal the Ayatollah have been able to convince the far rightists their respective versions of state capitalism are superior to those versions found in the 'west'. The 'state capitalists have convinced the extreme rightists that burning huge amounts of fossil fuels is the only way to go; that's why they're so opposed to progress of any kind.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The existance of NATO itself is an abomination. NATO was the counterpart to the Sovjet Union and its Warsaw Pact.

No NATO was established in 1949 and the Warsaw pact was not established until 1955.

The SU ceased to exist, and so did the Warsaw Pact. Why does NATO still exist? Who is it supposed to fight?

NATO was established to protect Western Europe from Russian and Soviet aggression. Russia still exists, has the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and it still threatens security in Europe.

RIght now, NATO is a dinosaur that has no other function than warmongering and wasting money.

I would Say Russia is a dinosaur that seems to serve no function other than warmongering and wasting money.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

If you look at a map of expansion of NATO countries vs Russia, the picture is crystal clear. Russia is not expanding into Eastern Europe, but NATO is.

Well except for Russia's expansion into invaded Ukraine territory and de-facto into Georgian territory.

NATO expands as other nations "request membership". NATO is not out recruiting new nations. They see benefit in being part of NATO and make applications to join. But it suits Russian narrative to say NATO expands eastwards. It could expand in any direction depending on who is applying to join it. And if Russia wanted to join it, it could apply and if it meets NATO standards it could even be granted membership. That was the hope when the USSR fell apart.

Putin does not share power. Russia must call the shots, it does not want to be one nation among many if it does not get to call the shots and be top dog. That is Russia's only objection to being in NATO, it wouldn't get to be in charge.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

everyone who wants to duscuss abt this matter must have look into history back some 40years or ro.

in 1989 there were two blocks in Europe.so called Western bloc/NATO/ and eastern block/Warsaw pact/.as results of changes in Europe in 1990-1991 Warsaw pact ended as there was promise from western block that NATO will end as well and there are no plans to make it larger and no new countries will join.

reality in fears later.NATO new members from East Europe have moved pact closer to russian borders and yes Russia started to feel unbalance and threat.However NATO did not care about russian worries and contnued in its agressive policy towards Russia.NATO did not understand that it deals not with Yeltzins Russia but with completely different country-both miltarilly and economically.

now when NATO pushing Belarus and Russia and dispersing fake news about "russian threat" to Ukraine and Baltic states have found themeselves in very difficult possition as Russia have no more space to "move back".

Russia is not some small country somewhere in Caribbean where you can overthrow government you dont like overnight/Grenada in eighthies/,or some "american backyard" latino country where you can change dicator as soon as you pleased/list of cuntries too long and history of CIA organized coups rich/.Russia is real power and successor of Soviet Union,with own nuclear weapons,army,economy,territory,mineral resources and yes-own national and security interestes as same as every big country in world/USA,China etc/.

so yes NATO came to crossroads.either will guarantee that NATO will not go further east,will stop its aggressive policies against Russia and its allies,will take seat with Russia and its allie s and wil discuss situation and will look into peaceful solutions-or will face real russia threat.n jokes mates,this is red line.NATO have to be very careful as if makes even one more bad step may face fatal consequences...all worls will be affectd.

so stop warmongering and talk about peace,its about time to understand your real position in the recent bipolar world and get it right,right now.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@The Avenger

He knows if he enters Ukraine

So you admit he did not enter Ukraine yet? Then why all the Western hysteria about "the Russian aggression"?

when Obama crippled the Russian economy with sanctions

He did? Seriously? He bragged about it, but provided now facts. Can you support this claim with facts? For a neutral observer it seems Russia could not care less about all this tough talk about "sanctions from hell" and other blah-blah.

@2020hindsights

You do realise that Putin was a spy during the USSR years

Yes, so? George Bush (the clever one) once was CIA director. So?

If Putin wasn't in power, it may have disbanded by now

Wrong logic. Putin is in power since 2000, the Warsaw pact disbanded in 1991. For almost ten years NATO existed without any official adversary. It existed (and exists now) for the only real reason to be an instrument of U.S. military control of Europe and a market for overpriced American weaponry.

@zichi

NATO exists as a military agreement between a group of countries that protects the peace of those countries. There have been no wars between them in over 70 years

Greece and Turkey were on the brink of war several times, particularly in 1974 over Cyprus.

NATO killed dozens of thousands of people during its aggressions against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It's so pathetic to decry Russian "expansionism" while keep mum about NATO's track record of a serial murderer.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

NATO killed dozens of thousands of people during its aggressions against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It's so pathetic to decry Russian "expansionism" while keep mum about NATO's track record of a serial murderer.

Total BS. Why bother with the lies?

aggressions against Yugoslavia,

Zero. Did not happen.

aggressions against Iraq

Did help free Kuwait from Iraq invasion.

aggressions against Afghanistan

Did help fight Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan after the attack on NATO member America.

aggressions against Libya.

Some NATO members did fight in Libya as independently acting countries not as NATO.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The bombing of Yugoslavia should not have happened. About 1,000 people were killed.

Yugoslavia broke apart in 1991. The NATO bombings against Serbia happened in 1999.

Making out that Serbia was Yugoslavia is misleading and incorrect. NATO was defending Kosovo against Serbia.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

mz16Today 11:15 am JST

As someone who has NATO soldiers back in their home country, we don't want them.

NATO would not be there without permission or invite. So while you dont want them there, obviously some do want them there.

Ukraine is desperately trying its very best to be US' buddy but in all seriousness is nothing but a puppet. I mean, the president is a literal ex-comedian.

Ex comedian? so what the US has had two presidents that were ex actors, Regan ended up earning respect while Trump was a complete failure. A 50/50 outcome. And lets be honest, anyone that is not a Russian puppet somehow becomes a US puppet? No, these nations have their own agenda's and hopes for the future and being a puppet is not one of them. Simply being friendly with America does not make them a puppet. That does not sound helpful for the Russian position but it is what it is.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Peter14

Zero. Did not happen

Never heard about aerial bombings of Belgrad, never heard how NATO in alliance with Albanian mafia stole a whole Serbian province of Kosovo?

Did help free Kuwait from Iraq invasion

I see you even can't tell the war against Iraq in 1991 from the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Educate yourself with Wiki or something.

Did help fight Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan after the attack on NATO member America

Bombed the whole country in the process? "We must kill them to free them"? Very NATO-like. And if NATO was after the 9/11 attackers, why not to bomb Saudi Arabia (most of the attackers were from this country, and Saudi Arabia always financed almost all radical movements)? Why not to bomb Pakistan (Osama was hiding there)?

Some NATO members did fight in Libya as independently acting countries not as NATO

Empty semantics. The hard fact is they invaded, killed thousands of people and destroyed the country of Libya. They are aggressors that must be brought to justice.

Total BS

Total BS is your knowledge of facts.

Russia's expansion into invaded Ukraine territory and de-facto into Georgian territory

In Crimea not a single shot was fired, nobody was hurt (compare it with the track record of NATO). Georgia attacked the independent Ossetia first and was taught a lesson. Good.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites