Putin to responds to decades of broken promises from NATO

[justoffal]

Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters

Surely the Kremlin watched with no small amount of bitterness last Friday as NATO’s heads of state and government gathered for dinner at Warsaw’s

warontherocks.com

NATO is not now not has it ever been a true defensive organization. From the very get-go it was organized under the guise of defense to proselytize and expand the interests of the European central banks who are diametrically opposed to the steadily growing competition of Euroasian financial dominance. This is why NATO is and continues to be an aggressor in the guise of a peacekeeper. This is why it has been foolish in the extreme for United States to contribute any funds whatsoever to this deceptive agency which is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing and lately not even wearing the sheep's clothing anymore.

Whether you like the Russian federation or not is not the point....the point is NATO is a lying, decirtful agency that fully intends war and destruction upon its Eiroasian banking competitors and will think nothing of spending thousands of American lives and pursuit of their own personal profit.

Jo

 

[Bleipriester]

Why would the Euroasian markets only compete with Europe and not with America?

 

[Esdraelon]

The EU made it perfectly clear that their allegiances these days are those of business interests, many with Moscow. It's on them to deal with Putin. We have more than enough trying to deal with Asia.

 

[occupied]

If NATO ceased to exist we would have to build it back. It's the only thing stopping Putin from putting the Soviet Union back together by force if necessary. The tanks would roll tomorrow if he could be certain no one would act to stop him.

 

[candycorn]

Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters

Surely the Kremlin watched with no small amount of bitterness last Friday as NATO’s heads of state and government gathered for dinner at Warsaw’s

warontherocks.com

NATO is not now not has it ever been a true defensive organization. From the very get-go it was organized under the guise of defense to proselytize and expand the interests of the European central banks who are diametrically opposed to the steadily growing competition of Euroasian financial dominance. This is why NATO is and continues to be an aggressor in the guise of a peacekeeper. This is why it has been foolish in the extreme for United States to contribute any funds whatsoever to this deceptive agency which is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing and lately not even wearing the sheep's clothing anymore.

Whether you like the Russian federation or not is not the point....the point is NATO is a lying, decirtful agency that fully intends war and destruction upon its Eiroasian banking competitors and will think nothing of spending thousands of American lives and pursuit of their own personal profit.

Jo

You can't be serious...can you?

Wow

 

[Esdraelon]

If NATO ceased to exist we would have to build it back. It's the only thing stopping Putin from putting the Soviet Union back together by force if necessary. The tanks would roll tomorrow if he could be certain no one would act to stop him.

The EU has voluntarily given Putin the ability to cut off the gas on them. They don't seem to believe he's much of a threat. Threat or not, it isn't up to us to save them from their own stupidity. They HATE Americans. Feck 'um.

 

[occupied]

The EU has voluntarily given Putin the ability to cut off the gas on them. They don't seem to believe he's much of a threat. Threat or not, it isn't up to us to save them from their own stupidity. They HATE Americans. Feck 'um.

We always get sucked into European wars. Since there is no avoiding having to fight a war someone else will start we rightly have a say in matters of strategic importance. The US will never claim to be neutral in anything concerning the security of Western Europe. Two world wars taught us the price of isolationism and allowing expansionist powers to go unchallenged.

 

[Decus]

Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters

Surely the Kremlin watched with no small amount of bitterness last Friday as NATO’s heads of state and government gathered for dinner at Warsaw’s

warontherocks.com

NATO is not now not has it ever been a true defensive organization. From the very get-go it was organized under the guise of defense to proselytize and expand the interests of the European central banks who are diametrically opposed to the steadily growing competition of Euroasian financial dominance. This is why NATO is and continues to be an aggressor in the guise of a peacekeeper. This is why it has been foolish in the extreme for United States to contribute any funds whatsoever to this deceptive agency which is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing and lately not even wearing the sheep's clothing anymore.

Whether you like the Russian federation or not is not the point....the point is NATO is a lying, decirtful agency that fully intends war and destruction upon its Eiroasian banking competitors and will think nothing of spending thousands of American lives and pursuit of their own personal profit.

Jo

I have to wonder if you read the article you are citing. According to your article NATO provided security to countries that had been invaded and occupied by Russia during WWII:

"NATO enlargement has provided enormous benefits to a part of Europe historically beset by insecurity owing to its location between Germany and Russia. Countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, and Estonia have thrived since joining NATO, and their success as democratic market-oriented countries firmly entrenched in the alliance and the European Union is a major strategic achievement for all of Europe. Had they been left out of European institutions, they may well have faced the same insecurities and struggles that Ukraine and Georgia face today."


"Yet while NATO enlargement spread security across a region more accustomed to insecurity or unwelcome domination,"...

The was no USSR created by willing member countries. Russia chose the name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ( USSR ) because it sounded better than Russia and the Countries We Invaded and Installed Puppet Governments in to do Our Bidding (RCWIIPGOB). I'm quite sure Stalin paid Ogilvy or some other ad agency to come up with the USSR moniker. A truly great piece of propaganda.

.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

If NATO ceased to exist we would have to build it back. It's the only thing stopping Putin from putting the Soviet Union back together by force if necessary. The tanks would roll tomorrow if he could be certain no one would act to stop him.

Vlad's Nads

Russia has a right to their own Monroe Doctrine, just as we do, though JFK betrayed it at the Bay of Pigs. Don't expect Putin to also be a blowhard Preppy who backs down from a threat close to his homeland.

 

[Notaradical60]

We always get sucked into European wars. Since there is no avoiding having to fight a war someone else will start we rightly have a say in matters of strategic importance. The US will never claim to be neutral in anything concerning the security of Western Europe. Two world wars taught us the price of isolationism and allowing expansionist powers to go unchallenged.

Perhaps if the Nato country's had been paying their fair share for the past 40 years they wouldn't be in a situation where they need outside military assistance. They have seen the Russian Military being rebuilt yet they buy oil and Natural gas from Russia. We should disengage from European affairs and concentrate on building Democracy and prosperity in the western Hemisphere, South America and West Africa would be great places to start except they hate us too. Our political leaders think about their next election cycle speech Xi and Putin preparing for their next move. Biden is no KGB director Putin was !

 

[justoffal]

You can't be serious...can you?

Wow

The USSR is gone.... It's not coming back. I don't like what I see in Russia anymore than you do but it's not our problem.... I think what many people are missing is that there are large numbers of patrons in the satellite countries who would rather be a part of Russia. Crimea is politically more Russian than it is Ukrainian. That's one of the reasons it was so easy for Putin to simply March in... frankly he never left.

I keep hearing from people that without military deterrence Russia would try to rebuild the USSR. I seriously doubt that that's true. First of all they simply cannot afford it. Secondly Putin is a businessman first and foremost. From what I have observed he would much rather form a pact than to take on the responsibility of feeding and protecting millions of people who are not directly associated with the central government.
Asking NATO not to meddle with subversive politics on their borders is the same request that any Nation would have of an interfering agency.

 

[justoffal]

The EU made it perfectly clear that their allegiances these days are those of business interests, many with Moscow. It's on them to deal with Putin. We have more than enough trying to deal with Asia.

Agreed.... I don't see Putin as having any desire at all to tangle with the United States....
If this was strictly about human rights perhaps I would feel differently. But obviously it's more about gaining control of the underpinnings of the regional currency systems. Those underpinnings consist of hydrocarbon treasures and property rights to 70% of the available rare mineral deposits on Earth. Something the central bank systems would gladly sacrifice your children for.

 

[justoffal]

I have to wonder if you read the article you are citing. According to your article NATO provided security to countries that had been invaded and occupied by Russia during WWII:

"NATO enlargement has provided enormous benefits to a part of Europe historically beset by insecurity owing to its location between Germany and Russia. Countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, and Estonia have thrived since joining NATO, and their success as democratic market-oriented countries firmly entrenched in the alliance and the European Union is a major strategic achievement for all of Europe. Had they been left out of European institutions, they may well have faced the same insecurities and struggles that Ukraine and Georgia face today."


"Yet while NATO enlargement spread security across a region more accustomed to insecurity or unwelcome domination,"...

The was no USSR created by willing member countries. Russia chose the name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ( USSR ) because it sounded better than Russia and the Countries We Invaded and Installed Puppet Governments in to do Our Bidding (RCWIIPGOB). I'm quite sure Stalin paid Ogilvy or some other ad agency to come up with the USSR moniker. A truly great piece of propaganda.

.

I understand what NATO did before I'm questioning what they have become and what they are doing now. I also submit to you that NATO has never entered a single nation to protect it without first extracting every kind of heinous promise, agreement and obligatory pay back imaginable in return for that protection. Without the help of the Russians there is a very good chance that we may not have defeated Germany in world war II. Rightfully so the Russians were granted their share of the pie for which they sacrificed some 20 million soldiers. Maybe they tried to take more than they had coming to them... I'm not an expert on that era and I have not delved deeply into the details of that history. However I do know that an agreement was made with the Russians to avoid proselytizing former satellite nations and creating an unstable environment on the Russian borders. From from day one NATO has broken that promise hundreds of times with every year that passes. There is no logical conclusion to reach but that NATO has become a proselytizing political intruder curiously seems to follow the financial interest of the European central banks. I don't think that's an accident. If you remove the financial incentive none of them moves make any real sense. If they didn't intend to keep the promise they should never have made it. I submit to you that Putin would show absolutely no interest whatsoever in the Ukraine unless NATO had been there for the past two decades forming a destabilizing force aimed at unseating Moscow. What is the sense of such a thing? What is to be gained by doing such a thing? This certainly is no gain in it for the Ukraine... But there is an enormous amount of gain in it for the central banks that finance the European petroleum and hydrocarbon treasures. Putin is their direct competitor.

 

[Decus]

I understand what NATO did before I'm questioning what they have become and what they are doing now. I also submit to you that NATO has never entered a single nation to protect it without first extracting every kind of heinous promise, agreement and obligatory pay back imaginable in return for that protection. Without the help of the Russians there is a very good chance that we may not have defeated Germany in world war II. Rightfully so the Russians were granted their share of the pie for which they sacrificed some 20 million soldiers. Maybe they tried to take more than they had coming to them... I'm not an expert on that era and I have not delved deeply into the details of that history. However I do know that an agreement was made with the Russians to avoid proselytizing former satellite nations and creating an unstable environment on the Russian borders. From from day one NATO has broken that promise hundreds of times with every year that passes. There is no logical conclusion to reach but that NATO has become a proselytizing political intruder curiously seems to follow the financial interest of the European central banks. I don't think that's an accident. If you remove the financial incentive none of them moves make any real sense. If they didn't intend to keep the promise they should never have made it. I submit to you that Putin would show absolutely no interest whatsoever in the Ukraine unless NATO had been there for the past two decades forming a destabilizing force aimed at unseating Moscow. What is the sense of such a thing? What is to be gained by doing such a thing? This certainly is no gain in it for the Ukraine... But there is an enormous amount of gain in it for the central banks that finance the European petroleum and hydrocarbon treasures. Putin is their direct competitor.

Are you saying that Russia had a right to forcefully occupy and subjugate sovereign countries????:

"Rightfully so the Russians were granted their share of the pie for which they sacrificed some 20 million soldiers."

Fck Russia. They had no such rights. People behind the "Iron Curtain" lived in misery under Russian occupation.

.