Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Some of the Russian soldiers killed while on vacation [View all]reorg
(3,317 posts)20. feel free to cite another former NATO General of his rank, experience and expertise
and what does he actually say in the article you linked?
Up until now, NATO-Russia relations have been based on the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, which is largely seen as prohibiting the permanent stationing of larger NATO contingents in its eastern member states. Is it time to rework or cancel the act?
The passage you're referring to is a unilateral NATO declaration. It says that NATO doesn't plan any major stationing of troops. It's a unilateral statement! So of course, you can revoke that anytime you want to, but I think doing so would be a big mistake. The value of the strategic partnership between NATO and Russia is much greater than the value you could achieve by stationing troops in the Baltic. That would be an escalation or worsening of the relationship.
No, it's about improving cooperation between NATO and Russia, it's about being prepared to solve conflicts and crises. The scope of possibilities we have at our fingertips today is actually unique in the post-Cold War era. It would be a pity if that were destroyed.
This strategic partnership has of course been rocked by Russia's course of action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Both NATO's secretary general and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe say that Russia is no longer a partner but a threat, an opponent. Do you share this assessment?
No, not at all. These are statements that don't contribute to de-escalating the situation, instead they escalate it.
The passage you're referring to is a unilateral NATO declaration. It says that NATO doesn't plan any major stationing of troops. It's a unilateral statement! So of course, you can revoke that anytime you want to, but I think doing so would be a big mistake. The value of the strategic partnership between NATO and Russia is much greater than the value you could achieve by stationing troops in the Baltic. That would be an escalation or worsening of the relationship.
No, it's about improving cooperation between NATO and Russia, it's about being prepared to solve conflicts and crises. The scope of possibilities we have at our fingertips today is actually unique in the post-Cold War era. It would be a pity if that were destroyed.
This strategic partnership has of course been rocked by Russia's course of action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Both NATO's secretary general and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe say that Russia is no longer a partner but a threat, an opponent. Do you share this assessment?
No, not at all. These are statements that don't contribute to de-escalating the situation, instead they escalate it.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
48 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
In Putin's sneaky war.. "Their bodies have been returned in recent weeks to loved ones who in many
Cha
Sep 2014
#2
The fact that there are some people who refuse to acknowledge what Russia is doing in Ukraine
mythology
Sep 2014
#7
I had failed to account for context in the earlier post and apologise unreservedly.
dipsydoodle
Sep 2014
#8
"Nobody, even Russian officials, has ever denied that a number of Russian volunteers is fighting and
pampango
Sep 2014
#15
Which is what Amnesty International did. And we are not 'forced' to agree with a former general's
pampango
Sep 2014
#18
feel free to cite another former NATO General of his rank, experience and expertise
reorg
Sep 2014
#20
Again, you are free to believe the opinion of a former general over that of Amnesty International.
pampango
Sep 2014
#22
Once again, we Jews are touched by this sudden concern about antisemitism in eastern europe.
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#38
No. As long as they are fighting Russians and traitors in a time of desperate need. I would say let
stevenleser
Sep 2014
#43
It would appear that your appreciation of "Russians" is similar to, uh, never mind n/t
reorg
Sep 2014
#44
Red herring aside, it was the pro-Russian seperatists who chose to seize government buildings.....
Tommy_Carcetti
Sep 2014
#41