Russia and Ukraine

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

At this point in history, NATO would be better off without the USA. If they have enough spine to boot us, I hope they have enough forgiveness to take us back after we've come to our senses.

The thing is, there's no expulsion clause in NATO's charter, and changing the charter requires, apparently, a unanimous vote.

There’s no de jure expulsion, true, but de facto expulsion would be easy - NATO members in Europe could close US military facilities, tell Trump to take back his nukes, shutter some embassies, and so on.

It’s like having an employee that you can’t fire for cause, so you creatively induce them to quit while thinking it was their idea.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Wouldn't that promise (can't find a formal agreement on that) have been made to the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation?

Because there was no written legally binding agreement that NATO would deny sovereign states the right to seek protection from potential Russian aggression

And why would NATO promise to not expand NATO to states that were at the point of the alleged incidence still part of the Warsaw Pact? Its like Lincoln promising not to emancipate slaves in the CSA in 1860, a time at which the southern states didnt segregate yet.

No this is disinformation, deliberately placed by a russian troll.

[Belacqua]

In Russia, Gorbachev is considered to be a Chamberlain-like figure, who naively accepted false promises in exchange for "peace in our time." 

He was promised that in exchange for the peaceful reunification of Germany, NATO would never expand even one inch to the east. This was promised by Helmut Kohl, James Baker, and Robert Gates. 

However, as soon as the next President got into office the promise was broken. 

So the Russians have learned that the US doesn't keep its promises.

Wouldn't that promise (can't find a formal agreement on that) have been made to the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation?

Yes, that's a good point.

But since it was a promise made concerning the break-up of the USSR, Gorbachev clearly expected it to last. It was kind of a deal: you give up your claim to these former territories, and we'll keep our military alliance out.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes, that's a good point.

But since it was a promise made concerning the break-up of the USSR, Gorbachev clearly expected it to last. It was kind of a deal: you give up your claim to these former territories, and we'll keep our military alliance out.

There was no written legally binding agreement  that NATO would deny sovereign states the right to seek protection from potential Russian aggression in ex Soviet territories that they took through conquest and bound through extortion .

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Wouldn't that promise (can't find a formal agreement on that) have been made to the Soviet Union, not the Russian Federation?

Yes, that's a good point.

But since it was a promise made concerning the break-up of the USSR, Gorbachev clearly expected it to last. It was kind of a deal: you give up your claim to these former territories, and we'll keep our military alliance out.

Two things: 

First, it’s not a ‘good point’. Under international law, the Russian Federation is the legal successor to the USSR. The means all treaties signed by the Soviet Union are binding on the RF.

Second, both Baker and Kohl called it ‘a talking point’. It doesn’t appear in any treaty. Kohl said he discussed the ‘no eastward expansion’ with Gorbachev, but explicitly told him that he couldn’t speak for NATO as a whole. In short, there was no promise, binding or otherwise.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

The thing is, there's no expulsion clause in NATO's charter, and changing the charter requires, apparently, a unanimous vote.

There’s no de jure expulsion, true, but de facto expulsion would be easy - NATO members in Europe could close US military facilities, tell Trump to take back his nukes, shutter some embassies, and so on.

It’s like having an employee that you can’t fire for cause, so you creatively induce them to quit while thinking it was their idea.

Boru

... or they could give one year's quitting notice, and then reform without inviting America -- or Turkey or Bulgaria, for that matter.

And yes, denying basing rights would cut that year mighty short. I wouldn't blame them

[Belacqua]

The people of Ukraine voted for Yanukovych, who promised neutrality between NATO and Russia. But he was expelled by a violent putsch and replaced by a NATO-sponsored guy, even though everybody knew this was serious provocation.

Trump said throughout the recent campaign that he would end the Ukraine war within 24 hours, but now he's found a way to keep it going.

The people always want peace, and the politicians always find a way to make war.

[The Grand Nudger]

The only politician looking for a way to make war here is your boy Vlad. He could leave at any moment of any day and the war would be over. In fact it won't be over, no matter who signs what, until he does.

[Fireball]

The only politician looking for a way to make war here is your boy Vlad.  He could leave at any moment of any day and the war would be over.  In fact it won't be over, no matter who signs what, until he does.

I wonder how many hearts and minds Bel has convinced? I've always had a metric for my performance, a paycheck. If Putin and co are paying him, he'd best get out of the business before his sushi turns up with polonium in it.

[arewethereyet]

^Bel is the resident troll. So far in the years I have been here, I have seen nothing worth the eyestrain from him. But, as an admin I have to review his blathering.