Severnoatlantski savez

Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:Mene živo zanima kako izgledaju pregovori a kako poštovanje potpisanog bilo kog bilateralnog sporazuma Bugara i Turaka. Ko prvi tu potegne nož u ledja?  Istoričari, gde ste?

...
What after all does NATO membership mean, if not a commitment to fight to defend other members?

This however has been the disastrous hypocrisy of NATO policy and rhetoric since the George W. Bush administration (with enthusiastic support from Britain, Poland, and the NATO Secretariat) first demanded an immediate NATO Membership Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia before the Bucharest summit in April 2008. This was despite repeated warnings by diplomats and experts (including then U.S. Ambassador to Moscow and now CIA Director William Burns) that this was very likely to lead to conflict with Russia.

At that time, I pointed out repeatedly to U.S. and British officials that Russian peacekeepers were protecting the separatist Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which nationalist Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had vowed to recover at all costs. This meant that NATO membership with Georgia would involve NATO directly in something that it had always made a principle not to embroil itself with, local territorial disputes.

Moreover, if Georgia used NATO membership as a cover to try to recover these territories by force, NATO would be faced with a choice of standing aside and watching as a NATO member was crushed, or intervening on Georgia’s side. That would have led to war with Russia, which might escalate towards nuclear war—over the issue of who had sovereignty over North Ossetia. Seriously?

At a meeting of British officers and diplomats to discuss the U.K.’s new National Security Strategy in the spring of 2008, I asked the audience about these prospects, and what Britain should do in this event. The response was rather remarkable. They looked at the floor. They looked at the ceiling. They looked out of the window. They didn’t look at me, and above all they didn’t look at each other. The silence dragged on and on. Eventually, the chairman coughed and changed the subject.

One reason for this (on top of the blind commitment of the British security establishment to subordinate alliance with the United States at whatever cost to Britain) was summed up for me a few years later by an officer who had served in the NATO Secretariat in 2007-2008. I asked him what contingency plan NATO had drawn up for the possibility of a war between Russia and Georgia. He replied that not merely had there not been one, there had been no proposal or discussion of such a plan. I asked him how this could possibly be, given the obvious risk of war.

He replied that it was very simple. NATO expansion had always been sold to Western parliaments and publics on the premise that this would involve no additional sacrifices or dangers. Therefore, if any member of the NATO staff had raised the possibility of such sacrifices and dangers, they would in effect have declared themselves opponents of NATO membership for Georgia, after the United States and the NATO Secretary General had declared themselves in favor, “and you would have been sent back to your own national defense ministry with a big black mark against your name, and your career would have been ruined.”

I remarked that this was a very strange way to run what is supposed to be a military alliance. “Yes indeed,” he replied. In August 2008, Georgia did attack South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeepers there, Russia responded with overwhelming force, and the United States and NATO stood aside.
...

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-summit-vilnius-2023

That would have led to war with Russia, which might escalate towards nuclear war—over the issue of who had sovereignty over North Ossetia. Seriously?

Filipenko wrote:

That would have led to war with Russia, which might escalate towards nuclear war—over the issue of who had sovereignty over North Ossetia. Seriously?

Valjda South Ossetia, osim ako nije Frojdovska omaska. Severna Osetija-Alanija je ravnopravna i ugledna clanica mocne i prostrane zajednice zadovoljnih naroda zvane Ruska Federacija.

Ali ne znam sta se cudi, moderan demokratski standard je civilna kontrola vojske, sto znaci da ce se istom upravljati u skladu sa zeljama trenutne politicke kaste. Mislio sam da pitam da li autor ima neke veze sa mnogopostovanim Dominikom Livenom, ali ocito su veze, ako uopste postoje, vrlo daleke i povrsinske.

Američki državni sekretar Antony Blinken je rekao da bi šef grupe Wagner, Jevgenij Prigožin, trebao biti zabrinut za svoju sigurnost, ako se uzme u obzir historiju misterioznih smrti onih koji su kritizirali Kremlj.

“Da sam na mjestu Prigožina, bio bih jako zabrinut. NATO ima politiku otvorenih vrata, Rusija ima politiku otvorenih prozora. Treba jako paziti na to”, kazao je danas Blinken tokom posjeta forumu u Coloradu, a prenosi CNN.

fikret selimbašić wrote:Orban će da blokira i oteže ako Turdi ratifikuju

Filipenko wrote:

fikret selimbašić wrote:Orban će da blokira i oteže ako Turdi ratifikuju

Улични ходач wrote:Ко би рекао да ће моћни Ердоган да то направи. Иначе брат рођени по начину владавиње са Вучићем. Курчи се пред конотлрисаном јавношћу а суштински све предаје. Уништио је земљу изнутра, млади Турци су постали једни од најбројних на мигрантском путу ка Немачкој.