Ukraine

Let's Have Some Honesty and Realism at the NATO Conference

Don't hold your breath

|

Don't hold your breath, but it would be refreshing if NATO leaders meeting in Wales this week spoke candidly for once about Ukraine.

They could start by embracing this observation by John Mearsheimer, the distinguished foreign-policy scholar at the University of Chicago:

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe.…

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit and integrate it into the West.

This will startle most people who rely on major media outlets for their news and analysis. But Mearsheimer is no fringe character or fan of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He's a member of the "realist" school of foreign policy, which assumes that governments tend to act rationally in their political self-interest.

As Mearsheimer points out, Russia was provoked, (as many had warned, for nearly 20 years, that it would be). After the demise of the Soviet empire and Warsaw Pact, the Russian leadership did not object to NATO's continued existence, he writes. In fact, the Russians counted on NATO to restrain Germany. But they "did not want NATO to grow any larger and assumed that Western diplomats understood their concerns. The Clinton administration evidently thought otherwise, and in the mid-1990s, it began pushing for NATO to expand."

Thanks to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, NATO moved east to Russia's border, incorporating the Warsaw Pact and Baltic states. Especially provocative has been the open talk of admitting border states Georgia and Ukraine, both former Soviet republics. Ukraine was the invasion route into Russia three times in the past and has long hosted a major Russian naval base in Crimea.

When Ukraine and Georgia came close to joining NATO in 2008 (postponed when France and Germany feared it would provoke Russia), Putin warned that their membership would be a "direct threat." His brief war against Georgia that year, after Georgian forces attacked a separatist region on Russia's border, presaged what was to come.

Meanwhile, American neoconservatives spoke of Ukraine as "the biggest prize," in the words of Carl Gershman, head of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which receives a lot of U.S. taxpayer money to meddle in other countries' elections. After the Soviet empire fell, Ukraine had governments friendly to the West, but in 2010, Viktor Yanukovych, who did not view Russia as an adversary, was elected president. Mearsheimer writes that "the NED decided he was undermining its goals, and so it stepped up its efforts to support the opposition."

When Yanukovych balked at an economic offer from the European Union in favor of a deal with Russia, antigovernment demonstrations, encouraged by U.S. officials who wanted regime change, took place in Kiev, and pressure ratcheted up until Yanukovych fled the country.

"For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president — which he rightly labeled a 'coup' — was the final straw," writes Mearsheimer. "He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West."

Mearsheimer notes that the "new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four high-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neofascists."

Under these circumstances, Putin has acted as any Russian ruler would be expected to act with his country encroached on from the west: "His response to events there has been defensive, not offensive."

"This is Geopolitics 101," Mearsheimer continues. "Great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders."

Yet another manufactured crisis — costing over 2,000 lives. It could be brought to a speedy end if Barack Obama would give the word.

This article originally appeared at the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Advertisement

NEXT: Police Keep Killing Mentally Ill Teens, Too

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

      1. Hardly anything here makes me LOL, but this did. Sorry, Joan (she was a member of my beach club, BTW), but I bet she’d’ve cracked up too.

  1. This article takes Top Prize in the Putin Apologia category.

    “the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis,” Russia attacks neighbor and tears off chunks of territory, US to blame!

    Sheldon has been one upping himself lately. I am not sure how he can go much further without hoisting a Russian flag and belching the Russian National Anthem on YouTube.

    1. Sheldon is just a lefty who thinks anyone who opposes the US can’t be all bad and must be right when doing so.

    2. Oh, come on. That’s harsh.

      He spent 3 whole paragraphs without Blaming America First. That’s got to be a record for Richman.

      “Russia was provoked”

      Yes, how evil and “provoking” it is of the Ukrainians to try to get out from under the boot of imperial Russia, and how Double Plus Evil of the US to try to help.

      Oh, yay, now he’s going full Huffington Post “who could legitimately be labeled neofascists”. Facists! Facists! The Brown Scare! A Facist in every pot!

      Are they racist, sexist, homophobes too? Do they want to push Grandma off a cliff?

      “His response to events there has been defensive, not offensive.”

      The KGB thug is “defending” himself from his evil neighbors who want to be free from him. Those who seek to be free from totalitarians are “aggressors” against the totalitarians.

      Seriously, what is a guy who condemns as aggressors people who want to be free from imperial statists doing on Reason? Who hired this Huffington Post wannabe?

  2. They could start by embracing this observation by John Mearsheimer, the distinguished foreign-policy scholar at the University of Chicago: and rabid Anti-Semite

    Fixed it for you. Do you have any foreign policy advice from Von Ribbentrop?

    More importantly, isn’t it possible that the West was provoked by 40 years of Russian occupation and enslavement of Eastern Europe into moving into Eastern Europe to ensure that didn’t happen again?

    We have done lots of things to provoke Russia, namely making war on Serbia. But trying to ensure they couldn’t enslave Eastern Europe again is not one of those things.

    1. Of course NATO expansion that close to their borders provoked them. How did we react about Cuba?

      This isn’t to say it couldn’t still be the right thing to do, but of course it provoked them.

      1. How many nukes did the west move into Eastern Europe?

        1. I’m not necessarily talking about nukes, but I could say Turkey, right?

          1. Um. That was in 1950. There has been no nukes moved to Turkey as of late.

              1. Okay, but that has nothing to do with Russia’s belligerence in Ukraine.

              2. Really the best you can claim is the threat of modernization of the B61. There are significantly fewer US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe than 20 years ago. Fewer weapons generally mean less threat, no?

                I also don’t consider B61’s deployed 30-40 years ago to be particularly new, do you? And left quietly unspoken from the Cuban Missile Crisis (aside from Kennedy’s stupidity in starting it) is that the US removed it’s Jupiter missiles from Turkey.

                1. Ugh. Its.

      2. Maybe it did. But that doesn’t change the fact that they provoked us.

        1. I would think they were more provoked given the action was occurring near them. I mean, look at how we reacted when it seemed they were getting footholds in South America.

          I’m not arguing moral equivalence, since NATO was not like the totalitarian Warsaw Pact, just the realistic recognition that NATO expansion so close to their borders would ‘freak them out’ more than their overrunning Eastern European nations half a world away from us.

          1. Perhaps Russia should stop freaking out its neighbors. Then they would not seek the NATO shield.

      3. Apparently Ukrainians didn’t get the memo that it is Double Plus Evil to “provoke” Statist thugs with their desire for freedom from them.

    2. He’s just carrying on from Murray Rothbard.

    3. the West was provoked by 40 years of Russian occupation and enslavement of Eastern Europe

      Meanwhile, over those 40 years, western Europe was taken over and enslaved by rabid socialists.

      Why the fuck should we care if the east falls in with them or the Russians?

      1. “Why the fuck should we care if the east falls in with them”

        We don’t care and said so loud and clear at Yalta.

  3. I don’t know about NATO concern, but as to libertarians, the question is how much worse it is to be part of Russia than it is to be part of Ukraine. ISIS: beheadings. Russia: no beheadings. Ukraine: also no beheadings.

    1. That reminds me?who can be a bigger help against ISIS: Ukraine or Russia? Or is the amount of help either would be likely to give too little to matter?

    2. Ukraine: also no beheadings.

      The Ukraine has been bombing the shit out of towns controlled by rebels and taking no precautions against killing Ukrainian civilians.

      1. But at least they think there are rebels in those towns. It’s not like they’re seeking out innocent people to behead.

        1. There is a pretty good argument that western Journalists are the enemy of ISIS.

          Though, considering the two journalists were both death-wishing adrenaline junkies who served no real purpose in regards to actually reporting news I think the title of “Voluntary Sacrifice” would be more apt.

  4. Ok, Richman, let’s make a deal. Ukraine doesn’t become a member of NATO, instead, we provide them with nukes to replace the ones they gave up in exchange for assurances they’d be left alone.

    1. That would take a lot of the fun out of being local bad boy. That is for sure.

      Fuck it, just arm the shit out of them and let Putin go broke trying to conquer the place. The Russian Army still sucks.

      1. “The Russian Army still sucks.”

        Well maybe, but the Ukrainian Army might well be worse. And Russia is a whole lot bigger. As long as the Russians aren’t bothered by civilian casualties then Putin’s comment about taking Kiev in two weeks isn’t too big a stretch. Personally, I’m doubtful the Russian Army could take the city within two weeks, but I’d bet even money they could be on Kiev’s doorstep.

        1. The Russian Army has mass. And the Ukrainian Army sucks too. But perhaps a batch of NATO supplied weapons might change that.

          1. A sucky military is NOT bolstered by better toys.

            You need better training and something to believe in. I’d conquer a small city with a 30/30 if I had enough ammo and were angry enough…

        2. Russia’s army could not sustain the guerrilla war they’d likely endure in Ukraine. Further, Russia’s economy just can’t do this. Bond yields are above 9% and rising last I heard.

          1. Guerrilla wars only hurt a superior force if they play by the rules, and their opponent doesn’t. If both sides throw out the rulebook, the one with the ability to inflict the most damage wins.

    2. As libertarians, shouldn’t we know better than to use “we” when referring to the actions of the government? “we” don’thave any nukes to give. The US Gov’t could give them nukes, but why? It’s not in the US’s interest to do that. Russia didn’t attack us, and isn’t an imminent threat to do so. how about the US Gov’t let Ukraine and maybe its European neighbors worry about.

      If “we” have individual reasons/motivations to oppose what Russia is doing, then those of us who feel strongly enough about it are free to send money or emigrate to Ukraine to join in the fight. I fail to see how those people should be allowed to force the rest of the citizens of the US to pay for/participate in this against their will.

      1. I don’t disagree with “we shouldn’t get further involved”.

        All I’m saying is the biggest criticism to be directed at the US government isn’t for letting former soviet satellites join NATO, but rather for helping make them defenseless and need to join NATO in the first place.

        It’s too late to fix it, it’s not too late for learning the right lessons from what’s happening.

      2. And in the Cold War, the US should have snuggled up by the fire and waited until Soviet tanks were rolling across the plans of Nebraska to oppose communist totalitarianism. If the Soviets took over the world, that couldn’t be a problem for us, now could it?

        “Peace in Our Time”. That always works out so well.

        I do love the suggestion of letting private Americans go to war against Russia. Maybe launch a few nukes from Kansas.

        This kind of nitwittery is why most Americans won’t allow Libertarisns to have nice things, like any say in how the government is run.

    3. Ha ha ha.

      Assurances from Putin? Who can say with a straight face that “we *trusted* Vlad, and he betrayed us!”.

    4. “to replace the ones they gave up in exchange for assurances they’d be left alone.”

      Left alone to shell Ukranian cities and blast civilian aircraft out of the sky? Are you equally supportive of Obama’s policy of promoting Sunni Islamism in the Middle East?

  5. Why in the world would we get involved in this mess by entering into an alliance with Ukraine right now? They need us but we don’t need them at all. What would we gain from it?

    1. Avoiding having to fight Russia when Putin decides to take the next piece of territory he wants.

      I’m not saying that’s necessarily a convincing reason. However, this is one of the cases where the slippery slope argument has a lot going for it.

      1. Not. Our. Problem.

      2. Avoiding having to fight Russia when Putin decides to take the next piece of territory he wants.

        Why can’t the next territory defend itself?

        Russia’s army is not all that great. Why the fuck doesn’t Europe have an army to counter it?

        Why would the US be involved at all? Why should we pay for their wars? it is not as if they are going to be paying for our national health care or pregnancy leave or all the other juicy entitlements that they lavish on their socialist utopia in lieu of paying for their own defense.

        1. “Why the fuck doesn’t Europe have an army to counter it?”

          Maybe Europeans know something that you, Obama, CNN and the rest of the bourgeois media don’t.

          “Why would the US be involved at all?”

          Maybe your elected representative knows. You could always try asking him or her.

    2. Wow, of all the people to bring up a similar consider’n from me, I wouldn’t’ve guessed Cara Mia.

    3. Absolutely nothing. Of course, the idea of focusing foreign policy on actual national interest has fallen out of favor these days.

      1. Agreed. I said the other day that the concept of ‘national interest’ has been stretched wider than that of ‘interstate commerce.’

        1. That is an excellent analogy, Bo.

  6. I don’t agree with the “blame America” tenor, but I can appreciate the sentiment that if we minded our own business, we’d have a lot less beef with other countries around the world.

    1. Aw come on! If you go around poking people in the chest, and someone punches you in the face, they would have done it anyway! Not only that, but you would be totally justified in killing them! John said so!

      1. Maybe you should go poke John in the chest for a while.

  7. It’s a Richman article so there’s no need to read it. I just lol’d that Richman of all people would be talking about ‘being reasonable’ and then immediately blames ‘The West’ for Russia’s thuggishness like the asinine moron he is. Why does Reason employ this tard?

    1. That is a good question. The Russians occupying and enslaving half of Europe and holding the rest under the shadow of nuclear war for 40 years was totally okay. NATO allowing the formerly enslaved Eastern Europe to align themselves with the West was “provoking” poor Russia.

      What exactly I wonder does Sheldon and Von Mersheimer think NATO should have done when Poland and Eastern Europe asked to join NATO? Told them to fuck off their duty in life was to live with a Russian boot on their face?

      1. Well, this same reasoning can be applied to almost any crisis in the world.

        The author’s point was that this was a predictable response from Russia if the US ever bothered to understand them.

        1. So what? That doesn’t make it hte wrong thing to do. By the Richman’s logic we should allow Russia to do whatever it wants because standing up to them might “provoke them”

          More importantly, provoke implies it caused them to do something they wouldn’t have done otherwise. The Russians are not invading the Ukraine because NATO let Poland in. They are invading the Ukraine because they are assholes and want the Russian population there back. You can’t provoke someone into doing something they were planning to do anyway.

          1. Is there any proof they were planning to do this before the Ukraine president was tossed out?

            1. Doesn’t matter if there is. IF they hadn’t planned it, that just means they acted when they saw an opportunity.

              1. Doesn’t matter? But you just said…

            2. Putin has clearly been planning this for years.

          2. I’m guessing his argument is closer to saying not that we should let Russia do whatever it wants, but that we should not do things in Russia’s backyard.

            I guess you are arguing that we should do these things for the sake of justice or something, knowing full well that it tends to threaten the powers in the region?

        2. You don’t understand. It is impossible to look at this from Russia’s point of view without placing all of the blame on the West. Impossible.

          Same thing in the Middle East. If you look at it from their point of view and entertain the notion that maybe they were pissed off about our meddling in their affairs, then 9/11 is America’s fault.

          You either support the USA, or you are blaming the USA for everything.

          There is no in between, and no looking at things from another point of view without hating America.

          1. I tend to dislike our government, does that count?

          2. I absolutely see Russia’s point of view. And we have done needlessly stupid things to provoke them. But letting Poland and acting to ensure they couldn’t enslave Eastern Europe again wasn’t one of t hem. And even if it was, that doesn’t make us doing it wrong. If doing anything to provoke them is wrong, then standing up to them at all over any reason is also wrong, because I am pretty sure standing up to them is also provoking them.

            1. Well, it is “wrong” to them. And for our government to be caught off guard to their reaction just shows you the pikers we have running the ship.

              And now we’re left with a half arsed response of sanctions. They know darn well we won’t commit militarily, so once again what is the point?

            2. ” we have done needlessly stupid things to provoke them”

              wrong word.

              US policy didn’t ‘provoke’ russia. it provided them with the opportunity to act unilaterally while keeping us frozen by our own initial posture.

              “provoke” implies we’re spoiling for a fight, or acting aggressively. This is ridiculous, and one of the reasons I lambast people who accuse our ‘diplomatic meddling’ as being somehow a ’cause’ of the affair. (as opposed to Russian meddling that’s been ongoing forever)

              We helped create the conditions that allowed russia to act unimpeded. This does not mean we “provoked” them.

              it may seem a niggling difference, but it isn’t.

          3. It’s cute that you even think you or Sheldon can see it from ‘Russia’s point of view’ as if such a thing even exists.

          4. Why do you hate Murica, sarcasmic?

      2. ‘”the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis,” largely because of NATO enlargement’

        Shield rattling is bound to annoy a wannabee conqueror.

      3. What exactly I wonder does Sheldon and Von Mersheimer think NATO should have done when Poland and Eastern Europe asked to join NATO?

        NATO should have been dissolved and Eastern Europe should raise their own defenses.

        1. We should turn all those nasty swords into plowshares, because weapons make me feel icky, and nothing bad ever happens when good men do nothing.

  8. “antigovernment demonstrations, encouraged by U.S. officials”

    Look at all these Puppets of American Manipulation?!

    and the gloss of ‘Yanukovych’s democratic-election’… yes, that’s cute as well.

    Its really fascinating to see people like Richman defend totalitarian scumbags like Yunukovitch and throw millions of Ukrainians under the bus in a quest to retain his moralistic ‘non-interventiony’ high-ground.

    We can agree that NATO bears significant blame in this affair. We can agree that the West has largely mishandled Russia. This does not require this kind of bullshit moral equivocation or idiotic statements pretending “obmama” is the final arbiter of any end-state in the region, or providing cover for repressive, anti-democratic regimes.

    1. Remember, noninterventionism is a religious belief. It has a Great Satan, and that’s America. It must be responsible for all evil.

    2. “to see people like Richman defend totalitarian scumbags”

      Where is Richman defending Yunukovitch? His point is to show the NATO provocations, and you say you agree with the point.

  9. Why care about the Ukraine when people don’t even care about other people living only a block or so away?

    1. It’s not necessarily true that we do care about the Ukraine, but we certainly do care about allowing a nuclear-armed kleptocracy with a history of aggression to take over it’s neighbors.

  10. Good luck to the leaders of the west in ever suckering another country into voluntarily giving up its nuclear weapons again.

    Might as well take the NPT, tear it up, and use it as toilet paper for what it’s now worth.

    1. And that is one of the positive outcomes of this war.

    2. Good. It was a foolish endeavor in the first place, because the only countries willing to go along with it are also the least likely to be a threat.

      The parallels to gun-confiscation efforts are apt.

      1. Care to name a signatory to the NPT that developed itself a nuclear arsenal?

  11. Sorry, I just can’t past the idea that when Russia invades one of its neighbors, its our fault.

    Aside from the usual narcissism of believing that nothing happens in the world unless we make it happen,

    Does anyone seriously believe that Putin wouldn’t have done this regardless?

    1. In some alternate history, Yanukovych puts down the rebellion violently, then Ukraine becomes a soviet satellite, and hence, no need for Putin to deploy troops.

      I imagine that if all you care about is visible aggression between countries, then this is the “good” outcome.

    2. A minority of Ukrainians would not have rebelled against the government they elected if they knew NATO and the EU was not right next door encouraging and offering aid to them.

      1. You know this because you’re so deeply in touch with the motivations of millions of ukranians

        Who’ve been protesting the corruption and manipulation by russian cronies since at lest 2004.

        but yeah, they totally only went out into the streets and got shot at because like, NATO or something. sure.

        “Liberty for me! the rest can go suck it”

        1. Who’ve been protesting the corruption and manipulation by Russian cronies since at lest 2004.

          You mean protesting greater integration with the EU.

          You know this because you’re so deeply in touch with the motivations of millions of Ukranians

          They had elections.

          “Liberty for me! the rest can go suck it”

          I don’t feel much liberty in the US right now. I know I should get upset about what is happening in a civil conflict on the other side of the world and just ignore the tyrants in my own government. Let the money and blood flow into international organizations as they start a new war to liberate someone or something or whatever. It works for the People of Iran so it should work for me right?

          1. Bullshit.

            i’m not asking you to “get upset”, and i’m not advocating you endorse any fucking policy at all = i’m asking you stop trying to invent a bullshit interpretation of reality (i.e. ‘the protests were simply mechanizations of the West!’) so that your personal policy preferences feel more *cozy*.

            I see this constantly.

            You want to be passionate about your ‘foreign policy principles’ – go for it. But don’t fucking reinterpret reality so that it your preconception seems more ‘logical’ as opposed to dogmatic.

            Claiming that the ‘orange revolutions’ were about Western Meddling (and weren’t really genuinely ‘popular’) has to rank up there with one of the most dumbfuck claims i’ve ever heard. and that’s in the context of a Richman columb.

            1. An official from the US State department said that the US had spent $US 5 billion on democracy promotion in Ukraine.

      2. Also


        “Corning|9.4.14 @ 4:42PM|#

        A minority of Ukrainians would not have rebelled against the government they elected…”

        the ‘minority’ (who strangely seemed to dwarf the #s of any government supporters whenever given the chance?)…*they elected Yanukovych*? THEN protested him?

        *re: ‘minority’ – there’s plenty of indication that regardless of election results, the majority believed economic integration was a political priority, and were betrayed by Yanukovych’s signing of an exclusive deal with Russia – one done ‘under the gun’ of punitive action.

        weird how a ‘minority’ managed to take over the country without any resort to significant force, and how the ostensible ‘majority’ you insinuate elected Yanukovych and supported Russian-exclusive-economic ties are now waging an unpopular armed campaign exclusively in isolated parts of the East.

        You’re think if the pro-Russian cause were so ‘popular’, they wouldn’t need Russia fighting for them.

        please, be as anti-intervention as you want – but you don’t need to sell people a propaganda-littered-POV in order to validate your insouciance.

    3. It’s *always* our fault. The desire for freedom is Double Plus Evil.

  12. This kind of articles discourage me from further reading reason. They are directed to the famous hippies of the right, who think the US is an evil country. This people almost always have lived their whole life in the US and don’t know anything else.
    Where can I find a libertarian magazine who doesn’t endorse anti americanism?

    1. Since the owners of this site made all their initial money from the Russians (the Kochs built their infrastructure), you are not likely to hear bad things from their many publications…..

      Also, the Kochs asking for “honesty and realism” when they spend billions on Dark Money and Astroturf efforts – that’s a new low! But, among these “libertarians”, the end is always worth the means. They’ll be “honest” when they gain complete power – trust them!

      1. I’m not sure even the Koch brothers would call themselves libertarian. They’re just the Koch bros doing they thang.

        “Dark” money? Don’t say that.

        And I’ve read plenty of articles critical of Russia, but they’re not the level of the one-sided hysteria you might find at less-level-headed media outlets.

        1. ** should have been “I’ve read plenty of articles critical of Russia/Putin on Reason, “

      2. Do the Kochs hide under your bed and in your closet too? Your obsession with bogeymen is amusing for someone claiming to be educated…

        1. “bogeymen”???

          So are you claiming the Koch’s haven’t been involved DEEPLY with everything from private confabs for SCOTUS members, the formation of the John Birch Society, the creation and financing of multitudes of astroturf groups (AFP, etc.), the financing and founding of Reason, Cato, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ????

          They must have a legion of office managers just keeping track of all the various institutions they create and propagate.

          They found out something a long time ago. Money can buy just about anyone….or at least enough people, especially pols, lawyers, consultants, etc….to start a “movement”.

          1. craiginmass. I bet you prefer the extra thick aluminum foil to keep out those Koch brother mind control rays.

          2. Christ you truly are a paranoid nutter.

  13. NATO was formed in 1949 to forstall an attack on Western Europe by the Soviet Union. In 1991 the USSR collapsed on passed out of existence. Shouldn’t logic dictate that the NATO treaty was and is null and void? It accomplished its mission, it outlasted the USSR! But no, it started to expand its mission beyond the original intent of the treaty,i.e. the Balkans,Afghanistan,Africa the Middle East. All the while it was pushing into Eastern Europe and some former Soviet Republics when the first Bush administration gave the Russians a tacit agreement that it wouldn’t do so. No wonder they were pissed! There’s no plugging in so called “Russian imperialism” for Soviet expansionism without negotiating a new treaty,but the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” states: That an organizations mission is secondary to the continued existence of the organization. it’s time to do away with NATO as a relic of the cold war.

    1. The cold war never actually ended; it just went on an extended vacation while it’s house was remodeled.

    2. NATO is now basically the global policeman, which means it should be renamed.

      1. They’re more like a global referee at a global hockey match, trying to keep the fight on the ice from spilling over into the stands and hurting the spectators.

  14. Vote Libertarian! We hate cops and we love Vlad Putin!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.