XPost: nl.politiek, aus.politics, alt.france
“Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign
Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong
opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as
a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some
claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally.
During his annual review of Russia's foreign policy January 22-23 (ref B), Foreign Minister Lavrov stressed that Russia had to view continued eastward expansion of NATO, particularly to Ukraine and Georgia, as a potential
military threat. While Russia might believe statements from the West that
NATO was not directed against Russia, when one looked at recent military activities in NATO countries (establishment of U.S. forward operating locations, etc. they had to be evaluated not by stated intentions but by potential. Lavrov stressed that maintaining Russia's "sphere of influence"
in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe had "legitimate interests" in the region. But, he argued, while countries were free to make their own decisions about their security and
which political-military structures to join, they needed to keep in mind
the impact on
their neighbors.
3. (U) Lavrov emphasized that Russia was convinced that enlargement was
not based on security reasons, but was a legacy of the Cold War. He
disputed arguments that NATO was an appropriate mechanism for helping to strengthen democratic governments. He said that Russia understood that
NATO was in search of a new mission, but there was a growing tendency for
new members to do and say whatever they wanted simply because they were
under the NATO umbrella (e.g. attempts of some new member countries to
"rewrite history and glorify *fascists*").” WIKILEAKS DOCUMENT OF 1
FEBRUARY 2008 ON SUBJECT “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES”
<
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html>
dolf <
dolfboek@hotmail.com> wrote:
“Russia was strongly opposed to NATO membership for Ukraine and continued to believe that it would be destabilizing for Ukraine and the region.
MFA Counselor for NATO issues Gregoriy Sumki said that Ukrainian NATO membership would "drastically affect" Russian-Ukrainian relations in all spheres, including political, economic, and military-industrial (military assistance and arms production agreements).” WIKILEAKS DOCUMENT OF 18 JANUARY 2008 ON SUBJECT “RUSSIAN OPPOSITION TO UKRAINIAN NATO MAP UNCHANGED”
<https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW147_a.html>
dolf <dolfboek@gmail.com> wrote:
Non NATO participation and no EU membership was a political doctrine of
the AZOV so even if there is a peaceful outcome to the Russian
aggression to the detriment of the Ukrainian President there is no
guarantee that such is a resolution to their problems which could give
rise to a nationalistic renewal.
How else will they be able to rebuild their nation?
The National Corps party also advocated expanding the *RIGHT* *TO*
*BEAR* *ARMS* and initiate public discussion about restoring *CAPITAL*
*PUNISHMENT* *IN* *UKRAINE* *FOR* *TREASON* which we've seen recently
enacted by the execution of Ukrainian official Denis Kireev for being a
spy and who was present at the first Belarus peace meeting.
So there are several policies of the National Corps (AZOV) party which
the Ukrainian President has adopted but non NATO participation and no EU
membership is not presently one of them.
Furthermore, if non NATO participation and no EU membership was a
political doctrine of the AZOV then Putin could not be concerned with
denazification as a justification for a military incursion.
Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the Kremlin was not telling the
truth.
dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> wrote:
It’s going to be a long term war and he engages in emotional
manipulation—he will be too busy giving excuses for years to come.
We expect the AZOV Battalion as neo-Nazi nationalistic group to seize
control should he be assassinated .
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion>
-- ONE FOR ALL --
"WHAT'S YOUR SPIN?
OH DAUGHTER OF DIN.
IS THERE 42 ANGELS IN.
THE DANCE UPON A PIN.
WE WANT TO KNOW.
WHETHER IT BE SO.
FOR HUMANITY OR NO.
BY COLLECTIVE KOWTOW."
Julie Bishop's hairdresser <jules@bisho.edu.au> wrote:
give the guy a visa now, his country will be rubble in a few weeks
Jacinda Arden doesn't want the job
--
That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[S | T]
as EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.
<
http://www.grapple369.com/Grumble.zip> (Download resources)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)