With a great deal of care and study, President Clinton decided on what recommendation to make to the NATO summit in January. “In this respect your letter came at exactly the right time and it played a decisive role in President Clinton’s consideration.” There could be no recommendation to ignore or exclude Russia from full participation in the future security of Europe. As a result of our study, a “Partnership for Peace” would be recommended to the NATO summit which would be open to all members of the NACC [North Atlantic Cooperation Council] including all European and NIS States [Newly Independent States].
President Yeltsin jumped in at this point and asked if he understood correctly that all countries in CEE and the NIS would, therefore, be on an equal footing and there would be a partnership and not a membership. Secretary Christopher replied, “Yes, that is the case, there would not even be an associate status.” Yeltsin replied, “This is a brilliant idea, it is a stroke of genius.”
President Yeltsin then said that this serves to dissipate all of the tension which we now have in Russia regarding East European States and their aspirations with respect to NATO. It would have been an issue for Russia particularly if it left us in a second class status. Now, under your new idea we are all equal and it will ensure equal participation on the basis of partnership.
The currency of war is blood. As families bury their dead, more Ukrainians, like Mitri in Bakhmut, will question the blood price they are paying, and ask whether it is better to pay for a ceasefire with land - or lives.
Except this is all bullshit.The fact is that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO should have disbanded. But, instead, it decided to expand, shifting its defense line eastward and seeking to draw Ukraine and other former Soviet republics into its orbit.
Indeed, when Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, it had no reason to feel threatened by Russia.
On the contrary, on 8 December 1991, Ukraine joined Russia and Belarus to establish the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union. — Apollodorus
this moral cloaca where you cannot even distinguish between an aggressive dictatorship and a defending democracy — Olivier5
it appears to some of us that the moral high ground is unoccupied by any government. — unenlightened
I am saying though, that there is no moral equivalence between 1) a ruthless militaristic dictatorship and 2) the democracy attacked by 1. — Olivier5
You are saying it, but do not seem to be prepared to back it up or consider comparisons made by others. — unenlightened
And it is odd considering that the ruthless militaristic dictatorship and the attacked democracy in this case were, within my lifetime at least, one and the same nation. How is it that all the saints of the USSR lived in the West and all the sinners in the East? — unenlightened
They are usually about how equally destructive the US has been. But two wrongs don't make a right. — Olivier5
Who's 'right' and who's 'wrong' is for the puerile moralisers here to agonise over which flag to waive. — Isaac
Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia?
— baker
Wondering if you still think this way??? — creativesoul
an utterly callous disregard for civilian lives, launching unlawful deadly attacks in residential areas that have killed and injured civilians
Ate you denying that Russia is presently a ruthless dictatorship, and/or that Ukraine is a democracy? If not, what are you saying? — Olivier5
I am denying that there is a vast moral difference between them on the grounds that I do not see a vast moral difference between governments in general. — unenlightened
To what extent is this judgement based on your own personal experience with different modes or types of governments? Because this strikes me as something a person would say from the safe confine of a First World armchair. — Olivier5
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the OP doesn’t seem to disallow “pro-Russian” or “anti-NATO” arguments. So, saying that an argument is “pro-Russian/anti-NATO” isn’t really a valid objection. — Apollodorus
what's happening in say, Yemen, which is almost entirely the fault of the US. — Manuel
Here we have the real apologist in action.3. Even if “the desire for Russia to annex Crimea was there all along”, it doesn’t mean that this desire was not legitimate, given that Crimea had been Russian since 1783! — Apollodorus
I have lived and worked in many places, in Africa and Asia, including countries where the state jails or kills folks for their ideas, with total impunity. It takes some getting used to. — Olivier5
Iran is blown way out of proportion due to Israeli interests. — Manuel
On the royalist side, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel supplied military aid, and Britain gave covert support, while the republicans were supported by Egypt (then formally known as the United Arab Republic) and were supplied warplanes from the Soviet Union. Both foreign irregular and conventional forces were involved. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser supported the republicans with as many as 70,000 Egyptian troops and weapons. Despite several military actions and peace conferences, the war sank into a stalemate by the mid-1960s.
Do you think of the morality of a country in these terms or in some other way? — unenlightened
people in these countries do not speak so lightly about democracy being so to speak "just the same thing as dictatorship but with voting booths". They often hope it makes a difference. — Olivier5
Are you denying that Russia is presently a ruthless dictatorship, and/or that Ukraine is a democracy? If not, what are you saying?
— Olivier5
I am denying that there is a vast moral difference between them on the grounds that I do not see a vast moral difference between governments in general. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.