UK to expel 23 Russian diplomats

It doesn't make sense does it? NATO is supposedly defensive, but by enlarging it has become a destabilising institution. NATO troops 85 miles from St Petersburg? And we didn't think that would be problematic? Well, we did. Kennan put it well, calling the NATO expansion a "strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions."

 

NATO was bought in after WWII to keep Germany down, something the EU is failing to do.
“keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” ..
To quote the founders of NATO.
https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/declassified_137930.htm

 

Don't waste your time on them - they've been indoctrinated from childhood to believe 'America, right or wrong', and it's so ingrained into their brains they'll always believe that the US has a god-given remit to protect the world from the evil USSR er, I mean Russia. They obviously want war so let them bring it on and we'll have to wait and see who wins it.

 

Are you certain that such promises were ever made?

Then please read this:

Are you quite sure that such promises were ever made?

If you truly believe so, I do hope that you will read this: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

And you might also want to consider Putin's actions in Georgia (about a decade ago) and in Ukraine (more recently)--as well as his propping up of Assad, in Syria.

A good book for you to read would probably be Putin's Wars: The Rise of Russia's New Imperialism, by Marcel H. Van Herpen.

 

If someone were to threaten you from the other side of your garden fence, wouldn't you feel intimidated and provoked? DUH!!

 

NATO is not "threatening" Russia; it is a purely defensive organization.

And the countries that you refer to as Russia's "garden fence" are not the possession of Russia; rather, these are entirely independent countries--no more a part of Russia than, say, Canada or Mexico are a part of the United States.

 

Maybe once. but if anyone believes it these days they'll believe anything.

You're missing something, so allow me to explain what it is: the countries which are adjacent to Russia (ie have a common border with Russia?) have given NATO permission to be there for the sole purpose of provoking Russia? A garden fence is the common border betwixt your property on one side of it, and your neighbour's property on the other, but they're still independent properties. . See how it works?

 

Enlarging to ensure NATO troops are just 85 miles away from St Petersburg is a threat! Be serious now.

 

Apart from your questionable grammar--using the plural, "they'll," to refer to its singular antecedent, "anyone"--you are guilty of an ad hominem fallacy here: You are merely using an insult as a substitute for a substantive argument (which, presumably, you really cannot muster).

I will attempt to overlook your overt condescension, and answer you directly: Your claim that NATO's very existence in Western countries (which the former Soviet "satellite" countries certainly are) is "for the sole purpose of provoking Russia" (italics in original), is left hanging--much like the chads in Florida in the 2000 presidential election--so perhaps you would like to offer some proof of the accusation...

 

This is such a simple point: the enlargment of NATO was certainly 'aggressive' and taken poorly by Russia. I can't blame Russia for that. I can blame the stupidity for a supposedly defensive organisation actually being destabilising.

 

Jeez, I'm a published author and he's giving me grammar lessons! Anyhoo I've forgotten what the discussion was now, so it matters not one jot nor tittle.

 

Well, congratulations upon being a "published author."

Apparently, both you and your publisher have acquiesced to the political correctness of using such pronouns as "they," "them," "their," and "theirs" with subjects of indeterminate gender--even if it means creating a disagreement in number.

 

Rather than playing kiss chase, why don't you inform us how a destabilising NATO policy is consistent with rational defensive action?

 

Be thankful for small mercies; at least he (I'm assuming) hasn't come out with 'would of...', 'could of...' 'should of...'

 

The word 'both' is superfluous. Don't forget that in future? You need not thank me; it's all part of the service!

 

If you're taking an opportunity to 'ride a grammatical hobbyhorse' of yours, I suggest you air it on one of the general discussions forums?

 

No, it is not really "superfluous"--as in the (utterly grating) term, "past history." It is merely an intensitive; which is to say, it intensifies the message to be delivered.

So try again, please.

 

Stop with the semantics . . . it's superfluous. End of!

 

You started it, matey <<<<< (hobby horse)

 

Just like your post #91

 

And now the Brits say, "We're not sure ..."

Who else had the chemical know-how to produce a nerve agent poison? (Turkey? ;^)

Who else had a motivation? Zat iz ze reel kwestchun ...

 

Isn't the point, however, that the Brits no longer are sure that the agent is necessarily Russian.

So the question becomes "who else could have done it, and what is/was their motivation?" There are not thirty answers to that question.

 

Right!

May permitted this to happen cuz she does not have enough shat on her plate!

The reason is so patently obvious!!!

 

And if you're French, your useless president agrees with the crap?? (and ve haf vays of mekking you talk! )

 

No "semantics" at all.

I fully intended to intensify both "you" and "your publisher." (Yes, I have said the word again; please do not have a screaming fit!)