Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sweden is now the 32nd member of NATO


susieice

Recommended Posts

On 3/8/2024 at 12:37 AM, OverSword said:

Don't forget to pay your dues or trump will be mean to you 🤪

If being 'mean' means 'encourage enemies to invade your country', yes, he has expressed some meanness. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, pellinore said:

NATO says this isn't true. No one except Russia has made this claim.

 

Cheers.  This is what I could find in the newspaper headlines.

 

13th November 1991

'John Major forecast on NATO expansion - The PM believes the former eastern block states may eventually become part of NATO.'

 

2nd October 1993

'Yeltsin stands against NATO expansion.  Russia warns NATO against taking on Moscow.' 

 

26th November 1993

'Russian Spy Chief Warns Against NATO Expansion - The chief of Russia’s foreign intelligence service said yesterday that any move by NATO to incorporate east European countries into the alliance could force Moscow to take counter-measures.'

 

14th December 1993

'Russian President Boris Yeltsin has declared that Moscow would not accept NATO expansion to take in former Warsaw Pact states.  Would not have veto power over the Western alliance and its future. Russia is watching ...'

 

7th January 1994

'Russia warned on NATO expansion - NATO has warned Russia that it will take on new members from Eastern Europe and that it will not accept any veto. It comes as the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia joined Hungary in accepting a US plan.'

 

7th January 1994

'Boris Yeltsin is opposed to NATO expansion fearing it would infuriate the Red Army and force Moscow to think about setting up its own military-political union.'

 

8th January 1994

'Brussels summit expected to commit NATO expansion - A draft of the summit communiqué obtained yesterday by Reuters says: “We expect and would welcome NATO expansion that would reach to democratic states to our East, as part of an evolutionary process.”'

 

2nd December 1994

'Russians back off NATO plan saying that the plan seeks to isolate Russia.'

 

10th February 1995

'NATO membership to former Warsaw Pact countries should proceed, despite Russian concern. The inevitable process of NATO expansion will be gradual and open, with no surprises, Mr Clinton said after yesterday's White House meeting'

 

9th July 1997

'NATO-Ukraine Commission established.'

 

2007 Oxford University Press

'In 2002 relations of the governments of the United States and other NATO countries with Ukraine deteriorated after the Cassette Scandal revealed that Ukraine allegedly transferred a sophisticated Ukrainian defense system to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.'

 

The list goes on.  It is fascinating reading the gradual build up to today's conflict and reviews wars.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would any country want to join NATO?  

That's the question Putins need to find the answer to.   Though he might not like it.  

He has a choice: he can either ensure more countries join NATO.  Or he can admit defeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2024 at 12:09 AM, MrsGently said:

celebration.jpg

Happy for Sweden but it was already shielded by NATO countries because it doesn’t share a border with Russia. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Essan said:

Why would any country want to join NATO?  

That's the question Putins need to find the answer to.   Though he might not like it.  

He has a choice: he can either ensure more countries join NATO.  Or he can admit defeat. 

President Putin has plenty of followers in Russia who share the same beliefs. e.g.

 

IMG-20240310-020120.jpg

I think any attempt to replace Putin would probably result with the war still going ahead. 

 

I see it as a game of chess.  The US is the white king (Biden) and has moved all of his pawns forward.  They are vulnerable and their alliance is fragile, then suddenly from within the white king is toppled and replaced with Trump.  He abandons his pawns (pulls money out of NATO and claims neutrality with Russia).  The non-aggression pact is signed and NATO can no longer maintain financial support.  To diplomatically keep the peace both sides declare a stale-mate.  Russia agrees to withdraw forces after being reassured that Ukraine will not join NATO.  Trump gives Putin this reassurance, peaceful relations slowly return to normal, and both leaders take the credit for ending the war.  Trump will forever claim "I ended the war".

Putin is accused of being a war criminal. He steps down willingly to retire from office.  His successor holds an internal inquiry on his actions and finds him not guilty.  The outcome was predictable, and both Trump and Putin go into the history books, and the world moves onto the next chapter.

Just a guess...

Edited by TigerBright19
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

Cheers.  This is what I could find in the newspaper headlines.

 

13th November 1991

'John Major forecast on NATO expansion - The PM believes the former eastern block states may eventually become part of NATO.'

 

2nd October 1993

'Yeltsin stands against NATO expansion.  Russia warns NATO against taking on Moscow.' 

 

26th November 1993

'Russian Spy Chief Warns Against NATO Expansion - The chief of Russia’s foreign intelligence service said yesterday that any move by NATO to incorporate east European countries into the alliance could force Moscow to take counter-measures.'

 

14th December 1993

'Russian President Boris Yeltsin has declared that Moscow would not accept NATO expansion to take in former Warsaw Pact states.  Would not have veto power over the Western alliance and its future. Russia is watching ...'

 

7th January 1994

'Russia warned on NATO expansion - NATO has warned Russia that it will take on new members from Eastern Europe and that it will not accept any veto. It comes as the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia joined Hungary in accepting a US plan.'

 

7th January 1994

'Boris Yeltsin is opposed to NATO expansion fearing it would infuriate the Red Army and force Moscow to think about setting up its own military-political union.'

 

8th January 1994

'Brussels summit expected to commit NATO expansion - A draft of the summit communiqué obtained yesterday by Reuters says: “We expect and would welcome NATO expansion that would reach to democratic states to our East, as part of an evolutionary process.”'

 

2nd December 1994

'Russians back off NATO plan saying that the plan seeks to isolate Russia.'

 

10th February 1995

'NATO membership to former Warsaw Pact countries should proceed, despite Russian concern. The inevitable process of NATO expansion will be gradual and open, with no surprises, Mr Clinton said after yesterday's White House meeting'

 

9th July 1997

'NATO-Ukraine Commission established.'

 

2007 Oxford University Press

'In 2002 relations of the governments of the United States and other NATO countries with Ukraine deteriorated after the Cassette Scandal revealed that Ukraine allegedly transferred a sophisticated Ukrainian defense system to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.'

 

The list goes on.  It is fascinating reading the gradual build up to today's conflict and reviews wars.

 

So nothing to back up your claim that NATO promised not to expand. 

Just that NATO didn't back down to Russian threats.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

So nothing to back up your claim that NATO promised not to expand. 

Just that NATO didn't back down to Russian threats.

I didn't make that claim.  I asked if Putin had made that claim and if he did, he currently has the support of his PM and government.  When a global power enters a war and is willing to sacrifice its reputation, global trade deals, and diplomatic relations with the west, then I believe it is prudent to investigate the claims they make very thoroughly before reaching any conclusions.

 

If any claims a world leader makes are found to be incorrect then it would be prudent to keep a line of communication open, so that the facts can reach both sides without being filtered or fabricated by advisors and the media.  After all, leaders have to trust the information they are given is correct, and if not, then an internal investigation would need to be conducted.  Imagine the rubbish information Bush was given before we got 'Operation: Iraqi Freedom.'

 

I just hope that today's conflicts will not escalate into something that so easily could have been avoided with a simple phone call.  Then again with today's technology I guess it is possible that a phone call could be intercepted and faked with AI to make global leaders more hostile.  Imagine if AI controlled by AI could be used to solve global peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TigerBright19 said:

I didn't make that claim.  I asked if Putin had made that claim and if he did, he currently has the support of his PM and government.  When a global power enters a war and is willing to sacrifice its reputation, global trade deals, and diplomatic relations with the west, then I believe it is prudent to investigate the claims they make very thoroughly before reaching any conclusions.

And yet you hand wave away all evidence to the contrary and continue claiming Putin must be telling the truth.

Quote

If any claims a world leader makes are found to be incorrect then it would be prudent to keep a line of communication open, so that the facts can reach both sides without being filtered or fabricated by advisors and the media.  After all, leaders have to trust the information they are given is correct, and if not, then an internal investigation would need to be conducted.  Imagine the rubbish information Bush was given before we got 'Operation: Iraqi Freedom.'

You actually think Putin believes his own lies? He knows NATO made no such promise. It's just an excuse he uses to justify his illegal war to people at home and to gullible idiots in the west. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

President Putin has plenty of followers in Russia who share the same beliefs. e.g.

 

IMG-20240310-020120.jpg

I think any attempt to replace Putin would probably result with the war still going ahead. 

 

I see it as a game of chess.  The US is the white king (Biden) and has moved all of his pawns forward.  They are vulnerable and their alliance is fragile, then suddenly from within the white king is toppled and replaced with Trump.  He abandons his pawns (pulls money out of NATO and claims neutrality with Russia).  The non-aggression pact is signed and NATO can no longer maintain financial support.  To diplomatically keep the peace both sides declare a stale-mate.  Russia agrees to withdraw forces after being reassured that Ukraine will not join NATO.  Trump gives Putin this reassurance, peaceful relations slowly return to normal, and both leaders take the credit for ending the war.  Trump will forever claim "I ended the war".

Putin is accused of being a war criminal. He steps down willingly to retire from office.  His successor holds an internal inquiry on his actions and finds him not guilty.  The outcome was predictable, and both Trump and Putin go into the history books, and the world moves onto the next chapter.

Just a guess...

I live in Britain and preparations are underway to carry on supporting Ukraine should the US abandon them.

France are up for it too, and its the French that would provide most of the land army (because us Brits barely have one). It will be a case of deploying into Ukraine to stop Russia grabbing anymore land. Us Brits would be supplying air and naval support, and specialist land forces.

Conscription may happen, but if it does in Britain a lot of people are going to be doing jail time for refusing. A way to avoid prison is to drink 10 pints of full fat milk each day for a few weeks, then turn up to the office so obese they say nope lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Setton said:

And yet you hand wave away all evidence to the contrary and continue claiming Putin must be telling the truth.

You actually think Putin believes his own lies? He knows NATO made no such promise. It's just an excuse he uses to justify his illegal war to people at home and to gullible idiots in the west. 

I believe nothing until it has been heavily investigated.  I naturally am sceptic about any evidence presented and question everything because I enjoy detective stories.  I take no sides and I look at it all as a bystander asking why domestic concerns are being constantly overshadowed by overseas conflicts that politicians use to distract the people they represent with from the domestic issues at home which they have no intention of solving.

It feels like every nation we entangle ourselves in ends up divided and extremist  e.g.  India,  Ireland, Israel, Iraq, Ukraine.

Edited by TigerBright19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

I believe nothing

Particularly well sourced things that contradict Putin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2024 at 6:04 PM, Essan said:

Why would any country want to join NATO?  

That's the question Putins need to find the answer to.   Though he might not like it.  

He has a choice: he can either ensure more countries join NATO.  Or he can admit defeat. 

And that us why there is a conflict going on.

Because no third choice was allowed to emerge where all countries find a solution they can compromise over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 3/9/2024 at 10:04 AM, Essan said:

Why would any country want to join NATO?  

Peer pressure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2024 at 12:04 PM, Essan said:

He has a choice: he can either ensure more countries join NATO.  Or he can admit defeat

I'm pretty sure Russia still has a third option. I find it fascinating that so many in the West believe it is impossible that Russia could ever use nukes in a conflict.  How ironic it would be for the world to die from arrogance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and-then said:

I'm pretty sure Russia still has a third option. I find it fascinating that so many in the West believe it is impossible that Russia could ever use nukes in a conflict.  How ironic it would be for the world to die from arrogance.

I would rate the claim of "so many in the West believe it is impossible that Russia could ever use nukes in a conflict" as pretty unlikely. What we have seen is a rather popular public opinion that Russia won't use nukes in Ukraine because of NATO, but there are a lot of assumptions implied in that notion. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and-then said:

I'm pretty sure Russia still has a third option. I find it fascinating that so many in the West believe it is impossible that Russia could ever use nukes in a conflict.  How ironic it would be for the world to die from arrogance.

How ironic indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2024 at 1:45 AM, Unusual Tournament said:

Happy for Sweden but it was already shielded by NATO countries because it doesn’t share a border with Russia. 

Every Nation that joins brings us one step closer to world peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MrsGently said:

Every Nation that joins brings us one step closer to world peace.

Agree! Nato should also have South Korea, Japan, Phillipines and Australia join, too

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.