Having read the linked article by Kamm, posted by thatbags in which he describes Russia as "aggressive and expansionist", and NATO "exemplifying the principle of solidarity to accomplish humane and democratic ends", I did a little research.
At the very real risk of being labelled a "communist" by people on this thread, I would point out that it appears to be on record that NATO promised Gorbachev that, in exchange for German re-unification within NATO, NATO would not expand "one inch to the east". In 1999, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania were invited to membership talks in 2002 and joined NATO in 2004. These are countries that either border Russia or are in fairly close proximity to it. Some commentators believe it is understandable that Russia feels threatened by what some believe represents western expansionism. I'm not sure the U.S. would be too keen on Russian military bases surrounding it.
Russia has a military presence in:
Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Syria, Tajakistan, Ukraine and Vietnam - the majority of which border or are relatively close to it.
Contrast that with the US, which has a considerable military presence in many parts of the world, including:
Belgium, Iraq, Canada, Netherlands, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Kuwait, South Korea, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Diego Garcia, Brazil, Cuba (Guantanamo Bay), Djibouti, Greece, Spain, UAE, Denmark, Honduras, Portugal, Qatar, Singapore, Turkey and the UK.
A search on the internet reveals that there is opposition in many of these countries to the US military presence.
I am no expert on military issues or on the situation in the Ukraine but I actually think that Hammond is right to be reluctant to be drawn into the Ukraine conflict, which, from what I have read, seems far from clear cut. I think probably Corbyn would be of the same opinion. Hammond's reasononing, however, that "the sacrifice of parts of Ukraine to Moscow would not be important to the UK" is very cynical but probably quite typical. An example of this "what is important to the UK (and never mind anyone else)" approach is the way we forcibly removed the Diego Garcians and dumped them in Mauritius and the Seychelles in order that a US military facility could be based in the Chagos Islands. It was militarily and politically more important to the UK to go along with the US's plans than to protect the right of the islanders to remain in their country of birth.
Gransnet forums
News & politics
This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion