Display:
It would be the first time territories that were historically Russian would pass under the control of NATO;

Um, what? Define historically Russian. If we're talking Tsarist Russia the Baltics and Poland. If we're talking the USSR, Baltics. The other two reasons make sense.

by MarekNYC on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by blackhawk on Mon Aug 11th, 2008 at 07:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a late reply. Tret'jakov kicks off his argument with Putin's blunt remark to George Bush last April in Bucarest of the tenure, -Come on George, there's no such thing as the Ukraine except for a small eastern European enclave. Everything they have, we gave to them.

This refers to when Kruschchev, a Ukrainian, "gave" the Ukraine all its present territories which have a vast majority of Russians in 1954. Today's Russia has this perception of the situation whether propaganda or not.

As for the past centuries you are right. A look at the changing borders and empires that have come and gone makes for much confusion. What remains is the present day contention that does echo Hitler's claim over territories with a strong German "ethnic" presence, were it not for NATO enchroachment since the cancellation of the USSR. I suppose that if the Warsaw Pact were cozying up to Saskatchewan the US would be touchy, too.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 at 06:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series