LastTime wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 16, 2024 4:50 pm

Hi PW,

What would be your opinion if following changes would happen in the text of J.D. Sachs:

The background was that President Biden (or any other leader from the so-called collective West) declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted CSTO to sign, to promise no more CSTO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Georgia, Azerbaijan,or any other non-CSTO sovereign country ….

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge CSTO.

Merci

What is this another nonsense and fantasy?
What does Biden have to do with the CSTO? Biden probably doesn't even know what the CSTO is.

1). CSTO, an organization that was created in the post-Soviet space and affects the countries that were in one state with a single military logistics. On the territory of many former Soviet countries, military bases were preserved, which were inherited by Russia as the legal successor of the USSR. At present, the number of these military bases has decreased dramatically. Now this organization includes only 6 states bordering Russia. Have you seen Mexico, for example, in this organization?
2). The CSTO is not an aggressive military bloc, but more of a peacekeeping organization, more designed for the internal security of its member countries. It does not have a common (international) military infrastructure, military leadership, military charter, military headquarters, but includes only temporarily created international peacekeeping military contingents for a certain case. It is mindless nonsense to compare this organization to NATO or to draw any analogy. Some nonsense and fantasies of an uneducated youngster. Another highly inappropriate manipulation of meanings.
Name me one military aggression of the CSTO? NATO has defeated many independent states and killed tens of millions of people. NATO, geographically and territorially, has long gone beyond its charter. Where is the North Atlantic region, and where is Ukraine or Georgia, which want to be included in NATO? And to include them by force, because no one asks the population of these countries, but they use the puppet governments like Poroshenko, Zelensky and Saakashvili. NATO openly names its enemies - Russia and China and purposefully pursues an aggressive policy around Russia's borders. In Southeast Asia, NATO's analog, AUCUS, is confessedly against China. “The West”, led by the U.S., pursues a purposeful and methodical aggressive policy in the world, to promote its interests, to the detriment of the interests of other members of the world community.
Therefore, stop fantasizing and declaring all sorts of nonsense.

And what do Azerbaijan and Georgia have to do with it? What aggression are you talking about?
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is an ongoing acute territorial and religious conflict. And it was the Russian peacekeeping contingent (within the CSTO) that kept this region from bloodshed for a long time. When these countries withdrew from the CSTO, the Russian peacekeeping contingent immediately left the region, and Pashinyan himself refused Russian intervention. As a result, Armenia lost this region in favor of Azerbaijan, because Pashinyan fell for Macron's assurances that “the West” would help Armenia. Well, did it?

In Georgia, the “West” brought a puppet-Saakashvili to power and supplied him with weapons. This did not please many national minorities in Georgia. As a result, South Ossetia decided to secede from Georgia and a civil conflict broke out there. Peacekeeping contingent from Russia was introduced in South Ossetia, as it is a border territory, and with the consent of Georgia. And in 2008, Saakashvili gave an order to attack Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia. And for that he got it in the neck. But did anyone occupy Georgia or Tbilisi? No! And as a result, Saakashvili is sitting in a Georgian prison as a criminal.

You're just wreaking havoc all over the world. Wherever you enter, wherever you touch, only chaos, poverty of ordinary people and state instability!!!

Biden probably doesn't even know what the CSTO is

I'm sure yes !!!

Good post MVitaly very instructive ...

PW

Thank you Mvitaly5 великий for educating this youngster by highlighting the peacekeeping goals, the focus on internal security, the absence of a common military infrastructure, headquarters and the non-military charter etc. of the organization.
I would be great if you could pass this information as well to the CSTO so that they can update some PARTS of their Charter that conflict with your wise words and hence be at the same level of understanding as us (thanks again)



Some extrats of the

CHARTER OF THE COLLECTIVE SECURITY TREATY ORGANIZATION
….

striving for creation of favourable and stable conditions for full development of the Member States of the Treaty and Ensuring Of Their Safety, SOVEREINITY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY;

….

resolved to FURTHER DEVELOP AND DEEPEN THE MILITARY and political COOPERATION in interests of providing and strengthening of the national, REGIONAL and INTERNATIONAL security;

setting the goal to CONTINUE and INCREASE the close and all-round allied relations in FOREIGN policy, MILITARY and technical areas, as well as in the sphere of counteraction to the TRANSNATIONAL challenges and menaces to the safety of states and peoples;


Now it gets extra fun


Chapter III
Lines of Activity

Article 7

The Member States shall take joint measures to achieve the purposes of the Organization TO FORM thereunder the efficient system of collective security providing collective protection in case of menace to safety, stability, TERRITORAL INTEGRITY AND SOVEREIGNITY AND EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE DEFENCE, including creation of COALITION (collective) FORCES of the ORGANIZATION, regional (united) GROUPS of ARMIES (forces), peacekeeping forces, united systems and THE BODIES GOVERNING them, MILITARY INFRASTRUCTURE. The Member States shall also interact in the spheres of military and technical (military and economic) cooperation, supplying of armed forces, law enforcement agencies and special services with necessary arms, military, special equipment and special means, as well as in the spheres of training of military cadres and experts for the national armed forces, special services and law enforcement agencies.



Also interesting for an organization with NO COMMON (international) military infrastructure, military leadership, military charter etc is that they have a section Учения Коллективных сил ОДКБ (Vitaly, humor us with you translation and interpretation)
https://en.odkb-csto.org/training/
And my personal favourite


Ключевая статья 4 Договора гласит: «Если одно из государств-участников подвергнется агрессии со стороны какого-либо государства или группы государств, то это будет рассматриваться как агрессия против всех государств-участников настоящего Договора. В случае совершения акта агрессии против любого из государств-участников все остальные государства-участники предоставят ему необходимую помощь, включая военную, а также окажут поддержку находящимися в их распоряжении средствами в порядке осуществления права на коллективную оборону в соответствии со статьей 51 Устава ООН».

Key Article 4 of the Treaty states: “If one of the States Parties is subjected to aggression by any state or group of states, then this will be considered as aggression against all States Parties to this Treaty. In the event of an act of aggression against any of the participating States, all other participating States will provide him with the necessary assistance, including military, and will also provide support at their disposal in exercising the right to collective defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.”


As dixit MVitaly “It is mindless nonsense to compare this organisation to NATO or to draw any analogy” I would recommend the CSTO to make some amendments to their Article 4 as you might find analogies with Article 5 of the NATO treaty …

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”



Dear PW, it is totally understandable that with your busy schedule the fast-food messages of MVitaly5 are very instructive but if you take a little more time to look at them in a critical way you might find them also very entertaining or who knows deceptive...

I knew you were from Ukraine.
Don't be deceived, no one will take you to NATO, but to let you die for the interests of NATO is welcome. And your Zelensky has already sold everything to his Western sponsors, your country, land, resources and you at the same time. Although maybe you personally have already sold your country and fled from it!

And to your opus, I'll answer briefly.
One thing is the paper on which this charter is printed, and another thing is the real deeds, situation and situation!
The CSTO Charter was written a long time ago, when this organization was created, and the situation then after the collapse of the USSR was different, because this organization was created in parallel with the creation of the CIS. And all these countries were closely connected by common logistics in the past of one state. And the real situation now is as I described in my post. Since then, the number of CSTO member states has thinned considerably, and there is no military infrastructure left. One secretariat at most. So your excerpts from the CSTO charter make no real sense, because it has no real reflection in practice, but is just a paper. Everyone can list the number of NATO crimes and military aggressions and will get tired of listing them, but I think they know about the CSTO only by hearsay.
So my conclusion about you remains valid!!!

Dear PW, it is totally understandable that with your busy schedule the fast-food messages of MVitaly5 are very instructive but if you take a little more time to look at them in a critical way you might find them also very entertaining or who knows deceptive...

Well Vitaly and me are not always on same line for everything but I must give him the credit that his post are mostly well constructed and shows many evidences while most people just like pretend what they feel in their heart or trust from medias is the only truth ...
I always respect people, even those who hate me, when they are bringing argument on the table of discussions which are difficult to contest because packaged with formal evidences ...

I think you also try your best to bring serious arguments here but for now I still have the feeling it's not the exact things after what Vitaly said. But of course I could be wrong ...

PW

PIERRE WOODMAN wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 17, 2024 6:50 pm

I think you also try your best to bring serious arguments here but for now I still have the feeling it's not the exact things after what Vitaly said. But of course I could be wrong ...

PW

You are not wrong!
Well, I am ready to partially agree that I misspoke about the CSTO charter, although at present it is more of a formalism than a really functioning organization. The charter exists, but essentially, what does it matter in the comparative analysis of this discussion? How can one put NATO and the CSTO on a scale? Even to a person far from serious ideas about geopolitics, it is clear that they are absolutely not comparable organizations, not in terms of organization of activities, military potential, infrastructure, acts of aggression, etc. Apart from the CSTO charter, it is actually a formal organization including 5 countries (Armenia has frozen its membership) from Central Asia plus Belarus. Why was this comparison suggested by a forum participant in the first place? This is just a washing of meanings and a desire to contrast NATO and the CSTO, which are really not comparable in terms of geopolitical influence of organizations, and in terms of real actions and deeds. I have already repeatedly said about real actions of NATO on this forum. It is obvious that it is just a blurring of meanings and attempts to incompetently justify what is impossible to justify, making references to simple formalism and literalism!
That was the point of my post, that you can't compare what is incomparable in essence and actual actions in practice. Therefore, I believe you understood my comment correctly.

La question est de savoir de quel droit Poutine pourrait-il exiger qu’un pays indépendant rejoigne l’OTAN ou non ? Et par analogie, de quel droit Biden pourrait-il exiger qu’un pays indépendant soit autorisé à adhérer ou non à l’OTSC ?

Пока пока from an educated mature and
non-Ukrainian woman



PS : MVitaly5, à votre honneur, vous avez reconnu que vous aviez tort. Si bien que vous avez immédiatement torpillé ce noble geste avec votre “explication” atténuante.
Je me demande pourquoi cela me fait penser à Soloviev

LastTime wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 17, 2024 8:21 pm

La question est de savoir de quel droit Poutine pourrait-il exiger qu’un pays indépendant rejoigne l’OTAN ou non ? Et par analogie, de quel droit Biden pourrait-il exiger qu’un pays indépendant soit autorisé à adhérer ou non à l’OTSC ?

Il n'y aura pas d'organisation militaire hostile à la Russie, menaçant la sécurité, agressive et à mon avis criminelle, ni d'infrastructure militaire sur les territoires historiquement proches de la Russie, à la frontière avec la Russie, où vit la population russophone, s'associant à la nationalité russe, à la culture russe, à la population majoritairement orthodoxe et menaçant la Russie !!!. C'est tout, un point c'est tout !
Il s'agit d'une question de géopolitique, et personne ne nous demande notre avis individuel à ce sujet. Et ils ont raison de ne pas le demander à ceux qui n'assument pas la responsabilité du sort de l'ensemble du pays et du peuple dans son ensemble !
Il suffit que vous ayez rompu toutes les promesses que vous aviez faites de ne pas étendre le bloc de l'OTAN à l'est et que vous ayez déjà absorbé l'ensemble des États baltes ! D'ailleurs, personne n'a demandé aux Ukrainiens s'ils voulaient rejoindre l'OTAN ou non ! En Géorgie, un gouvernement plus fidèle à la Russie a pris le pouvoir et personne ne veut adhérer à l'OTAN, parce qu'ils commencent à penser que pour l'OTAN, vous n'êtes que du matériel humain consommable pour combattre la Russie. Des relations de voisinage et d'amitié avec la Russie sont beaucoup plus bénéfiques et opportunes à tous égards.
C'est pourquoi votre place est dans la cuisine, à préparer la soupe pour votre mari, et je ne suis qu'une retraitée ! Grossier ! Je suis d'accord. Désolé, mais c'est la réalité des gens ordinaires.

LastTime wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 17, 2024 8:21 pm

Пока пока from an educated mature and
non-Ukrainian woman

Vous faites du formalisme plus qu'autre chose parce que vous essayez fébrilement d'opposer des organisations totalement incompatibles. Si vous êtes une femme cultivée, comme vous le dites, je ne vois même pas l'intérêt de vous l'expliquer, vous devriez donc le comprendre vous-même. Qui est menacé par l'OTSC ? Si demain, par exemple, la Russie et le Mexique veulent hypothétiquement créer une alliance militaire, à quel point pensez-vous que nous entendrons les États-Unis hurler à ce sujet ? Étudiez l'histoire, c'est déjà arrivé avec Cuba depuis 1962. Dois-je vous rappeler où tout cela a mené ? Pourquoi faites-vous l'imbécile en faisant des comparaisons aussi inappropriées ?
Pensez-y...

LastTime wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 17, 2024 8:21 pm

PS : MVitaly5, à votre honneur, vous avez reconnu que vous aviez tort. Si bien que vous avez immédiatement torpillé ce noble geste avec votre “explication” atténuante.
Je me demande pourquoi cela me fait penser à Soloviev

J'ai seulement admis que je m'étais mal exprimé sur la charte dans mon message, car l'organisation de l'OTSC est plus que formelle et concerne les affaires intérieures et n'a pas une politique étrangère aussi agressive que celle de l'OTAN. Il n'y a rien de plus, tout ce que j'ai écrit est absolument factuel.
Par conséquent, je ne rappelle rien à personne, je me débrouille tout seul, mais vous essayez seulement de m'attraper par la langue sur des détails absolument hors de propos, et vous vous engagez dans un formalisme et un littéralisme purs, et vous essayez également de comparer des organisations absolument incompatibles en termes d'importance.

LastTime

La question est de savoir de quel droit Poutine pourrait-il exiger qu’un pays indépendant rejoigne l’OTAN ou non ? Et par analogie, de quel droit Biden pourrait-il exiger qu’un pays indépendant soit autorisé à adhérer ou non à l’OTSC ?

Pour la simple raison que des accords on été signé aprés la fin de la guerre froide et que ni les américains et européens ne les ont respectés. Bien au contraire depuis le début des années 2000 les USA ont tout fait pour prendre en main l'Ukraine et c'est ce que l'excellent film d'Oliver Stone " Ukraine on fire" démontre parfaitement avec des preuves évidentes de tout cela.

Hitler n'a pas attendu 22 ans pour faire la guerre au reste du monde donc je ne vois pas pourquoi Poutine aurait attendu aussi longtemps pour s'attaquer à l'Ukraine et de surcroit pourquoi il le fait d'une façon aussi "faible" si son intention de base était vraiment de conquérir ce pays et l'annexer à 100 %.

Non je pense depuis le début de cette triste guerre que tout ça n'est que de la politique qui coute la vie à des milliers de gens avec un occident stupide qui s'emploie en permanence à créer le chaos partout où ils espèrent faire du profit en faisant endosser la faute à ceux qui cherchent en priorité à se protéger de cette invasion sournoise mais bien réelle de ceux qui avaient promis que l'Ukraine et la Finlande resteraient des zones neutres sans OTAN.

PW