7 ms·

Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's

Back in the 1990s, NATO reconnaissance aircraft didn't stop flying over Russia, although Gorbachev and Yeltsin were quite friendly to the US. Post-2000 Putin's Russia is a result of the West's decline to treat it with respect. The arms race was started again and additionally fueled by the expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe.

wbl 10y ago
Do you know about Open Skies treaty? Russia actually wanted surveillance flights as they are the best way of assuring people "yes, my troops are not massing on the frontier"
geoka9 10y ago
Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.
- bluetomcat 10y ago
  And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?
  - cabalamat 10y ago
    > And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries. > the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands Most countries would fight a war if their territory was invaded.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries. Do military bases count?
      - seppin 10y ago
        No, they exist under legal authority of host nation.
        a-saleh 10y ago
        That can be more complicated, based on what I heard about i.e. Guantanamo Bay, where technically the Cuban goverment would really like the USA army to leave, and USA pretends they have a lease and that everything is fine. I am not sure if there are other examples, though.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Well, the previous Cuban government gave the US permission for the base at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Cuban Revolution happened. The US does not have permission from the current Cuban government, but is holding it to the agreements made by its predecessor.
      - cabalamat 10y ago
        That's a grey area.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    > And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Argentine_invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Argentine_invasi... Argentina literally invaded the Falkland Islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_status_referendum,_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_status_refere... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_r... They've also repeatedly voted to remain within the UK by an overwhelming margin. One has to wonder what your agenda is that you'd claim the Falklands is in the same category as Iraq or Afghanistan.
  - iuguy 10y ago
    1. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to remain so. 2. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.
    - owebmaster 10y ago
      1. Just like Crimea?
      - andybak 10y ago
        Whilst a hypothetical (and impossible in practise) fair referendum in Crimea prior to the Russian takeover might have shown some support, I doubt it would have been a landslide if it was even a victory. The Falklands however - would have voted 100% to remain part of Britain. It's a silly comparison in many ways but you can't get away with the statement you just made.
        owebmaster 10y ago
        If you ask to a lot of cities, states and islands at the times if they wanted to be part of Bitrain, most would. This is not how sovereign limits should be deal.
      - a-saleh 10y ago
        Are you suggesting that "Krym is Russian teritory" in a same way "Falklands are a British territory" ? Are you suggesting that Ukraine invaded Krym and Russia had to respond? I think that is flat out wrong. I am not saying that you can't be of an opinion that invasion of Falklands was not justified and annexation of Krym was. I am just saying that these two incidents are not comparable.
        crdoconnor 10y ago
        A) Most Crimeans are ethnically Russians, B) The vote was ~94% to join Russia and was done in the presence of international observers (Ukraine didn't challenge the results of the election they challenged it on the basis that it was unconstitutional) and C) the invasion was a reaction to an elected president who represented their interests being deposed. Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.
  - portpecos 10y ago
    >And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq Because the US is a hero for liberating the Iraqi people.
fictioncircle 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies Signed in 1992. C'mon now, Russia is even complaining about NATO members refusing flights under it as recently as 2016. The USSR agreed to it before its dissolution and Russia re-signed in 2002. > The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security. > The 34 State Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States. Hell Russia is complaining about Turkey not following it as recently as last year: > Russian Defence Ministry spokesman stated on 4 February 2016 that Turkey had refused a Russian Open Skies mission, planned to take place in 1–5 February 2016, to fly over areas adjacent to Syria, as well as over NATO airbases. According to Russia, Turkey gave no explanation regarding the limitations, and claimed them to indicate illegal military activity in Syrian territory.[8] The OSCC haven't commented on the alleged violation of the Treaty by Turkey.[9]

wbl 10y ago

Do you know about Open Skies treaty? Russia actually wanted surveillance flights as they are the best way of assuring people "yes, my troops are not massing on the frontier"

geoka9 10y ago

Well, "treating Russia with respect" to Russia means "let us do with our neighbouring countries as we please regardless of their wishes". So of course _that_ had to be declined.

bluetomcat 10y ago
And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands?
- cabalamat 10y ago
  > And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries. > the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands Most countries would fight a war if their territory was invaded.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    The USA hasn't tried to annex parts of those countries. Do military bases count?
    - seppin 10y ago
      No, they exist under legal authority of host nation.
      - a-saleh 10y ago
        That can be more complicated, based on what I heard about i.e. Guantanamo Bay, where technically the Cuban goverment would really like the USA army to leave, and USA pretends they have a lease and that everything is fine. I am not sure if there are other examples, though.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        Well, the previous Cuban government gave the US permission for the base at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Cuban Revolution happened. The US does not have permission from the current Cuban government, but is holding it to the agreements made by its predecessor.
    - cabalamat 10y ago
      That's a grey area.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the UK going to war with the "neighbouring" Falkland Islands? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Argentine_invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Argentine_invasi... Argentina literally invaded the Falkland Islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_status_referendum,_1986 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_status_refere... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_r... They've also repeatedly voted to remain within the UK by an overwhelming margin. One has to wonder what your agenda is that you'd claim the Falklands is in the same category as Iraq or Afghanistan.
- iuguy 10y ago
  1. The Falkland Islands are British territories. They are British because the population are British citizens and have repeatedly made it clear they wish to remain so. 2. The UK has never gone to war with the Falkland Islands. Argentina invaded the Falkands in 1982.
  - owebmaster 10y ago
    1. Just like Crimea?
    - andybak 10y ago
      Whilst a hypothetical (and impossible in practise) fair referendum in Crimea prior to the Russian takeover might have shown some support, I doubt it would have been a landslide if it was even a victory. The Falklands however - would have voted 100% to remain part of Britain. It's a silly comparison in many ways but you can't get away with the statement you just made.
      - owebmaster 10y ago
        If you ask to a lot of cities, states and islands at the times if they wanted to be part of Bitrain, most would. This is not how sovereign limits should be deal.
    - a-saleh 10y ago
      Are you suggesting that "Krym is Russian teritory" in a same way "Falklands are a British territory" ? Are you suggesting that Ukraine invaded Krym and Russia had to respond? I think that is flat out wrong. I am not saying that you can't be of an opinion that invasion of Falklands was not justified and annexation of Krym was. I am just saying that these two incidents are not comparable.
      - crdoconnor 10y ago
        A) Most Crimeans are ethnically Russians, B) The vote was ~94% to join Russia and was done in the presence of international observers (Ukraine didn't challenge the results of the election they challenged it on the basis that it was unconstitutional) and C) the invasion was a reaction to an elected president who represented their interests being deposed. Regardless of whom you believe is correct, the Russians kinda demonstrated more respect for Democracy with respect to Crimea than the West did.
- portpecos 10y ago
  >And how is that different from the US intervening in "non-neighbouring" countries like Iraq Because the US is a hero for liberating the Iraqi people.

fictioncircle 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies Signed in 1992. C'mon now, Russia is even complaining about NATO members refusing flights under it as recently as 2016. The USSR agreed to it before its dissolution and Russia re-signed in 2002. > The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security. > The 34 State Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States. Hell Russia is complaining about Turkey not following it as recently as last year: > Russian Defence Ministry spokesman stated on 4 February 2016 that Turkey had refused a Russian Open Skies mission, planned to take place in 1–5 February 2016, to fly over areas adjacent to Syria, as well as over NATO airbases. According to Russia, Turkey gave no explanation regarding the limitations, and claimed them to indicate illegal military activity in Syrian territory.[8] The OSCC haven't commented on the alleged violation of the Treaty by Turkey.[9]