Georgia's future as an independent nation is hinged on obtaining firm guarantees for the-protection of these very values and we, therefore, strongly welcome further eastward expansion of the Alliance. We congratulate all those nations that have been invited to become full members of NATO or will be offered to join in the very" near future. As the president of a Black Sea state, I am particularly satisfied that the invitations have been extended to Romania and Bulgaria. This brings the Black Sea area into NATO's sphere of interests and adds a new dimension to its security.
We welcome the progress in deepening the cooperation between NATO and Russia and the distinctive partnership that has been forged between NATO and Ukraine since we regard these developments as a cornerstone not only of the Euro-Atlantic, but also of global security.
South-East Europe, particularly the Caucasus region has been gaining ever greater importance for the entire continent and the Euro-Atlantic community at large. The region serves as a major outlet for the Caspian hydrocarbons to world markets and at the same time provides the shortest routes linking the West to the natural wealth, labor and markets in Central Asia, Afghanistan and the Far East. The same routes, however carry the risk of becoming thoroughfares for the spread of new transnational threats, different from those of the past including threats posed by terrorism. We, therefore, consider that the region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia, indeed merits the special attention the Alliance has shown by deepening cooperation with it.
Anyone who has spent at least a week in Georgia knows well that by virtue of the dynamic development of the civil society, practically every problem of serious concern becomes here a subject of heated public debate. Yet, I can also assure you that perhaps the only issue in the recent years against which no reasonable argument has ever been suggested is the Georgian public's perspective on the future of the country's national security which is widely seen in the context of the country's membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. I am happy that at the Summit of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council I can declare that Georgia is determined to be a full member of NATO and is resolved to work hard to prepare for this historic mission.
Looks to me Shevardnadze was, let's say, much less interested even 20 years ago in your stupid "one inch" quote someone told him in the completely bygone era of a completely different geopolitical reality than you are now in 2022 somehow and for some reason. But you be you.
So you agree we are encircling Russia but it's okay because the states we are admitting to do just that agree to it (it would be pretty strange if we managed to admit a state to NATO that didn't want to be a member). The point is NATO is the aggressor here- and nothing you've quoted changes that.
I don't agree with your idiotic alternate reality where you think things like that Shevardnadze was a Russian official, no. And Russia can start its own military pacts and expand them in any direction they want, no one is going to do anything about it. And it won't be an "aggression" too unless they actually do it through aggression.
It has one, CSTO, which it used to put down the color revolution in Kazakhstan and NATO is taking that as aggression. Do you agree it is aggression or is it just Russia honoring its own military pact.
Good for them, can also start any number of others anyday. Anyone they want can access.
Whatever "color" was this supposed "color revolution"? I didn't get an answer this question. I don't remember NATO calling this aggression. I think you just made it up.
And no one really even cares about this country, frankly. Even Americans didn't really care about the protests in Cuba. Most of them probably don't even know Kazakhstan is a real country.
And in the case I'd you didn't read:
Looks to me Shevardnadze was, let's say, much less interested even 20 years ago in your stupid "one inch" quote someone told him in the completely bygone era of a completely different geopolitical reality than you are now in 2022 somehow and for some reason. But you be you.
So you agree we are encircling Russia but it's okay because the states we are admitting to do just that agree to it (it would be pretty strange if we managed to admit a state to NATO that didn't want to be a member). The point is NATO is the aggressor here- and nothing you've quoted changes that.
I don't agree with your idiotic alternate reality where you think things like that Shevardnadze was a Russian official, no. And Russia can start its own military pacts and expand them in any direction they want, no one is going to do anything about it. And it won't be an "aggression" too unless they actually do it through aggression.
It has one, CSTO, which it used to put down the color revolution in Kazakhstan and NATO is taking that as aggression. Do you agree it is aggression or is it just Russia honoring its own military pact.
Good for them, can also start any number of others anyday. Anyone they want can access.
Whatever "color" was this supposed "color revolution"? I didn't get an answer this question. I don't remember NATO calling this aggression. I think you just made it up.
And no one really even cares about this country, frankly. Even Americans didn't really care about the protests in Cuba. Most of them probably don't even know Kazakhstan is a real country.