Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

...Ukraine had atomic weapons, remember?

It is I believe still a very important intelligence gatherer, and in its heyday it rivaled the Bulgarians having this power, happy to do dirty work for the Communist Party (around the world). The country was not a basket case economically and not as broken from corruption, it had discipline (at least), the capacity to demonstrate, in that regard, integrity. The Ukraine since the fall of Communism has not demonstrated itself to be so reliable, in particular the fiasco(s) related to pipelines, and their upkeep, Neither a good client for gas, or a good partner in its delivery other-where.

...Putin surely remembers, those good ol' days.

Indeed it ranked 3rd in nuclear warheads. But look at the hypocrisy of both the Russians and Nato in letting it become an independent non - nuclear state, with guarantees for it's security. In reality it has to built it's own security, so all it's left is who will be selling them weapons. It's always the same old story...

The West is more than willing and able.

[Paphitis]

As for the myth of RoC having the choice or the right to join Nato may I remind you that a) it had 3 guarantor powers all Nato members presumably having the obligation to protect her b) it did not have an army of it's own c)The National guard was illegal and unconstitutional and d) The only troops allowed by the treaties were 950 Mainland Greek soldiers and 650 Mainland Turkish.

In other words the RoC was under the "protection" of 3 Nato members, without itself having the the choice or right to join Nato, without abolishing the treaties.

Your mistake was believing you could trust any one of those 3 guarantors with your security.

What Cyprus should have done from 1960 is apply for NATO membership in lieu of the Treaty of Guarantee which would then be defunct.

Your Treaty of Guarantee was a total mistake and a disaster for Cyprus.

[Pyrpolizer]

It's clear to me that Russia doesn't want NATO at it's doorstep.
On the NW they have the Scandinavians which are neutral. Then at the NNW they have Latvia and Estonia who already joined Nato hence the Russians already have Nato at their borders (by about 350Km)
On the East there are 2 huge countries Belarus (670 Km border) and Ukraine (1900 Km border!!).
The whole issue is how Russia perceives her own safety. Just like Turkey who imposed a safety buffer zone in Syria, Russia wants to have a safety zone of at least one country between her borders and Nato.

The Ukranians are stupid if the think Russia is ever going to let them join Nato. They most probably are going to pay a huge price for their stupidity. Nato is all about creating real or imaginary enemies, for the purpose of the big sharks among Nato selling weapons to the rest. Problem is the big sharks started cheating on each other as it happened recently with the French submarines contract with Australia.

Come again!

Denmark, Norway, and Iceland are NATO members.

Sweden has applied for membership as well: https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden- ... p-dilemma/

I didn't mean ALL the Scandinavians you fool. Only those who separate Russia from Nato members and in this case Finland and Sweden. Sweden just voted to reconsider joining Nato some undefined time in the future. That's quite different from what you fantasize. Sweden however doesn't have land borders with Russia.

[Paphitis]

It's clear to me that Russia doesn't want NATO at it's doorstep.
On the NW they have the Scandinavians which are neutral. Then at the NNW they have Latvia and Estonia who already joined Nato hence the Russians already have Nato at their borders (by about 350Km)
On the East there are 2 huge countries Belarus (670 Km border) and Ukraine (1900 Km border!!).
The whole issue is how Russia perceives her own safety. Just like Turkey who imposed a safety buffer zone in Syria, Russia wants to have a safety zone of at least one country between her borders and Nato.

The Ukranians are stupid if the think Russia is ever going to let them join Nato. They most probably are going to pay a huge price for their stupidity. Nato is all about creating real or imaginary enemies, for the purpose of the big sharks among Nato selling weapons to the rest. Problem is the big sharks started cheating on each other as it happened recently with the French submarines contract with Australia.

Come again!

Denmark, Norway, and Iceland are NATO members.

Sweden has applied for membership as well: https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden- ... p-dilemma/

I didn't mean ALL the Scandinavians you fool. Only those who separate Russia from Nato members and in this case Finland and Sweden. Sweden just voted to reconsider joining Nato some undefined time in the future. That's quite different from what you fantasize. Sweden however doesn't have land borders with Russia.

The only one that looks unlikely to become a member is Finland. But even that will happen in time.

And what was the result of that vote?

And is if Finland and Sweden are not defacto NATO members anyway - they are in NATO's pocket.

The problem with you is you are clasping at straws, looking for that 1 or 2 countries who are not a NATO member to justify the RoC's stupidity when it became independent in 1960 and continuing its disastrous policy of non alignment.

There are 30 countries that are NATO members today - most of Europe. So what you are seeing in NATO just doesn't seem to be the same as what the rest of Europe are seeing. Are you trying to tell me now that you are the smart one and all of Europe is stupid?

[Pyrpolizer]

As for the myth of RoC having the choice or the right to join Nato may I remind you that a) it had 3 guarantor powers all Nato members presumably having the obligation to protect her b) it did not have an army of it's own c)The National guard was illegal and unconstitutional and d) The only troops allowed by the treaties were 950 Mainland Greek soldiers and 650 Mainland Turkish.

In other words the RoC was under the "protection" of 3 Nato members, without itself having the the choice or right to join Nato, without abolishing the treaties.

Your mistake was believing you could trust any one of those 3 guarantors with your security.

What Cyprus should have done from 1960 is apply for NATO membership in lieu of the Treaty of Guarantee which would then be defunct.

Your Treaty of Guarantee was a total mistake and a disaster for Cyprus.

Unfortunately geniuses like YOU were hard to find back in the 60's.

[Paphitis]

As for the myth of RoC having the choice or the right to join Nato may I remind you that a) it had 3 guarantor powers all Nato members presumably having the obligation to protect her b) it did not have an army of it's own c)The National guard was illegal and unconstitutional and d) The only troops allowed by the treaties were 950 Mainland Greek soldiers and 650 Mainland Turkish.

In other words the RoC was under the "protection" of 3 Nato members, without itself having the the choice or right to join Nato, without abolishing the treaties.

Your mistake was believing you could trust any one of those 3 guarantors with your security.

What Cyprus should have done from 1960 is apply for NATO membership in lieu of the Treaty of Guarantee which would then be defunct.

Your Treaty of Guarantee was a total mistake and a disaster for Cyprus.

Unfortunately geniuses like YOU were hard to find back in the 60's.

Yes I know, because most of nou were illiterate bums in 1960.

All you can do is talking about basic Coffee Shop innuendos and think America was the evil empire because you watched one too many Westerns of gunslinging cowboys shooting Indyans

Makarios was smart and even a good friend of Kennedy. Unfortunately, he just never had the power to do anything because he was held to ransom by the irrational AKEL.

[Pyrpolizer]

The only one that looks unlikely to become a member is Finland. But even that will happen in time.

And what was the result of that vote?

And is if Finland and Sweden are not defacto NATO members anyway - they are in NATO's pocket.

The problem with you is you are clasping at straws, looking for that 1 or 2 countries who are not a NATO member to justify the RoC's stupidity when it became independent in 1960 and continuing its disastrous policy of non alignment.

There are 30 countries that are NATO members today - most of Europe. So what you are seeing in NATO just doesn't seem to be the same as what the rest of Europe are seeing. Are you trying to tell me now that you are the smart one and all of Europe is stupid?

No the only stupid is you. I already explained why the RoC -cannot/and never could- apply for Nato membership. You demonstrate total inability to think, and you further insist that Cyprus (actually the RoC for whatever control it has over Cyprus) SHOULD still apply. You have no political insight, not brains to think of the consequences, just wishful thinking, let aside the fact that we would be rejected via Turkey's veto.

[Paphitis]

The only one that looks unlikely to become a member is Finland. But even that will happen in time.

And what was the result of that vote?

And is if Finland and Sweden are not defacto NATO members anyway - they are in NATO's pocket.

The problem with you is you are clasping at straws, looking for that 1 or 2 countries who are not a NATO member to justify the RoC's stupidity when it became independent in 1960 and continuing its disastrous policy of non alignment.

There are 30 countries that are NATO members today - most of Europe. So what you are seeing in NATO just doesn't seem to be the same as what the rest of Europe are seeing. Are you trying to tell me now that you are the smart one and all of Europe is stupid?

No the only stupid is you. I already explained why the RoC -cannot/and never could- apply for Nato membership. You demonstrate total inability to think, and you further insist that Cyprus (actually the RoC for whatever control it has over Cyprus) SHOULD still apply. You have no political insight, not brains to think of the consequences, just wishful thinking, let aside the fact that we would be rejected via Turkey's veto.

That's because the UK never trusted you to begin so added 1 stupid clause after another including The Treaty of Guarantee. I mean why would they trust you?

Nothing else could stop the RoC. And the UK wouldn't have had a problem, nor the US if Cyprus applied.

As far as I was concerned, Cyprus was not ready for independence in 1960 and should have stayed a British possession till about at least 1980.

[Get Real!]

Ukraine has a right to station NATO Troops and install NATO Air Defence.

Reminds me of daft Cypriots who thought they had the right to relinquish UN-stamped independence and relegate the country to some Greek island (as dumb as this “right” was) …and we all know how that went!

Georgia also thought “I have the right to NATO” only to get beaten to a pulp and taught a lesson that if your rights violate; or have the potential to violate, the rights of others in the vicinity… you could end up losing ALL rights!

Smart leaders should not only be aware of their citizen’s needs, but also the main concerns of their neighbors.

It’s in every small nation’s interests to establish and preserve a good friendship with their larger neighbor if it is to survive.

So, in response to your above broad claim I’d say that one only has a right when those next to him also agree with it!

[Lordo]

In other words big fish eat little fish.