UKC

I see David Cameron believes that "Nato has only ever sought to be a partner to Russia”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28619188

Has nobody explained to him why NATO was set up?

Or does he assume we are all too stupid to question his statements because he is, after all, Prime Minister?

In reply to andyathome:
I think you will find this is a thing called politics, and not strictly to be taken literally. I am very sure David Cameron remembered the cold war, but Nato is lovely and cosy and has never wanted to be horrid

In reply to andyathome:

Presumably he gave the recipients and other readers credit for having the common sense to realise he was referring to the post iron curtain era. It seems he was wrong……

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you give Cameron( young script writers? ) credit where none is due on this occasion.
The language is pretty clear "only ever"

I cannot find another sentence using this phrase that leaves it open to interpret that there may have been a previous occasion that things were different.

But you may have some?

In reply to Jim C:




Yes, he referred to "Russia" rather than the "Soviet Union" which clearly implies he was referring to the post 1989 era.

Furthermore,he lived the first half of his life in the cold war, has an A level in history and a first class degree in , amongst other things, politics and has spent large part of his career immersed in current affairs. . You would have to be extraordinarily perverse to seriously believe he is unaware of the background to NATO and the cold war. I doubt if it crossed his mind that people could be so perverse but it's yet another reason why sensible people seldom bother to become politicians.

In reply to andyathome:

The truth is always up for negotiation with politicians. History is no exception.

In reply to andyathome:

I don't think much of Cameron, but considering that the Russian Federation from basically it's very beginning in 92 was part of the EAPC, and then joined partnership for peace in the mid-90s I would say just about all of NATO's relations with Russia have been managed through bodies with "partnership" in them. So what exactly is technically wrong about what he said?

In reply to Postmanpat:


'Has only ever' seems to be slightly different to 'has, since the end of the iron curtain'.

But maybe I am lacking in common sense and over-endowed with critical faculties.

In reply to TobyA:


Sorry. It's just Wikipedia.

NATO was little more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the organization's member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, which formed in 1955. Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defence against a prospective Soviet invasion—doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO's military structure in 1966 for 30 years. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization was drawn into the breakup of Yugoslavia, and conducted its first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999. Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Warsaw Pact countries, several of which joined the alliance in 1999 and 2004.

Sounds dead pally.

In reply to TobyA:

A further cracking quote re NATO:

The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

In reply to andyathome:

Maybe, but more likely you just fancied a cheap crack at a politician.

Actually, on second thoughts, on reading your replies to Toby, it might be the critical faculties…..

In reply to andyathome:

You seem to missing that Russia didn't exist as a state until 92. NATO was formed against the USSR (and later the Warsaw Pact).

I remember writing an essay for my M.A. in err, I guess, 1998 about security communities and the chance of Russia actually becoming a member of NATO. During the Yeltsin years relations were in some respects quite "pally".

In reply to andyathome:

Whose version of history are you going to teach??

In reply to Dave Perry:

The victors?

In reply to TobyA:



He seems to revel in missing this rather important point

In reply to andyathome:



Please look up "hoisted by your own petard", Andy.

In reply to andyathome:

This was answered years ago:

Touring a university library during her early years of office, Mrs Thatcher asked a student what he was doing. 'History, Mrs Thatcher,' he answered. 'I am studying history.' To which she harrumphed, 'Young man, history is a luxury in which this country can ill afford to indulge.'

(you can find the same story all over the web, albeit with slightly different words every time)