|
|
You cannot post here - you can only read.
Here is the
link to the new forum:
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 4> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||
Bankotsu 
Colonel 
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: USA/NATO vs Russia - Analytical thread startedPosted: 19-Jun-2008 at 06:43 |
|||
|
I have started this thread to cover relations between USA and Russia and between NATO and Russia.
USA/NATO has carried out a series of political and military moves that have angered Russia because they feel that the intent of these activities and projects is aimed against Russia. Some of these projects include: (1) A European missile shield, (2) The setting up of Kosovo as an independent state, thus undermining Serbian sovereignty, and (3) Eastwards expansion of NATO membership states.  I would welcome any comments or analysis regarding the development of USA/NATO/Russia relations. Edited by Bankotsu - 15-Aug-2008 at 07:45 |
||||
 |
||||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 06:48 |
|||
|
BMD Focus: Will Lithuania host BMD base?
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/ USA 'plans to neutralize Russian nuclear weapons by 2012-2015' http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080618/111155009.html |
||||
|
||||
|
Sparten
Immortal Guard 
Totalitarian Iconoclast Joined: 18-Mar-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 5012 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 08:29 |
|||
|
Yes the Russians have their worries. The expansion or expected expansion of the NATO allience into Russia's old territorys is definatly a threat. As is the expansion of BMD in Poland, (don't be surprised if some Russian ICBM have target value; warsaw right now).
These are political threats more than anything. Militarily they mean little. NATO's impotence has been shown in Afghanistan, it now has very little by the way of conventional military might to be a threat to Russia, not with the culling of so many militaries after 1992. The dozen or som interceptors and BMD radars in Poland (in fact I am not sure there are going to be any interceptors in Poland), are incapable of even scrathing Russian nuclear capanbilties, in fact they are just another target in a war.
If I was a Russian, its not the military capabilities I would be worried about, but the political intention, it shows a Europe essentially hostile to Russia. Which of course is business as usual for last 300 years.
|
||||
|
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 09:22 |
|||
|
I think USA strategy is to prevent europe and Russia from developing more cooperative ties.
They want to use NATO to maintain their influence over european affairs and to make sure that there is always that tension and mistrust between europe and Russia. I think Britain also supports this point of view. A New Cold War? http://www.antiwar.com/ Edited by Bankotsu - 19-Jun-2008 at 09:27 |
||||
|
||||
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph 
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Location: Sweden Online Status: Offline Posts: 2819 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 09:53 |
|||
This is an extremely one-sided way of looking at it. It's not so strange the Eastern European countries are moving Westward, considering Russia's tendency to annex it's neighbours. Russia has historically been an extermely expansionistic state, to the suspiciousness against her is pretty well grounded. Saying that "Europe" has been hostile to Russia is bizarre. During the last 300 years the Germans and Russians have been busy dividing eastern Europe between them. Even the second world war started with USSR and Germany once again dividing Poland. |
||||
|
||||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 10:10 |
|||
It wouldn't had developed into world war if Britain and France did not declare war against Germany. Anyway I do not support the secret protocols but support the German-Soviet non-aggression pact. Britain was the one who wanted Hitler to go eastwards. |
||||
|
||||
|
Sparten
Immortal Guard
Totalitarian Iconoclast Joined: 18-Mar-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 5012 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 10:33 |
|||
In other words they are suspicious and hostile; you agree with me then. The purpose is to look at the strategic reality as it exist, and not the morality of it.
|
||||
|
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 10:38 |
|||
|
France plans to go back into NATO's joint military command:
Walker's World: France's new military http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Walk Sarkozy is ready to annex NATO to France http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080619/111248 |
||||
|
||||
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Location: Sweden Online Status: Offline Posts: 2819 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 11:04 |
|||
In a way. There is more hostility towards Russia in Eastern Europe than for example in France and Germany, who are on quite friendly terms (esp. Germany). However the hostility is due to the past and suspected (be it real or imagined) aggression of Russia, there is no will to do any hostile actions towards it. Purely defensive that is.
If this is some sort of apologetical or putting-blaim-on-Britain statement I won't bother to reply. Has nothing to do with this thread. Edited by Styrbiorn - 19-Jun-2008 at 11:06 |
||||
|
||||
|
xristar
Chieftain 
Joined: 05-Nov-2005 Location: Greece Online Status: Offline Posts: 1028 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 11:41 |
|||
|
Add to this that Greece, an old NATO member, has the best relationship with Russia than ever.
|
||||
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
||||
|
||||
|
Sparten
Immortal Guard
Totalitarian Iconoclast Joined: 18-Mar-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 5012 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 11:53 |
|||
|
^
[Citation needed]
|
||||
|
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
|
||||
|
||||
|
deadkenny
General 
Joined: 21-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 994 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:30 |
|||
Well, once Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union cooperatively divided Poland and the Baltic States between themselves, they had a common border. If France and Britain had not declared war, then Germany would have attacked the Soviet Union (incidently what you claim was Britain plans, although Britain's own actions prevented that from happening).
This is either incredibly naive or disingenuous. The Nazi Soviet Pact was all about the secret protocols. Without the 'payment' Stalin received in the form of getting half of Poland, the Baltic States and parts of Finland and Rumania, Stalin wouldn't have signed it.
This is false. As someone stated already, it is simply communist apologia for Stalin entering an alliance with Nazi Germany. There is another thread for 'discussion' of this point, I suggest we continue it there.
Having said all that, the facts are that the 'Russians' were forced to except the loss of the western parts of their Empire in the wake of their defeat in WWI and subsequent Civil War. Soviet policy then became to 'retrieve' some or all of what they had lost - Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Bessarabia (from Rumania). Once again, with the 'collapse' of the USSR, many of these territories, and more, 'broke away'. Now that 'Russia' is 'getting back on her feet' again, is it surprizing that these 'break away' states are seeking to 'protect' themselves from potential Russian aggression? Edited by deadkenny - 19-Jun-2008 at 13:32 |
||||
|
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
|
||||
|
||||
|
Leonidas
Immortal Guard
Joined: 01-Oct-2005 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 4617 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 14:40 |
|||
|
do not bring that debate into the thread.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 15:44 |
|||
This thread should focus on the strategies and tactics employed by the players involved. Not on morality issues. We should view it from a political/military strategic point of view. If USA's goal is to cut off Russian influence from europe and sees expansion of NATO eastwards as a means to reaching that goal, we can discuss the USA strategy and the Russian response. There is no need to ask whether it is right for USA to pursue such a goal, as that is not the intent of the thread. Zbigniew Brzezinski's views on NATO:
Accordingly, NATO and EU enlargement should move forward in deliberate
stages. Assuming a sustained American and Western European commitment, here is a
speculative but realistic timetable for these stages: By 1999, the first three
Central European members will have been admitted into NATO, although their
inclusion in the EU will probably not take place before 2002 or 2003; by 2003,
the EU is likely to have initiated accession talks with all three Baltic
republics, and NATO will likewise have moved forward on their membership as well
as that of Romania and Bulgaria, with their accession likely to be completed
before 2005; between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine, provided it has made significant
domestic reforms and has become identified as a Central European country, should
also be ready for initial negotiations with the EU and NATO. Failure to widen NATO, now that the commitment has been made, would shatter
the concept of an expanding Europe and demoralize the Central Europeans. Worse,
it could reignite dormant Russian political aspirations in Central Europe.
Moreover, it is far from evident that the Russian political elite shares the
European desire for a strong American political and military presence in Europe.
Accordingly, while fostering a cooperative relationship with Russia is
desirable, it is important for America to send a clear message about its global
priorities. If a choice must be made between a larger Europe-Atlantic system and
a better relationship with Russia, the former must rank higher... Edited by Bankotsu - 19-Jun-2008 at 15:55 |
||||
|
||||
|
pikeshot1600
Immortal Guard
Joined: 22-Jan-2005 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 4232 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 23:41 |
|||
|
With regard to the map provided, Ukraine's and Georgia's NATO aspirations seem to be pushing the issue. Both may be just bargaining chips in future negotiations with Russia. The recent meeting where Putin hoped to defuse the missiles in central Europe did not go so well for Russia, but the expansion of NATO was shelved "for the time being."
I can't see either of the two countries being viable NATO members, as in the event of a crisis, NATO would be powerless to help them. Western influence in peacetime may be useful, but if the Russian army comes across the border, NATO (read the US) is not going to war for either Ukraine or Georgia. As lesser important states, they are pawns as usual.
As eastern European states in the late 1940s were incorporated into the sphere of influence of the USSR, and acted as a buffer zone against the West, eastern Europe is now a buffer against the East (Russia).
After the Second World War, the challenge for the maritime powers (US/UK) was to discourage further Soviet Russian hegemony on the Continent. How that was to be done was never some grand scheme, but the perception of Soviet expansion to the Med (NATO)and then later into the Middle East (Iran), and the perceived aggression in east Asia (Korea), were the foundations of "containment" so sea power could lock down land power. Europe became part of the intermediate zone of conflict where most of the Cold War was contested.
It would have made little difference whether Russia or Germany were the hegemon. Either one was bad news for the maritime powers.
Edited by pikeshot1600 - 19-Jun-2008 at 23:46 |
||||
|
||||
|
Cryptic
General
Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 901 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 01:20 |
|||
I dont think that the USA has a real "Russia Strategy". Instead, the "Neo cons" in Washington insist on creating "threats" (Russia, Iran with ICBMS) to justify their own existance as a political group. They then justify the "need" for expensive weapons. Of course... the Neo cons have very close ties to the companies contracted to design and manufacture the "needed" weapons to meet the "threat". It is a never ending circle.
This appears to be an editorial. I doubt thatthe French are going to change 50 years of policy and intergrate themselves into an increasingly vague "NATO". As the other psoter mentioned, many NATO members, includng France, have resisted sending meaningful contributions to Afghanistan for years. Edited by Cryptic - 20-Jun-2008 at 01:30 |
||||
|
||||
|
Bankotsu
Colonel
Joined: 27-Feb-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 511 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 03:50 |
|||
|
William Engdahl has written some analytical articles on USA political moves and Russia's reactions to those moves:
Washington Interest in Ukraine: US Intervention for 'Democracy'? http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Ukraine/ukraine Ukraine Gas Dispute - Has Putin Gone Nuts? http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geo The Emerging Russian Giant Plays its Cards Strategically http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/ Putin and the Geopolitics of the New Cold War http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics Kosovo and Washington’s Strategic Agenda for Europe and Eurasia http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Kosovo/  Edited by Bankotsu - 20-Jun-2008 at 04:10 |
||||
|
||||
|
erkut
General
Persona non Grata Joined: 18-Feb-2006 Location: Cyprus Online Status: Offline Posts: 923 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 13:27 |
|||
|
||||
|
DÜŞÜNÜYORUM O HALDE VURUN !
|
||||
|
||||
|
Kevin
Editorial Staff 
AE Editor Joined: 27-Apr-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 789 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 19:48 |
|||
I wonder how Russia would react if the Ukraine is admitted into NATO? |
||||
|
||||
|
Richard XIII
Colonel
Joined: 06-Jun-2005 Location: Romania Online Status: Offline Posts: 654 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 20:12 |
|||
|
Ukraine will not be admitted into NATO, if Russia will join NATO in a large christian coalition, or something like that, Ukraine will entry too but otherwise Germany will oppose to Ukraine admittance forever (gas and oil
 ).
|
||||
|
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 4> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
USA/NATO vs Russia - Analytical thread started