History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedUSA/NATO vs Russia - Analytical thread started

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: USA/NATO vs Russia - Analytical thread started
    Posted: 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
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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".
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 09:53
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

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. 

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.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 10:10
Quote Even the second world war started with USSR and Germany once again dividing Poland.


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.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 10:33
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

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. 

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.
 
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".
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 2818
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 11:04
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

 
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.
 

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.


Quote It wouldn't had developed into world war if Britain and France did not declare war against Germany.

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
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 11:53
^
[Citation needed]
 
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 13:30
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Even the second world war started with USSR and Germany once again dividing Poland.


It wouldn't had developed into world war if Britain and France did not declare war against Germany.
 
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). 

Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:


Anyway I do not support the secret protocols but support the German-Soviet non-aggression pact.
 
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.

Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:


Britain was the one who wanted Hitler to go eastwards.
 
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
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 14:40
do not bring that debate into the thread.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2008 at 15:44
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

The purpose is to look at the strategic reality as it exist, and not the morality of it.


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:

Quote ...Enlargement of NATO and the EU would also reinvigorate Europe's waning sense of a larger vocation while consolidating, to the benefit of both America and Europe, the democratic gains won through the successful end of the Cold War. At stake in this effort is nothing less than America's long-range relationship with Europe. A new Europe is still taking shape, and if that Europe is to remain part of the "Euro-Atlantic" space, the expansion of NATO is essential.

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...

http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html





Edited by Bankotsu - 19-Jun-2008 at 15:55
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 01:20
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

I think USA strategy is to prevent europe and Russia from developing more cooperative ties.
 
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.
Originally posted by Bankotsu Bankotsu wrote:

France plans to go back into NATO's joint military command:
Sarkozy is ready to annex NATO to France
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080619/111248
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
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 511
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: Cyprus
Status: Offline
Points: 923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 13:27

Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachnii will visit to Haifa under the NATO flag

The flagship of the Ukrainian Naval Forces, the frigate Hetman Sahaidachnii has participated in Operation Active Endeavour, the NATO maritime contribution to the fight against terrorism in the Eastern Mediterranean. And the press-cutting service of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence informed the Ukrainian frigate will visit to the port of Haifa on 4, July.

Hetman Sahaidachnii already made the first friendly visit to Haifa ten years ago.

The Ukrainian flagship was successfully certified by the NATO experts and it is subordinate the command of Allied Maritime Component Commander, Vice-Admiral Roberto Cesaretti, the operation centre in Naples.

Prior to joining the operation the ship has conducted Force Integration Training, assisted by the Italian corvette ITS Granatiere and by a NATO team near Crete Island

www.qha.com.ua
DÜŞÜNÜYORUM O HALDE VURUN !
Back to Top
Kevin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 27-Apr-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 789
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kevin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 19:48
Originally posted by erkut erkut wrote:

Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaidachnii will visit to Haifa under the NATO flag

The flagship of the Ukrainian Naval Forces, the frigate Hetman Sahaidachnii has participated in Operation Active Endeavour, the NATO maritime contribution to the fight against terrorism in the Eastern Mediterranean. And the press-cutting service of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence informed the Ukrainian frigate will visit to the port of Haifa on 4, July.

Hetman Sahaidachnii already made the first friendly visit to Haifa ten years ago.

The Ukrainian flagship was successfully certified by the NATO experts and it is subordinate the command of Allied Maritime Component Commander, Vice-Admiral Roberto Cesaretti, the operation centre in Naples.

Prior to joining the operation the ship has conducted Force Integration Training, assisted by the Italian corvette ITS Granatiere and by a NATO team near Crete Island

www.qha.com.ua


I wonder how Russia would react if the Ukraine is admitted into NATO?
Back to Top
Richard XIII View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 654
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Richard XIII Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 oilWink). 
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."

Albert Einstein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.098 seconds.