Russia, US, NATO, EU ... - dissagrements, fears, mistrusts (looking for common basis)

[Switek]

There are many threads on mp.net about relation between generaly West and Russia. I agree that many discussions there leads to the same point which describes in the best way <Gypsum Fantastic>'s avatar.

One of the most interesting but typical fact I observed is a matter of spreading of NATO. One of the pillar of democracy and freedom is near Russia borders. Russian reaction is we are getting be surrended by NATO. We are peaceful and not offensie - No we are. It's you who aren't ... and it's repeating in the circle.

May be I'm naive. But I really don't get this continously mutual suspiciousness.
No, wrong - being frankly - I'm very distrustful toward Russia, its leader an current policy. Anyway I'd like to change my attitude and know Russians better... really. I wonder If it's possible?

Please keep civil manners and avoid insulting and flames. Try to give solid, factual arguments. Whether you like me or not this thread is for whole community.

[Xtoisè]

There are many threads on mp.net about relation between generaly West and Russia. I agree that many discussions there leads to the same point which describes in the best way <Gypsum Fantastic>'s avatar.

One of the most interesting but typical fact I observed is a matter of spreading of NATO. One of the pillar of democracy and freedom is near Russia borders. Russian reaction is we are getting be surrended by NATO. We are peaceful and not offensie - No we are. It's you who aren't ... and it's repeating in the circle.

May be I'm naive. But I really don't get this continously mutual suspiciousness.
No, wrong - being frankly - I'm very distrustful toward Russia, its leader an current policy. Anyway I'd like to change my attitude and know Russians better... really. I wonder If it's possible?

Please keep civil manners and avoid insulting and flames. Try to give solid, factual arguments. Whether you like me or not this thread is for whole community.

NATO is a military alliance not a pillar of democracy therefore you are naive. Your suspicion of Russia dominating the world is a paranoid suspicion if concluding from Russia's past military interventions. Most likely it is impossible to change your attitude towards Russia untill your government changes it while you support it.

[Switek]

NATO is a military alliance not a pillar of democracy therefore you are naive. Your suspicion of Russia dominating the world is a paranoid suspicion if concluding from Russia's past military interventions. Most likely it is impossible to change your attitude towards Russia untill your government changes it while you support it.

Anyway in NATO are democratic countries!. This is not club of tyranies. I do not support our current government I'm its 100% opponent. But it desn't mean that id not support some political initiatives which are good for my country. My general estimation about current foreign policy of Kaczyński twins is very, very bad.

As I stated before try to avoid use word as "paranoid" adressed personally.

[Xtoisè]

Anyway in NATO are democratic countries!. This is not club of tyranies. I do not support our current government I'm its 100% opponent. But it desn't mean that id not support some political initiatives which are good for my country. My general estimation about current foreign policy of Kaczyński twins is very, very bad.

As I stated before try to avoid use word as "paranoid" adressed personally.
Democracy is a very vague definition, there could be peace and prosperity under a monarch and chaos under public rule.
And it doesnt matter who is in the NATO alliance, it is a Military Alliance first of all, which was created by the United States to counter Russia, this was a primary purpose of NATO and it will not just reform into something else that easy.
I can rephrase "paranoia" in a context of the whole Polish nation then, becuase that is what most Poles here say. I only mention this paranoia becuase of the constant invokes of "Russian paranoia of being surrounded".

Do you think you share the view on Russia of most Poles or alteast over 50%? If you do, then you support your government, Kaczynskie are only two men.

EDIT:
Your belives are influenced by what people with power believe into and promote as truth or general understanding, just like anyone else's anywehre else, all Americans', Germans', Russians' etc. You will be also naive to think that you have a totaly unbiased, original point of view.

[Switek]

There is no matter whether I'm biased or not. May be I'm in some extent. I do not deny. I have my point of viwew about current world. But it doesn't mean that I 'm right in evrything. No, I have right to be mistaken to change my views.

From you words I aassume that you "a priori" exclude a possibility of finding "common language". "Biased", "paranoia" aren't words of mutual dialogue

Going back to the history. NATO was defensive pact. Contrary to Warsaw Pact. It's exclusive club. Evry country applying to NATO must fulfil some political requirements like civil, democratic, control over armed forces.

The most economicaly developed countries, the richiest ones are democratic in present world. So there is corelation between prosperity and the form of political organisation of the society.


I don't care what most Poles think about "X", "Y", "Z" and what are their political views. I'll try to keep away from "group thinking" syndrome.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Democracy is a very vague definition, there could be peace and prosperity under a monarch and chaos under public rule.
And it doesnt matter who is in the NATO alliance, it is a Military Alliance first of all, which was created by the United States to counter Russia, this was a primary purpose of NATO and it will not just reform into something else that easy.

Er, NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union. And of course the Soviet Union had well established a record of acquiring neighbor states...in an effort to "stabilize" them, of course.

It doesn't take much of a stretch for the border states to see Russia attempting to emulate some of the patterns of the USSR. When Russia starts talking about it's neighbor states in language that implies that they still somehow own them, it's no wonder that those nations then seek to defend themselves. "Fool me once", etc. I have to think that if Russia was a lot more friendly and conciliatory towards it's neighbors, they wouldn't be so quick to join mutual defense alliances.



EDIT:
Your belives are influenced by what people with power believe into and promote as truth or general understanding, just like anyone else's anywehre else, all Americans', Germans', Russians' etc. You will be also naive to think that you have a totaly unbiased, original point of view.

While I agree that national leadership attempts to (and does) sway opinion - I'd argue that there's nothing wrong with bias per se. In fact, to be totally unbiased would seem to me to be a waste of one's life. What one winds up being biased for and against defines them - and the same goes for nations. Further - I'd also say that others are perfectly justified in judging and reacting to those people/nations who have defined themselves one way or the other. What's the old saying - "even the paranoid have enemies"? :)

[Xtoisè]

Er, NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union. And of course the Soviet Union had well established a record of acquiring neighbor states...in an effort to "stabilize" them, of course.

It doesn't take much of a stretch for the border states to see Russia attempting to emulate some of the patterns of the USSR. When Russia starts talking about it's neighbor states in language that implies that they still somehow own them, it's no wonder that those nations then seek to defend themselves. "Fool me once", etc. I have to think that if Russia was a lot more friendly and conciliatory towards it's neighbors, they wouldn't be so quick to join mutual defense alliances.



While I agree that national leadership attempts to (and does) sway opinion - I'd argue that there's nothing wrong with bias per se. In fact, to be totally unbiased would seem to me to be a waste of one's life. What one winds up being biased for and against defines them - and the same goes for nations. Further - I'd also say that others are perfectly justified in judging and reacting to those people/nations who have defined themselves one way or the other. What's the old saying - "even the paranoid have enemies"? :)

If Soviet Union has ceased to exist therefore must NATO, for all other international conflicts there is UN. Soviet Union or Russia, it really makes no difference we all know that.

I didnt take a stance for or against bias, your opinions on it are pretty much correct but depending on type of character you can be unbiased and still have a purpose.

[Xtoisè]

There is no matter whether I'm biased or not. May be I'm in some extent. I do not deny. I have my point of viwew about current world. But it doesn't mean that I 'm right in evrything. No, I have right to be mistaken to change my views.

From you words I aassume that you "a priori" exclude a possibility of finding "common language". "Biased", "paranoia" aren't words of mutual dialogue

Going back to the history. NATO was defensive pact. Contrary to Warsaw Pact. It's exclusive club. Evry country applying to NATO must fulfil some political requirements like civil, democratic, control over armed forces.

The most economicaly developed countries, the richiest ones are democratic in present world. So there is corelation between prosperity and the form of political organisation of the society.


I don't care what most Poles think about "X", "Y", "Z" and what are their political views. I'll try to keep away from "group thinking" syndrome.

Fine, disregard "paranoia" comments, they were not meant to be part of the discusion, but bias has a pretty neutral meaning, i mean no offence when i mention "bias".

[Switek]

If Soviet Union has ceased to exist therefore must NATO, for all other international conflicts there is UN. Soviet Union or Russia, it really makes no difference we all know that.
...

UN is red tape machine. And do not has its armed forces. NATO is an only alliance which can be used wordwide to turn of different conflicts when time does matter. I think there is a place for Russia to cooperate in it.

[Xtoisè]

There is no matter whether I'm biased or not. May be I'm in some extent. I do not deny. I have my point of viwew about current world. But it doesn't mean that I 'm right in evrything. No, I have right to be mistaken to change my views.

From you words I aassume that you "a priori" exclude a possibility of finding "common language". "Biased", "paranoia" aren't words of mutual dialogue

Going back to the history. NATO was defensive pact. Contrary to Warsaw Pact. It's exclusive club. Evry country applying to NATO must fulfil some political requirements like civil, democratic, control over armed forces.

The most economicaly developed countries, the richiest ones are democratic in present world. So there is corelation between prosperity and the form of political organisation of the society.


I don't care what most Poles think about "X", "Y", "Z" and what are their political views. I'll try to keep away from "group thinking" syndrome.

Your "protection of the Polish statehood" type of thinking came from common knowledge news, common knowledge news is spread by influencial people. News can be bad and good. Katyn incident and Soviet occupation of Poland has been very well centralized lately in Poland. Yes, it is facts, but like all bad news it is expected to create a negative reaction when it is produced, more importantly a sense of revenge. Therefore Polish powerhandlers expected that this may strain relationship with Russia, and when the history of Russian occupation of Poland is constantly invoked in the media and not let off as part of history it creates a general public opinion out of it. This is what i mean of your opinion being similar to the rest of Poland.

[Xtoisè]

UN is red tape machine. And do not has its armed forces. NATO is an only alliance which can be used wordwide to turn of different conflicts when time does matter. I think there is a place for Russia to cooperate in it.

This is today's most heated topic. I and like many others think that UN should have handled all missions instead of NATO barging in and attacking countries. I won't discuss this issue; it will turn no where.

[Switek]

This is today's most heated topic. I and like many others think that UN should have handled all missions instead of NATO barging in and attacking countries. I won't discuss this issue; it will turn no where.

I agree with you that UN should have handled all missions instead of any alliance. True. But closer Russian cooperation with NATO would bring much more mutual confidence.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

If Soviet Union has ceased to exist therefore must NATO, for all other international conflicts there is UN. Soviet Union or Russia, it really makes no difference we all know that.

Not sure what you're saying here - are you saying that NATO's existence must be tied to the existence of the USSR? If so, why? The USSR dissolved just a few years ago - I'd say it's is unwise to dissolve a stabilizing military force so quickly, before the dust has really settled.



I didnt take a stance for or against bias, your opinions on it are pretty much correct but depending on type of character you can be unbiased and still have a purpose.

Certainly one could have a purpose - just staying alive is a purpose I guess - but considering human potential, I'd consider a life devoted to simply existing to be wasted.

[Xtoisè]

Not sure what you're saying here - are you saying that NATO's existence must be tied to the existence of the USSR? If so, why? The USSR dissolved just a few years ago - I'd say it's is unwise to dissolve a stabilizing military force so quickly, before the dust has really settled.



Certainly one could have a purpose - just staying alive is a purpose I guess - but considering human potential, I'd consider a life devoted to simply existing to be wasted.

NATO was created due to existance of USSR, if dust hasnt settled then current Russia, as bieng the dust, has to see NATO as a threat.

There are other ways to have a fulfilling life besides being devoted to your country. Moving into mountains or any other untouched natural habitats, building a house, and living off of nature can be very fulfilling. You might see it as a joke but those who have done this probably see it as being above being a regular citizen.

[lightfire]

NATO was created due to existance of USSR

And now it is emphasized, that the role of NATO is diffenernt. Thats it, why should it depend on SU existance?


if dust hasnt settled then current Russia, as bieng the dust, has to see NATO as a threat

Russia is the one, who creates that "dust", that's a part of the reasons, why certain countries joined and are willing to join NATO. Unstable, with nuclear weapons, with moods of hostility, hedless of neighbour oppinion... some russians do recognize themselves, that rusian army is more dangerous in maneuvers, than in real combat-you never know where the drunk officers point their dummy attack next time, and how would that end..(but that's only a joke). Surelly that causes a suspition,esspecially after many years of experience with such a "peacefull" neighbour.
Yet what threat may cause new members, when Russia is anuclear country? Inteligence, radars, couple fighters in few bases? NATO has that info and capabilities anyway, it doesn't give too much of any advantage for a surprise evil NATO attack on peaceloving Motherland.. If certain nations feel safier in NATO, that should be good for Russia, cause they can develope better relations with those certain countries. The question is - do they want to develop normal relations with those crtain countries, or do they still want to look at them as to second rated countries, "closeforeignborder" countries, temoprarry lost teritories? Today it looks like second option rules RF foreign relations. Worried about anti balistic missile defence?? BS! Russian claim themselves, that their ICBMs are invincible, untrackable, besides there's plenty of other means to launch them in case of Evil imperialist-capitalist West invasion- submarines for instance... so it is baisically whining of "how strong we are, and how evil consipiracy surrounds us.."

[Lazarou]

Not sure what you're saying here - are you saying that NATO's existence must be tied to the existence of the USSR? If so, why? The USSR dissolved just a few years ago - I'd say it's is unwise to dissolve a stabilizing military force so quickly, before the dust has really settled.
x2

And a number of EU countries - the Baltics, for instance - are almost completely dependent on NATO and its deterrence against possible aggressors (cough - Russia - cough). Disbanding NATO would be like throwing those nations to the wolves.

[Flamming_Python]

1st Questionnable assumption: NATO is a philanthropic organisation.

2nd Questionnable assumption: Russia = USSR and would invade everybody around them to restore the USSR.

There has been much talk of how Russia is always the aggressor. Yet when the Bolshevik revolution started, 16 or so foreign armies invaded Russia in order to intervene into an internal affair. Since the Bolshevik's eventually won, a great mistrust was built between the USSR and the West.

This mistrust was so great, that many Western political leaders advocated appeasing Nazi Germany in order to serve as a bulwark against the Bolshevik threat. In the Soviet Union, the West was viewed as much an enemy as the Germans.

Russia associates NATO with the West. While relations have improved, Russians view NATO as a military alliance that is expanding around their borders, which pushes the agenda of the same countries that invaded revolutionary Russia in 1919. Is it such a suprise that people are paranoid?

[Smersh]

Its good that a thread has started where we can come to some agreements, but it doesn't look like this is happening, its becoming another repeat of the russian themed threads I mentioned before, in the defense minister thread.

firstly, if NATO is a "pillar of democracy" why is it confined to Europe? You guys continuelly say that NATO's mission has changed its not about aimed at Russia, former-soviet union, anymore. then someone goes and says: "the Baltics, for instance -are almost completely dependent on NATO and its deterrence against possible aggressors (cough - Russia - cough). Disbanding NATO would be like throwing those nations to the wolves." Even Switek in a previous thread said Poland joined NATO for security against unstable Russia. So, despite all the arguments about NATO being different and has changed since the collapse of the USSR, being a "pillar of Democracy etc" looking at your very own posts, its very clear that the mission of NATO has not changed.

Then when Russia comments on the expansion and surronding by NATO, you guys say this is self-centered-ness and paranoia. No-one sees any contradictions here?

I personally also see NATO as a mechanism in which the USA can continue to influence affiars in Europe, even after the end of European dependency on the USA and the "end" of the Cold war.

[Thor]

And it doesnt matter who is in the NATO alliance, it is a Military Alliance first of all, which was created by the United States to counter Russia, this was a primary purpose of NATO and it will not just reform into something else that easy.


NATO was created due to existance of USSR, if dust hasnt settled then current Russia, as bieng the dust, has to see NATO as a threat.
Wrong, NATO's primary purpose was to repell a mass assault on Europe. It's a defensive alliance, if Russia doesn't plan on attacking any NATO nation they have nothing to worry about.


Hugo Putin is the actively aggressive one who is driving Russia against a war with NATO/EU. One example of that is how he has managed to push just about the only button that could make us (Sweden) start preparing for war, with his proposals of an underwater pipeline close to our shores, followed by a russian military presence in the same zone, on the wrong side of the baltic sea, close to our capital.

This is just crazy. I'm not saying that Russia will start a war, we might just well do that if the government/military feels that our territorial integrity is threatened. Just like what almost happened in 1981 when half the soviet baltic fleet were a minute or two from being sunk as they gathered just outside our territorial waters preparing to assist a stranded sub.

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3149/ubat1kt2.jpg

[Smersh]

Hugo Putin is the actively aggressive one...

Hugo Putin? there is no reason to make fun of people names. keep this civil. I'm not even a huge fan of Putin.

[Smersh]

There was some mentioning before that NATO is a only defensive organization? What was defensive about its intervention in Jugoslavia?

and that the Warsaw Pact was on offensive alliance. Do you guys forget, that the Warsaw Pact was created in Response to NATO. The USSR even suggested it should join NATO in the early 50s, to maintain peace and stability, but this was seen as some kind of communist trick. You guys will then make the argument, that the Warsaw pact strategy was offensive in nature, and point to an offensive oreinted weoponry and tactics. You guys need to understand the experiance of the Second World War, the Warsaw pact was built under the principle of "the best defense is an offense".

[Kilgor]

1st Questionnable assumption: NATO is a philanthropic organisation.

2nd Questionnable assumption: Russia = USSR and would invade everybody around them to restore the USSR.

There has been much talk of how Russia is always the aggressor. Yet when the Bolshevik revolution started, 16 or so foreign armies invaded Russia in order to intervene into an internal affair. Since the Bolshevik's eventually won, a great mistrust was built between the USSR and the West.
?

When the goal of the bolshevik's was world worker revolution, it was not just a internal affair. Churchill's comment about how it must be strangled in the cradle was typical of the anti communist thinking at the time.

[Switek]

We've came to one conclusuin so far:

For Rusians NATO is still agressive alliance with hidden aim: to defeat Russia.

For Westerners (bad name but I haven't found better) NATO is defensive alliance which protects its members against different threats. Unfriendly Russia is one among others (if I'm correct).

What does it mean unfriendly Russia? It's Russia itself, it's current internal and foreign policies. Is it westerners nightmare: anarchistic or despotic Russia (USSR bis). Or what more?

[Smersh]

NATO is defensive alliance which protects its members against different threats. Unfriendly Russia is one among others

Among what others exactly? Morroco? Moldova?

[Switek]

Among what others exactly? Morroco? Moldova?

Both are bad examples...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Flag_of_Moldova.svg/22px-Flag_of_Moldova.svg.png Moldova is a member of The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) on the other hand was first established on 29 May 1997, and is a forum for regular coordination, consultation and dialogue between all 49 participants.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Flag_of_Morocco.svg/22px-Flag_of_Morocco.svg.png Morocco is a meber of The Mediterranean Dialogue, first launched in 1994 is a forum of cooperation between NATO and seven countries of the Mediterranean.

this map is interesting:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/NATO_Partners.png/800px-NATO_Partners.png

NATO member states
Partnership for Peace countries
Mediterranean Dialogue countries

[lightfire]

Among what others exactly? Morroco? Moldova?

at the moment- terorism, that's why NATO has found its' role in A-stan.

[Smersh]

I realize their bad examples, that was the point. so what are these "others" you talk about, in "Russia is one among others"?

terrorism isn't exactly a state.

[lightfire]

terrorism isn't exactly a state.

and who said, that the enemy or threat should be a state?it seams some just want to strain status of "enemy" to itself, for some justification in internal policies.

[Smersh]

I'm sorry I didn't realize Eastern Europe was a target for Afgani insurgents. It requires missile sheilds and and other heavy weapons. The "wolves" lazarou talked about where afgani cave people.

Suddenly Western supported politicans in Ukraine and Georgia feel threatened by mujaheed. :)

How can you use terrorism to justify NATO expansion, conveintely around Russia and into CIS countries? I think NATO expansion is the issue, I don't think Russia would have any problems if NATO borders ended at Germany. (that is what was agreed in 1990...)

All the evidence points to NATO continueeing to be aimed primarly towards Russia (and the CIS), at least admit this. Instead of flowerly langauge, about one threat among many, etc. (but even that is progress from the usual threads)

[Switek]

I realize their bad examples, that was the point. so what are these "others" you talk about, in Russia is one among others?

Look at some previous posts ... not only here abot in many other threads. You know what I mean. I summarised not only westerners but Russians opinions as well...

[lightfire]

I'm sorry I didn't realize Eastern Europe was a target for Afgani insurgents.
well, the if this threat does not please you, NATO sends its appologies to you personally, but unfortunatelly, thats NATO job now, not to stop Russian invasion of Europe.
Missile shields are US initiative, not NATO. from rouge countries like Iran, North Korea. US antibalistic shield would be installed not only in Europe to cope with threats, but in the Pacific theatre as well.
Why do you care?Russia has superuber undestructable, untrackable,invincible Topol-M and other thousands of ICBMs, it has nothing to care about that,said that themselves,yet still whine..


Suddenly Western supported politicans in Ukraine and Georgia feel threatened by mujaheed

well, if Alliance needs contribution, they offer their part, if NATO wages war with taliban and those certain countries are strugling to join NATO, they make their own conclusions-NATO is not a charity organisation with free of charge security guarantees.

[Smersh]

well, the is this threat does not please you, NATO sends its appologies to you personally, but unfortunatelly, thats NATO job now, not to stop Russian invasion of Europe.

Ok. I'm done. this thread is obviosly going no-where. your statements compeltely go against the last page of dicussion.

[Switek]

Ok. I'm done. this thread is obviosly going no-where. your statements compeltely go against the last page of dicussion.

If you give up to participate in this discussion it would mean that Russians objecttins are just pointless.

Lightfire is right: ABM facilities are questionable by many NATO members...

But you should see one factor: ABM is absolutely defenceless against mass missle attack, from Russia, for example...

[Xtoisè]

Wrong, NATO's primary purpose was to repell a mass assault on Europe. It's a defensive alliance, if Russia doesn't plan on attacking any NATO nation they have nothing to worry about.


Im not even going to read any further beyond that. Assualt from whom? - Soviet Union/Russia, that answers the first sentence. Since fall of Soviet Union did someone confirm that Russia is planning an attack? - Why the expansion then?

[Smersh]

If you give up to participate in this discussion it would mean that Russians objecttins are just pointless.

No it means that I think this discussion is becoming pointless.

[Switek]

No it means that I think this discussion is becoming pointless.

Why? No more arguments that westerners are wrong?

[Smersh]

like I said before, in the last Russian themed threads. This has been done over a dozen times. Why repeat it agian.


These Russian themed threads are really starting to give me a head-ache! There seems to be a new one every other day, covering pretty much the same exact topics, no matter what the orginal topic was. Same group of people repeating the same things that where discredited a dozen threads ago, and in every other Russian themed thread.
...

have the arguments not been clear enough? we spent a page trying to admit there indeed is a very real anti-Russian element in NATO expansion. and the very next page, someone again repeats the tired idea, that Russia is being paranoid and its concerns are baseless.

[lightfire]

Im not even going to read any further beyond that. Assualt from whom? - Soviet Union/Russia, that answers the first sentence. Since fall of Soviet Union did someone confirm that Russia is planning an attack? - Why the expansion then?
Yes, NATO was created because of the threat of SU and its actions in Eastern and Middle Europe. With time the role has changed, but since you are not gonna read or get interested, you will unfortunatelly have to stick to your own presumtions and prejudice. Since fall of SU, Russia is seen as a partner, but yet a bit unstable country, with much of it's legacy.
NATO in general has no problems with Russia, they cooperate, ok? Expansion gives benefetis more to those new members in means of security, because Russia, I must repeat, does not concider many of its neighbour countries as equal partners, international players.
Constant hostility, treating like with your servants is NOT the way neighbours should act. Adding bitter taste of history, it is quite natural some countries rush to NATO, yet becoming members does not make them enemy. Don't you get this? Feeling more safe,while contributing to NATO itself those countries are willing to have good relations with Russia. You have to look at it rationally, but a bit from the outside, not from dogmatic narrow point of view- many of those countries are close to Russia, weaker ecconomically etc. They are smaller, their one of the main export partners is Russia, so why would they not be interested to have good relations with the big neighbour???Think about it, there are two points:
1) feel safe in the organisation or group that does provide best security available-that's a good thing;
2) have good neighbourhood relations with ecconomically strong neighbour Russia-that's importatnt and good thing too.

two points DO NOT oppose each other, while:

those countries are no match for Russia's power;
Russia itself claims that NATO is its partner.

All other decission maid by the countries are the buisness of those countries iteslf-forget to dictate them. They are deciding ther own decissions, and internall politics have their own flaws, mistakes, radicals etc, but that SHOULD NOT influence the background of the key princips-good neighbourhood relations, feeling of safety/security internationally.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Im not even going to read any further beyond that. Assualt from whom? - Soviet Union/Russia, that answers the first sentence. Since fall of Soviet Union did someone confirm that Russia is planning an attack? - Why the expansion then?

Expansion of what? The right to choose? Do you not see a difference between a nation that is militarily overrun and placed under permanent outside control, and a nation who's people freely choose to join an organization? NATO is not forcibly expanding from within like the Warsaw Pact, it is being drawn outwards by nations outside it's borders freely seeking to join it. I think that's a distinction that makes all the difference in the world.

Those border states have good reason to have lingering mistrust of Russia, IMHO. It was primarily Russian forces who rolled into Hungary in 1958 and into Czechoslovakia in 1968 under the guise of the Warsaw Pact. And obviously, they did not leave once order was restored, and the people were free to choose their government. One can contrast the two agendas thusly - NATO's plans in the event of war with the WP was to fall back in an orderly manner, using airpower to sap Soviet armor strength until they could be pushed back. WP plans in the event of war consisted of capturing Western Europe as quickly as possible. 15 or 20 years is probably not enough time to allow such disparate ideologies to co-exist comfortably (especially with an ex-company man at the helm). ;)

[TR1]

(especially with an ex-company man at the helm). ;)
hardly.
Putin's position was not much more than an ass-kisser, and afforder little real importance.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

hardly.
Putin's position was not much more than an ass-kisser, and afforder little real importance.

From teh Internets which knows everything and is always unquestionably right;


"Company Man" also is a term relating to a "Yes" Man, or someone who will do anything demanded of them by those who are supervising them. This term originated in the military where groups or divisions of soldiers were called "companies," thus the term Company. The term has since been used in the private sector as a term to demean someone who is well liked by their superiors and often gets better or lighter jobs than the rest of their co-workers.

[TR1]

From teh Internets which knows everything and is always unquestionably right;
apologies, misunderstood.

the mighty internets has prevailed.

[Thor]

Im not even going to read any further beyond that. Assualt from whom? - Soviet Union/Russia, that answers the first sentence. Since fall of Soviet Union did someone confirm that Russia is planning an attack? - Why the expansion then?
1. History has proved the need for an alliance to counter possible aggression from the east (especially for small nations) and balance European politics. This does not necessarily has anything to do with the current state of Russia. NATO nations just want to limit russian influence just as much as they want to maintain normal peaceful relations with that country. An alliance is necessary to achieve that.

2. Putin's latest exposé does indeed show that the current state is not secure, stable and peaceful.

[Xtoisè]

all of the pro-Nato arguements here start with "Nato now has a different purpose than it did before" and end with "But it is also there to counter Russia"
Same arguements that were used for the ABM shield in previous threads.

Switek, this thread wont end up with compromises, this will be like the Palsestinian-Israeli conflict, and in reality both will end up with wars.

[Smersh]

all of the pro-Nato arguements here start with "Nato now has a different purpose than it did before" and end with "But it is also there to counter Russia"

I've pointed that out already, and its been said in threads before. They don't seem to see it inherent contradictory phrasing. Light Fire, this isn't the first Russia/Soviet Union/NATO/US thread. If the dicussion is going to continue to go in circles there is no reason to continue.


Do you not see a difference between a nation that is militarily overrun and placed under permanent outside control, and a nation who's people freely choose to join an organization? NATO is not forcibly expanding from within like the Warsaw Pact

I didn't realize this was a NATO vs. Warsaw pact merits thread.


15 or 20 years is probably not enough time to allow such disparate ideologies to co-exist comfortably What disparate ideologies?

Shed's Jackson agian says NATO purpose is no different then it was before the end of the USSR. But someone else will then say, no, no its different today, you guys are being paranoid, NATO is a "pillar of democracy".

[Thor]

Nothing contradictory about it, NATO has kept both it's traditional role as well as implemented a new one.

Neither one threatens Russia.

The compromise here would not be agree on the things we agree on (counter-terrorism etc.) and agree to disagree on other issues.

[Smersh]

Nothing contradictory about it, NATO has kept both it's traditional role as well as implemented a new one.

Neither one threatens Russia.

Its "traditional role" does not threaten Russia? You guys have blinders on?

[Thor]

It's a defensive alliance... The rest of the world sees this, only you guys who are paranoid. There is no NATO-lebensraum doctrine.

[Smersh]

when the Soviet Union sent missiles to Cuba (after US backed invasion), what happened?

I would imagine the clamour in the USA if Russia was building bases and developing alliances with countries bordering the USA.

We want cooperation and partnership with Russia is what you guys keep repeating at the same time, F-16s are being sent to border bases. and NATO continues to expand. How can you have cooperation with no mutual trust. NATO immedially sends a warm greeting to every Anti-Russian clown politicians, who tow the pro-west line, even at the expense of their own population.

[Thor]

Why would Soviet Union/Russia want to send missiles anywhere?

Just sit tight and live peacefully. If you want to look for enemies that could possibly attack you, you need to look to the east.

NATO exists as a security guarantee for a number of countries that don't want to be under russian influence, or in other words want to maintain a long-term stability. You just have to learn to live with it and accept that these countries want good relations with you, but need security guarantees so they don't end up under russian influence.

[Smersh]

are you serious? am I talking to a wall.

[Thor]

What more is there to it? You don't see Finland sending nuclear warheads to Cuba? They just want to be left alone

Like someone put it: "NATO exists to keep Russia out, Germany down and USA in". Russia can have excellent relations with NATO and Europe if they act as a partner and not as someone who can't accept influence lost.

[Kilgor]

The former soviet occupied and annexed states are now turning to the west and NATO for security. Why is this so surprising?, some should realize they do have a choice now.

[lightfire]

when the Soviet Union sent missiles to Cuba (after US backed invasion), what happened?
then there was ablockade/standoff. It was the Coooooold Waaaar, remember?

I would imagine the clamour in the USA if Russia was building bases and developing alliances with countries bordering the USA.
Iran and Venezuela don't have borders with US, yet their significance to US interests is high.But Russia doesn't... Why? because it doesn't need to, because nobody bordering to USA wants this..Cooperation (military) is one thing-free market ecconomy gives Mexico some nice choises, while what US neighbourhood countries feel threatened by the US, to call for Russias assistance?US does not put their ABMs againts invincible russian missiles, does Russia feel threatened,to do the same thing?i don't know..


F-16s are being sent to border bases. and NATO continues to expand.

oh deary me, 4 F-16s patrooling Baltic airspace is a threat to mighty Russia...Yes,it expands,and brings more security to those countries. They feel safier and could have normal relations with Russia now,if it would stop whineing about closing of NATO.


How can you have cooperation with no mutual trust.

well first ask this question yourself, take alook from a side-what makes you think we should trust Russia? Ok, we can, but here's our security guaranties-NATO. You cooperate with this organisation, remember?That's our guaranties, let's both show we can trust each other-we talk with you as equal to equal,ok?


Anti-Russian clown politicians

for instance?
Bare in mind, that not every politician, that does not approve the cource Russia would like to dictate is anti-russian. He simply might have just different oppinion and be more pro West, though have nothing mutual againts Russia as it is.

[sir-chimp]

The former soviet occupied and annexed states are now turning to the west and NATO for security. Why is this so surprising?, some should realize they do have a choice now.

Come Come my dear Kilgor - how could they turn away from the wonders the rule of Moscow brought?

Why just yesterday I was reading about all those lucky West Berliners who escaped to the East.

I mean even our resident russian fan base resides under Moscow's rule..........

[Kilgor]

Come Come my dear Kilgor - how could they turn away from the wonders the rule of Moscow brought?

Why just yesterday I was reading about all those lucky West Berliners who escaped to the East.

.

Of course chimp, didn't you know the official reason for the building of the Berlin wall was to keep the westerners out ? We cant have too capitalist snakes defiling the socialist paradise.

[Smersh]

nvm............

[Hunterhr]

are you serious? am I talking to a wall.

Oh Irony.


nvm............

Aw. I was looking forward to your response.

[RomanS]

Hey Look 2 rusophobes in one thread
ahahahahahahahahhaahhahaha

[sir-chimp]

Hey Look 2 rusophobes in one thread
ahahahahahahahahhaahhahaha

ah yes the sycophant

[Kilgor]

ah yes the sycophant

Sycophant, airborne division thank you.

[TR1]

and Kilgore arrives with his typically convincing argument.:roll:

[RomanS]

and Kilgore arrives with his typically convincing argument.:roll:

with the same old card he keeps playing for the past 3 years lol

[sir-chimp]

with the same old card he keeps playing for the past 3 years lol

Thats pretty amusing coming from the guy who just played the "rusophobe" card lol

dont you have some boots to lick roman?

[Durandal]

Russia, US, NATO, EU ... - dissagrements, fears, mistrusts (looking for common basis)

That's easy enough...make money, free trade, and kill radical islamic fundamentalists.

There is enough commonality in those three things we should all be able to find middle ground.

[Switek]

Hey Look 2 rusophobes in one thread
ahahahahahahahahhaahhahaha

Sure, Roman.

It's better to label some people, start flamming and turn this thread down... this help to avoid difficult questions, not easy topics.

Why the hell when Russians have no good arguments start behave that way? I believe that dialooge and mutual underestanding is better than anything ele even if we disagree, respect each other. Is it too difficult?

[Smersh]

3 pages of circular arguments, then Kilgor and company show up, and you blame the break down of this thread on RomanS!

[sir-chimp]

3 pages of arguments, then Kilgor and company show up, and you blame the break down of this thread on RomanS!

i blame it on the penut butter

[perdurabo]

3 pages of circular arguments, then Kilgor and company show up, and you blame the break down of this thread on RomanS!
look who first tried to throw insult (like beeing rusophobe is bad thingp-)) atleast those circular arguments where arguments not insult :)

[Smersh]

how can you find insults in my post. I've repeatidly pointed out, circular arguments are pointless. I did not see Switek making any effort, and he blames RomanS, who posted after Kilgor and Chimp, starting throwing insults.

I don't even know why I bother.

[sir-chimp]

how can you find insults in my post. I've repeatidly pointed out, circular arguments are pointless. I did not see Switek making any effort, and he blames RomanS, who posted after Kilgor and Chimp, starting throwing insults.

I don't even know why I bother.

you try because your need to believe your fantasies compels you.

[Sergei]

The good thread went to ****ters. But there is too much distrust between the parties and rightfully so. That's why this thing ends in circular discussion. USA is just trying to push as much as it can while its power still lasts. Who can blame them, if it was the other way around, things would be pretty much the same.
But Russia is not a pushover either. Even our brotherly slavic Poles don't get the message - when Russia is pressed into the corner (like in 1941) it fights to the death on its own territory and until the enemies surrender on his territory. Would the fat, well-to-do NATO soldiers also willing to die for let's say Georgia or moronic government of Ukraine? I think I know the answer, since Afgan mission is still looking for that 1000 extra brave souls.

[Smersh]

you try because your need to believe your fantasies compels you

what fantasies? can you name some specifics, or continue to insult?

[sir-chimp]

what fantasies? can you name some specifics, or continue to insult?

penut butter

[Smersh]

................

[Raptus_regaliter]

The good thread went to ****ters. But there is too much distrust between the parties and rightfully so. That's why this thing ends in circular discussion. USA is just trying to push as much as it can while its power still lasts. Who can blame them, if it was the other way around, things would be pretty much the same.
But Russia is not a pushover either. Even our brotherly slavic Poles don't get the message - when Russia is pressed into the corner (like in 1941) it fights to the death on its own territory and until the enemies surrender on his territory. Would the fat, well-to-do NATO soldiers also willing to die for let's say Georgia or moronic government of Ukraine? I think I know the answer, since Afgan mission is still looking for that 1000 extra brave souls.

So, in sum, what you are saying is...
RUSSIA STRONG?!?!?111

[sir-chimp]

The good thread went to ****ters. But there is too much distrust between the parties and rightfully so. That's why this thing ends in circular discussion. USA is just trying to push as much as it can while its power still lasts. Who can blame them, if it was the other way around, things would be pretty much the same.
But Russia is not a pushover either. Even our brotherly slavic Poles don't get the message - when Russia is pressed into the corner (like in 1941) it fights to the death on its own territory and until the enemies surrender on his territory. Would the fat, well-to-do NATO soldiers also willing to die for let's say Georgia or moronic government of Ukraine? I think I know the answer, since Afgan mission is still looking for that 1000 extra brave souls.

funny i dont see our resident fat - well to do- NATO country living - "russia strong" -children of russian immigrants lining up for the draft and service back in their parents home country.

[Switek]

So I think that is worth to put some theory about differentation of cultural values between Americans and Russians. For those who want know a little more why we differ and why...

http://culturelinks.net/usvalues.htm

http://efenster.home.igc.org/pokrov.htm

http://www.goehner.com/russinfo.htm

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6229-3.cfm

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducKryl.htm

Stereotypes are useful but also are harmful at the same time. All people makes the same mistake when they judge others according own background.

Arogance and ignorance STRONG!!!!!!!!111 ;)

[Ruutiukko]

I, for one, won't feel too comfortable about any Russian attempts to regain any former Soviet territories. Not being a Russian, I much refer a drunken slob like Yeltsin over some dangerously smart guy like Putin any day.

[asch]

So I think that is worth to put some theory about differentation of cultural values between Americans and Russians. For those who want know a little more why we differ and why...

http://culturelinks.net/usvalues.htm

http://efenster.home.igc.org/pokrov.htm

http://www.goehner.com/russinfo.htm

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6229-3.cfm

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducKryl.htm

Stereotypes are useful but also are harmful at the same time. All people makes the same mistake when they judge others according own background.

Arogance and ignorance STRONG!!!!!!!!111 ;)
thank you, i just got a lot of new info about myself. how long do you gather this bull****?
p-)
seriously, man, people must be dumb to take such information seriously.

[RomanS]

................

Bro dont bother with those dumb****s, the Pong back in the day had more intellegence. At least the wall bounced the ball back at ya.

Here they dont even see it.

Its not worth the stress Smersh. I stoped caring a while ago, and believe me. Its awesome :)

Whatever they say, whatever they do, little dogs keep barking, caravan keeps going.

[sir-chimp]

Bro dont bother with those dumb****s, the Pong back in the day had more intellegence. At least the wall bounced the ball back at ya.

Here they dont even see it.

Its not worth the stress Smersh. I stoped caring a while ago, and believe me. Its awesome :)

Whatever they say, whatever they do, little dogs keep barking, caravan keeps going.

roman your so full of Ca Ca

you dont care thats why you jump in with the rusophobe card

right, and my third testical is made of cheese.

[Lokos]

It's a defensive alliance... The rest of the world sees this, only you guys who are paranoid. There is no NATO-lebensraum doctrine

And 1999 was... what? Which NATO country were we (what was then called 'Yugoslavia') attacking, my good friend Thor?

Oh, wait, does NATO's little mandate also involve humanitarian intervention, then? Could one possibly, as such, postulate that, perhaps, in due time, those 'poor, defenceless' Chechens might need to be rescued on humanitarian grounds? I'm just throwing that one out as an example, but you get the picture.

When an organization loses its original reason for existence, and begins struggling to make itself relevant, using the 1980s definition of its role in global affairs is a fool's game.


funny i dont see our resident fat - well to do- NATO country living - "russia strong" -children of russian immigrants lining up for the draft and service back in their parents home country.

Funny, what I see is that you're applying that argument to Russian members of the forum who reside in Russia, too.

When both Russians living in the US and Russians living in Russia tell you the same thing, why is it that you bring out that particular argument?

Do you have no others?

Lokos

[Kangars]

http://culturelinks.net/usvalues.htm

http://efenster.home.igc.org/pokrov.htm

http://www.goehner.com/russinfo.htm

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6229-3.cfm

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducKryl.htm

Stereotypes are useful but also are harmful at the same time.

This links are the pure stereotypes! So much bs in one bunch. American values good, russian values bad, simple, barbarian etc...
You started this thread claiming to try to be us balanced as possible. Well after this links I think you failed :-(

[Switek]

This links are the pure stereotypes! So much bs in one bunch. American values good, russian values bad, simple, barbarian etc...
You started this thread claiming to try to be us balanced as possible. Well after this links I think you failed :-(


I wonder why you recognize it that way... I wanted emphasize some differentation of recognizing the same/similiar things...


It's hard to find good info in the web I'll appriciate if any one would find and post interesting links

[sir-chimp]

Funny, what I see is that you're applying that argument to Russian members of the forum who reside in Russia, too.

When both Russians living in the US and Russians living in Russia tell you the same thing, why is it that you bring out that particular argument?

Do you have no others?

Lokos

you only see it because you want to believe its there my dear Lokos

[Kangars]

I wonder why you recognize it that way... I wanted emphasize some differentation of recognizing the same/similiar things...

It's hard to find good info in the web I'll appriciate if any one would find and post interesting links

No problem:
http://abamedia.com/rao/catalogues/trans/trac/trac_rozl_1.html (http://abamedia.com/rao/catalogues/trans/trac/trac_rozl_1.html)

from: http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter12.html
For Russians, a key question is whether the United States is taking advantage of the disappearance of the Soviet Union to become a post-Cold War global hegemon--and hence a potential threat to Russia's security. For their part, Americans ask whether Russia continues to harbor imperialistic ambitions or is finally becoming a post-imperial power, inclined to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem of international security. These questions are not just academic, for their answers carry major implications for how each country views the other's emerging role in international politics, as well as for the prospects of the United States and Russia eventually forging effective cooperative security ties.

from: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060105_soviet_lessons.shtml

There are many other similarities as well. Women received the right to education and a career in Russia earlier than in the U.S. Russian and American families are in similarly sad shape, with high divorce rates and many out-of-wedlock births, although the chronic shortage of housing in Russia did force many families to stick it out, with mixed results. Both countries have been experiencing chronic depopulation of farming districts. In Russia, family farms were decimated during collectivization, along with agricultural output; in the U.S., a variety of other forces produced a similar result with regard to rural population, but without any loss of production. Both countries replaced family farms with unsustainable, ecologically disastrous industrial agribusiness, addicted to fossil fuels. The American ones work better, as long as energy is cheap, and, after that, probably not at all.
The similarities are too numerous to mention. I hope that what I outlined above is enough to signal a key fact: that these are, or were, the antipodes of the same industrial, technological civilization.

I like it best - personal experience:
http://www.waytorussia.net/TalkLounge/quote-45901.html

Thank to globalization cultural distinctions are erased in due course. Put politics aside and there will be a lot of mutual trust and friedship.

[Sergei]

funny i dont see our resident fat - well to do- NATO country living - "russia strong" -children of russian immigrants lining up for the draft and service back in their parents home country.

You said this because you had nothing in particular to contribute? Way to go....

[sir-chimp]

You said this because you had nothing in particular to contribute? Way to go....

Yep your right on the money

[Xtoisè]

It's a defensive alliance... The rest of the world sees this, only you guys who are paranoid. There is no NATO-lebensraum doctrine.

NATO is not defensive - Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and whatever other little incidents i cant remember right now, were not attacking any NATO members.
Possibility of attack by NATO can not be ruled out no matter what kind of alliance it calls it self, because it will be just like G Bush senior saying that NATO will never expand after fall of Soviet Union.
Russian military doctrine states that actions must be taken incase of NATO expansion, so they are just following the doctrine that was set up after 1991.

EDIT: i forgot WTC relation to Afghanistan, so scratch taht, but from Afghanistan it all hooked to Iraq and Saddam who supposedly had links to Al Qaeda.

[Xtoisè]

That's easy enough...make money, free trade, and kill radical islamic fundamentalists.

There is enough commonality in those three things we should all be able to find middle ground.

Thats what Putin talked about in or about his Munich speech, adressing the US.

[Sergei]

Thats what Putin talked about in or about his Munich speech, adressing the US.

Putin was actually trying to make those guys sober again, since they really drank heavily on the funeral of the Soviet Union and can't quite get back to reality.

[oldsoak]

There is much common ground - but it falls away the higher up the ladder you go.
Stick a Russian in London, and if he can speak reasonable English, he will have no problem in getting around. The architecture is different, and so are the pubs, and perhaps the food. But in next to no time he will have found a pub, bought a drink and starting chatting up women. Give him a few weeks and he would probably have got a job of some sort. The same is true for us. Sometimes the closer ordinary people are, the further their countries are apart.

[DIU]

The situation gradually begins to remind the times before 1914: there weren’t insuperable ideological gaps (if we look at the essence, not at the pre-war biased propaganda), people and capital traveled freely enough throughout all Europe without noticeable day-to-day conflicts, nevertheless, the final result turned out deplorable. The plain greediness and ambitions can successfully replace fundamental ideological causes.

[M4ko]

Just recently, Kaczinsky, I think Jaroslaw, said that ABM shield will enhance Poland's security. Security against whom? - Iran and NK? I think this explains why Poland wants the ABM shield.