NATO scuttles US plan to encircle Russia

[Fage]

Dec 9, 2008

By F William Engdahl

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ministers in Brussels have decided to ignore the wishes of the United States and delay the admission of Georgia and the Ukraine, in effect indefinitely, in what the George W Bush administration is sheepishly trying to claim is a positive "compromise".

The decision, follows the alarm which peaked among European Union member states last August over the prospect of having to go to war with Russia over an erratic leader in the Caucasus who had provoked Moscow into a reaction.

The Germans have a far too deep and painful collective memory of the last war with Russia to be willing to treat the prospect as lightly as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Washington has. The decision deepens growing fault lines across the Atlantic, and next year will be clearly more turbulent even than 2008 in terms of global geopolitics.

The Brussels decision is even more remarkable if taken as indication of Washington's diminishing power over European NATO members. The NATO Foreign Ministers meeting on December 3 issued what to the naive observer might appear a masterpiece of diplomacy.

They unanimously agreed to sidestep the usual Membership Action Plan vote for Georgia and Ukraine, the first concrete step towards full membership of NATO. Instead, NATO will expand the activities of two existing bodies - the NATO-Georgia Commission and the NATO-Ukraine Commission - basically to oversee the same reforms as would have been contained in the action plan. NATO ministers also agreed in their communique to renew ties with Russia "in a conditional and graduated manner".

Translated into real political language, Washington has undergone a stunning setback in its agenda of encircling Russia with NATO. Despite the fact that president-elect Obama retained Bush Administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and named a person to be Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who has strongly supported bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, key European NATO members, led by Germany and France, blocked what must be a unanimous membership decision.

The real reasons
The real reason for the refusal is the growing realization within European officialdom that it was Georgia's unpredictable President Mikhail Saakashvili, not Moscow, who first sent Georgian troops into the breakaway province of South Ossetia, after getting a go-ahead from Washington.

On November 28, during Georgian official Parliamentary Commission testimony on the background to the August events, Saakashvili made the surprising announcement that he had indeed initiated the war.

According to Saakashvili, the attack on the South Ossetian capital, which involved night shelling of residential areas with multiple rocket launcher systems, was aimed at protecting Georgian citizens. He said it was a response to Russia's "intervention" in the region.

"We did start military action to take control of Tskhinvali and other unruly areas. But we took this difficult decision to fend off our territory from intervention and save the people who were dying. It was inevitable," Saakashvili said.

The Georgian president claims Russia moved tanks into South Ossetian territory before Georgia launched its attack. He said: "The issue is not about why Georgia started military action - we admit we started it. The issue is about whether there was another chance when our citizens were being killed? We tried to prevent the intervention and fought on our own territory."

Saakashvili's surprising admission came only hours after the testimony of Georgia's former ambassador to Moscow, Erosi Kitsmarishvili, who had testified for three hours before he was shouted down by pro-Saakashvili members of parliament.

A former confidant of Saakashvili, Kitsmarishvili said Georgian officials told him in April that they planned to start a war in Abkhazia, one of two breakaway regions at issue in the war, and had received a green light from the United States government to do so. He said the Georgian government later decided to start the war in South Ossetia, the other region, and continue into Abkhazia.

He refused to name the officials who told him about planned actions in Abkhazia, as identifying them would endanger their lives. The official US line has been that they had "warned" Saakashvili against taking action in the two enclaves, where Russian peacekeepers were stationed.

Kitsmarishvili's testimony in front of the parliamentary commission was shown live on Georgian television. The chairman of the commission, Paata Davitaia, said he would initiate a criminal case against Kitsmarishvili for "professional negligence". Deputy Foreign Minister Giga Bokeria, who was called on short notice to comment on Kitsmarishvili's testimony, called the allegations an "irresponsible and shameless fabrication", adding they were "either the result of a lack of information or the personal resentment of a man who has lost his job and wants to get involved in politics". Kitsmarishvili was fired in September by the president.

Kitsmarishvili walked out amid the furor last week. "They don't want to listen to the truth," he told reporters. Two days later, Saakashvili proved Kitsmarishvili right.

Full spectrum dominance
As I detail at some length in my book, due out in January 2009, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, the strategy of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is part of a far larger and more dangerous strategic long-term plan of Washington to ultimately encircle, confront and dismember Russia as a functioning state. Russia, even more than China, is the most formidable obstacle to a Washington-centered sole superpower, Pax Americana.

Russia's understandable refusal to abandon its nuclear strike force in the face of US violations of agreements made in 1989 between the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev and then US secretary of state James Baker III, namely that NATO would not expand east to the former states of the Warsaw Pact or USSR, presents a dilemma for any plans for sole US superpower domination.

The Bush presidency was a raw attempt to remedy this by brute military force. The militarization of Iraq and the Middle East oil fields was but one step. The creation of a US 'missile shield' in Poland and the Czech Republic, was another, major step.

The misnamed "missile defense shield" would in reality be an offensive capability that when installed by perhaps 2012, will put the world, especially Western Europe on a hair-trigger to nuclear war. When combined with the entry of Russian border states Georgia and Ukraine to NATO this would simply present Moscow with de facto defeat. This is not about Russia returning to old Soviet-style rule under Putin or Medvedev. It's about the ultimate survival of Russia as a nation, as Moscow rightly sees it, not about the finer points of democracy.

No one in either Berlin, Paris, London nor Brussels, and certainly not in Washington, is ignorant of that reality. European NATO members are increasingly nervous about the prospect of a military confrontation with Russia. Last August's swift Russian response to act in aid of South Ossetians against the Georgian invasion sent a reality shock through Europe. Neither Germany nor France wish to admit unstable states like Georgia or Ukraine only to be forced to act militarily in their defense in event of a repeat of the madness of last August.

That, simply stated, is the real, unspoken reason that Washington on December 3 in Brussels was forced to accept a face-saving compromise. The NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine to all intent and purposes is dead. As one NATO military official stated, "NATO has lost the glue that once held it together." The statement of Rice following the NATO meeting was telling. She was forced to tell press, "... there is a long road ahead for both Georgia and Ukraine to reach those standards. The United States stands resolutely for those standards, meaning that there should be no shortcuts to membership of NATO." Rice added.

Polish motorcade shoot was 'Georgia stunt'
Further adding to the atmosphere of almost Laurel and Hardy comic farce surrounding Georgia's erratic president - who was filmed shortly after the Russian invasion in August by BBC actually swallowing and chewing on his tie - it has now emerged that an alleged shooting incident a week before the Brussels NATO meeting, which involved the motorcade of the Georgian and Polish presidents, was a staged "stunt".

Special services in Warsaw say the alleged attack near the South Ossetian border was a provocation staged by the Georgians. A report by Poland's Internal Security Agency - the Agencja Bezpieczenstwa Wewnetrznego (ABW), published by the Dziennik newspaper, claims Georgia staged the incident for propaganda purposes.

The incident took place on Sunday evening when Saakashvili was showing his Polish counterpart Lech Kaczynski the area near the border with South Ossetia. After the convoy stopped at a checkpoint, there was gunfire, which the Georgians claimed was an "attack by Russian troops".

Lech Kaczynski's personal security chief, Colonel Krzysztof Olszowiec, was accused of failing to ensure proper security for the president during his trip to Georgia and dismissed despite objections from Kaczynski, according to the Polish media.

The trip to the border area with Russian-backed South Ossetia was the result of a last-minute invitation from Saakashvili, according to Polish Foreign Ministry spokesman Piotr Paskowski.
Initially, Warsaw blamed Russia for the incident. But now Polish security forces say it was staged by Tbilisi. Russia had strongly denied the allegations, saying Tbilisi was behind it. President Kaczynski confirmed that shooting had taken place but stopped short of blaming anyone. Russia's position has now been supported by Poland's ABW, who said "the shots fired near the cars of Georgian and Polish president were a Georgian provocation". The Polish document points out that Saakashvili kept on smiling after the first shots and his bodyguards didn't react.

The report also highlights another suspicious fact, namely, that the bus carrying journalists was instructed to travel in front of the motorcade, while the car with Kaczynski's own bodyguards was pushed back by Georgian soldiers. The result was that they were not in a position to witness the alleged shooting.

All-in-all, it might be Saakashvili's tenure as president that faces major internal challeges over his bent for undertaking such reckless stunts.

F William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics (Pluto Press), and the book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (www.globalresearch.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca/)). His new book, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (Third Millennium Press) is due out late January 2009. He may be reached through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net (http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/).

Source:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JL09Ag01.html

[Mu-Meson]

I was going to criticize, and mock this non-sensical drivel, but then I realized it was clearly a parody, and thus really belongs in OT&H. Mods, please move this thread.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The first sentence alone is priceless.

[LineDoggie]

133



8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

[lightfire]

So those countries have received yearly plans instead of MAPs, oh wow, that prevented the encirclement of the great motherland. Yes, another failure of US imperialist dogs..

[tyovan]

I don't see why you guys are criticizing the article.
It seems pretty spot-on to me - slightly anti-American style, but the basic facts and main points are all true.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I don't see why you guys are criticizing the article.
It seems pretty spot-on to me - slightly anti-American style, but the basic facts and main points are all true.

Are you serious?

"As I detail at some length in my book, due out in January 2009, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, the strategy of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is part of a far larger and more dangerous strategic long-term plan of Washington to ultimately encircle, confront and dismember Russia as a functioning state."

This sounds rational to you?

[DarthJesus]

It sounds rational to me. Or do you deny that the US would like to see Russia removed as a threat to its goal of being the most dominant power on the planet?

What other rational could there be for admitting countries like Ukraine and Georgia to NATO? They add nothing to NATO with their militaries. Their governments don't function well in the best of times and Ukraine is facing an economic disaster now in the global recession. And their democracies are deeply flawed by any measure. So what is the purpose of bringing them into NATO other than to use them to counter Russia?

[cbiwv]

The one reason China will never be a true superpower. It has no resources. The U.S. knows this. Russia is loaded with resources. Only it and the U.S. have true superpower potential. The strong typically fear one another. This is how it is even in our culture. The people we do not like often can be a threat of some sort to us.

[zg18]

Are you serious?

"As I detail at some length in my book, due out in January 2009, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, the strategy of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is part of a far larger and more dangerous strategic long-term plan of Washington to ultimately encircle, confront and dismember Russia as a functioning state."

This sounds rational to you?

Very rational for me if mr.Brzezinski is behind such plan or influencing it , did he wrote that Russia should be divided into European Russia ,Siberia and Far East and that must be one the main goals of U.S. foreign policy including policy in Caspian region and Central Asia that will determine if U.S. will remain only world superpower?? Or it's wheat dream of U.S. geopoliticans??

As i can see Bush is implementing the same or similar policy in FSU (former Soviet Union) , U.S. backed and planned revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine and funny GUUAM organization....so you can see why for Moscow 'nose' Washington actions and intentions 'stink' very much.

[Connaught Ranger]

Please send more tinfoil, stop!

Hat supply running short for the long winter, stop!

Russia is already surrounded by many nations, stop!

Not a national secret, stop!

[zg18]

Russia is already surrounded by many nations, stop!

Not threat.


Russia is already surrounded by many NATO nations, stop!

Threat.

Clear enough??

[Connaught Ranger]

Quote:
Russia is already surrounded by many nations, stop!
Not threat.

Quote:
Russia is already surrounded by many NATO nations, stop!
Threat.

Clear enough?? Paranoia, is alive and well today, stop! :roll:

[Kilgor]

The one reason China will never be a true superpower. It has no resources. The U.S. knows this. Russia is loaded with resources. Only it and the U.S. have true superpower potential. The strong typically fear one another. This is how it is even in our culture. The people we do not like often can be a threat of some sort to us.

Never did Germany in the second world war. But it sure kicked enough ass (for a while).

FYI China will be the dominant Asiatic superpower. Russia will be its gas tank.

[WarriorMonk]

Totalitarian democracy?

[LineDoggie]

Not threat.



Threat.

Clear enough??

Really? what European Country has been attacked by the USA in the last 60 years?

What European Countries have been attacked by Soviet Union/Russia in last 60 years?


Clear enough?:roll:

By the Way, the supply drop of Tinfoil Tuxedos will be late this week

[cbiwv]

Never did Germany in the second world war. But it sure kicked enough ass (for a while).

FYI China will be the dominant Asiatic superpower. Russia will be its gas tank.

I agree but only because of Russian help. Germany's lack of resources didn't help its cause.

[zg18]

Paranoia, is alive and well today, stop! :roll:

Were is paranoia?? I'm not Russian ,but i can turn 'on' my logic regarding this issue , is it really necessary to drag Ukraine and Georgia in NATO despite all problems with these countries and risks that this task carries but never the less Washington is still stubbornly pushing this agenda , so why do you think U.S. is insiting on this issue? Because U.S. want to citizens of Georgia and Ukraine "decent and democratic" life under NATO umbrella or this has more to do with geopolitics and Russia??

[Kangars]

Really? what European Country has been attacked by the USA in the last 60 years?


Serbia maybe?

[zg18]

Really? what European Country has been attacked by the USA in the last 60 years?

What European Countries have been attacked by Soviet Union/Russia in last 60 years?


Clear enough?:roll:

By the Way, the supply drop of Tinfoil Tuxedos will be late this week

I'm not talking about attack on Russia ,i'm talking about plan to divide Russia from Europe , put Ukraine,Georgia (and Azerbaijan) into NATO , European Russia is de-facto isolated from the rest and surrounded by NATO.Don't be confused with the overall size of Russia , European Russia can be very easily cut off.

[LineDoggie]

Serbia maybe?

Got me there, I forgot they're a country in Europe. So we have Serbia
vs. Georgia, Chechnya?, Czechoslovakia in 68?, Hungary in 56?, Moldova in 92, did I miss any?

[TR1]

Chechnya a country? LOL
Georgia? LOL I guess Russia was supposed to sit back and let its peacekeeprs be killed peacefully.

Moldova?hardly an invasion

[Lokos]

I forgot they're a country in Europe.

If only that surprised me.

L.

[Veni Valboro]

"If only that surprised me."

Lol!!! X2

[BlackFlag]

Got me there, I forgot they're a country in Europe. So we have Serbia
vs. Georgia, Chechnya?, Czechoslovakia in 68?, Hungary in 56?, Moldova in 92, did I miss any?

Iran, Vietnam, Korea, Mexico, Hawaii, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba,.

I'm sure I've missed some.

[SBL]

Iran, Vietnam, Korea, Mexico, Hawaii, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba,.

I'm sure I've missed some.

Europe, genius.

[INAT]

Got me there, I forgot they're a country in Europe. So we have Serbia
vs. Georgia, Chechnya?, Czechoslovakia in 68?, Hungary in 56?, Moldova in 92, did I miss any?


You are priceless.rofl

How about the whole process of destroying Jugoslavia.
From economic hit men and jackals to open bombing. The British secret services were even thinking about assassination as an option.

You can hate the story but it does highlight the fact that this was a major loss for the Americans. Russia is encircled and the Western Europeans would ultimately be the victims of an aggressive US policy to
place offensive weapons systems at Moscow’s door. I think most people can agree that NATO has allowed the US to have a strong hand in European military affairs and European security. Without Ukraine according to Mr.Brzezinski Russia would cease being a Eurasian power and would be reduced to an Asian power.

[Kilgor]

I think Jugoslavia did a very good of tearing itself apart.

[LineDoggie]

Iran, Vietnam, Korea, Mexico, Hawaii, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba,.

I'm sure I've missed some.
OK hero, how many of those you mentioned are in europe?

But hey, I can play that as well:

Actual Invasions and Occupations(not in Alphabetical/Timeline Order)
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland (well 1/2 Credit shared with the Nazi's)
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Rumania
Mongolia
Manchuria
Japan (Kuriles)
Afghanistan
Bessarabia & Northern Bukovina
Iran (1941)
Austria
Korea
Bornholm Norway(1945)
Finland

I leave out obviously Germany because thats a Given both for Soviet Union , the USA, UK, and France.

See, I made a Mistake in thinking Serbia was considered to be Asia, but now I know of all these other places, thanks to you and Lokos goading me to research.


Thanks fellas

[Dmitriev]

Got me there, I forgot they're a country in Europe. So we have Serbia
vs. Georgia, Chechnya?, Czechoslovakia in 68?, Hungary in 56?, Moldova in 92, did I miss any?

o.o Since when Chechnya is a country..and since when Russia has to answer for everything the USSR did? and as The Russian said about Moldova...hardly and invasion. I also need Geography lessons... Geogia Europe :| plus agree with theRussian again, what Russia was supposed to do? let the peacekeeprs and citizens die?

ps:


Poland
Getting back the Ukrainian part? and oh wait, I guess they would've enjoyed the nazis more, since they are so peaceful and gave racial equality

Mongolia

Against the Japanese expansion in the 30s?

Manchuria
Japan (Kuriles)
WW2? what happened to the axis?

Afghanistan

Agree with this one, useless pointless invasion.

Korea
USA was there too

plus most of the ocupation where during the USSR, which was comunist and not Russia...

[SrB-23Q]

Are you serious?

"As I detail at some length in my book, due out in January 2009, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, the strategy of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is part of a far larger and more dangerous strategic long-term plan of Washington to ultimately encircle, confront and dismember Russia as a functioning state."

This sounds rational to you?

sounds about right to me.

[BlackFlag]

Europe, genius.

Yes, yes..I concede I mis/under read the previous arguement.

/tardness

[SrB-23Q]

OK hero, how many of those you mentioned are in europe?

But hey, I can play that as well:

Actual Invasions and Occupations(not in Alphabetical/Timeline Order)
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland (well 1/2 Credit shared with the Nazi's)
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Rumania
Mongolia
Manchuria
Japan (Kuriles)
Afghanistan
Bessarabia & Northern Bukovina
Iran (1941)
Austria
Korea
Bornholm Norway(1945)
Finland

I leave out obviously Germany because thats a Given both for Soviet Union , the USA, UK, and France.

See, I made a Mistake in thinking Serbia was considered to be Asia, but now I know of all these other places, thanks to you and Lokos goading me to research.


Thanks fellas

this can go on forever.. in the end almost every country on the planet has been attacked or invaded by either USA or Russia/USSR.

that's the long story short. p-)

[LineDoggie]

I know that, I mistook exactly where the country was considered to be, but then the Fanbois started in. Frankly I dont think Russia has anything to fear from the USA. We dont want war with them anymore than they would with us.

[LineDoggie]

Cross Hairs? :roll: Who's threatening to Nuke Poland over 10 NON nuclear Missiles?

[TR1]

No one is threatening to nuke Poland. All that has been said is appropriate measures have been taken to nullify the systems in Poland should a situation arise where they might pose a threat.

[nagant_m44]

once again linedoggie is living up to his user title.

[Afro-European]

. Frankly I dont think Russia has anything to fear from the USA. We dont want war with them anymore than they would with us.
x2.Now let's see the other side:Russia tried to be as inoffensive as possible since the collapse of the SU but look what it got them? NATO on their borders and active efforts to expand it even more and the complete marginalization on the world stage where their opinions were ignored for all that time."Defensive" missile shield and radar on their borders,Orange revolution here and there.Now Putin and his crew are thinking:why should Russia be friendly with the West when the West just sees that as weakness and does everything to put Russia further in the hole?

[Connaught Ranger]

The countries outside Russia's borders should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to do, (a choice denied them by Soviet occupation during and post WW2.)

They also deserve the right not to be bullied by Russia, because they choose to join N.A.T.O.

[SBL]

Are you serious?

"As I detail at some length in my book, due out in January 2009, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, the strategy of bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is part of a far larger and more dangerous strategic long-term plan of Washington to ultimately encircle, confront and dismember Russia as a functioning state."

This sounds rational to you?
Swap out Russia for the US and you have a Fox News headline.

[Doublethinker]

I know that, I mistook exactly where the country was considered to be, but then the Fanbois started in. Frankly I dont think Russia has anything to fear from the USA. We dont want war with them anymore than they would with us.

Nobody wants a military conflict, that's right.

But both sides want to strain each other in economic hugs. US has more potential for that, so it can claim to have a higher moral ground.

[Doublethinker]

The countries outside Russia's borders should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to do, (a choice denied them by Soviet occupation during and post WW2.)

They also deserve the right not to be bullied by Russia, because they choose to join N.A.T.O.

That's bull****.

Why do you allow some countries to have the right 'not to be bullied and to be independent', while a whole country in the ME is right now being occupied, divided and its natural resources PRIVATISED by US-run companies?

Oh, that's not bullying of course - that's bringing democracy.

[ilmakas]

That's bull****.


So countries bordering Russia shouldn't make decisions on their own?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

That's bull****.

Why do you allow some countries to have the right 'not to be bullied and to be independent', while a whole country in the ME is right now being occupied, divided and its natural resources PRIVATISED by US-run companies?

Oh, that's not bullying of course - that's bringing democracy.

Generally speaking, those countries where the people have a legitimate voice in government tend to be exempt from our brand of bullying. We normally only attack places where the un-elected leader spends his time on a balcony, wearing sunglasses and firing a rifle in the air (or waving a sword...take your pick).

Considering the history of the ME (i.e. the concentration of power, wealth, and influence at the very top, and all others excluded)- removing oil wealth from the hands of those in power - and making available to anybody who wishes to invest is probably a good thing. I'm told that the area already has too many gold-plated toilets.

But enough of explaining the US modus operandi - why is it wrong for the people of the nations surrounding Russia to be able to determine their own destiny? These are much closer to real democracies than anything in the ME (except Israel)- shouldn't the people have the right of self-determination?

[Spartan003]

Generally speaking, those countries where the people have a legitimate voice in government tend to be exempt from our brand of bullying. We normally only attack places where the un-elected leader spends his time on a balcony, wearing sunglasses and firing a rifle in the air (or waving a sword...take your pick).

Considering the history of the ME (i.e. the concentration of power, wealth, and influence at the very top, and all others excluded)- removing oil wealth from the hands of those in power - and making available to anybody who wishes to invest is probably a good thing. I'm told that the area already has too many gold-plated toilets.

But enough of explaining the US modus operandi - why is it wrong for the people of the nations surrounding Russia to be able to determine their own destiny? These are much closer to real democracies than anything in the ME (except Israel)- shouldn't the people have the right of self-determination?

Oh wow, I'm speechless. So what about, ghm, democracy? Or even WMDs? No? Nothing?

[Vityaz]

To me the notion that either Moscow or Washington/Brussels (for now I still throw them loosely together) have the slightest care about the self-determination of Eastern European states is ridiculous. This is all about strategic dominance of the region. The moralistic side is fantasy.

/captainobvious

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

sounds about right to me.

Seriously? This guy is saying dismembering Russia is an objective of the US.
If you really believe that, it is unfortunate .

[The Dane]

http://i370.photobucket.com/albums/oo145/heinebilleder/tinfoil.jpg

[gazell]

Seriously? This guy is saying dismembering Russia is an objective of the US.
If you really believe that, it is unfortunate .

It is somewhat unfortunate, but I don't think it's called a belief, it's more like situational awareness.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

It is somewhat unfortunate, but I don't think it's called a belief, it's more like situational awareness.

Huh?

"dismembering Russia is an objective of the US"

That's called a delusion.

[gazell]

What do you think is going on then, Lt Col?

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

What do you think is going on then, Lt Col?

This will take a bit; I plan provide a detailed response this evening.

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

Totalitarian democracy?

In law its a definite maybe.

[Lokos]

Generally speaking, those countries where the people have a legitimate voice in government tend to be exempt from our brand of bullying

Generally speaking, actually, those countries where the people do not have a legitimate voice in the government also tend to be exempt from your brand of bullying. A brand of bullying that's proven extraordinarily selective, and suspiciously in line with American interests. Making a case for an altruistic, principled American politick is an exercise in frustrated expectations and false hope. That is to say, the American government 'bullies' according to its interests - and never in contravention thereof.

The Russian government, similarly, has a vested interest in keeping its near abroad free from outside influence. Self-determination is a pleasant fiction maintained to keep dignities intact. In truth, the United States is willfully encroaching on a sphere of influence of a major power, in the pursuit of its own security and economic interests. If it was in a similar position - as it was in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis - it would react in a similarly adversarial fashion.



"dismembering Russia is an objective of the US"

That's called a delusion.

Imagine you're the leader of the United States, and were free to compose foreign policy. Consider the interests of the state you lead. What possible obstacles exist that could prevent your leadership from pursuing and achieving the US' national interests? Russia and China, no? On a state level, none other could muster sufficient force (soft and hard power) to derail the pursuit of the US' interests. Does the benefit of removing Russia as a major player outweigh the potential cost implicit in that removal? Perhaps. That part is debatable. What isn't debatable is that neutering Russia has been both a goal of US foreign policy and an assumption in the construction thereof. Think about the immediate Post-Cold War period. Russo-American tension was partially dissolved exactly at the point when the Soviet Union expired and the Russian state subordinated its interests to those of third parties, to an extent. The 90s were thus spent in limbo, with a weak Russian state unwilling or unable to assert its own interests against those of more powerful national actors. When it finally mustered the ability to do so, post-2001, Russia quickly became one of the prime concerns of American foreign policy. Talk began of a new 'Cold War'. The assertion of interests on the part of the Russians was perceived as a challenge to American primacy and an adversarial one, at that.

The idea that certain American policies are framed so as to damage Russian interests isn't 'delusional' or 'paranoid'. It's a very real facet of American foreign policy that has been in force for the better part of five decades. Persons in the American government who've written books since retiring speak freely of the approach undertaken. And what they speak of is an ongoing attempt to remove, by various means, the ability of other governments to adversely affect American interests. A conscious attempt. Not the by-product of altruistic politics.

L.

[Doublethinker]

Generally speaking, those countries where the people have a legitimate voice in government tend to be exempt from our brand of bullying. We normally only attack places where the un-elected leader spends his time on a balcony, wearing sunglasses and firing a rifle in the air (or waving a sword...take your pick).


Nice to see, that nobody is dragging in the WMD into this one any longer. Now you wanted good for them, you wanted to free the people from oppression.

Why not get on to it in Rwanda, Sudan, or other ****holes of the world, which could use your magnificient aid in nation building much more?




Considering the history of the ME (i.e. the concentration of power, wealth, and influence at the very top, and all others excluded)- removing oil wealth from the hands of those in power - and making available to anybody who wishes to invest is probably a good thing. I'm told that the area already has too many gold-plated toilets.


You are weaseling your way out of this one.

Sure, making oil national wealth again not a private business of one leader is a good thing.

It is another thing, when you enforce Basra and Kirkuk autonomy and negate the right of the central government to reverse the decisions of said autonomies with regards to oil deals.

And then, wow, what a surprise, the majority of oil fields are run not by private Iraqi, but world oil majors, US companies.

What is this, if not bullying a country into submission by force and then crudely taking away their national wealth? The type of regime they had has nothing to do with the rules imposed.

I guess, that was just another by-product of a romantic attempt of the US to help the people of Iraq, along with many other pleasant by-products, like establishing stronger military presence in the region, countering OPEC world monopoly with regards to oil, etc. So many nice by-products that they make the proclaimed aim pale in comparison.



But enough of explaining the US modus operandi - why is it wrong for the people of the nations surrounding Russia to be able to determine their own destiny? These are much closer to real democracies than anything in the ME (except Israel)- shouldn't the people have the right of self-determination?

Why do you, Americans, love pseudodemocratic sloganeering so much?

World politics is about checks, balances and influence. You can use 'economy', self-proclaimed nation building expertise, military intervention, anything to further your goals, these are just tools.

But in the end the goal is to either spread influence or to prevent the influence of another great power from spreading. If a country in a region heavily influenced by Russia starts turning to US, it is only normal, that Russia tries to jump all over them with any means necessary.

Same would be the response of the US, but due to the fact that the US has a stronger economy, it has a wider branch of 'soft control' methods to bully countries into obedience.

Please, don't tell me, you believe in this 'in the XXIst century, nations don't attack other nations' romantic bull****. Romanticism never worked there, where money and influence were at stake.

[Doublethinker]

So countries bordering Russia shouldn't make decisions on their own?

Of course, they can make decisions on their own.

And Russia will make its own decisions on how to influence the decisions of these countries.

[Morboute]

Lokos -> stop making sence %&¤#%&#/! This is the internet, you are supposed to just flame and storm off like everyone else! p-)

anyways, on a more serious note.

well said and my hats off to you sir.

[shadowsrider]

Getting back the Ukrainian part? and oh wait, I guess they would've enjoyed the nazis more, since they are so peaceful and gave racial equality
...

I really hear this repeated so many times by so many Russian member here...
Seriously, are you tought at schools about Ribbentrop-Molotov pact?
Yes! Dedushka Stalin made a pact with Hitler... And the authorities were meeting for 2 years, Gestapo and NKVD together! yes!

Getting back? Together with Baltics and Finland....
I really love this argumentation: why we shouldn't get back Smolensk to Commonwealth? It will be justified...

Here some basic sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

And in Russian:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B4%D1%83_%D0%93%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%8E%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B C

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%A0%D0%9A%D0%9A%D0%90_(1939)

[Doublethinker]

I really hear this repeated so many times by so many Russian member here...
Seriously, are you tought at schools about Ribbentrop-Molotov pact?
Yes! Dedushka Stalin made a pact with Hitler... And the authorities were meeting for 2 years, Gestapo and NKVD together! yes!

Getting back? Together with Baltics and Finland....
I really love this argumentation: why we shouldn't get back Smolensk to Commonwealth? It will be justified...

Here some basic sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_%281939))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact


It was in school textbooks even when I studied at school.

So was munich treaty.

[brett]

Score this latest effort from Fage about 6/10. It had to be marked down due to the inclusion of the line ‘His new book, Full Spectrum
Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.’ It is nonsense to suggest that NATO offer any credible deterrent effect.
That was proven beyond any doubt in 1999, when, as a last resort, B-52 bombing sorties were flown over Kosovo. Otherwise, the
thesis stands up reasonably well to examination. The United States strategy over forward operating bases around the world, is closely
linked to issues of energy supply and neutralising rogue nations. But in particular, the agenda to check Russia (and China) is obvious.
There is a new East/West border across Europe now, which in broad terms, follows the line of the old Iron Curtain. From air policing in
the Baltics, down through Kosovo, then East (a new development) across the Black Sea and into Kyrgyzstan, stopping very near to the
border with China. The circle is completed by bases from the Persian Gulf, Japan, and of course, Alaska. However, there is no reason
why NATO should be a part of that strategy. Any attempt to lock the NATO alliance into any part of this plan would be disingenuous.
Between AFCON and Fage it's just another day in the virtual world. And another Duplicate Post (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=147559) These copy and paste jobs fail at Fage1.

[SrB-23Q]

Why not get on to it in Rwanda, Sudan, or other ****holes of the world, which could use your magnificient aid in nation building much more?




auuuu thats a killer move right there p-)

[Afro-European]

Nato is and has always been an instrument of the US domination over Europe.Europeans profited from that in the cold war, so there is not much talk about this.But if you dig a little bit deeper in history there are some interesting moments.The most recent one was when France and Germany (countries that represent the core of the European Union) were called "Old Europe" as opposed to "New Europe" which was more submissive to the US interest and sent their kids to fight in iraq.It was hardly the first time something like that happened and the rhetoric was not openly hostile and generally quickly forgotten just as it has always been.Incidently,France and Germany are also not very hostile toward Russia and have blocked Georgian and Ukrainian attempts to join Nato.It seems that politicians in these countries don't feel so threatened by Russia and i tend to agree with them.Leaders of those 2 countries do not think Russia represents a threat unless someone threatens it.Thus they don't see what they can gain from being hostile toward The Bear.If Russians are not hostile toward them there is no reason not to co-operate with them.American ruling elite on the other hand can profit from being hostile towards Russia(and Russia toward the US),keeping Europe divided and dependant on their support,which is probably the main reason the EU is trying to create a EU military alliance independent from the USA(unlikely to happen though).

[SBL]

^How you've suffered.:roll:

[Rittmester]

The crumbling of the Warsaw pact was scary for arms industries and old school power players (military & political hawks); those you find in both the Pentagon and Kremlin. All of the sudden, the major clash of ideologies vaporized and the players of this giant, future undertaking found themselves without a legit reason to exist en mass (hold most their jobs or fund huge expensive armies). Now, a new situation had to be resurrected, so these very men could still hold their positions and importance. The industry also pressed on to keep benefiting from these vast and 100% tax paid military forces.

Then Saddam entered the scene and the players in the US said thank god. Russia had no money, but decided to stop the crumbling of its federation by drawing the final line when Chechnya was about to follow the former Soviet socialist republics that had passed through the exit door.

Europe in general gladly laid the sword down; these countries have in spirit really been done with war after the hell of WWII anyway. The large conscripted armies rapidly formed into small and professionalized ones - to be used far away for “humanitarian missions”. Russian attack on the EU is nothing than a wild fantasy among the short end of internets forum debaters. The US tries to motivate its European allies to keep up military funding; in these days for contributing in Afghanistan and Iraq (though fighting "America's wars" is not exactly generally popular, it is still done out of solidarity for 9/11 and of course due to the main alliance principle).

This might be the premier motive for getting new NATO members also. – Not to pointlessly threaten Russia per se, but to receive military support in the current and future hot spots. “New Europe” (ref: Donald) has contributed (politically, not militarily) more willingly to the US campaigns than “the old”. -This is for their part steps made to secure US commitment in their own security issues (mainly related to Russia). Old Europe doesn’t face any potent military threats and doesn’t need the US backing like in the cold war. Afghanistan is more like a military summer’s camp to develop combat skills and test weapon systems. The political will to really invest to fix Afghanistan is completely lacking. It is a static military proving ground for Europe until the US complete its Iraq mission and can turn to invest on erased object #2.

The new members of the EU - former eastern block members – are on a rapid economic and social increase. These are by large content to join the comfort of the Western lifestyle and associate with its culture, build democratic institutions, implement political doctrines and committing to the military structure. The complications between these countries and the remnants of the Eastern block (by choosing to remain as such), assembles the aftermath of an ugly divorce. Russia is like the dominant member of the cluster, and it seems to characterise the split as acts of treason by old comrades in arms. The Kremlin has lost its empire, its influence and general importance. Former partners have gone to the arch enemy, the US. Understandable Russian grudge here; but this logic reaction - or the Kremlin’s will - is not the champion over these countries right to independently choose its politics and way into the future.

The expansion of the NATO alliance eastwards might be intolerable to the Kremlin – especially when viewed through the eyes of power players that have lost most power assets during their careers. NATO is today choosing between new partners or a kicking and screaming Russia. This is in classic democratic tradition a subject of debate and controversy, and the limited campaign in Georgia has brought more relevance to the question for the member states.

The Ukraine and Georgia are poor and underdeveloped European countries (Georgia is rather a Eurasian geographically, but it holds Christianity). Ukraine has a turbulent political record, a large Russian minority and a Russian naval base within its borders. Georgia is an immature democracy in a volatile region and has played too much with fire, being overconfident that the Iraq mission gave them carte blanche and US support in every way regardless of behaviour towards Russia. I say both countries need to work with themselves before being evaluated for real membership and solitary commitment from the entire alliance. We can not have this instability into our common domain. Still, is there a popular vote in these countries for western integration, I would see it as our moral duty to give them a chance to apply when they have got their act together. Russia in it self can not be the single factor to hinder this process. Russia is fully allowed to lure with honey too of course; still Byelorussia is the only European country to turn to Russia, and its development can’t be seen as very positive in ways of political and economic development.

Russian politics is viewed in the West today as a semi false democracy. -Yes, the president and prime minister are elected by land slides, but they also clearly dominate and by far control the general media. The political opposition is systematically marginalized. The Putin administration is however given deserved credit for forcefulness and results in dealing with problems that arose from the crazy 90ies, when the Yeltsin administration made a hell of a mess of Russia (turbo capitalism on a rampage in a virgin nation). The Kremlin is back in the old authoritarian “strong man” way. Nationalism is flagged to stop moral decay and to tie loose ends together. Nationalism is effective in this way but - as most know - has downsides also. -Especially in regards to minorities within a country as well as to policy on neighbouring countries. Both effects are clearly visible in relation to Russia today.

Now, I believe Russia is fully in title to put itself back on track after communism and the Yeltsin era. There is not one single tidy and correct formula to be getting states into balance; it is however consistent of steps through several hard phases – and Russia is well on her way. Europe is of course irritated by Russian acts and threats, but do in general seek a normal and peaceful relation to her (why not?). The present US administration on the other hand plays old power games and insists on radars and defensive missiles (for somewhat abstract reasons ~ self protection from Iran!). Had it not been for Russian powerful diplomatic language, these American demands/offers would probably not be seen as national necessities and basically turned down for not sparking controversy with Russia in the first place.

I hope for a future Russian EU partnership of association. It would be a forceful contribution. A Russia with all democratic institutions running well and with good relations will truly be a great country. If the old philosophy of all-out self interest (the more for you is less for me) can also be replaced with common good interaction (like in the EU). I believe Russia might also become a major Western/European world power should she choose this path. It would be great for Russia to be able to lower its shoulders and ease on the military spending, helping more social reforms pass priority.

To the hot headed cutthroathers; yes, this is a highly simplistic and pin pointed presentation, and no, I don't know everything about Russia or the US, or anything other than a normal person might know, etc.
But I am educated and have only good intentions by presenting claims in form of intended constructive criticism. I present this simplistic to give a presentable, reasonable and relative short summary of thoughts. I welcome civil response.

[Afro-European]

^How you've suffered.:roll:
Can you elaborate? I don't understand what you meant by that.

[Veni Valboro]

So countries bordering Russia shouldn't make decisions on their own?

School example of pulling words out on context.

[Doublethinker]

And so, all previous debaters disappeared... Probably, to reappear in a similar thread couple of weeks later with the same opinions expressed using the same words.