Should Russia fear NATO expansion?

[kerosene 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2027963,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Russia is to replace its military doctrine with a more hawkish version that boldly identifies Nato and the west as its greatest danger.

In a statement posted on its website, Russia's powerful security council said it no longer considered global terrorism as its biggest danger. Instead, Russia was developing a new national security strategy which reflected changing "geo-political" realities, and the fact that rival military alliances were becoming "stronger" - "especially Nato".

"There have been changes in the character of the threat to the military security of Russia. More and more leading world states are seeking to upgrade their national armed forces. The configuration has changed," the council said.

Although President Vladimir Putin ordered his generals to revise the country's military doctrine in June 2005, the blueprint reflects the sudden deterioration in relations with the west.

In particular Russia has been incensed by the US administration's plans to site two new missile interceptor and radar bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Senior figures in the Russian military yesterday told the Guardian they were infuriated by what they regard as Nato's "relentless expansion" into "post-Soviet space" - the countries of former communist eastern Europe and the Baltic. Russia felt increasingly "encircled" by hostile neighbours, they said.

Yesterday Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Washington had failed to explain why it wanted to site missile bases on Russia's doorstep. President Putin has ridiculed the US claim that the bases are designed to shoot down rogue missiles from Iran or North Korea, claiming their real target is Russia's nuclear arsenal.

"We have been discussing this issue with our American colleagues. But most of our questions have remained without coherent answers," Mr Lavrov said.

It is not clear when Russia's new doctrine will be in place. But the council is likely to recommend a new strategy by the end of the year, military sources said. The doctrine follows a big increase in military expenditure announced last month.

Yesterday analysts said the new doctrine would be "much tougher" than the old one, adopted in 2000.

"It will be much harsher towards the US and Nato. The doctrine will reflect Russia's concerns about Nato enlargement and the ABM [anti-ballistic missile] system deployment close to Russia's borders," Sergei Kortunov, a former member of the council, and professor at Moscow's school of economics, said. He added: "Russia is concerned about the US's creation of new arms systems. It is also worried about the dangers to Russia from the US and other western countries, and their political role in the countries of the post-Soviet space."

The chairman of Russia's academy of military science, Mahmoud Garayev, said Russia could no longer afford to ignore the threat from Nato. Drugs and terrorism were an irrelevance, he said.

The doctrine comes as the Bush administration has reportedly decided to step up its arguably erratic bilateral engagement with Moscow.

According to the New York Times, the White House intends to "reach out more often and more intensively" to Russia, an acknowledgment in effect that it has not always consulted Russia on major foreign policy and national security plans.

I can see why their bothered by NATO expansion, Georgia is supposed to be joining in 2009, and strangley, so is Albania? I'm not sure what contribution they'll make exactly..

The Ukraine is also a potential candidate, this would leave Russia more or less completley encircled by NATO states except on its Chinese border.

[Thunderbird 0]

This sounds quite ridiculous since there are no reasons that russian armed forces should fear NATO current expansion, they seem just to want to consolidate their position.

regards,

TB

[JdB 151]

This sounds quite ridiculous since there are no reasons that russian armed forces should fear NATO current expansion, they seem just to want to consolidate their position.

regards,

TB

The Sovjet/Russian defense plan has always been aimed at keeping powerfull enemies away from their soil by having sattelite states(/weak states) at their own borders to have a buffer that they can afford to abandon. With all these countries joining NATO that has rendered that plan useless. You can also see that countries that used to shiver whenever Moscow growled now have the guts to stand up to them (as they now have economic powerof some sort , and connections with western european countries) like in the oil dispute and the Orange-revolution/elections/badly executed murder-plot involving poison in the Ukraine.

As well of course as Putin wanting to be the big bad Communist again, and wishing to return to the Cold War.

[Commando84 0]

hmm I think russia want to keep things like in the old days and when the satelite countries around it becomes indepenent and joins nato they of course get worried. just like JdB said.

But i highly doubt Nato would attack russia... if they wouldnt of course raise the gas prizes incredible alot and piss off all the neighbours and they would talk nato into helping them "reclaim the gas"

[Spokesperson 0]

I doubt that the Georgians and Ukrainians actually want to join NATO. If they do there'll be consequences. Russia doesn't have to subsidize their gas prices for instance. They all depend on Russia. And the people who live in those countries are closely tied to Russian culture and people. They speak russian and many have relatives in Russia.

"As well of course as Putin wanting to be the big bad Communist again, and wishing to return to the Cold War."

That's bullshit. The communist party, one of the biggest parties in Russia, is silenced and outmaneuvered from state controlled-media. The only parties that are free to talk in media and can afford putting up advertising are two parties that support Putin. Both _liberal_. One being left-liberal and one right-liberal.

The russian people (about 70%) and Putin (he said it was a big mistake or something) regret the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that doesn't make them communists as they also see the world as it is currently. It's impossible to get the USSR back.

The idea of a "big bad communist" is a myth and propaganda lie. It's based on the fact that the US-guys are the good ones and everyone else (=the current enemy/threat to the privileged classes), indians, spaniards, commies and now terrorists are bad. In some cases it's easy to make a choice. But the amount of anti-socialist propaganda found in american culture funded by the US government is vast and usually incorrect. The world is not black and white and apparently most russians think it was better before. And no, there was no torture or mass-executions, famine or whatever people think of the USSR due to propaganda movies like top-gun or similar.

[JdB 151]

That's bullshit. The communist party, one of the biggest parties in Russia, is silenced and outmaneuvered from state controlled-media. The only parties that are free to talk in media and can afford putting up advertising are two parties that support Putin. Both _liberal_. One being left-liberal and one right-liberal.

In some cases it's easy to make a choice. But the amount of anti-socialist propaganda found in american culture funded by the US government is vast and usually incorrect.

And no, there was no torture or mass-executions, famine or whatever people think of the USSR due to propaganda movies like top-gun or similar.

Thank you for explaining to me that I live in America. I will gratefully inform our Dutch goverment (often said to be the most liberal country in the world) that we have finally been annexed by the US

Of course the Gulags in Siberia never existed, and the secret police did not keep records of what over 80% of the population did

Russia's goverment being liberal.... (=individual rights), are you by any chance working for the FSB or other branch of the Russian goverment? People that try to speak out get shot to death by "muggers", get syringed until they're as docile as my right shoe or just dissappear altogether.

Edit: I see your name certainly seems to indicate this

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

I would think Russia has more to fear from China then Nato.  Unless Russia and China form some sort of pact.  Then all those satallite countries can look forward to being "reacquired."

[kerosene 0]

China need to keep Russia happy, they have virtually no gas or oil, just a lot of coal.

@Spokesperson.

You had some good points but you sort of went off of the rails at the end there, Their was most definitely was famine under Stalin, and torture, and mass deportation of populations. The reason some former Soviet states have a large Russian population is because they were resetteld there in communist times as a counterbalance to the more anti-communist populations in the Baltics.

[Spokesperson 0]

I don't say that you're an american anywhere. Not only americans watch "Top Gun" or similar...

"Of course the Gulags in Siberia never existed, and the secret police did not keep records of what over 80% of the population did "

There were Gulags. Still very few died in them. People (4-5% of the prisoners max) primarily died during the WW2 and before the penicillin. The gulags never had as many prisoners (in %) as the US-prisons though. Poor countries can't afford having US-standards in their prisons, esp. during the 40ies. That's no priority. And what you say about keeping records of 80% of the population is complete nonsense. That would require loads of buildings filled up with files (this was before computers were used on a large scale) and also leave loads of proof. Don't get me wrong. There were records of people. Other countries are no exception to this however.

"Gulags" are usually not like people imagine. If we look at China, their last emperor wasn't shot or anything. He just had to serve some years in a "gulag" where he learnt what work was. He learnt all people are equal and after 10 years or so he became a gardener, married again and even turned into a marxist. There's a great movie about him. "The Last Emperor", you should watch it

"Russia's goverment being liberal.... (=individual rights), are you by any chance working for the FSB or other branch of the Russian goverment? People that try to speak out get shot to death by "muggers", get syringed until they're as docile as my right shoe or just dissappear altogether."

They are liberals. Russia is probably one of the most market-liberal countries in the world.

If we look at the presidential elections Putin Scored 71.2% (he was supported by the major right wing parties) while the 2nd largest party (practically the only left wing party), the communists only recieved 14%.

The parliament seats:

United Russia, a right-wing party: 38%

CPRF, left-wing radical: 12.8%

Liberal Democratic Party, right-wing radical nationalist party 11.7%

And many other smaller parties...

In what way is russia communist?

"People that try to speak out get shot to death by "muggers", get syringed until they're as docile as my right shoe or just dissappear altogether."

Yes, that's how things work in a neoliberal country. The ones with money decide and pay those with less. Loads of unemployed people and people living in the streets. Retired people who got to work etc. That's freedom for some. Freedom for the rich. Money decides how much of it you can buy, that's liberalism.

Scatter:

"I would think Russia has more to fear from China then Nato. Unless Russia and China form some sort of pact. Then all those satallite countries can look forward to being "reacquired." "

Many people are in favour of a union with Russia. At least 40%+ in the Ukraine and many more in Belorussia. It's not China that wants to put up anti-missile defence systems in mongolia. It's USA/NATO that wants to put their systems in their puppets in the east.

"You had some good points but you sort of went off of the rails at the end there, Their was most definitely was famine under Stalin, and torture, and mass deportation of populations. The reason some former Soviet states have a large Russian population is because they were resetteld there in communist times as a counterbalance to the more anti-communist populations in the Baltics."

There was a huge famine both after the civil war and under Stalins industrialization, but not thereafter. People tend to think there was famine in the 70ties and forward.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

I think you might be confusing Nato and the EU.  The Ukraine would not become members of Nato, there not even in the EU yet so a application would definatly not be successful.

[kerosene 0]

I think you might be confusing Nato and the EU. The Ukraine would not become members of Nato, there not even in the EU yet so a application would definatly not be successful.

Ukraine

Ukraine Defence Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko declared that Ukraine would have an Action Plan on NATO membership by the end of March 2006, to begin implementation by September 2006. A final decision concerning Ukraine's membership in NATO is expected to be made in 2008, with full membership possible by 2010.[44]

The idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO has gained support from a number of NATO leaders, including President Traian Băsescu of Romania[45] and president Ivan GaÅ¡paroviÄ of Slovakia.[46] The Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Alexander Grushko, announced however that NATO membership for Ukraine was not in Russia's best interests and wouldn't help the relations of the two countries.[47]

Currently a majority of Ukrainian citizens oppose NATO membership, independently of their respective political views and beliefs[citation needed]. Protests have taken place by opposition blocs against the idea, and petitions signed urging the end of relations with NATO. Former Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov has indicated Ukraine will not enter NATO as long as the public continues opposing the move.[48] Plans for membership were shelved on 14 September 2006 due to the overwhelming disapproval of NATO membership.[49] Currently the Ukrainian Government started a information campaign, aimed at informing the Ukrainian people about the consequences of membership. The likelihood of a referendum regarding membership is growing.[citation needed]

Intensified Dialogue

Intensified Dialogue with NATO is viewed as a stage before being invited to enter the alliance Membership Action Plan (MAP), while the latter should eventually lead to NATO membership.

Countries currently engaged in an Intensified Dialogue with NATO:

* Ukraine (21 April 2005)

* Georgia (country) Georgia (21 September 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

I'm ENglish, so I do the difference between the EU and NATO, thanks. I dont NATO membership is contingent on EU membership anyway, the UK joined the EU relativley late so they were probably NATO members first.

[Spokesperson 0]

Wonder what would happen if Russia joined Nato.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Britian joined EU in '73, late yes, but is a key player in Europe, especially following the war which is why it was a founding member of NATO.  Alot of European countries are sceptical of Ukranian democracy, so no commitment to the EU means the majority of western european countries (the ones approval really needed) oppose there introduction to NATO.  Ukraines commitment to the war on terror however may sway the opinion if your not French.  There is even hostility to Ukraine joining the EU due to its alignment with Russia.

[kerosene 0]

Wonder what would happen if Russia joined Nato.

I think they asked and got told no. WHich is a reason for them to be unhappy about an orgainisation that encircles them.

[Thunderbird 0]

To be honest, even if the communist party is not the most representative in the russian elections, the communist spirit is still alive and dominating in people's minds, a couple of decades seem needed to 'get over it', even if russia has already shown major internal changes the last years.

regards,

TB

[Spokesperson 0]

I doubt that's the case. The funny thing is that NATO was created as a military counterpart to the USSR. Now the USSR has turned into Russia. The obvious NATO antagonist would thus be Russia. Especially with countries in the east joining the organization for "protection".

Therefore it would be quite fun to see Russia, the enemy, join NATO. That would render the whole organization obsolete and pointless.

[billybob2002 0]

I doubt that's the case. The funny thing is that NATO was created as a military counterpart to the USSR. Now the USSR has turned into Russia. The obvious NATO antagonist would thus be Russia. Especially with countries in the east joining the organization for "protection".

Therefore it would be quite fun to see Russia, the enemy, join NATO. That would render the whole organization obsolete and pointless.

Russia isn't the "enemy" of NATO. If Russia was the "enemy" of NATO, the NATO-Russia Council wouldn't exist. The United States military would be larger. Etc., etc., and etc.

Russia shouldn't fear NATO but might be angry that they are losing their buffer states. However, I really can't see NATO invading Russia because everybody knows that would suicide since they got nuclear arms and what not. Additionally, it would be out of character for NATO. Unless, Russia attacks a member state.........

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i guess Russias problem is NATO was set up to oppose possible USSR expansion (ha! ), so modern Russia still feels NATO holds that mindframe, the only thing thats changed is the way Russia is run.

Lets face it thats a natural view to take if your Russia, which has always been pushed aside and relegated by the western European powers.  (why else did Stalin have 'communism in one country'? etc...)

[Spokesperson 0]

The US are expanding its military. More nukes, space defence, and anti-missile installations right on the welcome-carpet of Russia basically. As a result Russia is gearing up too.

The US claim all they do is protecting themselves from "terrorism". That's the same excuse and phenomenon as witches or commies. Scapegoats. Internal problems can be ignored due to the constant threat of international terrorism. All of sudden everyone's a terrorist, just because some terror organization with links to the US government blew two buildings up.

No matter the reason, if one country starts pushing more money into guns and war, other countries are forced to do it also.

The United States military is already the most expensive and largest:

It's not about anyone invading anyone else. It's about power. About whether one can do things without asking others.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]No matter the reason, if one country starts pushing more money into guns and war, other countries are forced to do it also.

Bullshit. This sounds so 80ies style, I realy cant believe someone is still stuck in this cold-war ideology. If the US spends billions and billions in their military then so be it, I couldnt care less. The threat will always be relatively low since any larger conflict would definetly break the backbone of any sensitive western economy. Russia ridicules itself right now with their silly exaggerated armament plans for the next years. Anyone knows russia cant afford it and the money would be better invested elsewhere.

I know I sound a little harsh and I dont mean to, but this topic realy anoys me, since it is obvious russia is moving backward.

Puttin is realy one of those politicians I couldnt hate more. He is pretentious, works the old-KGB style, tries to create international disharmony and most important, he seems to be anti-democratic. If you want to push russia ahead, then you have to start from the scratch. For once in history russia needs to be governed bottom up and not top down.

[Spokesperson 0]

It's no ideology it's logics. If one country starts to spend a lot on the military other countries do as well. This is the case today and it was the case 500 years ago. Nothing has changed.

When the soviet union was split up and converted into Russia the oil was extremely cheap. Now the prices have risen greatly. This has brought a lot of wealth to the country. Econ. growth is very high. The country has got no debts any longer.

It's true that Russia is moving backward in many aspects, moving back to czarist times, but without the czar. Putin is no democrat, nobody there is. There's no democracy in Russia and democracy in the west is based on wealth, so there's practically no democracy here either. But we got more of it so to say.

[Dark_vityaz 0]

I doubt that's the case. The funny thing is that NATO was created as a military counterpart to the USSR. Now the USSR has turned into Russia. The obvious NATO antagonist would thus be Russia. Especially with countries in the east joining the organization for "protection".

Therefore it would be quite fun to see Russia, the enemy, join NATO. That would render the whole organization obsolete and pointless.

Russia isn't the "enemy" of NATO. If Russia was the "enemy" of NATO, the NATO-Russia Council wouldn't exist. The United States military would be larger. Etc., etc., and etc.

Russia shouldn't fear NATO but might be angry that they are losing their buffer states. However, I really can't see NATO invading Russia because everybody knows that would suicide since they got nuclear arms and what not. Additionally, it would be out of character for NATO. Unless, Russia attacks a member state.........

Then what for NATO wants to put their bases in Chezch Republic? Do they have fears against North Korea or some other country?

[Dark_vityaz 0]

I doubt that's the case. The funny thing is that NATO was created as a military counterpart to the USSR. Now the USSR has turned into Russia. The obvious NATO antagonist would thus be Russia. Especially with countries in the east joining the organization for "protection".

Therefore it would be quite fun to see Russia, the enemy, join NATO. That would render the whole organization obsolete and pointless.

Russia isn't the "enemy" of NATO. If Russia was the "enemy" of NATO, the NATO-Russia Council wouldn't exist. The United States military would be larger. Etc., etc., and etc.

Russia shouldn't fear NATO but might be angry that they are losing their buffer states. However, I really can't see NATO invading Russia because everybody knows that would suicide since they got nuclear arms and what not. Additionally, it would be out of character for NATO. Unless, Russia attacks a member state.........

Then what for NATO wants to put their bases in Chezch Republic? Do they have fears against North Korea or some other country?

[vektorboson 8]

Quote[/b] ]No matter the reason, if one country starts pushing more money into guns and war, other countries are forced to do it also.

Bullshit. This sounds so 80ies style, I realy cant believe someone is still stuck in this cold-war ideology.

Well, we, the western heimsphere/NATO, are pumping more money into our military than all other countries together. Just look at the diagram with military expenses.

Also, some western countries want to install the anti-missile-shield. Why? Russia is not our enemy.

So, it is us, who are stuck in the eighties, as the NATO still exists, although the Warsaw Pact has collapsed.

Another example: Iran and Venezuela are building their military up, exactly because they fear invasion from some specific country. It seems, that even Argentina changes its military doctrine to fight a possible invasion from a very advanced enemy.

Quote[/b] ]

If the US spends billions and billions in their military then so be it, I couldnt care less.

No, you should care! When someone pumps as much money into its military, then either he's using it (true) or wants to use it. The US have a good track record of being in a steady state of war since WW2.

Quote[/b] ]Russia ridicules itself right now with their silly exaggerated armament plans for the next years. Anyone knows russia cant afford it and the money would be better invested elsewhere.

Replace Russia with US; Russia has a very low military budget compared to its sheer size (in 2005 we Germans had a bigger budget than Russia!.

Instead of criticizing Russia, think about, what could be accomplished, if the NATO and US spend the half of their military budget for something different!

Quote[/b] ]Puttin is realy one of those politicians I couldnt hate more. He is pretentious, works the old-KGB style, tries to create international disharmony and most important, he seems to be anti-democratic. If you want to push russia ahead, then you have to start from the scratch. For once in history russia needs to be governed bottom up and not top down.

I don't like Putin, and I'm in anger, how Schroeder could call him a "lupenrein" democrat... BUT: Putin is under extreme pressure; I wouldn't like to be the president of Russia, as it's basically an ejection seat with others having the finger on the trigger.

[billybob2002 0]

Then what for NATO wants to put their bases in Chezch Republic? Do they have fears against North Korea or some other country?

NATO isn't involved in the attempt to establish a radar base for the "shield" in the Czech Republic. Its a US-Czech deal.

Replace Russia with US; Russia has a very low military budget compared to its sheer size (in 2005 we Germans had a bigger budget than Russia!.

Instead of criticizing Russia, think about, what could be accomplished, if the NATO and US spend the half of their military budget for something different!

The United States has a large military budget due to the fact that its military is technological advance compared to many countries including Russia. Also, the military is stationed all over the world. Half of the budget is spent on operations, maintenance, and personnel alone. Furthermore, and importantly, only about 3.7% of its GDP in 2006 (est.) was used for the military budget. That is way lower than Saudi Arabia, Israel, and many other countries.

More nukes, space defence, and anti-missile installations right on the welcome-carpet of Russia basically. As a result Russia is gearing up too.

More Nukes? No. In fact, Russia has way more active and inactive nuclear warheads than the United States. Russia knows it can nuclear the World 5 times over while the United States could do it 3 times.

The United States military is already the most expensive and largest.

The United States doesn't have the largest military in the world. In fact, if you count reserve troops with active troops, Russia has a larger military than the United States. China has the largest military in the world.