Should Russia fear NATO expansion?

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Exsactly. What's up to you if your next door neighbour buy a gun, do you complain and look at them thru the lowered forhead every time they do this? Must they ask you for a permission?

There's something called balance of powers. If one super power gets ahead of the other war breaks out and the weaker power is crushed. That's why there was an arms-race. Imagine someone having stones and sticks and someone getting heavy arms. Shouldn't the ones with stones be worried?

Zhukov was important, just like the rest of the soviet commanders. But they had a huge production of light tanks and almost unlimited manpower. They would've won anyway.

[Baff1 0]

We didnt lose our superpower status because of WW2, we lost it because of economics, the U.S has a huge population base and natuarl resources that dwarf britains, we couldnt hold onto our empire because colonalism was crumbling all over the world.

This is typically whiny Daliy Mail talk. - We'll need Russias help if the "EU federalists go to mad?"  stuff like that is why the anti EU lobby arent taken seriously, there is a serious debate worth having, but in the UK its buried under nationalistic nonsense.

Yes economics.

WW2 broke the bank. Just like WW1 broke the bank before it. Just like the Napoleonic Wars broke the bank before that.

The people of Britain were still being rationed in 1954 to pay for the war.

We lost half our pacific empire to the U.S. Specifically we exchanged it under the territory for food schemes.

The U.S. does have a huge resources and population base compared to Britains, but not in comparison to the Commonwealths or the British Empires pre-war. We didn't just have our internal resources to call upon.

It grew as ours collapsed. A fair bit of what we lost they picked up.

What the Little Europeans don't like to hear is that Russia stood with us twice against the Federalisation of Europe under the Germans. And that together (amongst others) we stopped it.

Little Europeans can't see outside of the EU. The world is a bigger place. Britain has intrests both in the EU and beyond.

Or they think just because we haven't had a Europe wide war for 60 years that there is no longer any conflict of intrests between it's nations capable of provoking one.

Whether your favourite newspaper agrees with it or not, many people in many countries are uncomfortable about the EU and it's increasing power.

Lots of British newspapers supported Hitler pre WW2 also, there will always be, and has always been, divided opinion on what is the right direction for each nation to take.

It is sensible to take precautions and plan for eventualities. No one says they have to happen.

These are changing times. Alliances shift and change weekly. It wouldn't be the first time we've had to intervene in mainland Europe.

You might remember how helpful the Russians were in Yugoslavia. Who else was capable of intervening in Serbia with the trust of it's population?

There are plenty of circumstances where an alliance outside of either NATO or the EU can be very useful to us.

Little Europeans and Little Trans Atlanticists? it's not in our best intrests to restrict ourselves to either.

A strategic missile defense system on Russia's borders is a direct threat to Russian security.

If the U.S. has an effective missile shield, Russia is wide open and defenceless against pre-emtpive strike.

As I said before, it's not political justification that makes threat, it's capability.

It makes no difference that American foreign policy has recently been centred on pre-emption.

It makes no difference that every American is raised to believe his military can crush the Russians, and that Russian leaders are evil and their peoples starving and oppressed.

If Russia believes another country has the ability or is gaining the ability to pre-emptively strike it without fear of reprisal, it must act.

I'm not sure where I stand on Britain hosting any U.S. missile defense system yet. There are pro's and cons. Either way Russia must obviously build more nukes or make a system of it's own and host sites in Cuba and Venezuala as soon as it can.

[karantan 0]

There's something called balance of powers. If one super power gets ahead of the other war breaks out and the weaker power is crushed. That's why there was an arms-race. Imagine someone having stones and sticks and someone getting heavy arms. Shouldn't the ones with stones be worried?

This is from a previous century demagogy, so I won't comment it much. This doctrine was determined and triggered by/because of different/oposing political systems, and one of them (guess it which) was pretty much opressive and agressive; if it weren't, I am sure there would be no arms race. So you must surely see how obsolete is this demagogy nowdays.

Quote[/b] ]Zhukov was important, just like the rest of the soviet commanders. But they had a huge production of light tanks and almost unlimited manpower. They would've won anyway

History says Zhukov (ah, Zhukov, not Žukov) was everything and anything in the first and decisive stage of the german invasion on USSR. All that big numbers in manpower and hardware (a massive production of tanks and planes in fact started a bit later when a frontline was already stabilised, and the factories were relocated back in Siberia) would be just a cannon fodder as they were in the early stage of the conflict; shear quantity without the adequate leadership and above all tactical decisions has never win a war.

And beside, we're OT here.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Either way Russia must obviously build more nukes or make a system of it's own and host sites in Cuba and Venezuala as soon as it can.

Russia is not socialist. I doubt they want to help Cuba or Venezuela. When the Soviet Union split up trade with Cuba stopped. This wrecked the economy of the country but they've recovered and now got an annual growth rate of 10%. I wouldn't say that the relations are friendly.

Quote[/b] ]This is from a previous century demagogy, so I won't comment it much.

You're just avoiding a debate. Einstein's formulas are also from a previous century, that doesn't make his ideas bad or old. Pythagoras is even older. Nothing has changed. This has always been the case since the stone age. Mafiosos, companies and countries. They are all dependent on the balance of force, they're all the same but on different scales.

Quote[/b] ] and one of them (guess it which) was pretty much opressive and agressive;

That's bullshit. That's how it's in all US-movies. But in real life the US are and have always been more oppressive, Chile, Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Korea, Nicaragua, El Salvador etc etc. Fascist CIA-backed coups all over the world. Tens of millions of dead people.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Either way Russia must obviously build more nukes or make a system of it's own and host sites in Cuba and Venezuala as soon as it can.

Russia is not socialist. I doubt they want to help Cuba or Venezuela. When the Soviet Union split up trade with Cuba stopped. This wrecked the economy of the country but they've recovered and now got an annual growth rate of 10%. I wouldn't say that the relations are friendly.

No offense but they are the best option Russia has near the U.S.A.

If Russia isn't currently on very friendly relations, it's time to start laying bribes.

The only thing a country like the U.S. understands is force.

If they install missiles close to Russia and Russia doesn't like it, Russia must build missiles close to them so that they understand how threatening it is.

Going to the U.N. isn't exactly going to do anything and nor is a diplomatic protest.

[kerosene 0]

We didnt lose our superpower status because of WW2, we lost it because of economics, the U.S has a huge population base and natuarl resources that dwarf britains, we couldnt hold onto our empire because colonalism was crumbling all over the world.

This is typically whiny Daliy Mail talk. - We'll need Russias help if the "EU federalists go to mad?" stuff like that is why the anti EU lobby arent taken seriously, there is a serious debate worth having, but in the UK its buried under nationalistic nonsense.

Yes economics.

WW2 broke the bank. Just like WW1 broke the bank before it. Just like the Napoleonic Wars broke the bank before that.

The people of Britain were still being rationed in 1954 to pay for the war.

We lost half our pacific empire to the U.S. Specifically we exchanged it under the territory for food schemes.

The U.S. does have a huge resources and population base compared to Britains, but not in comparison to the Commonwealths or the British Empires pre-war. We didn't just have our internal resources to call upon.

It grew as ours collapsed. A fair bit of what we lost they picked up.

What the Little Europeans don't like to hear is that Russia stood with us twice against the Federalisation of Europe under the Germans. And that together (amongst others) we stopped it.

Little Europeans can't see outside of the EU. The world is a bigger place. Britain has intrests both in the EU and beyond.

Or they think just because we haven't had a Europe wide war for 60 years that there is no longer any conflict of intrests between it's nations capable of provoking one.

Whether your favourite newspaper agrees with it or not, many people in many countries are uncomfortable about the EU and it's increasing power.

Lots of British newspapers supported Hitler pre WW2 also, there will always be, and has always been, divided opinion on what is the right direction for each nation to take.

It is sensible to take precautions and plan for eventualities. No one says they have to happen.

These are changing times. Alliances shift and change weekly. It wouldn't be the first time we've had to intervene in mainland Europe.

You might remember how helpful the Russians were in Yugoslavia. Who else was capable of intervening in Serbia with the trust of it's population?

There are plenty of circumstances where an alliance outside of either NATO or the EU can be very useful to us.

Little Europeans and Little Trans Atlanticists? it's not in our best intrests to restrict ourselves to either.

A strategic missile defense system on Russia's borders is a direct threat to Russian security.

If the U.S. has an effective missile shield, Russia is wide open and defenceless against pre-emtpive strike.

As I said before, it's not political justification that makes threat, it's capability.

It makes no difference that American foreign policy has recently been centred on pre-emption.

It makes no difference that every American is raised to believe his military can crush the Russians, and that Russian leaders are evil and their peoples starving and oppressed.

If Russia believes another country has the ability or is gaining the ability to pre-emptively strike it without fear of reprisal, it must act.

I'm not sure where I stand on Britain hosting any U.S. missile defense system yet. There are pro's and cons. Either way Russia must obviously build more nukes or make a system of it's own and host sites in Cuba and Venezuala as soon as it can.

The russians weren't espically helpful in kosovo, they didnt do anything, it was a about them throwing their weight around a bit.

What exactly did we lose in "terroitory for food" schemes, I'm thinking of most of the British Empires territories and I cant really think of anything so presumably you're talking about tiny little islands in the pacific?

The U.S already said the missile shield wont cover us, so theres no pro and 1 really obvious con.

And not sure what benefit you think being out of NATO and the EU might bring us in exchangefor some kind of alliance with Russia. Our situation has changed since the last time we had to fight a war with mainland europe and Western Europe is more or less completley dependent on resources outside of its borders.

It just seems like theres a lot of resentment about britain being a faded superpower in your post and thats about it.

[Baff1 0]

That's right the tiny little islands in the Pacific. The ones that used to be a chain of naval yards, airstrips and resupply points allowing us to logistically operate our navies and merchant fleets with protection.

They are the key to it.

To my mind Russia provided the key element to that force. Serbia was a front line Cold War nation. We never gained air superiority, they shot down a stealth, the apaches refused to fly against them and we didn't manage to degrade their military capability by our air campaign.

Without the credability lent to us by the Russians we would have had a much harder time. Read that post above where the dude calls NATO criminals.

Peace keepers can't operate inbetween two armies that do not permit it.

With the Russians we had a peacekeeping scenario. Without the Russians we had a warfighting scenario that most participating countries weren't willing to take casualties for.

Full style points to the Russians for the entrance they made, that had me laughing so hard.

Brilliant showboating and also demonstrating their ability to know exactly what we are doing, before we do it, even if we don't tell them about it.

And then steal our thunder.

Not to be underestimated those boys. Great to have them onboard.

Benefits for being out of NATO, are that we won't get tied into a load of Eastern European alliances that are of no strategic benefit to us. Essentially NATO is an American dominated alliance. If they want Ukraine in, it's in. etc.

We can't call the shots on who we ally with and what fights we are putting ourselves up for.

And what do we gain by being members? The soviets are no longer breathing down our doors.

We fight in organisations called ISAF and U.N. and EU.

We don't need to be in NATO to maintain the same level of co-operation with the participant members, and we can still make as many bi lateral mutual defence pacts as we want.

Only as Bi-lateral, we individually get to decide which nations we will pact with for ourselves. (And not get poodled into it).

We don't have to lose anything at all by leaving.

We are still a valuable military asset and people are still keen to have us onboard in any operation.

Either under the NATO heading or one designated for the specific operation.

EU? we shouldn't leave any EUfor at all in my opinon. It doesn't have any particular mandate, and as one of the larger powers involved we have a lot of influence of the direction it takes.

Might as well see what comes out of it.

By all means we should leave if it starts getting silly, but right now it's pretty inconsequential.

Working with foreign militaries is good.

Getting interoperable weapon and combat systems is good.

The EUfor may also turn into a replacement pact for NATO.

Not sure if that's good or bad long term yet, but short term all it really means is a change of name for our Yugoslavian deployment and lip service/a bargaining chip with the EU.

An alliance with Russia? In all honesty, they wouldn't have us. Not unless they needed us.

Nothing should ever be ruled out however. Flexibility is king.

And yes being a diminished super power doesn't float my boat anything like as much as being the worlds only superpower would.

But our power has never been achieved by overwhelming force. It has always been by tactical alliance.

Being on the right side at the right time. Not being the overall weight, just being the tipping point.

A small force in the right place can make the difference. That is where this super minnow of a nation should look to be.

Who is the underdog, that with the addition of us would become topdog.

Those are the alliances we seek. The ones where we are needed. The ones where we make the difference.

If the U.S. missile shield won't cover us, then there isn't any point participating. I don't plan on forming an opinion on this one until I have heard a lot more about it.

Let the Americans make their pitch.

[Dark_vityaz 0]

Quote[/b] ]Either way Russia must obviously build more nukes or make a system of it's own and host sites in Cuba and Venezuala as soon as it can.

Russia is not socialist. I doubt they want to help Cuba or Venezuela. When the Soviet Union split up trade with Cuba stopped. This wrecked the economy of the country but they've recovered and now got an annual growth rate of 10%. I wouldn't say that the relations are friendly.

No offense but they are the best option Russia has near the U.S.A.

If Russia isn't currently on very friendly relations, it's time to start laying bribes.

The only thing a country like the U.S. understands is force.

If they install missiles close to Russia and Russia doesn't like it, Russia must build missiles close to them so that they understand how threatening it is.

Going to the U.N. isn't exactly going to do anything and nor is a diplomatic protest.

So,the first step has done.In some of Putin's criticism of U.S. policy,he told a security conference in Germany last month that the United States has overstepped its national borders in everyway.

But i think,Russia will be limit by this accuse Washington of double standards and so on and won't even concern some ideas to place its missile defence facilities in Cuba or Venezuella.Seems unpossible(.

[Spokesperson 0]

There's no need for tactical missiles near targets anymore. With 1000 ICBMs one can hit any target in the world from any place.

Shouldamerican missiles fly around they probably won't fly over cuba or venezuela, but northwards over the artic (shortest way to Russia). There the US already got a missile defence I think.

[karantan 0]

You're just avoiding a debate. Einstein's formulas are also from a previous century, that doesn't make his ideas bad or old. Pythagoras is even older. Nothing has changed. This has always been the case since the stone age. Mafiosos, companies and countries. They are all dependent on the balance of force, they're all the same but on different scales

No, I don't avoiding a debate (thou I don't know what I was thinking to join this debate), I just don't see any valid reason for me to go deeper into this fruitless 'philosophing', especially because some of you are obviously still living in some 'glorious' past time or whatever, and you didn't adopted one bit a way of thinking which at least moderately goes along with the (newest/current) era. And that bull of yours about Einstein, Pytagora has nothing to do with the theme; there/with them are various laws and formulas in question (which of course are pretty constant), but here are global political, geostrategic and other constalations ond such/similar things in question, which for your information right now (in the eyes of history) are CONSTANLY and RAPIDLY CHANGING.

Quote[/b] ]That's bullshit. That's how it's in all US-movies. But in real life the US are and have always been more oppressive, Chile, Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, Korea, Nicaragua, El Salvador etc etc. Fascist CIA-backed coups all over the world. Tens of millions of dead people.

With this answer (bullshit? ) of yours you've totally missed the subject here; we were talking about the two political systems, and in co-relation with this about the two military and political pacts, and the arms race. Now, about the oppression; was there ANY OTHER country beside the USSR voluntarily in the Warsaw Pact? Was there EVEN ONE country which was forced to be a member of NATO? And I also could go with the list of the USSR victims: Finland, Afghanistan, Baltic states, all the other members of the Warshaw Pact ...

But to some extend I do understand your view on the subject and the situation, and your way of thinking, and in this light that mumbling of yours about the (two) super powers; you're (must be! ) a Russian. But you (and some others) should go at least a bit along with the time.

[Spokesperson 0]

The principles I talk about have been the same for thousands of years. Nothing has changed. Or why do you think everything changed now all of sudden?

A, B both got cannons that shoot 40 km. If A then develops a cannon that can shoot 80 km. B has to quickly get a cannon that has a range of 80 km or more if he doesn't want to get pounded. With the 80 km cannon A can tell B to do anything A wants, or else B will get pounded.

A is the US. B is the rest of the world. A is the spanish conquistadors, B is the indians. If B had guns instead of spears, A would never have wiped B out. That's simple logics of power. And it will always be the same as long as at least country has some kind of military force.

There are many examples. Now USA builds new nukes, a few weeks later Russia and Britain announce that they're going to improve their arsenals too. Nothing has changed! "Communism" has nothing to do with it. It's just a scapegoat, just like witches, atheists or terrorists.

Quote[/b] ]Now, about the oppression; was there ANY OTHER country beside the USSR voluntarily in the Warsaw Pact?

All countries joined the Warsaw Pact voluntarily. Remember that it was west that splitted Germany, they created BRD while the USSR still wanted to negotiate. DDR was created after BRD. Same thing with NATO. NATO was created before the warsaw pact. The USSR wanted no such pact. It was forced to it. It was forced to keep the order in the eastern block or else the west would invade.

Quote[/b] ]But to some extend I do understand your view on the subject and the situation, and your way of thinking, and in this light that mumbling of yours about the (two) super powers; you're (must be! ) a Russian. But you (and some others) should go at least a bit along with the time.

No, I'm not a Russian, I'm just tired of all the lies and US-Propaganda. And all people who don't see it.

[karantan 0]

@Spokesperson

In my eyes your logic is a false logic, you're also handling and manipulating with a very untrue and uncorrect historical facts, and if you're not a Russian, then I understand that your doing even less.

I'm not some 'US lover', but I'm also tired of anti-US propaganda, and the people who single mindedly or out of fashion are spreading it around.

So I'm outa this.

[billybob2002 0]

I will pick the last post I disagree with due to too many long posts and i'm somewhat lost........and seriously, ot

Remember that it was west that splitted Germany, they created BRD while the USSR still wanted to negotiate. DDR was created after BRD. Same thing with NATO. NATO was created before the warsaw pact. The USSR wanted no such pact. It was forced to it. It was forced to keep the order in the eastern block or else the west would invade.

For starters, Germany was basically "split" before the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). For example, in the Soviet occupation zone, the Socialist Unity Party (Communists...shock) was the political party but, in the Western occupation zone(s), the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats more or less were "fighting" for political power. The Western occupation zones were focused on economic revitalization through "the industry" while the Eastern zone wasn't. I could go on and on about this. The point is that the Soviet Union had a hand in the formation of the FRG due to their actions.

The Warsaw Pact was created after West Germany joined NATO (1955). NATO was in existence for a few years by then. The Soviet Union even tried to join it a year before West Germany joined. Many, if not all, of the Warsaw Pact nations had bilateral treaties with the Soviet Union before the Warsaw Pact was even formed for some years. So, let me ask you this, why was the Warsaw Pact formed? *cough* diplomacy, status, and legitimization *cough*

You are treading a thin line, guy.

[kerosene 0]

All countries joined the Warsaw Pact voluntarily. Remember that it was west that splitted Germany, they created BRD while the USSR still wanted to negotiate. DDR was created after BRD. Same thing with NATO. NATO was created before the warsaw pact. The USSR wanted no such pact. It was forced to it. It was forced to keep the order in the eastern block or else the west would invade.

The USSR invaded Hungary and restored the government their people didnt want and was poised to invade Poland when it looked like they might get out of line.

[baddo 0]

This writing was initiated by thread Local conflicts are coming ? My fears of a conflict in and around Finland are closely related to NATO, Russia and the possibility of Finland becoming a member of NATO.

One very important but also very problematic question for us Finns is, should we join NATO to get security guarantees? It is quite certain that we will not form any kind of military alliance with Russia, and the European Union alone is not a sufficient guarantee for military support in an event of war. It has been indicated by NATO officials that Finland will be accepted as a member if only we want it to happen. Some key questions:

1) Will we join NATO?

2) How will Russia react if Finland joins NATO? There has recently been increased tension between Russia and NATO because of NATO spreading its influence towards Russia, as already discussed here. My fears are that Russia would take it not lightly, but would concentrate more of their troops close to the Finnish border, which in turn would force us to strengthen our defence. As Finland has even been part of the Russian Empire, it is understandable from the Russian point-of-view that they would not feel happy if NATO expands to Finland.

3) In an undesirable but possible event of war between a NATO-member Finland and Russia, would other NATO member states really help us? Is USA ready to bombard Russia if Russia attacks only Finland? What would Germany and other NATO member countries do? Sit by and watch or come to rescue?

4) Is the possible threat from Russia great enough to justify our NATO membership? As a member of NATO, Finland would be required to help other NATO member countries in conflicts. That includes also conflicts far away from Finland, possibly no relation to a threat from Russia, which would have been our number one reason to join NATO in the first place. NATO and Russia could even be fighting on the same side. Such situations would just drag us into wars not our own, with the possibility that the biggest fear we had did not happen but we became best friends with Russia instead. The war in Iraq is definitely such a war which is not ours, and many many people are already angry in Finland about it. How would Finnish people react if we were demanded, as a member of NATO, to send troops into such unjustified and idiotic wars?

5) Would it be wise for NATO to have Finland as its member? Regarding the historical burden and geographical location of Finland being, if not in Russia's front yard, at least very close to it.

6) How can Russia assure us not to join NATO? By their actions. Reducing the pressurizing of our politicians in various subjects. Limiting the presence of their military in the Gulf of Finland. Making sure their military airplanes do not cross the border of Finland, as has happened many times during peacetime. Making sure their submarines do not cross the border of Finland, as has been suspected to happen during peacetime. Reducing the amount of military troops located near the Finnish border. Making sure journalists in Russia are not murdered to silence them from making unpleasant arguments. Making sure they do not cencorship any of their media. Making sure they allow free speech for everyone in their country. Making sure the political lead of their country is not in the hands of a few people only.

This is so tough and problematic subject for us that our politicians are having a very hard time with it. They either try to avoid the discussion altogether, or try to get us into NATO as soon as possible. Some politicians have the same feelings as I do, not sure yet what we should do. Our primarily goal is obviously to maintain peace in and around Finland and thus our decisions should never be seen as provocative by anyone, do we join NATO or not.

[Baff1 0]

The USSR invaded Hungary and restored the government their people didnt want.

How many of their people didn't want it?

Did you count? Personally, I have no idea, I wasn't there. I've never spoken to anyone who was.

With the greatest respect, while we've all seen the pictures, what does this mean?

How many people, did not want revolution. How many people stayed at home?

If we look at the political climate in our country and others, we can see that our populations are almost always massively split on any particular subject and that even landslide differences of political opinion are in fact only measured in small percentages of the population.

Do the history books tell us that half of Britian wanted to join Hitler, or do we never mention that?

Does American history remember they were opposed to European intervention, or do they historically view themsleves as the selfless saviours of Europe?

If we look at the Orange revolution in the Ukraine, this overwhelming public tide is by no means representative of all Ukrainians and there is a very large almost equal proportion of Ukrainians who oppose it.

What we also know is that the histories of these events that we have had access to, were written and taught to us by Russia's Cold War enemies.

We must expect them to take the anti-Russian side by default as we ourselves have been conditioned to.

But nothing is clear cut.

I doubt Russian history books look upon it in quite the same way. Russian TV documentries are almost bound to tell it from another angle completely.

It's not a balanced view of history to just take one sides story.

To get a better perspective of events you must find out both.

I think this is the root of Karantan's issues too. He's still in the "us vs them" mindset. A product of it.

Instead of looking to find out a truthful overview, he is looking for a truth to reinforce his belief. He's already decided.

The U.S. is under unjust acccusation and he is here to defend it.

@Karantan. History is not objective.

It is a story told. It is subjective to the storyteller.

There are no empiric historical facts. Just peoples stories about the past.

Each story, just a story.

Great post Baddo. Very intresting read.

[karantan 0]

I think this is the root of Karantan's issues too. He's still in the "us vs them" mindset. A product of it.

Instead of looking to find out a truthful overview, he is looking for a truth to reinforce his belief. He's already decided.

The U.S. is under unjust acccusation and he is here to defend it.

No Baff1, I have no issues (regarding this theme), no issues at all, and please don't talk about the mindset, not you dude, beleive it or not I'm way more open minded than you are. And some other people are talking in (wishing it) the context like "US vs them (Russia or/and the rest of the world)", not me. And there's no need for/from me to defend anyone or anything. And yes, I have my beliefs, as you have yours and the others have theirs, and both of us are looking for the truth, I for mine, you for yours. But, you're much more 'decided' than I am, in fact you're so 'decided' that no, even so valid argument or truth can't change that 'decidness' of yours.

And please read more carefully what some person do write about the certain theme.

Quote[/b] ]History is not objective.

It is a story told. It is subjective to the storyteller.

There are no empiric historical facts. Just peoples stories about the past.

Each story, just a story.

Really? History is written by the authorities on this field, and their 'stories' are based/leaning on, yes, the empiric facts, like the various documents and such. So then; for instance by your logic the Holocaust is just a 'peoples story', a fairytale, yes?

I apsolutely do understand what you want to say dude, but such logic or/and the speculations about the 'overall relativity' just can't stand by themselves. By this/such logic, what then is objective or true at all? Nothing. Not even a yesterday. But 99,99% of the people will swear that the yesterdey has exsisted on such and such way, that this and that has happened, and that this are no 'stories'.

And you're contradicting to yourself here (look at the first quote); how then on such way, with such a logic, something can be a truthful overview, not just a 'story'? Because it's yours truthful overview?

Quote[/b] ]Great post Baddo. Very intresting read.

Not really, it's a bit confused (understandable because he's still like 'undecided' ), but it also contains quite a selfish points of view in some segments.

So to be a bit sarcastic; no Finland in NATO, who needs it as such.

[Baff1 0]

There are plenty of peoples stories about the Holocaust.

Do you imagine if Hitler had won the war, they would be the same ones we commonly hear today?

If Hitler had one, and anyone learnt about the Holocaust at all, it wouldn't be called the Holocaust and it wouldn't be percieved as a great evil.

What horrors would we instead have been taught if the Nazi's had won?

Why am I not taught about the concentration camps in the Boer War by my own nation? The Opium Wars or the genocide of the American Indians?

There is no objective truth here, only victors truth.

Documents are empiric facts, but have you read any of those documents yourself?

Do you know who wrote them and why, if they are in a foreign language, did you translate them?

Are they accurately documented, or a fraudlent paper trail deliberately flasified to mask a crime.

Do they relate to the subject at hand, are they recorded by the actual source they have been presented as.

Is their accuraccy disputed? What was their importance or function in the beaurocratic system they were taken from.

Is this really historical fact?

Or have you instead just one more person's interpretation.

Is the expert who wrote about those stories on the payroll of a government?

Is he writing for a target audience?

Is he politically motivated and trying to defend/incriminate America as you yourself claimed to be?

In the end it's just a story. If you lose sight of the person who is recounting that story, you lose sight of history.

For a better perspective of history you should read around the subject, find historians of differing creed and compare their stories.

It's not a case of "my opinion" vs "your opinion" and each opinion has equal value. This is sloppy thinking.

It's a case of historical research.

The difference between academic history and pop history.

[karantan 0]

No problem Baff1, have it your way, it's really pointless.

Just one thing; such a denieing of a Holocaust in some countries is a very serious criminal offense, and as such persuated by a law, at least in my country is, and I beleive in yours also.

And on some forums would be for such spreading of the Neo-Nazi propaganda at least banned in a blink of an eye.

[dentist guba 0]

russian government through history have done more bad things to its own people than to anyone else and yet they are shown as "the bad guys"(e.g rambo 2+3) by america. people don't seem to understand what communism was meant to be ant the thing the american government most fear is freedom despite the USA's motto.

[NSX 8]

Don't know why some people are treating so hostile to russians. Really, guys, I never thought that the amount of people, that still think, that russians are "evil commies" is so hi.

I'm Russian and I never thought America is bad and respect it's nation as well as their right for establishing their political system as well. And I don't know why other countries don't think that we have this right - many people really rhink that a strong socialistic country regime would be perfect for Russia - and so I think.  Communistic regime since 60-ies wasn't like most of you think - like a jail for normal-minded person and can't be compared to one, we've all saw in Northern Corea.

I really don't think that we have democracy now, and I'm glad about that. I know what liberal ideas brings to patriarchial traditions of my country. If UK, which have a democracy as they traditional way of life wants to stay in such state - then let it be, it's normal. But why not just allow us to choose- do we need pro-liberal regime?

And one word about WWII. Don't know why some people try to put russians major input in defeating nazi regime in shadow. Someone is saying that only Zhukov saved us. I don't agree with that. Russia won because of it's people hard work, courage and because of many other military commanders.

----

Best regards, NSX.

[baddo 0]

Hello NSX

I can only clarify my own writings here, and my intentions.

I never think about Russians as evil communists. I want to give you the right to choose your political system as you wish, and I expect the same in return. Similarly as I think USA should not tell Iraq how their political system should look like.

When I think about the terms NATO, Russia and my home country Finland (Karantan might see discussing subjects important for Finland as selfish, sorry for that but the subjects mentioned in my previous post really are important for me as Finland happens to be the place where I was born and raised and still live in. NATO must take the same subjects into account when deciding how much to expand towards Russia.), I must take in notice the historical facts of my country when I form my opinions. It would be insane not to do so as we should learn something from our history and try to act now and in the future so that repeating the hard times of the past could be avoided. There was some serious mistrust between Finland and the Soviet Union during the World War II, which lead to an unnecessary bloodshed of Soviet soldiers. Our side lost good men too. I certainly hope such bloodshed won't happen again, as I see it benefits no one. As a consequence, I am naturally worried of what happens between Russia and NATO. I can become even more worried if Finland joins NATO and Russia and NATO don't get along with each other. Currently I don't know what would be the right choice for us; to join or not to join. In that question Russia has a major part, even though many politicians do not want to say it out loud as they are afraid of Russia's reaction (the pressurizing towards our politicians, which I mentioned in my previous post, is present all the time).

To summarize my thoughts: Russia can greatly influence Finland's decision to join NATO by showing us there is nothing to worry about from their side. Currently the trend is the opposite. Even if our politicians don't say it out loud, Russia is the reason why my country is considering joining NATO. The more aggressive words the Russian leaders throw towards any country (like has happened with this case of the new radar and missile sites), the more worried we become as a natural consequence.

I certainly hope USA and other NATO members understand that there are much more at stake than just their own businesses when they expand their military influence.

Please do notice that I am not saying it would be Russia starting a conflict, but if a conflict starts no matter who started it, then it is Russia which we are keeping an eye on. There is the one country which seems to go on rampage from time to time, and even be proud of it. Yes you read my words right, I am more concerned of what kind of trouble USA will cause around the World.

Best Wishes,

Baddo.

[karantan 0]

@NSX

In this topic is not in question the russian internal politic and a social establisment, but should Russia fear NATO and its 'expansion' towards their borders. As I'm concerned you (in Russia) can have whatever political system you want, who -besides the russians- really cares about this, the 'problem' with the Russia is and has always been elsewhere; that thru the history has/is always tried/trying to expand its influence on the neighboring/nearby countries, or even to occupy them - to add/anex them to their 'empire', and I think that this (such a russian policy) has not changed much till nowdays. Just look how Baddo (Finland? ) is thinking/looking about/on the Russia ... So the point in this 'dilemma' (Russia vs NATO) is ,,, that in fact there's no point. No dilemma. Or it should be none; NATO is an organisation, Russia is a country; two incomparable things. And as I wrote before it should be non of a russian concern if some country joins or want to join to some organisation, it is their soverene right to do so, and if together with this organisation wants to install some defensive!!! -does this tells anything?- rocket system on their territory.

And about the WW2; that about Zhukov is a historical fact, as is the fact that France in the victorian times would not occupy almost the whole Europe if they wouldn't be under the genious command of General Napoleon Bonaparte, and that in the antic times the Macedonians would not conquer almost the whole known world by those times, if they were not be leaded by the Alexander The Great; the hard (historical) fact is that the great military leaders and commanders win the war(s), not some imaginary people's hard work and soldier's courage (of course they're a cohesive, but not the essential part of it). Back to WW2 in Russia; it was already on its knees, and it certainly would be defeated (WW2 as a whole lost for the non Axis forces? ), Zhukov or no Zhukov, if there would not be the intervention from Hitler (an example of an incompetent military leader), which has re-routed the spearhead of the Group Center towards the south (Romania, Caucasus ...) to aid Group South to capture the oil fields. They were (Group Center, a colossuss military force, until it's been splited), what, only 200 km or even less from Moscow by that time, and there were no serious oposition from the Red Army. And all the military historians are sharing the same opinion that without that Hitler's intervention Moscow would fall, and when Moscow would fall ...

@Baddo

The reason why I saw your discussion as a selfish one (maybe oportunistic would more apropriate word - you should be a polititian   ), is because you're just asking what/if Finland would benefit if would enter the NATO. Understandable, but NATO is not just a 'place' where you can take what you like, and dismiss everything else; there're not only the benefits and priviledges, but also duties and the obligations. And on way you're discribing it all, such a Finland would be just a (unecessary) burden to/for NATO, but I think you're exadurating here a bit; I think Finland would be (again) invaded from Russia only in some much wider, global conflict. So ...

[Dark_vityaz 0]

How many of their people didn't want it?

Did you count? Personally, I have no idea, I wasn't there. I've never spoken to anyone who was.

With the greatest respect, while we've all seen the pictures, what does this mean?

How many people, did not want revolution. How many people stayed at home?

If we look at the political climate in our country and others, we can see that our populations are almost always massively split on any particular subject and that even landslide differences of political opinion are in fact only measured in small percentages of the population.

Do the history books tell us that half of Britian wanted to join Hitler, or do we never mention that?

Does American history remember they were opposed to European intervention, or do they historically view themsleves as the selfless saviours of Europe?

If we look at the Orange revolution in the Ukraine, this overwhelming public tide is by no means representative of all Ukrainians and there is a very large almost equal proportion of Ukrainians who oppose it.

What we also know is that the histories of these events that we have had access to, were written and taught to us by Russia's Cold War enemies.

We must expect them to take the anti-Russian side by default as we ourselves have been conditioned to.

But nothing is clear cut.

I doubt Russian history books look upon it in quite the same way. Russian TV documentries are almost bound to tell it from another angle completely.

It's not a balanced view of history to just take one sides story.

To get a better perspective of events you must find out both.

I think this is the root of Karantan's issues too. He's still in the "us vs them" mindset. A product of it.

Instead of looking to find out a truthful overview, he is looking for a truth to reinforce his belief. He's already decided.

The U.S. is under unjust acccusation and he is here to defend it.

@Karantan. History is not objective.

It is a story told. It is subjective to the storyteller.

There are no empiric historical facts. Just peoples stories about the past.

Each story, just a story.

Great post Baddo. Very intresting read.

Ukraine,Belorussia...Just so awful when old friends are becoming worse than old enemies.Forgetting everything: bad time they overlived together,the union,friendship.Striving to the East..