Should Russia fear NATO expansion?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Russia is inherantly corrupt, you just cant ask it to change like that.  It has a massive organised crime problem that reaches the commanding heights of Buisness and Politics.  In the circumstance Putin has done a good job.

To suggest Russia is moving backwards is a typical ignorant western view, no offence but it is,  It was the view of the world in the Crimean War, At Tsarist end in 1917,  During Stalin's "communism in one country", and following the second world war and beyond.  Clearly Russia is not moving backwards.  It has massive amounts of natural resorces, and there is nothing more valuable in the modern world as we enter energy crises in the not to distant future.  Russias economy is stable and growing at a healthy rate,  They also have big voice in international politics. There is nothing to suggest it is in decline at all, except perhaps a declining population, but this is a problem shared in Britian and Germany amongst other nations.

[JdB 151]

Numbers don't mean much in military terms (at least not in modern times). It's selection, training and equipment that make the difference in modern warfare.

The North Koreans + China + USSR i.e. had far greater numbers than the UN ever had during 1950-1953, but it's people's armies were little more than farmers given weapons, while most of the UN troops had at least a basic training, and experience in other conflicts.

China's PLA is increasingly being turned into a modern armed forces, and once they do that they can start expanding their influence in the region (Taiwan...).

Russia is still strugling, and as they don't even have sufficient means to fully fund their special forces their army is not an effective fighting force anymore. So unless they can totally rebuild their economy and armed forces within the next 10 years (to Cold War standards), the gap is going to become increasingly small with the Chinese.

Wars between any of these major powers (US, EU, Russia and China) are highly unlikely, as they have far too much to lose economically, as their biggest "enemies" are also their biggest export-markets.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]Russias economy is stable and growing at a healthy rate,  They also have big voice in international politics.  There is nothing to suggest it is in decline at all, except perhaps a declining population, but this is a problem shared in Britian and Germany amongst other nations.

Human Rights, Freedom & diversity of Press, tolerance towards a political opposition, privatisation of companies and and and

The most recent indicator of this is the allocation of Ramzan Kadyrov as the new leader of Chechnya. I mean a more corrupt, unsophisticated, opportunistic and barbaric lap dog doesnt exist in the world. Also the death of Ivan Safronov as well Anna Politkovskaya indicated, that the political climate hasnt realy improved.  And using energy ressources to blackmail countries hasnt realy stabilised russias sympathies in the west.

Russias industrial sectors are growing. But they are either operating under full governmental control or no control at all. What is missing is the stability of a fully democratic society that backs up the economical growth.

The economy might be growing but the society itself hasnt achieved any progress.

[sputnik monroe 102]

I think russia shold be more afraid of themselves than NATO.

They hold the biggest threat to themsleves than any one sle. They take one sept foreard two steps backwards. Come on people yo ucan do it.

[4-Eyes 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.

Or we could just say that the entire organisation is unneeded? Seeing as how the antagonist is gone in this case, what is left to defend against?

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]Human Rights, Freedom & diversity of Press, tolerance towards a political opposition, privatisation of companies and and and

You forget that russians don't give a crap about either of these.

Quote[/b] ]And using energy ressources to blackmail countries hasnt realy stabilised russias sympathies in the west.

You forget that russians hate the west. Yes, they always have and always will. You need their resources and they know it. They don't sugar coat anything in Russia.

Under Putin Russia is doing a lot better then under Yeltsin and russians don't give a fuck about freedom and democracy, they just want their own living conditions to be good and the rest can go fuck itself.

Here's a little insight into 'ol russian thinking:

http://www.exile.ru/2006-De....st.html

[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.

Or we could just say that the entire organisation is unneeded? Seeing as how the antagonist is gone in this case, what is left to defend against?

Yes, for common people there's no need for NATO. But for the big-bosses high up in offices in their skyscrapers the organization is vital in order to enforce their interests. The diplomacy is handled by their everything from social-democrat to neoliberal politicians.

There are NATO troops stationed all over the world. Let's say we've got a revolution in Nicaragua. Who is going to fund the pro-business/US side? Who is going to intervene? Who did intervene? Let's say we've got a popular uprising in Denmark which is too big for the sold-out police to handle. Who is going to intervene? What kind of tanks will roll on the streets? What tanks roll in Afghanistan? And what kind of tanks were rolled against indians at Wounded Knee? It's easy, NATO.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Human Rights, Freedom & diversity of Press, tolerance towards a political opposition, privatisation of companies and and and

You forget that russians don't give a crap about either of these.

Quote[/b] ]And using energy ressources to blackmail countries hasnt realy stabilised russias sympathies in the west.

You forget that russians hate the west. Yes, they always have and always will. You need their resources and they know it. They don't sugar coat anything in Russia.

Under Putin Russia is doing a lot better then under Yeltsin and russians don't give a fuck about freedom and democracy, they just want their own living conditions to be good and the rest can go fuck itself.

Here's a little insight into 'ol russian thinking:

http://www.exile.ru/2006-De....st.html

In the 90ies they found out what capitalism was. Now they want the Soviet Union back. Even a pro-business guy like Putin said it was a big mistake. But it's too late now.

That exile paper seems to be affilated with the pro-soviet fascist national bolshevik movement.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Apparently, as far as willpower goes, only Russia wants the Soviet Union back (and maybe Bielorussia). But there are many countries out there that belonged to the Soviet Union who I bet will say: "Never again!" with regards to any Soviet Union.

So it might turn out to be a small Soviet Union (compared to what it was in the past)...

[baddo 0]

Well I see it as a natural consequence that Russia feels threatened by USA, or should I say "NATO". I knew that right away when I heard the news about the new military bases planned to Czech Republic and to Poland. What else could happen? The Russians cheering for it? No way. I understand their reaction, even though I'd rather not see this kind of reaction at all. Russia is just too close to my home to be ignored. Please do not create more political and military tension for us, it's the last thing we want!

It is the same thing that can happen while you are walking along the streets of your home town in a dark, late Saturday night. You get surrounded by aggressive people who you don't know, and you have no idea what their intentions could possibly be. Of course you get nervous and start to look for a way out of the situation, either by just running away or by using force. Russia can't run away, it has to come up with something else.

The same problem is with the question of North Korea and Iran possessing nuclear weapons. USA wants them to not have nuclear weapons - such demands have no effect if you possess a lot of nuclear weapons yourself (and place your radars and missile stations so that you reach the mentioned countries).

I really hope I do not see a war break out during my lifetime. It was too big prise that my country was forced to pay during WW II, as being one of the small playing cards in the game between Hitler and Stalin lead us having no way out of the situation without fighting. Alternative would have been to just surrender and give our land to the Russians. There is a whole lot more than just the big countries in this game. Think about the consequences to the smaller countries that will have to pay for the political decisions made by the big players. The USA is very much related to these kinds of issues all over the World and I hope they realize the consequenses their actions might have. The same goes for Russia of course.

[martinovic 0]

Quote[/b] ]That exile paper seems to be affilated with the pro-soviet fascist national bolshevik movement.

Rofl me timbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhAEH453TzU

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]That exile paper seems to be affilated with the pro-soviet fascist national bolshevik movement.

Rofl me timbers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhAEH453TzU

The Italian fascists wanted to recreate big Italy, old Rome. Modern Russian fascists want the Soviet Union _back_. The russian communists want a _new_ better "soviet union". Sure, Russia is the only country in the world where they can cooperate, but the goals are different.

[JdB 151]

There are NATO troops stationed all over the world. Let's say we've got a revolution in Nicaragua. Who is going to fund the pro-business/US side? Who is going to intervene? Who did intervene? Let's say we've got a popular uprising in Denmark which is too big for the sold-out police to handle. Who is going to intervene? What kind of tanks will roll on the streets? What tanks roll in Afghanistan? And what kind of tanks were rolled against indians at Wounded Knee? It's easy, NATO.

You should use Wikipedia to look up the differences between "NATO" an "UN". NATO only has jurisdiction inside of the countries that have agreed to be a part of NATO. And will only intervene in those matters. United Nations troops are stationed all over the world.

NATO = If you attack one of us, all of us will attack you.

UN = Decision by the security council to intervene somewhere for whatever reason.

[Spokesperson 0]

Ya, so that's why NATO is tied up in Afghanistan. And then it must've been Yugoslavia that attacked a NATO country and not the other way around...

UN?

There are NATO troops present in loads of non-member countries all over the world. Military dictatorships are ok, but when people revolt they must be burnt to death with napalm.

[JdB 151]

From Nato.int (I know, that Evil Capitalist-dog site )

Quote[/b] ]NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. ISAF is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF’s mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul.

What is the aim of the operation?

ISAF's role is to assist the Government of Afghanistan and the International Community in maintaining security within its area of operation. ISAF supports the Government of Afghanistan in expanding its authority to the rest of the country, and in providing a safe and secure environment conducive to free and fair elections, the spread of the rule of law, and the reconstruction of the country.

UN mandate, meaning it was asked to help.

Quote[/b] ]Following a request by the African Union (AU), NATO has helped the AU expand its peacekeeping mission in Darfur by providing airlift for additional AU peacekeepers into the region and by training AU personnel.

Ditto, asked to help.

Quote[/b] ] While NATO does not have a direct role in the international stabilisation force that has been in Iraq since May 2003, the Alliance is helping Iraq provide for its own security by training Iraqi military

personnel, supporting the development of the country’s security institutions, and coordinating the delivery of equipment.

In response to a request by the Iraqi Government, since 2004 NATO provides assistance to the Government of Iraq with the training of its security forces.

Ditto yet again, asked to help .

NATO never went into those areas without being asked. NATO does no act, it re-acts.

Afghanistan, Darfur and Iraq are the only places listed on the official NATO site, but ofcourse every good ex-communist will know that these are all Capitalist-dog lies

[Spokesperson 0]

Sure, it's under UN mandate but it still doesn't contradict the fact that NATO troops are stationed all over the world and that NATO intervenes in other countries.

If any NATO member invades some other country, then we've got NATO troops there too. Iraq for instance.

[Spokesperson 0]

I wasn't talking about Darfur.

So, was it asked to help bomb some bridges and kill civilians in Yugoslavia too? Maybe Mr. X in City Y wanted them there? Makes it more legit?

"NATO never went into those areas without being asked. NATO does no act, it re-acts."

Yes, sure it does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....oslavia

But of course you can say it re-acts on something. Everything has a purpose.

Who are the Iraqi Government? It's just a puppet regime. Take a look at how content people are over there.

[Dwarden 1124]

it's sad someone like you Spokersperson deny historical fact that millions innocent people died in gulags ...

and as citizen of country which USSR occupied i think NATO existance got reason

and actual Russian gov try to "shift" problem from A (terrorism) to B (NATO) to avoid crowd asking "why the hell is our rich country still so poor" ...

seems to be just proving it ...

not to mention that threats like we aim nukes on You and bomb You when we decide it's needed

are not gunna improve my faith in better Russia ...

sure even west and NATO done wrong in past but compared what done communist camp it's close to nothing ...

[Spokesperson 0]

I don't deny the gulags or that thousands of people died in them. Though it's no historical fact that _millions_ of people died in them. Of all the prisoners only a few percent died, and this was during the WW2. The US have got more prisoners in % than what the USSR ever had. Sure the standards are better, but USA is a richer country.

Most people think that the millions who died in the USSR died in the gulags, that's not true at all. The millions all talk about died of starvation in the 30ies. Nazi, Russian Royalist and US-propaganda (through the pro-Nazi Hearst-press) has often claimed that 30 million people + or even 100 millions were killed in USSR. That's more than half of the population. It's absurd. Especially if you look to the fact that both Stalin and the USSR are quite popular in Russia today.

Russia has always been impopular in eastern europe apart from Serbia (same religion). We saw it during the czarist times, and during socialist times and we see it now. That's also a reason for why NATO still exists. Russia is still a threat. Eastern Europe (apart from Russia) has always been more influenced by western culture and religion than the eastern/russian dito. Just look at the religious fanatics in Poland (cath) or most of the other countries (prot or cath). Of course there was going to be a clash when Russian troops moved in. The protest were mainly not anti-"communist", but anti-russian and nationalist. Especially if you take a look at Hungary (where pro-ruskies where hanged or shot in the streets) or Czechoslovakia (they wanted a different kind of socialism, without Russian involvement).

The conflict mainly never was about communism or socialism. It's a clash of cultures. That's also the reason why the USSR is popular in areas with russian culture. Eastern Ukraine, Russia, Belorussia etc.

"sure even west and NATO done wrong in past but compared what done communist camp it's close to nothing ... "

It's not only NATO. It's the World War 1 and 2, it's all those colonial wars and the causes for starvation in Africa and other exploited continents. The slaughter of 20 million indians in Northern America. It's all the victims of religion, reaction and fascism. All those hundreds of millions of dead should be compared to the millions who perished in "communist camp". While blacks were hanged in front of smiling cops in the USA, people from all over Africa came to the USSR where they could get a high-standard education for free.

[karantan 0]

*sigh*

This "Should Russia fear NATO expansion?" is just meaningless question and/or theme, and debating about it is a bit...

The fact is that some countries (USA, Russia, China, Great Brittain ...) are (still) seeing and thinking of themselves as imperialictic powers, some of course oposed to each other, and some allied (not much by the political as by the imperialistical interests), and nothing can/will ever satisfiently change this (it's in their -country's- 'nature' ), and all their global political (and millitary) moves and actions are determined by this fact. They're implementing this more or less successful, and the successfulness is more or less and only determined by the country's (current) wealth and economical development. Which on the end is good; if by any chance their economies would be equally wealthy and developed, we'll all be gone by now in some nice nuclear cataclism, because there would be no stepbacks from no one, there would be just and only action and re-action ... But wait and see ,,, maybe not during our generation, but ... And the natural energy resources (oil, gas ...) are just one of the (more and more important) cards in their global poker.

@Spokesperson

Obviously you don't have a clue about Yugoslavia and what hapenned there, so stop/don't using it as some proof for the NATO 'expansion' or non-legitimate use of force or whatever. But just for your information; 'Yugoslavia' *read hegemonistic Serbia* attacked by order Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, all of them the (former) 'brotherhood republics', and on the end Kosovo, and the NATO bombarding of Serbia (not Yugoslavia! ) and the Serbs in Bosnia was in fact a respond on the atrocities which Serbs have done, and it cammed all too late, for thousands and thousands of slaughtered innocent bosnian muslim civilians for instance.

[BlackScorpion 0]

Well, the "communist" totalitarian system combined with Stalins... way of thinking (Lenin never wanted him to take over... Stalin also almost (?) killed his father with a knife...), of which I've understood was quite paranoid itself... somehow 30-70 million people in about 10 years seems perfectly "sensible" to me. Orthodoxes are Christian also, so it's more of the system and it's propaganda combined with such a dark and absurb thing as human nature... the people themselves are, mostly, quite nice, from what I've learned, which also applies to the culture itself. Got a tad of headache at the moment, so this is a short post...

[4-Eyes 0]

@Spokesperson

Obviously you don't have a clue about Yugoslavia and what hapenned there, so stop/don't using it as some proof for the NATO 'expansion' or non-legitimate use of force or whatever. But just for your information; 'Yugoslavia' *read hegemonistic Serbia* attacked by order Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, all of them the (former) 'brotherhood republics', and on the end Kosovo, and the NATO bombarding of Serbia (not Yugoslavia! ) and the Serbs in Bosnia was in fact a respond on the atrocities which Serbs have done, and it cammed all too late, for thousands and thousands of slaughtered innocent bosnian muslim civilians for instance.

And you apparently have a clue, eh?

NATO attacked Yugoslavia, not just Serbia. It bombed Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro in 1999.

For what reason you say? To help out the Albanians? Who themselves are completely innocent in the matter?

And NATO attacks on Serbs in Krajina and Bosnia in 1995?

Because of their apparent genocidal ways? Then explain the offical death toll for Bosnia, wich is about 100000 for all three sides combined, distributed almost equally. I'm not saying that there weren't crimes, but you're adopting a totally one sided view here.

What is NATO's bombardment of civilian areas then?

And in 1991 it was the JNA that intervened in the breakaway republics, not the "hegemonistic Serb army". Later on it dissolved into local army groups supported by their native country (i.e. Serbs in Krajina & Bosnia, and Croatians in Bosnia).

[karantan 0]

I thinked not to answer on your post, firstly because it's off-topic, and secondly because you are the one which have totally one sided view here, and because you're (intentionally? ) in the best propagandistic manner distorting the truth, in attempt to equalise and to distribute the guilt on all the sides equally for all that ordeal.

Which is a pretty disgusting doing must add.

[ran 0]

Seems like you people are sliding offtopic and feel like opening a big fat can of worms.

Conflicts in the balkans are still too new to be discussed in a level-headed, mature manner it seems.

[Baff1 0]

Gulags.

Gulags were work camps, not death camps.

People lived and died in Gulags. Not just died.

Neither were the conditions inhumane. People weren't worked to death.

This is the Soviet Union we are talking about. Workers rights and all that jive.

The kind of people you found living and working in Stalin's Gualgs, were the kind of people who ran (and supported the running of) the Death camps under the Nazi's. Camps with the sole purpose of exterminating people allied to Stalin.

It wasn't just German people who were death camp running Nazi's, Ukrainians and all the rest were too.

Laughable that anyone should attempt to compare the two.

Stalin wasn't in Hitlers league.

Those of us who have grown up in NATO countries in the Cold War should try and recognise the nature of propaganda.

Should Russia fear NATO.

Obviously it should. NATO is successfully attempting to move it's militarised border closer to Russia by accepting Eastern European members into the alliance and pursuing the War on Terror. Soviet forces have withdrawn, and instead of NATO matching this with a withdrawl of it's own, NATO has advanced.

It doesn't matter why NATO has advanced. Only it's current position is relevant. Any action can be justifiable, but it is not justification which creates threat, it is capablility.

Should Britain remain in NATO.

In WW2, our mutual defence pact with Poland sucked us into a war we weren't ready for. 100,000's died, people were bombed in their homes. The population starved for the next 20 years, our pacific empire was exchanged for American food and Japanese concentration camps.

Poland was never rescued. The whole purpose of the war a failure.

Russia and America, the two junior partners overthrew the world order and became our seniors.

The Russians in particular the new world superpower. Unrivaled in it's supremacy.

We all teamed up together, winners and losers alike, to form NATO in an attempt to restrain it.

The Ukraine is in Russia's back yard. If Ireland joined the Soviet Union, we should have invaded Ireland on the same day.

Apart from being totally disrespectful to Russia, the acedance of Ukraine into NATO provides us with a problem.   A problem, quite similar to the one we faced in 1939 with Poland.

NATO is a mutual defence pact. The only possible threat to Ukraine, (not to mention NATO's reason d'etre) is Russia.

Should Russia intervene militarily with Ukraine; under NATO we would then be forced to declare war on Russia by automation.

There isn't any possible way that we could liberate Ukraine from Russia.

All that would happen is that we would be drawn into a costly if not suicidal war with Russia for no possible gain.

The lesson from WW2 for the British, is not to enter into too many alliances. WW2 was a chain reaction.

If Ukraine joins NATO, the British must leave it. Russia is the single last country on the planet we want to fight, (although we will if we have to), and we may need their help again should the EU federalists go too mad, or should the U.S. decide that it is they who are the new unrivaled superpower in the world and keep expanding at breakneck speed.