Can NATO Afford to Anger Russia?
Should NATO expand to Russia's southern flank? The small country of Georgia insists it should be offered membership, but Europe isn't so sure. German commentators on Thursday argue that the trans-Atlantic alliance should avoid angering Russia.
AFP
Georgian soldiers training near Tbilisi. The country insists on being granted NATO membership.
Listening to the rhetoric coming out of Georgia these days, one could be forgiven for thinking that the upcoming NATO summit in Romania is a matter of war and peace. With the European-American military alliance pondering whether to issue membership invitations to both Georgia and Ukraine -- and having trouble reaching unanimity -- Georgian Foreign Minister David Bakradze turned up the heat on Wednesday.
"A 'no' in Bucharest will be very clearly seen by some people in Moscow as their success, and it will be very clearly seen in Moscow that it has indirect veto rights on NATO decisions," he told reporters in Brussels on a visit to NATO headquarters there. "A 'no' in Bucharest will have very, very threatening and negative implications for conflict resolution," he continued.
Still, despite Bakradze's warning, it is by no means clear that the April 2-4 summit in the Romanian capital will result in Georgia and Ukraine being offered a "Membership Action Plan," or MAP, the first official step toward full membership. Even though the United States, Canada and NATO members in Eastern Europe are in favor of Georgian and Ukrainian membership, a number of countries in Western Europe are against it. Germany is particularly nervous about how such a move might impact the EU's ongoing attempts to improve relations with Russia as President Vladimir Putin turns over power to successor Dmitry Medvedev.
There are also concerns in some European countries about weak support in Ukraine for NATO membership and about Georgia's ongoing conflicts with the renegade regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Indeed, Dimitri Rogozin, Moscow's ambassador to NATO, told SPIEGEL earlier this month that bringing Georgia into the NATO fold would be "a provocation that could lead to bloodshed (more...)." He also warned that the two breakaway regions would never consent to joining the alliance. "If Georgia became part of NATO, it would lose these regions forever." Last week, the Russian parliament pressured President Putin to consider recognizing the independence of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The Georgian foreign minister on Wednesday said that the Bucharest summit was a "test case" for the alliance and warned that NATO's "open door policy" -- which clears the way for European democracies to join -- is at stake. "From all our experience with the Russians, the most effective policy with (Moscow) is a policy based on principles, not on appeasement."
In addition to Georgia and Ukraine, three Balkan countries -- Croatia, Albania and Macedonia -- are hoping for membership invitations next week. Macedonia's entry into the alliance, however, depends on its finding a new name (more...) acceptable to Greece. The latest suggestion in a long string of monikers is "Republika Makedonija-Skopje." Commentators in Germany on Thursday take a closer look at the issue of NATO expansion.
The center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"It is completely understandable that Tbilisi is doing all it can to push its way under the NATO umbrella. But it is not at all a good idea for the Georgians to transform the upcoming summit into a day of reckoning. Because one thing is relatively clear: Neither Georgia nor Ukraine will be granted a Membership Action Plan (at next week's meeting)."
"The majority of Europeans have other concerns than to surround Russia militarily. Rather, they are urgently trying to establish a healthy working relationship with their huge, energy-rich neighbor. To achieve that, Europe is willing to take Russia's geopolitical wishes into account. That is not a sign of weakness, rather one of political intelligence. A Russia that is bound to Europe as a partner -- with all the economic and political benefits that would result -- is much less of a danger than a Russia surrounded on all sides (by NATO). Georgia too would benefit from the reduced threat."
NEWSLETTER
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday.
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
"The granting of a Membership Action Plan to both Georgia and Ukraine has only been postponed, not abandoned. After the discord surrounding the Iraq war, a number of European members of NATO see no reason to do any favors for outgoing US President George W. Bush. They would rather wait and see how Bush's successor stands on the question of expanding NATO to Russia's southern flank. Should the next US president be in favor of such an expansion, then the Paris-Berlin faction within NATO would have a powerful trump card they could leverage into concessions from Washington in return."
"Postponing the decision on NATO's next eastward expansion has more advantages than disadvantages. Not the least of which is the chance to take a closer look at whether the entire project (of expansion) makes sense. Georgia has proved itself in recent years to be a loyal ally of the US. But whether the West is prepared to risk conflict with Russia for the small land in the Caucuses is a question that needs to be closely analyzed."
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
The USSR no longer exists. The former Soviet republics should be able to enter into treaties with whomever they wish without having to deal with Russias LSD'ish flashbacks to the old Soviet era when it ran the show.
Agree, but you have to see this from Russia's POV. Having NATO (= enemy) on its border is something no country wants.
There is another problem, not too many in the west view Russia as "the enemy" anymore... but Russia continues to try and propogate the outdated cold war mentality of the "west" (NATO) against them.
Why? Your guess is as good as mine, I'd prefer to see Russia as a partner (or at least a neutral) rather than an adversary.
That is just a load of crap, the only ones who are propagating the Cold War are the Americans aiming to expand NATO, which is a Cold War relic. The fact that they are independent doesnt mean they can do anything they want without repercussions, Russia has the right to attack any country it deems to be a threat to its national security. Georgia in NATO would be hell, with 2 de facto republics a conflict is inevitable, whether or not its with NATO is another question. If NATO wants to surround Russia its their choice, but when the war comes we will just have to wait and see which countries are true to their word after their oil is cut off.
That is just a load of crap, the only ones who are propagating the Cold War are the Americans aiming to expand NATO, which is a Cold War relic. The fact that they are independent doesnt mean they can do anything they want without repercussions, Russia has the right to attack any country it deems to be a threat to its national security. Georgia in NATO would be hell, with 2 de facto republics a conflict is inevitable, whether or not its with NATO is another question. If NATO wants to surround Russia its their choice, but when the war comes we will just have to wait and see which countries are true to their word after their oil is cut off.
You just proved my point, you still act as if the Cold War is still on and NATO is some sort of hostile enemy force trying to "surround you" when that isn't the case at all. There is no reason why NATO countries and Russia cannot have a closer relationship... the old Communist vs. Capitalist battle of ideology is done with, its over, concluded.
Do you long for the days when the Warsaw Pact and NATO were at each others throats?
they can afford to anger russia!!
why not??
with the world economy heading deeper into reccesion
old cold war politics is just what the doctor(economist) ordered.
i seriously doubt that the west/nato want peace
you only need to look at their actions since the fall of communism,warsaw pact
to realise that peace was never on the cards!
The whole point of NATO was to fight of the USSR, its only use today is to go up against Russia, I can only imagine the headlines if Belarus went into a military pact with Russia tomorrow.
The whole point of NATO was to fight of the USSR, its only use today is to go up against Russia
NATO was formed to oppose the Communist superpower that was the USSR. Today, capitalist, nominally democratic, regional power Russia is not much of a threat at all. China would be more of a worry in my opinion.
I can only imagine the headlines if Belarus went into a military pact with Russia tomorrow.
That would be between Belarus and Russia. If they see an alliance to be in each others best interest then by all means, I wouldn't object.
Making NATO larger wont help that, its like saying you want peace while building an ever more powerful nuke.
I suppose you don't subscribe to the maxim "peace through superior firepower."
The only reason I can see certain countries objectioning to NATO expansion is because they feel threatened by NATO. I'm fairly certain there are no planners in NATO HQ working up the plan to invade and occupy Russia.
Dont waste your breath, mate, just rest your case...........Some losers above even said that Russia is acting like a crybaby. I also agree with you on the demonstrated fact that Russia prefers forming new partnerships that has economic and cultural dimensions, as in the case with Turkey, over a rigid, cold-war style security doctrine.
NATO was formed to oppose the Communist superpower that was the USSR. Today, capitalist, nominally democratic, regional power Russia is not much of a threat at all. China would be more of a worry in my opinion.
No matter what the political changes the fact is Russia is the only country in the world that can send USA in the stone age , and I see that as a much bigger threat than China who has only 30-40 capable ICBM too reach USA from that maybe 10 would get trough if all.
Well, as long as Russia bully Georgia over Abkhazia and Moldova with Transnistria... i don't see any will for peace from Moscow.
So what if Georgia wants to be in NATO ? Is normal for them to want EU and NATO, with all that wars on it's borders and a Russia which wants to steal a part of it.
And if NATO can afford to anger Russia ? ...why anger ? I guess NATO is angry for what Russia does in this two regions !
Think again, who angers who ?
That is the stupidest statement here, if Russia wanted South Osetia and Abhazia it would have recognized their independence long ago. Those 2 regions want their own independence beause they see what a mess Georgia really is, an unstable country that is on a brink of sending troops to stop the resistence, of course when they get there they will be greeted by Russian peacekeepers.
No, they can't recognise nothing cause US and EU will also recognise Chechnya and any other parts who
want to brake out from Russia and, my friend, Russia will just fall apart.
Instead, Russian government plant separatists in that regions, invent wars, to destroy countries like Georgia economically and make them a hell for investors or any sane people to go there. Then, they send more separatists as "peace keepers" !
So, Russia can't regognise any independence, when it does what it does. Georgia is not a mess, as they want to picture it and we all know that. Same is with Transnistria.
lol, the West is free to recongnize Chechnya, wont change the fact that its under Russian control and that the seperatists are terrorist scum. Georgia is full of sh1t, it invents stories to make itself look like the victim when one of them just sent a bomb to Russian peacekeepers. Russia could easily come out and recognize Abhazia and Osetia, it wont hurt us one bit as we have our country under control. I think you clearly dont know the history of Georgia or what its intentions are, Id sugest to read up on it before talking nothing but crap.
Well, I know about Transnistria and is enough to understand the pattern.
I don't think that such a small country like Georgia with a small population is that evil as you say.
What we all see, is a Russia who wants to destroy another country and Russify it piece by piece.
If sending troops in a country only cause you want it and call those troops peacekeepers, when is clear what they are doing there (occupation and separation), if that is peacekeeping then we all are ****ing goats.
That's a forceful occupation of a neighbor under the pretext of peacekeeping. UN can send troops there, or EU and Russia both, but not Russia alone.
And, after all. If Abkhazia wants to brake out from Georgia alone.... why is Russia sending troops there ? Isn't that enough to convince you that the situation stinks there ?
If they want separation from Georgia, they should be left alone to do it, but i guess all the situation there is somehow "invented", like those separatists and the "peacekeepers".
That's how it looks and that's what happening in Transnistria too. Russia is arming all kind of
alliterate terrorists, after all, cause that's how you can call those "separatists". Separatists who steal from the people, sell girls drugs and weapons and fight for ...fukin "freedom"...please! Such a fukin shame.
NATO cannot afford to anger Russia who is in the midst of a resurgence. Russia does intend ( or maybe has already done so) to target all of western Europe with her nukes just like in the good ol days of the cold war. Not only that ,cornering Russia further, will FORCE her to to expand her military capabilities/industry much more than it has planned. Only this time SHE HAS AN OPEN ECONOMY and will be able to handle it. Even PEPSI has just invested close to 2 billion in Russia , just last week. These aren't the old days of the Kremlin. The Kremlin will have control over it's people to a certain extent but they will let the money flow in. It's a new animal that the west cannot underestimate or ignore. That will be a huge error. If anything, the west should be forging closer ties to Russia at this stage and to CONSIDER how Russia views certain moves by the west, in her own backyard or else this will be cold war 2.
NATO cannot afford to anger Russia who is in the midst of a resurgence. Russia does intend ( or maybe has already done so) to target all of western Europe with her nukes just like in the good ol days of the cold war. Not only that ,cornering Russia further, will FORCE her to to expand her military capabilities/industry much more than it has planned. Only this time SHE HAS AN OPEN ECONOMY and will be able to handle it. Even PEPSI has just invested close to 2 billion in Russia , just last week. These aren't the old days of the Kremlin. The Kremlin will have control over it's people to a certain extent but they will let the money flow in. It's a new animal that the west cannot underestimate or ignore. That will be a huge error. If anything, the west should be forging closer ties to Russia at this stage and to CONSIDER how Russia views certain moves by the west, in her own backyard or else this will be cold war 2.
Europe has little interest in Russia's chest beating antics, and everytime Russia sends a bomber over to a European country it just ruins Russia's reputation that little bit more, doesn't hurt Europe in the slightest.
Russia: Nukes this, nukes that
Europe: Actually, let's work work with a different country, we'll look at Russia when they have a less warlike leadership...
Funny how you speak for Europe from a mouth of a Brit. Germans will welcome the bombers with open arms if it means the continuation of the Nord Stream pipeline, which will be a major relief to the country. The relations with Greece arent doing too shaby either, or France, its just some countries like Britain who are a little bitter as their armed forces are getting slashed left and right due to cuts.
there are Russian troops in S.Ossetia and Abkhazia just like there are NATO troops in Kosovo! It's a bit of a double standard for you to call for the removal of our troops from these places when you have yours in Kosovo. If you think these conflict are fictitious well I can show you the graves of some 20,000 Ossetian and Abkhazian civilians, killed by Georgians, that say otherwise.
And it is 100% accurate to say that Russia has excellent relations with all the nations of europe except for the Baltic midgets and the British poodles. Relations with Germany, France and Italy are fine and even relations with Poland are fine and cordial.
This message has been edited by irkut on Mar 30, 2008 12:29 AM This message has been edited by irkut on Mar 30, 2008 12:28 AM
tiny tallywacker (Login filin) Elite WAFF Vet Club
Re: Can NATO Afford to Anger Russia?
March 30 2008, 12:55 AM
Relations with Poland could be better, we still havent heard the final call on the missile shield debacle. And with democrats tearing each other apart, the presidency of McCain is becoming ever more likely, which is what Russia has been dreading since the start of the campaign season.
And I also recall you calling the Hilary campaign a sure win, how well is that prediction doing?
--------------------------------------------
This message has been edited by filin on Mar 30, 2008 12:59 AM This message has been edited by filin on Mar 30, 2008 12:56 AM
Britain las little interest in Europe so I can't possibly take your opinion as being valuable or worthwhile. Best bet is to just join the U.S. already and become the 51st state, Uncle Sam's cock is deep inside your nation anyway, may as well.
nappyheadedHO (Login GER_Mark) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Can NATO Afford to Anger Russia?
March 30 2008, 7:22 AM
The Russians in this Forum seem paranoid. Europe has no plans to occupy Russia anytime soon. Theres no point of aguring about tiny nations such as georgia and their even smaller provinces. Russia Should decide to go with Europe or get overrun by the Chinese.
Yes there is a pint to argue about anyone.
You are just a tiny human, dude, what if suddenly a gang of other more humans beat the **** out of you in the streets.
What should police say then ?.... "Ah leave him, he is just one...to small for us to be bothered"
How is that ?
I'd say that Russia should leave those people alone, and the brit is totally right about how Europe, or at least sane people of Europe judge Russia by it's actions.
Britain las little interest in Europe so I can't possibly take your opinion as being valuable or worthwhile. Best bet is to just join the U.S. already and become the 51st state, Uncle Sam's cock is deep inside your nation anyway, may as well.
Dont know much about Europe, do you? If you did, you'd know just how big a role the UK plays in Europe. As for the UK joining the United States, that is the least likely option, since there are next to zero people in the UK that support that proposition, well actually its not even a proposition! The majority of people in the UK are either pro-independence or pro-Europe, this is also a point that is reflected across other western European countries (e.g France).
Funny how you speak for Europe from a mouth of a Brit. Germans will welcome the bombers with open arms if it means the continuation of the Nord Stream pipeline, which will be a major relief to the country. The relations with Greece arent doing too shaby either, or France, its just some countries like Britain who are a little bitter as their armed forces are getting slashed left and right due to cuts.
I have more right to speak for Europe than a Russian does
PPP, I know plenty about Europe. To wit, please make note that my last post to you, I was being VERY sarcastic. Also, being serious for a moment, I believe that British interests are best served if they were independent of the EU. As for becoming part of the U.S. like I said, scarcasm. It won't happen and it isn't even on the table. With the remarks, I was trying to get a point across that Britain really should not be in the EU, and that's probably a good thing for her.
I have more right to speak for Europe than a Russian does
As do I and what he said is true , UK licks US ass on every step it takes in this spawn of time , they have become a US puppet , lucky I have enough respect for other major country's in europe that actualy have their own opinion.
We all know that's a fact! Blair got so good at licking the chit off George Bush's azzhole that he even bought suit coats with dispensible seat covers in the front pocket-so Bush wouldn't catch a social disease from sitting on his arms!
PPP, I know plenty about Europe. To wit, please make note that my last post to you, I was being VERY sarcastic. Also, being serious for a moment, I believe that British interests are best served if they were independent of the EU. As for becoming part of the U.S. like I said, scarcasm. It won't happen and it isn't even on the table. With the remarks, I was trying to get a point across that Britain really should not be in the EU, and that's probably a good thing for her.
The UK's interests are best served by it maintaining it's current policy, that way it gains both the benefits of independence and of EU membership. Membership of the EU however isn't particularly vital, as the UK will always have massive trade with other western European countries. I do think however, that Western Europe should have a group apart from the rest of Europe (e.g the Eastern European countries and Greece), but including Sweden.
At least a part of Russian is actually IN the mainland Europe and not some island that got flooded after the Ice Age.
But your not a EU citizen, I am
As do I and what he said is true , UK licks US ass on every step it takes in this spawn of time , they have become a US puppet , lucky I have enough respect for other major country's in europe that actualy have their own opinion.
Ahh another mature post
We all know that's a fact! Blair got so good at licking the chit off George Bush's azzhole that he even bought suit coats with dispensible seat covers in the front pocket-so Bush wouldn't catch a social disease from sitting on his arms!
%7B=ClanGermany.jpg)
