I see Albania is to cleared for Nato membership. How insane is that? Albanian Kosovans are already disparaging Nato saying that they don't need foreigh troops as they are to be part of Albania (although - like their UDI that is forbidden). Croatia too is to join when anyone and his aunt knows that that Bosnia is a mere patch-up job which is unlikely to last.
Nato's continual expansion goes against what they said they would do as the Irob Curtain came down. They broke their own charter to invade other lands and now we see them absorbing them into the organisation.
Who is Nato defending us from? In my opinion an enlarged Nato is likely to cause problems.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Does it really matter? Like the EU (love or loath it), merely by being a member makes it virtually impossible to go to war again with other members states.
The other 'benefit' of having these former WARSAW Pact/Sov Bloc satellite members in an ever expanding NATO is that it reduces the geographic footprint available to Russia to house bases, missiles, troops and other strategic assets - which means more land footprint for NATO members to house theirs! That old 'deny them the ground' tactic.
As for Albania, as long as they behave themselves at an international level, I'm sure the powers that be are happy for their Mafia to carve each other up and do what they do.
______________________________________________
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
We can always find others to war with, in the hope that size matters.
I believed in Nato when we faced down the Sovs. It was a defensive treaty then. After the Warpac crumbled it changed. It broke it's own charter to take offensive action in a civil war which was of no concern to it (not Zimbabwe). Then it changed the charter to allow such actions outwith the area of Nato. Such an organisation seems dodgy to me.
Who is the enemy? Not Russia. When the Commies were ditched the Russians were looking forward to better relations and ties with us, however we alternate between kicking them and ignoring them. We dabble in their concerns in Siberia in the same way as we dabbled in Ukraine. We promised not to recruit the former Warpac countries and then did. Now we are doing the same with their former partners-in-crime (suddenly it was only the Russians who had been the "Evil Empire" and Georgia, Ukraine ByelloRussia et al were all innocents - the Georgian, Stalin seems to have turned Russian). As Margaret Thatcher said, we could have made the Russians our friends with a small portion of the "peace dividend". We didn't.
In the UK we harbour Russian Mafia-type hoods but it is not worthy of comment as we can use them. We villify Russia at every turn. Only this week BBC Views - sorry - News was at it again claiming that Russia refuses to extradite a media-tried-and-convicted "suspect". They deliberately ignore the fact that we have no extradition treaty with Russia (lucky as our friendly hoods would be off like a shot) and that it is in fact against the law in Russia to extradite. At least the media now replaces "Putin" with "Russia". I wish they had been so vocal about our closest neighbour, the ROI and extradition! Still, tell a lie often enough...
But then we believe in our press (more fool us). The fiasco when Ukraine's syphoning off gas meant for western Europe and our media accusing the Russians is just one of many. It seems to me that some want and require an enemy and that Russia has won first place.
There are downsides to this re-vamped treaty. Accepting states like the loony Albanians with their dreams of a Greater Albania now showing returns is mad. Are we going to control them? If so we have not advertised it to the world by so many member states supporting the illegal UDI in Kosovo. This was after signing the Rambouillet Treaty (Mk.1) which allowed Nato troop in and guaranteed that this would not happen. Had Nato been an honest broker we would have upped and left. We are not. There appears to be an agenda. If there is an agenda, does it benefit all members or just the more powerful?
Never mind the small states, let us look at the largest member, the USA. Remember the attacks on the Chinese Embassy and the radio station in Belgrade? The attempt to get us to attack Russian troops? Their allowance of use of airspace in Iraq to Israel (as well as Israeli teams operating in Baghdad? Their supplying belligerants in Bosnia whilst supposedly maintaining an embargo? That is only the ones we know about. One can also mention their penchant for inventing causus belli - USS Maine, Gulf of Tongking etc. How difficult is it to drag Nato into their own fights?
Now, try to see Nato as a Russian sees it. Behind the scenes meddling in Siberia as there was in the Ukraine. Nato bases springing up all around. Ignoring of hard won strategic treaties. The building of a missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic [perhaps Russia should consider one in - say - Cuba!]. The support and recognition of one of the most heinous terrorist organisations in Europe. Nato sees the same terrorists as good or bad, depending on whether they are fighting in Chechnya, Bosnia, Iraq or Afghanistan (the latter has a time dimension involved).
Even if there is no hidden agenda, does our exagerrated attempts to secure our perception of safety give us the right to encroach on the perceived security of non-belligerent states? We have seen that before.
EDIT: Tommy removed all the symbols to make for easier reading. Your typos I left in
This message has been edited by Tommy_01 on Jul 13, 2008 7:27 PM This message has been edited by Tommy_01 on Jul 13, 2008 7:26 PM This message has been edited by Tommy_01 on Jul 13, 2008 7:26 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The ghost of Stalin appears to Putin one night in his Kremlin chambers...
Stalin: "My dear Vladimir, there are TWO things you must do to cement power for yourself and remove any chance of anyone else ruling Russia for the foreseeable future."
Putin: "Why thanks, Joe, you know you've always been my inspiration and I model myself on you. Please, give me your advice!"
Stalin: "My pleasure, Vladimir. Firstly, you must have any and all opposition members, and any other political challengers killed, in one fell swoop, over the course of just one night. That will cow the masses and send a strong signal that any future challengers will meet the same fate. Secondly, you must paint all your private offices and apartments in the Kremlin sky blue."
Putin: "Why sky blue?"
Stalin: "Ha,hah... I knew you'd only ask about the second bit..."
And now, here's a rather lucid argument to answer your question about 'who the enemy is...' No points for seeing who it is - and an old one at that.
"Russia sees us as pawns on its chessboard"
By Edward Lucas
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 13/07/2008
So now we know: the "new Russia" of Dmitri Medvedev looks very like the old one of Vladimir Putin.
Consider the events of the past week. MI5 accused its Russian counterpart of murder; in return, Russian media "unmasked" a senior UK diplomat as a spy. Britain's largest company, BP, came closer to losing its flagship investment in Russia. The deal to base a US radar station in the Czech Republic was met by a Russian threat of a "military-technical" response. Gordon Brown's meeting with Mr Medvedev was as icy as any Anglo-Russian summit in the past 20 years. On Friday night, Russia sided with China to block UN sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Over the past eight years, starting with the rise of Mr Putin, Russia has recovered both its confidence and its capability. But to do what?
Some argue that like any big country, Russia is just pursuing its national interest, and that this is nothing sinister. Such a view ignores both a very definite strategic plan, born of the peculiar Russian mindset, and the role of chauvinism, xenophobia and the desire for revenge.
Russian thinking is still rooted in a Soviet approach that leaves little room for the concept of mutual benefit. The "zero-sum" game is deeply entrenched: if something is good for the West, it is bad for Russia, and vice versa.
That chimes neatly with the story pushed on Russian state television that treacherous Russian politicians connived with the West in the 1990s to weaken the country. We promoted chaotic economic reform and phony democracy that enriched a handful and impoverished the rest, leaving Russia near disintegration until it was rescued by Putin's firm.
That is preposterous. In fact, the West provided billions of dollars to prop up Russia in the 1990s; it failed not because of our bad advice, but because of its appallingly difficult starting position and weak Russian leadership. Yet for that mythical wrong, Russia now wants revenge.
The first big push is for influence in what Russia sees as its own back yard: the old Soviet European empire, viewed not as countries that freely prefer the West, but former allies hijacked by nationalists and Western spin doctors.
The second part of the plan is to neutralise the big countries of western Europe and weaken the Atlantic alliance. Russia (population 140 million and GDP of $1trillion) is smaller and weaker than Europe (450 million and $11trillion). Yet like an able chess player, it uses a smaller number of well-positioned pieces to overwhelm a seemingly superior opponent.
Its tactics are simple: to use the promise of long-term, dependable gas supplies to build ties with energy-hungry countries such as Germany; to build gas pipelines that circumvent countries such as Ukraine; to exploit anti-US sentiment in the West on issues such as Iraq and missile defence; to buy politicians, parties and whole countries where the opportunity presents itself.
The key to Russia's success is linking political and economic issues, and playing one country off against another. If the EU wants to help Georgia, Russia uses Greece to block it. If Nato wants to help Ukraine, Russia invokes German help. When France raised human rights concerns, the Kremlin offered huge investments in a car plant and a gas field in exchange for silence.
It is working. Germany's ties with Russia now trump those with Poland, nominally its chief east European ally. Germany leads the opposition in Nato to a clear membership timetable for Ukraine and Georgia.
Both countries are threatened with dismemberment by Russia, which is stoking separatism in the Ukrainian province of Crimea, and has all but annexed two provinces of Georgia. In protest against Russian military overflights, Georgia has recalled its ambassador from Moscow. Nobody in the West seems to notice. The US, the final guarantor of our security, is discredited and distracted.
Russia's skilful pipeline politics has wrecked European attempts to diversify the continent's energy supplies. An EU-backed project called Nabucco, which would bring gas from Central Asia to Europe via Turkey and the Balkans, has been kyboshed. The Russian pipelines of Nord Stream (in the Baltic) and South Stream (across the Black Sea) form an effective pincer movement, eagerly backed by key Russian allies such as Germany and Austria, leaving Ukraine and Poland open to Russian energy blackmail.
Russia is a big investor in our economies; our bankers salivate at prospect of Russian bonds and stocks. The presence of Gerhard Schröder, the former German chancellor, on the board of the Nord Stream gas pipeline epitomises the way in which Russian influence has penetrated deep into our political system. Checkmate is looming.
# Edward Lucas is author of The New Cold War (Bloomsbury, £18.99)
______________________________________________
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Tommy, The author has reached his own conclusions and I mine. In some cases he is either naive or deliberately biased. None of it says why there is a need for Russia to be encircled and treated like an enemy. Surely the West is big enough and capitalist enough to accept a new player on the block?
From the blurb for his book: "Russia’s vengeful, xenophobic, and ruthless rulers have turned the sick man of Europe into a menacing bully" [Sounds like a Pravda rant on the West in the 1970s];
"The murders in 2006 of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Russia, and the British citizen Aleksandr Litvinenko, highlight the danger faced by anyone who stands in the Kremlin’s way. " [Notice that as I have said before, the judge and jury are not required. All you need are British journalists! I wonder what he wrote about the starnge case of Dr. David Kelly?].
"if something is good for the West, it is bad for Russia, and vice versa." is a gross simplification based on what is happening now, after we refused to welcome Russia to the fold. As I have pointed out the USSR was not Russia and those nations we now accept were impicit in it's dealings and supplied many of the controllers. We have one law for tem and another for Russia. Incidentally, I remember Western wishes for the USSR to become capitalistic - it is now.
"Such a view ignores both a very definite strategic plan, born of the peculiar Russian mindset, and the role of chauvinism, xenophobia and the desire for revenge." Again - a bit of a rant. Is there not a similar strategic plan in the West? At one time it was only the lefties that were wary of the US government and Nato. I was one of their accusers. This is not the case now. I am only one of a growing number of former US and Nato supporters who have become disillusioned.
"the old Soviet European empire, viewed not as countries that freely prefer the West, but former allies hijacked by nationalists and Western spin doctors." Although I do not fully support them on this, they are not completely wrong. How much Western dosh went into the "Orange Revolution" to get a pro-west flake in power? Quite a lot (reminds me of the Soviets interfering in the UK via the trade unions). There is a lot of disenchantment with the missile deal in Poland and the Czech Republic where polls indicate most do not want it. Democracy in action.
The gas supplies situation is a problem. I do not believe that we should ever be dependent solely on anyone for anything and that includes those we call allies. They then have one by the scrotum. That said, did we chastise the Ukraine for stealing our gas supplies? No, we blamed the Russians for not making up the difference! Just the sort of actions required to polarise opinion in Russia. I disagree with Russia's position in the Security Council regarding Zimbabwe but they had a good teacher. Which country has used it's veto the most in the past 30 years, causing many problems around the globe? The biggest country in Nato no less!
"Russia's skilful pipeline politics has wrecked European attempts to diversify the continent's energy supplies." Including Kosovo? Meanwhile the new oil concessions are on sale in Iraq...
It is Nato which has broken it's own charter to invade another country and now has troops in a growing number of countries. It is Nato that has deceived the world over Rambouillet and lied in it's teeth over the reasons. It is Nato which has decreed that the SALT treaties should no longer be binding. In particular it was the UK and US that lied to allow the illegal invasion of Iraq (I seem to remember being a lonely voice on this site in pointing out that it was a con - long before the public awoke (too late).
I say again that we are the ones making the world more dangerous (not the peoples but the states to which we belong). It is we who are making Russia an enemy when it was not necessary. Russian democracy requires a lot of work but after the dodgy elections in the USA and Scotland, are we really in any place to talk? Come to that, just how much of the feelings and beliefs of the British public is represented by our politicians? I reckon that the Russian leadership has more in common with their people than most of ours have, and that includes distrust of the West, the very light to whom they looked when under Communist rule. They have a right to feel betrayed.
We may push Russia too far and then maybe only Hell'l mend us all.
I liked the joke. When I first heard it it was about Hitler and Jews and later about Bush and Guantanamo.
Edit Tommy: Again mate, I removed your email address from the post. Edit: Acorn. I got rid of the formatting symbols (I hope and the largest linkin the history of the universe).
This message has been edited by Acorn15 on Jul 14, 2008 3:29 PM This message has been edited by Tommy_01 on Jul 14, 2008 5:37 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Acorn mate, allow me to address your points in order.
Acorn wrote:
"Tommy,
The author has reached his own conclusions and I mine. In some cases he is either naive or deliberately biased. None of it says why there is a need for Russia to be encircled and treated like an enemy. Surely the West is big enough and capitalist enough to accept a new player on the block?"
The author has researched a great deal to put this book together, and if you can't accept that both the Russian people's and it's turbulent and nationalistic leadership have not thrown off some of a number of the characteristics of Soviet times, then I'm sorry mate, it's you who is naive.
Only last week, MI5 put out (highly irregular for them to go public in this manner) three separate warnings as to the resurgent threat posed by 30+ Russian 'diplomatic' (i.e. allegedly attached to their embassy) names in the UK. Their practises and deceptions have not ceased with the falling of the Sov Bloc and Iron Curtain. So the KGB is now the FSB, big deal - never a more obvious case of Emperor's New Clothes have we seen since Leonid Brezhnev reintroduced the practices of the Cheka.
I first went to Moscow, Kiev and the Leningrad (as was) in 1985 - I last went in December 2007. The only things that have changed is that Russia has discovered gas and oil reserves and the Mafia [the modern day replacement 'New Elite'] is now openly running things; whereas before it did it from behind the scenes. It's a pitiful place and the nature of that country and its people is precisely how the author describes them - and their outlook to the West. If it weren't 'surrounded', as you put it, it would find a reason to create the situation and circumstances where it needed to be. Along with the French and the Germans, Russians are some of the most openly racist [xenophobic] people you could ever have the misfortune to meet. And their time commanding their former satellite puppet states in the Sov Bloc have resulted in those countries sharing that attitude also. It's a woeful state of affairs.
And please don't try and put words in my mouth - I [and neither did the author of the piece] never hinted, alluded to or suggested that Russia was behind the recent hike in oil prices: but She's been damned happy to ride the profit wave as a result of it.
You then go on to wax lyrical about the war in Iraq - here's an area on which agree: but Russia's response to that situation is in line with its veto this week of sanctions against Zimbabwe. Whatever the West thinks wise, practical or prudent, the Russians vote the other way. That's just a matter of fact - not mere opinion.
Mate, if you're seriously trying in any way to give parity or similarity to the Kelly and Litvinenko cases, then you're further off the chain than I thought. No British or foreign journalist thinks for a minute that the British gov't/MI6 or MI5 killed Kelly. If you do, then please join the queue of conspiracy theory wallahs who think the US gov't committed 9/11. Good luck.
You write: "We have one law for them and another for Russia..."
When has this never been the way for how we deal with most foreign countries? Unless we can see marked improvement in their behaviour (politically, militarily and in terms of nefarious acts of sabotage against us) or a willingness at least to try and meet us half way, then it's difficult to change the way in which they are/will be treated. Sorry, but I've got to say, sometimes you do show an apparently wanton naivety when it comes to Russia mate.
As for 'democracy in action' in Czech and Poland and the missile shield - as you've seen with gorgeous Gordon's denial of a referendum on the EU Constitution (albeit that the very promise to offer one was in Labour's election manifesto) and Margaret's imposition of the Poll Tax on the nation, you do know that we rarely get asked our opinions on a great many matters. Most EU nations didn't get a vote on the Constitution either.
Most of your other points are merely reiterations of your anti-NATO slant, so allow me to finish with a quote from John Maynard Keynes:
"When the facts change, I change my mind - why? What do you do, Sir?"
Waxing poetic about the manner in which the US used its UN veto over the last 30 years is incongruous - we were in a far more polarised world than that in which we now live. Russia, on paper at least, is a nominal 'democracy' which hasn't changed its ways at all.
Speaking from experience, the roads, transport, the internal security and the ability to travel in the country (as a Westerner) was better in the bad old days - now it's a fucking nightmare and risky as hell. If the whores in the hotels don't get you, the local thugs and Mafioso will when you're out and about.
For all its illustrious history, Russia remains a benighted country.
______________________________________________
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Sorry Acorn mate, allow me to add a last afterthought.
You may see NATO 'encircling' the CIS/Russia, but when was it never the case? Even/especially in the Cold War days?
The only change now is that former Sov Bloc satellites are now joining NATO by the score, and as quickly as they can, as they have done the EU. Did it not occur to you that they might want to? having been run and dictated to by Moscow for the best part of 60 years?
______________________________________________
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
And finally, as if proof of the tenet and tone of the journalist's article above, in how Russia uses its 'petro-clout' to bully its customers when it's not getting its own way, read the following:
"Russian oil supplies to Czech Republic cut after missile defence deal with US"
"Russian oil supplies to Czech Republic cut after missile defence deal with US"
What do you expect the USA do in a similar situation? Right now they are rattling sabres over the possibility of a legal esclusion zone in the Persian Gulf caused by either their or their Ally's illegal attack on Iran!
The Cold War was with the USSR which was based on the old Empire but it was run by Georgians, Russians, Ukrainians et al. The Americans in particular did not give the Russians a snowball's chance in Hell when the Curtain fell but kept on with the Cold War rhetoric.
Had it been Russia who scrapped SALT, invaded other countries on the basis of deliberate lies I would be agreeing with your stance. It was not. Sometimes a power needs to create an enemy in order to excuse it's actions. It is happened before, we have not learned and I believe we are making the mistake that others have made.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Mate, with the greatest of respect - and in no way to condone the US/UK invasion of Iraq - you're being either deliberately obtuse and selective in your points, or you show an appalling grasp of historical facts.
You mention invading counties illegally? What was Prague, Afghanistan and every other country under/behind the Iron Curtain if not invasion?
The only difference from invasion since the Wall came down is that now Russia uses her petro-clout to bully countries within its ken and not put tanks on the lawn.
"Sometimes a power needs to create an enemy in order to excuse its actions."
And this can apply equally to both Russia and the US - although under a capitalist system, one is more want to seek trading partners and commerce than to find reasons why country 'X' is an enemy. Russia is not yet a democracy: it's a series of oligarchies who've raped the country's natural resources to feather their nests and the normal people do not get a look in.
______________________________________________
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Tommy,
As I have pointed out, Russia and the USSR are NOT synonymous so quoting the evils of the latter (and emulating them) do not help. The Russians were enslaved as well.
"The only difference from invasion since the Wall came down is that now Russia uses her petro-clout to bully countries within its ken and not put tanks on the lawn"
I would say that is a big improvement - see - Capitalism works!
That said, it would appear that we were lying in our teeth when we reached the agreement not to emove eastward. Our dollars must be better than the Russian ones!
Russia has repeatedly asked for the CSE Treaty to be upheld - it has been ignored (after all it is not a superpower). The weapons in our new conquests (by European membership mainly) now constitute a breach of that treaty but we shrug and say it doesn;t count.
I have also pointed out that there are problems with Russia's democracy. That is also applicable to many countries we embrace (Albania for a start). Democracy is a theoretical state and has many different versions within Nato (and even a technically void one in the new Germany). Here in the UK we hav had a fairly good one but we are now busily destroying it from within. As for the crooks who helped themselves in Russia, Ukraine et al, we have embraced quite few of them!
Nato should have remained a defensive treaty but power corrupts.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Only in a country so fucked-up as Russia could a man responsible for personally sanctioning the deaths of upwards of 15 million of his own 'compatriots' be considered for this; only Russians have the innate ability to opt for selective amnesia on such a grand scale and ignore Stalin's atrocities and punt the line/lie "but as least under him, Russia was a great nation..." Delusional twats.
Tsar Nicholas II and all his immediate [Romanov] family have already been canonised and made saints in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Yes, it is working now, must have been a temporary glitch.
I don't see Uncle Joe becoming a Saint, as the Orthodox Church suffered badly under his reign.
The Russians have traditionally preferred to have a strong leader at the helm, hence Putin's popularity. With a population of 140 million, 15 million isa small minority although a large number of loonies for the population.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
