NATO's Multiple Frontiers?

[merocaine]

To be fair I thinks its right and proper that the Baltic states are in Nato and the EU, their European countries and need protecting..

I just get a bit wary when people start talking about Ukraine joining Nato, what ever about Russia stirring things up there, the fact of the matter is it is a country divided on where its future lies. Those who wish to fast track it into Nato are either willfully malicious or or plain ignorent.
The same can be said about Georgia, well less so now that its territorial disputes have been settled

Russia could be a member or whatnot - but until then...

I remember reading that they sounded out Nato about joining after the dissolution of the soviet union and were rejected, do you know anything about that?

 

[Grand Danois]

I remember reading that they sounded out Nato about joining after the dissolution of the soviet union and were rejected, do you know anything about that?

Nope.

Do note that I'm not a fan of letting a country like Ukraine join either; they should have their house in order first, it's better handled by EU.

 

[merocaine]

Do note that I'm not a fan of letting a country like Ukraine join either; they should have their house in order first, it's better handled by EU.

Agreed.

A quick google search came up with this

"There's really only one lever left: Invite Russia to join NATO.

This is not a new idea. Once upon a time, it was openly entertained in diplomatic circles East and West. In late 1991, the final days of the U.S.S.R,, Boris Yeltsin stunned a NATO meeting by sending a letter with this unilateral declaration: "Today we are raising a question of Russia's membership in NATO." "A long-term political aim," Yeltsin called it then, as he threw down the gauntlet before the West. NATO ministers, as Tom Friedman reported for the New York Times at the time, were "too taken aback ... to give any coherent response." In the ensuing years, as Yeltsin with characteristic bravura continued to raise the prospect, the West kept fumbling for a reply.

Even Putin, in his first days in the Kremlin, seized on the issue. In March 2000, in his first interview with a foreign reporter -- the BBC's David Frost -- Putin shocked critics and fans alike, saying, "We believe we can talk about more profound integration with NATO, but only if Russia is regarded as an equal partner." Asked outright if Russia could join NATO, Putin shot back: "I do not see why not." He also added a dark warning: Any NATO attempt to exclude Russia from the debate over the alliance's eastward expansion would only provoke "opposition."

Give him points for honesty."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20,0,2858433.story

 

[Grand Danois]

A de facto Putin veto over "Eastward expansion" or a Njet.

It's a classic: asking for something seemingly innocent, but which you know you will turned down on, leaving you as the victim.

Particularly if you're building a backstabbing legend or if you're trying to make the other side look stubborn. E.g. the Russians asked for soldiers stationed with the BMD sites knowing it would be turned down beforehand. So why ask at all?

To become a victim.

Anyhow, Yeltsin had a lot of acts. One was announcing he was starting up the Cold War again; he did this once on a Münich Conference.

I will admit I don't know the rationale behind it not coming to pass at the time.

 

[DMG]

Does anyone seriously think that Poland and the Baltic States would ever approve Russia's membership in NATO? They regard Nato as the only guarantee against an eventual Russian aggression.

And why would the United States accept Russia in NATO, an organization where they enjoy primacy over all other member states?

Each Nato member enjoys veto power so Russia would be able to block any decision if it was allowed to get in. It will never happen. There might be close cooperation against common threats but even that possibility looks remote now.

 

[Feanor]

It's a classic: asking for something seemingly innocent, but which you know you will turned down on, leaving you as the victim.

That too, but realistically if Russia builds close ties with the west and puts serious international effort into it, it's not impossible.

 

[Grand Danois]

That too, but realistically if Russia builds close ties with the west and puts serious international effort into it, it's not impossible.

The West has issues as well, of course. I certainly can't see it happen as long as a Putinesque regime plays every anti-Western feeling it can; playing on inferiority/superiority complexes and percieved indignation of not being recognised as a "superpower". And it just doesn't get better now that school history books are getting revised to fit Putins autocratic and semi-paranoid version of the world.

Makes both the Russian population and Govt hard to approach; in long terms, the trend is isolationist.

 

[Feanor]

The West has issues as well, of course. I certainly can't see it happen as long as a Putinesque regime plays every anti-Western feeling it can; playing on inferiority/superiority complexes and percieved indignation of not being recognised as a "superpower". And it just doesn't get better now that school history books are getting revised to fit Putins autocratic and semi-paranoid version of the world.

Makes both the Russian population and Govt hard to approach; in long terms, the trend is isolationist.

Unfortunately As you might have guessed I'm no fan of Putin. I'd like to see him retire nicely as soon as possible. In any event, we are left once again with time will tell as the only conclusion. Either the west will or won't get over the Georgian issue, in which case Georgia either will or won't get NATO membership. and Russia will or won't return to cooperation with the west. :unknown

 

[Chrom]

The West has issues as well, of course. I certainly can't see it happen as long as a Putinesque regime plays every anti-Western feeling it can; playing on inferiority/superiority complexes and percieved indignation of not being recognised as a "superpower". And it just doesn't get better now that school history books are getting revised to fit Putins autocratic and semi-paranoid version of the world.

Makes both the Russian population and Govt hard to approach; in long terms, the trend is isolationist.

But do you realize what it is self-defense retaliation movement, beginning after 90x when Russia done everything to please West - and West still behave like Russian lost big war and should fully play tribute? When West supported and promoted with all they diplomatic, economic, politic etc influence "school history books are getting revised" IN RUSSIA - to include Western propaganda there? Hell, even in West school books ARE revised to picture Russia as evil land - and that for about last 400 years...
But nor Russia, nor West is unique here.
Should we now discuss lie in Western should books? Or, laughable lie in "new Europe" countries "history" books?


Simply put, Russia expect what West will make compromises when both Russian and Western interests cross. Right now West expect Russia to abandon russian interests in every case in favor of Western interests - everything else declared "unfriendly", "not democratic", "imperial", etc.
West supported every thief, every mafia boss in Russia if they there politically "friendly" to West. While such politic gave short-term advantage - in long term this allienated russians.
This is main reason why now in Russia word "democratic " , for most peoples, sounds like "most shittest liars and thieves". This is big tragedy.

 

[Grand Danois]

I think you'll find that the West is full of self-critique on every level and that government sanctioned content (as in historic material) in schools is rare.

In short, you're making a case based on relativism and the assumption that everyone manipulate to the same degree.

I don't know what is in "new Europe" text books. But it won't stand scrutiny over time.

Russia will have to come to terms with that it is not a superpower anymore.

 

[Topmaul]

Simply put, Russia expect what West will make compromises when both Russian and Western interests cross. Right now West expect Russia to abandon russian interests in every case in favor of Western interests - everything else declared "unfriendly", "not democratic", "imperial", etc.
West supported every thief, every mafia boss in Russia if they there politically "friendly" to West. While such politic gave short-term advantage - in long term this allienated russians.
This is main reason why now in Russia word "democratic " , for most peoples, sounds like "most shittest liars and thieves". This is big tragedy.

Comrade you are correct! The West tells Russia what to do and what they will accept.

 

[Chrom]

I think you'll find that the West is full of self-critique on every level and that government sanctioned content (as in historic material) in schools is rare.

This is not about government. Dont portray "West" as something unite. West is VERY different. In some western countries (and some cases) government directly sanction school content. In some countries - indirectly through various licenses, etc. In some countries - not even government, almost everything done privately (at least formally). But the end result is very same - lie and propaganda myths in history books. As i said, Russia is by FAR not unique here in ANY aspect.

In short, you're making a case based on relativism and the assumption that everyone manipulate to the same degree.

I don't know what is in "new Europe" text books. But it won't stand scrutiny over time.

Russia will have to come to terms with that it is not a superpower anymore.

Yes, but understand one very simply thing. If you imply what only superpower can do "bad" things and force everyone accept its interests by military (economic, political) force - then this is very dangerous for world stability, for overall world security.

There should be rule of international LAW, not international might. Just as in private life between peoples - 120 kg boxer dont just smash 70 kg IT specialist at will. The very same rules should apply in international relations. ONE law for every country - strong or weak, superpower or not. ONE rule. INTERNATIONAL rule & law. Not just US law or EU law worldwide.

Else we are bound to have all kinds of conflicts, including ones where superpower on the other end of the globe clash with lesser powers. This become increasingly more dangerous as more countries acquire nuclear weapon, and even more want to get it as protection against such superpowers.

 

[Grand Danois]

Yes, but understand one very simply thing. If you imply what only superpower can do "bad" things and force everyone accept its interests by military (economic, political) force - then this is very dangerous for world stability, for overall world security.

No I don't. What I say is that nobody cares if Denmark feels victimised or suffer from indignation that we're not being taken into counsel as if we were a superpower - because we're not. And Russia is not a superpower either.

There should be rule of international LAW, not international might. Just as in private life between peoples - 120 kg boxer dont just smash 70 kg IT specialist at will. The very same rules should apply in international relations. ONE law for every country - strong or weak, superpower or not. ONE rule. INTERNATIONAL rule & law. Not just US law or EU law worldwide.

Which is why we got E Europe into NATO.

Else we are bound to have all kinds of conflicts, including ones where superpower on the other end of the globe clash with lesser powers. This become increasingly more dangerous as more countries acquire nuclear weapon, and even more want to get it as protection against such superpowers.

Ah, that's the multipolar world you're describing - increasing levels of anarchy, increasingly dangerous weaponry.

 

[Feanor]

But the truth is that while Russia is not anymore (or perhaps, is not for now ) a super power, it is definetly a regional power, with a lot of levers to pull. And unless the west accepts it as such, there will always be Russia selling modern weapon to America's enemies, and rogue states, and Russia at odds with it's "democratic" neighbors.

 

[Stryker001]

If I was NATO I would be a hell of lot more concerned about Algeria and the Morocco connection and the implications for Europe, the French can’t do it on their own and nor should they be expected to. I know Russia is concerned about it and the implications for energy security delivery of the pipelines. Even thinking about a base and naval assets there so they can have a footprint.

I tell you one thing I will not be advising people to go to the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=complete_911_timeline_algerian_militant_collusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Algerian_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_terror_campaign

 

[swerve]

Cany you explain this, please? What about Algeria? What is the Morocco connection? What is it that the French can't do on their own? What pipelines is Russia concerned about the security of, & what do they have to do with Algeria or Morocco? Where is Russia thinking abou thaving a base?

And what connection do you think there is between a civil war (now over) & some terrorism in Algeria, or riots in French banlieues, and security at the London Olympics?

 

[Actual]

Which is why we got E Europe into NATO

Grand Danois, how do we ever get that E into NATO in your opinion?

Here in the UK for instance, we have plenty issue with regards our European partners and their commitment.

Are we ever going resolve the divergense of interests?

I say no.

 

[Feanor]

Cany you explain this, please? What about Algeria? What is the Morocco connection? What is it that the French can't do on their own? What pipelines is Russia concerned about the security of, & what do they have to do with Algeria or Morocco? Where is Russia thinking abou thaving a base?

And what connection do you think there is between a civil war (now over) & some terrorism in Algeria, or riots in French banlieues, and security at the London Olympics?

Elementary dear Watson. It's the grand Russian master plan. All these years we were just pretending that we were in disarray and fallen apart. In reality we were preparing for the surprise attack. During the 2012 London Olympics the Red Army will make it's move, the Warsaw Pact will re-emerge from hiding and march westward, and meanwhile the communist 5th column will stage terrorists acts behind NATO lines!!! Long Live Motherland!!!

On a more serious note, the connection I would be worried about is exclusive Russian investment rights to energy products in places like Algeria, Iran (who is right now collaborating with Gazprom on working on the northern gas fields), Iraq (where Russian oil companies received exclusive rights), Libya..... etc.

 

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois, how do we ever get that E into NATO in your opinion?

Here in the UK for instance, we have plenty issue with regards our European partners and their commitment.

Are we ever going resolve the divergense of interests?

I say no.

You're talking about the EU.

You're entitled to your opinion, it would be easier to repsond if I had an idea of what you're thinking of.

But remember, the future world will one of super-heavyweights who doesn't see things the British way.

And UK, though doing well and being a hub, is not tiny if alone.

 

[Actual]

On a more serious note, the connection I would be worried about is exclusive Russian investment rights to energy products in places like Algeria, Iran (who is right now collaborating with Gazprom on working on the northern gas fields), Iraq (where Russian oil companies received exclusive rights), Libya..... etc.

Joke's aside, Feanor makes a fundemantal point. Again in regards Western Europe's energy sources. Who needs the Warsaw Pact when you can diplomatically sway the disorganised EU via energy supply?