Hey folks.
The all jokes are aside;)
What do you think about NATO’s behaviour toward Russia.
Why the West do not even wish to speak about Russians joining to NATO?
What is the problem?
Why does Russia want to join NATO when it’s been opposed to eastern expansion of NATO? e.g. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-putin13feb13,0,1332898.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
It seems more like a case of Russia wanting to get into NATO to neutralise the threat it perceives NATO to be to Russia.
Which is an excellent reason from the NATO viewpoint for not allowing Russia in.
No Sun:)
Russia did not oppose the NATO expantions in the 1990-yy during the Yeltsin period.
Besided Putin publicaily the offered of Russia joining in NATO in the early 2001.
The all problems has began after when the NATO has ignored all those attempts of Russia and has started to join the Baltic states into alliance.
http://rdu-old.narod.ru/sobytia/new/sob_92.htm
Putin has sounded the idea - dismiss NATO ( as was dismiss the Warsaw alliance befor) or join the Russia at the NATO
Besides the some of Germans officials also support this idea-
http://www.russk.ru/newsdata.php?idar=170425
The organizer of Munich military defence conference , Horst Telchik said: NATO should offer the Russia the suggestion to be join at the NATO in prospect.This help us to solve many the political problems in our relations
So as could you see my friend not just Putin but also and some officials in the West are not against the idea to include the Russia in NATO.
Buit it seem the Washington has the qoite other oppinion:)Why?
Here’s a few more reasons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/18/wputin118.xml
Russia’s support of Iran’s nuclear program ain’t helping. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm
Maybe the strongest reason is the unstated attitudes derived from the distrust of and opposition to Russia built up since 1917.
Are the few old strategic bombers is a threat for the USA?
“If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again that’s their decision,” Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said. “That is a decision for them to take - it’s interesting. We certainly are not in the kind of posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union. It’s a different era.”
Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said he did not believe the flights posed a threat to the United States.
So this reason is foolish - the russians simply phisically and tecnologically could not threat for the USA today.
Russia’s support of Iran’s nuclear program ain’t helping. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4301889.stm
Oh mate - do the Iran make a nuclear bomb?
Your information is out of date:)
http://www.apn.ru/news/article18583.htm
Iran does not continie the works for production of own nuclear bomb at least since 2003 - this amazing report was prepeared by the Democratic party in Senate , that was based on the newest USA intelligence datas
So mate the Russia do not support the Iran nuclear program- it just build the nucler station in Iran:)
Maybe the strongest reason is the unstated attitudes derived from the distrust of and opposition to Russia built up since 1917.
But all the bolshevick criminals who captured the power in the 1917- were killed or died during the next time.
Besids to the great happiness the USSR is no more existed:)
Now do you see the Russia is good:)Very good today and try to be democratic:)
We nobody scare ( well may be the poor chechens) and nobody kill any more:)
So how will many times the US use the old cold war prejudices (and own fears) toward the Russia?
IIRC the North Atlantic Alliance, created for a post-war world (Bretton Woods?) has both a political and military arm. The military being NATO whose membership have signed a pact of mutual support if they are attacked. Sometime ago, the French opted out of this with a clear indication that if anyone tried to ove-run them, they’d be nuked.
The political wing was to develop an economic system (E.C. later the E.U.) wherein the member states became more and more economically linked, or inter-dependant, thus, limiting the ability for European states to go to war with each other.
As I see it, Russia will be unacceptable to Nato until it becomes a member of the E.U. and, thus, it would be against Russia’s self interests to go to war with any European state.
i.e. the strong economical mutual relations could prevent the possible military conflict, right?
But as i know today the Russia goes further- we constantly increase the Western participation in Rusian economic/bisiness, the increase the selling resources to the west. The share of the Russian gas and oil suppplied to the West constantly increase. The russian companies more and more join itno the international finantional alliances and corporations.
So from this point of wiev the best way to prevent any possible agression is to join the Russia into the EU and NATO- in this way the last bariers for the more close economical cooperation would dissapear.
Form the pure economical point - the Russia could be very IMPORTAINT part of EU - the energy/ resource donor.
So we could get the common profit of it.
But we still obseve the lack of trust from the West.Instead the more close cooperation - the political and economical isolation of the Russia.
It’s about economic power and control.
We could even go to war over it.
But we still obseve the lack of trust from the West.Instead the more close cooperation - the political and economical isolation of the Russia.
Concur!
It’s about economic power and control.
Kremlin tactics echo Cold War
By Olga Craig,
Last Updated: 1:47am BST 23/07/2007Page 1 of 3
If the stand-off between Britain and Russia has brought back memories of the Cold War, then that is just how Vladimir Putin wants it. Olga Craig investigates the ruthless tactics employed by the Kremlin as it attempts to restore the country’s faded might.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/22/nrkremlin122.xml&page=1
Those are the kind of headlines that reinforce mistrust. It doesn’t matter whether or not Russia has the ability or even the intention of carrying things further, it’s the image that renforces distrust, a picture speaks a thousand words etc. - image is everything!
Why would Putin want to create an atmosphere of distrust?
Personally, I don’t make much of it - I’m sure it has as much to do with internal politics and his own political agenda, as much as anything. However, it does imply that he cares little about the opinions of the West.
I would argue that much of the lay-persons imaginings of East and West Cold War activities have been instilled by Hollywood. The Soviet Union, as was, proved to be an excellent ‘Bad-guy’ particularly after Korea, the Cuban affair, and Vietnam. In my opinion, it’ll take generations for East to meet West, or visa versa, culturally, we remain poles apart - but I remain optimistic! 
If the Russians keep their heads down, we’ll get on with fighting the new ‘Bad-guy’ that being: AL Quiade!
Guys,
I do not know if it is off topic in here (though I do not think so) but I want to ask.
Do you really beleive 100% that there will never be a grand war in Europe between the European countries?
I am myself unfortunately do not think so. The history teaches us otherwise. And despite to what the mass media speaks I do not think that a man has evolved (read improved) compare to a man lets say 500 years ago.
It just takes a crysis to happened. Lets say oil runs out, water shortage and draughts. Who knows what the goverments would dod in order to keep the living standards.
The problem isn’t what Iran’s current nuclear weapons capability is but what it might be.
It’s not just the US that is concerned about it, while Russia is seen as being opposed to the Western powers. http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-01-15-iran.cfm
Bearing in mind that Iran is run by a Holocaust denying lunatic who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and who anticipates Armageddon before the Twelfth Imam reappears in two years (can’t remember when he made that prediction - probably more than two years ago - he must be disappointed), I wouldn’t trust Iran not to resume its nuclear weapons programme, if it hasn’t already.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-09/2007-09-27-voa49.cfm?CFID=187511988&CFTOKEN=70446385
So the US and other NATO nations can hardly be blamed for not wanting Russia, which supports Iran’s nuclear program in principle and practice and opposes sanctions on Iran, to join NATO which might well be part of a military response to Iran maintaining its refusal to comply with UN directions; or Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability or getting close to it; or Iran becoming militarily aggressive.
Given the current tensions, I think the British may be even more dubious of a Russia-NATO partnership these days than the US is…
Yeah off topic, but in light of the question not unreasonable. I agree to a point Egorka. Obviously many European countries want peace and have made strident efforst to drag themselves from the past where issues were resolved by war.
Unfortunately some countries have not learned this lesson. If there is to be a flash point in Europe it will likely be in the Balkans.
digger
Bound to be, sooner or later, although it’s hard now to see how it’s likely among the Western and Southern European powers in the foreseeable future.
500 years ago?
WWII only finished 62 years ago.
Yugoslavia went feral within the last 15 years.
Scratch anybody deep enough and there’s a savage underneath.
That’s not usually the problem. It’s the politicians and other greedy power hungry bastards that get us into wars, and the savages underneath the rest of us who fight them until the politicians etc decide they’ve had enough.
Again you look just at the consequences of the crisys in relations.
But if we will look at the most begining i.e. in the 2000, when Russia was loyal for the Washington and do everything that it was wanted.Even if the give the americans the permission to open the new bases in the Middle Asia after the 9’11.
So to the contrast my frined, Russia has demonstrated most good will toward the NATO till the last time.
Even during infamous bombing of the russian ally Serbia - we did nothing ecxept a bit of inner demagogy.
So you do not try to put the waggon befor the horse please:)
It wasn’t russians who guilt in a crisys in relations.This is a direct resault of rought motion the NATO to the East without the considering of Russian interests.
Bearing in mind that Iran is run by a Holocaust denying lunatic who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and who anticipates Armageddon before the Twelfth Imam reappears in two years (can’t remember when he made that prediction - probably more than two years ago - he must be disappointed), I wouldn’t trust Iran not to resume its nuclear weapons programme, if it hasn’t already.
Firstly this is not just Iran who wish to wipe Israel off the map, but also Syria, Egupth and half of Arab world:)Sure the domestic demagogy of Iran is a disgasting bulshit.
And Russia immediatelly has expressed the objections of it in international level.
As to the deny of Holocaust- you will laugh but Turkey ( the oldest member NATO) even now do not recognize the Holocaust of Armenians.
Is it the problem for NATO today?
ANd if you critize the the Israel in other posts;) - why you close the eyes for the agressive military policy of that state toward the neighbourd?And covering of that policy by the USA?
Is the only “evil arabs” who guilt in the Middle-East crysys?
So the US and other NATO nations can hardly be blamed for not wanting Russia, which supports Iran’s nuclear program in principle and practice and opposes sanctions on Iran, to join NATO which might well be part of a military response to Iran maintaining its refusal to comply with UN directions; or Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability or getting close to it; or Iran becoming militarily aggressive.
Yea so if the Russia so bad and wrong toward IRan- how could YOU help to solve this problem with sanctions?
Did sanctions help to knock down the Saddam in the “military agressive” Iraq few years ago?
Why we hear again this foolish demagogy about sanctions and evil regime as in the 2003- is it the operation “Iraq fredom: part 2” has already began?
It is strange Nick , but why the real problems (not just domestic political “tentions”) till the possible military conflict between the two members of NATO - Turkey and Greece not so long time ago - did not lead to the problems with membership of NATO for both those states?
If the Islamic Turkey that so like the American and jews almost as much as they love the Armenians - is enought “democratic” for NATO but the Russia ( who …damn…had the tensions with Britain) not:)
Is it not funny for you?
Turkey that officially critize the US ‘zionist’ policy in Iraq and make the additional problems for them , attacking the Kurds in North is BETTER than Russia…
Ha ha ha.
Actually, what’s strange is that your response has absolutely nothing to do with my post…
I would never laugh about Turkey. If the Islamists gain control there, NATO is in for an interesting time. Even more interesting if it happens after Turkey joins the EU.
As for the Armenian Genocide, it’s an old event that’s not an issue that affects membership of NATO, any more than, say, internal exile and other events in the USSR are in considering Russia’s membership of NATO.
ANd if you critize the the Israel in other posts;) - why you close the eyes for the agressive military policy of that state toward the neighbourd?And covering of that policy by the USA?
Is the only “evil arabs” who guilt in the Middle-East crysys?Yea so if the Russia so bad and wrong toward IRan- how could YOU help to solve this problem with sanctions?
Did sanctions help to knock down the Saddam in the “military agressive” Iraq few years ago?Why we hear again this foolish demagogy about sanctions and evil regime as in the 2003- is it the operation “Iraq fredom: part 2” has already began?
I’m not arguing a case for America or anyone else opposing Russia joining NATO. I’m just responding to your OP with what I see as reasons they might have against Russia joining NATO.
I don’t have a solution to the Middle East problems, any more than anyone else does, because there isn’t one. The region is full of primitive arseholes who’d destroy the whole world in pursuit of their stupid bloody religions (as apparently are up to 70 million American Christian fuckwits whose support for Bush is directly related to the current problems in the Middle East which flow from support for Israel http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/03/60minutes/main524268.shtml) and tribal claims and disputes about who’s the true descendant of Mohammed and whingeing about how what the Nazis did in Germany a few generations ago entitles the Zionists (as distinct from Jews and Israelis) to keep doing the same to the poor bloody Palestinians and everybody else within range of Israel and how Islamic suicide bombers are going to get a zillion bloody virgins in heaven, blah blah blah. FFS! If stupidity was oil in that part of the world, Peak Oil would be a risk only if their birth rate dropped, and we’d be buying petrol now for five cents a litre.
Inserting America’s current irrational aggression into that irrational mix is just a recipe for more irrational disaster, Which might well be the source of the next great war which involves European nations.
As for Iraqi Freedon Part 2, here’s why it’s not just about Iran’s nuclear capacity (a lot of which is really about stopping Iran getting power to nuke Israel, which - or at least the threat of which - might be something that shouldn’t be stopped as turning Israel into a glowing car park would get rid of a festering sore that’s going to keep getting worse as long as the Zionists maintain the attitude they’ve had for close to a century) http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html
Personally, I’m sick to bloody death of the lot of them. They’re all as bad as each other, and that goes for America and Russia too as far as their international conduct in the Middle East is concerned.