Since the end of the cold war, the United States of America had this super power mentality that they should not be challenged and no one should rise above them. To achieve this was easy, expanding (NATO) the security bloc consisting of nations who in papers and television are independent countries but in real sense are controlled in one way or the other by the U.S. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Alliance), was established to curtail the might of the soviet union as Europe after the second world war felt threatened by the large and powerful forces of the soviet union also known as the red army. The Soviet Union in response created the WARSAW pact consisting of puppet countries of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. Europe felt threatened as a result of what the soviets where doing in East Germany trying to impose communism at all cost in East Germany which was antithetical to European culture and the enduring anti-communist propaganda by the U.S. NATO consisted of mainly of countries in Western Europe while WARSAW consisted mainly of countries in Eastern Europe. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, most countries left the Warsaw and the U.S saw this as an avenue to continue their anti-communist propaganda and use the breakaway countries that form the defunct Soviet Union to monitor its greatest threat RUSSIA.

Russia seemed to be the only country from the defunct Soviet Union and also in the world giving the United States sleepless nights, majorly as a result of its stockpile of nuclear weapons which is the largest in the world. Russia also saw the U.S as a major threat to its national security as most nations formerly under the Soviet Union where beginning to join NATO and embracing capitalism. The U.S had to allay the fears of Russia by promising them that NATO wouldn't get to their borders. The United States renegade on its promise when Georgia, which is very close to Russia tried to join NATO. Russian president Vladimir Putin responded which led to 5 days of war between Georgia and Russia, and also led to some parts of Georgia breaking away from Georgia and aligning with Russia up to this day South Ossetia and Abkhazia formerly under Georgia before the war are independent of Georgia and fully backed by Russia. As a result of the foreseen trouble Georgia have since not been admitted into NATO.

With Russia growing influence and power, the United States felt it was better to bring down Russia by all means. Ukraine was used as the bait. The United States engineered the ousting of Russia friendly president Viktor Yanukovich and supported Ukraine’s bid to join NATO knowing full well that Russia would never allow that in fact Ukraine means more to Russia than Georgia. Now the game plan is working perfectly; Ukraine is in chaos, Russia has annexed Crimea drawing criticisms and even sanctions by America and its allies and most recently which is very strategic the dwindling oil price. Oil accounts for roughly half of Russia’s export. the united states knows that without large revenue from oil, Russia would be unable to carry out prolonged military conflicts and the economy would be bad which in turn would make Russian citizens stage protest against the Vladimir Putin regime which may lead to the resignation of putin (practically impossible) or his defeat in an election(almost impossible). The united states have began the process of fracking (the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside) which has seen them gradually abandoning importation of oil in the international market and has led to the decline in the price of oil as demand is very low. Also stringent economic policies in Europe and probably china have lead to the low demand for oil. One major way for the price of oil to be high is by oil producing countries reducing their level of oil production as to make the commodity scarce thereby increasing the price. OPEC in their last meeting didn’t agree on price reduction as Saudi Arabia the organisation biggest and powerful oil producer stated that it would not reduce its production. Saudi Arabia is a major ally of the U.S in the Middle East most especially the Arab world. Reduction of oil production would make oil price soar and in turn could enable the dwindling Russian rouble and its economy get to its feet which is not what the U.S desires at this time, so no one should expect the Saudi’s to reduce its oil production they are in it with the U.S. At the end many countries would suffer as a result of one country trying to undermine another country. Also the it is likely that if the U.S achieves its aim of making Russia bend the issue of fracking may be kept aside as there are great dangers involved in fracking.

If the U.S truly doesn’t want to encircle Russia it should not be so concerned about Ukraine joining NATO as it would do the same thing Russia is doing if Russia tries to enter a military alliance with Cuba and installing high tech weapons and equipments in Cuba. No nation would want to see a country it shares its borders with going into an alliance with its perceived enemies. Europe, especially Western Europe should be cautious because if a war breaks out in Europe, Europeans would suffer the most and not their pay master America who would be so far across the Atlantic Ocean in North America trying to keep its country intact at the same time sending its soldiers and war machines to Europe for their destruction.

bonechamberlain...

@OP. Your analysis is one-sided. You didn't mention the fact that the countries that were formerly within Russia orbit of influence now joining NATO are doing for purely on economic reasons - to ensure the prosperity of there economies and integrate it into the 21st century.

Hanging to security concern as basis for these countries joining NATO is also justified. Russia rather than using modern methods of influencing these countries is opting for the old style of stiring dessident and financing uprising. Had you followed the events in Ukraine properly, you would agree that the people wanted integration with Europe.

The rivalry between NATO and Russia would continue until the latter understands that the 21st century thinking has already rendered them archaic.

The slide in oil prices have more to do with US shale production than some dodgy power play.

US is just not importing as much oil as it used to and by 2020 it aims to achieve full energy independence.

Russia is an economic junior that is trying to punch above its weight. The Russian elites overestimated Russia's geo-economic weight when oil was priced above 120 dollars and everything looked fine and dandy. The took on the wrong enemy -the USA - at precisely the wrong time -

The US of today is much stronger economically than it has ever been in the last 10 years. Its economy is growing faster than any other developed economy, its shale oil is booming, its economy remains the most diversified in the whole world and inflation is well controlled. The US dollar was the best performing currency in 2014, the Ruble was the worst

Russia should have learnt a thing or two from China - strategic patience! Grow your F*cking economy first before you start off a fight. Invest more in education, infrastructure and the middle class. - not submarines and fighter jets, which by the way, will become obsolete in another 10 years or so.

NATO is not really a threat to Russia - when was the last time a NATO country violated Russia's airspace or threatened Russia with a nuclear strike? Yet Russia does this on a regular basis and still claims to be the victims - it defies common sense

okeymadu:
@OP. Your analysis is one-sided. You didn't mention the fact that the countries that were formerly within Russia orbit of influence now joining NATO are doing for purely on economic reasons - to ensure the

Good points. But ur opinion and conclusion is also not fair, becos, u didnt addressed some of the issues raised by the post.

Now, u mentioned that those nations that were once formaly within d soviet union are joining the EU/Nato, in order to realize thier economic interest. And of course, there is nothing wrong with that....but why are d russians complaining? Do they have a right to complain? Well, Lets do some bit of history,

after d dissolution of d soviet union in d 1990s, there was an agreement reached between the US/Europe/Nato, that Nato will not expand eastward, in return for which Russia was to gave up d Warsaw pact. The agreement was signed and sealed by both parties. Why was such an agreement reached at d first place? It is because, great powers are very sensitive towards dia immediate environment, expecially when dealing with well established political foes. If u dont understand what this means, pls take ur mind back to the time in the 70s, when the Soviets were moving some of thier ballistic missiles into Cuba. What was d response of d US then? They raised alarm and threatened to strike first preemptively, if d Soviet continue with the venture. Becos to them, it is a threat to national security in having so close to ur borders missiles that belong to ur enemy, see? It was d timely intervention of d UN that saved d world from that nuclear nightmare.

And so, Russia gave up the warsaw pact, but did Nato kept it side of d bargain? The answer is an emphantic No... Since 1991 till date, Nato had been gradually encicling Russia,by expanding eastward.. And u say they should just keep silent?

Again, When the likes of Estonia and d other Baltic states started entry d EU, Russia had to voiced its concerned, becos it means that European goods under d free trade zone, would be entry this nations, and will eventually find thier way into the vast russia market, thereby escaping taxes and other tarriffs normally levied on such goods. This is becos Russia have free trade or very lower tariff rate with some of these formal soviet nations , but do not have same trade policies with the EU.

On the security side, i have not
seen any of this nations invaded or threatened militarily by Russia, xcept Georgia, whom of course caused the act that led to d war,when they attacked and killed Russian peace keepers in the brake away regions of Osseta and Abkhazia. Otherwise, if we are talking of bullying, we all know that d US is d chief of them all..so, is a case of d pot calling d kettle black.

In fact, how is Russia agressive and destablelizing it neighbours? I dont understand why someone would destablelize the sources where he is getting his money from..
We have forgotten that most of these eastern nations cant survive without Russian gas and oil...for instance, Poland, Romania, Hungary, geogia, Ukrain,Bulgaria, Belarus,Moldovia ,and so on,are practically dependent on Russia for thier energy need. And since they are paying, why would russia want to drive them? It just doesnt make sense.

The problem is that we believe everything the Main stream Media throw at us, and many blindly follow the chorus 'Russia aggression', and so many other nonesense carried by the secret service controlled media houses like BBC,CNN etc, etc.
Point to me how many nations Russia and Putin has invaded, or place economic embargo against?
Pls, am waiting for the list..
But we can count and still counting, d numbers of legitimate governments and nations the US and its Nato war machine have destroyed, the millions they have killed,...from panama to Nicaragua, from iraq to Afghan,serbia,syria,libya.... All these done out of perpetual lies that can make lucifer to be jealous. We all know abt d Iraqi false weapons of mass destruction...

Yet, it is Russia that is 'aggressive',not the US... Very pathetic.
Later, it would be China,then Brazil..and so on.
If u ask me the motive behind these things, i realy cant place it, other than trying to add up certain facts as to form an opinion.

However, one thing is certaim, Whatever is happening right now,especially accross Ukrain, its a carefully worked out plan to achieve a particular objective..the end result i cant tell.. But we must agree that the Ukrain crisis was another 'false flag'.
From the snipers who shot d protesters,to d hacked conversation between d EU rep and d Estonia foreign affairs minister, down to Nuland's 'Bleep d EU' tape... A downed plane with already decomposing bodies..an investigation done in secrecy, d findings of which is not to be disclose, as agreed by d crooked parties, and so on.
Also, did anyone took note when Obama said, 'China economic rise is a threath to its neighbours'.

Can u beat that?

May God help us

THE oil price has fallen by more than 40% since June, when it was $115 a barrel. It is now below $70. This comes after nearly five years of stability. At a meeting in Vienna on November 27th the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which controls nearly 40% of the world market, failed to reach agreement on production curbs, sending the price tumbling. Also hard hit are oil-exporting countries such as Russia (where the rouble has hit record lows), Nigeria, Iran and Venezuela. Why is the price of oil falling?
The oil price is partly determined by actual supply and demand, and partly by expectation. Demand for energy is closely related to economic activity. It also spikes in the winter in the northern hemisphere, and during summers in countries which use air conditioning. Supply can be affected by weather (which prevents tankers loading) and by geopolitical upsets. If producers think the price is staying high, they invest, which after a lag boosts supply. Similarly, low prices lead to an investment drought. OPEC’s decisions shape expectations: if it curbs supply sharply, it can send prices spiking. Saudi Arabia produces nearly 10m barrels a day—a third of the OPEC quota.
Four things are now affecting the picture. Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels. Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply. Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.
The main effect of this is on the riskiest and most vulnerable bits of the oil industry. These include American frackers who have borrowed heavily on the expectation of continuing high prices. They also include Western oil companies with high-cost projects involving drilling in deep water or in the Arctic, or dealing with maturing and increasingly expensive fields such as the North Sea. But the greatest pain is in countries where the regimes are dependent on a high oil price to pay for costly foreign adventures and expensive social programmes. These include Russia (which is already hit by Western sanctions following the crisis in Ukraine) and Iran (which is paying to keep the Assad regime afloat in Syria). Optimists think economic pain may make these countries more amenable to international pressure. Pessimists fear that when cornered, they may lash out in desperation.

1) Russia did not dissolve the Warsaw pact - The Warsaw pact ended following the death of communism in post cold war era in Eastern Europe.

2) The whole idea that NATO gave Russia assurances about its expansion was a Russian narrative - which for all purposes may have been fiction that has now been turned into fact - NATO has consistently denied that it ever gave Russia such assurances. Moreover, NATO has consistently stressed that its founding principles are based on open door policies, so there was no reason it could have given Russia those assurances.

3) Russia has no reason to keep its free trade zones with members of the Baltic nations if it fears that European goods are going to flood the Russian markets. The Baltics nation made a sovereign choice to join the EU, it is not in Russia's position to dictate the terms. Russia has every right to close its own markets to the Baltics should it wish to do so.

4) A downed plane with already decomposing bodies? Are you for real? Are you fcking being funny or just plain dumb?

5) Russia still has its troops in Osseta and Abkhazia, which are a part of sovereign Georgia, Russia has its troops in Transnistria, a part of Moldova, Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a violent civil war in Eastern Europe, Russia has consistently violated the airspace of Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, Latvia, Finland, and the UK. Yet, Russian media reported that not a single Russian airspace violation occurred in 2014. And yet, Russia still claims to be the victim?

6) NATO has no reason to expand to Russia's borders IF Russia was at peace with its neighbors and did not attempt to dominate them by the use of military force - it could have learnt the use of soft powers from countries like China and US (use of economic aids) to persuade foreign governments. Russia is a country with the largest landmass on earth spanning over 9 time zones. It also probably has the largest nuclear stockpile in the world - enough to destroy the entire world over and over again - A country the size of Latvia does not have many good options other than joining a security alliance like NATO if it wishes to secure its sovereignty. Ukraine didn't make that choice when the Baltic nations did, and Ukraine paid a dear price with Crimea and Sevastopol.

7) Russia promised and signed a treaty with Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum, along with China, US, Britain and France, never to invade any part of Ukraine or take its properties which belonged to the Ukrainian people. Ukraine in turn gave up its nuclear arsenal. Russia betrayed its pledge and annexed Crimea! Yet Russia claims it is not the aggressor?

@Appleyard - Bookface already answered you and he is on point!

bookface:

1) Russia did not dissolve the Warsaw pact - The Warsaw pact ended following the death of communism in post cold war era in Eastern Europe.

2) The whole idea that NATO gave Russia assurances about its expansion was a Russian narrative - which for all purposes may have been fiction that has now been turned into fact - NATO has consistently denied that it ever gave Russia such assurances. Moreover, NATO has consistently stressed that its founding principles are based on open door policies, so there was no reason it could have given Russia those assurances.

There indeed was an agreement between Gorbachev and Reagan in which the Soviet Union was given assurances that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards. NATO/US/The Hegemon lied and broke these assurances. Simple. No fiction here.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
And what exactly is the purpose of an organization such as NATO that has outlived its usefulness? The old Soviet block is gone, so why NATO? Have you asked yourself that?
Bush also withdrew from the ABM treaty and started building these ABM shields in eastern Europe under the pretext that they were needed to protect Europe from non existent Iranian missiles (Makes you wonder why Iran would ever want to attack Europe in the first place) That alone should be a strong sign of Washington's true intention - the encirclement and containment of Russia. The then administration of Medevdev protested to no avail. Washington also changed its military doctrine to that of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Russia. The Hegemon as of this moment is also encircling China with the Asia Pivot policy. Or are all these fiction as well?
By the way, China too has seen the writing on the wall and has formed a strategic alliance with Russia.
https://www.nairaland.com/2070547/groundbreaking-russia-china-strategic-alliance
http://www.mediafire.com/view/08rzue8ffism94t/China-Russia_Double_Helix.docx
When its China's turn to be demonized and sanctioned, are you going to once again side with the Hegemon or finally wake up to the fact that Washington just cannot tolerate another power that challenges its empire? You do realize, I hope, that the desire for these world powers to break free of the US/petro-dollar/West dominated financial system - and hence the true source Washington's incredible power and reach - is the root cause of this confrontation?

bookface:

4) A downed plane with already decomposing bodies? Are you for real? Are you fcking being funny or just plain dumb?

Whilst I do not subscribe to the idea that decomposing bodies or anything of the sort were placed on MH17, its pretty obvious to all by now that the narrative that the separatists rebels were responsible for the downing of that place is falling apart and that there is a grand conspiracy to cover up the crime of the real perpetrators which from the look of things is the putsch murderous Nazi regime with or without the aid of the govt-toppling-country-destabilizing-terrorist-funding CIA or perhaps executed entirely by the CIA themselves.

Russia has several times called for an open, transparent and international investigation of the downing but so far everything has been shrouded in secrecy.
https://www.nairaland.com/1823384/evidence-continues-emerge-mh17-false

bookface:

5) Russia still has its troops in Osseta and Abkhazia, which are a part of sovereign Georgia, Russia has its troops in Transnistria, a part of Moldova, Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a violent civil war in Eastern Europe, Russia has consistently violated the airspace of Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden, Latvia, Finland, and the UK. Yet, Russian media reported that not a single Russian airspace violation occurred in 2014. And yet, Russia still claims to be the victim?

America has got over 900 plus bases worldwide. Has troops [and CIA "military advisers" and NGOs, think tanks, pro-transparency, pro-democracy groups which are actually subversive 5th column elements (Cuba rap and twitter scandal, China Hong Kong protest, 2002 Venezuela coup attempt, and so, so many others )] operating in over a hundred countries. The Hegemon has invaded more countries than ALL the other powers combined, has toppled more governments (violently and quietly) and destabilized more countries way more than any other country since the dawn of mankind and here you are talking about a few transgressions of Russia?!

South Osseatia and Abkhazia were breakaway regions supported by Russia which In case you do not know, reserves to support whomever she chooses to support just in the same manner The Hegemon and its Saudi, Turkish and Qatari partners are supporting wahhabist terrorists trying to topple the secular and once stable government of Assad.
Georgian forces attacked first. Russia restored order and protected those breakaway republics. Look it up yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

Besides, why is that when self-determination and independence is on the agenda, Washington is all for it but for once this same self determination doesn't serves the Hegemon's selfish interest, it is against it? Case in point, Eastern Ukraine, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Crimea, etc

"Russia fomented trouble in eastern Ukraine" you say? You seem to have forgotten that Russia has repeated times without number that it wants a united Ukraine and that it doesn't recognize the referendum in eastern Ukraine? That Russia has sent several (10 at of last count!) humanitarian aid convoys to eastern Ukraine while the putsch Nazi regime has embarked upon a total economic blockade and forced starvation of the east. What has the Hegemon, the self acclaimed protector of the weak and defender of the downtrodden and upholder of human rights and dignity done for the people of eastern Ukraine?

Russia's annexation of Crimea was a brilliantly and flawlessly executed move. Should Washington had attempted such, am sure they would first start with a "shock and awe" bombing campaign. Crimea (who are predominantly of Russian descent and still maintain strong ties to the Russian motherland) wanted no part of the new Ukrainian regime. Once again: self determination. Why didn't Washington recognize their wishes? Could it be because Crimea and hence its Russian naval port of Sevastopol was of utmost importance in the strategic balance of things for both the US and Russia? You don't realize the Russians would have been kicked out of this port, suffered an unimaginable and horrific inability to access the Black Sea and probably had to live with ABM shields that surely would have been installed in Crimea furthering encircling Russia?

And the Russian columns that this sorry excuse of a government in power in Ukraine has countless times claimed to be invading Ukrainian territory have so far failed to materialize.

In my opinion, Putin has shown incredible restraint in light of the very dangerous provocations - economic sanctions and outright lies!

"Russia violated the airspace of those countries"? Lol! And what has the US been doing in Syria, Iran, etc and that even of its own allies?? This is the power play of big boys. It a reminder that powers send to each other of their capabilities and a deterrent and doesn't necessarily mean that Russia is about to foolishly invade any of these countries.

bookface:

7) Russia promised and signed a treaty with Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum, along with China, US, Britain and France, never to invade any part of Ukraine or take its properties which belonged to the Ukrainian people. Ukraine in turn gave up its nuclear arsenal. Russia betrayed its pledge and annexed Crimea! Yet Russia claims it is not the aggressor?

Yes Russia broke a treaty in the face of unprecedented NATO expansion and aggression. And the US hasn't broken several?

Yes good points again..but like d first, u still have not recognize d issue d issue of sensitivity by great powers towards thier immediate environment. This is d key to this whole mess currently taking place now.. Lets address this issues that u have pointed out..
1) that Nato did not at anytime guarantee Russia as it relate to its expansion..and that it was just a Russian Narative..
Pls have u done ur research on this before taking this position? Because it is a big lie so to speak. Even the US state department in an interview with Matt Lee of AP, couldnt deny that fact that Nato renegaded on its promise.
2) that NATO has consistently said it maintains an open door policy,and not a threat... Haha.. It will interest u to know that some years back, Russia applied to become a member of NATO, and guess what.. They said No. While they are systematically bringing in its neighbours.why wont they be suspicious?. An Open door policy indeed.

3) A downed plane with decomposing bodies.. No sir, am not dump, though it sounds funny. Eye witness account, expecially one from a woman living in the village close to where the plane fell, told an Al Jazzeraa freelance correspondent that, one of the bodies from d blast landed on her bedroom, and on closer examination,she discovered the body was already decomposing.. How is that possible with a fresh crashed incident? Or what abt the discovery by the investigating team that one of the passengers had an oxygen mask on before d plane went down? Meaning He had a clear view of what was shooting down d plane (propably a fighter) since he couldnt have seen the purported buk misile, coming from buttom, and so quickly reached for an oxygen mask. I guess that is funny or dump too. Except that such facts are not befiting to the MSM naratives, and so can not have the 'light of day' in media coverage.

4) yes, u are right.. It is thier inalienable right to make thier decisions. Russia must not dictate to them where or whom they wana be with.. But the last time i checked, when Russia shut the economic door against d face of confrontation with Europe, most of these states almost went into chaos, and Europe was crying foul that Russia has shut them off. That was wayback in 2008. And should Russia do same, wont they cry foul as well,expecially in this winter period? Cast ur mind back to d Russian retaliation against the first wave of sanctions, when they ban d import of agricultural products from the EU. Immediately, Poland and other members of the Baltic states rushed to d EU demanding compensation. Farmers in Ireland set ablaze d EU flag, the ones in greece and france were throwing unsold tomatoes at government buildings etc.

5) russia still have its troops in....
But You forgot to mention that south Ossetia and Abkhazia, transnistria,transcapathia, gaugauzia,etc, in those respective countries , are ethnic Russian minorities, which, in d case of Georgia and Ukrain, refused to be ruled by puppets neocons and Nazis regime installed by d powers that be, and are we saying Russia should not protect its own citizens else where? The United State can go to war to defend its citizens anywhere on the planet, but russia cant defend its own, even CLOSE to its borders? And if u dont know abt the killings orderd by saakavilli in geoogia then, and the Azov and neocon death squad now operating in Ukrain, pls do more on that. Even CNN and BBC couldnt deny d fact anymore that there are Nazis in d ukrain.,who goes about flying the nazi flag and emblem..
Russian forces in transnistria were there base on an agreement,not by force.
U forgot to mention that d crimea voted overwhemingly to secede, and then to join russia. Of course Russia coulnt have refuse, oweing to d strategic importance of the place where it had it naval fleet...as if d US wouldn have done d same, or even worse, if it were to be Pearl Harbour.. Not to mention that Crimea was overwhemingly Russian, Unlike Texas that was annexed from Mexico.

Air violations..
Dont u know how many times d US and Nato had violated Russian airspace? Is normal to both side.And Now that Russia has upped its own long range bomber fleights, they are now crying black.
What do u expect when u want to put missile shields and ballistic on Russia borders (uKrain and poland)? Are they d only nations in Europe where d US can place them?
Was d Budapest agreement one sided? Dont d US and Nato have dia own obligations stated therein?
Recently, the United S Was in haste to suddenly develop and reopen bilateral and diplomatic relations with Cuba, after many years of witchhunting and sanctions. Why?
Simple, it was because Putin announced that He would reopen Russia spy complex in Cuba.

That tells u how great powers are very sensitive towards thier environment, And will do anything humanly possible to protect it.

Lets just hope the powers on both side dont start shooting hot. Cos, the US also have large amount of nuclear arsenals,not Russia only.

@Appleyard and Nairamint

I really don't want to go on with this argument, it's just not worth it.

You can read NATO's version of the stories from here:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm?#cl5


I respect your opinion, but i like my opinion much better

[quote author=NairaMinted post=29544661]

There indeed was an agreement between Gorbachev and Reagan in which the Soviet Union was given assurances that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards. NATO/US/The Hegemon lied and broke these assurances. Simple. No fiction here.
[url]http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a

May God bless u and cause u to live longer.
Your analysis, cited with references, truely hit d nail on d head.

The horors that have been committed by the US and NATO goes way beyond what Hitler's holocaust could only dream of.
There had never in history existed a time of outright lies,thrumped up pretext, false flags operations, unclad impunity towards d global order and overwhelming terror, backed by the most sophisticated military might and propaganda machine, in d whole of human history, than it is today.
But this time around, for once, many are afraid, and come to think of it, thier fears are well founded, because, unlike other nations, Russia is not a walk over..and though, like u rightly mention, it has shown considerable restrain in d wake of a clear attack, Putin might Just lose patience mid way as things are getting worse.... And may just decide to go all out militarily, should all out force been use against d donbass by the Nazis in Kiev..which could easily lead ro major confrontation between d big powers,and u and i know where that will definitely lead to.
May God not let this happen in my time.
Some bastards in the empire think they can actually win a nuclear war, provided they have a first strike. How this people think, at times, is beyond me.
They believe they have everything, and so they can do whatever they list, even when d enemy can sneak up to u without noticing.
Apparently,been intoxicated with thier quest for war and lust for blood (since war is thier major source of bringing in the petrol dollar), the satanist have forgotten, and even if they know, simply dont care about the possibility of anihilating their own nations and people, infact, the entire human race.

So drunk that they wont even heed the warning from thier own navy and intelligence body on the capability of d enemy on many fronts, such as,the Russian Buleva class submarine, the quietest of any u can think of, one of such was in US waters deep in the coast of califonia for over a month, without being detected, and it carries long range ballistic nuclear lunchers that could take out three cities in one strike.

What abt d US formidable air power/Russia S 300 and S 400 air defense misiles?

The 1%ers seem to be oblivious to reality. They actualy believe that thier misile shield can protect them, and so wont mind taking this present cold war into a hot one.
I am refering to the Anglo-Zionist crazy throlls in the empire as well as d 'fifth columnists' in the Russian government set up, that would do everything possible to pit together, the two most powerful nations on earth, with a Nuclear ansenals capable of exterminating the whole of mankind.

May God help us in Jesus name..

bookface:

@Appleyard and Nairamint

I really don't want to go on with this argument, it's just not worth it.

You can read NATO's version of the stories from here:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm?#cl5


I respect your opinion, but i like my opinion much better

alrgt bro.. But i would also that u read up the Russian version of d agreement,by following the links as provided by our humble collegue, Nairamint. And that u should also weigh up the facts and compare them to the situation on ground, as to form a better opinion.

NEVERTHELESS, Ur opinion is quite recognized also.

Thats how matured men with natured minds roll..

Live long...

bookface:

@Appleyard and Nairamint

I really don't want to go on with this argument, it's just not worth it.

You can read NATO's version of the stories from here:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm?#cl5


I respect your opinion, but i like my opinion much better

You chose not to go into this "argument" cos I took your "points" one after the other and issued rebuttals hence you have nothing else to say.

Appleyard, I strongly suggest you add these sites to your reading list:


http://globalresearch.ca
http://journal-neo.org/
http:consortiumnews.com
http://paulcraigroberts.org
http://sott.net
http://vineyardsaker..com
http://fortruss..com
http://landdestroyer..com/

But of course you can throw in your CNN, BBC, Fox News etc to chuckle on the other sides viewpoint and propaganda and also for the occasional celebrity gossip

NairaMinted:


You chose not to go into this "argument" cos I took your "points" one after the other and issued rebuttals hence you have nothing else to say.

I would love to tear the nonsense you wrote apart, but frankly speaking, I just don't have the time honestly.

Your points are too weak and in some cases outright silly, that i just can't dedicate the mental resources into straightening them out for you.

You also come across as someone who is too weak in economic analysis that I really don't want to dedicate that time of the day to educate you on why China's prosperity is economically linked to the United States prosperity and the whole brouhaha about the petrodollar system collapsing is just rubbish from cognitively inadequate people who make up fiction that they choose to believe in.

My opinion is that you don't do much analysis in real life - as per the work you do or something - and you are more likely to take on the opinion of others. This makes you very subjective to confirmation bias, so that you only seek out information that confirms what you want to know, hence your constant reference of Craig Roberts and such. For me it's always too hard and unproductive to argue with someone like that.

I would frankly rather spend my time on something else

NairaMinted:
Appleyard, I strongly suggest you add these sites to your reading list:


http://globalresearch.ca
http://journal-neo.org/
http:consortiumnews.com
http://paulcraigroberts.org
http://sott.net
http://vineyardsaker..com
http://fortruss..com
http://landdestroyer..com/

But of course you can throw in your CNN, BBC, Fox News etc to chuckle on the other sides viewpoint and propaganda and also for the occasional celebrity gossip

thanks man...we read to be wise and be well informed.. U have just given a fine sword to a gentleman like me..

The BBC and CNN for chuckles and celebrities gossips... Hahahahaha.. Ok,i will give them a try on that, though i would have prefer humming to my self, or,better still, watch a blank television.. Anyway, no qualms.

You may as well like these as sources...

Whatrealyhappened.com
zerohedge.com
thetruthseeker.com
cluborluv..com

once again, thanks man...

just saw this creative artwork












.

Appleyard:


thanks man...we read to be wise and be well informed.. U have just given a fine sword to a gentleman like me..

..................................
once again, thanks man...

Yes indeed I am aware of these other sources. I just listed the ones I visit regularly. Vineyardsaker in particular provide incredible insight and background information as far as Russia and Ukraine is concerned. And in some cases, even on the Boko Haram situation which you probably woudn't find from any other news source. The Saker is well informed and connected it would seem.

And thanks for your words and please do keep up the good work. What you and I are doing is simply telling the truth - irrefutable and undeniable truth. For those that tell themselves lies over and over again till these lies become the truth in their eyes, and then proclaim that they can refute our truth but yet fail to do so, let them continue wallowing in their fallacy.

bookface:


The slide in oil prices have more to do with US shale production than some dodgy power play.

US is just not importing as much oil as it used to and by 2020 it aims to achieve full energy independence.

Russia is an economic junior that is trying to punch above its weight. The Russian elites overestimated Russia's geo-economic weight when oil was priced above 120 dollars and everything looked fine and dandy. The took on the wrong enemy -the USA - at precisely the wrong time -

The US of today is much stronger economically than it has ever been in the last 10 years. Its economy is growing faster than any other developed economy, its shale oil is booming, its economy remains the most diversified in the whole world and inflation is well controlled. The US dollar was the best performing currency in 2014, the Ruble was the worst

Russia should have learnt a thing or two from China - strategic patience! Grow your F*cking economy first before you start off a fight. Invest more in education, infrastructure and the middle class. - not submarines and fighter jets, which by the way, will become obsolete in another 10 years or so.

NATO is not really a threat to Russia - when was the last time a NATO country violated Russia's airspace or threatened Russia with a nuclear strike? Yet Russia does this on a regular basis and still claims to be the victims - it defies common sense

I do agree with most of what you said but this part is not really true.

NATO has not stop conduction strategic flights close to Russia's airspace since the 50s. Russia stopped their flights in 1992 and only started flying their bombers again in 2011.

If NATO wanted peace, they would cancel the flights in the 90s but they did not.

NATO has failed to give Russia a security guarantee and add Russia to the framework of Europe's security. These things are legitimate concerns for a country that has lost so much to their Western neighbors throughout their history and their security paranoia should be understandable.

Missy89:


I do agree with most of what you said but this part is not really true.

NATO has not stop conduction strategic flights close to Russia's airspace since the 50s. Russia stopped their flights in 1992 and only started flying their bombers again in 2011.


If NATO wanted peace, they would cancel the flights in the 90s but they did not.

NATO has failed to give Russia a security guarantee and add Russia to the framework of Europe's security. These things are legitimate concerns for a country that has lost so much to their Western neighbors throughout their history and their security paranoia should be understandable.

Given the asymmetrical nature of information in these cases, it is impossible to independently verify the truthfulness of these claims. e.g if Russia claims the event occured and NATO denies it, are we really then to believe it really happened? ( or didn't happen? )

I somehow find it difficult to believe that NATO continues to deliberately provoke Russia with airspace probe while Russia sat gently and did nothing in return.
I will challenge you to provide independent reports that actually provide a thorough analysis into the nature of those strategic flight....e.g are these strategic flights bombers or spy plane?

----If bombers, why would this be in the interest of NATO, since it already "won" the cold war and there are no reasons to make any statements. ----If spy planes, isn't this just an ineffective use of resources - since the open skies policies already give participating members access to each others airspace. E.g Russian spy aircrafts are allowed to fly over Area 51 and take area footage even though it is restricted to American public. I would think in this day and age it is more effective to use other means like subs, surface ships, and low orbit satellites.

of course, i would expect that normal reconnaissance missions were still flown in that period - but it is likely not in the scale that the Russians are reporting and it is unlikely that the Russians did nothing in return. In other words this may just be one of the very many Russian fictions that have now been turned into facts. The Russians are really good at this.

On your second point and for the sake of facts, the following are clear

-- NATO established the NATO-Russian council for consultation and consensus building between the two parties - It was hoped that this council will act quickly to diffuse tensions, and to build bridges and common understanding.

-- NATO pledged not to move military defense assets to Eastern Europe - this is despite protests from several members in that region

-- Obama unilaterally cancelled the proposed Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors in Poland, even though this led to a strain in US-Polish ties and it made several NATO members question US's commitment to joint defense. The US had hoped that Russia will see this as a measure of goodwill.

-- NATO has demonstrated an averse attitude to confrontation with Russia by the statements of its members explicitly ruling out military interventions in all forms in any non NATO member countries that come under attack from Russia


Now, i understand that more could probably be done to re-assure Russia, but could you elaborate some steps that Russia has taken to re-assure NATO members that it meant no harm?

The real problem is not about some strategic flights close to Russia boarders - the real problem is that Russia sees the existence of NATO as a continuous reminder of the outcomes of the cold war and the humiliation it suffered. The current Russian regime really doesn't give a toss about the economic welfare and future of the Russian people - they are more preoccupied with settling historical scores. So they build more ICBMS and buy more guns to show that Russia is a great power instead of building a real economy.

If Russia continues in its current path, it may very well end up like Argentina or a very big Venezuela with lots of nukes.

In 1950, Argentina and Venezuela were relatively wealthy countries with per capita levels of GDP of $6,164 and $8,104 respectively. These two countries had a GDP per capita that was well in excess of that of Japan, South Korea and Singapore - but the sixty years that followed saw Argentina and Venezuela dropping from the ranks of a developed economy status to a developing economy status while the Asian countries surged well ahead.

Russia is very deficient in economic policy making, and this was really evident in its extremely fo0lish decision to ban food imports from Europe, thus sending food inflation in Russia through the roof.

I think i have deviated too much

AfroBlue:
just saw this creative artwork












.

Yeah. That is Grand Master Putin, the Godfather of Chess.

bookface:


Given the asymmetrical nature of information in these cases, it is impossible to independently verify the truthfulness of these claims. I am afraid that this may very likely be one of those many Russian facts --- this is one thing the Russians are excellent at.

I somehow find it difficult to believe that NATO continues to deliberately provoke Russia with airspace probe while Russia sat gently and did nothing in return. I will challenge you to provide independent reports that actually back this claims. (of course i know fully well that you are unlikely to have this) - and "Vladimir says..." doesn't count as independent.

For the sake of facts, the following are clear

-- NATO established the NATO-Russian council for consultation and consensus building between the two parties - It was hoped that this council will act quickly to diffuse tensions, and to build bridges and common understanding.

-- NATO pledged not to move military defense assets to Eastern Europe - this is despite protests from several members in that region

-- Obama unilaterally cancelled the proposed Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors in Poland, even though this led to a strain in US-Polish ties and it made several NATO members question US's commitment to joint defense. The US had hoped that Russia will see this as a measure of goodwill.

-- NATO has demonstrated an averse attitude to confrontation with Russia by the statements of its members explicitly ruling out military interventions in all forms in any non NATO member countries that come under attack from Russia


Now, i understand that more could probably be done to re-assure Russia, but could you elaborate some steps that Russia has taken to re-assure NATO members that it meant no harm?

The real problem is not about some strategic flights close to Russia boarders - the real problem is that Russia sees the existence of NATO as a continuous reminder of the outcomes of the cold war and the humiliation it suffered. The current Russian regime really doesn't give a toss about the economic welfare and future of the Russian people - they are more preoccupied with settling historical scores. So they build more ICBMS and buy more guns to show that Russia is a great power instead of building a real economy.

If Russia continues in its current path, it may very well end up like Argentina or a very big Venezuela with lots of nukes.

In 1950, Argentina and Venezuela were relatively wealthy countries with per capita levels of GDP of $6,164 and $8,104 respectively. These two countries had a GDP per capita that was well in excess of that of Japan, South Korea and Singapore - but the sixty years that followed saw Argentina and Venezuela dropping from the ranks of a developed economy status to a developing economy status while the Asian countries surged well ahead.

Russia is very deficient in economic policy making, and this was really evident in its extremely fo0lish decision to ban food imports from Europe, thus sending food inflation in Russia through the roof.

I think i have deviated too much

http://www.stratfor.com/situation-report/russia-us-using-cold-war-tactics#axzz3OEuTGDyw

MARCH 22, 2003
Russia has accused the United States of using Cold War tactics after a U.S. spy plane flew close to Russia's border with Georgia on March 22.


http://www.stratfor.com/situation-report/russia-scrambles-fighter-jets-track-us-spy-plan#axzz3OEuTGDyw

MARCH 22, 2003
Russia scrambled fighter jets March 22 to track a U.S. spy plane that Moscow says came into Russian airspace, within 18 miles of the Russian border with Georgia. Russian anti-aircraft forces detected and tracked a U.S. spy plane flying near the Russian border, and two fighter jets "were deployed to escort it," Interfax cited an official as saying. It was the third time this month, Russia claims, that U.S. spy planes have come near Russian airspace.


The Flights never ended and the US never denied it (because they are not being reported in the US doesn't mean they are not happening). NATO initially did not have problems with Russia resuming the strategic flights (they have been flying since 2011 after all).

The Russia delegation with NATO is just a paper delegation. Their tasks can be performed thru diplomatic channels and it does not amount to much. It is simple, Who is NATO defending itself against? I think it is naive to say that because there is a NATO-Russia council, everything is dandy.

If NATO is just a security alliance and not against Russia, why not offer Russia a deal to become a full NATO member in the future? After all, Putin asked for this in 2011 after he assisted the US in securing military bases in central Asia to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was brushed aside.

military interventions in all forms in any non NATO member countries that come under attack from Russia

Then why are NATO members pledging military aids to Ukriane? isn't that a form of military intervention? Why would NATO be concerned about non NATO states? Is that not beyond NATO mandate?

Obama unilaterally cancelled the proposed Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors in Poland, even though this led to a strain in US-Polish ties and it made several NATO members question US's commitment to joint defense. The US had hoped that Russia will see this as a measure of goodwill

In fact Russia even did one better. They agreed to the said missile defense as long as Russia is integrated into it. After all, "It was defending against Iran and North Korea" They agreed (in principle) to the interceptors if Russian personnel would be allowed to work with American personnel on the site and even agreed to allow the US use their radar stations in Azerbaijan at the time as part of the missile defense. According to Stephen Hadley who was the NSA then, Putin drew a blue print of how US, EU and Russia defense assets can work together. But they stalled and Obama cancelled it instead.


Your analysis of Putin's policies are way off. When the country open its doors in the 90s, it was plundered and Russia was never criticized under Yeltsin. Most of them will tell you they are better off when order was restored by the old KGB faction which Putin currently leads. The problem is complacency (easy oil money) and naive policy makers (the west is our friend). Russians are beginning to be less Eurocentric which means they are starting to understand that they have few friends in the west.

The food policy might be a short term loss but within few years, it will stabilize and things will be back to normal. Europe will be the biggest loser and Ukraine will NEVER join NATO despite all the efforts. Crimea will never return, and the Donbass will be lost eventually. That is the fact.

NairaMinted:


Yes indeed I am aware of these other sources. I just listed the ones I visit regularly. Vineyardsaker in particular provide incredible insight and background information as far as Russia and Ukraine is concerned. And in some cases, even on the Boko Haram situation which you probably woudn't find from any other news source. The Saker is well informed and connected it would seem.

And thanks for your words and please do keep up the good work. What you and I are doing is simply telling the truth - irrefutable and undeniable truth. For those that tell themselves lies over and over again till these lies become the truth in their eyes, and then proclaim that they can refute our truth but yet fail to do so, let them continue wallowing in their fallacy.

I have heard u, my brother. We are obliged by Almighty God to fight for what is right at all times. And to never cave in to the whims and calprises of the enemy's blue lies and under the platform of unparalleld deception.

Yeah, we are bound by supreme command to this, just as it is written;
'' never u be the cause, never u be the victim', and above all, ' never u be a bystander'.

That is the clarion call by ' the voice of truth'.

@bookface. I see that you have edited your post.

Now let me deal with the new additions.

US do not need to fly strategic bombers near Russian airspace because it wont make any sense and will waste money. Us bombers can reach Russia (St petersburg) within 3 minutes from the Baltic states which is NATO. Spy planes on the other hand still fly regularly.

Russian LRRPs are overwhelming because the shortest route to conduct strategic bombing (North pole) is far and they will always travel in groups (tanker, interceptors and ASF jets) The only problem is the transponder which they are refusing to turn on. otherwise, these are legitimate just like the Americans have been doing.

There are many reasons why you are so wrong to think that LRRPs are ineffective, apart from the spying, it also test response times.


The open skies treaty are limited due to the kind of cameras allowed to the participants. If that is enough to gather intel, why would either of the two have spy planes and spy satellites that can observe underground facilities which is impossible thru the Open skies agreement?

The Flights never ended and the US never denied it (because they are not being reported in the US doesn't mean they are not happening). NATO initially did not have problems with Russia resuming the strategic flights (they have been flying since 2011 after all).

The Russia delegation with NATO is just a paper delegation. Their tasks can be performed thru diplomatic channels and it does not amount to much. It is simple, Who is NATO defending itself against? I think it is naive to say that because there is a NATO-Russia council, everything is dandy.

If NATO is just a security alliance and not against Russia, why not offer Russia a deal to become a full NATO member in the future? After all, Putin asked for this in 2011 after he assisted the US in securing military bases in central Asia to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was brushed aside.

military interventions in all forms in any non NATO member countries that come under attack from Russia

The nature of the so called flights it would appear is intelligence gathering - this doesn't explain the security paranoia that you mentioned is understandable unless you can argue that Russia ceased intelligence gathering efforts on its side. Additionally, i agree that because they are not reported in the US doesn't imply that they aren't happening - one could argue the same thing that Russia probably flew several flights of its own that went unreported or under-reported. Saying that Russia unilaterally ceased reconnaissance flights post cold war will be naive.

Of course, NATO is a security alliance - primarily against Russia - But its mandate relative to Russia is defensive in nature (particularly with respect to the Baltic states). I think anyone who denies this is definitely not being honest. No one is actually really ready to start a war in Europe - not even the US.

Letting Russia join NATO will then defeat the purpose of NATO which is to defend the territories of its member state. If Russia as a member of NATO annexes huge swathes of a NATO member state, what will NATO do? of course, such a scenario will lead to the break up of NATO.

In fact Russia even did one better. They agreed to the said missile defense as long as Russia is integrated into it. After all, "It was defending against Iran and North Korea" They agreed (in principle) to the interceptors if Russian personnel would be allowed to work with American personnel on the site and even agreed to allow the US use their radar stations in Azerbaijan at the time as part of the missile defense. According the Stephen Hadley who was the NSA then, Putin drew a blue print of how US, EU and Russia defense assets can work together. But they stalled and Obama cancelled it instead.

Of course, everyone knew the interceptors was part of a Russian containment policy - hence why i stated that the cancellation of one of the major components was a goodwill towards Russia -

Your analysis of Putin's policies are way off. When the country open its doors in the 90s, it was plundered and Russia was never criticized under Yeltsin. Most of them will tell you they are better off when order was restored by the old KGB faction which Putin currently leads. The problem is complacency (easy oil money) and naive policy makers (the west is our friend). Russians are beginning to be less Eurocentric which means they are starting to understand that they have few friends in the west.

Russia was plundered in the 90s as it still is today. Under Yeltsin, the Oligarchs made fortune from buying state asset at cheap valuations - same thing happened under Putin, just that things were a lot more organized. You sound as if the plundering of Russia back then was due to its open door policy.
Russian lives were only much better during the most part of last decade because of the sharp increases in crude prices. Otherwise, nothing much has changed.

You are right in stating that Russia's problem was due to naive policy makers - but you are wrong when you attributed it to "the west is our friend". This latter part assumes that Russia was somehow deceived by the west into doing something that is not in its economic interest. This sounds very much like blaming someone else for your own problems. Russia's relationship with the West was mostly businesslike - and the West paid cash in return. Why is it the West's fault that Russian policy makers got afflicted by the Dutch disease and refused to diversify their economy? suffice to say when Russia's economy went burst in 1999, it was the West that bailed it out?

No country can prosper in isolation - that's a fact! China is mostly prosperous because her productivity is high and she has a sound economic relationship with the US after ascending to WTO. Japan rose to become the second largest economy even after the devastating effect of the world war two because it's productivity is high and it opened up its economy to trade with the West. By contrast, Iran's economy was destroyed in the years that followed numerous sanctions and in which it embraced isolationism.

And just a food for thought - if Russia thinks they have very few friends in the West, the probably have even fewer in the East.

The food policy might be a short term loss but within few years, it will stabilize and things will be back to normal. Europe will be the biggest loser and Ukraine will NEVER join NATO despite all the efforts. Crimea will never return, and the Donbass will be lost eventually. That is the fact.

The food policy was just plain stup1d. Food is a fungible product and unlike cars, you can't manufacture Rice or beans overnight. European farmers will simply sell to those places that will sell to Russia at inflated prices, thus hurting the Russian economy even more.

I don't agree that the loss will be short term. I think if Russian central Bank leave interest rates at 17%, Russia may face a huge contraction over the next decade. Capital flights may continue and it already suffers from an aging population and a massive brain drain.

The aggregate European economy is in shambles - but this has nothing to do with Russia, more to do with effects of the last financial crises, a new low growth normal, and debt imbalances within the Euro area. Europe will not really suffer a direct effect from this debacle - it may even force European countries to further diversify their energy sources away from Russia - which will only hurt Russia more in the long term. You have to realise that in all of this, Europe is mostly the costumer which gives Russia a huge trade surplus - so relatively within their relationship, Russia is the beneficiary.

Ukraine will be the one to suffer the most - I don't doubt that it wouldn't join NATO, and it may not even get to join Europe as a full member. Crimea will never return - but Crimea itself may never see economic prosperity - same thing apply with the Donbass.

The future is still a long way away, so we can only wait.

bookface:


The nature of the so called flights it would appear is intelligence gathering - this doesn't explain the security paranoia that you mentioned is understandable unless you can argue that Russia ceased intelligence gathering efforts on its side. Additionally, i agree that because they are not reported in the US doesn't imply that they aren't happening - one could argue the same thing that Russia probably flew several flights of its own that went unreported or under-reported. Saying that Russia unilaterally ceased reconnaissance flights post cold war will be naive.

Of course, NATO is a security alliance - primarily against Russia - But its mandate relative to Russia is defensive in nature (particularly with respect to the Baltic states). I think anyone who denies this is definitely not being honest. No one is actually really ready to start a war in Europe - not even the US.

Letting Russia join NATO will then defeat the purpose of NATO which is to defend the territories of its member state. If Russia as a member of NATO annexes huge swathes of a NATO member state, what will NATO do? of course, such a scenario will lead to the break up of NATO.

Russia DID NOT conduct any LRRPs over the us between 1993 to around 2010. This is a fact because they could not afford it. US is too far to spy at with a plane. you have to rely on modern methods (subs, sats, etc). Unlike Russia, USAF can conduct flights near Russia from their NATO member state and have been doing it since the cold war.

So you agree that the alliance is against Russia, and you saying any scenario that would bring total peace (Russia Joining NATO and added to the European defense framework) is unacceptable because it will mean the end to NATO? If that will solve the problem, why is it not on the table? Must NATO always exist?

bookface:

Of course, everyone knew the interceptors was part of a Russian containment policy - hence why i stated that the cancellation of one of the major components was a goodwill towards Russia -

That isnt goodwill, That is a checkmate. If a burglar is standing outside your gate and eventually leaves because you stand firm, that is not goodwill. You also deliberately forget to mention that the US got a deal in return .They expanded US supply routes to Afghanistan thru Russia, allowed extended flights over their airspace and even joined in sanctions against Iran which they have always opposed if it wasn't UN backed.

bookface:

Russia was plundered in the 90s as it still is today. Under Yeltsin, the Oligarchs made fortune from buying state asset at cheap valuations - same thing happened under Putin, just that things were a lot more organized. You sound as if the plundering of Russia back then was due to its open door policy.
Russian lives were only much better during the most part of last decade because of the sharp increases in crude prices. Otherwise, nothing much has changed.
You are right in stating that Russia's problem was due to naive policy makers - but you are wrong when you attributed it to "the west is our friend". This latter part assumes that Russia was somehow deceived by the west into doing something that is not in its economic interest. This sounds very much like blaming someone else for your own problems. Russia's relationship with the West was mostly businesslike - and the West paid cash in return. Why is it the West's fault that Russian policy makers got afflicted by the Dutch disease and refused to diversify their economy? suffice to say when Russia's economy went burst in 1999, it was the West that bailed it out?

Yes! It was due to its open door policy which they called three major pillars of the economy (opening up, privatization and free market) by the major stakeholders like the IMF and the World Bank and defended by countries like the United-States and the United-Kingdom. The West deceived and plundered the country. When the soviet union fell, Over 90% of the new economic and policy laws were written by Western economist,even the oil laws! Some even confessed in their books and memoirs years later that they deliberately gave the Russians bad advice. people like Jeffrey D. Sachs among other Washington cabals (read about the Washington consensus) ruined the country with their policies and it was so bad the communist party nearly won the election because they felt they were better of during the soviet times (rigged for Yeltsin). Read about the shock therapy in the 90s. It is a well documented fact. The Russians haven't forgotten this.

bookface:

No country can prosper in isolation - that's a fact! China is mostly prosperous because her productivity is high and she has a sound economic relationship with the US after ascending to WTO. Japan rose to become the second largest economy even after the devastating effect of the world war two because it's productivity is high and it opened up its economy to trade with the West. By contrast, Iran's economy was destroyed in the years that followed numerous sanctions and in which it embraced isolationism.
And just a food for thought - if Russia thinks they have very few friends in the West, the probably have even fewer in the East.

Russia is far from being isolated. Far from it. Moving significant partnership away from the West doesn't mean there would be any isolation. Trades will still be done but there wont be any reliance. the world is bigger than the west and the West still needs Russia no matter what they say. They cant reach an agreement with Iran if Russia is not fully on board since most of the nuclear plates in Iran will be transferred to Russia under the current negotiation among other diplomatic stuffs (terrorism, START, ISS ,etc )

bookface:

The food policy was just plain stup1d. Food is a fungible product and unlike cars, you can't manufacture Rice or beans overnight. European farmers will simply sell to those places that will sell to Russia at inflated prices, thus hurting the Russian economy even more.

I don't agree that the loss will be short term. I think if Russian central Bank leave interest rates at 17%, Russia may face a huge contraction over the next decade. Capital flights may continue and it already suffers from an aging population and a massive brain drain.

Analysts said that they will push most of the food thru Belarus, Russia have cut imports from Belarus as well. So where will they send it to?
a decade is over exaggerating. Lets see how the first and second quarters of the year will play out before making that assumption. The Europeans are more willing to return to normalcy and it might change everything within a very short time.

bookface:


The aggregate European economy is in shambles - but this has nothing to do with Russia, more to do with effects of the last financial crises, a new low growth normal, and debt imbalances within the Euro area. Europe will not really suffer a direct effect from this debacle - it may even force European countries to further diversify their energy sources away from Russia - which will only hurt Russia more in the long term. You have to realise that in all of this, Europe is mostly the costumer which gives Russia a huge trade surplus - so relatively within their relationship, Russia is the beneficiary.
Ukraine will be the one to suffer the most - I don't doubt that it wouldn't join NATO, and it may not even get to join Europe as a full member. Crimea will never return - but Crimea itself may never see economic prosperity - same thing apply with the Donbass.

The future is still a long way away, so we can only wait.

Where would they diversify their energy reliance in the short term? US gas will be more expensive besides it wont be feasible for at least 5 yrs or more. Iran is another prospective seller (should sanctions be lifted this year) but Iran cant produce enough to meet EUs needs and even if it does, where will it transit? Russia basically controls the Caspian sea in other to prevent a Caspian pipeline from Turkmenistan and Turkey wont allow a transit to Europe from the middle east for obvious reasons.
Besides, price will dictate the market and a political decision would never take precedence over a business one. Its just logical. They have been saying they would diversify away from Russia since the 80s still hasn't happen.

Dont be surprised if sanctions are lifted within 24 months in return for decentralized Ukraine, No one is even talking about Crimea again that is gone already. The problem with EU/US policy is that it is not generating significant pressure to Putin. His election is 3 yrs away (should he choose to re contest) and unlike the cold war that was between politicians alone,he has been able to build the narrative that the economic and political problem was caused by the west hence the enjoys a huge support.

France as been vocal lately calling for no more sanctions and dialogue, Germany is still belligerent (surprisingly)

Russia DID NOT conduct any LRRPs over the us between 1993 to around 2010. This is a fact because they could not afford it. US is too far to spy at with a plane. you have to rely on modern methods (subs, sats, etc). Unlike Russia, USAF can conduct flights near Russia from their NATO member state and have been doing it since the cold war.

Do you know this for a fact or are you simply quoting Mr Putin?

If we do take it for a fact, there's is a high probability that they probed North American waters with their subs, is this any less aggressive than the supposed strategic flights?

So you agree that the alliance is against Russia, and you saying any scenario that would bring total peace (Russia Joining NATO and added to the European defense framework) is unacceptable because it will mean the end to NATO? If that will solve the problem, why is it not on the table? Must NATO always exist?

There's no reason to believe that Russia's inclusion in NATO will definitely bring about total peace. Quite the contrary, recent event indicates that an aggressive Russia might only seek to break up the bloc.

There's no reason to believe that breaking up the bloc will solve the European security problem. Quite the contrary, NATO's existence is the reason why Russia is still kept in check. A revisionist Russia is unpredictable

That isnt goodwill, That is a checkmate. If a burglar is standing outside your gate and eventually leaves because you stand firm, that is not goodwill. You also deliberately forget to mention that the US got a deal in return .They expanded US supply routes to Afghanistan thru Russia, allowed extended flights over their airspace and even joined in sanctions against Iran which they have always opposed if it wasn't UN backed.

Of course it was a bloody concession. A President Bush or President Romney couldn't have given a toss. The US might have gotten something back, but most people understood Obama's decision to be a concession. He was desperate to pursue his Russian reset Policy.

Yes! It was due to its open door policy which they called three major pillars of the economy (opening up, privatization and free market) by the major stakeholders like the IMF and the World Bank and defended by countries like the United-States and the United-Kingdom. The West deceived and plundered the country.

You still haven't provided specifics on how opening up, privatization and free markets amount to plundering Russia. These three major pillars have been successful models for ages - These policies, when combined with the Rule of law, institutions and social justice - is how economies develop.

Russia is a country that is run like a mafia corp - this obviously becomes toxic when combined with privatization as in the case of Russia where corrupt oligarchs picked up state assets for cheap. Russia's economy is a poorly managed system - both under Yeltsin and under Putin's regime.

Jeffery D sachs published the accounts of his works on this page in Russia on this page in which he debunked the supposed Washington consensus.

http://jeffsachs.org/2012/03/what-i-did-in-russia/

Russia is far from being isolated. Far from it. Moving significant partnership away from the West doesn't mean there would be any isolation. Trades will still be done but there wont be any reliance. the world is bigger than the west and the West still needs Russia no matter what they say. They cant reach an agreement with Iran if Russia is not fully on board since most of the nuclear plates in Iran will be transferred to Russia under the current negotiation among other diplomatic stuffs (terrorism, START, ISS ,etc )

I haven't argued that Russia is isolated - you pointed out that its problems in the 90s was because it opened up to the West, and i argue that its long term prosperity is actually tied to opening up to the West. a country that leans inward will merely stagnate over time. Of course, the West needs Russia, no doubts about that, but for Russia, you simply can't eat and shyt in the same plate especially when you don't have much to offer besides oil & gas and warplanes.

Analysts said that they will push most of the food thru Belarus, Russia have cut imports from Belarus as well. So where will they send it to?
a decade is over exaggerating. Lets see how the first and second quarters of the year will play out before making that assumption. The Europeans are more willing to return to normalcy and it might change everything within a very short time.

Again, food is fungible. It is simple science - whichever country sells to Russia will have much less to sell to its customers elsewhere, European food products will simply fill the gap. Agricultural products are not cars - you can't simply produce more overnight because you want to sell more to another country. You can only sell what you currently have, which will mean that there is always a supply gap.
Additionally, those exporting to Russia will simply hike up their prices and demand for payments in foreign currencies given the devaluation or the ruble.

Relatively, the Russians are more desperate for things to return to normalcy, of course they have to appear stoic in the public otherwise, it will be very very bad for Putin's reputation to be seen grovelling up to the West. The west on the other hand can always play good cop(france, italy and co) bad cop (Germany, US, Canada, Poland & co) to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

Where would they diversify their energy reliance in the short term? US gas will be more expensive besides it wont be feasible for at least 5 yrs or more. Iran is another prospective seller (should sanctions be lifted this year) but Iran cant produce enough to meet EUs needs and even if it does, where will it transit? Russia basically controls the Caspian sea in other to prevent a Caspian pipeline from Turkmenistan and Turkey wont allow a transit to Europe from the middle east for obvious reasons.
Besides, price will dictate the market and a political decision would never take precedence over a business one. Its just logical. They have been saying they would diversify away from Russia since the 80s still hasn't happen.

In the short term Europe is stuck with Russia, but in the long term, many countries will continously seek out ways to diversify their energy needs. As you may have already seen in the case of Lithuania with the buy-lease agreement of a floating LNG platform. Poland, Finland and several other countries are considering and working on similar approach.

The world is evolving fast and the ability of new technology cannot and must not be under estimate. I remember some fund managers i spoke with a really long time ago, argued that the world's proven energy reserve per capita is so low that oil prices could trade in the regions of 300 dollars in about 2030. LOL, i wonder how foolish they must feel right now. Even Gasprom boss argued back then that shale is not profitable and that the idea will soon be abandoned - how foolish he must feel right now?

Dont be surprised if sanctions are lifted within 24 months in return for decentralized Ukraine, No one is even talking about Crimea again that is gone already. The problem with EU/US policy is that it is not generating significant pressure to Putin. His election is 3 yrs away (should he choose to re contest) and unlike the cold war that was between politicians alone,he has been able to build the narrative that the economic and political problem was caused by the west hence the enjoys a huge support.

France as been vocal lately calling for no more sanctions and dialogue, Germany is still belligerent (surprisingly)

It is unlikely that the sanctions will be lifted simply because the EU requires a unanimous vote from all its members - good luck convincing Poland and the Baltics to vote in favor of lifting sanctions. It is more likely that the sanctions will simply be left in place till they expire.

Of course, Putin is sweating it out - the fact that he is not saying anything in Public means nothing. The pressure on Russia has managed to buy Ukraine some bargaining chips at the negotiating tables which meant that Russia is not simply dictating the terms.

bookface:


Do you know this for a fact or are you simply quoting Mr Putin?

If we do take it for a fact, there's is a high probability that they probed North American waters with their subs, is this any less aggressive than the supposed strategic flights?

There's no reason to believe that Russia's inclusion in NATO will definitely bring about total peace. Quite the contrary, recent event indicates that an aggressive Russia might only seek to break up the bloc.

There's no reason to believe that breaking up the bloc will solve the European security problem. Quite the contrary, NATO's existence is the reason why Russia is still kept in check. A revisionist Russia is unpredictable

That is a fact. If you think it is false, post your counter claim.
Submarine probing is less aggressive because they are usually deployed for deterrent and first strike/counter strike capabilities or intelligence gathering. How can u even compare it to a strategic flight? Strategic flights test responses, update target portfolios and spy on troop movements. They are preludes to any bombing campaign. The cost of scrabbling an interceptor to wade off the flight is another thing.

There is no reason to believe any policy will work. If peace is what the Europeans want, every offer should be on the table. Its either u guarantee/strategize stability or not. American scholars are usually quick to see Russia as aggressive but you cant change the mentality of a country that was build and expanded because of its security. Words are not enough to assure any state that its security is guaranteed, actions are important was well. And NATO has to assure that!

bookface:


You still haven't provided specifics on how opening up, privatization and free markets amount to plundering Russia. These three major pillars have been successful models for ages - These policies, when combined with the Rule of law, institutions and social justice - is how economies develop.
Russia is a country that is run like a mafia corp - this obviously becomes toxic when combined with privatization as in the case of Russia where corrupt oligarchs picked up state assets for cheap. Russia's economy is a poorly managed system - both under Yeltsin and under Putin's regime.

Jeffery D sachs published the accounts of his works on this page in Russia on this page in which he debunked the supposed Washington consensus.

http://jeffsachs.org/2012/03/what-i-did-in-russia/

Are you expecting him to say his policy failed?

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1993/eirv20n19-19930514/eirv20n19-19930514_006-how_shock_therapy_has_ruined_rus.pdf

http://josefsson.net/arkiv/990101_the_art_of_ruining_a_country.html

There are many articles on the subject online i dont even need to elaborate.

bookface:

I haven't argued that Russia is isolated - you pointed out that its problems in the 90s was because it opened up to the West, and i argue that its long term prosperity is actually tied to opening up to the West. a country that leans inward will merely stagnate over time. Of course, the West needs Russia, no doubts about that, but for Russia, you simply can't eat and shyt in the same plate especially when you don't have much to offer besides oil & gas and warplanes.

Again, food is fungible. It is simple science - whichever country sells to Russia will have much less to sell to its customers elsewhere, European food products will simply fill the gap. Agricultural products are not cars - you can't simply produce more overnight because you want to sell more to another country. You can only sell what you currently have, which will mean that there is always a supply gap.
Additionally, those exporting to Russia will simply hike up their prices and demand for payments in foreign currencies given the devaluation or the ruble.

Relatively, the Russians are more desperate for things to return to normalcy, of course they have to appear stoic in the public otherwise, it will be very very bad for Putin's reputation to be seen grovelling up to the West. The west on the other hand can always play good cop(france, italy and co) bad cop (Germany, US, Canada, Poland & co) to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

It has nothing to do with Good cop bad cop. Most of Russia debts and loans are From French and Italian banks due to the good relationship between Belsconni/ Putin and Medvedev/Sarkozy. Apart from the Mistrals that the French are building, the former Russian defense chief signed around 5-6 different frigate deals with the french (Half built in Russia and Half in France) and most of are overpriced because Medvedev have always tried too hard to please the West. Poland is very inconsequential in the scheme of things. they are the attack dogs with no diplomatic might to influence much (Apart from Influencing Ukraine).

bookface:

It is unlikely that the sanctions will be lifted simply because the EU requires a unanimous vote from all its members - good luck convincing Poland and the Baltics to vote in favor of lifting sanctions. It is more likely that the sanctions will simply be left in place till they expire.

Of course, Putin is sweating it out - the fact that he is not saying anything in Public means nothing. The pressure on Russia has managed to buy Ukraine some bargaining chips at the negotiating tables which meant that Russia is not simply dictating the terms.

Do you really think the Eastern Europeans and the Baltics have any weight in NATO and the EU? They are Subordinates to the great powers like Germany,UK and France. In fact, they would never be seen as the same EVER!

They tried to force NATO adopt MAP (Membership Action Plan) in Bucharest that would have allowed Georgia and Ukraine join NATO in 2008 they were overruled. Those countries are lightweights in the alliance. . I am not even sure Article 5 could be triggered if one of the Baltic states is attacked. What they have is a false sense on security.

What bargaing chip does Ukraine have left? Mention one! Sanctions wont really increase, they won't get front line weapons(counter productive coz Russia will just send in more tanks), and they still have to pay for gas. The only card they have the have already played. They froze utilities and payments to the Donbass. No matter what hand they play next, they will never control the Donbass again because the independence is now tied to Putin's credibility and political career and he will not give it up. They are still Russia's largest trading partner so if Russia burns(unlikely), they are going down with it.


You seem to be supporting the narrative that the West are perfect and Russia is the unpredictable actor. You are very far from the truth. How is Russia a revisionist? Since 1940, America have always burned the soviets/Russians. The difference is they are sitting up.

There are no good guys or bad guys. Every country have different interests.

That is a fact. If you think it is false, post your counter claim.
Submarine probing is less aggressive because they are usually deployed for deterrent and first strike/counter strike capabilities or intelligence gathering. How can u even compare it to a strategic flight? Strategic flights test responses, update target portfolios and spy on troop movements. They are preludes to any bombing campaign. The cost of scrabbling an interceptor to wade off the flight is another thing.

There is no reason to believe any policy will work. If peace is what the Europeans want, every offer should be on the table. Its either u guarantee/strategize stability or not. American scholars are usually quick to see Russia as aggressive but you cant change the mentality of a country that was build and expanded because of its security. Words are not enough to assure any state that its security is guaranteed, actions are important was well. And NATO has to assure that!

I could dig around for evidence of Russian strategic flights during those periods, but my belief is that they were rather under-reported as opposed to non-existence.

Of course, subs are equally as provocative - they could intercept communications in undersea cables, spy on warships and equally test detection capabilities - forget the psychological effect they could have once their target country become suspicious of their presence, they carry real threats that could devastate entire countries.

I seem to deduce from your post that peace initiatives has to be the responsibilities of NATO alone - this would be a dangerous notion - a fine line has to be drawn between appeasement and and actual peace initiatives that work. NATO must remain armed to the teeth and reinforce its objective to defend each and every member from external aggression. History has shown with Hitler that appeasement never works, deterring a potential adversary with the will and capacity to fight back if under attack - may yet be the best way to guarantee peace.

It has nothing to do with Good cop bad cop. Most of Russia debts and loans are From French and Italian banks due to the good relationship between Belsconni/ Putin and Medvedev/Sarkozy. Apart from the Mistrals that the French are building, the former Russian defense chief signed around 5-6 different frigate deals with the french (Half built in Russia and Half in France) and most of are overpriced because Medvedev have always tried too hard to please the West. Poland is very inconsequential in the scheme of things. they are the attack dogs with no diplomatic might to influence much (Apart from Influencing Ukraine).

Of course, asides from the mistrals, there is also the need to keep relationship open to mitigate against an unintended potential confrontation (my bad cop good cop reference) - Since G20 in Brisbane, which was followed closely by Merkel's hardline speech, Russia was pretty much getting isolated from the Western world. The feeling was that if Merkel couldn't reason with Putin, the deadlock may probably get harder.

Additionally, france was pretty much in a tight spot with the Mistrals, hence the pressure to resolve issues as soon as possible

Do you really think the Eastern Europeans and the Baltics have any weight in NATO and the EU? They are Subordinates to the great powers like Germany,UK and France. In fact, they would never be seen as the same EVER!

They tried to force NATO adopt MAP (Membership Action Plan) in Bucharest that would have allowed Georgia and Ukraine join NATO in 2008 they were overruled. Those countries are lightweights in the alliance. . I am not even sure Article 5 could be triggered if one of the Baltic states is attacked. What they have is a false sense on security.

What bargaing chip does Ukraine have left? Mention one! Sanctions wont really increase, they won't get front line weapons(counter productive coz Russia will just send in more tanks), and they still have to pay for gas. The only card they have the have already played. They froze utilities and payments to the Donbass. No matter what hand they play next, they will never control the Donbass again because the independence is now tied to Putin's credibility and political career and he will not give it up. They are still Russia's largest trading partner so if Russia burns(unlikely), they are going down with it.


You seem to be supporting the narrative that the West are perfect and Russia is the unpredictable actor. You are very far from the truth. How is Russia a revisionist? Since 1940, America have always burned the soviets/Russians. The difference is they are sitting up.

There are no good guys or bad guys. Every country have different interests.

You are right, they probably don't have much voice to influence major policies, but they could stink up the joint if they want to. I would not be too quick to suggest that the article 5 will not be triggered in the case they come under attack. This is a pretty fine line which even the Russians are careful to cross.

Of course, Ukraine is in a better negotiating position. You only need to read the Russian press to see that the Russians are doing all they can to ensure a lasting cease fire. The sanctions and the current oil price is bleeding the Russian economy dry - Capital inflow to Russia is pretty much frozen and the central bank has drawn a huge chunk out of its foreign reserve. Companies are unable to refinance their debts, which are getting passed on to the government and - according to the economic minister - their Asian friends are not lining up to extend credit services . SO Russians want this resolved as soon as possible! - This is why Ukraine is in a better negotiating position, it can afford to stall, the Russians can't.

Donbass is fast becoming a burden on an economically weak Russia. Economic activity there is dead. Infrastructures are badly damaged and will cost a lot to rebuild. Russia probably wants to shed this off their tank, but their influence within Donesk and Lughansk is not necessarily unlimited. Which was why Lavrov stressed that Moscow wants Donesk and Lughansk to remain a part of Ukraine

Russia's annexation of crimea is an opportunistic move - it has very little to do with Russian fears of NATO vessels - The Russian's saw an opportunity and they went for a land grab, this is an unpredictable move, spurred on by a Russia that is bent on fixing errors in its past. This is why NATO expanded up to Russia's doorstep - because its neighbors can not afford to relax and hope the bear will be kinder to them.
Putin already made a veil threat towards Kazakhstan - who knows who's next?

I am not support the notion that the West is perfect, I am simply taking a perspective, and my points may come across as such

[quote author=bookface post=29605727]
Interesting piece, bro.

1) if Russia claims the event occured and NATO denies it, are we really then to believe it really happened? ( or didn't happen? )
That can best be answered by fitting the facts to d prevailing circumstances, And for fairness sake, we can rephrased it to be this; 'if NATO says, Russia is aggressive and a threat, are we realy to believe it or not'?. ( and was there any action or omission on thier part that triggers the Russian reactions and counter measures?)
let either our good or bad conscience answer that, in view of such circumstances.

2) I somehow find it difficult to believe that NATO continues to deliberately provoke Russia with airspace probe while Russia...

Yes, Its been occuring, and they do respond as usual..

http://foresightadvisors.co.za/russian-jet-chased-us-spy-plane-into-
swedish-airspace/

Must it be a fighter or spy jet to constitute 'provocation'? What difference doest it make? Mere utterances alone by highly placed individuals in government, could change the nature of diplomatic relations and influences the direction of foreign policy, let alone having 'a piece of the enemy's armament' over ur territorial integrity or close to ur borders

----If spy planes, isn't this just an ineffective use of resources - I would think in this day and age it is more effective to use other means like subs, surface ships, and low orbit satellites.

Pls ask the US that. It has 'a satalite in orbit that can read the headline of a newspaper' below, but it still feels this is the best method. Old habits die hard, u know..

--but it is likely not in the scale that the Russians are reporting...

Back to square one.. Are we to disbelieve the Russians but to believe the Hegemon? Of cause, they have always responded in kind, or what do u expect? And why the cry now, when we know its something that is common between all power players?

-- NATO established the NATO-Russian council for consultation and consensus building between the two parties - It was hoped that this council will act quickly to diffuse tensions, and to build bridges and common understanding.

Its true. But have they actually done much in this areas to diffuse tensions? No thanks to the US. You want to diffuse tensions, but u, without provocation, withdrew from the ABM treaty, and started to develop new range of such prohobited missiles. 'NATO wants cordial and sharing realtionship with Russia', but when Russia applied to Join the alliance, they refused. Tell me, what better way can one develop mutual and peaceful relationship with its neighbour, without raising suspicion, other than been closly knit under one platform and common goal? Its just like saying, u are my friend, but u cant come to my house or dine with me. Rubbish.

-- NATO pledged not to move military defense assets to Eastern Europe -

not d missile shields, though..

-- Obama unilaterally cancelled the proposed Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors...

Oh, u forgot to mention d Russian response that might have influenced such decision. Russia was about moving some nukes into Venezuela, and then to reopen same with Cuba.

-- NATO-- ruling out military interventions in all forms in any non NATO member countries that come under attack from Russia--

The typical NATO psyops and Rhetorics.
How many such nations have come under 'Russian attack'? A 'list' would be helpful.

--But what have Russia done to--

Yeah..but what could they have done? Those nations were'nt d ones pulling d strings. The One that matters has its 'agenda'.

The real problem is--

yes. They have every right to c NATO (a tool of d US) as a threat.last time i checked, the US (the owner of NATO) is the 'greatest threat to world peace', as voted by millions. It was'nt Russia that sponsored d coup in Ukrain.

On Venezuela and Agentina--

The Hegemon was responsible for the trauma facing these nations. Why do u think they are now in d' de-Dollarization' mood? Pls, hear from 'the horse's mouth' below;
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/stock1.html
The CIA was, and is still running covert ops over there.

Russia building new ICBMs and guns--

Whether we like it or not, Russia had, is, and will still be a major power.. The defence budget of Russia and China combined its not even up to half of what the US spends annualy on its military. Anyone with basic economic knowledge should know that the US economy is a sham..with a debt of over 17 trillion dollars..the FED reserve printing billions with nothing to back it with..

Russia very deficient in Economic policy--

What abt d EU? Do they have any thought on thier own economy when dancing to uncle Sam's 'pressured' sanctions? Today, Germany, which has alot in invesment in Russia, is facing serious opposition from within its manufacturing complexies. Most EU farmers are practically suffocating. Sanctions always have boomerang effects

Thanks. We all need to air our views

[quote author=Missy89 post=29608173]

http://www.stratfor.com/situation-report/russia-us-using-cold-war-tactics#axzz3OEuTGDyw

MARCH 22, 2003
Russia has accused the United States of using Cold War tactics after a U.S. spy plane flew close to Russia's border with Georgia on March 22.


http://www.stratfor.com/situation-report/russia-scrambles-fighter-jets-track-us-spy-plan#axzz3OEuTGDyw

MARCH 22, 2003
Russia scrambled fighter jets March 22 to track a U.S. spy plane that Moscow says came into Russian airspace, within 18 miles of the Russian border with Georgia. Russian anti-aircraft forces detected and tracked a U.S. spy plane flying near the Russian border, and two fighter jets "were deployed to escort it," Interfax cited an official as saying. It was the third time this month, Russia claims, that U.S. spy planes have come near Russian airspace.


The Flights never ended and the US never denied it (because they are not being reported in the US doesn't mean they are not happening). NATO initially did not have problems with Russia resuming the strategic flights (they have been flying since 2011 after all).

The Russia delegation with NATO is just a paper delegation. Their tasks can be performed thru diplomatic channels and it does not amount to much. It is simple, Who is NATO defending itself against? I think it is naive to say that because there is a NATO-Russia council, everything is dandy.

If NATO is just a security alliance and not against Russia, why not offer Russia a deal to become a full NATO member in the future? After all, Putin asked for this in 2011 after he assisted the US in securing military bases in central Asia to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was brushed aside.

military interventions in all forms in any non NATO member countries that come under attack from Russia

Then why are NATO members pledging military aids to Ukriane? isn't that a form of military intervention? Why would NATO be concerned about non NATO states? Is that not beyond NATO mandate?

Obama unilaterally cancelled the proposed Ground-Based Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors in Poland, even though this led to a strain in US-Polish ties and it made several NATO members question US's commitment to joint defense. The US had hoped that Russia will see this as a measure of goodwill

In fact Russia even did one better. They agreed to the said missile defense as long as Russia is integrated into it. After all, "It was defending against Iran and North Korea" They agreed (in principle) to the interceptors if Russian personnel would be allowed to work with American personnel on the site and even agreed to allow the US use their radar stations in Azerbaijan at the time as part of the missile defense. According to Stephen Hadley who was the NSA then, Putin drew a blue print of how US, EU and Russia defense assets can work together. But they stalled and Obama cancelled it instead.


Your analysis of Putin's policies are way off. When the country open its doors in the 90s, it was plundered and Russia was never criticized under Yeltsin. Most of them will tell you they are better off when order was restored by the old KGB faction which Putin currently leads. The problem is complacency (easy oil money) and naive policy makers (the west is our friend). Russians are beginning to be less Eurocentric which means they are starting to understand that they have few friends in the west.

The food policy might be a short term loss but within few years, it will stabilize and things will be back to normal. Europe will be the biggest loser and Ukraine will NEVER join NATO despite all the efforts. Crimea will never return, and the Donbass will be lost eventually. That is the fact.



You can say that again, missy.

Putin's approval rating is evidence of his good work.. He has been able to turn the economy fairly. You know, Rome was'nt build in a day..
From what we ahve been saying, which u have rightly pointed out, it shows that, the US had long harbour a grand plan against Russia, the reality we are seeing now.

The reason why am so borthered, is that, Russia is not Iraq, Libya, or Aghan.. We are talking of one of the most powerful nuclear owner and well documented military capability on the planet.. How this people think at times, is something else. But i beieve everything will work out well.

May Jesus help us.