17 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeIn all probability, yes. But I don't think other countries' NATO troops will ever be deployed in those nations except at token levels.
Marauder, how do you assess the situation ? Will Georgia and the Ukraïne eventually (.... within a few years or maybe a bit longer) become full NATO members ?
I have doubts that NATO membership has anything but symbolic meaning anymore.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderSymbolic meaning ? ..... you should convince the Russians to believe this ! That would save us a lot of trouble.
In all probability, yes. But I don't think other countries' NATO troops will ever be deployed in those nations except at token levels.
I have doubts that NATO membership has anything but symbolic meaning anymore.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo would not being in such a rush to push membership of a military alliance to the borders of a great power. It might be "symbolic" but what it is signalling is that the West is being aggressive in its attempt to reduce Russia to a second rate power.
Symbolic meaning ? ..... you should convince the Russians to believe this ! That would save us a lot of trouble.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the need to control for instance the three major pipelines ( ... crude oil and natural gaz) that run through Georgia is of more weight in the present crises, both for the West ànd for Russia.
So would not being in such a rush to push membership of a military alliance to the borders of a great power. It might be "symbolic" but what it is signalling is that the West is being aggressive in its attempt to reduce Russia to a second rate power.
17 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeSurely that is part of the equation for the West but that is not at odds with the desire to reduce Russian power as much as possible.
I think the need to control for instance the three major pipelines ( ... crude oil and natural gaz) that run through Georgia is of more weight in the present crises, both for the West ànd for Russia.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderAll right ... but Russia also wants to reduce the US's and the EU's power as much as possible. It works both ways ... of course.
Surely that is part of the equation for the West but that is not at odds with the desire to reduce Russian power as much as possible.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's well known that NATO wants Eastern Euro nations to be part of NATO because they are setting up an anti-missle system around Russia. A defensive system against Russian missles. Russia won't stand for this. They don't mind having offensive missles on the boarders with Euro nations though. And since America has never won a war i think it's best that Europe get their s**t together.
So would not being in such a rush to push membership of a military alliance to the borders of a great power. It might be "symbolic" but what it is signalling is that the West is being aggressive in its attempt to reduce Russia to a second rate power.
GRANNY
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by smw6869An anti-IBM system which threatens your nuclear deterrent is hardly "defensive". If such a system was reliable (it isn't) it would threaten the balance between the US and Russian nuclear arsenals making the Russians more vulnerable to a US first strike. Of course, the Russians are alarmed by the prospect of such a system on their borders; the US would be no less alarmed by a Russian ABM system being built in Canada and Mexico.
It's well known that NATO wants Eastern Euro nations to be part of NATO because they are setting up an anti-missle system around Russia. A defensive system against Russian missles. Russia won't stand for this. They don't mind having offensive missles on the boarders with Euro nations though. And since America has never won a war i think it's best that Europe get their s**t together.
GRANNY
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by uzlessCould it have anything at all to do with Bush trying to grab all the world's oil with the help of our Euro stooges? Russia, of course, isn't trying to get it's empire back. Now i get it.
Wake up y'all. This is all about the future, specifically, it's about energy.
There is only one reason to have a shield around Russia (which is what the ultimate design of the US missle defence shield is)
Think about it for more than 5 seconds.
GRANNY.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderRussia is already on the boarders of Euro nations. Why shouldn't the Euros be afraid. Why the hell does the US think they have to help protect Europe anyway? They can take care of themselves. If missles we in Canada and Mexico ...it would be a matter of who blinks first. We need a good negotiator. Is Chamberlain still around?
An anti-IBM system which threatens your nuclear deterrent is hardly "defensive". If such a system was reliable (it isn't) it would threaten the balance between the US and Russian nuclear arsenals making the Russians more vulnerable to a US first strike. Of course, the Russians are alarmed by the prospect of such a system on their borders; the US would be no less alarmed by a Russian ABM system being built in Canada and Mexico.
GRANNY.