Does NATO make the world more secure?


Norman 1 April, 2008, 15:24	While there are still nuclear weapons on Earth, the Cold War is history. Thus no need for another organisation, given that many former Warsaw Pact nations have joined the European Union and NATO. This looks like all of Europe against Russia. And since Russia is no longer a threat to peace and stability NATO attacks countries like Serbia. NATO, the big bully, is getting meaner and bigger. permalink quote +1 Norman
Austin 1 April, 2008, 15:25	No it doesn't, it has been upsetting the balance of world power since the end of the cold war. and even before then. There are checks and balances needed on this planet. NATO needs to be put back into check. permalink quote +1 Austin
Vijay Singh 1 April, 2008, 16:47	NATO today is like an amoeba, expanding for the sake of expansion. It is hated (even among the population of the NATO members), feared (especially by those that fear that they don't become the next Iraq or Afghanistan) and ridiculed (especially by the American public, who wonder about the gullibility of others willing to fight America's wars) It contributes little except to people's miseries/insecurities and aiding in snatching futures/hopes! However, the biggest problem it has presently is the lack of expendable HUMAN FODDER and thus carries on the search for new 'additions'. 'OLD EUROPE'.keep on hoping.for never will those Pentagon 'wallahs' stop (Neo)-conning you! And all new aspirants - raise them nice and strong, tell their mothers to forget about their sons, for they're about to make history.anyways.! Making the world more secure.FOR the future WASP American generations. Best of luck!! permalink quote +1 Vijay Singh
Vijay 1 April, 2008, 16:57	NATO today is on the road to becoming a rival of the UN. It presumes it has the power, diplomatic means, financial backing and military means to counter any opposing force/s, public opinion, common man's opposition and a general desire of the world's population to leave in peace. It has to do some serious introspection - and take some serious decisions - especially about who the REAL ENEMY is now and which are the DEPENDANTS, who can become 'dangerous liabilities' in the future! All answers are crystal clear if the mind is applied to them. permalink quote 0 Vijay
Malicai 1 April, 2008, 17:19	Russia and NATO, the age old war still rages. It is time for Russia to become a more than an outside commentator NATO and join the organization. However, Russia has no intention of joining because it would lose its scapegoat for any potential political woe that can be blamed against the west. Why must Russians look for a vertical of power instead of a brotherhood of nations? permalink quote 0 Malicai
DD 1 April, 2008, 20:43	Nato is one big coward military organisation. It proved to make the world more dangerous and insecure. It pretends to be strong, but what we have seen untill now is this organisation only attacking weak & defenceless countries without any respect of international law. But we all have seen how these coward members refuse to take any risk in Afghanistan. This nato's existance is doomed, especially because of it's expansion to the east, where some puppet governments beg to become nato member, not knowing it won't change a thing. There's NO western european country who would even consider to sacrifice their people nor materials to defend an new east european member! If Russia should threaten with war against any missile shield or Ukrainian nato membership, the nato alliance would stop to be a alliance very swiftly, simply because IT IS NOT WORTH IT to give up our good lives!! permalink quote 0 DD
Michael 1 April, 2008, 21:00	Nato should be disbanded unless it gets back to the conditions in its Charter, that is "DEFENDING" the N. Atlantic and not fighting for American oil/gas interests in the Middle East. permalink quote 0 Michael
johann 1 April, 2008, 21:43	NATO is far from being a "brotherhood of nations" If somebody really belives that is far from realities,just ask the relatives of fallen soldiers from Eastern Europe,fighting in Afganistan.With joining the NATO after '90 each country has gain nothing,even worst,they've lost they're teritorial integrity and soveranity.Since Dwight David Eisenhower the US is the commander-in-cheef over the NATO forces.Each new member is needed for the battlefront and by join,these countries are subordonated "for a greater will" in this case to US.But don't forget,history shows us that every big coallition(multinational)armies have parished : Alexander the Great,Napoleon,even Hitler,because they were fighting a war of conquer.The Europeans(some of them)are afraid because they had this experience.It is amasing how happy are the new countries to join,like it is about some sort of play full of joy.Now,in Bucharest they are drinking shampaign and are get drunk for a while,everybody will be jubillant a few days : "here are again few countries in the brotherhood" What next?The porpose of NATO is to "impose peace".Of course,with force. permalink quote 0 johann
Sanjay 1 April, 2008, 23:26	So long as NATO is alive it will be an existential threat to Russia. Europe will remain a galley slave to NATO, and international-financiers will continue to destroy europe and european-russian partnership and friendship. Russia joining NATO means that financiers will call all the shots in Russia and infiltrate Russian security structures to break-up russia, destroy russian society and capture its natural resources. For europe and russia to survive, NATO must be dissolved and an independent european security architecture has to be created in colaboration with Russia. permalink quote +2 Sanjay
Sanjay 2 April, 2008, 06:13	NATO is fast turning into the world's premier state-terror organization. Financiers from mainly one country, the United states are using NATO as a tool to pursue their fascist agenda to destroy eurasian civilizations, particularly europe and India. NATO is perhaps the greatest threat to european civilization and european security. NATO has turned europe from independent to dependent, from free continent to captive-laborer. Eastward expansion of NATO will only create discord between Europe and Russia and destroy european solidarity. Destruction of western civilization using NATO, anti-family socio-economic policies and reckless immigration seems to be the goal. What will wake-up europe, its hard to fathom. permalink quote 0 Sanjay
lenjin 2 April, 2008, 07:13	NATO WANTS A WAR . IS RUSSIA READY ?> permalink quote 0 lenjin
Regular_John 2 April, 2008, 08:03	President Bush seems hell bent on signing both Georgia and the Ukraine up for membership of NATO. He is as usual wrong on many different levels. As I do not have enough good years left to go through them all I will focus on these points. Georgia has not established the criteria needed for membership it states in the NATO charter that prospective members must have clear sovereignty over their established boarders. Georgia does not they are currently in conflict with both South Ossetia and Abkhazia until this is resolved they must be excluded from even talks about membership. Ukraine does not have the necessary consensus of either its people or Politicians as we all know the people of eastern Ukraine consider themselves to be Russian and are fiercely opposed to NATO membership. Because of this deep divide within Ukrainian society membership cannot be considered. Another point I would like to raise is that I do not understand why this organisation seems to want to expand it was originally established as a united force to oppose the Warsaw pact this threat ended nearly 20 years ago and rather than a reduction in size which logic would dictate it is still growing breaking promises made to Russia on expansion into eastern Europe because of this you can understand Russia’s fears and concerns. One last point with all these Countries now part of NATO it seems ironic to me that so few actually play an active part in NATO operation even powerful nations like France and Germany head for the Exit when ever action is called for. With this in mind one has to ask the question….what’s the point. permalink quote 0 Regular_John
Sevodnya_Net 2 April, 2008, 11:05	In response to Regular John's comments, it's ironic that Georgia, which as he says does not strictly meet the criteria for NATO membership, actually commands popular support for joining, whereas Ukraine, which as a matter of fact is a keen and regular supporter of NATO in terms of manpower and resources for operations, sees a majority against. I don't think it's fair to say that Eastern Ukrainians regard themselves as Russian (look at the number of Ukrainian flags at a Shakhtar Donetsk game!) and you'll find as many opponents of the alliance in Lviv. Rather I think opposition to NATO is based more on suspicion of the west in general and the view that NATO might interfere with Ukrainian sovereignty. Contrast the attitude of the Georgians who I think mistakenly believe that NATO will help them re-gain control over their territory. Its correct that Russia should not have a veto over these states' membership but it's also right that those states examine the reasons for wanting to join. If that process leads to a general assessment of the role of NATO in the world then that would be no bad thing. George Bush hasn't done enough to reassure Russia of NATO's intentions and it is vital that his successor does a better job in this regard. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
SrpskiCrnogorac 2 April, 2008, 21:11	"George Bush hasn't done enough to reassure Russia of NATO's intentions and it is vital that his successor does a better job in this regard." This sounds as if you would have an idea about its intentions which could reassure Russia. What could be the role of a military organization, which breaks its own charter and fights illegal wars? But don´t worry, after Serbia fought the islamist expansion and the Nazis, we will also fight this scum. permalink quote +1 SrpskiCrnogorac
Elena 2 April, 2008, 21:31	I'm living in the country organizing the NATO summit and I can tell you that only our politicians are "getting drunk" with the event. They are being financed by USA and they couldn't care less about our people. It almost feels like a nightmare, no way out. permalink quote 0 Elena
misha 3 April, 2008, 00:26	During a recent meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Putin made an extremely important statement: "Under modern conditions, when there is no longer confrontation between two hostile systems, an endless expansion of the military and political alliance is not only impractical, but counterproductive," he said. Putin certainly gets a receptive audience for such sentiments in Germany and elsewhere in continental Europe. People there are tired of the decades long confrontation between the west and Russia and they are looking to turn the page. The main feature of the Cold War was the confrontation between the US and its allies (represented by NATO) and Russia and its allies (represented by the Warsaw Pact). That confrontation had certain elements of basic economic, political and military competition, such as have existed in the relations between the world's main powers for centuries. But the most important aspect of the Cold War was certainly the deep ideological confrontation between global communism and western capitalism. It was this ideological dimension that allowed the US to assume the high moral ground (rightly or wrongly) and claim to be the world's "defender of freedom" fighting the good fight against the godless evil empire and its drones. Of course now the USSR no longer exists and in its place 15 independent republics emerged, with Russia being but one of those republics. The Warsaw Pact is nothing but a distant memory. So the obvious question then is what should be the role of NATO, now that its main adversary (and its raison d'être) no longer exists? It would be absurd to view NATO as an alliance of every country in Europe (and beyond) against one country, namely Russia. If there is no longer an overarching ideological struggle between two competing systems, then what would such an alliance against Russia be based on? Russian ethnicity? Russian culture? The Orthodox religion? Russia is at a crossroads and it must make strategic decisions which will affect its future direction for the foreseeable future. Russia is not only a European country but a Eurasian country, and the majority of Russia's territory is east of the Urals, in Asia. One possible outcome is that Russia could align itself in a strategic partnership with fast-rising China. China is hungry for energy and other natural resources, which Russia has plenty of. If Russia definitively turns its back on the West then who will be to blame? Who could even blame Russia, when its interests and its sincere protests and concerns are continually ignored and trampled upon by the western powers, again and again and again? In the movie Dawn of the Dead all the zombies go to the shopping mall; now that they are dead they don't know what else to do except to keep the same old habits that they had when they were still alive. It would be fair to say that those in the United States who still want to pursue a conflict with Russia are determined to continue to wage the Cold War simply out of habit if for no other reason, even though the ideological basis for such a struggle has disappeared from the stage of world history. How are aggressive and militaristic statements by American presidential candidates helpful in fostering better relations? How is it useful to blatantly disregard the sincere concerns that Russia has expressed about expanding NATO right to Russia's doorstep and basing American missiles directly on Russia's border? Russia has long proposed a strategic partnership between NATO and Russia if not outright Russian membership in that organization. The simple fact is that in many areas there is a strong overlap of interests between the west and Russia, such as in fighting terrorism (which has been directed against Russia as much as anyone) and containing Chinese military expansion. But Russia cannot pursue closer relations with a NATO that is envisioned in the west as an intractable opponent of Moscow. Western leaders never miss a chance to declare again that NATO is no threat to Russia and Russia should not be concerned by NATO's continued expansion (all around Russia's periphery). But actions speak louder than words. What reason has Russia been given to believe that NATO is anything other than an anti-Russian club? Those in the west who envision NATO as an alliance against Russia are guilty of "waging the last war" (if only in their heads and if only with tin soldiers). There seems to be a failure of leadership in certain quarters in the the west, which is characterized by the failure to grasp the significance of the profound changes which have taken place in the world. The challenges and opportunities of today are not the challenges and opportunities of yesterday. Western leaders need to understand these changes and grasp of the opportunities that are present now, instead of just replaying the same old tread-worn "glory days" tape over and over. Clearly Bush would would not be so boisterous unless some back-room deal had already been done to put Georgia and Ukraine on the path to NATO admission. Bush would not subject himself to such a risk of public humiliation if his proposal failed. One the one hand Bush is raging that "Russia can't veto Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership," but on the other hand there is all sorts of buzz about a big comprehensive security deal in the works between the US and Russia, which will see strategic cooperation on missile defense, Afghanistan and in other areas. Bush will be meeting with President Putin very shortly in the Black Sea resort city (and site of the 2012 Olympics) Sochi, Russia. Above post was originally published on my blog: http://mishasrussiablog.blogspot.com/ permalink quote 0 misha
Nick 3 April, 2008, 00:29	I have to say that a lot comments seem to based on the deep rooted fear of the west and western expansion which seem in the 21st century to me, outdated. NATO is not an organisation against russia. Why do many russians see it as such? permalink quote 0 Nick
punky 3 April, 2008, 02:49	In response to Sevognya_Net: "I don't think it's fair to say that Eastern Ukrainians regard themselves as Russian (look at the number of Ukrainian flags at a Shakhtar Donetsk game!) and you'll find as many opponents of the alliance in Lviv." Well, we actually not only regard ourselves as Russian, but we are Russian. A lot of us work in Russia and travel back and forth on daily bases. Ukraine joining NATO would cost people losing their jobs and trying to pass strict visa restrictions which would be imposed from the both sides of the border. Moreover, Moscow would point their nuclear heads on their own people in order to maintain and protect Russia's borders since you can control all Russia from the Ukrainian territory. Now, back to our topic: No, NATO does not make the world more secure? NATO only protects the interests of the USA and nobody else. It's a money making machine which under the pretext of protecting the world, is bombing civilians and calls that "a humanitarian and democratic campaign". It's a land grabbing tai-fun that wants to escalate a war in Europe and has just created an artificial state in the middle of the Balkans (Kosovo) and wants to unleash the wave of terrorism by pushing the Albanian Islamic Radicals into the EU. And this will, indeed, make the world a safer place! My question is: How much will Europeans endure under the economical and political rape of the USA and NATO, respectively?? NATO should be "closed down". permalink quote 0 punky
Tiane 3 April, 2008, 04:40	NATO is a strategic tool of US to get ransom of peace and resources of those weak states, and member states of NATO will only become slave of US, as USD will buy those armforces of those weak member states to fight for US interests including super ower status, gas, oil, and . It is absolutely a ganster, rober and being harmful for this world. permalink quote 0 Tiane
ROBERT (U.S.) 3 April, 2008, 05:18	Well when a protection Institution is trying to create its own demand in the world it will meet its agenda. However as we have seen with the fall of Rome.This protection institutions whether private or goverment start to become very corrupt and super taxs its clients and then deminish its protection agreements. Then these protection institutions need to refocus there agendas or fall like Rome did. Yes NATO as a protection institution will make the world more secure as long as it maintains its agenda. Russia wants to be a stagnant Sociaty but the world will not allow Russia to be a stagnant sociaty. permalink quote 0 ROBERT (U.S.)

Norman 1 April, 2008, 15:24

While there are still nuclear weapons on Earth, the Cold War is history. Thus no need for another organisation, given that many former Warsaw Pact nations have joined the European Union and NATO. This looks like all of Europe against Russia. And since Russia is no longer a threat to peace and stability NATO attacks countries like Serbia. NATO, the big bully, is getting meaner and bigger.

permalink quote Norman

Austin 1 April, 2008, 15:25

No it doesn't, it has been upsetting the balance of world power since the end of the cold war. and even before then. There are checks and balances needed on this planet. NATO needs to be put back into check.

permalink quote Austin

Vijay Singh 1 April, 2008, 16:47

NATO today is like an amoeba, expanding for the sake of expansion. It is hated (even among the population of the NATO members), feared (especially by those that fear that they don't become the next Iraq or Afghanistan) and ridiculed (especially by the American public, who wonder about the gullibility of others willing to fight America's wars) It contributes little except to people's miseries/insecurities and aiding in snatching futures/hopes! However, the biggest problem it has presently is the lack of expendable HUMAN FODDER and thus carries on the search for new 'additions'. 'OLD EUROPE'.keep on hoping.for never will those Pentagon 'wallahs' stop (Neo)-conning you! And all new aspirants - raise them nice and strong, tell their mothers to forget about their sons, for they're about to make history.anyways.! Making the world more secure.FOR the future WASP American generations. Best of luck!!

permalink quote Vijay Singh

Vijay 1 April, 2008, 16:57

NATO today is on the road to becoming a rival of the UN. It presumes it has the power, diplomatic means, financial backing and military means to counter any opposing force/s, public opinion, common man's opposition and a general desire of the world's population to leave in peace. It has to do some serious introspection - and take some serious decisions - especially about who the REAL ENEMY is now and which are the DEPENDANTS, who can become 'dangerous liabilities' in the future! All answers are crystal clear if the mind is applied to them.

permalink quote Vijay

Malicai 1 April, 2008, 17:19

Russia and NATO, the age old war still rages. It is time for Russia to become a more than an outside commentator NATO and join the organization. However, Russia has no intention of joining because it would lose its scapegoat for any potential political woe that can be blamed against the west. Why must Russians look for a vertical of power instead of a brotherhood of nations?

permalink quote Malicai

DD 1 April, 2008, 20:43

Nato is one big coward military organisation. It proved to make the world more dangerous and insecure. It pretends to be strong, but what we have seen untill now is this organisation only attacking weak & defenceless countries without any respect of international law. But we all have seen how these coward members refuse to take any risk in Afghanistan. This nato's existance is doomed, especially because of it's expansion to the east, where some puppet governments beg to become nato member, not knowing it won't change a thing. There's NO western european country who would even consider to sacrifice their people nor materials to defend an new east european member! If Russia should threaten with war against any missile shield or Ukrainian nato membership, the nato alliance would stop to be a alliance very swiftly, simply because IT IS NOT WORTH IT to give up our good lives!!

permalink quote DD

Michael 1 April, 2008, 21:00

Nato should be disbanded unless it gets back to the conditions in its Charter, that is "DEFENDING" the N. Atlantic and not fighting for American oil/gas interests in the Middle East.

permalink quote Michael

johann 1 April, 2008, 21:43

NATO is far from being a "brotherhood of nations" If somebody really belives that is far from realities,just ask the relatives of fallen soldiers from Eastern Europe,fighting in Afganistan.With joining the NATO after '90 each country has gain nothing,even worst,they've lost they're teritorial integrity and soveranity.Since Dwight David Eisenhower the US is the commander-in-cheef over the NATO forces.Each new member is needed for the battlefront and by join,these countries are subordonated "for a greater will" in this case to US.But don't forget,history shows us that every big coallition(multinational)armies have parished : Alexander the Great,Napoleon,even Hitler,because they were fighting a war of conquer.The Europeans(some of them)are afraid because they had this experience.It is amasing how happy are the new countries to join,like it is about some sort of play full of joy.Now,in Bucharest they are drinking shampaign and are get drunk for a while,everybody will be jubillant a few days : "here are again few countries in the brotherhood" What next?The porpose of NATO is to "impose peace".Of course,with force.

permalink quote johann

Sanjay 1 April, 2008, 23:26

So long as NATO is alive it will be an existential threat to Russia. Europe will remain a galley slave to NATO, and international-financiers will continue to destroy europe and european-russian partnership and friendship. Russia joining NATO means that financiers will call all the shots in Russia and infiltrate Russian security structures to break-up russia, destroy russian society and capture its natural resources. For europe and russia to survive, NATO must be dissolved and an independent european security architecture has to be created in colaboration with Russia.

permalink quote Sanjay

Sanjay 2 April, 2008, 06:13

NATO is fast turning into the world's premier state-terror organization. Financiers from mainly one country, the United states are using NATO as a tool to pursue their fascist agenda to destroy eurasian civilizations, particularly europe and India. NATO is perhaps the greatest threat to european civilization and european security. NATO has turned europe from independent to dependent, from free continent to captive-laborer. Eastward expansion of NATO will only create discord between Europe and Russia and destroy european solidarity. Destruction of western civilization using NATO, anti-family socio-economic policies and reckless immigration seems to be the goal. What will wake-up europe, its hard to fathom.

permalink quote Sanjay

lenjin 2 April, 2008, 07:13

NATO WANTS A WAR . IS RUSSIA READY ?>

permalink quote lenjin

Regular_John 2 April, 2008, 08:03

President Bush seems hell bent on signing both Georgia and the Ukraine up for membership of NATO. He is as usual wrong on many different levels. As I do not have enough good years left to go through them all I will focus on these points. Georgia has not established the criteria needed for membership it states in the NATO charter that prospective members must have clear sovereignty over their established boarders. Georgia does not they are currently in conflict with both South Ossetia and Abkhazia until this is resolved they must be excluded from even talks about membership. Ukraine does not have the necessary consensus of either its people or Politicians as we all know the people of eastern Ukraine consider themselves to be Russian and are fiercely opposed to NATO membership. Because of this deep divide within Ukrainian society membership cannot be considered. Another point I would like to raise is that I do not understand why this organisation seems to want to expand it was originally established as a united force to oppose the Warsaw pact this threat ended nearly 20 years ago and rather than a reduction in size which logic would dictate it is still growing breaking promises made to Russia on expansion into eastern Europe because of this you can understand Russia’s fears and concerns. One last point with all these Countries now part of NATO it seems ironic to me that so few actually play an active part in NATO operation even powerful nations like France and Germany head for the Exit when ever action is called for. With this in mind one has to ask the question….what’s the point.

permalink quote Regular_John

Sevodnya_Net 2 April, 2008, 11:05

In response to Regular John's comments, it's ironic that Georgia, which as he says does not strictly meet the criteria for NATO membership, actually commands popular support for joining, whereas Ukraine, which as a matter of fact is a keen and regular supporter of NATO in terms of manpower and resources for operations, sees a majority against. I don't think it's fair to say that Eastern Ukrainians regard themselves as Russian (look at the number of Ukrainian flags at a Shakhtar Donetsk game!) and you'll find as many opponents of the alliance in Lviv. Rather I think opposition to NATO is based more on suspicion of the west in general and the view that NATO might interfere with Ukrainian sovereignty. Contrast the attitude of the Georgians who I think mistakenly believe that NATO will help them re-gain control over their territory. Its correct that Russia should not have a veto over these states' membership but it's also right that those states examine the reasons for wanting to join. If that process leads to a general assessment of the role of NATO in the world then that would be no bad thing. George Bush hasn't done enough to reassure Russia of NATO's intentions and it is vital that his successor does a better job in this regard.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

SrpskiCrnogorac 2 April, 2008, 21:11

"George Bush hasn't done enough to reassure Russia of NATO's intentions and it is vital that his successor does a better job in this regard." This sounds as if you would have an idea about its intentions which could reassure Russia. What could be the role of a military organization, which breaks its own charter and fights illegal wars? But don´t worry, after Serbia fought the islamist expansion and the Nazis, we will also fight this scum.

permalink quote SrpskiCrnogorac

Elena 2 April, 2008, 21:31

I'm living in the country organizing the NATO summit and I can tell you that only our politicians are "getting drunk" with the event. They are being financed by USA and they couldn't care less about our people. It almost feels like a nightmare, no way out.

permalink quote Elena

misha 3 April, 2008, 00:26

During a recent meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Putin made an extremely important statement: "Under modern conditions, when there is no longer confrontation between two hostile systems, an endless expansion of the military and political alliance is not only impractical, but counterproductive," he said. Putin certainly gets a receptive audience for such sentiments in Germany and elsewhere in continental Europe. People there are tired of the decades long confrontation between the west and Russia and they are looking to turn the page. The main feature of the Cold War was the confrontation between the US and its allies (represented by NATO) and Russia and its allies (represented by the Warsaw Pact). That confrontation had certain elements of basic economic, political and military competition, such as have existed in the relations between the world's main powers for centuries. But the most important aspect of the Cold War was certainly the deep ideological confrontation between global communism and western capitalism. It was this ideological dimension that allowed the US to assume the high moral ground (rightly or wrongly) and claim to be the world's "defender of freedom" fighting the good fight against the godless evil empire and its drones. Of course now the USSR no longer exists and in its place 15 independent republics emerged, with Russia being but one of those republics. The Warsaw Pact is nothing but a distant memory. So the obvious question then is what should be the role of NATO, now that its main adversary (and its raison d'être) no longer exists? It would be absurd to view NATO as an alliance of every country in Europe (and beyond) against one country, namely Russia. If there is no longer an overarching ideological struggle between two competing systems, then what would such an alliance against Russia be based on? Russian ethnicity? Russian culture? The Orthodox religion? Russia is at a crossroads and it must make strategic decisions which will affect its future direction for the foreseeable future. Russia is not only a European country but a Eurasian country, and the majority of Russia's territory is east of the Urals, in Asia. One possible outcome is that Russia could align itself in a strategic partnership with fast-rising China. China is hungry for energy and other natural resources, which Russia has plenty of. If Russia definitively turns its back on the West then who will be to blame? Who could even blame Russia, when its interests and its sincere protests and concerns are continually ignored and trampled upon by the western powers, again and again and again? In the movie Dawn of the Dead all the zombies go to the shopping mall; now that they are dead they don't know what else to do except to keep the same old habits that they had when they were still alive. It would be fair to say that those in the United States who still want to pursue a conflict with Russia are determined to continue to wage the Cold War simply out of habit if for no other reason, even though the ideological basis for such a struggle has disappeared from the stage of world history. How are aggressive and militaristic statements by American presidential candidates helpful in fostering better relations? How is it useful to blatantly disregard the sincere concerns that Russia has expressed about expanding NATO right to Russia's doorstep and basing American missiles directly on Russia's border? Russia has long proposed a strategic partnership between NATO and Russia if not outright Russian membership in that organization. The simple fact is that in many areas there is a strong overlap of interests between the west and Russia, such as in fighting terrorism (which has been directed against Russia as much as anyone) and containing Chinese military expansion. But Russia cannot pursue closer relations with a NATO that is envisioned in the west as an intractable opponent of Moscow. Western leaders never miss a chance to declare again that NATO is no threat to Russia and Russia should not be concerned by NATO's continued expansion (all around Russia's periphery). But actions speak louder than words. What reason has Russia been given to believe that NATO is anything other than an anti-Russian club? Those in the west who envision NATO as an alliance against Russia are guilty of "waging the last war" (if only in their heads and if only with tin soldiers). There seems to be a failure of leadership in certain quarters in the the west, which is characterized by the failure to grasp the significance of the profound changes which have taken place in the world. The challenges and opportunities of today are not the challenges and opportunities of yesterday. Western leaders need to understand these changes and grasp of the opportunities that are present now, instead of just replaying the same old tread-worn "glory days" tape over and over. Clearly Bush would would not be so boisterous unless some back-room deal had already been done to put Georgia and Ukraine on the path to NATO admission. Bush would not subject himself to such a risk of public humiliation if his proposal failed. One the one hand Bush is raging that "Russia can't veto Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership," but on the other hand there is all sorts of buzz about a big comprehensive security deal in the works between the US and Russia, which will see strategic cooperation on missile defense, Afghanistan and in other areas. Bush will be meeting with President Putin very shortly in the Black Sea resort city (and site of the 2012 Olympics) Sochi, Russia. Above post was originally published on my blog: http://mishasrussiablog.blogspot.com/

permalink quote misha

Nick 3 April, 2008, 00:29

I have to say that a lot comments seem to based on the deep rooted fear of the west and western expansion which seem in the 21st century to me, outdated. NATO is not an organisation against russia. Why do many russians see it as such?

permalink quote Nick

punky 3 April, 2008, 02:49

In response to Sevognya_Net: "I don't think it's fair to say that Eastern Ukrainians regard themselves as Russian (look at the number of Ukrainian flags at a Shakhtar Donetsk game!) and you'll find as many opponents of the alliance in Lviv." Well, we actually not only regard ourselves as Russian, but we are Russian. A lot of us work in Russia and travel back and forth on daily bases. Ukraine joining NATO would cost people losing their jobs and trying to pass strict visa restrictions which would be imposed from the both sides of the border. Moreover, Moscow would point their nuclear heads on their own people in order to maintain and protect Russia's borders since you can control all Russia from the Ukrainian territory. Now, back to our topic: No, NATO does not make the world more secure? NATO only protects the interests of the USA and nobody else. It's a money making machine which under the pretext of protecting the world, is bombing civilians and calls that "a humanitarian and democratic campaign". It's a land grabbing tai-fun that wants to escalate a war in Europe and has just created an artificial state in the middle of the Balkans (Kosovo) and wants to unleash the wave of terrorism by pushing the Albanian Islamic Radicals into the EU. And this will, indeed, make the world a safer place! My question is: How much will Europeans endure under the economical and political rape of the USA and NATO, respectively?? NATO should be "closed down".

permalink quote punky

Tiane 3 April, 2008, 04:40

NATO is a strategic tool of US to get ransom of peace and resources of those weak states, and member states of NATO will only become slave of US, as USD will buy those armforces of those weak member states to fight for US interests including super ower status, gas, oil, and . It is absolutely a ganster, rober and being harmful for this world.

permalink quote Tiane

ROBERT (U.S.) 3 April, 2008, 05:18

Well when a protection Institution is trying to create its own demand in the world it will meet its agenda. However as we have seen with the fall of Rome.This protection institutions whether private or goverment start to become very corrupt and super taxs its clients and then deminish its protection agreements. Then these protection institutions need to refocus there agendas or fall like Rome did. Yes NATO as a protection institution will make the world more secure as long as it maintains its agenda. Russia wants to be a stagnant Sociaty but the world will not allow Russia to be a stagnant sociaty.

permalink quote ROBERT (U.S.)

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields