VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД
live

Schedule Where to Watch 

breakingnews
Go to main page   Community   Forums   Top News   Does NATO make the world more secure?  
   
Does NATO make the world more secure?
Vijay 4 April, 2008, 07:23 There's one thing even the Pentagon accepts - that it is impossible if not suicidal to engage Russia or any other country in a conventional Nuclear war and win.unless conditions are created for a combined effort - Overt and covert. For as and when the threat of war will be conjured up,of course in the name of granting democratic freedoms and emancipation from virtual slavery (it should be actually from their puppet slave governments)to all these nations along the periphery of Russia, preparations will be made to launch covert operations into Russia, with or W/O the cooperation of 'democratic forces' within Russia itself.together with an all out Nuclear attack! This will strive to destabilize RF from within as well as seek to destroy Russia from without! These Neo-[CONcentration] campers will try every trick in their armory - Offering partner status to China (after giving them a choice, its either Russia or you [Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan]being touted as threats) They already seek to divide India (offering it the US strategic partnership) and China (by not encouraging it to settle all disputes with its neighbors), Russian people with Ukrainian/Georgian peoples (by installing anti-people Governments/dictators in those places), and efforts are underway in Latin America, Africa and Oceania. The greatest fear of these campers - the day India, China, Russia/CIS and Europe shall form that natural bonds that ensure security and stability for all individually and collectively. For together - all these components have everything - Human/Economic/natural resources in abundance, Human resources, agriculturally fallow land and advanced technology. For the day it is realized that a strong /stable Russia ensures a S/S Germany/Europe or China.OR vice versa, then only the light at the end of the tunnel would be seen. For nothing deters these 'seekers', for already some 'patriotic' commentators have started to dub Angela Merkel as a traitor to NATO.and hoping that she'll turn-back sooner than later! Not forgetting that only a day has passed since some decisions were taken. For what did they expect, that Germany or France send their tanks to defend Sakashvilli's regime or Timoshenko's 'gas' millions??
quote
0
Igor 4 April, 2008, 07:34 Sanjay made some good points in his post on April 3, 2008, 20:31, however although he does mention words like PLAN I still think that he didn't emphasize clearly enough the difference between American PLANS and American CAPABILITIES. One thing is to dream sweet dreams and a completely different thing is to make dreams come true. By the way, Hitler also dreamed sweet dreams, and many westerners before him dreamed the same dreams about Russia too, but we all know how all these dreams finished and what happened to the dreamers. More and more westerners attacked Russia and the Slavs, more and more new territories Russians and Slavs got. Speaking about Hitler, apparently Hitler's skull is somewhere in Russia. Now about realities: First, Russian nuclear missiles can hit ANY point in the world from ANY point inside Russia. Of course, that is without even mentioning Shkvall and Bulava equipped submarines and space crafts. Even if we seriously take a possibility that Americans bring their nuclear attacking arsenal close to Russian borders it does not imply that they could destroy lethal potential of the Russian missiles before they are activated. Russia is the biggest country in the world, and placing American rockets even on the border itself is like hitting a target 6000 km away. That distance is like targeting American cities from inside Russia across Arctic, what is very realistic. Plus in addition to this, the offensive weapons and bases would be closely monitored and any firing from them would be fast detected. In that sense eventual hitting Moscow 10 or 20 minutes before New York or Los Angeles gets destroyed does not matter anything. Retaliation is for certain, as is total annihilation of the aggressor. Second, in a large scale nuclear holocaust when, as Sanjay say, some people dream of "destroying almost all Russian population", Geneva convention and other similar papers worth less than toilet paper. That means there would be no "first attack nuclear bases - spare civilians" doctrine but vice versa - any aggressor on Russia would be facing total annihilation of its population since in a large scale nuclear war like WW3 there would be no civilians. In such scale wars armies do not fight between each other but the whole nations, who equip their armies. That means the first Russian counterattack would not be targeted on the possible American military bases in Poland or Czechia but instead on New York, Los Angeles, Washington and many other large cities. In a few days the nations would cease to exist and there would be no one to equip their armies. Total annihilation of all the population was, is and shall be the deterrence and nightmares for all those dreamers dreaming sweet dreams about Russian natural resources. Third, like in many wars before all the useful things (resources, factories, railways) the aggressor might get his hands on would be destroyed before eventual Russian retreating. This means Russia shall install nuclear weapons close to its natural resources sending clear message to potential aggressors that they shall never get the resources even if the price for that is their total destruction. That means any aggression won't pay off. Forth, Russia is the No. 1 nuclear power in the world, and shall maintain this position. Its nuclear might alone can destroy the whole world, so that afterwards even bacteria would not survive (those places which would not be directly hit would soon die from radiation poisoning). In addition even according to the western scientists Russian rocket technologies are at least a decade ahead of the western counterparts. Also Russia would use its chemical and biological weapons and use it together with nuclear weapons. Drinking water wold be poisoned and those not yet killed with nuclear attack or nuclear radiation would die from hunger, poisoning or illness. Fifth, price of oil and gas start to erode American economy. USA is not rich enough to start WW3. Even small scale wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan cost the Americans too much, price they cannot afford any longer or they shall bankrupt. And it is very certain that Americans shall not be able to start any new even regional war on credit, since neither China nor anyone else shall lend them money any longer. Sixth, having price of oil and gas going to heavens USA becomes weaker and weaker while Russia, Iran, and other countries get stronger and stronger. This means that time works for Russia. However the westerners didn't dare to attack Russia 10 or 15 years ago when Russia was really economically weak, although they were testing Russian deterrence capabilities. Now they shall not dream of attacking Russia tomorrow, since Russia shall go stronger and stronger, while the Western power shall fade day by day, as we are already witnessing. Seventh, Russia is not the only country with natural resources, and countries having resources (and this means pretty much all the countries in the world) shall protect themselves with nuclear weapons, especially after the Kosovo precedent which clearly demonstrated that international laws cannot protect anyone in the world anymore. Iran is just the beginning and all the oil/gas countries shall soon follow (Egypt, Algeria, Libya, and many, many others while Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan are already under Russian nuclear umbrella). All these natural resource rich countries' interests converge. In other words fight against Russia for resources would not be fight against only Russia but also against Iran, all the Arab countries etc. No one can fight the whole world since all the countries have resources of some kind (e.g. water which shall be more and more expensive). Eighth, Russia is not the only country with natural resources, neither America is the only country wanting resources. China and India also need resources, and these countries, together with Russia, do not allow Yanks even to think about attacking Iran, since they also need resources. No one shall allow Americans to usurp the whole world. Ninth, Sanjay's post somehow forgets the people factor. His correct and good description of American PLANS and DREAMS does not reflect the reality of the people both in USA and in (Slavic) countries where Americans wish to install their rockets. According to both Poland/Czech and western sources absolute majority of people in both Poland and Czechia do not want American military installations in their countries. In the same way absolute majority of people in Ukraine does not want Ukraine in NATO. And all that even today without any war! Now, how do the dreams Sanjay very nicely described sound realistic if they assume Americans could fire nuclear weapons on Russia not from Florida or California but from a place in Poland or Czechia or Ukraine? In case of even only a threat of a WW3 the Americans would be shown way out in both Poland, Czechia, and all that not (only) for the sake of Slavic solidarity but for the elementary sake of staying alive. Speaking about the people factor all the history shows that majority of the Slavic peoples in really dangerous situations stick together. I am a Croat, a Slavic people in Balkans, and history of the Slavic peoples in the Balkans also show that majority of the people will side with Mother Russia, especially in cases Russia is not aggressor but instead a victim of an aggression. Americans would not fight only Russians but also at least half of Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Belorussians, Ukrainians. Speaking about the people factor, what would be morale of the Americans to wage an aggressive war on a country whose people defend their children and their own country? American fascist elite is already facing riots without even attacking Iran, not to mention attacking Russia and WW3! They would be eaten by their own people before they would even start to contemplate about any aggression on Russia. Last but not least - Tenth, Americans got rich by importing (stealing) other countries' human (scientists, artists etc.) and natural resources. American culture owes its strength to all the peoples of the world. However Americans make only 5% of the world population. If we add to this 5% all the western countries, the West makes 10% - 15% of the world. History of the world showed that the humankind can survive without 10% or 15% of people however it cannot survive without 90% of people. Either the western peoples shall decide to live together with all the other free nations of the world by obeying the same rules of the international laws and the international order, or they shall be wiped out. It is up to them to decide.
quote
0
Berlogin 4 April, 2008, 09:13 The defensive antimissile NATO infrastructure in Poland, Czechia or elsewhere can be easily transformed into missile launching sites. No one would like to be surrounded by bases of a military alliance, which views your country at best as a competitor. Would you like Russian nuclear missiles at Kaliningrad, intercontinental ballistic missiles at Russian far east and Kuril Islands? Russian nuclear submarine fleet, say, in Cuba? Seems like that is the ultimate goal of NATO policy.
quote
0
Sevodnya_Net 4 April, 2008, 13:06 "If you have family and loved ones killed both by NATO and Al Queda. Both are one and the same to you, i.e. your enemy. What's funny or difficult to understand about that? " I can understand that some people might hold NATO and Al Qaeda in equal contempt for the reasons you state but it doesn't mean that they are similar. And to Fred, as I admitted there are lots of questions to be asked about NATO's role in the world, and people are asking them, but in answer to RT's question it is hard to see how the world would be safer without NATO.
quote
0
Marzipan6 4 April, 2008, 14:39 NATO certainly makes Eastern Europe more secure. And it will continue to for as long as Russia: • Is a country where the rule of law does not really apply; • Continues to limit free speech and the unhindered application of democracy at home; • Continues to find it much easier to have friendly relations with despotic regimes than with democratic ones; • Has not worked out whether it is a country, an empire or an ideology; • Continues to use trade as a weapon with which to hit its neighbours over the head; • Continues to grossly interfere in the internal affairs of its ominously-named “near abroad”; • Continues to be in the profoundest denial of the criminality of its own Soviet history, continues to ridiculously tout itself as the liberator of half or Europe rather than acknowledges that it was its totalitarian oppressor; • Continues to refuse to seek reconciliation with so many of its neighbours whom Russians repressed through the Soviet era. For as long as there is such a Russia, its neighbours are in clear need of security. NATO provides it for them – or more accurately, they provide it for each other within the framework of NATO. It is entirely disengenuous for Russia to be winking and blinking at the world in mock astonishment and claim that it has no idea why any of its neighbours should feel the least bit anxious for their security.
quote
0
Georgiy 4 April, 2008, 17:29 As a citizen of Russia I view NATO expansion as a potential threat. The defensive antimissile NATO infrastructure in eastern Europe can be easily transformed into missile launching sites, along with Ukraine and Georgia. I don’t think that citizens of EU will welcome Russian nuclear missiles at Kaliningrad, nor would Americans be happy to find one day Russian nuclear submarine bases, say, in Venezuela or Cuba. But I’m sure this can be an adequate response to NATO’s aggressive policy.
quote
0
Dusan 4 April, 2008, 17:47 No!!! Look what they did to Serbia!!! They have a goal to make the world an unsafe place so they can send their troops in the region!!!
quote
0
LATIEF 4 April, 2008, 19:05 I AM AGAINST NATO EXPANSION AND MISSILE DEFENSE PLANS THAT WILL THREATEN RUSSIA.THIS WILL ONLY MAKE THE WORLD MORE UNSAFE.
quote
0
Sevodnya_Net 4 April, 2008, 20:10 Punky "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." Not that I support Ukraine joining NATO - that's up to the people of Ukraine (interestingly most of NATO member countries did not have the luxury of a referendum, but no matter) With respect however, what you say is nonetheless open to serious question. If Ukraine joined the EU it would possibly imply visa restrictions, but not NATO, surely. I'm not saying that that is an argument in favour of joining NATO, I'm just stating a fact . And if anyone lost their job in Russia as a result of NATO membership would that be the fault of NATO or Ukraine or Russian spite and paranoia? Try to think about it honestly. Believe me, I don't bang the drum for NATO. As I say I think the best that can be said about it is that it would not help anyone if it was dismantled, but some of the arguments propounded on here are really bringing out the George Bush in me. I think it's time I had a holiday :-)
quote
0
misha 4 April, 2008, 22:38 Sanjay wrote, "I think the americans are planning to destroy almost all russian population to the west of urals with this first strike, and take away the rich mineral resources to the east of urals." Russia will give Siberia to China before it lets the West have it.
quote
0
misha 4 April, 2008, 22:54 IP wrote, "NATO, to my disappointment is currently led by the US, however Mr Bush only has few months in his office and is NOT terribly popular back home and in other countries." And what pray tell will happen in January of 2009, when Bush leaves office, which will somehow remove NATO from US control? Bush may be hated or loved in the world, but to tell the truth that's irrelevant, as long as the American president (whomever he or she may be) is respected and feared. Remember that NATO's savage bombing of Serbia for 89 days in 1999 was done under President Bill Clinton. You make too much of the personality in charge of the US war machine at the moment (whether he or she is "likable" or not); but the fact is that really doesn't matter. US imperialism is driven by heavy objective forces, which are quite independent of who is in office at the moment. On the eve of the NATO attack against Serbia Bill Clinton said "war comes with the job," and he knew that when he signed up.
quote
0
Sanjay 4 April, 2008, 23:40 Two Myths 1. When Bush administration leaves things will become better, NATO will stop, and russia-US will be on a tree, kissing and enjoying a new sun rise. Reality: US actions towards NATO and Russia are policy driven and are independent of who comes to power. Obama will be just as hostile to Russia, perhaps more. International financiers will use Obama's color as the sheep's clothing to build an angel US image around the world while simultaneously demonizing and isolating russia. Russian financial system will be under severe attack from financiers, inflation and human-trafficking, joblessness and despair will increase. At any rate population will continue to age and decrease at an alarming rate. Obama will pursue NATO expansion even more aggressively than Bush. 2. Russia will be able to thwart the attack and Venezuela, Cuba and god knows how many other banana republics will have russian radars and missiles Reality: Nonsense. Venezuela, Cuba are not policy driven countries. Their alliance with Russia is based on rebels like Castro and Chavez. Once they are out, and they will be out, things will radically take a different turn. One can already see this happening in Cuba. Besides, the russian financiers and rogue elements in siloviki will cease every possible opportunity to weaken russia and prevent any countermeasures by neglecting science and technology, family friendly socio-economic policies and wise defense policies. Russia will be neither left with any allies nor with any capacity to take counter measures against NATO The tragedy of all this is that innocent europeans and general american public are demonized by NATO's aggressive actions around the world, while the real culprits are the financiers and neocons sitting in New York, London, Paris hiding behind the cloak.
quote
0
Marzipan6 5 April, 2008, 04:38 Georgiy wrote, “As a citizen of Russia I view NATO expansion as a potential threat.” As a citizen of Russia, I wonder how would you view Germany if the following things were true of it: • Germany claimed it never occupied Russia or any part of Europe in WW2; • Germany claimed that those parts of western and southern Russia that were under German control in WW2 had willingly seceded from Moscow, and had freely and legally joined the Third Reich; • Germany claimed that it had brought liberty rather than a dark night of blood-soaked and terror-driven totalitarian oppression to formerly free and sovereign countries; • Post-Nazi Germany had not brought a single German to justice before a court of law, to answer for the crimes they committed at home and abroad in the service of the Third Reich; • Post-Nazi Germany claimed it carries no moral responsibility for the crimes of Nazi Germany; • Post-Nazi Germany has offered no apology to its neighbours for crimes Germans committed against them, has participated in no reconciliation ceremonies with its neighbouring countries, but instead, continually criticises and threatens them; • The Nazi flag and Nazi regalia were legal in Germany; • Nazi party members were represented in the German parliament; • The President of Germany was a former KGB officer. So please tell us, how would you view Germany today, if Germany was as I described here? Georgiy, the equivalent of each and every one of the above points is true of Russia today in relation to its Soviet history. And you wonder why so many of Russia’s neighbours are appalled at Russia’s behaviour and policy, and feel a very genuine need for security against a country like that. You and your compatriots should expand your mental horizons just a little bit, and snap out of your desperately Russo-centric, largely blindfolded way of thinking, and realize what kind of an image Russia has in the world and why it has it.
quote
0
Marzipan6 5 April, 2008, 04:45 Correction: in the last bullet-point of my preceding message, change "KGB" to "Gestapo", which is what I meant to write. But I think you get my point anyhow. Strangely enough, to my knowledge no Russian or Russia apologist has ever even attempted to give a coherent reply as to why the internal and international criminality of Soviet Russia should be viewed any differently than the internal and international criminality of Nazi Germany. Russia only bristles if anyone suggests there is an equivalence, and ironically, continues to threaten all the more those of its neighbours who dare to seek security in NATO from the Russian threat.
quote
0
Concerned 5 April, 2008, 08:22 I think if Russia gets significantly weaker than it is it might be attacked at some point in the future. Putin and Medvedev need to make certain the economy keeps growing and the population stabilizes and actually grows as well. If the US starts drastically expanding this missle defense system to hundreds of missles and interceptors and places them in Ukraine and Georgia Russia will have to take some kind of decisive action. The first action would be to seriously warn the US that if it keeps up the dangerous game Russia has weapons and isnt affraid to use them to defend itself. Russia may not like it but a moderate military buildup followed by invasion of Georgia and Ukraine before it gets into NATO might have to be done. If NATO gets involved then Europe gets obliterated or it gives up Ukraine and Georgia. I think it would pick the later. Im not sure what the goals of the US and NATO are but I hope they arent trying to begin WW3 in the future.
quote
0
SrpskiCrnogorac 5 April, 2008, 10:20 Marzipan6, you are again comparing the Nazis and their Baltic collaborators with the Soviets. Your satements are typical for revisonists and revanchists. While the occuptaion in 1939 was a result of the secret protocol between the Nazis and Soviet Union, the liberation of the Baltic states from the Nazis (I know you preferred the Nazi rule, but you should begin to accept the reality) during the war and the following decade long "occupation" of the Baltic states was clearly a result of your collaboration with the Nazis. You are seeing yourself as a victim of WWII, while the Baltic states only shared the same destiny like Germany did after they lost the war, namely to be occupied by the winners. You should accept that you have been on the wrong side in WWII and begin to see Germany´s reasonable dealing with its past as an example for yourself. And because your point of view is widespread among Baltic people, Russia has good reasons to be vigilant.
quote
0
fred 5 April, 2008, 11:24 come on . the argument on security , or mutual protection is toatl rubbish . france has not been part of Nato since 1966 . anyone to claim france has been less secure or more secure ??
quote
0
Vijay 5 April, 2008, 11:45 Marzipan6 tries to color Russia 'red' again and again - And writes - As a citizen of Russia, I wonder how you would view Germany if the following things were true of it: Yes, what exactly are you implying, may I ask? Are you implying that at time of history, all Germans were criminals, simply because they strove to strike a somewhat different path to national determination, compared to what the west had expected of them? Or was it that they did or rather the Govt in power at that time had the right ideas, but rather went about it the WRONG WAY! By using the army/force instead of winning hearts/minds and souls! The same way US Neos are doing today. Marzipan6, you see history does not stop at a particular point and neither does the future end at a particular date, even if regretfully, god forbid, the human race may! What would you say to the extermination of the original owners of the steppes of the great American plains, i.e., the Indians, who were systematically deprived, cornered and eventually marginalized.? What it justified.?? Yes, it was, simply because the immigrants had ‘better’ weapons, ’superior’ man power and commitment on their side. Would it be expedient if tomorrow the Latinos demand more rights, even more freedom.? No, simply because it’s just not feasible, right? The fact of the matter is, all throughout history - Might makes right and what is right is indeed 'history as we know it' Coming back to your arguments about Russian apology to others for the Commie era. Why? Did the Russians enrich themselves during this 'occupation'? Did the Russian gain a lot of land? No they lost/gave up/gifted it away. Were the excesses committed by pure Russian generals in the name of 'Russian Imperialism'? In fact it is the Russians who are paying off all the debts incurred during that era, for loans taken, primarily to develop, sustain and feed primarily those regions/republics that are Non-Russian today! Compare the per-capita incomes on Ukraine/Georgia and Russia today to get the idea! If the ‘shadow’ economy is taken into account, it is estimated by Western Economists that Russian per capita income will be equal to that of UK’s or Germany’s ( PPP wise) as near as 2010/11. However that is irrelevant…!! And finally, if you say the Soviets were only Russians or vice versa, then start with changing history by making Stalin, Khrushchev etc all into Russians or better by making all nationalities of the USSR into one homogeneous one - Russians.which even the different nationalities of present day Russia may resent! One thing never ceases to amaze me, why is something that is safe and secure or even good for Russia bad for US/ Why is everything in black and white, never something in between! And Sanjay, while things may indeed be gloomy.there's saying - 'For its darkest before dawn" So try to just enjoy life as it comes, for what will be, will be…this not for us to see.!! And Marz, just a wee bit of advice, never try mixing good and evil, for that means uniting you and me. Just hope you can explain to your masters… Regards!!
quote
0
Vijay 5 April, 2008, 12:12 Marzipan, I’ll let you on some secrets – Great nations in the past as well as in future are never found on ethnicity, they are more often than not, diversified ethnically entities and respectful, of different religions, cultures and traditions. They have to evolve continuously – scientifically, socially even politically – both external and internal! The greatness of a nation is not set by how many ‘subjects’ it has but how many ‘friends’ it has! And that does not exclude the ‘near abroad’ or only refers to the ‘far abroad’ as you put it! And apart from certain elements in certain countries in and around RF, and this does not only refer to CIS countries, you can be dead assured that there are vastly more friends of Russia than enemies! Probably more than any other country on planet earth! And forget about the rest of the world apart from the Eastern portions of Europe, the USSR and even more so RF, with all its wealth and trappings has no peers’ regards popularity. Ask Africans, Asians, Latinos, even the West Europeans! No matter what, for history has made us learn that, all fates are interlinked…!
quote
0
Vijay Singh 5 April, 2008, 12:35 Marzipan6, before you compare Fascism and Nazism, remember some things – There is a recognized, legal Communist party in Russia, does Germany has a Nazi party? There are recognized, legal communist parties ( Some in power, some part of the Govt, and some not) in India, China, Cuba, Vietnam, many countries Of Africa and Latin America as well other countries around the world?? Are they all criminals, I’m sure lot of commies as well as Non-commies would be really interested in hearing your views? Today, most, if not all, commies are ‘closet’ capitalists and vice versa? It all depends on what is more convenient, when? Therefore, slink back to your den, wherever you came from, before being accused of being a “Red-Robber”
quote
0
next back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 … 34 35
POST COMMENT

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our posting rules


CAPTCHA
On Air Talent RT mobile Corporate profile Job opportunities Partners Закупки Press releases Advertise with RT All RT sites

Legal disclaimer Feedback Contact us © Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2012. All rights reserved.