Is Russia really going to be duped by this one? Like, take your troops out, and we won't expand NATO eastward - yes a trusted bargain! US and NATO's goal is one and the same, secure Russia's natural resources and place Russia under their political ideological control. This can't be achieved if Russia has the capability to impose massive unacceptable damage. So as it stands now they can't achieve the goal. So what's the game? Quite straightforward, reduce Russia's capability to do so, by negotiating away its deterrence, and fight a different type of war to achieve the goal. An approach partly learnt in Iraq and Afghanistan. The approach is simple, reduce the threat of massive unacceptable damage, fight the war from the bottom up, an inverted approach. Basically foster border hostilities from Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, coupled with a fifth column insurgency within, centred around the caucuses. Then add insurance of a missile defence system. The end result is the Bear s eaten piece by piece from the sides and within, or basically strangled by surrounding weeds. So what is the answer, to deny them the stategic objective, simple, opt for a maximal article 5 deterrence with layered tiered inflicted damage. This means, making NATOs article 5 binding in the reverse. An attack or orchestrated insurgency by one state, or closely affiliated state, means an attack by all NATO states. This in the first instance would make NATO responsible for its members, and them in turn responsible for their activities, for which NATO would ultimately be held.accountable. It also means commitment to the use of tactical nuclear weapons as part of a security doctrine to create a border buffer zone around Russia and directly addressing European based US and NATO military assets. Such a layered approach would give a resting point for old Europe, the USA and Russia to decide and negotiate on the option for an all out final exchange, using strategic weapons, which hopefully could be avoided. This approach is manifestly defensive, and threatens no one, securing only the national security of the Russian federation. So how to achieve it, basically don't play the game to lose, but play it to draw. Bolster the number of strategic and tactical Nuclear weapons. Make them more resilient to countermeasure and capable in terms of targeting. Produce a clear doctrine to demonstarte that the defence of Russia's national security is paramount and that nuclear weapons will be used first in the buffer zone and also against US and NATO stategic European based assets very early on, should considerable orchestrated and military or political pressure be applied by the border protaganists as agents of the US and NATO. This addresses the external threatening factors, the internal factors are easier to deal with. Continue on a reforming democratic route for Russia, improving at its own pace, govermental organs and civil society, to transform Russia into a modern free state in stark contrast to the regimes of torture (waterboarding), political prisons (Guatanomo and secret ones in the EU), citizen surveillance (UK cameras and EU internet monitoring) and tagging of citizens (DNA databases) ... all found as a bedrock of Western government. Indeed Russia has a unique opportunity to rise and soar well above the oppression that is so manifest within the EU and additionally in US occupied territories. Russia can and needs find its own way, based on maximal detterence, layered response and internal reform alligned with a future state free of repression, the likes of which are regularly forund in the 'EUSSR'

There is another way for Russia to resolve US expansion. I would first like to say that most western nations (general populace) are expecting Obama to withdraw all agressive intent towards Russia. Secondly Russia and the US governments have to understand that they now muct include their peoples input towards forgein policy. My third point is that any nation that wants to be successful on the world stage, need only to secure the support or general consensus of the world populations. This latter point should be easily attained as US agression is so obvious and the world view is such that the US is on a collision course with almost any other nation. Although the points mentioned appear to be forgein to any countries previous military mandates we can understand quite easily that there is power in numbers and that these numbers (population) can be swayed easily through modern communication techniques. The leaders of any country that can quickly apply this new way of achieving power, can win almost any battle. If Russia were to do nothing about US expansion other than to point out to the worlds population as to how agressive the US is towards Russia, the United states will lose all remaining credibility on the world stage. Russia need only to maintain her present day military position. It is my view that the world knows that there is not a bit of fear about Russian expansion, and so it should be. On the other hand, the world also knows that US expansion even under the guise of NATO is senseless because in fact Russia is not a threat to any nation. If Russia were to react to US expansion by nuclear proliferation, Russia would also be viewed as agressive as the US and therefore both nations would lose out on the power that the worlds population offers. The whole point of this argument is that the nation that does the least militarily will achieve the most and in the end will have the support of all nations and that has the ability to last for millenium. So much of our world has changed and changed rapidly, and it is incumbent upon all leaders to reassess their political and military stance and to understand where power also has changed. After all, everyone wants to win, everyone. Most Canadian people are angry about US policy and have no desire to be involved in any agression towards Russia. Canada could and would be the first country to support Russia against US forgein policy. Does this sound strange to you? I would bet my life on it. Don't look to the Canadian government for support, look towards the people. The answer for Russia is in the world's peoples. Is Russia ready to accept this new responsibility? I think the world is ready, the world wants a new leader not an American leader. There have been too many American leaders, and they have all failed misserably and the world knows it.

Whistlejacket, you raise some well argued points. However, whilst I agree that people power is the ultimate power. I cannot agree that the transition to such a state of affairs can be brought about by doing nothing. Fairly recent events show us that the US, NATO and EU will resort to force almost immediately, in search of oil or for political control such as in the former Yugoslavia. In all these cases many children and women have been killed and maimed in the quest for resource and political dominance. I would only feel comfortable, knowing I could prevent a Yugoslavian type aggression in the first place, through a robust deterrence doctrine, in support of a defensive posture. Doing nothing in weapons technology, means disarming, because the other side is advancing militarily. I am happy for the US,NATO and the EU to take your approach and disarm in the first place, this would help them rebuild credibility in the world for themselves and demonstrate some good leadership. The American people deserve it. Regardless of this, however, we would still need a strong deterrence and sound defensive doctrine for any future change of direction, because political leaders are short lived. As you say, no one needs fear Russia, we are on a defensive nation building excersise, where we must continue to focus on building an innovative and commerce driven civil society. We need a deterrence that is so good, we never need use it, then I can look any Russian in the eye, knowing we did a good job.

Count Cash In your last paragraph first sentence, "US,NATO and the EU...", is an example to me of how people view NATO. The US is always outside of NATO. One almost always view the US and NATO and not just NATO including the US. This distinction to me is extremely important in that the United States will never view itself as a member of anything. I do agree with you about the need for Russia to always advance technologically, as it would be suicide if she didn't. However, Russia has the opportunity to actually wage a social war against the US. This would not be viewed as agression yet it holds the power to bring about change as Obama continually states. The US hasn't changed a thing because she is still using her antiquated and costly agressive tactics that have been so commonly used in the past. It is primarily this foolhardy approach to world issues that Russia can take advantage of. Russia is still viewed as an enemy by the west, although it is a very foggy one. Russia needs to allow the US to hang herself as she justly deserves but with caution, great caution. All the hype concerning Obama's election has given the US a false sense of importance. Obama has not as of yet shown the world that anything is going to change especially in the military arena, and this is going to cost Obama his reputation as a statesman. If Russia fails to lead, then the world will be in termoil. Russia must view herself in the same way as I have expressed but I am not so sure she has seen this opportunity, but it will show as time moves on. I may sound as an alarmist, but I do want to say that if change is going to come then lets have a change. Obama\s election is not an endorsement for the world to blindly accept US forgein policy. It is however an opportunity for the world to not accept US forgein policy, in all of it's present day forms. I would be very interested in what you might have to say in response to my note here.