NATO will only use Russia – all of America is biased against Russia. Remember that these NATO nations are the same ones that had high ranking officials call Russia a nation run by drunks, and demanded that the Russian government "sober up" and allow the missile shield to be placed on Russian borders!An alliance with NATO is not in Russia's best interests. Russia needs to let NATO know that it needs to work wwith Russia on constructing the missile-defense shield, and that she is the main contributing factor to how, where, and when it will be built, because it is so close to Russian territory.You will be used and still untrusted!

Dmitri These pronouncements mean nothing—they are just hot air—polite spins—Russians-even the neo-liberalizers cannot erase the facts on the grounds of how NATO acted when it thoughts it can push Russia around. So nobody is fooling anybody else here. NATO is a tool of American imperialism but the American imperialism cannot be maintained through military aggression only. Today we see as Europe shouts the need to for democracy and freedom against Russia and nationals of Post Soviet space which do not play according the rule of the United States, in the uprising in the Arab world—the youth are not waving the flags of the United States and the EU and yet the Arab streets in Cairo are much closer to the headquarters of NATO and the capital of the parliament of the European Union. NATO is fearful for its very survival because it outlived its Cold War strategic usefulness.

So "Russia was concerned by the information published by WikiLeaks in December 2010 about alleged NATO plans to defend Poland and the Baltic states from a possible Moscow military threat." There is nothing "alleged" about those NATO plans -- they are real and and most certainly exist. But Russia's concern is nevertheless misplaced.

Rather than be concerned that Russia's neighbours have defence plans, the Kremlin should rather be concerned that those countries genuinely and deeply feel the need for such plans to begin with. Russia should candidly ask itself what is it about its own behaviour, past and present, that leads neighbours to conclude that it is a hostile and dangerous country against which they need defending, and then set about changing those of its policies, statements, behaviour and attitudes that cause such apprehension. Or more to the point, it should ask its neighbours themselves what they feel about Russia's actions and why, and not erupt in a welter of accusation should they answer.

If only one neighbour believes that Russia is unfriendly and dangerous, then there may be something wrong with that country's judgment. But if a whole string of dissimilar nations in an arc from east to west around Russia's borders feel the same way, it is highly unlikely that they are all bonkers and that poor, harmless Russia is the victim of monstrous misunderstanding.

Russia maintaining its usual behaviour towards neighbours while still proclaiming, "You must not defend yourselves against us, you must not defend yourselves against us!" becomes comical in a Kafkaesque sort of way.

Marzipan6 you have proven the point the Russians are making in this long comment. First, these border countries, it seems are so worried about “aggressive” Russia that want to protect from the bad bear by American missile shield, radars, etc. But when Russia suggests that this in turn threatens its own security and that such high level militarization at its borders makes Russia vulnerable to attack—of course, you and our Americans and Europeans do not like it. But Europe is really the real loser here as its clearly a hostage to U.S geopolitical strategy. Russia has the technological capabilities to reinforce its nuclear deterrent capability. Europeans who are clearly pushing missile shields and radars to the borders of Russia should not complain when Russia starts to reinforce its defenses. The missile shields are driven by the dream of Manifest Destiny and hope of the United States gaining a first strike capability over Russia- not by the defense of “little” European countries bordering Russia.

PR101, for progress to be made for the benefit of everyone, somewhere the self-reinforcing loop which you describe must be broken. Only the party that caused the problem in the first place can fix it -- no one else can.

So what exactly is the problem? Russia, under the Soviet flag, invaded, occupied and savaged its Baltic neighbours at a time when they were at peace with it and were following a policy of neutrality. It wiped them off the map for about 50 years, impoverished them, cut them off from the rest of the world, and more than replaced the thousands it  had mass murdered and deported by foreigners, threatening to turn native populations into minorities in their own homelands and thereby making the destruction of their nationhood and cultures complete.

Post-Soviet Russia lies about these crimes, starkly taking the line of the criminal Stalin in respect to all those matters. It expresses ongoing hostility to the Baltics, constantly criticising them in most offensive terms and seeking to interfere in their legitimate internal affairs. It refuses to enter into normal neighbourly relations with them -- for example, in 20 years no Russian President, Prime Minister or Foreign minister has visited Estonia, a truly amazing record amongst neighbours. Russia does what it can, within the constraints of its wider international obligations, to hinder the Baltics economically, and even refuses to fulfill promises which it, itself, has made to Estonia, such as returning stolen cultural treasures which it holds.

All of the above Russian actions spell out just one word to its neighbours: hostility! And there is not one thing the Baltics can unilaterally do to change it. All they can do is to seek appropriate defence against such a neighbour. If Russia wants their defensive stance to change, it must first change its own behaviour towards them, and in a big way.

Marzipan6 Unfortunately, again you have doubly corroborated by first point. First, the WWII is over. And we must look at the reality of that tragic war: in Belarus, occupied Ukraine and European Russia proper, more than 20M people were killed by the Axis forces. But today all the axis forces are part of NATO and or affiliated with NATO ( Japan). But all these nations are pushing NATO to the borders of Russia. We’ve also learned that the certain warmongering, war profiteering American senators want to place Missile Shields in Georgia. These senators know nothing about the historical suffering and current security concerns of the Russian people. But thankfully Russia is strong and the political leaders and military leaders have pledged an oath to protect the people.. I saw President Medvedev’s 2010 speech during celebrations of the 65h university of the Patriotic War victory of Fascist Germany. He said what people came to hear that security of the Russian people will be safeguarded. Yes, I do admit that Russia has an obsession with security but there are genuine reasons for that. If NATO/US imperialists fail to respect Russia’s need for security on its flanks- they will have to answer the implications of a new arms race. It is clear that the Russians are determined not allow another Holocaust against their people. Do you understand that? My view is NATO/ U.S are using small Baltic States to move Missile Shields and radars to the borders of Russia. Russians will not accept that. So what do you think needs to be done?

Marzipan6 May I also point out to you almost always come to this forum to trash Russia but according to a new scatting report by Al Jazeera-which was also reprinted in the British media, Latvia’s virgin forests are being systematically destroyed by British logging firms and the products of this illegal logging is sold in the UK market. Are you also prepared to blame Russia for this ecological crime against this small Baltic State by British based corporations? Perhaps pushing NATO bases in the Baltic is smoke screen for the exploitation of the natural and human resources of the Baltic states by the Western Europe.

I am becoming convinced that if USA armed Eastern European countries to "protect" them against Russia, those countries would certainly use the weapons to start another conflict with Russia.  They want revenge and they don't care how they get it.  That was what happened in Georgia, and Saakashvili was surprised to find out that USA would not save him from his folly.  He poked the bear before verifying it was truly caged and then discovered his "body guard" . . . wasn't.  I also read the Polish government was furious when they were not given the launch codes for the missiles Bush promised them, and there were people in the Polish government at the time who would have gladly sent them to Moscow even if it meant a deadly response. 

This isn't just about Eastern European countries, either.  Cuba supposedly argued with Khruschev because he would not give them the launch codes for those nukes he parked temporarily on the island.  Castro would have fired them at USA even if it meant his country would have become a radioactive cinder.  Any price was worth it for revenge.

MEJanssen Are you certain that Poland prefers sending missiles to Russia than receiving its share of Russia energy deal with Europe? Are you so sure that all the populations of Eastern Europe want to exact revenge against Russia and Russians? Poland lost out more than a billions Euros a year being cut out from the Nord Stream pipeline deal. It is also clear that millions of Georgians and Ukraine feel culturally more closer to Russia than to the U.S. the leader of Georgia is a mental case- I doubt the Polish leadership wants to start a war with Russia. Poland and Russia committed historical crimes from each other but I do not think that Poland or Baltic states would seek a military confrontation with Russia. And why did the Georgian leader ever assume the bear was caged? Or because that is what his the American neocon trainers told him?

To PR101: Indeed WW2 is over. For the Baltics it ended in August 1991 with the end of their Soviet occupation. And not because Moscow had even the least bit of remorse or honesty over the colossal suffering it had cascaded over those nations for 50 years, but only because the Soviet Union itself was on the point of collapse, and Russia could no longer hold on to its captives.

Up to the very end Russians were still killing Baltic civilians in their own streets, and imprisoning Baltic people in Siberia. And Russia continues to repeat, not repudiate, Stalin's gross lies with which he justified the Baltic captivity. This tells the Baltics and the world  that fundamentally nothing much has changed in Russia's attitude, and that given right circumstances something similar might happen again. I also pointed out various on-going hostilities which Russia shows towards the Baltics, which you have conveniently ignored.

So please don't come with the line that WW2 is history, and look at how much poor Russia suffered -- this doesn't wash with people for whom scars of WW2 are much fresher than any that Russia itself bears, and who proportionally suffered every bit as much as Russia did -- at the hands of a still unremorseful Russia.

I am not trashing Russia, PR101 -- unfortunately Russia's own policies do that. I merely point out that these exist, and it is not my fault that they do. Nor do these mitigate or excuse abuses by other countries elsewhere. But as the current RT article reports Russia's remarkable demand that its neighbours MUST not defend against it despite Russia's own attitudes and actions towards them, it is this that I am commenting on.

And PR101, your claim that the Baltics want to exact revenge on Russia is the product of  your own lurid imagination. The Baltics are interested in survival, not revenge. Defencelessness before an unregenerate Russia is not a formula for survival, and defence is not revenge.

Marzipan6 One of us a lurid imagination and that is you. Do you bother to first read what people and before responding their comments? In fact, my comment was to suggests that people of the Baltic have no reason to exact revenge against Russia. I have also noticed did not address the ecological crime against Latvia’s forests—because this crime is not by Russia! You are living the dream land a fantastic version of WWII and until you come out it nothing is going to change—but Russia is to big, too strong and too valuable for Europe and the world.. so may be you should start liking the Russians a little and finding some redeeming qualities in them—P/S. Please double check who suggests revenge business in this blog before firing your shooting vitriolic bullets in all directions.

PR101: You are of course quite right -- it was not you who claimed revenge as a motive for people of Eastern Europe, but MEJanssen. The original draft of my post reflected this, but as it exceeded the maximum size that RT accepts, I had to edit it by cutting out some sections and merging some others, and in the process this mistake happened. I apologise for imputing a view to you that you do not hold, but I unreservedly commend my earlier comments to MEJanssen, to whom they definitely apply.

However, I did address the issue that you raised about Latvia's forests, and in the following words: "Nor do (Russia's policies) mitigate or excuse abuses by other countries elsewhere. But as the current RT article reports Russia's remarkable demand that its neighbours MUST not defend against it despite Russia's own attitudes and actions towards them, it is this that I am commenting on."

I would be interested to read your explanation as to what aspects of my view of WW2 are "dreamland" and "fantastic". As far as I'm aware, my grasp of that matter -- including the part that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact contributed to the outbreak and early course of the War, Russia's huge losses and its major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, its illegal occupation and brutalization of the Baltics, and the Baltics' emergence from that occupation only in 1991 -- is part of the standard history of the War that is acknowledge worldwide, Stalin's heirs excepted.

As for my supposed dislike of Russians, personally I have never met a Russian whom I have not liked, and I have said so in other posts elsewhere. But unfortunately, at the same time Russia has many very dislikeable policies, past and present, that are impossible to overlook because they are the cause of so much human suffering. When some such matters that fall within my experience or close knowledge are promoted or defended in RT, I address them and provide factual verification for the views I present.