CSTO is a defensive organization period. So if NATO also re-models itself on a defensive function, there should be absolutely no conflict at all. As it is impossible, by definition for two defensive mode organizations to drive towards each other with an expansive attack. A conflict requires an initiator, basically an aggressor or third party, or someone moving from defensive to attacking mode. The problem, however, is that NATO is an aggressive organization, trying to expand and conquer Russia. Here lies the potential problem. Notice the potential problem, is not emminating from Russia, or contrived or created by Russia, the problem is a creation of NATO period.

When they both have bases in the same country, that might make it easier to hold joint military exercises. Kyrgyzstan could make more money out of this military 'tourism'. Somebody would have to make sure the guns only shoot blanks, of course. (cough)

The problem is Count Cash, you don't write one intelligent comment. Russia aka Soviet Union is anything but defensive. Just ask those nations who were forced into the Warsaw Pact. By the way. are you stupid or just in denial about Russia and the purpose of Nato? Nato is purely defensive and was formed because the fact Russia/Soviet Union was ans is clearly the agressor. Sad how you are still brainwashed into believing lies. Janssen less hope so!

Cash, Nato or America has no desire to conquer Russia. Get your head out your arse. I mean really! You constantly talk as if you know something about the West, but you know nothing. You don't even know your own history and never been to America. Come to America, you will see we don't sit up day and night thinking of ways to take over Russia. Why would we want too? Hell, even the Russians are leaving Russia to come here. Go look for your Boogie man under the bed because the KGB isn't in America, it's in your empty head!

MEJanssen - Yes normally, there is a danger placing forces close together, but this danger usualy comes, when the forces have a territorial stake, i.e. when they are sitting on two sides of a border. In these cases it is better to actually lower the risk by, not bringing them into contact. Hence the normal process of buffer zones..... In this case the players have no stake in theri positins, they are carrying out a function on someone else's territory, In these terms there is nothing to fight over. The danger as always is with Nato aggression, they have shown it in Serbia, they have shown it in Afghanistan.... They became a force for aggression following the end of the cold war. Now basically they just look for a fight and play the tool for geopolitical de-stabilisation of Russia. This is their new role to grind Russia down and conquer it. It is the standard western model of exploitation as was doen for oil in Iraq.

J.Wyllie I am surprised that RT lets you express yourself in such aggressive and insulting manner!? Count Cash wasn't insulting you so try to be civilized. As Serb I have moral authority to tell you that what NATO did in Serbia was not only aggression but also crime against humanity . Be cause in those bombings plenty of civilian targets were attacked (3500 civilians killed + TV station with 14jurnalists dead). NATO have transgressed Helsinki international treaty by attacking sovereign country on the pretext of preventing ( STAGED !! ) humanitarian catastrophe. Also NATO have transgressed peace treaty that was signed afterward and UN Resolution that followed buy severing Kosovo from Serbia ! You were also accomplices in Albanian Muslim destruction of more that 150 churches and killing innocent civilians (by letting armed Albanians entering Kosovo and simply watching their crimes ) Afghanistan is another proof that NATO is not any longer defensive but AGGRESSIVE organization !

@ Count Cash, agree about NATO. Sorry to say I didn't start paying attention to what they were doing until the Georgia war last year. While it wasn't NATO troops shooting at the Russians, that war was prompted by Georgia's desire to join NATO and the perceived need for them to "pacify" their rebellious provinces first (and kill all the Russian peacekeepers who were in the way). Then I started reading about new military bases and installations far to the east of where NATO "promised" it would stay, and then hearing a NATO general saying NATO was still needed to protect Europe from Russia. It surprised me to learn that many people still think the communists are poised to send waves of shocktroops over Europe, any day now. The same people think the Russian flag is still red and are surprised when I tell them the real communists don't like Putin. Sheesh, didn't Ronald Reagan tell us we won the Cold War? The mainstream media over here is really schizophrenic, on one hand saying the west and USA were triumphant, and on the other hand telling us to be afraid, be very afraid of Russia. "Git the gun, Martha, I think I see a Rooskie in them thar bushes!"