NATO's attitudes and actions are based on realities that exist today. Russia's, meanwhile, are based partly on today's realities and partly on Stalin's deeply rooted propaganda of yesteryear, wanting to move forward while relentlessly looking backward. This is precisely why Russia has found it impossible to establish normal relations with so many of its neighbours, who will not tolerate Stalinist orientations. The only thing that dissimilar countries like Japan, Georgia, Estonia and Belarus have in common is, that they are all Russia's neighbours, and must all deal with Russia's Soviet-oriented attitudes. It is not NATO that is stuck between past and future.

I agree with Lavrov - it is vital that the talks with Midlle East are based on mutually cooperative approuch. It showing that different cultures can meet in the Middlle and find the ways to talk over many issues. I personally think that Iran's main interest in the nuclear program based on the space and satalite technology developments. But it is also important to help them to understand that many nations having big concerns around the issue of developments on the field of nuclear energy and nuclear fuel in general and not just in Iran but in the other countries too. As far as I understand - everyone who developing such technologies should be going trough the Eurocommision "check ups" first and for me it is fair arrangement! Maria Kuznetsova

NATO is stuck between past and future. Primarily because the past has gone and the future, as revealed by out of theater operations in Afghanistan, wasn't viable. But the real problem is clear. A peace treaty that provides for the security of all in Europe implies closer economic relations between the EU states and Russia. Closer economic relations between the EU and Russia imply a peace that satisfies all on the continent of Europe. And this reciprocal implication is quite sufficient to reduce fundamentally the role of the USA in any and all European affairs. It will be a while , but not a long while, before European leaders can cross this Rubicon. But its coming. Because of the need to reduce defense costs substantially. And because it is likely that a Tea Party crackpot will be the next President of the USA.

@marzipan ... you're such a hypocrite ... NATO isn't an holy institution .... it's imperialistic and pedantic and it has it's own agenda ... it considers it's self superior to anyone else and doesn't tolerate anyone with a different opinion ... it's NATO's way or be crushed ... i say it has crossed the red line long a ago and needs to be put in it's place ... (wars ,wars,wars,wars and oppression ) don't Put Belarus in the same group as the others .... better take a look at the NATO's neighbouring countries they have either bombed them to death or bought them ... don't even try to teach us some moral lessons while YOU don't have any ... and lastly .. Georgia ... it's not just Russia that has problem with it .. they have some serious oppsition that's against the current government and NATO ... and it seem that Japan is also trying to free itself from NATO occupation

Marzipan- Russia Today is the best for you to read every morning but not just junk like Metro in London underground.

Yes, NATO is definitely stuck between the past and the future, more than that it is lost in the middle, The past was a lucrative arms business. When NATO became lost they looked for an enemy anywhere, killing people in Europe, and when that ended, moving on to kill and maim in the middle east. NATO became a money machine looking for a reason to exist, a reason to keep the money flowing to the military beaurocrats and the military industrial complex behind them. NATO attrocities, were and are still seen, as collateral damage covered by a western media propaganda smokescreen, to preserve the NATO business. So NATO became lost in transition, limping along, bombing and killing anyone it needed to, to survive. But even NATO worked out that this was not a sustainable trajectory, so in came the wise ones, with a plan. The problem was, that the wise ones came essentially from the past, so all they were capable of, was strategising something looking like the past. The plan they came up with, was suppose to be an albright future. But increasingly really looked like a clueless future, of expeditionary expansionism across the globe; something unsustainable in terms of the NATO members financially or militarily. So a future for NATO is really where it gravitates to, or more importantly where the rest of the world will allow this military expansionist business complex to gravitate to. For NATO does not exist in a vacuum, and the world has clearly seen the very limited long term military capabilities of key NATO members fighting in the middle east, who were being overcome by a relentless grinding enemy, armed with no more than basic weapons and explosives. Indeed the middle east has done the world a service in demonstrating both the limits of NATO military power, and the internal fault lines and fractures that exist within NATO. So NATO now, not only has a lack of a viable future trajectory, but it lacks credibility, in its effectiveness, both in military and unity terms.

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, is known to be blunt with his remarks. However, here is being diplomatic rather than analytically clear and blunt with his remarks. He knows that NATO is not “stuck” in the Cold War. He knows that the organization has been re-branded as an extension of the U.S imperial global reach. In the 1990s, Russia was not in a position to respond effectively to NATO expansion to former Soviet Republics all the way at edge of Russia’s doorsteps. Now Russia is not so weak and is responding effectively to NATO expansionism. I think it is Europe that that has been unable to dislodge itself from the dominating hold of the U.S geopolitical imperatives since WWII. So, it is Europe that is sinking with the U.S flagging empire. So, NATO will sink with the collapse of the empire. However, my view is in 2012, either General McChrystal or General Petraeus will win the U.S Presidency. The U.S elite will try to defend its hold on global dominance by military means. Russia needs to Russia needs to prepare for darker times ahead when the U.S and NATO will be under the command of one of the two Dr. Strangelove: MCChrystal or Petraeus.

It's obvious to all that, NATO's actions are controlled and engineered by the US as "multiple" or a"coalition effort" which is a hoax......It's all part of the United States's 90's policy of a "new order" for the expansionism and the take over of natural resources,,,The weakening of Russia in the 90's was key. and with Yeltsin spreading the control of key institutions to his oligarch friends Berzovsky et al...EASY PICKINGS for the US? wrong!!! at first, fortunately Putin arrived !!!! a few other points, Madeleine Albright when asked if the blockade of Iraq from 1991-2003 was worth the death of a million of women and children . Yes!!! she said. The bottom line of our foreign policy is not democracy or justice or whatever it's $$$$$$...the country is run by 2% that own 95% of everything including politicians(Obama too) media.etc...the bottom line is $$$$$$, democracy is a myth...people are disposable when you have predatory capitalism as we do....look up genetic engineered food, that's what our people are fed, why? $$$$$$.......It seems every decade we have some one or some thing to hate .....now it's "Muslims" before that it was "illegal Mexicans" , before that Socialism or all three.....that's just a way the corporate run society keeps the people all dumbed up and fighting among themselves so as to never recognize what is really the problem: GREED ON TOP. fred...oregon 449330

PR101 this is not correct. When the American government primed the Georgian government for its attack on Russian forces peace was reestablished by negotiations between France/Germany and Russia. And this was the first real step from American hegemony in European affairs. It took a war for France/Germany etc to realize that Cold War alliances had served there purpose and could easily become a threat to European peace. Political differences (and cultural ones) are continually growing between Europe and America. And there is now no counterbalancing force of military necessity to prevent this drift. Europe will not follow the USA in a military confrontation with China. There will be no European military support for an attack on Iran. NATO may be under the Command of the Dark Destroyer but no European troops from any of the larger nations will march to his command. The Cold War is over and (slowly) most of Europe is moving on.

Babeouf I do not think that Germany and France were very successful in keeping the lid on the conflict in Georgia for the following reasons: First, despite the calm brought about by presence of Georgian and Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia and Abkhasia, the U.S under GWB continue to transfer billions of dollars worth of weaponry to Georgia. In fact, since 1990s, Georgia has been the third recipient of U.S financial and military aide, only after Israel and Egypt. Second, the U.S aide program to Georgia has not changed despite the Georgia’s war of aggression against South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Thus, Germany and France may have convinced the U.S not bring Georgia and Ukraine to the NATO club; they were not as successful convincing the U.S to stop rearming Georgia. I do not doubt that elite classes and ordinary people in France and Germany can clearly see that NATO and U.S expansionism threaten their own security. Still, I do not think that Germany and France independent enough or strong enough to change the U.S foreign policy of expansionism via NATO militarism. How can Germany convince the U.S to stop expanding NATO to Russia’s borders when Germany failed to convince the U.S to remove nukes from the Cold War era from German soil? Is not also the case that Germany and France and the rest of EU have failed to stop the US from deploying offensive Missile Shield batteries and radars in the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania and other countries in central and Eastern Europe? I will make the rest of this commentary in the next post…

Babeouf I do not think current subordinate relationship between Europe and the U.S will change significantly until such time when the U.S is weakened economically- and that is still long way off. That is why at present the EU engagement with Russia is façade and hollow often reduced to fake issues such as “Human Rights” and self interested issues of uninterrupted Russian energy supply Europe, etc. Yet, Europeans have not been able to fulfill key demands by Russia such as creating visa free travel regime between Russia and Europe and halting NATO expansion to Russia’s border. Paradoxically, Europe needs Russia and Russia needs Europe. That is, European economy depends on Russia’s energy and other important raw materials but EU is also a hostage to U.S geopolitical imperatives. Until EU gains its own foreign policy outlook, it cannot deal with Russia as equal partner. So yes, I do agree with Lavrov that NATO is stuck between the past and the future.

Alex’s post, although excitable, is correct when it states that NATO is not a holy institution – it is an entirely secular one encompassing nations of all religious persuasions from Christian (hard to identify one) to Moslem (Turkey) to none (Britain?), bound together by an entirely pragmatic conviction of its members that their security is far better served within NATO than outside it. Alex shows razor-sharp insight when he tells us that “NATO has its own agenda”. Of course it does. Every organization and individual, even Alex, does. Those with the very highest security clearance can read of NATO’s agenda on its website. There they will find the following: “We want to be sure that we can walk around freely in a safe and secure environment. Security in all areas of everyday life is key to our well-being, but it cannot be taken for granted…NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and co-operation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict…NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and/or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organisations.” Alex thinks that NATO considers itself superior to everyone else. While that is arguable, member countries certainly consider that NATO membership provides for their security in a way that is much superior than non-membership would. Alex also needs to do some serious research on the meaning of “occupation.” He apparently thinks that NATO occupies Japan, and probably thinks that the Soviet Union never occupied the Baltics at all. Go, figure!

Hi, my old friend Marzipan, >>The only thing that dissimilar countries like Japan, Georgia, Estonia and Belarus have in common is, that they are all Russia's neighbours, and must all deal with Russia's Soviet-oriented attitudes. There is another thing that at least 2 of those have in common - American as a president. In Estonian case an American with ties to CIA. And that is at least interesting isn't it? Toomas Hendrik Ilves (Estonia): -Bachelor's degree in psychology from Columbia University -Master's degree in the same subject from the University of Pennsylvania. Mikheil Saakashvili (Georgia): -LL.M. from Columbia Law School in 1994 -classes at The George Washington University Law School Please elaborate on "Russia's Soviet-oriented attitudes.". As far as I know they are not SU anymore. The way I see it the fuzz around "Russian Imperialistic agenda" that is so hyper popular in countries with biased media and Americans as presidents (Latvia (former presidnet), Lithuania,Estonia,Georgia, Ukraine (former president had American wife and escaped to Canada as soon as his term was over)) is that Putin once said that "The collapse of SU was a huge catastrophe.." and that was what was needed for people like you (Russo-phobic) to hype up the fuzz. In fact he said "The collapse of SU was a huge GEOPOLITICAL catastrophe." Which means that families got separated by the borders. In fact Putin has stressed several times that has absolutely no problem with independence of Russia's neighbors. And you are clearly Russo-phobic since you are not only making comments on news that concern your country (you are from Estonia right?) but on every news about Russia.

September 04, 2010, 21:11, The Estonian wrote > There is another thing that at least 2 of those have in common - American as a president. In Estonian case an American with ties to CIA. And that is at least interesting isn't it? So "The Estonian" thinks that we have American as a president? Really? And Ilves is American because??? His parents were Estonina refugees, he was born in Sweden and educated in US. If latter makes him American than lot of Estonians (myself included) are Swedish, Germans, Americans, Brittons etc. You claim that Estonian president has ties to the CIA? What is your source, as you like to ask from everyone? Working in radio Free Europe which was funded by CIA? Well, CIA funding ceased in 1972, Ilves was working for the radio from 1984 to 1993. He started 12 years AFTER CIA funding was replaced by open Congressional appropriations. If that is all you got, can we conclude that you have lied? Again!