Wouldn't it be nice if she was telling the truth?

It is good to see NATO considering what it should be, and consulting widely with interested parties. Because at the moment NATO is an expensive blanket on a sunny beach. Whereas it needs to be more of a Parasol. Worse, there are 20 odd users of the blanket, with some even wanting to use it to smother the Russian sunbather to steal their Sun oil and additionally when someone wants to use it, no one knows quite what will cover what, or who will hold what. So someone gets cold in the evening while a tug of war on who does what unfolds. So NATO does need blanket changes. The reality is that there is no impending Russian danger. We are quite happily sitting here with ample real estate and resources, with a huge job to try to reform things to make peoples lives better. We have absolutley zero inclination for expansion and our only interest is to hang on to what we've got. So what can NATO really do in respect defensively, the answer absolutely nothing. So what other European threats are there. Well again, pretty well zero, there is nothing there, that one of the big European states couldn't handle across all of Europe. So NATO has this tax paid for hardware and wages, sitting in Europe, which is totally misaligned with the real threats. Well its always nice to do some training flights, play bar football in the mess..... but it isn't really effective use of resources for Europe. So the net effect is that NATO exists today, with respect to Europe as a tool to smother the Russian sunbather, indeed the resources are solely applied for this task, for the benefit of the US, and paid for by all the NATO members in tax. Indeed without continuing to portray Russian as the dangerous bad guy, the whole funding of the expensive balnket falls apart. But even operating outside Europe NATO has issues, it operates more like a donors club, than an integrated alliance, every operation is open to horsetrading and individual decisions, every party has a controlling vote.

I am not sure what is really going on here and I am deeply suspicious. Albright once said that Russia (as a land mass) is too big for one country. I doubt her oppinion has changed. So what is really going on? I am not sure, but it is obvious that all NATO (or US) eyes are currently on limiting Russian nuclear options in order to ensure that the US always have the upper hand. The last 20 years of almost complete unoposed global dominance enjoyed by the US is producing a generation of Americans who do not understand diplomacy, negotiation, and cooperation. They have taken the 'might is right' doctrine to the extreme, and have thrown out millitary and legal conventions that had taken centuries to evolve in order to pursue their ambition of complete global dominance. What is to be done with Russia? Well they can start (every pun intended) by getting Russia to voluntarily reduce its nukes, and then the US can position airial (ie laser), sea, and land based anti-missile systems to nutralise what is left. There is a 'long game' being played out. Russia, Iran, and China had better watch out.

Experts on both sides practicing the ultimate art of extreme deception.

The Old Man: "Albright once said that Russia (as a land mass) is too big for one country. I doubt her oppinion has changed. So what is really going on?" Albright is part of an American cabal that advocates eventual dismemberment of the Russian Federation, and are quite open about it. That is why I am surprised that the RF accords that woman any respect. Albright is now all smiles as she claims that Russia has nothing to fear from NATO. I recall that she made the same statement to Serbia, and when the Serbs did not do her bidding and willingly relinquish Kosovo, she unleashed a murderous 78-day bombardment of the defenseless country, killing over 4,000 Serb men, women, and children. That evil woman should be arrested on the spot and sent to the Hague to stand trial for her crimes against the Serb people, and not wined and dined in Moscow. Albright also stated, at one of president Clinton's cabinet meetings, something to the affect that what good is our military if I can't use it (against Serbia).

Whatever the motives on either side, talks between NATO and Russia have to be a good thing. It is not in the interests of Russia or NATO members to end up in any kind of military confrontation. Russia's strength doesn't lie in the size or effectiveness of her nuclear arsenal but in the scale of her energy exports and the dependence of many NATO members on those exports.