If I am not mistaken, this analyst contributes frequently to Cross Talk. I after listen to his succinct interventions among shouts of the neocons, John Laughland. Now, no matter what the reward might from NATO/U.S, Russia can never make double dealing on fate of South Ossetia, Abkhazia after recognizing them, Kosovo or nor no Kosovo. What is clear however is that the United States is raising the stakes: Russia will be tempted to abandoned not only its support of Abkhazia and Ossetia but its strategic relation with Iran in exchange of becoming part of NATO under American tutelage!

Isnt't it John Laughland?

NATO is, and always will be, a US dominated organisation. This is widely accepted and acknowledged, indeed without the US NATO would no longer function. Bringing Russia into the NATO fold will never happen - Russia in Europe (and the Middle East in Syria and Iran), and China in Asia (especially over Taiwan and North Korea, and more recently in oil and mineral rich regions of Africa) are the USA's natural and obvious potential enemies, therefore they are also NATOs potential enemies. At many levels it is sensible for Russia to 'work with' NATO, and for NATO to 'work with' Russia as neither are going away any time in the near future. From the words of an old warrior - 'keep your friends close but your enemies closer'.

According to what I have learned in the past; russians have the reputation to be excellent chess-players; which mean anticipation and strategy abilities. Americans are gamblers and poker-players who are more related to bluff, lies cynism and arrogance. It seems to me that during the last sixty years, the poker-players have won most of the contests and keep on doing it. Incidently Mr Obama has been going to a good school and was an excellent student. Sorry Future Generations. Sincerely. Jean-Claude Meslin

Er, Sarah... I wonder why or why did the countries that emerged from either direct Soviet occupation or Soviet control immediately initiate vigorous efforts to join NATO? You will say it was because of a wicked US plot. However, that needed to be very special plot indeed to convince the majority of people in all those countries, and the overwhelming majority in most of them, to join. It also has to be an exceptional plot to ensure that in all of those countries that I'm aware of, the majority of people still want to be part of NATO, and in not a few cases, the overwhelming majority. And of those who are not yet members, several are still trying very hard to become members. If one is prepared to throw away one's ideological blinkers, reality is so obvious that it is impossible to miss. NATO members are there because they want to be. They want to be members because enough of their people want to be members. Enough of their people feel this way not because they want to be "under America's thumb" but precisely because they DON'T want to be under anyone's thumb, especially not Russia's, and they have no confidence that Russia's historical predatory attitude towards them has changed enough for them to risk going it alone.

Marzipan6 I do deny that eastern bloc was under the Soviet occupation nor do I deny that such an occupation was wrong. However, whereas the Soviet occupation of the eastern Europe ended in 1989, the Western Europe continue to be occupied by the United States. Rather ending its military occupation of Western Europe, the U.S simply added Eastern Europe to its domain of hegemonic control. The U.S was confident of its imperial global research. The U.S is still is prepared to bring the NATO expansion to the door steps of Russia. From 1989 and until the rise of Putin, Russia had been in an state of crisis. But with the rise of Putin and the new resurgent Russia, the U.S eastward expansion has suffered a clear set back. Russia’s 2008 intervention in South Ossetia was the clearest message that it will not accept the U.S/NATO expansion to its doorsteps. For the first time, the Old Europe was forced to take a stand. Germany and France intervened and the crisis had been defused. The U.S has learned a valuable lesson from the 2008 Georgia debacle. Rather than using the usual crude confrontations with Russia, it has decided to suppress open language about U.S expansionist agenda toward east; the U.S think that they can still achieve dominance in the east by trying to seduce Russia with fake promises of cooperation and collaboration. P/S Somebody mentioned the difference between poker players and chess players.Well it can be said that Hitler was also a great risk taker. In the summer of 1941, he ordered the invasion of Russia. His entire plan was predicted on the supremacy of his military tactic- the Blitzkrieg; he had no plan B. Thus, we know what happens when imperialists are convinced of their own superior technology and moral superiority.

Sarah, NATO is a military alliance. Nations have joined it and left it without being resultantly subject to any punitive measures. Joining it is voluntary, and the organization doesn't entail unified control of any sort. Even when it comes to fulfilling NATO's charter obligation of mutual defense, which rightly or wrongly has been activated against the Taliban, member states are free to dedicate as great or as little a portion of their militaries to the effort as they wish. Once their troops are in the field, though nominally they are directed by a joint command, their home nations continue to have authority over exactly what they do. For instance, many nations have dictated that their troops exclusively operate in the more peaceful Afghan north. NATO is an entirely cooperative organization. As the US is by far the strongest and largest nation of the alliance, the US typically takes a leading role in its operations. The Warsaw pact in contrast set up the equivalent of Soviet client kingdoms. Effectively, Warsaw pact member states were extensions of the Soviet Union itself and were mere administrative units, much as provinces are in a nation. The Warsaw pact was formed by military conquest, was governed by regional autocrats, and was seen by the majority of its subjects, at least in Eastern Europe, as being intolerably oppressive. The US never went that far. It did support, help form, and closely ally itself with right wing dictatorships, some of which were also intolerably oppressive. But these dictatorships remained, and remain, sovereign. Morally, perhaps there is little difference, but at any rate NATO is not an example of that sort of behavior. It is a voluntary cooperative military alliance of certain like-minded democracies, nothing less nothing more. The prime catalyst for its spread Eastward is extant fear and resentment left over from the infamous Warsaw pact.

Ladies and Gentlemen: As a former "Cold-Warrior" and "Academic Scholar" - A graduate of both The University of California -Berkeley and The University of Washington. I urge you to read two outstanding books: These are translated into serveral languages - French, Russian, German, Italian, and Arabic. I require my students to read both of these books. 1. When Corporations Rule the World - Dr. David C. Korten 2. The Confessions of an Economic Hitman - John Perkins Both of these books are written by men who lived what they observed in the world from both sides. The basis of the geopolitical situation we find ourselves today is written in detail by both of these men. The US - MIC (United States - Military Industrial Complex) has a significant part to play in the role of American politics and foreign policy in the world from a monetary standpoint. President Eisenhower - Former US Army General that led the Normandy Invasion in France during World War II, warned of this during his parting speech as President of the United States in 1957.

William, I would agree with your, admittedly, sober point of view, if there were not two factors: Gladio and corporatocracy. The degree of control established by the former is indeed unclear, and the interests of the latter are, admittedly, not married to the U.S. itself. It isn't as blatant as it was with the Warsaw pact countries, here I agree. What, I think, is undeniable is the efficiency of this control, which in no small part derives from its plausible deniability -- there is no explicit somebody you can point your fingers to.

Sarah, Your succint postings concerning the American tendency to pool countries committed to American ideology into NATO, is an incontrovertible truth. And as would be rememberred , The WARSAW PACT was founded as a direct response to the aggressive post war anti -Soviet , anti - communist posture of NATO. Consonant with the yearning of the people for peace , understanding and cooperation the Warsaw pact constitution which was adopted in 1956 stated the objective of ensuring that science , mutual economic cooperation , socialist education will be used first and foremost to foster peace among member states and to deliver nations in accordance with the UN Charter from the horrors of war. In contrast, it will be recalled that in regards to Eastern Europe a strategic policy arm of NATO called COCOM was founded in November 1945 on the USA's initiative precisely to restrict western trade with the USSR and Eastern Europe .At every stage subsequntly, COCOM (NATO Coordinating Committee), included all the NATO countries plus Japan. Its paramount objectives were to compile lists of commodities whose export to the socialist countries are banned, to consider applications from member countries to deliver such banned items and to supervise the observance of its export restrictions.Incredibly enough, banned were not only commodities designed for military use, but also purely civilian products of the metal working, power and engineering machinery industries , and so on.Thus NATO served through COCOM as an instrument of technological war which the WEST, and Primarily the USA waged against the socialist countries, against the interest of mankind, against RUSSIA primarily. By wooing other countries with promises that they would supply them with advanced technology and by threatning to suspend such deliveries should they decline to follow its dictates, Washington binds its allies to the policy of tying their economies more firmly to its domination. Right!

To Thomas from "HELL". President Eisenhower 'speech to warn Americans and the rest of the World was made on January 1961; not in 1957. Until 1981, America had to deal with the Viet-Nam war, Watergate and the consequences of those two events. The control of the US-NATO consorcium's government and the making of the materialist-military priorities was done by that creep Reagan who gave the keys to his MIC cronies (including that useless AMD which has already costed 300 billions $ to the US taxpayers). He received a great help from his friend: the CIA pope: Jean-Paul 2. Luckily, they are now, both in HELL. They have left us in a terrible mess and it is up to peoples like you to objectively analyze the situation and repair the mess made by a voting naive US society. Sincerely...JCM