Don't Alienate Russia, Says NATO Official

Discussion in 'Americas' started by StealthSniper, Nov 4, 2009.

  1. StealthSniper

    StealthSniper Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    With Stealth Ninja Assassins
    Brussels - A NATO official has stressed the importance of not alienating Russia again, adding that there could be some added value to bringing Russia on board when exploring missile defense because of its industry and technical knowledge.

    Speaking at a Security and Defence Agenda debate on the future of missile defense in Europe, Roberto Zadra, deputy head of NATO's WMD Centre, said that "we can't build missile defense that is perceived by Russia as being against it."

    His comments were a clear reference to the controversy surrounding the so-called third-site plan in Poland and the Czech Republic, which has since been scrapped by the United States. Zadra also pointed to joint threat analysis as a potential area for NATO-Russia cooperation.

    Mira Ricardel, vice president of business development for missile defense systems at Boeing, agreed that Russian industry could bring something to the table at a technical level while think tank researcher Jean-Pierre Maulny said it could be "interesting to work with Russia."

    Earlier in the debate, Zadra said that "if Europe wants missile defense, then we have to find the money for it. Otherwise we can't complain if the U.S. goes it alone."

    Robert Bell, senior vice president for SAIC, expressed the view that France could bring its satellite-based early detection capability into the equation, because "if you have something to say that the threat is coming, then you're in the decision loop from the beginning".

    Meanwhile, Baker Spring, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was in no doubt that missile defense will be an important part of NATO's new strategic concept.

    Link:

    Don't Alienate Russia, Says NATO Official - Defense News
     
  2.  
  3. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40

    :lool::lool:

    Yeah I imagine that it would be "interesting to work with Russia" for EU!
    Be cause S-400 are so much above anything they have produced.
    Of course that would be boost for Russia be cause of European advanced stage in electronics...
    This is just another proof that east-european countries are being paranoid about "aggressive intentions" of Russia.
    Relations with Germany,Italy good and with France every day better and UK...who cares what they think....:scared_sofa:
     
  4. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
    But once Obama is out ........

    But once Obama is out as president USA will probably start again to look for trouble with Russia through Georgia and Ukraine.
    All that NEOCON's bunch and different anti Russian lobbies will surface again just like it was under the Bush administration when they wanted war with Russia and Iran:sporty55:
     
  5. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
    “NATO may cease to exist in 15 to 20 years”

    “NATO may cease to exist in 15 to 20 years”

    Edited 20 December, 2009, 03:53

    It is more important for Russia to have good relations with NATO’s most powerful member states than with the alliance itself, as it may soon stop existing, political science professor Gerhard Mangott told RT.
    Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Live Technorati
    del.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller

    “In the West there is a very long and very serious debate about if there’s any future for NATO because there’s no real threat to NATO, there is no real enemy. So maybe in 10 to 15 years from now there will be no alliance. So I don’t think it’s too important for Russia to think how the relations with NATO will develop – it’s more important how the relations with the most prominent members of NATO will develop,” Mangott said

    LINK TO RT VIDEO CLIP

    ?NATO may cease to exist in 15 to 20 years? - RT
     
  6. IBRIS

    IBRIS Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,066
    Likes Received:
    112
    U.S. has become so much more technologically advanced than any of its NATO allies that America increasingly doesn't need them to fight a distant war, as it demonstrated in Afghanistan; where it basically won alone, except for small but important contributions from Britain, Canada and Australia. Russia comes out as benefitiary from NATO's end. NATO intervention and bombing destroyed uncooperating nations and turned them into a collection of dependent ministates ruled by the U.S. and Western Europe powers, NATO had carried out a several-years occupation leaving the countries in ruins and enslaved. The blatant lies to spearhead personal agenda's of powerful nations. U.S. position so weak, that most NATO countries refuse to join the occupation and utter destruction of Iraq sets an excellent example of how NATO members are opposed to misadventures of some total nutcase. Afghanistan may indeed be the death of the NATO alliance, but this will hardly be caused by NATO members withdrawing their troops from the WOT in 2011.
     
  7. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40

    Iraq was not good example cause Bush was nutcase who did everything with his UK cousin without even consulting big among the NATO nations
    like Germany and France
    (and on top EU population HATED Bush , his arrogance stupidity and was 100% against war but politicians were thirsty for Iraqi oil though!)

    U.S. has become so much more technologically advanced than any of its NATO allies that America increasingly doesn't need them


    it is old U.S. strategy to use NATO (specially minor) nations for dirty work so that they take bullets not U.S. soldiers who would provide just logistics
    The problem is that theory doesn't work (lack of commitment!)

    Nobody in Europe is really hot for fighting U.S. wars for U.S. geopolitical interests far away from Europe!

    If members withdraw their troops from Afghanistan (before job finished) that will definitely be final blow to alliance (and happy day for Russia!)

    .
     

Share This Page