NATO Expansion: Threat to World Peace

[jouni]

Lol. Attempt to make people here, self conscious about not falling in line with your ideas noted/thwarted.

Well, this isn't a finnish forum, so you will have to accept that there are going to be a variety of views, rather than a monolithic view towards certain nations/nationalities, as expected in your finnish forums. This is probably why you "dare not mention it", as the castles you built/build in the sky, may get demolished.

Also coming to "slave soul" of Russians: How many revolutions have there been in Russia and then compare with revolutions in finland

Finland and Russia has had equal amount of revolutions. The only difference is that Finnish revolution failed. Regarding slave soul it was just today's news that Stalin is gaining popularity in Russia.

 

[jouni]

Here are the questions and answers:

India is almost ten times bigger than Russia and much more varied in languages etc.
There is more diversity in Russian languages than in Indian languages.

Are you a real democracy?
Yes. India has a multi-party Parliamentary system, unlike the monopartisan USSR or bipartisan USA. Moreover, in India, the Executive is much less powerful than the Legislature, unlike some of the so called "democratic" systems of the west.

I know that in this forum many hate the west.
Don't confuse knowledge with belief. Also, the term "west" is too generic to draw any conclusion. Most Indians in my perception have no ill will towards ordinary individuals from the west. However, Indians are well aware of the role played by the "west" (read western governments) in hurting India. There is a city called Patton-Nagar in Punjab. That was 1965. Please read about it. This is just one anecdote. Then, there is 1971. India faced the prospect of invasion by the US in 1971. I would work harder to give more examples, but I need to be convinced that you are interested in facts and sincere exchange of ideas.

Is there a freedom of media in India?
Yes, but I doubt one can blatantly lie in the media and get by. Since this discussion spawns from reference to Russia, if a Pakistani freely distributed propaganda newspaper were published as "New Delhi Times," it could face legal action. This is in reference to "Moscow Times," where the name of the newspaper itself is a blatant lie. Freedom of speech is not a carte blanche for lying.

Does India see international NGOs as mortal threat to the Nation?
Mortal, probably not, but NGOs are foreign funded institutions that stymie growth and development projects by funding and encouraging protests against infrastructure and industrial projects. The government is doing a good job of exposing them to build public opinion. This is necessary in a democracy. The government has to try and convince everyone. India does not have the policy of disenfranchising a section of its population based on racial or ethnic lines, a policy which is followed in some NATO members like the Fascist Baltic Regimes.

Is India destabilizing neighboring countries?
India's official position is neutrality in the internal affairs of other countries. India does not have a programme of sending its high ranking officials to distribute cookies in the capital of a neighbouring or far away country. However, one past Indian government did play a role in encouraging the rise of the LTTE, which was done after fears that the US was planning to set up a military base in Sri Lanka.

Feeding Nazi propaganda about neighbours by media to all Indians?
India has found itself in a similar situation where the truth about the atrocities of the military against civilians was drowned by western propaganda and lies. Considering the amount of money spent in propaganda, no one can beat the west as of now.

Is Indian current leadership tearing down peace and stability instruments of the region achieved by former governments?
India has been at a constant state of proxy-war since 1948, which only became more intense since 1989, thanks to the mess created by the CIA in Af-Pak. Thus, your premise of "peace" is spurious.

Is the current Indian prime minister changing the Constitution so he can be prime minister for life?
No, the Indian Constitution is far less prone to blatant changes, or complete revamp, unlike the Ukrainian Constitution. Also, this idea of changing the constitution so that one person can be the leader for life is totally irrelevant in this discussion. What is relevant is term limit. Yes, in India, it is possible for one person to be the Prime Minister for life if he continues to get elected.

I appreciate your long post. I am also starting to believe you have a wide knowledge of history. Unfortunately knowing does not always equal understanding. I also honestly start to admire Indian society, India should take more prominent role at world stage.

 

[Razor]

Finland and Russia has had equal amount of revolutions. The only difference is that Finnish revolution failed. Regarding slave soul it was just today's news that Stalin is gaining popularity in Russia.

So what, popularity of Hitler's ideas are also on the rise in Europe and America.

Note: I'm not equating Hitler to Stalin.

 

[jouni]

So what, popularity of Hitler's ideas are also on the rise in Europe and America.

Note: I'm not equating Hitler to Stalin.

LOL, don't compare few skinheads at US and EU to systematical rise of popularity of Stalinism in Russian society as a whole. Russia is looking back to glorious superpower days when empire stretched from Vladivostok to Wolfsburg, and who to better symbolize that than "father sunshine"

 

[Razor]

LOL, don't compare few skinheads at US and EU to systematical rise of popularity of Stalinism in Russian society as a whole. Russia is looking back to glorious superpower days when empire stretched from Vladivostok to Wolfsburg, and who to better symbolize that than "father sunshine"

Your initial premise was that increase in popularity of Stalin demonstrates the Russian "slave soul". And now you connect increase in Stalin's popularity to Russian's "looking back to glorious superpower days".
So, in conclusion you say that Russian's looking back to "glorious superpower days" is an expression of the "slave soul" of the Russians. Okay, I got it.

 

[jouni]

Your initial premise was that increase in popularity of Stalin demonstrates the Russian "slave soul". And now you connect increase in Stalin's popularity to Russian's "looking back to glorious superpower days".
So, in conclusion you say that Russian's looking back to "glorious superpower days" is an expression of the "slave soul" of the Russians. Okay, I got it.

I'm glad that you got it. It is exactly so.

 

[Razor]

I'm glad that you got it. It is exactly so.

Cool, I'm glad that you confirmed.

 

[happy]

Cool, I'm glad that you confirmed.

In essence, he is just trying to catch his tail

 

[apple]

I appreciate your long post. I am also starting to believe you have a wide knowledge of history. Unfortunately knowing does not always equal understanding. I also honestly start to admire Indian society, India should take more prominent role at world stage.

Good job baiting Pmaitra. It's not so much so much knowing =/= understanding on his part as his knowledge came two minutes ago via >Google>Wikipedia. He was saying on another thread that Lenin gave Finland it's independence, which is technically true and probably on wiki, but had no understanding what that "giving of Independence" meant

So what, popularity of Hitler's ideas are also on the rise in Europe and America.

Note: I'm not equating Hitler to Stalin.

Hitler's popularity... just no

P.S. Can't anyone tell me what Happy said? I'm not allergic to salty language and Pmaitra "defending me" is the about the most ironic thing I can think of.

 

[pmaitra]

Good job baiting Pmaitra. It's not so much so much knowing =/= understanding on his part as his knowledge came two minutes ago via >Google>Wikipedia. He was saying on another thread that Lenin gave Finland it's independence, which is technically true and probably on wiki, but had no understanding what that "giving of Independence" meant



Hitler's popularity... just no

Lot of verbiage, zero content.

Also, try to move beyond Wiki. I remember you delivering this hackneyed retort to @Ray Sir, IIRC, "presumably copy-pasted from Wiki." I understand you cannot think of anything else. Broaden your horizon.

Also, if you want to have an honest debate, you are most welcome.

Here is your signature, or part thereof:

Attemping to ignore(but can't because he's a moderator)/ not bothering to reply to as his opinions and personality are worthless; Pmaitra 10/7/2014

No, you are attempting to converse with me, but you find yourself in an awkward situation. Don't worry, you are not the only one who speaks too much too quickly. I know you are seeking attention. Use the '@' symbol before my nomme-de-plume.

P.S. Can't anyone tell me what Happy said? I'm not allergic to salty language and Pmaitra "defending me" is the about the most ironic thing I can think of.

I am allergic to salty language, so use that with your salty company in the salty waters on a fishing trawler.

I am not defending you. I am defending the forum rules. No need to self-aggrandize.

 

[jouni]

http://airheadsfly.com/2014/10/02/neutral-scandinavia-joins-nato-over-estonia/

Suhois play with Swedish recoinnasance plane.

 

[pmaitra]

Scandinavia joins NATO over Estonia; Russian ‘bodycheck’

Suhois play with Swedish recoinnasance plane.

The Sukhoi-27 has deployed its air-brake. So, it appears it chased the recon aircraft, flanked it, and then slowed down, to say "Hi" to the pilot in the recon plane.

 

[desicanuk]

And you are america's lackey ?? Why don't you try waking up your memory for a change ??

The USA has threatened India's very existence, directly. Does your memory remember that ??

USSR has then intervened and cut short US fleet advances. Does your memory remember that ??

Since then butthurt US started branding India as Russia's puppet. Does your memory remember that ??

Selective memory, my [edited] !!!

Your memory is affected by your irrational anti-American obsession and pro-Russian sentiment long nurtured by socialist(communist) Congress political philosophy.
The only threat to India came from that most anti-India Nixon during the Bangladesh war.Even then Nixon did not have full support .Those who ran the State Dept were against the "tilt".
As for the Soviets - where did they stand in 1962?And what did we sacrifice when Indiraji signed that Treaty Of Friendship.
Its time we signed a Treaty Of Friendship with Uncle Sam to rein in the dragon that Nehru brought to our doorstep by selling out the Tibetans.

 

[pmaitra]

Your memory is affected by your irrational anti-American obsession and pro-Russian sentiment long nurtured by socialist(communist) Congress political philosophy.

The United States is quasi-allied with Communist Viet-Nam. The United States was also allied with Communist China in 1971. Ideology is certainly not the case here. Moreover, Russia is more capitalist that the United States today. We are not living in the 80s. So, please come out of your irrational anti-Communist bias that has nothing to do with this Russo-US quarrel, or India's decision making in relation to that.

The only threat to India came from that most anti-India Nixon during the Bangladesh war.

The US has been arming Pakistan since its inception. The US created the Mujahideen-Taliban-al-Qaida mess in Af-Pak, and there have been 54,000 casualties (fifty four thousand). This intensified since 1989.

Even then Nixon did not have full support .Those who ran the State Dept were against the "tilt".

Irrelevant. Nixon did what he had to do, and he gave a tuppence about what the Congress said. I, for one, don't believe in this "democracy, democracy" hubris. The fact remains, the US presidents have acted in an authoritarian manner on many occasions.

As for the Soviets - where did they stand in 1962?

The Sino-Soviet split happened in 1960.

And what did we sacrifice when Indiraji signed that Treaty Of Friendship.

We sacrificed nothing. India gained far more than what the USSR gained. We did not have a Soviet military base in India. The same cannot be said about Japan.

Its time we signed a Treaty Of Friendship with Uncle Sam to rein in the dragon that Nehru brought to our doorstep by selling out the Tibetans.

Absolutely not. Uncle Sam has massive trade volumes with the Dragon. They will never fight the Dragon. India should stay neutral.

 

[happy]

Your memory is affected by your irrational anti-American obsession and pro-Russian sentiment long nurtured by socialist(communist) Congress political philosophy.
The only threat to India came from that most anti-India Nixon during the Bangladesh war.Even then Nixon did not have full support .Those who ran the State Dept were against the "tilt".
As for the Soviets - where did they stand in 1962?And what did we sacrifice when Indiraji signed that Treaty Of Friendship.
Its time we signed a Treaty Of Friendship with Uncle Sam to rein in the dragon that Nehru brought to our doorstep by selling out the Tibetans.

I 100% agree with what @pmaitra has said above and NO, I am not a Pro-Russia sympathiser.

Apart from Nixon whom you have termed as "most anti-India", I would ask you to name the "most for-India" President of the USA and what he has contributed thus far ?? To make it simpler for you, IMHO, there is NONE, ever.....

Why have they been arming Pak ?............The only reason - To contain India.

I don't need to ask you about Pak...right ??

What is their goal ??

What do they gain ??

What do we gain from friendship ??

Are they reliable ?? How and Why ??

What is the "War on Terror" ??

Who is OBL ?? What role did he have in 9/11 ??

What did Gaddafi and Saddam do to deserve such a treatment??

Who authorized USA to treat them as such ??

What is happening in Libya & Syria ??

What is ISIS and why is it formed and how ??

What is NATO, it's objectives and goals ?? What is it's current status ??

If you can answer these questions in depth, then I guess you will have your own answers.

 

[pmaitra]

My Case against NATO

The Soviet Union is gone. Communism is gone. So should be permanent war.

Eric Zuesse [SOURCE]

Aggressive, permanent alliance is un-American

My personal goal is now to end NATO; its continued existence after the end of the Soviet Union is an enormous crime and exposes that a significant part of NATO's support during the Cold War had nothing whatsoever to do with any ideological battle, between communism and capitalism, or between democracy and totalitarianism, but is instead a mere global grab-for-power by America's aristocracy, to subordinate all other nations' aristocracies to it — and to ignore all the bloodshed and vast economic waste that has been entailed by this psychopathic American aristocratic grab-for-global-power.

That ugliness of NATO's past is now the ONLY thing that exists in NATO's present; the ideological case for NATO's existence is long-since entirely gone; so, NATO is now 100% fraudulent, 100% an aristocratic lie; it must therefore end, ASAP, in order to end the growing global danger of catastrophic nuclear war. Why are 'peaceniks' not marching by the millions worldwide to end that abomination, NATO?

There was justification for America's post-WW-II cold war against communism and against totalitarianism. There is no justification for the U.S. Government's war (of any type) against Russia. That entirely unnecessary and increasingly harmful and dangerous war doesn't say anything about Russia, but it says lots — all of it very damning — about the current U.S. Government, and about all of NATO. It's a criminal operation now.

Germany should quit. France should quit. Albania should quit. Belgium should quit. Bulgaria should quit. Canada should quit. Croatia should quit. Czech Republic should quit. Denmark should quit. Estonia should quit. Greece should quit. Hungary should quit. Iceland should quit. Italy should quit. Latvia should quit. Lithuania should quit. Luxembourg should quit. Netherlands should quit. Norway should quit. Poland should quit. Portugal should quit. Romania should quit. Slovakia should quit. Slovenia should quit. Spain should quit. Turkey should quit. U.K. should quit.

The Soviet Union is gone. Communism is gone. Permanent war should also be gone.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world": George Washington said this to us in his Farewell Address. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was equally clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none."

The continued existence of NATO is actually un-American. The U.S. should therefore now also quit NATO. The U.S. aristocracy should quit itself. America's Founders were firmly against aristocracy, and were passionate supporters of the public, no caste system at all (except acceptance of slavery, which the South insisted on keeping, and which the last of America's Founders, Abraham Lincoln, finally ended).

And, while we're at it, special trade-alliances between aristocracies — TTIP, TPP, TISA, and others — are also un-American; and anyone in Congress who supports them is un-American, and should be removed from Congress for that.

But NATO is now, because America's war-mongers are on fire to shed the blood of others in order to conquer Russia. The war-mongers might benefit from it, but everyone else will be harmed by it. The end of NATO should come now.

NATO is today's clear and present threat. Ending it will be good for America. Ending it will be good for the world. Ending it will enable countries around the world to spend more on building prosperity, and to spend less on building bombs to destroy other people's prosperity.

For the spirit of America's Founders to lead in the modern world, it will be by our example, not by our bombs. America's enemies, such as ISIS, can be dealt with far more effectively without NATO, than with it. NATO sets an example that even ISIS can use in order to further inspire hatred against America.

What did we gain by invading Iraq? Hatred. The aristocracy might have gained, but the publics everywhere suffered from it. Invading Iraq gained us the hatred of much of the global public. America's public also suffer from this global growth in hatred, even if America's aristocrats might have gained financially from instigating it.

This is supposed to be a democracy. We should become one, again.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of Christ's Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

[Rowdy]

My Case against NATO

The Soviet Union is gone. Communism is gone. So should be permanent war.

Eric Zuesse [SOURCE]

NATO should expand towards Jihadi strongholds like Iraq, Syria and Yemen .. few NA countries too ... main problem is saudi arabia , but as long as they have Obama's balls in a vice ...

 

[pmaitra]

NATO Would Probably Lose a War Against Russia

Shellback [SOURCE]

Ivan Ivanovich enters Berlin

With the hyper-aggressive resolution just passed by the US House of Representatives we move closer to open war. Thus what follows may be apposite. In short, the US and NATO, accustomed to cheap and easy victories (at least in the short term – over the long term Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo are hardly victories), will have a shattering shock should they ever fight the Russian Armed Forces.

At the beginning of my career, in the 1970s, I spent some years engaged in combat simulations. Most of these exercises were for training staff officers but some were done in-house to test out some weapon or tactic. The scenario was usually the same: we, NATO, the good guys, Blue, would be deployed, usually in Germany; that is, on the eastern edge of West Germany. There we would be attacked by the Warsaw Pact, the bad guys, Red. (The colors, by the way, date from the very first war game, Kriegspiel; nothing to do with the Communist Party's favorite color).

Over several years of being on the control staff I noticed two things. Naturally both Red and Blue were played by our people, however interesting it might have been to borrow some Soviet officers to play Red. What always fascinated me was how quickly the people playing Red would start getting aggressive. Their fellow officers, on the Blue side, were very risk-averse, slow and cautious. The Red players just drove down the road and didn't mind losing a tank, let alone a tank company. What was really interesting (we tested this in the office, so to speak) was that, at the end of the day, the full speed ahead approach produced fewer casualties than the cautious approach. The other thing – rather chilling this – was that Red always won. Always. And rather quickly.

I developed a great respect for the Soviet war-fighting doctrine. I don't know whether it was based on traditional Russian doctrine but it certainly had been perfected in the Second World War where the Soviets carried out what are probably the largest land operations ever conducted. Nothing could be farther from the truth than the casual Western idea that the Soviets sent waves of men against the Germans until they ran out of ammunition and were trampled under the next wave. Once the Soviets got going, they were very good indeed.

The Soviet war-fighting doctrine that I saw in the exercises had several characteristics. The first thing that was clear is that the Soviets knew that people are killed in wars and that there is no place for wavering; hesitation loses the war and gets more people killed in the end. Secondly, success is reinforced and failure left to itself. "Viktor Suvorov", a Soviet defector, wrote that he used to pose a problem to NATO officers. You have four battalions, three attacking and one in reserve; the battalion on the left has broken through easily, the one in the middle can break through with a little more effort, the one on the right is stopped. Which one do you reinforce with your reserve battalion? He claimed that no NATO officer ever gave the correct answer. Which was, forget the middle and right battalions, reinforce success; the fourth battalion goes to help the lefthand one and, furthermore, you take away the artillery support from the other two and give it to the battalion on the left. Soviet war-fighting doctrine divided their forces into echelons, or waves. In the case above, not only would the fourth battalion go to support the lefthand battalion but the followup regiments would be sent there too. Breakthroughs are reinforced and exploited with stunning speed and force. General von Mellenthin speaks of this in his book Panzer Battles when he says that any Soviet river crossing must be attacked immediately with whatever the defender has; any delay brings more and more Soviet soldiers swimming, wading or floating across. They reinforce success no matter what. The third point was the tremendous amount of high explosives that Soviet artillery could drop on a position. In this respect, the BM-21 Grad, about which I have written before, was a particular standout, but they had plenty of guns as well.

An especially important point, given a common US and NATO assumption, is that the Soviets did not assume that they would always have total air superiority. The biggest hole, in my opinion, of US and NATO war-fighting doctrine is this assumption. US tactics often seem to be little more than the instruction to wait for the air to get the ground forces out of trouble (maybe that's why US-trained forces do so poorly against determined foes). Indeed, when did the Americans ever have to fight without total air superiority other than, perhaps, their very first experience in World War II? The Western Allies in Italy, at D-day and Normandy and the subsequent fighting could operate confident that almost every aircraft in the sky was theirs. This confident arrogance has, if anything, grown stronger since then with short wars in which the aircraft all come home. The Soviets never had this luxury – they always knew they would have to fight for air superiority and would have to operate in conditions where they didn't have it. And, General Chuikov at Stalingrad "hugging the enemy", they devised tactics that minimized the effectiveness of enemy aircraft. The Russians forces have not forgotten that lesson today and that is probably why their air defense is so good.

NATO commanders will be in for a shattering shock when their aircraft start falling in quantity and the casualties swiftly mount into the thousands and thousands. After all, we are told that the Kiev forces lost two thirds of their military equipment against fighters with a fraction of Russia's assets, but with the same fighting style.

But, getting back to the scenarios of the Cold War. Defending NATO forces would be hit by an unimaginably savage artillery attack, with, through the dust, a huge force of attackers pushing on. The NATO units that repelled their attackers would find a momentary peace on their part of the battlefield while the ones pushed back would immediately be attacked by fresh forces three times the size of the first ones and even heavier bombardments. The situation would become desperate very quickly.

No wonder they always won and no wonder the NATO officer playing Red, following the simple instructions of push ahead resolutely, reinforce success, use all you artillery all the time, would win the day.

The Emperor Alexander enters Paris

I don't wish to be thought to be saying that the Soviets would have "got to the the English Channel in 48 hours" as the naysayers were fond of warning. In fact, the Soviets had a significant Achilles Heel. In the rear of all this would have been an unimaginably large traffic jam. Follow-up echelons running their engines while commanders tried to figure out where they should be sent, thousands of trucks carrying fuel and ammunition waiting to cross bridges, giant artillery parks, concentrations of engineering equipment never quite in the right place at the right time. And more arriving every moment. A ground-attack pilot's dream. The NATO Air-Land Battle doctrine being developed would have gone some distance to even things up again. But it would have been a tremendously destructive war, even forgetting the nuclear weapons (which would also be somewhere in the traffic jam).

As for the Soviets on the defense, (something we didn't game because NATO, in those days, was a defensive alliance) the Battle of Kursk is probably the model still taught today: hold the attack with layer after layer of defenses, then, at the right moment, the overwhelming attack at the weak spot. The classic attack model is probably Autumn Storm.

All of this rugged and battle proven doctrine and methodology is somewhere in the Russian Army today. We didn't see it in the first Chechen War – only overconfidence and incompetence. Some of it in the Second Chechen War. More of it in the Ossetia War. They're getting it back. And they are exercising it all the time.

Light-hearted people in NATO or elsewhere should never forget that it's a war-fighting doctrine that does not require absolute air superiority to succeed and knows that there are no cheap victories. It's also a very, very successful one with many victories to its credit. (Yes, they lost in Afghanistan but the West didn't do any better.)

I seriously doubt that NATO has anything to compare: quick air campaigns against third-rate enemies yes. This sort of thing, not so much.

Even if, somehow, the nukes are kept in the box.

To quote Field Marshal Montgomery "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule."

(His second rule, by the way, was: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China." As Washington's policy drives Moscow and Beijing closer together.... But that is another subject).

 

[pmaitra]

Pun intended at the words "protection" and "US."


Refer to : http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...95-brics-e7-economies-ibsa-7.html#post1013049

 

[sgarg]

The USA prepared a war plan against USSR in the early eighties. This war plan included both economic war and military war. The economic war component of this plan was so successful that it caused the demise of USSR within a few years.

The plan to "outspend" USSR in military spending was the smartest move by the Reagan administration.

However what happened after USSR was humbled did not go according to plans. The complications created by breakup of USSR created additional need for financial resources which made the surge in military spending permanent. This in turn increased US national debt which ultimately resulted in the financial crisis of 2001.

There has been a constant and ever-increasing divergence in the US empire from its stated main principle of "capitalist society". The economy is more and more dependent on State support (or money printing). While USA empire is choke-a-bloke with technical advances, its finances have NOT improved much since the financial crisis.

The conclusion - The US empire made financial decisions in early 1980 which have boomeranged on it.