NATO Expansion: Threat to World Peace

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
The American dithering in Syria has more to do with the fear of jihadists getting power in Syria than Russia. The Americans could have easily bomb Assad out of Syria or this World. BUt doing so would create a power vacuum that will certainly be filled up by the jihadists who are already very active and dominant in the ground in SYria. Second, with the current chaotic situation in Syria, the threat of Assad to American interest in the region is as good as neutralized.
In today's context the possibility of bombing a country and undertaking a violent regime has become a nightmare once that bombing and regime change becomes effective. Iraq and Afghanistan are cases in point, which has reduced the 'fear' potential of the US might that the US had before these actions.

If one looks at the prospective potential of the US to be taken as an 'enforcer' of its writ around the world, one would find that it no longer is that awe inspiring. The manner in which it has withdrawn/withdrawing from these 'troubled' spots leaves much to be desired in terms of US' prestige and 'awe' that it commanded prior to these unilateral involvements in these troubled spots.

Therefore, one wonders if the US would intervene, given that they have wisely learnt that once bitten, it is better to be twice shy.

One wonders if Assad has been neutralised in the region.

Saudi Arabia, an ally of the US and a sworn enemy of Basher, has declared as follows"

Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group, says Saudi Arabia
Statement on Saudi TV also lists Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) as terrorist organisations


Saudi Arabia has formally designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group in an official report on Saudi television.
Citing a statement by the interior ministry, the report added that the Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) – whose fighters are battling the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad – were also classed as terror organisations.




If you ask me it was a wise, cold and calculating decision by the Americans. Why spend Billions of dollars on toppling Assas when the Americans can just set back and watch him and the jihadists kill each other?
If I may ask a counter question, then why did the US undertake all the brouhaha and assistance to the terrorists and separatists in the first place?

Should have quite watched show go on from the sidelines, silently give aid as they did in Poland and let it unfold the way it went in Poland and none could blame the US for interfering?




Again the prejudiced claim against Ukrainians. You really think of the Ukrainians that low that you assume that they cannot think for themselves on waht to do with their own affairs or how to approach their own foreign relations?
Unstable nations are open to the highest bidder.

And all pay homage to the Rising Sun! Compared to Russia, there is more to gain from the US, which still is the economic powerhouse that can dispense largesse at will"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.if, that is, one toes its line and does to its bidding.


And on the benefit to the West of Ukrainian participation with EU, I'm not too sure about that. Ukraine is heavily in debt and has to be subsidized heavily by European taxpayers in the coming several years.
The US and Germany have salvaged many an European State tottering under heavy debt and collapse. Greece is a case in point.

Georgia and Ukraine are a very important frontline nation to keep Russia in check.

We don't see the US or EU taking the same kind of interest as in Ukraine and Georgia in Dafur, do we? The reason is simple – it is neither an economic lucrative zone nor is from the US strategic standpoint of interest.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835



Location of Crimea (dark green) with respect to Ukraine (green) on a map of Europe
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Background[edit]

Main article: 2014 Crimean crisis
See also: Euromaidan and 2014 Ukrainian revolution
On 22 February 2014 Ukrainian protesters overthrew the administration President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition took control of the capital city and national government. Soon after Yanukovych fled from Kiev,[45] the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) voted to restore the 2004 version of the Constitution of Ukraine and impeach Yanukovych. While on the run, Yanukovych refused to resign and some politicians from Ukraine's east and south regions, including Crimea, declared continuing loyalty to Yanukovych.[46]

On 23 February, following the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, the law on languages of minorities, including Russian, was abolished.[47] In so doing, Russian-speaking regions were infuriated that the new government made Ukrainian the sole state language at all levels, seemingly pressing ahead with Ukrainian nationalism.[48] On 1 March 2014 the bill repealing the law was vetoed by Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov.[49]

On 27 February, men in military uniform in Simferopol, the capital city of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, seized the Crimean parliamentary building and the Council of Ministers building and replaced the Ukrainian flag with the Russian flag.[1] They ousted the prime minister appointed by the President of Ukraine and installed pro-Russian politician, Sergey Aksyonov, as Crimea's prime minister.[50] Aksyonov illegally declared himself in charge of local military and law enforcement.[51] On 1 March, the acting president of Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchynov, decreed the Crimean legislature's appointment of Aksyonov as unconstitutional, as the position of prime minister is appointed by the president of Ukraine, and not elected by parliament. The Crimean legislature has declared its intention to hold a referendum on greater autonomy from Kiev on 25 May 2014, a move which Hatidzhe Mamutova, the head of the League of Crimean-Tatar Women, called illegal.[52]

Councilors in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, home to the Russian and Ukrainian Black Sea naval fleets, selected a Russian citizen as mayor, as pro-Russian demonstrators chanted "a Russian mayor for a Russian city". Furthermore, Sevastopol's police chief said he would refuse orders from Kiev.[53] In Sevastopol, Kerch, and other Crimean cities, pro-Russian demonstrators pulled down the flag of Ukraine and replaced it with the flag of Russia in clashes with city officials.[54][55]

Russian units began moving into Crimea almost immediately after the press conference of former president Yanukovych held on 28 February 2014 in Rostov-on-Don, near the eastern border of Ukraine, where he called for Putin to "restore order" in Ukraine. During the conference Yanukovych insisted that military action was "unacceptable" and that he would not request Russian military intervention.[56][57] Still on 4 March 2014 Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin demonstrated a photocopy of a letter allegedly signed by Victor Yanukovich on 1 March 2014, to support their assertion that Yanukovich had demanded Russian military intervention in Ukraine.[58] Aksyonov also appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to provide assistance in ensuring the peace in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Both houses of the Russian legislature (Federal Assembly) voted on 1 March 2014 to send Russian troops into Crimea.[59][60]

Strategic importance[edit]

See also: Russian Black Sea Fleet, Natural gas in Ukraine, and Russia–Ukraine gas disputes

The Autonomous Republic of Crimea occupies most of the Crimean peninsula with only the Strait of Kerch separating it from Russia to the east by a short 15 kilometres (9.3 mi). As an autonomous republic, it has its own constitution although it is still part of Ukraine. Many Russian civilians and servicemembers live and work there. As tensions escalated in the region, Russia intervened under the justification that it must "protect Russian civilians and military in Ukraine".[a]

At the same time, the Port of Sevastopol and the town of Kacha are located in Sevastopol, a city in the southwestern area of the peninsula that does not belong to Crimea administratively. Both locations hold key strategic value for Russia, economically and militarily.[62] The Port of Sevastopol, which Russia currently leases from Ukraine, is considered a key hold for maritime routes between the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, and by extension the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean.[63] It is also one of the few warm deepwater ports in the Black Sea available to Russia. As the Ukrainian revolution unfolded—and as the newly installed Ukrainian government began to distance itself from Russia—Russia felt that its access to the port and its military bases in the Crimean peninsula were in jeopardy.[64] Ensuring access to the port and Russia's military bases in the Crimean peninsula are considered one of the main factors that sparked Russia's military intervention.[64] On the other hand, the town of Kacha serves as military headquarters for Russia's 25th Independent Anti-submarine Helicopter Regiment (25th AHR) and the 917th Independent Composite Air Regiment (917th ICAR) of the Black Sea Fleet Naval Air Force.

Crimea also possesses several natural gas fields both onshore and offshore, all connected to Ukraine's pipeline system.[65][66] The inland fields are located in Chornomorske and Dzhankoy, while offshore fields are located in the western coast in the Black Sea and in the northeastern coast in the Azov Sea:[67]

The republic also possesses two oil fields: one onshore, the Serebryankse oil field in Rozdolne, and one offshore, the Subbotina oil field in the Black Sea.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed from The Guardian reported on 6 March that, "U.S. oil and gas majors like Chevron and Exxon are increasingly encroaching on [Moscow-based] Gazprom's regional monopoly, undermining Russia's energy hegemony over Europe."[69] He would then assert that, "competition to dominate Eurasian energy corridors, are behind Russian militarism and U.S. interference."[69]

Read more at:

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Your SILENCE on American atrocities and Human Rights Violations around the world PROVES your unrelenting biased support.

FYI, I objected to Iraq invasion (not that my voice from Asia will be heard by the Americans). Practically, the whole of my country was opposed to that war. We even had a curious tribunal that indicted and tried Bush, Jr.

As to those brutalities you should graphically, well understand that those are unauthorized acts of misguided individuals. There is no evidence that those actions are official policy of the American government. I guess its the innate brutality of war that brings out the darkest side of some soldiers involved in it. There will always be cases of sporadic unnecessary brutality in conflicts. Haven't you heard the brutalities of Soviet forces in Afghanistan? But lumping individual acts into state acts is already a product of propaganda.
 

happy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,370
Likes
1,454
As to those brutalities you should graphically, well understand that those are unauthorized acts of misguided individuals. There is no evidence that those actions are official policy of the American government. I guess its the innate brutality of war that brings out the darkest side of some soldiers involved in it. There will always be cases of sporadic unnecessary brutality in conflicts. Haven't you heard the brutalities of Soviet forces in Afghanistan? But lumping individual acts into state acts is already a product of propaganda.
Do you mean to say that it is your understanding of American policy or are you speaking on behalf of the USA ?? Do you think any country will acknowledge it's war crimes, however clinching the evidence might be ??

United States war crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 major atrocities in US military history | GlobalPost

A US soldier allegedly left his base in Afghanistan Sunday and went door-to-door shooting Afghan civilians, killing 16 and leaving both Afghanistan and America reeling. While the incident has sparked outrage at home and abroad, this is hardly the first time that members of the US armed forces have been accused of committing atrocities on the ground.
And there is more where that came from.
 

happy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,370
Likes
1,454
@asianobserve Cat got your tongue ?? Anyway more news about the complaint against NATO and it's allies for the various war crimes committed by them.

Complaint Filed at International Criminal Court Over NATO Allies' Complicity in US Drone Strikes | Global Research

Drone victims are today lodging a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) accusing NATO member states of war crimes over their role in facilitating the US' covert drone programme in Pakistan.

It has been revealed in recent months that the UK, Germany, Australia, and other NATO partners support US drone strikes through intelligence-sharing. Because all these countries are signatories to the Rome Statute, they fall under The ICC's jurisdiction and can therefore be investigated for war crimes. Kareem Khan - whose civilian brother and son were killed in a 2009 drone strike – is at The Hague with his lawyers from the human rights charity Reprieve and the Foundation for Fundamental Rights who have filed the complaint on his behalf.

The CIA has launched more than 300 missiles at North Waziristan since its covert drone programme began and it is estimated that between 2004 and 2013, thousands of people have been killed, many of them civilians including children.

The US has immunised itself from legal accountability over drone strikes and the UK has closed its domestic courts to foreign drone victims. In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal in London ruled that it would not opine on the legality of British agents' involvement in the US drone war in Pakistan, for fear of causing embarrassment to its closest ally.

Kat Craig, Reprieve's legal director, said: "There can surely be no doubt that facilitating the deaths of thousands of civilians – as NATO allies are doing in a plethora of ways – constitutes war crimes. The International Criminal Court, established specifically to hold overwhelming state power to account, is in a unique position to offer some semblance of justice to individual drone victims with nowhere else to go. They must take this complaint seriously and investigate."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

happy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,370
Likes
1,454
NATO expansion — Yugoslavia to Ukraine » Anti-war » Around the world » Top » Workers World

Behind Washington's hypocritical talk of "national sovereignty," "territorial integrity" and "international law" in its efforts to undercut the overwhelming vote of the people of Crimea to join Russia stands a stark struggle over whether Ukraine will be dragged into the ever expanding, U.S.-commanded NATO military web.

Since 1995, the year NATO waged its first aggressive war against Yugoslavia, NATO has expanded into nine countries of Eastern Europe and three former republics of the former Soviet Union.

The Obama administration is using more than words in this deepening struggle.

The Pentagon has moved F-16 fighter-bombers, F-15 fighters, C-130 transport planes and RC-135 aerial tankers to Russia's borders and sent the USS Truxtun destroyer, armed with cruise missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads, into the Black Sea. Washington threatens economic sanctions, putting pressure on Germany and other EU members to join in. A lot is at stake.

NATO membership was a key provision in the agreement that Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych balked at signing with the EU last November. The Maidan Square occupation in Kiev, the capital, aimed at stampeding the government into joining the EU and NATO. Fascist ultraright paramilitary organizations, such as Right Sector and the neo-Nazi Svoboda party took the lead. @Waffen SS guess you need to educate many people around the world about the NAZIs

During the Kiev occupation and since, these openly armed terror organizations burned political offices of communists, pulled down revolutionary statues, attacked gay people and defaced homes of Ukrainian Jews. Despite their open fascist symbols and criminal acts, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland openly met with and embraced these reactionaries.

On Feb. 21-22, the fascist forces overthrew the elected government, seized Parliament and expelled government officials, even though Yanukovych had just reached an agreement with the EU, including many concessions and the scheduling of new elections. The first act of the coup government, after deposing Yanukovych in a rump parliament, without a quorum, was to ban Russian and Greek language usage by Ukrainian minorities and to end Crimea's autonomy within Ukraine.

Within days, the coup regime named fascists to key posts in the new state — the Svoboda Party's Andriy Parubiy as secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Right Sector head Dmytro Yarosh as his deputy and Svoboda's Ihor Tenhyok as minister of defense. The U.S.-favored right-wing banker Arseniy Yatsenyuk became prime minister.

The immediate attack on Crimea's autonomy confirms how well the coup government fell in line with NATO's plan for expansion. The Crimea is the only non-Arctic base to provide a port for the Russian Navy.

Washington and Berlin immediately granted recognition to this coup government. In an effort to lend further legitimacy, the unelected Yatsenyuk was invited to a meeting at the White House and to the United Nations Security Council.

It should be no surprise then that the gut response of most of the population of the Crimea to this fascist threat was to hold a referendum on whether to continue autonomy or rejoin Russia. Nor that Russian Prime Minister Putin decided to order Russian troops, whose presence in Crimea is approved of by treaty with Ukraine, to secure their position in the peninsula. The collective memory of the Russian-speaking majority in Crimea is shaped by stories of the Nazi invasion and massive destruction in World War II.



Remember Croatia and Kosovo

This is not the first time that U.S. imperialism has used terror tactics and economic destabilization, and publicly embraced paramilitary monsters.

The videos of Blackwater mercenaries and right-wing militias operating in eastern Ukraine and movements of Ukrainian military and National Guard raised great apprehension.

If the fascist coup government could in one measure end Crimea's long held autonomy, the likely next step would be to order the Russian Navy out of its own base. Perhaps it would expel a large part of Crimea's population. If that seems unbelievable, consider what happened in other U.S. supported rightist coups in Croatia and in Kosovo, a province of Serbia, and their similarities with the Ukraine situation.


During World War II, the fascist Ustashe had welcomed the Italian fascist and German Nazi occupation and carried out genocide against the Jewish and Serbian populations of Croatia. A united multinational partisan resistance movement throughout Yugoslavia finally defeated the fascists, drove out the German army and laid the basis for the Yugoslav Socialist Federation as the war ended.

The return of this same criminal Ustashe organization, its 1991 declaration of independence for Croatia and separation from the Yugoslav Federation were immediately recognized by Berlin and soon by Washington. This political support for a right-wing separatist movement by the U.S. and Germany, combined with the 1995 attack on Bosnia and the 1999 NATO air war, led to the breakup of the Yugoslav Socialist Federation.

After declaring Croatian independence in 1991 and taking command of the police and military, the Ustashe carried out attacks on the Serbian population. It outlawed the rights of the Serbian minority, who had lived in Croatia since the Middle Ages, expelling them from their farms, evicting them from apartments, firing them from state jobs and cancelling their pensions and social services.

Fearing the mass executions like those these fascists had carried out during World War II, the Serbs in Croatia resisted and civil war broke out. By 1995, more than 200,000 Serbs had been driven from the Krajina region in Croatia.

Similar rightist forces unleashed the civil war in Bosnia, another republic of the Yugoslav Federation. This led to even deeper ethnic divisions, great destruction and loss of life.

Before the Ustashe seized power in Croatia, the annual U.S. Foreign Appropriation Law 101-513 in 1990 created a political and economic crisis in the Yugoslav economy. It cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans until each of the six Yugoslav republics held separate elections for independence. At the same time, secretly funded mercenaries and militias flooded into the region, spreading terror.

In both Russia and Ukraine, many are aware of the U.S. role in shaping the civil war in Bosnia to justify NATO intervention. First, in 1995, U.S./NATO used 400 aircraft and 5,000 personnel from 15 nations in the 21-day bombing of Serbian-held positions in Bosnia. Then, Washington imposed the Dayton Accords, which stationed 60,000 NATO troops in Bosnia.

This bombing and occupation of Bosnia was the first crucial step in the expansion of the NATO military alliance into the Balkans, and then into East Europe and the former Soviet republics.

What is NATO?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military-machine alliance under U.S. domination and run to project Wall Street's interests. NATO has a U.S.-commanded military structure imposed by U.S. corporate policy since it was founded in 1949, at the peak of U.S. power.

Since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has aggressively expanded until it is now the biggest political-military alliance in history, with 28 member countries. Its "partnership programs" bring the total number of countries trapped in this U.S.-spun military web to 70 countries. U.S. taxpayers pay 70 percent of NATO expenses, a huge subsidy to U.S. military corporations.

The combined defense expenditures of all 28 NATO countries in 2013 amounted to $1.02 trillion or over $1 million millions. In comparison, Russia spends $90 billion. Iran spends under $7 billion. (Stars and Stripes, Feb. 25 — tinyurl.com/o332a4e)

In addition, NATO troops are part of the 13-year continuing U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. From 2004 to 2011, tens of thousands of troops under NATO command participated in the eight-year occupation that destroyed Iraq.

Starting March 24, 1999, NATO carried out a 78-day bombardment of Serbia that included 38,000 combat missions, using 1,000 aircraft along with cruise missiles fired from aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines. The targets were overwhelmingly civilian, including bridges, railroads, factories, refineries, power stations, telecommunications facilities, embassies, 480 schools and 33 hospitals.

NATO cut Kosovo province out of Serbia, creating a NATO protectorate with 50,000 troops and building Camp Bondsteel, a massive U.S. military base. Despite the U.S. pledge that Kosovo was historically part of Serbia and would remain so, Washington quickly recognized Kosovo's independence in 2008.

In 2011, NATO bombed Libya for 220 days, with 26,500 sorties, overwhelmingly flown by the U.S. Air Force, but with 19 countries pulled into the imperialist aggression. Communications centers, apartment buildings, water networks and the electric grid were targeted. The reactionary militias that U.S./NATO funded and backed up militarily brutally tortured and murdered Moammar Gadhafi, the leader of this African country.

The imperialists fraudulently called each of these blatant aggressions "humanitarian acts" to prevent "genocide" or to protect peace. In fact, each NATO operation was a brutal act of colonial conquest and expansion.

Transforming NATO

NATO's main task at its 1949 founding was to confront and challenge the Soviet Union. But it was also established to secure U.S. military and economic domination in Western Europe, a check against working-class uprisings and the rise of any imperialist competitors. It wasn't until 1955 that the USSR and East European countries established the Warsaw Pact to counter NATO's Cold War pressure.

In 1990, as the Soviet Union was retreating under the pressure of 45 years of Cold War, U.S. Secretary of State Baker and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl made a commitment that was quickly broken. They said NATO troops would not expand "one inch" further east, not even into the former German Democratic Republic.

The USSR's conciliatory Mikhail Gorbachev leadership swallowed this commitment and agreed to withdraw the 380,000 Soviet troops from East Germany, where by treaty they had a right to be stationed since the end of World War II in 1945. This in effect ended the Warsaw Pact military alliance. (Counterpunch, March 13; The Atlantic, March 3)

Despite these talks and agreements, the expansion of NATO right up to the borders of Russia has been the focus of U.S. policy through both Republican and Democratic administrations.
A whole bunch of hypocrites, eh @W.G.Ewald ? Or should we say many are born with hypocrisy ingrained in their DNA ??

Although U.S. policy had long been to support and fund dissident individuals and organizations of opposition throughout the Warsaw Pact countries, after 1990 the floodgates opened. Western corporations and banks sought resources. Exiled wealthy families surged back into the region to attempt to reclaim ownership of industries, vast estates and swaths of land they had previously owned that had been collectivized.

Fascist groups from the Ustashe in Croatia to Svobodo and the National Socialist Party in Ukraine, the war criminals whom the CIA had smuggled west at the end of WW II and helped to secretly maintain in exile for decades, surged back in. They returned awash in funds for offices, staff, publications, political parties, nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations. They drafted and printed anti-communist schoolbooks full of extreme sectarian nationalism and ethnic hatred. They also established militias and hired armed thugs to defend their newly seized assets.

For the past 20 years, a handful of pirates and privateers in each of the formerly socialist countries were absorbed in laying hold of every resource, industry or source of formerly collective wealth and making deals and partnerships with U.S. and EU corporations and moving vast sums of money to the West.

These new oligarchs assumed that they would be offered an equal seat at the capitalist table. They foolishly did not realize that they were the main course. This is the age of capitalist overproduction, decline and commodity super abundance. There is no more room at the table.

By clear majorities, country polls of almost every new NATO member showed that the people opposed joining NATO. But imperialist conquest takes place through stealth and deception and through bloody wars and massive destruction, not democratic choice. The lessons of past NATO crimes and the rich history of resistance to fascism throughout the region serve as a model for the anti-fascist, progressive and working-class forces throughout Europe today. The only way to defeat fascism and imperialist domination is through multinational working-class unity, organization and a will to struggle.

The author was in Yugoslavia during the 1999 U.S./NATO bombing and witnessed the massive civilian destruction. She is a co-author and editor of "NATO in the Balkans," (1998) and "Hidden Agenda — U.S./ NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia," (2002), both published by the International Action Center.
@Razor @pmaitra @Ray
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
It is cl;aimed by Gorbachev and others that the US and EU had assured that there will be no expansion towards the East.

But owing to national interest and strategic interests, expansion towards the East did take place.

Russia was in no position to prevent the same being weak.

Now that the Russia relatively stronger, Russia is exerting herself.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
It is cl;aimed by Gorbachev and others that the US and EU had assured that there will be no expansion towards the East.

But owing to national interest and strategic interests, expansion towards the East did take place.

Russia was in no position to prevent the same being weak.

Now that the Russia relatively stronger, Russia is exerting herself.
Will we return to the days of the Iron Curtain? Would that be a good thing for India?
 

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Will we return to the days of the Iron Curtain? Would that be a good thing for India?
New Cold War might not be that bad afterall for us. NATO or West in general will consolidate again, thus making us overall stronger. Bipolar world is actually better and more stabile than multipolar.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
Will we return to the days of the Iron Curtain? Would that be a good thing for India?
Cold War? Maybe.

Iron Curtain? No

Take India for instance.

We have had a breath of fresh air economically after liberalisation. Can we go back to the Socialist days?

It is Election time. There is a whole lot who are poor. The ruling Congress Party has announced quite a few populist measures and yet they are facing defeat, ifnot a rout.

People want money in the pocket. People want to do an honest piece of work that recognise their labour and pays for the same honestly. They don't want doles any more.

So, there is no chance of any nation, be it Russia, China or India taking the step back!

But Cold War affecting India. I think it is inevitable.

Where will India align?

The one which gives them more bang for the bucks!

India will go back to the days of acting Non Aligned judging issues on their merits.

And the Indian psyche that I explained will play its part subconsciously, even though India is closer to the Western way of societal norms.
 
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Vladimir Putin and his American apologists like to blame NATO's post-Cold War expansion for his territorial conquests, which ignores that the alliance refused in 2008 to let Georgia and Ukraine even begin the process of joining. Those are the two countries the Russian has since carved up, and the question now is whether Russia's expansionism will slap Western leaders out of their self-defense slumbers.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen sounded the alarm last week in a visit to Washington. "I see Crimea as an element in a greater pattern" of Russian strategy, he told an audience at the Brookings Institution. Moscow's annexation of Crimea, he said, is "a wake-up call" that "must be followed by increased European investment in defense." He might have included the U.S.
NATO's Military Decline - WSJ.com
 

happy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Messages
3,370
Likes
1,454
Ukraine: another fine mess EU’ve gotten us into | Europe | For Europe, Against the EU | spiked

The European Union (EU) is often presented as a progressive way of conducting international relations, especially after it won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2012. But events in Ukraine, and the development of a new destabilising dynamic more broadly in Eastern Europe, show that the EU is far from benign.

Over the past 20 years, the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) has given rise to destabilising trends. This is because it has pursued interventions divorced from differing national interests based in different histories, economies, geography and territorial relationships. The EU's behaviour towards Ukraine has been no exception. It has disregarded geopolitics and failed to understand previously acknowledged Russian interests in either Crimea or the rest of Ukraine.

Instead, the EU's Ukraine policy has been conducted, at critical stages, as a technocratic procedure, a question of processes and legal formulae rather than a confrontation between the different geopolitical interests of Russia, the US and the different European powers.

Over recent days, accounts of Russian president Vladimir Putin's baffled frustration at the EU's conduct have begun to emerge. Following a summit in Brussels last week, senior European diplomatic sources gave an account of a meeting on 28 January between Herman Van Rompuy and José Manuel Barroso on the EU side and the Russian president on the other. According to accounts, Putin said he was increasingly concerned at developments in Ukraine, particularly the threat of extra-parliamentary protests against the government. But he was still willing to negotiate if the EU recognised Russian fears, including Ukraine's potential membership of NATO.

According to one source who was present at the meeting: 'Van Rompuy told Putin that the EU was not playing geopolitics with Ukraine, the Maidan protests and the association agreement [with Russia]. Putin asked him if signing the agreement would be "a step to EU membership". "Yes, Ukraine can have a European perspective if it chooses", replied Van Rompuy. "Does that mean you think Ukraine would join NATO?", asked Putin. "Yes, that could well be part of the process", replied Van Rompuy. "Then that is playing geopolitics", replied the Russian leader. "No, we do not do geopolitics", insisted Van Rompuy. Barroso added that the EU was opposed to a bloc-against-bloc view of the world. Putin was not impressed: "It's geopolitics", he said.'


The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO has been conventionally recognised (until the current crisis) as impossible on geopolitical grounds. Ukraine was considered to be too close, historically and economically, to Russia, plus Crimea is home to strategically important Russian military bases. But, as EU foreign policy has come to the fore over recent years, recognition of this geopolitical reality has faded. In its place stands the EU's 'enlargement and neighbourhood policy', a technocratic procedure of legalistic chapters and tick-box 'values' that binds countries like Ukraine into the European order.

But there is a problem: joining NATO or the West is not a technical affair, as Ukraine, many European powers and the US conceded the last time it was discussed at a summit of the Western Alliance in Bucharest in 2008. 'Reason has prevailed', responded Dimitri Medvedev, the then Russian president.

In private, France and Britain have expressed amazement that such a sensitive issue as EU and NATO membership for Ukraine could be treated as a technical matter. 'Eurocrats do a very good job of taking the politics out of politics', said an ambassador. 'It is a lifeless process; they don't realise that they have to do geopolitics, not bureaucracy.
The relationship between Russia and Ukraine is deep, it goes back a thousand years. These relationships are not bloodless and cannot be reduced to technical distinctions.' But under the auspices of the EU, even Britain, formerly notorious for realpolitik, has eschewed geopolitical reality. What must Russia have made of David Cameron's announcement last July that the EU should stretch from 'the Atlantic to the Urals'?

The EU's raison d'etat for suppressing geopolitics in favour of technocratic, automatic structures of 'enlargement and neighbourhoods', goes back to its creation as legal entity by the Maastricht Treaty, which also created the CFSP and the Euro. It is no accident that during Putin's speech announcing the annexation of Crimea, he made a direct reference to the reunification of Germany in an attempt to appeal to German self- and national interest. He reminded Germans that Britain and France, but not the United States or Russia, opposed German reunification as the Iron Curtain fell in 1989.

'I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, [...] some nations that were then and are now Germany's allies did not support the idea of unification', he said. 'Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.'

His comments were a timely reminder that Margaret Thatcher, the then British prime minister, and Francois Mitterrand, the then French president, opposed German reunification. The modern EU was developed to shackle a reunified Germany and prevent it taking a powerful, geopolitical role in Europe. 'Unease over Germany translates into an almost obsessive anxiety to contain it within reinforced European structures as quickly and thoroughly as possible', reported Sir Ewen Fergusson, the British ambassador to Paris, in a secret 1991 Foreign Office telegram.

Britain and France demanded that the price Germany pay for nationhood was for it, and everyone else, to be bound into a common foreign policy and the Euro. These are arrangements that have never been put to German voters, who, if they were ever given the chance, would almost certainly send them to the dustbin of history along with the Berlin Wall.

The EU's foreign-policy structures seek to avoid clashes of national interest. But they don't abolish them. Countries ranging from Germany and Italy to Poland and Lithuania have very different interests when it comes to Russia. The differences were on display in a Brussels foreign-policy debate last weekend, when Estonia and Italy clashed over how to respond to Russia. Toomas Ilves, the Estonian president, complained that the EU was 'sitting and watching' while Russia annexed Crimea. 'So let's bomb Russia? What is the solution?', retorted Federica Mogherini, the Italian foreign minister.

Both Italy and Estonia are expressing their different national interests. Given such divisions, is it really useful to conduct policy on the basis of 'common European interest', when such a thing patently does not exist? Not only does Germany – which straddles East and Western Europe – have different economic interests appropriate to its geography; it also has a history, just as Poland, the Baltic states and other East European countries exist under the historical shadow of the former Soviet Union.

Running a foreign policy that consciously tries to supplant national interests with technocratic procedures lends itself to gesture politics. So while many European diplomats have criticised the US for grandstanding the most in the Ukraine, and going furthest in its support for the protesters because it has no 'skin in the game', European politicians have behaved little better. While cheering on the protests in Kiev, and destabilising Ukraine, they did not pay attention to Russia's own 'skin in the game', an oversight that has had profound consequences.

The EU's foreign policy has emerged as a legal and technocratic order increasingly at odds with how Europeans want to live their lives. It is an order that sees NATO membership as a value box to be ticked on the road to EU membership, rather than a sign of whose side a nation is on in a geopolitical division. This is profoundly dangerous: it allows powerful states to be blind and thoughtless to the consequences of their actions.

Joining NATO does have consequences. If Ukraine was in NATO, EU countries and the West would be obliged to go to war over Crimea. To ask the question, 'Would you die for Sevastopol?' immediately short-circuits the EU's technocratic approach by raising the question of self-interest. It is pretty clear that many Russians would be prepared to die for Crimea. It is almost certain no Western Europeans would. That difference is the living reality of geopolitics. To pretend that such divisions do not exist is positively dangerous.

By effacing national interests in structures designed to hobble Germany, the EU has created a blind monster so unresponsive to geopolitics, history and territorial boundaries that its blundering threatens to unleash new enmities and conflicts – in short, chaos.

Bruno Waterfield is Brussels correspondent for the Daily Telegraph and author of E-Who? Politics Behind Closed Doors, published by the Manifesto Club.

****************************************

I have already posted this in the Massive Russian Army Movement thread. I feel that this is very essential to the current topic on discussion as well.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Executive Summary
As part of a policy that is shrinking America's military presence in the world, the Obama Administration's recent defense cuts heavily impact the U.S. military footprint in Europe. These cuts are sending the wrong signal on America's commitment to transatlantic security and will embolden U.S. adversaries in the Euro–Atlantic region. Most importantly, the cuts will reduce the ability and flexibility of the U.S. to react to the unexpected in Eurasia and the Middle East.
Keeping America Safe: Why U.S. Bases in Europe Remain Vital

At least read the Abstract at the link before posting venomous one-line responses.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Executive Summary

Keeping America Safe: Why U.S. Bases in Europe Remain Vital

At least read the Abstract at the link before posting venomous one-line responses.
I read the abstract.

I see it is written by Luke Coffey, a Margaret Thatcher Fellow, at The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

However, basing American troops in Europe directly serves U.S. national security interests. Of course, the presence of U.S. forces in Europe contributes to the collective defense of U.S. allies on the continent, but this is a consequence of, not the reason for, maintaining a robust presence. The challenge for U.S. decision makers is to keep a military force that can promote U.S. interests in the region without creating a culture of dependency on the U.S. security umbrella among America's European allies. The commonly held belief that U.S. forces are in Europe to protect European allies from a threat that no longer exists is wrong. In fact, forward basing U.S. troops in Europe is just as important now as it was during the Cold War, albeit for different reasons.
Very honest of the author, but this is where the honesty ends, and excuses begin.
How is that wrong?
Let's see what the reasons are:
The Cold War world was defined by its bipolarity. The two centers of power were the United States and the Soviet Union. Today, the post–Cold War world is defined by its multipolarity with various centers of power around the world, which is more akin to the late 19th century than to anything experienced during the Cold War. However, the 19th century and today differ in the way that globalization has empowered nonstate actors and individuals to become centers of power competing against nation-states in their own right. For example, Hezbollah, a terrorist organization and nonstate actor, has an arsenal of rockets and missiles that "dwarfs the inventory of many nation-states," according to former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.[3] Bands of Somali pirates have turned piracy into a multi-million-dollar business. According to the BBC, the pirates earned $146 million from ransom payments in 2011.[4] This is equivalent to the annual nominal gross domestic product of Kiribati, an island nation-state in the Pacific.[5] Many of these nonstate actors and terrorist groups operate on the periphery of Europe, and some operate inside Europe itself. They can directly or indirectly affect U.S. security.
This is where Mr. Coffey loses credibility. Military bases, like in the image below (from the same source), are going to protect US' European allies from Hezbollah and Somali pirates?



Mr. Coffey does a good job at presenting known facts, but his analysis is mind-numbingly disingenuous and struggles to inspire confidence.

Luke Coffey is the Margaret Thatcher Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. The author is grateful to Brian Slattery for his assistance in preparing this study.
Guys, watch out for The Heritage Foundation!
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,342
Country flag
While I don't know if NATO expansion is a threat or not,but all the countries that joined NATO did it on their own will.This is quite different from the Warsaw pact where Stalin forced the members to sign the accord.Even now majority of people in the eastern bloc want to migrate to USA(pretty much the entire world wants to do so :laugh:).Also a strange thing is the USA continues to receive a large influx of Russian immigrants.They want their countries to be friends of USA .Also if USA and its lapdogs are so bad and Russia is so good why do we Indians migrate to USA(Amreeka sorry my friends) and not our old and trusted ally,their majestic prowess,the grand protector of the weak,Russia???:hmm::hmm::hmm::troll::troll::hehe:
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
Does NATO membership compromise members' sovereignty?

Does NATO membership compromise members' sovereignty?

Before answering this question, please review the following articles:

Spain lets Russian navy use its port: Madrid accused of hypocrisy after allowing three ships to dock at territories in North Africa


Russia's destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov (pictured) and two other vessels were allowed to dock in Spanish territory

Spain has been accused of 'absurdity and hypocrisy' after allowing three Russian navy ships to dock in its territories in north Africa.

British MPs said Madrid's decision to allow the vessels - including a heavily-armed destroyer - to take on fuel, food and other supplies offered 'succour' to Moscow.

Incredibly, the vessels docked in Ceuta as tensions between Nato - of which Spain is a member - and Russia mounted over the crisis in Ukraine.
Source: Spain lets Russian navy use its ports in North Africa | Mail Online

Question: Does Spain not have the right to have cordial relations with whatever country it chooses? Or does Spain have to take instructions from British MPs?

[HR][/HR]

Czech Republic does not envisage NATO troops on its soil

The Czech defense minister says his country does not want to host foreign NATO troops on its soil, as part of plans to beef up the alliance's eastern wing in light of the Ukraine crisis in contrast to some other eastern European countries like Poland.

Martin Stropinsky, the Czech defense minister, has said his country is not in favor of any foreign troops being based in his country, even though they would only come at Prague's invitation, Reuters reports.

"We know well how any permanent stationing (of troops) is still a problem. I belong to a generation that experienced the 80,000 Soviet troops based here during the period of (post 1968) 'normalization' and it is still a bit of a psychological problem," Stropinsky told Reuters in an interview.
Source: http://rt.com/news/158472-czech-nato-troops-ukraine/

Question: Was the Czech Defence Minister correct in not allowing his country as a nesting ground for NATO garrisons?

[HR][/HR]


Mayor Lembergs to complain to NATO chiefs about Navy sailors' conduct in Ventspils


Aivars Lembergs/LETA.

VENTSPILS, May 13 - Ventspils Mayor Aivars Lembergs (For Latvia and Ventspils) is planning a letter to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen to complain about the unacceptable conduct of NATO sailors in Ventspils last weekend that, he believes, discredits NATO in the eyes of the local populace, Lembergs told LETA.

During a visit to Ventspils by a number of NATO and European Union ships last weekend, twice as many persons were fined for disturbing the peace than during the last Ventspils Festival when the total number of guests of the city was 150 times higher.

"NATO sailors were acting like swine, ignoring the laws of Latvia and the regulations of Ventspils. They got drunk and urinated on window showcases, threw up, consumed alcoholic beverages in public places, which is prohibited," said Lembergs.

Reminded about a NATO sailor who was severely beaten up in Ventspils last weekend, Lembergs said that "it must have been locals, protecting women from the sailors."

Tomorrow, Lembergs will send a letter to Rasmussen, Latvian Defense Ministry and Foreign Ministry, noting that such conduct by foreign Navy personnel and damaging to NATO reputation.

This is not the first time Lembergs speaks disapprovingly of NATO presence in Latvia. For instance, he ironically said: "This would be in Ventspils' interest. We will have 1,000 NATO soldiers and the number of prostitutes will rise rapidly, to the benefit of cafes, restaurants and prostitutes."

As reported, navy sailors participating in the "Open Spirit 2014" international minesweeping exercise were involved in several incidents in Ventspils over the weekend; one from the Netherlands had particularly bad luck - he is currently in Northern Kurzeme Regional Hospital's intensive care unit with a serious head injury.

The man, 21, was taken to the hospital by ambulance early Sunday morning. He suffered a serious head injury, several fractures and cerebral edema, LETA learned from the hospital. The young man was unconscious and was placed in the hospital's intensive care unit, his condition is currently listed as stable, said the hospital's deputy chief Olafs Kengis.
Source: Latviannews.lv

Question: Are the junior partners' citizens, especially women, being subjected to harassment, and their cities, to moral decadence, while hosting NATO sailors?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
OPINION: Biden in Romania Talks Reveals Extramundane Nature of US Push for War

MOSCOW, May 22 (RIA Novosti), Rick Rozoff - US Vice President Joseph Biden appeared at a military base in the capital of Romania on May 20 and, against the backdrop of this year's annual Carpathian Spring joint military exercises, announced that Washington's willingness to go to war over the mutual military support clause of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the founding document of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is not only clear and unwavering, but indeed of a mock-religious - extramundane and sempiternal - nature.

In his precise words: "America's commitment to collective defense under Article 5 of NATO is a sacred obligation in our view - a sacred obligation not just for now, but for all time." In aeternum, in saecula saeculorum and in line with eschatological imperatives.

Biden, the once, (near) future and perennial candidate to succeed the current commander-in-chief of the world's sole military superpower (the exact words of his current superior, President Barack Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech of five years ago), an abrasive and pugnacious Walter Mitty of a malign bent who has often experienced difficulties distinguishing between fact and fiction, campaign claims and occurrences in the real world, and his own modest abilities and megalomaniacal inflation thereof, began his speech in Romania upbraiding his hosts for not providing him the clement weather a personage of his elevated stature deserves and had, moreover, been promised, querulously and inconsistently grousing, "it's very hot in here. I was supposed to - I was told it was going to be cooler here, but thank you for the great weather."

A Roman emperor, Trajan for example, the conqueror of Dacia (modern-day Romania), would have severely chastised and as severely punished the leaders of a subjugated province for not having secured nicer weather for a visiting imperial dignitary of Biden's rank.

Though his modern avatar did commend the military prowess of Romanian troops serving under NATO command in Afghanistan, martial values serving in lieu of miracle-working ones, evidently. The American satrapy, a NATO member for a decade, maintains one of the largest troop contingents remaining in Afghanistan, 1,000 soldiers, and Bucharest will continue to provide NATO with cannon fodder in South Asia even after the formal completion of troop withdrawal at the end of this year.

The vice president acknowledged that Romania, with whom then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed an agreement in 2005 for the acquisition of bases and the stationing of military personnel and equipment, is housing a permanent force of US Marines at the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base near Constanta on the Black Sea. That base is also home to US Army Europe's Task Force East and the US Marine Corps' Black Sea Rotational Force, the latter a Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF) used as the model for US Africa Command's SPMAGTF.

Biden also obliquely pressured Romania in regard to demands of the US (and at least implicitly NATO, because of interoperability exigencies) for the country, like neighboring Bulgaria, to replicate the purchase of American F-16 Fighting Falcons by Poland at the beginning of the century - 48 in all, the largest military outlay in Polish history - by reminding the Romanian officials present that "You're building a fleet of F-16s." Bucharest like Sofia was being pressured to purchase 24-36 apiece of the General Dynamics-manufactured warplanes before the US-generated economic downturn of six years ago led to a scaling back of that number.

With characteristic bravado and brusqueness, he also stated:

"America and our NATO allies have urgently stepped up our military presence in the air, land and on the sea of NATO's eastern flank. In just the past weeks we've had ships visit. The USS Truxton, Cook, Taylor, as well as the Dacian Viper F-16 exercise. And in the coming days, new ships - the Vella Gulf will enter the Black Sea to conduct port visits and maritime training. Period."

The four US warships mentioned are guided missile vessels and part of the US Navy's Aegis Combat System, which is being integrated into the US-NATO European Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system to cover all of Europe west of Russia, the Mediterranean Sea Basin and the South Caucasus.

USS Truxton and USS Donald Cook are Arleigh Burke class destroyers, USS Taylor is a Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate and USS Vella Gulf a Ticonderoga class cruiser.

With an anachronistic martial ethos more suitable to a - much - earlier epoch, say, the late Roman Empire, the deputy commander-in-chief of the world's sole military superpower flattered US military personnel at the event as "the greatest generation of warriors the world has ever produced." He immediately added, "And that is not hyperbole," though of course it is.

Last month's Dacian Spring joint US-Romanian week-long exercise he alluded to consisted of drills with US F-16s and host country MiG-21 Lancers.

At the end of his ex officio declamations, Biden shifted from sub-imperator to pontifex maximus in tone, dispensing benedictions broadcast: "May God bless Romania, may God bless America, and may God protect our troops." It is uncertain which deity, of the underworld or other sphere, has conferred on him the office of bestowing blessings, as it were on the eve of a campaign, a war.

Adjectives like grandiose, magniloquent, millenerial and bombastic come to mind in reference to the pronouncements of Mr. Biden. But they, even, are too generous and elevated in tone.

Having recently had occasion to re-read Imperial Purple (1892), a series of belletristic sketches of the first twenty-five Roman emperors by American-born writer Edgar Saltus, I am more reminded of one or more of the later of those the author, a friend and colleague of such fellow writers as Oscar Wilde and Arthur Symonds during his London years, limned with a combination of urbane bemusement and visceral repugnance. Commodus, say, or Heliogabalus.
Source: OPINION: Biden in Romania Talks Reveals Extramundane Nature of US Push for War | World | RIA Novosti

[HR][/HR]

What I could make out of this is - NATO membership is a one way street. It's all about getting countries in, then force them to buy weapons, and station troops.

To quote Eagles:
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave!"
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top