Will Russia ever stop NATO?


Senior Member
Oct 27, 2009
"Russia must once and for all decide if it is part of the Alliance’s security mission or a challenge to it. The invasion of Georgia was anti-freedom and NATO must resist such adventurism firmly."

Julian Lindley
French, a member of the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Advisors Group

Stratcon 2010: A Military Route to Freedom? | Atlantic Council

"Germany Will Never Attack Russia": Joachim von Ribbentrop

"NATO will never attack Russia“ Rasmussen ( NATO boss)

Russia Today
December 17, 2009

NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen is in Moscow to seek greater assistance from Moscow for the military campaign in Afghanistan. His main argument is that the alliance does not consider Russia as an enemy.

Rasmussen expressed hope to have a common missile defense system with Russia by 2020.

"A united missile shield in the Euro-Atlantic area will not only protect us all against proliferation, but bind us together politically as well,"� he said in his speech before students at Moscow State University of International Relations. "NATO will never attack Russia, and we don't think Russia will attack us. We have stopped worrying about this and Russia should stop worrying about us as well"�.

On the other hand, Rasmussen also said NATO has no intention of compromising on principal issues.

"I would like to send a very clear message to Russian people. NATO is not directed against Russia. NATO is here to protect our people in our member states against the new threats of today and many of these threats are common threats for NATO states and Russia,"� Rasmussen pointed out at a news conference earlier on Thursday.

According to the NATO Secretary General, it is necessary that the Russia-NATO Council becomes an effective forum where the sides can discuss all issues openly. NATO is interested in boosting the partnership with Russia in fighting the drug trafficking in Afghanistan.

He has also mentioned that NATO is ready to discuss Russia's initiative on European security, adding, though, that he does not see the necessity of the new agreement as "we have enough documents on European security."�

?NATO will never attack Russia? ? Rasmussen - RT


NATO Forces To Train In Arctic Norway On Russian Border

Barents Observer
December 18, 2009

-From the early 1960's, Norway...refused allied forces to train in Norway. These restrictions were in force until 1995, when Norway decided to loosen up on the regulations, an article from the Norwegian Atlantic Committee reads.

NATO personnel from Great Britain and Germany will be training in Porsanger, Finnmark County, this winter.

Sometime in the period January 4 to March 18 2010 an exercise with allied forces will be conducted in the municipality of Porsanger in Norway's northernmost county Finnmark. This is part of a larger exercise that takes place in Troms and Nordland at the same time, the County Governor of Finnmark's web page reads.

There will be no large allied troops training in Finnmark this winter - the allied training center in Porsanger will be hosting some 50-100 British and 50 German soldiers, newspaper Sagat reports.

Norway has a tradition for limiting allied exercises in Finnmark, the border county to Russia.
From the early 1960's, Norway also refused allied forces to train in Norway. These restrictions were in force until 1995, when Norway decided to loosen up on the regulations, an article from the Norwegian Atlantic Committee reads.

NATO forces to train in Arctic Norway - BarentsObserver

Russia “puzzled” by UK MI6 chief’s Iraq accusations (Part 2)

MOSCOW. Dec 18 (Interfax) - The Russian Foreign Ministry has said it is perplexed over remarks recently made by John Sawers, chief of the UK Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, who accused Russia of "obstructing" a peaceful solution to the Iraqi conflict, which resulted in the armed invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and its allies.

"We are puzzled by this statement, to say the least," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told journalists on Friday.

Speaking at public hearings in London dedicated to an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the start of the Iraq war, Sawers said that Russia was responsible for the failure of attempts to introduce so-called "smart sanctions" against the Saddam Hussein regime in 2001, which could have helped avoid an armed conflict.

"There is a good proverb in Russia: don‘t lay your own fault at someone else‘s door," Nesterenko said.

The so-called "smart sanctions" proposed by the UK in the summer of 2001 would not have led to any significant improvements in the catastrophic state of the Iraqi population, the Russian diplomat said.

In fact, those proposals were aimed at "immortalizing" the sanctions regime under the pretext that Iraq was allegedly continuing work on prohibited programs intended to develop weapons of mass destruction, he said.

"During the UN Security Council‘s debate on the Iraqi issue, we repeatedly insisted that the council could not act based on unverified information regarding the alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq while taking decisions on the introduction of new sanction-related measures," Nesterenko said.

Moscow said more than once that it did not have information reliably proving the presence of nuclear arms in Iraq, he said.

"Instead, Russia proposed solving this problem by sending UN inspectors to Iraq and making all decisions based on the results of their work. Moscow‘s opinion was ignored by the American and British governments. Our warnings regarding the inevitability of the severe consequences of the Iraq war, which was unleashed in violation of the UN Security Council‘s resolution, were not heard, either," the diplomat said.

Addressing Russia‘s economic interests that allegedly "ruined" a peaceful solution to the Iraqi problem, Nesterenko said: "We would like to ask you one question: what interests actually guided the allies in the coalition when they started that war in Iraq?"

Russia “puzzled” by UK MI6 chief’s Iraq accusations (Part 2) - Interfax


Yanukovych leads in polls ahead of Ukrainian presidential election (pro Russian candidate)

Interfax Ukraine
December 17, 2009

Yanukovych leads in polls ahead of Ukrainian presidential election

[Which is why American political hit man John Tefft has been named ambassador.]

Recent poll results suggest that Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych will win the presidential election in January in Ukraine with a sizeable margin against main rival Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

The poll, which was conducted by Research & Branding Group between December 5-13, puts Sergiy Tigipko in third.

A total of 33.3% of Ukrainians said they would vote for Yanukovych in the first round of the presidential election; 16.6% gave their support to Tymoshenko, and 7.4% said they would vote for Tigipko.

The rating is 6.7% for Arseniy Yatseniuk, 4.1% for Volodymyr Lytvyn, 3.8% for Viktor Yuschenko and 3.4% for Petro Symonenko.

If a second round is held in the presidential election between Yanukovych and Tymoshenko, the poll suggests Yanukovych would surpass Tymoshenko by more than 16% of votes. A total of 46.7% of respondents said they would vote for Yanukovych, and 30% for Tymoshenko.

Another 13.2% of the respondents said they would have voted against all candidates in the second round.

Some 3.6% of the respondents said they would not take part in the election, and 6.5% found it difficult to answer the questions.

The Research & Branding Group polled voters in 24 regions across Ukraine and the Crimea. The margin of error is 1.8%.



Senior Member
Oct 27, 2009
NATO, Russia Paper Over Differences

BRUSSELS -- Today's meeting of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC), the first since Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008, marked an important psychological landmark. But the talks failed to make headway on any of the issues dividing Russia and NATO -- such as the future of European security, Georgia, or NATO's own expansion.

After the meeting, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen struck a conciliatory note, praising its "solid results" and saying it represents a "fresh start" for the NATO-Russia relationship.

Rasmussen highlighted three agreements signed by NATO and Russia today, most significant of which, he said, is a pledge to jointly review "21st century security challenges."

"We have agreed to launch a joint review of the 21st century common threats and challenges,” Rasmussen said. “The aim is to agree on the real threats all 29 nations face today, a list which I am confident will not include each other."

NATO and Russia also agreed to review the functions of the NATO-Russia Council, with the aim of making the body -- which brings together all 28 NATO countries plus Russia -- more effective.

Finally, NATO and Russia agreed a joint action plan for 2010, which envisages direct military collaboration, cooperation on fighting terrorism and piracy, and joint action on Afghanistan.

Eyes On The SCO

However, speaking after the NRC meeting today, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov played down Russia's role in helping carry out the military strategy on Afghanistan announced by U.S. President Barack Obama earlier this week.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, speaking on December 3 in Rome, appeared to offer Russian support for the plan by providing unspecified help to the Afghan economy, military, and police forces.

But Lavrov today said NATO should lay out a broad political and economic strategy for the country that involves not only alliance members but all of Afghanistan's neighbors. Virtually all of the country's neighbors, Lavrov noted, are members of or observers at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, or SCO, which comprises Russia, China, and most of the Central Asian nations.

For its part, NATO appeared to rebuff Russia's attempts to engage it directly in talks about President Dmitry Medvedev's pan-European security plans. Rasmussen said today that the Russian president's recent proposal merits study, but made it clear that OSCE must be the forum to handle them.

NATO “ministers made it clear they are open to discuss it, but that the OSCE remains the primary forum for that discussion."

Medvedev first floated the idea for an alternative European security strategy over a year ago. But a concrete proposal was put forward for the first time only on November 29, when the Kremlin published the text on its website. Russia's ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, briefly threatened to boycott the NATO-Russia Council meeting if Medvedev's security proposal was not on the agenda. Ultimately, however, it remained off the table.

Rasmussen was among those who said he had not yet had time to review the proposal. But he said NATO will "remain our framework for Euro-Atlantic security," in a reference to suspicions that Russia's proposals are an attempt by Moscow to gain a veto over the alliance's expansion plans.

NATO diplomats say that allies also reject direct talks on Medvedev's proposal out of a desire to ensure countries like Ukraine and Georgia are not sidelined.

Broader Discussion

Lavrov said Russia wanted all of Europe's security organizations, including the OSCE, to participate in the discussion.

He said Russia's main goal boils down to a wish to acquire a legally binding commitment that no country or alliance in the Euro-Atlantic region may extend its security "at the expense of another."

Lavrov said that in Russia's view, the existing security arrangements in Europe are out of date and inadequate.

"We are convinced that the principle of the indivisibility of security, which was addressed by a number of political declarations adopted in the 1990s, must be reinforced," Lavrov said. "Until now, it hasn't always fully worked -- to put it mildly."

In their separate press conferences, Rasmussen and Lavrov made it clear that there is as yet no meeting of minds on any of the three of the most acute security problems affecting the NATO-Russian relationship -- NATO's expansion plans, the territorial integrity of Georgia, and the future of the conventional arms regime in Europe.

NATO, Russia Paper Over Differences - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2009

Russia and Nato: A frozen conflict




Senior Member
Oct 27, 2009
Perhaps people are having trouble to link to the subject but that subject is crucial for the future of the world.

Frozen conflicts between USA&NATO and Russia, Iran...

Ever since fall of Soviet Union USA (Western) domination of the world is assured.
Despite the current problems USA is still the only Super Power in the world that seek for ways and means to dominate the world.

One of the most important instruments that USA is using for that is NATO.

NATO is not defensive organization only ever since attack on Yugoslavia!

Despite sweet Obama's talk nothing have changed since Bush administration (missiles in Europe) NATO expansion continue now out of borders of NATO countries even in Central Asia

Now they take that STRATEGIC position not only be cause of oil but to encircle Russia completely and also to separate Iran,Russia and China !

That and pipelines are only reason why USA is in Afghanistan (not Bin Laden who probably works still for CIA anyway)

For me this subject is one of the most important in the world

WHO will stop NATO?
Will Russia switch the side and how could that be possible anyway?

If Iran is attacked who will be next,Venezuela or even Russia (once they assure that they can destroy most of Russian ballistic missiles before reaching target)


Senior Member
Aug 28, 2009
NATO was to repeal soviet threat in europe ,that was its sole purpose ,but when soviet empire disintegrated then so should NATO ,
i think NATO is a "bully" which attacks countries with no worthy defense forces (like serbia ,no offence there ,i am just comparing the armed forces of the two countries ,serbia v/s nato)


Senior Member
Oct 27, 2009
NATO was to repeal soviet threat in europe ,that was its sole purpose ,but when soviet empire disintegrated then so should NATO ,
i think NATO is a "bully" which attacks countries with no worthy defense forces (like serbia ,no offence there ,i am just comparing the armed forces of the two countries ,serbia v/s nato)

NATO is a "bully" which attacks countries with no worthy defense forces (like serbia ,no offence there ,i am just comparing the armed forces of the two countries ,serbia v/s nato)

But of course NO OFFENSE !
At contrary I will even underline that TINY Serbia (6million population) had to resist to attack of about 30 NATO countries including USA!

They were infinitely stronger yet it took them 3 months to brake resistance! And only be cause they were bombing civilian targets and bombing Serbia into stone age by destroying all industry and infrastructures....

The problem is that "bully" NATO is growing organization and not defensive organization any more

On top of it they start to aggress countries OUTSIDE of European borders (Afghanistan) and I personally think it is just beginning !

The question is how Russia will resist to NATO specially when it comes that NATO wants to make members (out of strategically important countries for Russia) Ukraine and Georgia.

USA has already military cooperation with all countries of Central Asia be cause they target domination over that oil rich region and in the same time encircling Russia!
I just don't see how Russia can stop this encircling process and if they ever attack Iran and Iran falls logically next victim is Russia

I will not be surprised if USA makes global military organization out of NATO to use their NATO"allays" for USA dirty jobs around world "bullying"countries that resist Master !

Of course many people will say there is SCO for Russia ( China,Russia & central Asian ex Soviet republics)
But that military alliance is very limited and even much less solid than NATO.


Latest Replies

Global Defence