Russia has long objected to NATO’s eastward expansion, and the prospect of NATO membership for the Ukraine and Georgia could put the alliance along Russia’s western border. Tensions with NATO have risen since the brief 2008 Russo-Georgian War.
Ukraine’s push for NATO membership could be put on hold indefinitely depending on the results of the upcoming runoff vote, while NATO is said to have serious problems with Georgia’s democratic credentials. In either case the prospective membership seems at best a few years off.
But Russia has also expressed concern about US plans to put missile interceptors in Eastern Europe, a dispute which seemed like it was going to die with the cancellation of the Czech-Poland base plans. Now the US is putting interceptors in eastern Poland and Romania, causing Russia to once again look askance at a plan ostensibly aimed at Iran, but clearly placing US defensive systems squarely along the Russian frontier, and mostly outside of Iran’s hypothetical range.
time for Russia to take back the estranged former countries and rebuild the Wall. the USA is like a Cancer spreading their sick doctrine of totalitarian Control. it is high time they are stopped.
I would love to see Russia and Iran form a military alliance to come to each other's defense .
According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-http://www.plrc.org-the Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. Minuteman-3 and Trident-2 D5 linked to GPS obtain a CEP (Circular Error Probability – – the radius centered on the target in which half the warheads are expected to hit) of 30 meters or less, enough to destroy any hard target. And according to Bob Aldridge the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously. Please see Robert C. aldridge: Nuclear Empire, ch. 9. Even if the Pentagon´s First-Strike Capability is only for blackmail, the Russians may have no choice but implementing Launch On Warning. Bob Aldridge resigned because a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability is suicidal.
I hope you agree that the Pentagon´s First-Strike Capability is the most urgent problem because it inevitably leads to Launch On Warning.
New missiles in Poland and Romania are very useful after a First-Strike. Presumably only for blackmail.
NATO is nothing but a extension of US militarism system made possible by Europe.., Balkans war was to show its power and to expend the NATO capability in grabbing more land which shows the fact in Europeans working with Balkans Mafia to achieve their goal, Hashim Taci is one of those Balkans Mafia, Tony Blair is the European face of Liberals side of that war and Madeline Albright was the American side in such cooperation. The Yugoslavian war was about the Caspian sea gas and oil and its pipeline drown to heart of Europe from Kosovo and some other part of former Yugoslavia.., do you remember YGO the fast and cheap small car.., there is no more Yugoslavia nor there is any YGO but there is VW and other German, French, Swedish, Italians plans to rebuild Kosovo… now the obstacles and those who didn’t want to join the EU are no longer there.. Europe can enjoy a free ride in pretending what its not…, Europe it might sound like as is a angel with its “free” Medicare which is not true and a democracy that doesn’t exist.., people vote.., in Europe.., yes they do, so they do here in USA and in Iran but the question is.., voting.., is it a proof of democracy..?
I am surprised at the ease with which the language is manipulated to the point that we do not even notice the manipulation. How is it that Soviet Union "invaded" Poland, after Hitler already invaded? The whole point of Soviet-German pact from the Soviet Union defence point of view is to commit Hitler to cease eastward expansion. Once that was out of the window, Soviet Union was not about to sit on their hands. Did we "invade" France in order to go after Hitler? Was Soviet Union to respect Estonian "sovereignity" when Hitler used the country as a staging ground for the most brutal murderous rampage through Russia and encircled Sr. Petersburg?
West was "liberating" countries from Hitler, including those who did not want to be liberated. But Soviet Union was "invading" countries, including those — like Estonia — that did not want to be liberarted. Soviets were "occupiers" when they pushed into Poland to pry open concentration camps. If shoes were on the other foot, and we had to experience what they had to, how would we talk then?
And how do you explain away the Soviet invasion of Finland and the Baltic States and the seizure of Bessarabia from Romania? For that matter, how do you justify that supreme act of liberation, the mass slaughter of 20,000 Polish officers at Katyn? With "liberators" like that there is no need of invaders. And with regard to the Anglo-American invasion of Normandy, you might want to ask the French whose cities were leveled by American carpet bombing how they felt about liberated by such methods.
Before explaining, let me just say that I do not recognize any "good wars". Wars are cruel, and the innocents suffer the most. Wars are the "health of the state", and nobody understood it better then Hitler. But then, if WWI allies did not aim for destroying Germany, and its rise after unification, Hitler would have remained poor Austrian disgruntled corporal.
As for Baltics, Soviet Union first in 1939 secured basing agreement with Estonia (naval bases), to fight Finland. At the time, Finland was already Hitler's ally, testing Soviet defences in the Gulf of Finland. During one year of the agreement, Soviet Union abided by the terms. But Baltics, helped Finland in the fight, and had Nazi sympathies. Following the fall of France, Soviet Union invaded pro-Hitler's Baltics, destroyed its military infrastructure and deported over 10,000 people from Estonia alone to Russia for suspected Nazi links. All war time ugliness. Let's not forget Hamburg, Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And the innocents get slaughtered on the altar of the war gods.
This is revisionist drivel. 1) The uncalled for Soviet attack on Finland. This cost the USSR heavily and finally convinced Hitler that the Red army was an easy pushover. It also gave Germany an useful ally in the continuation war. 2) The annexation of parts of Romania. This turned Romania against the USSR when Romania was angry at Berlin for the Vienna award. 3) Maintaining the independent armies of the Baltic countries in a buffer capacity was a better defense for Russia then absorbing those states was (see the book STALIN'S SECRET WAR). 4) The vast quantities of supplies the USSR gave to Germany prior to June 22 1941 went a long way to strengthening the Axis and enabling the German attack against them.
The Soviets would have been much better off just expanding and deepening the Stalin line and keeping their forces away from the border areas.
On the other hand, Russia today is entirerly justified in feeling threatened by the encroachment of the American empire (er, NATO) on its borders.
I agree with many of your points. I am afraid that the hindsight is distorting what may have looked quite different then. One thing I am fairly sure off. The Soviet attack on Finland is hard to call uncalled for. Soviet Union had to test defences, as Finland's growing closeness with Hitler was the most dangerous military scenario shaping on its border. Soviet Union weakened Finland, and hoped for the daliance with Hitler to subside as a result. It did not have the intended effect, but waiting would have probably been even more costly. There was never any doubt that Hitler was going East. The "fall" of European governments to Hitler was nothing short of amazing. Before ink was dry on those papers, the European countries showed great enthusiasm for European Union concept. Hitler called it "European family of nations". Soviet Union had few good choices. Let the Baltics and Finland get cozy with Hiter, and allow German military infrastructure to build up around them, or strike first.
You don't "test" DEFENCES by ATTACKING someone Guest. Get a dictionary and look up what DEFENSE means. Finland sought no war with the USSR and was driven into Hitler's arms by the Winter war. It also played a key role in convincing Hitler that the red army was inept and an easy opponent to beat. Stalin cetainly doubted Hitler was going east. He came very close to a mental and nervous breakdown in the fortnight after June 22 1941.
Mankind has done many stupid things in the past & while a WW3 scenario would be horric, it is possible that it could be contained to central Asia, the ramifications & after effects would be horrendous for all of us worldwide, except for the ones who actually engineered & started it living in bunkers far underground living virually normal lives with their families for up to a decade.
I'm Australian & naturally pro western, I don't agree with Russian or Chinese doctrine however unless compromise & agreement can be achieved peacefully they should not be forced into a confrontation, they certainly don't seem to be the threat to world peace the western world is at the moment & it is up to ALL of us that live & vote in western countries to confront our own Politicians & demand that they stop harassing & intimidating both Russia & China.
There are far too many individuals now with vested interests that have power over too many politicians who only care about getting elected again & not caring about where they are taking the world now & in the near future, we are the ONLY ones who can change that, think about it.
I wish you all well.