World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Not many know or remember, but in the early 2000-s when Putin came to power there was a foreplay of Russia joining EU and NATO.
Just like Kipling Russians claimed: 'we are of the same blood you and I'. We are not commies anymore, we are Europeans, have same ideology with you. Let's play ball.'
However, EU and NATO politely said: 'Thanks, but No'
Since then the estrangement progressed and nowadays Russia bets heavily on cooperation with China.

Was Russia's courting of EU and NATO genuine or maybe a decoy to destroy them from the inside? Should EU and NATO have reacted differently and embraced Russia? What do you think?

I think it was a genuine move, but in accordance with the Wolfowitz Doctrine Russia never stood a chance, as a united Euro/Russian entity would be a peer competitor to the US.

The US Military Industrial Complex, and it's European extension NATO is a giant multi-billion dollar hammer perpetually looking for a nail to justify its existence.

Russia has been a convenient nail since the end of WW II.

At the end of the cold war, the operational boundary of NATO was East Germany, now it's the Ukraine.

In the West, our media and politicians claim that Russia is the enemy and Putin is the new Hitler, and Russia whose military forces are a shadow of what they once were is positioned as the aggressor, and yet, it is NATO, and the US who have moved their military forces into close proximity of the Russian border, not the other way around.

There are enormous fortunes to be made from a major war fought in eastern Europe, and the drums of war are being beaten by those who stand to profit from the slaughter of war.

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "I think it was a genuine move, but in accordance with the Wolfowitz Doctrine Russia never stood a chance, as a united Euro/Russian entity would be a peer competitor to the US.

The US Military Indu..."

Graeme, I believe that your statements are both biased and unbalanced. NATO has been and still is a defensive alliance and the countries of Western Europe are not interested one bit in starting a war with Russia. If they did, then they would not have constantly cut away at their defense budgets in the last couple of decades. Russia, on the other hand, is pouring more and more money in its defense budget, while Putin has made military moves against Georgia, then Ukraine, culminating with the grabbing of Crimea.

However, the part of your statements that irks me most is about 'the enormous fortunes to be made from a major war fought in Eastern Europe, and the drums of war are being beaten by those who stand to profit from the slaughter of war'. That sentence shows to me that you don't have a clue about the devastating effects such a war, or even any war, would have on everybody involved. There would be tens of thousands of dead, both civilians and military, hundreds of thousands of refugees and destruction of property costing tens of billions of Euros. If you really think that European governments want to face such a costly ordeal now, when they have plenty of other problems to worry about, then you are sorely mistaken.

I guess it's a bit off this topic, but we'll probably have quite controversial responses of how people consider NATO: defensive or aggressive..

Hi Michel,

NATO not aggressive? Tell that to the people of the now failed state of Libya. NATO led 2011 military intervention in Libya

To quote EUCOM head General Philip Breedlove in his February 2016 posture statement.

The U.S. and NATO face two primary threats to our security interests: Russian aggression and growing instability on our southern flank....

The quote above is referenced from the EUCOM site here

Russia is being positioned as the enemy.

Of course none of the common people want war, we're the ones who do the dying, but we will be dragged in to one sooner of later by people with more authority than accountability.

War is immensely profitable, at the height of the Afghan conflict, the US was spending $2B a day. That money was going somewhere.

Hi Michel,

10 years ago, you and I were on the same page. I didn't come to my pessimism about the operations of dominion in the world easily. I was dragged there kicking and screaming.

I understand that your view is conditioned by your insider knowledge and decades of experience, and I'm sure that gives you access to much detail that I have not seen.

While my language may be a bit excessive in tone, I have carefully considered my position.

And I am basing my opinions on that personal experience, Graeme. Comparing the effects of the Afghan conflict with a possible NATO vs Russia confrontation is completely misleading. War in Afghanistan was profitable to some because their countries were not directly touched or damaged by the conflict. A war between NATO and Russia would on the other hand have devastating consequences on a large scale, worldwide. Your military industrialist in Europe won't make much of a profit once the cities where his production plants are get bombed, or even anihilated by nuclear warheads. The same could happen to all those big American defense industries in the U.S.A. if the war goes full nuclear. Any sane head of government will not go to war and risk potential anihilation just to please defense contractors and provide them with juicy armaments contracts. Thinking otherwise is grossly oversimplistic and only serves to shift responsibility from the real trouble makers.

Nik wrote: "Not many know or remember, but in the early 2000-s when Putin came to power there was a foreplay of Russia joining EU and NATO.
Just like Kipling Russians claimed: 'we are of the same blood you an..."

There was talk of it, but it was based on European member states claiming Russia should join the EU and NATO - which is something Berlusconi and Schroder advocated. Putin declared unequivocally that he and Russia had no intention of joining the EU, as he declared that it would be against Russia's interests. And despite continued hope among European leaders to integrate Russia into the EU, the Ukrainian crisis, Putin preference for the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and Putin threatening the Baltic states has completely undermined that. There's also been the ongoing allegations of Putin spying, poisoning, and committing cyberattacks against European states and politicians.

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/...
http://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summa...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukr...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wo...?

Hi Matthew,

It is crystal clear that Putin - is by no means a saint - he is clearly a ruthless power operator.

But I think that he is also a rational player.

Yes, rational in the sense that he places Russia's strategic and military hegemony as a priority vs. peaceful interaction and cooperation. The man sees the entire world through ideological blinkers, one in which Russia is the dominant power in Eurasia and all other powers - whether they are neighboring states or competing regional powers (like China)- are brought to heel or forced to do his bidding.

Matthew wrote: "There was talk of it, but it was based on European member states claiming Russia should join the EU and NATO - which is something Berlusconi and Schroder advocated. Putin declared unequivocally that he and Russia had no intention of joining the EU, as he declared that it would be against Russia's interests.
There's also been the ongoing allegations of Putin spying, poisoning, and committing cyberattacks against European states and politicians. ..."

Matt, you need to see the situ in dynamic. The articles you brought are from 2007 onward. Putin came to power in 2000. First, he turned West and was spurned (politely). There were enough engagement, feelers and stuff. Once, he understood that the West is suspicious or whatever, he turned East and started to reinforce Russia's spheres of influence. I'm not talking that there is someone to blame, neither I care. I'm not even sure how genuine were the intentions...
As of spying - everybody does it and doesn't even conceal that.
If anything I remember Merkel asking Obama why he listens to her conversations -:)
And why you say only European? -:) Isn't Russia blamed now for meddling with democrats' server or whatever in the US? Not sure how true this may be..

Actually Russia and China are growing very close ties.

Check out the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

and the One Belt, One Road Initiative.

Note how aggressively China is moving to disintermediate the US Currency from their trade, and both China and Russia are looking at alternatives to the SWIFT system.

Internationalization of the renminbi

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Actually Russia and China are growing very close ties...."

Very true. That's the current trend and Russia's vision of multi-polar global architecture.
Putin heeded very fast when Russian banking system were threatened to be cut from SWIFT and gave task to the financial system to build an alternative.
And cooperation and deepening of ties goes on many more levels...

It's a complex move as Russia and China become prime movers in a Eurasian dominated world.

The Atlantic alliances built around US Military and Financial hegemony are fading into the twilight.

I hope the night is not too long.

Putin says 21-st century is the era of Asia

I think that it is more likely than not.

The Chinese are graduating 10x the engineers that the US is.

There will be bumps in the road and set backs - but the momentum has already shifted, it's only a matter of time.

Don't overrate Russia's real power, as it is still much of a giant with clay feet in economical terms. It spends too much on the military, has been woofully neglecting its vast rural areas' infrastructures while concentrating on its larger cities and is too dependent still on oil and gas exports for its government revenues. In short, it is not what I would call a balanced superpower.

As for China, yes it is a powerhouse now, but in the long term it is facing some serious problems, including horrible levels of pollution and rampant government mismanagement (due mostly to endemic corruption). Its economic boom has already slowed down considerably and it may soon hit a period of recession. It is also making itself many enemies around Asia, thanks to its arrogant stance on the ownership of the South China Sea.

Nobody's perfect -:) and let's not forget India that surely has a lot of room to grow...

India is indeed a developping power, but it has its share of serious problems, one of which is being a neighbor of an increasingly unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan where Islamist fundamentalists are getting more sway as time goes. India is also facing a series of ever more frequent, devastating droughts, thanks to climate change.

Countries of Asia with a particularly high present or future status/potential are in my opinion Singapore, South Korea and Indonesia. Singapore is a modern, advanced state and a financial powerhouse, while Indonesia has a huge development potential. As for South Korea, it is already an industrial giant. Let's not as well forget Japan, another industrial giant with a sizeable, ultra-modern military force. Other Asian countries with potential that are actually opposed to Chinese external policies are Vietnam and Philippines, to name only a few. Overall, there are plenty of countries opposed to Chinese expansionism around the South China Sea and who could well form unofficial alliances to face off China.

Looks to me like the Philippines is pivoting toward China at a great rate of knots. Pivot

WRT the south china sea,

How long before weapons such as the Brahmos II render the area a no go for large floating targets like Aircraft carriers.

And what's with Russian/Indian military tech collaboration? Seems pretty chummy to me.

@ Graeme. First, the President of the Philippines, who is a moronic thug in my opinion, was the only one to mouth off against the USA, but it is only hot talk and no substance, as he would need the approval of the Philippines National Assembly to revoque the various mutual treaties with the USA. Please note also that Duterte has mostly shut up lately and tried to backtrack when he found himself under political fire for mouthing out without thinking first.

Second, every weapon eventually gets a counter-weapon, be it in this case shipborne surface-to-air missile, laser weapons or CIWS (Close In Weapon System). Aircraft carriers are much more than simply large floating targets, as you call them. They have their own defensive weapons, plus their escort ships. Many people have discounted many times in the past aircraft carriers as too vulnerable, yet they are still around and as powerful as ever.

As for Russian/Indian military tech collaboration, that's very old news indeed. It started decades ago, when India was in active conflict with China about the possession of parts of its country in the North (Siachen Glacier region). China was also supporting India's mortal rival, Pakistan. As a consequence, lndia looked to Russia for help. It still does today, but it is also buying Western weapons, like the French Rafale fighter jet.

Graeme, you have been pushing a flagrantly pro-Russia, anti-USA stance for quite a while, using what I find to be quite shallow and sometimes misleading arguments. You do have the right to be pro-Russia if you wish so, but use facts and correct analysis to support your views rather than bogus arguments. I was an intelligence analyst for over two decades and your statements don't impress me.

I'm neither pro-Russia or anti-USA - that is entirely your own interpretation of my position.

What I am - and please be clear about this - is pessimistic about the direction current establishment power elites are taking the West - which IMHO is toward war with Russia or China.

I hope that good sense will prevail, and war will be averted.

If you don't hear the drums of war being beaten - perhaps you could ask yourself "am I really listening?"

Hi Michel,

If you want to understand me better, I put where I stand and what is important to me right here on my GR blog.

*Sigh* Politics. Don't make me.

Putin is not considered a rational player by any politically aware person I know in Northern Europe, and I've talked to a few, particularly from Ukraine, Finland and Estonia, as well as here in Sweden. If I had to paint a picture of how we see him: He's pretty widely considered something much more terrifying, he's really smart, politically adept, a narcissistic megalomaniac and batshit insane. Although I expect most people would give that list in the opposite order.

His actions in and around the Baltic states regularly lead to "Is Putin another Hitler?" comparisons in the major newspapers here - because the similarities between German aggression against her neighbours in the 30's and Russian aggression now are pretty compelling.

We're just one little sea away from the Russian Navy and Russian U-boats are regularly seen skirting (or flat out inside) Swedish territorial waters, so worrying about Russia is somewhat more than theoretical, every time one of those turns up. (Although they haven't come in close enough to accidentally beach one since the 80's :)

While I don't exactly worry on a daily basis about a Russian invasion... I do know which roads around here are designated landing strips for the air force, where the nearest bomb shelters are (the local primary school basements, as it happens), and have a semi-serious bug out plan should anything ever start up.

Like Graeme, I hear the drums of war, albeit faintly as yet. But I don't think it's NATO or the west that will be the aggressor, the drums up here are coming from the east.

Krazykiwi wrote: "Like Graeme, I hear the drums of war, albeit faintly as yet. But I don't think it's NATO or the west that will be the aggressor, the drums up here are coming from the east...."

My impression - the closer to the border with Russia, the more worried the establishment there about their safety. Admittedly, Poland and Baltic countries seem more concerned than Western Europe. But Europe is a small place and I guess any military doctrine presumes that Russian tanks can be in any point of Europe in just a few days and they don't need visas -:)
Both NATO and Russia can be 'aggressors', but much more countries seek to join NATO than ask for Russian military auspices it seems and it's because more believe in 'justified' aggression of the former and fear 'unjustified' from the latter.

The formation of NATO is based on collective defence. I used to lecture on the subject in a previous life, Libya actions notwithstanding. The actions in Afghanistan were after the USA invoked the appropriate article calling on all NATO support to defeat the attackers after 9/11. Location may have been out of region but doctrine and treaty duly applied.

That is not to say that NATO cannot be aggressive as Libya demonstrated; however, this was less USA and far more UK and France political will that the USA eventually supported. To protect the people of Benghazi I seem to recall who were facing an Allepo like attack.

I still have a cold war perspective I know, just because its not the Soviet Union does not mean the doctrine has changed with the name. The actions in Georgia and Ukraine demonstrate Putin's intent for a larger Russia. This should make, and does, the wider Ukraine, Baltic states and Poland nervous of further actions to protect Russian speaking minorities or its other national interests. Just like China with the Spratley Islands expanding control by claims to territory or economic pressure.

Nik wrote: "Both NATO and Russia can be 'aggressors', but much more countries seek to join NATO than ask for Russian military auspices it seems and it's because more believe in 'justified' aggression of the former and fear 'unjustified' from the latter."

Well, personally I find it easier to believe in the possibility of unjustified aggression of the latter, because it's not NATO submarines that are regularly spotted in the Stockholm archipelago without permission.

As for closeness, Sweden does share a land border with Russia too, but that would be a whole new level of madness coming through the arctic, so it's less of a worry than the Baltic is. And I live close enough to Russia that when I was pregnant with my last child, I had to stop eating locally caught fish due to Chernobyl fallout (probably less of a risk now, 18 years on.) It's only about 700 km/450 miles from here to St Petersburg, and both boats and nuclear fallout travel pretty darn fast. The Crimea and the Ukraine are a good deal closer than that, so even if Sweden remains neutral, war is a terrifying prospect that would probably personally affect me and my family, rather than an abstract one.

I think where Russia comes off looking like it's overreactive and "unjustified" is that NATO doesn't publicly jump to the nuclear threat based on Russian troop movements inside Russia, but Russia frequently does based on NATO (or NATO ally) troop movements in places they were both invited, and are on either sovereign non-Russian or international territory. Add Putin's reputation of being a hot-head and a loon, and while the threats are probably empty...

But It's not NATO threatening to use nuclear weapons to defend their annexation of the Crimea. Or threatening nukes if Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia allowed NATO to station more troops there to help defend them against possible Russian aggression. Or threatening Denmark over putting Danish warships in the Baltic as part of the NATO defence shield. Russia did all three, and that's just in the last year or so.

On the other hand, according to Russia, the US started the war in the in Ukraine as a ploy to get NATO troops closer to the Russian borders. So there you go, there's always another perspective, I suppose.

Hi Krazykiwi,

I hear you, I've opened a thread in this folder to capture a discussion on high functioning psychopaths, of which Putin may well be an example.

Graeme Rodaughan wrote: "Hi Krazykiwi,

I hear you, I've opened a thread in this folder to capture a discussion on high functioning psychopaths, of which Putin may well be an example."

About to hop on a train, but I'll be all over that one when I get home :)

Krazykiwi wrote: "But It's not NATO threatening to use nuclear weapons to defend their annexation of the Crimea. Or threatening nukes if Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia allowed NATO to station more troops there to help defend them against possible Russian aggression. Or threatening Denmark over putting Danish warships in the Baltic as part of the NATO defence shield. Russia did all three, and that's just in the last year or so...."

Here's a question, and I'm not implying an answer either way. Is Putin threatening to use the nuclear option because he seriously intends to use them if push comes to shove, or is it simply a crazy threat to give the West pause in any possible retaliation, ie. incite the fear so we're not as quick to fight back during the next bout of aggression?

It's a good question J.J.

For me, the immediate flash point is Syria (as opposed to the Ukraine - which is just on simmer).

Whoever wins the US elections next week will have a pivotal role in either inflaming the situation or calming it down.

Philip wrote: "The actions in Georgia and Ukraine demonstrate Putin's intent for a larger Russia. This should make, and does, the wider Ukraine, Baltic states and Poland nervous of further actions to protect Russian speaking minorities or its other national interests..."

Yes, these can be indicators. I guess with 49% of Russian speaking minority in Latvia, they don't exactly feel the safest there..

Krazykiwi wrote: "On the other hand, according to Russia, the US started the war in the in Ukraine as a ploy to get NATO troops closer to the Russian borders. So there you go, there's always another perspective, I suppose...."

Propaganda is a powerful tool, which Russia has no hesitation to apply. My own impression is that both NATO and Russia may use the same slogans and rhetoric of advocating peace, democracy freedoms and all, but in most cases I found NATO puts essentially more meaning into it, while Russia implies less substance and more formalities and declarations.
There is a substantial difference between Scotland's move for independence, for example, and that of Chechnya. Don't think London would've sent tanks to Glasgow, but Moscow sending to any region doesn't sound far-fetched...

Nik highlights a key problem.

The former USSR satellites have large ethnic Russian populations.

That whole area is a potential huge mess.

With rising tensions and military mega-exercises of NATO & Russia respectively was non-accepting Russia as a formal ally in the beginning of Putin's term an opportunity missed or a justified caution that proved right?

Accepting Russia as a NATO ally would have been a huge mistake. Putin would have then been able to sabotage and dismantle the organization from within. His repeated lies to cover/excuse his various outrageous actions (in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, Syria) are indication enough of his duplicity and thirst for power. He is not to be trusted for one second.

If Russia were in NATO, what would be the point of NATO? Who would they be defending against? That could lead to disarmament, and the military industrial complex would not approve :-)

I guess the universal friendship prevails, as after a round of talks in Geneva, NATO is reporting about a real risk of armed conflict in Europe:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/202...

NATO wants to mount more missiles on Russia's borders and is surprised Russia sees this as adverse. The force may be strong, but the logic has left the room.

So what's going to happen next?

Biden says the two sides have to negotiate, but he also says he is not going to consider giving Russia anything, so how this counts as a negotiation is unclear.

Typical Biden. Unclear, baffled, incompetent.

Ian wrote: "NATO wants to mount more missiles on Russia's borders and is surprised Russia sees this as adverse. The force may be strong, but the logic has left the room."

Ian, NATO doesn't move missiles or nukes towards Russia, as far as I know, unless of course you count anti-tank ones and similar stuff. Both Russia and States have military defense unions and NATO has a declared open doors policy. Why countries line up to join NATO and don't - to join Russia-led one?

Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "NATO wants to mount more missiles on Russia's borders and is surprised Russia sees this as adverse. The force may be strong, but the logic has left the room."

Ian, NATO doesn't move mi..."

So the missiles in the Baltic states are all home-grown? Or are you saying that the US puts them there independent of NATO?

Ian, let’s try to establish the facts first. What, if any, missiles, are in Baltic states now? And a reference, please

The Patriot style are admitted to being there
https://www.reuters.com › article › us-usa-baltics-patriot-idUSKBN19V28A

This is claimed to be a defensive system, and as described it is. However, what country honestly reports everything? If you have a base there, what is the limit?

Ian wrote: "The Patriot style are admitted to being there
https://www.reuters.com › article › us-usa-baltics-patriot-idUSKBN19V28A

This is claimed to be a defensive system, and as described it is. However, wh..."

That's nothing, Ian. Patriot is an outdated (or maybe updated) anti-air system. It's like Russians supplying S-300, S-400 to the willing buyers. If there were any offense missiles, you'd find easy references.
And nuclear sharing is pointedly far from Russian borders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear... , as agreed during Cuba. Which by the way can have a revival: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-u...

Not sure you would find "easy references" Nik. You can't give a reference without knowing where the missiles are, and no country is going to advertise that. But I agree that those missiles are merely defensive.

As for outdated, if the US sold them, maybe they are, but if the US put them there they will be updated. The references make no mention of "sold", but then again, if they were, the CIA would not be telling all and sundry.

Graeme wrote: "Hi Matthew,

It is crystal clear that Putin - is by no means a saint - he is clearly a ruthless power operator.

But I think that he is also a rational player."

Yes he is and that needs to be remembered when discussing this topic.