Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Now we have little states on the border of Russia joining an alliance system. That should be OK, but obviously from the attitudes expressed here, there is still a lot of bad blood between these neighbours. What assurances do Russians have that the governments of their neighbours will act responsibly once they are safely part of NATO? Should they just trust that everything will work out?

Maybe NATO should realise that Russia has a stake in European security like everybody else. Would it be too hard to discuss it with them and come up with a new treaty that everyone would be comfortable with?

And let Russia dictate (because that's what's gonna happen) how sovereign countries shape their security alliances. Even some minor knowledge of Russian foreign policy and domestic rhetoric, compared with the policies and domestic rhetoric of the "little states", will make you understand that you should NOT cozy up to any whims Russia has vis-a-vis alliances of its "Blizhneje Zarubezhije" (a Russian term coined to describe FSU republics, meant as "imperial domains").

I can surely understand why there's an undercurrent of Rusophilia in the western culture, but you should not let that blind you in dealing with that, ahem, interesting country.

[Serb]

And you've said that Russians are too paranoid...



Looks like we are playing in the same league here.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Are you drunk Serb, this is beyond even your level of idiocy.

You're such an ignorant , Patro.

[Saras]

We're not paranoid. We're experienced.

[notyoueither]

Well, I doubt they will 'dictate' NATO policies in the Baltic States. However, the question remains, do you want the Russian Army deployed on your door step, or do you want the bulk of it behind the Urals, which the CFE requires?

If there are no restrictions on NATO deployments in Poland, the Baltics, and the Caucasus, why should the Russians restrict the deployment of their forces?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras
We're not paranoid. We're experienced.

We too.

[Serb]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If there are no restrictions on NATO deployments in Poland, the Baltics, and the Caucasus, why should the Russians restrict the deployment of their forces?

EXACTLY!!!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Saras
I can surely understand why there's an undercurrent of Rusophilia in the western culture, but you should not let that blind you in dealing with that, ahem, interesting country.

We should also not be blind that real security requires that everyone be comfortable with the arrangements. Isolating and encroaching on a major power will not lead to security, it will lead to an enemy.

[Serb]

Canada should lead NATO instead of Yanks.

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither


We should also not be blind that real security requires that everyone be comfortable with the arrangements. Isolating and encroaching on a major power will not lead to security, it will lead to an enemy.

100% agree. But you should only listen to reasonable demands & requests. Like, no short & intermediary nukes in Baltics.

OTOH, there's really no threat coming from Russia as a state. My worst scenario is Belarus going nuts, or some sort of domestic disturbance in Russia that might lead some hawkish general to the idea that he can do some live fire exercise around Vilnius.

[notyoueither]

All the more reason to engage Russia as a real partner for peace that can be sustained. Nobody said anything about accepting unreasonable demands. Real negotiations are based on what we need, what they need, and finding the common ground.

What I see is Russia not being comfortable with how things have progressed since the end of the Cold War and the end of the SU. They have a legitimate (to me) point that they will not be bound by a Cold War document when the circumstances that led to that document have radically changed. We have a choice. We can deploy as we like within NATO, and the Russians will act like an isolated super power while ignoring that treaty. Or, we can actually walk the talk of 'partners for peace' and find a new formula that we are all comfortable with.

btw, Saras, simply being a member of NATO, no troops involved, is a major choke for Russia to get over. Membership does not give the Baltic States a blank cheque, but it commits The United States, Canada, and the better parts of Europe to your security from invasion. We're all signed on the line that if Russia did something like in '40, it would be very bad for the entire world. I for one do not think they would do it, do you?

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither
All the more reason to engage Russia as a real partner for peace that can be sustained. Nobody said anything about accepting unreasonable demands. Real negotiations are based on what we need, what they need, and finding the common ground.

What I see is Russia not being comfortable with how things have progressed since the end of the Cold War and the end of the SU. They have a legitimate (to me) point that they will not be bound by a Cold War document when the circumstances that led to that document have radically changed. We have a choice. We can deploy as we like within NATO, and the Russians will act like an isolated super power while ignoring that treaty. Or, we can actually walk the talk of 'partners for peace' and find a new formula that we are all comfortable with.

btw, Saras, simply being a member of NATO, no troops involved, is a major choke for Russia to get over. Membership does not give the Baltic States a blank cheque, but it commits The United States, Canada, and the better parts of Europe to your security from invasion. We're all signed on the line that if Russia did something like in '40, it would be very bad for the entire world. I for one do not think they would do it, do you?

You will notice that I haven't objected to Russia scrapping that treaty. Frankly, I don't really care. It's not like they will invade NATO.

Also, you should note the second paragraph in my last post.

[notyoueither]

I saw that paragraph, and it made me wonder why my government is backing a willy nilly expansion of NATO to the East. No offence, Saras, but we are talking WW3 if something goes wrong.

Actually, it really means there is all the more reason for NATO and Russia to reach a better understanding that will leave the Russians much less likely to risk backing a bad plan from one of the other disfunctional former-SSRs. If NATO is on your side, and Russia is not backing them, who is going to mess with your thing?

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I saw that paragraph, and it made me wonder why my government is backing a willy nilly expansion of NATO to the East. No offence, Saras, but we are talking WW3 if something goes wrong.

WW3 over a deranged dictator or a warmongering fool of a renegade general?

[notyoueither]

Uhhh, no, Saras, WW3 over the United States and Russia coming into direct conflict. What do you think happens when a NATO member is in a situation that triggers the alliance and it escalates in a very bad way? Do you think NATO is a knitting club?