In Soviet Russia, friends leave you

[Ecthy]

Oh wait I have a terrifyingly new idea: maybe they want to do it now rather than later. or something like that.

[Ecthy]

Well back to serious: I understand the positive rationale behind it, but there's also always the question of how much tension you're willing to build up. The expansion rationale is pure realism, it does not reflect well on the institutional progress that had been mae during and after the cold war: the more you go into realist thinking and action, the more do you endanger any CSCE, CSE and also START agreements that had been reached already.

No no no, purely realist thinking doesn't work here. Again, it must seem more obvious to Americans than to Europeans. We actually do care about the above mentioned treaties, since they supply us with institutional security. This odd phenomenon always appears like a myth to relaist thinkers. Over here, the European security architecture is a sanctuary.

As for the realist arguments, see it this way: Russia has been pretty weak for some time and is just building up now, in so much I do agree with the realists. But this also means that the west is strong.

If we'r estrong, do we NEED to secure strength and demonstrate our power, even if it means giving up institutional security? Are CSCE, CSE etc worth nothing in the 21st century? we'r enot particularly providing Russia with arguments to keep up their share of the collective security agreements.

[PLATO]

My question is: Why does Russia continually feel threatened by a DEFENSIVE alliance?

I would think that if they are as peace loving as they say, then having countries tied into the stability of NATO and its political apparatus would be a good thing.

If they do not wish to see stability, but are still interested in Empire building or influence bullying, then I can see where they would have a problem.

So...Shut up Russia and sell your natural gas and help your people to get to the standard of living that the West enjoys.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by PLATO
My question is: Why does Russia continually feel threatened by a DEFENSIVE alliance?

...maybe something to do with "defending" in Serbia and Afghanistan.


BTW: Apparently the Germans are now big-league ticked off at the U.S. The Germans had been told that a compromise had been reached on Ukr. & Geog. and that their membership wouldn't be put up for a vote. Then presto, there it was. The Germans feel double crossed.

[Kuciwalker]

If we'r estrong, do we NEED to secure strength and demonstrate our power, even if it means giving up institutional security? Are CSCE, CSE etc worth nothing in the 21st century? we'r enot particularly providing Russia with arguments to keep up their share of the collective security agreements.

We're strong now.

[Ecthy]

Any prospect of change there?

PLATO - the defensive-ness of NATO is very formal. NATO has first strike options and has striked first against minor nations before. It's a power struggle in the first place.

Zkrib, in our media it's presented more like a big blow for Bush and a cool move by Merkel+Sarkozy because the membership issue for Georgia and Ukraine has been postponed indefinitely. However it was put like "will be admitted in the future" without any date or any notion as to an acceleration of the process, as wished by Bush, to save face of the American delegation.

Your government is a dead duck really and everyone knows that.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


...maybe something to do with "defending" in Serbia and Afghanistan.

Serbia is a good (but debateable in some ways) point. Afghanistan seems like a fairly clear cut defensive operation.

WRT Serbia, I find in highly unlikely that NATO would strike Russia over a genocide issue, but maybe....

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
My question is: Why does Russia continually feel threatened by a DEFENSIVE alliance?

Because it is not now, and never has been, a defensive alliance. It is an imperialist alliance.

[chequita guevara]

NATO, created 1949
Warsaw Pact, created 1955

[Kuciwalker]

Which makes it a competitor.

xpost

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Any prospect of change there?

PLATO - the defensive-ness of NATO is very formal. NATO has first strike options and has striked first against minor nations before. It's a power struggle in the first place.

To the first part, I gave my answer to Zkribbler. To the second, it is indeed a power struggle. Why does Russia feel the need to project its power so significantly? It is not like they have the worldwide interests that the US and Western Europeans have...
But, okay...so they want them. Isn't China's economic model much more effective than military posturing anyway? Russia is certainly generating some cash now...they could use that to buy factories instead of bombs, but, hey, what do I know?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because it is not now, and never has been, a defensive alliance. It is an imperialist alliance.

Hi che!

You meant that Union of Soviet Socialist Republics here, didn't you?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
NATO, created 1949
Warsaw Pact, created 1955

# of countries that joined NATO willingly: 26
# of countries that joined the Warsaw Pact willingly: 1

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because it is not now, and never has been, a defensive alliance. It is an imperialist alliance.

che's idea of imperialism:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

Article 9
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)

Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

Article 14
This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.

-The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
-On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
-The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.

[Ecthy]

You're a true positivist.