Europe is back to watching the skies:


Now that Putin has threatened Europe with missiles cutting off Russia's natural gas won't sound so bad.

Should the U.S. build an anti-misile site in Eastern Europe?

Is NATO offering membership to the Ukraine and Georgia a good geopolitical strategy?

Expanding NATO to include ANY of the former Soviet-block countries (this move started in the 90s), was a dismally stupid move, from my perspective. There is nothing to be gained and much to lose by becoming embroiled in a binding alliance that requires we build up a defense for those states. I guess it goes without saying that I believe placing a missile shield over the is also an egregiously bad idea. Pat Buchanan, whom I disagree with in my things, has it right on in this. This was written over ten years ago, but pertinent to this thread.

I am seeing more and more, that when Condi Rice is mentioned as an expert on Russia- Russians laugh so hard thier vodka comes out of thier nose

Should the U.S. build an anti-misile site in Eastern Europe?

Beyond stupid or fool hardy. Russia is not our enemy, if it ever has been since Kruschev. It is another foriegn policy blunder. You want Eastern Europe security, then you just establish free trade zones- YOU DO NOT put weapons pointing at them- this is a country that has a long cultural fear of invasion, going back to Ivan the Terrible. Threatening them makes them close thier borders, and go turtle, and makes them express, very loudly, thier Xenophobic cultural nature.

Is NATO offering membership to the Ukraine and Georgia a good geopolitical strategy?

Beyond stupid again:

1) both countries are unstable, and rife with muslim extremists, along the Chechnyan model (they are not really religious per se'- but rather, xenophobic and racist/nationalist at thier core.

2) The goverments are hopelessly corrupt, leading this tech into the wrong hands.

I'm always in favor of disabusing people of their illusions and Russia is no exception.

The sooner Russia learns the former Eastern bloc is not its own personal sandbox the better.

Russia can bluster all it wants, if the US wants those missle sites and the host countries agree (more and more likely with Russia behaving as if it owned them)
then we shall have missiles.

Frankly, we don't lose much by angering Russia, unless we can trade these missiles for a deal on Iran's nuclear program. If that were forthcoming I bet the US wouldn't be so adamant.

Russia wants to have its cake and eat it too. Help Iran get nukes and stop the US from deploying missle systems.

Putin must choose.

Meanwhile with the Russian political system as corrupt as it is, the more real democracies we can have on its borders the better.

I'm not going to argue Russia hasn't been corrupt since the Soviet collapse but what do you mean by real democracies? Is NATO membership supposed to disrupt the undemocratic Russian federation? If this is the intent I don't know how it would be in our interests. Are you willing to put U.S. forces on alert for total war and reinstate the draft if necessary to support allies neighboring Russia? If you're not willing to pay the price in blood, why grant membership? Keep in mind Russian armed forces are designed to fight NATO. I'm not willing to die for the Ukraine. Are you? Do you even know whether a majority of Ukrainians would side with U.S. forces?

If we lack the will to send our children to die for a former Soviet republic we shouldn't endanger the Ukraine and other countries bordering Russia by encouraging them to join our defensive alliance club. It's irresponsible policy and another example of imperial overstretch.

Is Russia willing to invade Ukraine as a NATO member and incur the wrath of the whole alliance?

This is less an issue of impending battles and more a game of signals, NATO membership signals that these states have allies in the West and dilutes the image of Russia as the only power in the region.

It would be disastrous if Russia decided to invade, but with Ukraine a sovereign state and ally, it would be only reasonable to go to their aid.

You ask if we are willing to die for Ukraine, but that could be asked about any of our allies.

If Russia actually wanted war, it would lose everything and I think they know it.

Edited to Add:
The moment in the country is Westward, encourage the EU to usher them into the fold as well I say.

woohoo- talk about lack of knowledge of a "culture" - here is a doozy. Ukrainians consider themselves "cousins" or "brothers" in Russian (BTW- the word for either is the same in both Ukrainian and Russian dialect- either way- they are "family") -

You want us to go back to a cold war? You REALLY think the US has nothing to fear by activating that fear of American Imperialism? You are very, very mistaken.

There was darn near a nuclear war over the Yugoslavian issue back in Clinton days- most Americans don't even know about this- but there were millions of Russians, and those aligned culturally with thier serbian 'brothers"- that were calling for a NUCLEAR "solution" to "American imperialism in Yugoslavia"-

you think Putin is as stupid as this administration? - he is possibly the most popular leader in Russian history- BAR NONE- he KNOWS his poeple- he is one of them, he has no aspirations to massive wealth of the oligarchy, he is 110% visionary towards his "legacy"- he wants to be known as the "leader that saved Russia from Imperial westerners"- at the very least. His stance towards the US is VERY popular in Russia.

Remember- we are the most hated country on earth now- with the least amount of respect globally- and Putin is savvy enough to read, you know, Time magazine and such - he is smarter, more ruthless, and more driven than possibly any leader on earth today- I don't think it is even close to an exageration- if anything- it is an understatement.

And he has nukes, and in the end- he is Russian- which means, back him into a corner- and he will use them- I just can't explain the almost illogical fear of invason and imperialism that grips Russian culture.

A large portion of Russians feared and hated Stalin during WW2- but that didn't stop them from reacting in normal Russian manner when thier homeland was threatened- no matter what the odds.

My times in Russian are almost an enlightenment of the huge, massive gulf in thinking between our cultures sometimes- when, for a while, you think they are so similar- until you learn they are most definately NOT similar- and it bites you in the butt!

Most Russians believe that the civil defense in a nuclear war will allow enough Russians to live to keep Russia alive- they, as a culture, are not as fearful of losing all but a small percentage of thier poeple, as long as the "imperialists" are held at bay.

I have no way to communicate this incredible fear of outsider imperialism-

Now- that is that part- but here is the other side-

they have a more diverse culture than our own- though, inside Russia- even these diverse cultures harbour a paranoia of imperialistic invasion- and Russia has learned to deal with them without Stalinist policies, with the exception of Chechnya- who, truth be told, many Russian's are not so queesy when it comes to genocide of a poeple- they are all too willing to kill every man woman and child without blinking- Putin, believe it or not, probably has saved the chechnyan poeple from ethnic cleansing as well- and this diversity while maintaining a unique cultural identity is pretty unique for a country, in both the historical perspective- thier ability to pull this off without stalinist controls amazes me, and we should be emulating it-

and that brings me back to my original "other side" point - is that we have much more to gain, much more of our own self interest- by NOT *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off Russia.

first off, they have millions of very bright engineers and computer whizzes, they have learned to deal with muslims in thier country so that all live together (mostly) fairly well, they have lots and lots of oil, and will be, IMHO- one of the best markets the US can exploit into a very lucrative trade, as most Russians don't really want to be communist either - as one Russian so politely told me "You know, we are a culture that is 1200 years old that had a 80 year experiment with collectivism"-

why do we need to put missles pointed at russia right now? That would be my first question- if we REALLY wanted some kind of change in Russia- help Putin stop corruption, and do more biz, allow more immigration- lot's more immigration. Both ways that is- Russia would do well to help US citizens live and retire there as well- it would uplift the entire economy and put them on a much more stable footing, instead of having to rely on the strong leader model they have now.

But the absolute WORST thing we can do is to start penning them in militarily. That WILL evoke a response we won't like.

Also- you are doing a great disservice by actually buying into our own propaganda when it comes to these countries - you can't seem to seperate the poeple from thier goverment I presume? Ukraine is damn near in civil war over the "orange revolution"- with a little more than half WANTING to be on the Russian side rather than the US side- ESPECIALLY since the revolution is so corrupt, it is now seen as US imperialism as well.

WE may very well have an ally in that goverment- but that goverment may very well be overthrown as well.

and the new guys have all our new shiny tech, and then can use the paranoia of outside invasion and imperialism to thier benefit politcally.

If NATO's wrath is frightening to behold I wonder why Russia dared attack Estonia's government websites recently. A lot of good Estonia's NATO membership did them. But maybe it takes considering an all-out invasion for Russia to really consider NATO's wrath.


You don't stop sending signals after military action starts, Turnea. Vietnam was the most exacting signals war the U.S. ever engaged in against the Soviet Union.


No, it would not considering how stretched our commitments are.


And you'd better ask yourself if you are willing to make Americans die defending a foreign country every time you sign a security agreement with a foreign government. The Ukraine is not the only country I think we should drop military support for.


We want to put a missile defense system there because Iran may bomb Europe. I ask myself, if this possible attack is apparent to us, why isn't it apparent to Europe and if it is, why doesn't Europe make ready? Why do we have to pay for and install the system? We could give the Czech Republic the cash and they could buy the equipment from Russia or China, the biggest arms dealers following the U.S.

Not really. NATO treaties are more binding than other defensive treaties, like the one we made with South Korea, for instance. There are many stages of defensive agreements that fall short of definite all-out war if said country is attacked in any way. NATO was specifically formed to bind an alliance against the Soviet Union. Bringing former Soviet countries into the NATO fold is a like kicking dirt in Russia's face. There isn't much other way to interpret it....and it isn't necessary. We could have had security agreements with those countries that didn't go as far as making them NATO members, as we do with many many other nations.

This debate is not over whether Ukraine itself wants to align with NATO, clearly that is their own decision and if made it should be respected.

Russia is no longer capable of controlling Ukraine the way it once did, and Yushchenko's election is proof.

Georgia as well is trying to boot the Russian military of its soil.

We have nothing to lose by supporting them.

Edited to Reply to Mrs. P:
I would counter that kicking dirt was exactly the point. Russia can't kick back and it puts the new democratic leadership on stronger ground to see that the bear has been somewhat de-clawed.

If Russia wants the missles to go away it only has to support us on Iran, the actual target of said missiles.

Even as a non-NATO member I doubt if Europe and the US would stand by as Russia attacked Ukraine.

You are seriously mistaken about HOW the Russians "controlled the Ukraine"- it was and is mostly by consent of the poeple there- thier economy is TOTALLY tied to the soviets, they are ethnic cousins (think Canada and USA in many ways)- the birthplace of the original Russians (Rus of Kiev) and even part of thier religion! It is not that the Ukraine is controlled by Russia through force and politics (not to mention all thier energy needs)- but rather- thier close ties historically and ethnically- you mentioned Yuschenko- have you noticed how dissillusioned Ukrainians are with the orange revolution now?

Same thing that happened with Yeltsin's revolution- it did NOTHING for the poeple it was supposed to help- and, in fact, made things much, much worse for 90% of the population. So far, you have a move to have ethnic cleansing in Estonia, the former powers coming back to power in Ukraine and kazahkstan, and a longing for the "good old days" under the former "communists".

I think it is even fool hardy to even CONSIDER these expansions until AFTER those countries have become a stable entity on thier own.

The man was poisoned for a reason. You contradict yourself by referring to the energy supply manipulation Russia has been involved in.

Russia couldn't even cheat to win the last presidential election and they interfered so transparently hardly anyone argues the fact.

The Orange Revolution may not be universally esteemed but it is doing no worse than the Russian-backed parties and revolution leaders look set to evenly match the opposition in upcoming parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile Georgians wholeheartedly support NATO membership and Ukraine shows no signs of refusal either.

..and "ethnic cleansing" hardly describes the situation in Estonia. Discrimination, certainly but no one is being killed or forced to leave.

Dude- the orange revolution was backed by the US, and we used our propaganda machine as much as or more than the Russians, and attempted to get our guy in, and you know what? It failed 18 months later.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,,1740427,00.html

Ukraine's Orange revolution turns blue


· Comeback for Yanukovich after his opponents split
· Nato membership at risk if MPs turn back to Moscow

Tom Parfitt, Simferopol
Monday March 27, 2006
The Guardian


The divided leaders of Ukraine's orange revolution were beaten into second place in parliamentary elections yesterday, less than 18 months since jubilant crowds swept them to power.
Early exit polls suggested the former prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, was likely to seize between a quarter and a third of parliament, raising the possibility he could take back his post. That would put him in an uneasy cohabitation with Viktor Yushchenko, the president and his opponent during the falsified election which gave birth to the revolution in late 2004 and early 2005.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0804/p06s01-woeu.html


But some Ukrainians worry that Russia could be fanning separatist sentiment in eastern Ukraine, where economic links and pro-Moscow sympathies are strong. Earlier this summer, a wave of anti-NATO demonstrations rocked the largely Russian-populated Crimean Peninsula - home to the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet - which many Russian nationalists believe should not be part of Ukraine.

"The current political crisis is the last resort for Russia," says Ms. Nanivska. "They will try to take advantage of this opportunity to split Ukraine."

Yushchenko's only alternative to trying to find common ground with Yanukovych had been to wield his constitutional power to dissolve parliament and call new elections.

But a poll conducted in mid-July by the independent Kiev International Institute of Sociology found that if fresh elections were held, voter turnout among exhausted Ukrainians would be a low 56 percent, and Yanukovych's Party of Regions would win an outright majority of 50.3 percent of the votes. And Yushchenko's fiery Orange rival Tymoshenko would take 22 percent and Yushchenko's own Our Ukraine movement would receive less than 10 percent.

"Tymoshenko is trying to get people into the streets, to oppose any agreement and force new elections," says Nanivska. "It's hard to say what will happen. It's going to be a tense"

________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________



Ukraine has been destablized by US intervention - in it's attempt to put our guy in power- it is the same old dang story- our meddling is making things LESS stable, NOT more.

Kuchma may be out of power- but Yushenko is even more hated now than Kuchma.

I know, oh, probably 100 Ukranians- from all over Ukraine- and they say with one voice- that they don't want Nato, and that Yuchenko is a tool of the US, and that the entire stability of Ukraine was a US power play against Russia. (Alaska is a MAJOR epicenter of Ukrainian and Russian emigration)

This NATO silliness- heck, what do we even HAVE NATO for anymore anyway? I mean- who is NATO defending against now?

Seems like an organization that is starting to try to justify it's existance and budget?

Gee, CR, still upset about the fall of the Soviet utopia are ya? Perhaps we should be re-building that old wall in Berlin instead of a missile defense system so the people in East Germany could return the idyllic lifestyle they had under Soviet rule. Besides, I'm not sure what you're upset about on this misslie thing. After all, haven't you claimed in the past it wouldn't work anyway? It's not like the US is assisting a nation to go nuclear that has publicly stated it's intention to destroy another nation. Nope, that's those nice folks in Moscow doing that.

Anyway, the questions.....

Should the U.S. build an anti-misile site in Eastern Europe?

If the people there feel the need for one, it's probably not a bad idea. They're a lot closer to Iran than we are, not to mention closer to those wild and crazy fun-loving party animals in the Kremlin. You know the ones thst wear the funny furry hats and help rogue nations develop nuclear weapons.

Is NATO offering membership to the Ukraine and Georgia a good geopolitical strategy?

I think it depends on the nature of the membership. Certainly from a diplomatic standpoint I don't see any harm. It's another forum for discussion on the issues of the day. From a military standpoint, not so sure on that one. Might want to consider that and take things a little slower there.


Aquilla

No- just pointing out the obvious and often ignorance of the average American when it comes to anything remotely close to the former eastern bloc. We have bought into so much of our own propaganda, when you experiance soem of the politics, business and poeple for yourself- pretty much everything you have ever been told by American media- left or right wing- is probably wrong.

I am, however, making a copy of YOUR response to show some of my Russian friends for a good laugh- you see, Russia has NEVER been a Utopia- pretty much a kingdom that had been caught between Asia proper and Europe for a long time, and is a pretty alien culture to most of us.

Funny because you actually think the majority of Russians are better off now, or Ukrainians, than under Breshnev. Life is much, much, much harder for the average person to live there now. Old poeple without families are starving because thier pensions are worthless, the male life expectancy has plumeted, and there is massive unrest from one end of the bloc to the other. That is why Putin is so popular- he has restored some sembelance of order.

Ukrainians that lived through the 70s DO long for the "good old days". From Ajerbejan to Kazachcstan- it is hard to find a person that said life WAS NOT better back then.

Most Americans can't even fathom this- I know it was kind of hard for me to believe, even when I heard it a hundred times with my own ears.

Order is the value that 99% of the former eastern bloc, with a major "except in case of" places like eastern germany- and there, with thier massive unemployment as they try to integrate into western society. The former easter bloc countries like the chech republic, poland and the estonia, latvia and the other more north western republics did fairly well- but we all know what happened to Yugoslavia, don't we? You think they feel much better off now?

No, it was never a "utopia"- but for alot of folks- it was certainly BETTER times - but we, as Americans- need to learn to keep our noses out of that regions business, and let them find thier own way too- without us mucking it up some more. If Russia is foolish enough to try and over-extend itself into those regions- let it- it will only destroy them, just like it may destroy us if we go meddlin' too much too.

Isn't it about time, Aquilla, that we learn that muckin' around in others business for our own nefarious reasons, or even noble ones- only brings US ruin too? How many times does America have to go on to a war footing just to allow politicians to get re-elected or elected before it leads to OUR ruin?

I am not talking total isolation here- but rather, stop the policy of overturnig goverments and threatening poeple that are not enemies rght now to be paranoid of the US?

Aquilla- if the US is indeed headed into a global "war on terrorism"- don't you think it terribly silly to anger someone that is paranoid of the US already- and, oh yeah, controls a good portion of the worlds oil right now?

America is not so respected as a force for good in most of the world- in fact, is seen as an agressor pretty much in about 80% or so of the worlds population. Politicians gain power by running on campaigns of being independent of US control.

So how is NATO going to be a good thing even for our own interests in that region?

My discusson on eastern bloc country culture is because I have lived in it, still live in it, and have to deal with it's politics, both regional and national, for some time.

Hey- how many Tartarish folk have you had stay in your house for the summer in your house?

I watch russian Tv about weekly now, but have, at one point, watched it daily for a long time- there movies, thier modern books, when I can have some help by my daughter with the translation -

all I want to do is say when I discuss them, is NOT that thier system is superior- but that they come to a very different conclusion than you do when you think this is a good idea for some of this obvious western agression to them?

Why place missles pointing at them at this time?

Should the U.S. build an anti-misile site in Eastern Europe?

Yes, if the USA wants to maintain its grip on Europe's jugular then it needs stay in control of Europe's defence. Iran makes a nice enemy for right wingers, but isn't quite enough to instill the European paranoia that is needed to justify a continued US military presence. Russia can though with its hard talking military command, polonium poisoning president and finger on the future of Europes energy supply. By 'poking the bear' Washington can make the Russians mouth off and seem to be a threat worth investing against with a continued American led alliance. Whether or not the Russians actually pose any great threat is any one's guess. I doubt the Russians are interested in another long term conflict with western Europe, but for as long as the USA remains in its cold war trenches, then I can't see that the Russians have any choice in the matter. They are pretty paranoid about American imperialism already (CR is right in his apprasal of their mental state) and who can blame them? US backed forces creep ever closer to their borders. Old allies are now becoming a NATO buffer zone.

As for Washington. Obviously the USA government does not want to relinquish its old post war grip on Europe. Many Americans whine and complain about bearing the cost of Europe's defence, but lets be honest. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the USA still maintains its military presence in Europe? Why? My guess is because Europe is strategically important to maintain American global interests.
In other words, the USA needs Europe far more than Europe needs the USA so from that perspective, yes, the USA shuld build a missile shield because in doing so it guarantee's the continued need for USA military presence in Europe.


Is NATO offering membership to the Ukraine and Georgia a good geopolitical strategy?

See the above answer. Yes. By placing military assets in these countries the USA provokes the Russian Federation. The Russians (never the most capable of politicians) have already taken the bait and started making threats against Western Europe (as if we had any say in the matter). This of course also plays into the hands of Russia military elite which has long smarted at the loss of its Soviet sized assets and the high profile failures of its modern military (fighters grounded for lack of funds, missiles that don't work, subs that sink) and no doubt see's in the missile shield a reason to start ranting at the Kremlin. The Russians have answered this new 'threat' by designing missiles that can "penetrate any missile defence system", so quite why they are so bothered by it can hardly be because they fear it. No, rather I think they are mightily upset at the loss of their former sphere of influence and thats where Washington is pushing their buttons. The missile shield, which doesn't even work anyway, is just to push the message home.


edited to add link

There is little doubt that Poland and the Czech republic want to join NATO (Russia is a NATO member as well) and we should consider this carefully. Certainly history tells us that these countries have good reason to fear invasion. The question is would we go to war for them if invaded even if they were not NATO members? If so then let them join. If not why not?

http://www.nato.int/pfp/eapc-cnt.htm


It looks like the missiles will not be on their soil in any case only the radars for the system. The effectiveness of the systems depends on forward radars

“lte last night we were informed that they would like to launch negotiations over the possible siting of an anti-ballistic missile defence system in our country. Concretely, this would be a radar station," Topolanek announced at a news conference Saturday”

http://agonist.org/20070120/us_requests_of...le_installation


Russia’s threat to “target” European cities is meaningless in any case. With today’s electronic systems “targeting” takes minutes at most in any case.

As for Ukraine I would question why we need them in NATO. They benefit and we pay – not sure what they bring to the party. Georgia is a member now.

Russia is not a NATO member. They have a Partnership for Peace understanding with NATO, that's all. They aren't members and membership is not a stated goal. We could have offered the same terms to post-Soviet states.

Hey look Ted and I are agreeing. Mark your calenders.

The fact is Russia is on the defensive in its old sphere. Watching the way Putin handles dissent in his own country I for one have only joy that the for Eastern bloc is turning away from that path.

Even the opposition in Ukraine wants closer relations with the west, and Georgia is down right upset with Russia.

I say make good friends while the getting's good because we might need them later.

Russia is isolating itself and until they change the authoritarian trend and stop supporting Iran on the nuclear issue, I say we help them shoot themselves in the foot as much as they'd like.

moif I think blaming this on US desires for hegemony is some mighty convoluted logic. What stranglehold does the US have on Europe again?

Russia holds the real threat even your own post details their actions.

What has the US done to make that our fault?

The fact is Putin is simply showing what he really thinks of Western Europe and apparently the answer is not much. He had no reason to make those threats (as you noted it doesn't make any difference to our policy)

So think it through, who's the actual threat to Europe here?

Putin has an outstanding non-Military threat against Europe- enought to bring them to thier knees quickly- it is called "oil"

Turnea- who do you think most of the world feels more threatened by right now- Iran or the US?

The good thing about feelings is that they are transitory. Given a few more years most of the world will realize again that is has nothing to fear from the US, especially Europe.

The bad thing about Iran and Russia is that they are politically stagnant. Without free elections it becomes very hard to change paths. The US can once again become non-threatening, but Iran will still want its nukes and Russia will still rig elections, attack websites, poison politicians and threaten to cut off the gas.

Time will reveal to the world who the real threats are.

If he works the oil-trump any hope of being trusted in the West in finished and they risk returning to pariah status.

Turnea- it is funny you should mention "free elections"- a Russian friend pointed out that WE are the ones with no free election- after all- poor poeple can't get elected here- correct?

He pointed out that HE was a representitive in his goverment, at one point, and he had no money or connections- it is just that poeple in his region respected him and nominated him.

he said "In America, you get rich, and then you can get elected, in Russia, you get elected, then you can get rich"

Turnea "pariah status"?

They were NEVER in "pariah status"- what makes you think they were? I am kinda suprised at your world view here- I had always thought you had a slightly better handle on it than some-

America, for the last 6 years or so, has proven itself to be the great de-stabilizer of peace and prospertity in the world- how transient do you think that this is going to be?

Right – my error – here is the list:
http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm


Hey nice to agree with you for a change too!!!


I agree Putin is no democrat and could easily turn Russia back into a major threat. And yes they feel free to sell nuclear power to Iran, help Saddam, and generally do whet is in their best interest so I am not too worried about opposing them.


We will have to keep our deterrent ready in any case and they still know clearly we can annihilate them if they attack us.