Full Version: Our post cold war policy toward Russia
I'm not even going to pretend I am up to speed on this issue, but I'm interested to get some feedback on this vital area of foreign policy. Pat Buchanan takes the position that we have squandered the willingness of Russia to stand down from their former policies of Soviet imperialism and heavy handed communist ideology and reach out and try to accommodate the west as well as releasing many of their captive countries to find their own course. In return Pat feels, with the expansion of NATO into the east and other policies that show an indifference to Russian interests, we are once again driving them into a posture of hostility to the west.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22933
Questions for discussion:
Should we be considering Russias vital strategic interests in developing our policies and if so do you think the US is adequately doing so? Explain.
What exactly is our interest in expanding NATO to the East? Do you think it's a good idea or not? Why?
Do you think canceling the ABM treaty with Russia was a good idea and moving ahead to place missile defense systems against Russia's wishes in selective Eastern countries is a plan we should proceed with?
What should we do if anything about Russia's highly cooperative relationship with Iran, including shipping anti-aircraft missiles to use against you know who?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22933
QUOTE
What happened in 1991 and 1992?
Well, Russia let the Berlin Wall be torn down and its satellite states be voted or thrown out of power across Eastern Europe. Russia agreed to pull the Red Army all the way back inside its border. Russia agreed to let the Soviet Union dissolve into 15 nations. The Communist Party agreed to share power and let itself be voted out. Russia embraced freedom and American-style capitalism, and invited Americans in to show them how it was done.
Russia did not use its veto in the Security Council to block the U.S. war to drive Saddam Hussein, an ally, out of Kuwait. When 9-11 struck, Putin gave his blessing to U.S. troops using former republics as bases for the U.S. invasion.
What was Moscow's reward for its pro-America policy?
The United States began moving NATO into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics. Six ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, as are three ex-republics of the Soviet Union. NATO expansionists have not given up on bringing Ukraine, united to Russia for centuries, or Georgia, Stalin's birthplace, into NATO.
-------------------------------------------------------------
At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.
We blew it.
Well, Russia let the Berlin Wall be torn down and its satellite states be voted or thrown out of power across Eastern Europe. Russia agreed to pull the Red Army all the way back inside its border. Russia agreed to let the Soviet Union dissolve into 15 nations. The Communist Party agreed to share power and let itself be voted out. Russia embraced freedom and American-style capitalism, and invited Americans in to show them how it was done.
Russia did not use its veto in the Security Council to block the U.S. war to drive Saddam Hussein, an ally, out of Kuwait. When 9-11 struck, Putin gave his blessing to U.S. troops using former republics as bases for the U.S. invasion.
What was Moscow's reward for its pro-America policy?
The United States began moving NATO into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics. Six ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, as are three ex-republics of the Soviet Union. NATO expansionists have not given up on bringing Ukraine, united to Russia for centuries, or Georgia, Stalin's birthplace, into NATO.
-------------------------------------------------------------
At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.
We blew it.
Questions for discussion:
Should we be considering Russias vital strategic interests in developing our policies and if so do you think the US is adequately doing so? Explain.
What exactly is our interest in expanding NATO to the East? Do you think it's a good idea or not? Why?
Do you think canceling the ABM treaty with Russia was a good idea and moving ahead to place missile defense systems against Russia's wishes in selective Eastern countries is a plan we should proceed with?
What should we do if anything about Russia's highly cooperative relationship with Iran, including shipping anti-aircraft missiles to use against you know who?
Should we be considering Russias vital strategic interests in developing our policies and if so do you think the US is adequately doing so? Explain.
I think we should consider Russian's vital strategic interests to the extent that they might affect us. Yes, I believe that a realistic long-term foreign policy would take such things into account.
What exactly is our interest in expanding NATO to the East? Do you think it's a good idea or not? Why?
Horrible idea. I couldn't believe we were doing it when we did....and painting it as a victory for world peace! There is nothing to be gained by providing security guarantees to former Soviet Block countries except headaches and future conflict.
I'll provide a link that summarizes the rationale at the time:
Do you think canceling the ABM treaty with Russia was a good idea and moving ahead to place missile defense systems against Russia's wishes in selective Eastern countries is a plan we should precede with?
Canceling the ABM treaty was a foregone conclusion once we signed the former eastern block countries into the fold...whom are we defending them against? As members of the NATO alliance, we are now required to form a legitimate defense for those countries, and that requires weapons that could counter the types of weapons they could be facing.
What should we do if anything about Russia's highly cooperative relationship with Iran, including shipping anti-aircraft missiles to use against you know who?
Invite Russia into NATO. Yes, this would absolutely drip with irony as the NATO alliance was formed to counter the Warsaw Pact. But that NATO ceased to exist when the former Soviet satellites entered the fold. It ceased to be a defensive alliance and became an imperialist one (from Russia's viewpoint). Now that we've done the unforgiveably stupid, there isn't much better course...either dissolve NATO entirely and replace it with something else, or invite Russia in.
I think we should consider Russian's vital strategic interests to the extent that they might affect us. Yes, I believe that a realistic long-term foreign policy would take such things into account.
What exactly is our interest in expanding NATO to the East? Do you think it's a good idea or not? Why?
Horrible idea. I couldn't believe we were doing it when we did....and painting it as a victory for world peace! There is nothing to be gained by providing security guarantees to former Soviet Block countries except headaches and future conflict.
I'll provide a link that summarizes the rationale at the time:
QUOTE
"The very promise of it (membership) has given the nations of central and Eastern Europe an incentive to solve their own problems," Albright told the audience, which included a number of central European ministers.
She said there were signs that "something amazing" was happening. She cited the fact that Poles, Ukrainians and Lithuanians were forming joint military units after years of suspicion, that Czechs and Germans were overcoming decades of mistrust, and that central European nations were improving political and economic relations with the rest of Europe.
"NATO is doing for Europe's East precisely what it did for Europe's West after World War II," Albright said
She said there were signs that "something amazing" was happening. She cited the fact that Poles, Ukrainians and Lithuanians were forming joint military units after years of suspicion, that Czechs and Germans were overcoming decades of mistrust, and that central European nations were improving political and economic relations with the rest of Europe.
"NATO is doing for Europe's East precisely what it did for Europe's West after World War II," Albright said
Do you think canceling the ABM treaty with Russia was a good idea and moving ahead to place missile defense systems against Russia's wishes in selective Eastern countries is a plan we should precede with?
Canceling the ABM treaty was a foregone conclusion once we signed the former eastern block countries into the fold...whom are we defending them against? As members of the NATO alliance, we are now required to form a legitimate defense for those countries, and that requires weapons that could counter the types of weapons they could be facing.
What should we do if anything about Russia's highly cooperative relationship with Iran, including shipping anti-aircraft missiles to use against you know who?
Invite Russia into NATO. Yes, this would absolutely drip with irony as the NATO alliance was formed to counter the Warsaw Pact. But that NATO ceased to exist when the former Soviet satellites entered the fold. It ceased to be a defensive alliance and became an imperialist one (from Russia's viewpoint). Now that we've done the unforgiveably stupid, there isn't much better course...either dissolve NATO entirely and replace it with something else, or invite Russia in.
Questions for discussion:
Should we be considering Russias vital strategic interests in developing our policies and if so do you think the US is adequately doing so? Explain.
As long as they don’t conflict with ours as is the case with Iraq and Iran.
What exactly is our interest in expanding NATO to the East? Do you think it's a good idea or not? Why?
Our interest is responding to countries that desperately want to have protection from their former slave master. Let’s remember that Stalin and his predecessors killed about 50 million people in the failed Communist experiment. If you lived in say Poland would you not feel better if the US guaranteed your freedom. Or should you feel comfortable with a country run by the former head of the KGB??? The answer is obvious.
For the US it also means that these countries cannot be “retaken” by Russia if they choose to revert to their old ways.
Do you think canceling the ABM treaty with Russia was a good idea and moving ahead to place missile defense systems against Russia's wishes in selective Eastern countries is a plan we should proceed with?
Absolutely. We need protection from rogue states. Russia knows the shield will not stop 4,000 + Russian ICBM – IMO they don’t like it because they cannot match it.
What should we do if anything about Russia's highly cooperative relationship with Iran, including shipping anti-aircraft missiles to use against you know who?
Not much we can do except, as we are doing, trying to catch them in Iraq and kill them. For Russia Iran is an ally, and a significant “customer” – as was Iraq which explains why the UN Resolutions were never going anywhere.
Should we be considering Russias vital strategic interests in developing our policies and if so do you think the US is adequately doing so? Explain.
As long as they don’t conflict with ours as is the case with Iraq and Iran.
What exactly is our interest in expanding NATO to the East? Do you think it's a good idea or not? Why?
Our interest is responding to countries that desperately want to have protection from their former slave master. Let’s remember that Stalin and his predecessors killed about 50 million people in the failed Communist experiment. If you lived in say Poland would you not feel better if the US guaranteed your freedom. Or should you feel comfortable with a country run by the former head of the KGB??? The answer is obvious.
For the US it also means that these countries cannot be “retaken” by Russia if they choose to revert to their old ways.
Do you think canceling the ABM treaty with Russia was a good idea and moving ahead to place missile defense systems against Russia's wishes in selective Eastern countries is a plan we should proceed with?
Absolutely. We need protection from rogue states. Russia knows the shield will not stop 4,000 + Russian ICBM – IMO they don’t like it because they cannot match it.
What should we do if anything about Russia's highly cooperative relationship with Iran, including shipping anti-aircraft missiles to use against you know who?
Not much we can do except, as we are doing, trying to catch them in Iraq and kill them. For Russia Iran is an ally, and a significant “customer” – as was Iraq which explains why the UN Resolutions were never going anywhere.
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 22 2007, 04:54 PM) 
What exactly is our interest in expanding NATO to the East? Do you think it's a good idea or not? Why?
Our interest is responding to countries that desperately want to have protection from their former slave master. Let’s remember that Stalin and his predecessors killed about 50 million people in the failed Communist experiment. If you lived in say Poland would you not feel better if the US guaranteed your freedom. Or should you feel comfortable with a country run by the former head of the KGB??? The answer is obvious.
For the US it also means that these countries cannot be “retaken” by Russia if they choose to revert to their old ways.
Our interest is responding to countries that desperately want to have protection from their former slave master. Let’s remember that Stalin and his predecessors killed about 50 million people in the failed Communist experiment. If you lived in say Poland would you not feel better if the US guaranteed your freedom. Or should you feel comfortable with a country run by the former head of the KGB??? The answer is obvious.
For the US it also means that these countries cannot be “retaken” by Russia if they choose to revert to their old ways.
Well, as Poland's independence wasn't worth entering World War III fifty years ago...I'm not sure why it should be worth entering World War III today.
We absolutely squelched a huge opportunity for closer relations with Russia, and needlessly....I suppose we recruited two whole Slavakian soldiers to demonstrate a "coalition" force presence in Iraq as a result of its new status as a NATO partner. Yippie. This is a worse situation than most are aware, and it was totally avoidable. They are currently resuming certain Cold War missions in military bases in Europe....unthinkable just ten short years ago, in great part as a result of this myopic NATO expansion.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 22 2007, 07:32 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 22 2007, 04:54 PM)
What exactly is our interest in expanding NATO to the East? Do you think it's a good idea or not? Why?
Our interest is responding to countries that desperately want to have protection from their former slave master. Let’s remember that Stalin and his predecessors killed about 50 million people in the failed Communist experiment. If you lived in say Poland would you not feel better if the US guaranteed your freedom. Or should you feel comfortable with a country run by the former head of the KGB??? The answer is obvious.
For the US it also means that these countries cannot be “retaken” by Russia if they choose to revert to their old ways.
Our interest is responding to countries that desperately want to have protection from their former slave master. Let’s remember that Stalin and his predecessors killed about 50 million people in the failed Communist experiment. If you lived in say Poland would you not feel better if the US guaranteed your freedom. Or should you feel comfortable with a country run by the former head of the KGB??? The answer is obvious.
For the US it also means that these countries cannot be “retaken” by Russia if they choose to revert to their old ways.
Well, as Poland's independence wasn't worth entering World War III fifty years ago...I'm not sure why it should be worth entering World War III today.
We absolutely squelched a huge opportunity for closer relations with Russia, and needlessly....I suppose we recruited two whole Slavakian soldiers to demonstrate a "coalition" force presence in Iraq as a result of its new status as a NATO partner. Yippie. This is a worse situation than most are aware, and it was totally avoidable. They are currently resuming certain Cold War missions in military bases in Europe....unthinkable just ten short years ago, in great part as a result of this myopic NATO expansion.
I don’t see it as myopic and I disagree that just because we have no outpouring of troops to Iraq that it was not worth it. What do you say to countries crushed, dominated and brutalized by Russia for decades? No we don’t want you?
The current Russian military expansion has little or nothing to do with NATO. Putin is using a little of the recent Hugh increase in oil revenues to prop up the nearly dead and demoralized Russian military.
They are still decades behind us in military systems and still rely heavily on their nukes. IMO we will never have real cozy relations with Russia since there are too many places where our priorities and incentives are at odds such as the Middle East.
And do you really trust the ol Bear headed by the former head of the KGB? I don’t.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.