Why Russia is nervous about the West

[Julian2]

US President George W.Bush is wrong in his support for NATO enlargement.

 

That goes without saying.

 

What is more surprising is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is right in both the conclusion and the reasoning behind his outspoken, even threatening, opposition to the US on this issue.

 

And that applies with even greater force to Dmitri Medvedev, the incoming Russian president, who has gone further even than Putin in suggesting that a decision by the West to entertain the membership applications presented by Ukraine and Georgia to the NATO council would be tantamount to a declaration of cold war.

Link

[TheCorinthian]

An interesting article. I always thought the job of a reporter was to report the story and let the reader decide.

 

the first sentence being, "US President George W.Bush is wrong in his support for NATO enlargement. That goes without saying."

 

...screams bias.

[chuckwoww]

Anatole Kaletsky is not strictly speaking a 'reporter'. He is an economist who also writes commentary for the Times.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Kaletsky

[sanddawg1]

Those countries are free now they have the right to apply to NATO if the want fuck the the Russkies . I think Russia should apply to NATO; everyone is friends right?????

[Julian2]

The Times is the conservative newspaper flagship in the UK but is still happy to print differing opinions.

Along with Faux News it is another jewel in Murdoch's media crown.

As Chuck says, the article is opinion, not news.

[TheCorinthian]

Anatole Kaletsky is not strictly speaking a 'reporter'. He is an economist who also writes commentary for the Times.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Kaletsky

 

 

Cool, thanks for clearing that up, Chuck. I did not see from the article that it was commentary.

 

BTW, can anyone guess the real reason Russia hates the missile shield?

[chuckwoww]

I always thought their main objection was that it would make a first strike easier. What's the real reason?

[TheCorinthian]

Russia has a seriously aging ballistic missile force. (And an air force that has next to no spare parts.) A colleague of mine was on one of the disarmament inspection teams in the 90's. The reports they sent back were astounding.

 

In 1990 we thought that about 99% of Russia's missiles would fire in a war if they had too. In 1996 we thought that maybe 5% were EVER capable of launching.

 

Now, what was once thought of as a pipe dream- actually shooting a missile out of the sky -has become a reality. So, Russia's strategic missile deterrent, is about to be nullified.

 

So it does not make a first strike by the US and UK more powerful so much as it make a first (or secound, or third) strike by Russia with the only forces they have that are worth a damn, impossible.

 

Putting them in Eastern Europe is worse because that give the US three shots at a missile headed to NYC or LA. (And the UK 2!)

[Flashermac]

So let me see ... Ukraine and Georgia have been repeatedly taken over by Russia in the past and now wish to join NATO to prevent that happening again. Therefore, Russia is right to feel threatened and to liken it to Nappy's and Adolf's invasions.

 

Cool. I'm glad we've got that straightened out.

 

But ... didn't Imperial Russia sort of annex Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, even Finland? Didn't Stalin moved historic borders around and then expell the inhabitants to replace them with Russians? Now that annexed territory has become the "sacred soil" of Russia too, apparently.

 

But I guess that wasn't aggression and perfectly legitimate.

 

Damn those nasty and ungrateful Ukes and Georgians!

 

 

 

 

 

[chuckwoww]

Makes sense. The Soviet empire collapsed. Their defense systems are probably falling to bits. May not be a good idea to make the Russians more paranoid than they already are.