russia's threats to ukraine, georgia are challenges to u.s., nato

Representatives of the Russian government and the Kremlin are multiplying their threats to Ukraine ahead of next week's NATO summit, where Membership Action Plans for the two countries will be considered.

[Baturyn]

Russia has frequently misread the effect of its intimidation efforts, and this may prove to be another major diplomatic blunder for Putin. By drawing the lines as sharply as he has, Putin gives NATO very few face-saving options. Either NATO capitulates (and there is no other word for it) to Russian threats and proves that NATO is a toothless tiger, or they - even if unwillingly - show that the alliance has resilience.

In particular, Putin is throwing down the gauntlet to Bush as to which of the two powers (US or Russia) will prevail in Europe. If Europe choses Russia, it will not be so much a Bush failure as European cowardice.

Time and again history has shown that the only way of dealing with Russia is (as Ukraine is now doing) to stand up to it. Russia excels in bluffs, disinformation, and posturing. Ukraine and Georgia - despite their vulnerability - are showing tremendous strength and courage. Let's hope Europe does its part.

[Stanislaw]

Why is it the USA or Russia? The EU should not be afraid of such a backward country as Russia. Now within the borders of the Russian Republic why do they need us to stand up to Putin?
In the long run I think the EU is a better hedge against Russia than NATO. As it expands and gains strength Europe itself can divert Russian imperial dreams eastward.

[Stefan]

I agree. Back down to this bear like Germany wants to do and you will always be beholding to his rage. Stand up to him and you will forever show him who is boss.

The GDP of NATO is 30 x that of Russia. There is no reason to be afraid of his anger. He is all bark with little bit. NATO are like a Doberman, a German-Sheppard and a Pit-bull standing against a Russian Terrier.

[Stanislaw]

A country like Georgia probably has reason for concern more than Ukraine. Is the EU and NATO going to consider it vital or outside our area?
They will keep Russia "civilized" in the west.

[Why Not]

On his Kiev visit , Dubya is going to invite Ukraine to the MAP - Nato barbeque and the U.S. will provide all the fixins . Russia the well known cattle ( country ) rustler aint invited .

[Baturyn]

Stanislaw wrote:

Why is it the USA or Russia? The EU should not be afraid of such a backward country as Russia. Now within the borders of the Russian Republic why do they need us to stand up to Putin?
In the long run I think the EU is a better hedge against Russia than NATO. As it expands and gains strength Europe itself can divert Russian imperial dreams eastward.

Russia may be "backward" but there are three elements that are serious issues for Europe:(a) Russian energy supplies for Europe; (b) Russian nuclear and conventional capability; (c) Russia as a huge market, investment base, and source of raw material for Europe.

Europe does not "need" the U.S., but - keep in mind - that Europe is not a united entity. It consists of two dozen countries, with a lot of different agendas, arrangements, ambitions, perceptions vis-a-vis Russia. Although the European Unity provides a framework of unity, that unity can be shred at any time if any of the major powers balk. Hence, the U.S., although economically inferior to the EU, has wielded inordinate influence in Europe precisely because of the internal weakness of the EU. Russia does not have that problem.

The EU may be a better bet "in the long run", but it's the short run that concerns Ukraine and Georgia. Entry into NATO would facilitate entry into EU. Furthermore, do not underestimate NATO. It may be weak under conditions where there appears to be no military threat to Europe, but - if such a threat should develop - every European country will be throwing technology, troops, and money at it.

[Baturyn]

Why Not wrote:

On his Kiev visit , Dubya is going to invite Ukraine to the MAP - Nato barbeque and the U.S. will provide all the fixins . Russia the well known cattle ( country ) rustler aint invited .

Nice analogy. But you must know that cattle rustlers - like skunks - like to "crash" garden parties......I mean Bar-B-Qs.

[Why_Me]

Stanislaw wrote:

Why is it the USA or Russia? The EU should not be afraid of such a backward country as Russia. Now within the borders of the Russian Republic why do they need us to stand up to Putin?
In the long run I think the EU is a better hedge against Russia than NATO. As it expands and gains strength Europe itself can divert Russian imperial dreams eastward.

The EU is more economic orientated as to where NATO is more military oreintated. NATO is a good first step for Ukraine and Georgia to join the EU. Not only that, but if Europe caves into Russian pressure, Russia will recognize this as a sign of weakness, and Russia with it's mentality is the last nation on this planet that any nation and/or orginization that you want to show any kind of weakness to. Russia only knows strenght through might. If anyone thinks different on this, google Russian history. Then take a look at Russia's current ally's such as Belarus, and what Russia has done as for as being neighborly with it's former USSR country's that lie next to it's borders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Stanislaw]

Why_Me wrote:

<quoted text>
The EU is more economic orientated as to where NATO is more military oreintated. NATO is a good first step for Ukraine and Georgia to join the EU. Not only that, but if Europe caves into Russian pressure, Russia will recognize this as a sign of weakness, and Russia with it's mentality is the last nation on this planet that any nation and/or orginization that you want to show any kind of weakness to. Russia only knows strenght through might. If anyone thinks different on this, google Russian history. Then take a look at Russia's current ally's such as Belarus, and what Russia has done as for as being neighborly with it's former USSR country's that lie next to it's borders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

The Russian history I heard about was of a country with the Tatar's foot on their throat. The conquerer thing is of recent vintage. They are more usually the occupied whether Vikings, Prussians, Turks or whoever is involved.
I am not objecting to NATO troops in Ukraine but rather saying that long term it is membership in the EU which best provides security.
In less central areas like Georgia who stands up against Russia? I am not sure how willing either the USA or the EU is. European security is more their concern.

[Stanislaw]

Baturyn wrote:

<quoted text>
Russia may be "backward" but there are three elements that are serious issues for Europe:(a) Russian energy supplies for Europe; (b) Russian nuclear and conventional capability; (c) Russia as a huge market, investment base, and source of raw material for Europe.
Europe does not "need" the U.S., but - keep in mind - that Europe is not a united entity. It consists of two dozen countries, with a lot of different agendas, arrangements, ambitions, perceptions vis-a-vis Russia. Although the European Unity provides a framework of unity, that unity can be shred at any time if any of the major powers balk. Hence, the U.S., although economically inferior to the EU, has wielded inordinate influence in Europe precisely because of the internal weakness of the EU. Russia does not have that problem.
The EU may be a better bet "in the long run", but it's the short run that concerns Ukraine and Georgia. Entry into NATO would facilitate entry into EU. Furthermore, do not underestimate NATO. It may be weak under conditions where there appears to be no military threat to Europe, but - if such a threat should develop - every European country will be throwing technology, troops, and money at it.

On the three points you brought up only the military matters. The EU has the money and the technology so it is Russia who needs them.
To the point of disunity of Europe I think any encroachment of Russia into central Europe would end that rather quickly. A military threat against Ukraine invites a military response.
How to handle the threats, economic threats and more covert threats is the problem.
Putin would like to drive a wedge between the USA and the EU and not unite them. What he would like is a cooked election and a pro-Russian government in Kyiv but he would not like to push Ukraine into the west.
It requires being subtle.

[Baturyn]

Stanislaw wrote:

<quoted text>
The Russian history I heard about was of a country with the Tatar's foot on their throat. The conquerer thing is of recent vintage. They are more usually the occupied whether Vikings, Prussians, Turks or whoever is involved.
I am not objecting to NATO troops in Ukraine but rather saying that long term it is membership in the EU which best provides security.
In less central areas like Georgia who stands up against Russia? I am not sure how willing either the USA or the EU is. European security is more their concern.

For a country that started out as the Dukedom of Muscovy-Suzdal, it has done pretty well for itself over the last 700 years. It now dominates 12% of the earth's land-mass.

Doesn't seem to me that the "conqueror thing is of recent vintage".

[Baturyn]

Why_Me wrote:

<quoted text>
The EU is more economic orientated as to where NATO is more military oreintated. NATO is a good first step for Ukraine and Georgia to join the EU. Not only that, but if Europe caves into Russian pressure, Russia will recognize this as a sign of weakness, and Russia with it's mentality is the last nation on this planet that any nation and/or orginization that you want to show any kind of weakness to. Russia only knows strenght through might. If anyone thinks different on this, google Russian history. Then take a look at Russia's current ally's such as Belarus, and what Russia has done as for as being neighborly with it's former USSR country's that lie next to it's borders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Thanks for the "you tube" site. When the Brits aren't naked and urinating in Norwegian bars, they can be extremely astute students of history.

[Stanislaw]

Baturyn wrote:

<quoted text>
For a country that started out as the Dukedom of Muscovy-Suzdal, it has done pretty well for itself over the last 700 years. It now dominates 12% of the earth's land-mass.
Doesn't seem to me that the "conqueror thing is of recent vintage".

Russian expansion was largely to the east through northern Asia. Call me a racist but I equate this with westward expansion of the USA. If their's makes them evil so does America's.
Ukrainian independence is important as is Balic and Polish independence but there was no expansion to the west only toward the Pacific.
Even Ukraine itself joined Russia. It was not invaded. Ukraine's national hero invited them in to "protect" Ukraine from Poland. It was a terrible decision but no one was invaded.

[Baturyn]

Stanislaw wrote:

<quoted text>
Russian expansion was largely to the east through northern Asia. Call me a racist but I equate this with westward expansion of the USA. If their's makes them evil so does America's.
Ukrainian independence is important as is Balic and Polish independence but there was no expansion to the west only toward the Pacific.
Even Ukraine itself joined Russia. It was not invaded. Ukraine's national hero invited them in to "protect" Ukraine from Poland. It was a terrible decision but no one was invaded.

You are not talking intent. You are talking capability. Russia expanded to the north, south, and east. They expanded to the west but met with opposition that was too strong for them, and they stopped with the partition of Poland. Then, after World War II, they continued their expansion west until the risk was too great.

As regards Ukraine, they did not have to "invade" because deception, subversion, and violation of treaties proved sufficient to gain their expansionist objectives.

As regards Ukraine's "joining Russia", that is still a mystery. Chmelnytsky's copy of his agreement with the Czar disappeared and was never found. All we have is the Czar's copy......does anyone care to place bets on its legitimacy?

[Stanislaw]

Baturyn wrote:

<quoted text>
You are not talking intent. You are talking capability. Russia expanded to the north, south, and east. They expanded to the west but met with opposition that was too strong for them, and they stopped with the partition of Poland. Then, after World War II, they continued their expansion west until the risk was too great.
As regards Ukraine, they did not have to "invade" because deception, subversion, and violation of treaties proved sufficient to gain their expansionist objectives.
As regards Ukraine's "joining Russia", that is still a mystery. Chmelnytsky's copy of his agreement with the Czar disappeared and was never found. All we have is the Czar's copy......does anyone care to place bets on its legitimacy?

But the point is in order to get Poland out they brought the Russians in. It was Ukraine's conflict with the Poles, not Russian deception, that allowed Russia in.
When Russian troops reached Paris they went home. Napoleon brought them the opportunity to dominate Europe. Hitler brought them back. Are they still in Paris and Berlin? Did military pressure expel them? With Napoleon out of the way what pressure were they under?
The Russian threat to her immediate neighbors is quite real. Her threat to Europe is b/s.

[Why_Me]

Stanislaw wrote:

<quoted text>
But the point is in order to get Poland out they brought the Russians in. It was Ukraine's conflict with the Poles, not Russian deception, that allowed Russia in.
When Russian troops reached Paris they went home. Napoleon brought them the opportunity to dominate Europe. Hitler brought them back. Are they still in Paris and Berlin? Did military pressure expel them? With Napoleon out of the way what pressure were they under?
The Russian threat to her immediate neighbors is quite real. Her threat to Europe is b/s.

Then explain the Cold War please. Becouse if it wasn't for NATO detirment, along with breaking Russia's back economically, they would still be Russifying eastern Europe.

[Stanislaw]

Why_Me wrote:

<quoted text>
Then explain the Cold War please. Becouse if it wasn't for NATO detirment, along with breaking Russia's back economically, they would still be Russifying eastern Europe.

Did I say Joe Stalin was a good democrat? He murdered more people than Hitler.
On the other hand the Red Army chased Hitler to Berlin. He did not want to give it back. Neither was he pushing forward. It was consolidation not conquest.

[Stanislaw]

That is my view of the Cold War in general. Russia suffered mass casualties in beating back the Nazis. The war made them one of the super-powers. Their goal was consolidation of power. World domination is John Birch Society propaganda.
That is unless you believe Cuba was really building a Soviet airfield in Grenada from which to launch an invasion (from Grenada an invasion of what, Trinidad?).

[Baturyn]

Stanislaw wrote:

That is my view of the Cold War in general. Russia suffered mass casualties in beating back the Nazis. The war made them one of the super-powers. Their goal was consolidation of power. World domination is John Birch Society propaganda.
That is unless you believe Cuba was really building a Soviet airfield in Grenada from which to launch an invasion (from Grenada an invasion of what, Trinidad?).

he Soviet Union's stated goal was to destroy the capitalist west. They invested enormous resources in that effort. They set up bases in Cuba and Vietnam. They had an extensive network of subversion in almost every country to support marxist groups. They invaded Afghanistan.
What you refer to as "consolidation" is simple aggression and hostility against the West. If they used mostly covert rather than overt efforts it was because they lacked the capability to engage in too many armed conflicts. Their economy could not support it. But they invested heavily in surrogates.

Yes, the Marxist government, which came to power in a bloody coup, was building an airfield which could, potentially, be used for building up a Soviet and Cuban military presence in the Caribbean. Even if it posed no military threat, there was no reason why the U.S. had to tolerate a marxist banana republic in its back yard.
The government had suspended the constitution and began to rule by decree. All other political parties were banned and no elections were ever held. The demise of that government served the useful purpose of putting the USSR and Cuba on notice that communist governments would not be tolerated in the Western hemisphere. Ronald Reagan is still very popular in Grenada.

[Paul]

I got news for you. Many of these WWII mass casualties that russia suffered were Ukrainians. Heck, the russians killed them when initially upon their initial withdrawl when Germany invated Ukraine. That was their thanks to Ukrainians. It was not russians that beat back the Germans, it was all the Soviet people that russia had under it. Stalingrad was ready to fall until the Mongolians and even the Chechnians and other asian peoples reinforced Stalingrad. Additionally, part of the communist doctrine calls for indoctrination of all peoples into communism. Quit trying to justify russia. They have yet to keep one treaty they ever signed.