How should the West contain Russia?

[red_elk]

if you try spinning, at least do it right. The missiles are in Poland, the conflict was in Georgia. And that's exactly why your neighbors want to join NATO; so they don't end up like Georgia. How surprising...

I wasn't talking neither about Poland nor Georgia - I meant neighbours in general. If you entered NATO, then you bring US missiles to our borders. Don't do it and you will have no problems with us. Like neytral Finland or friendly Armenia.

What did you do in Poland's case? Bark? Everyone's used to that; probably noone minds it either. It's annoying and nothing more.

The same what NATO did in Georgia case.

again, try google

Can't find anything like that.

While your average Red Army conscript acted even worse then the Wermacht;

May be that's because Romania fought on Nazi's side?

But that aside, your country is cool with hacking because... someone "insulted" you by not wanting a statue in their own city, in their own country. It's... an interesting point of view. I'm sure the majority of the readers agree with you

I'll remind you, that it's own country also for the people who was insulted, which rights were violated by this act.
You can do whatever you want at your home, regardless what your neighbours think about it?

"Germany, Italy, Syria, France, Vietnam..."

you know, the warsaw pact died. Those states aren't your neighbors... And it's funny you mention Finland; I'm sure they love you after you took Karelia from them.

You took off the first line of my answer. I answered your question about neighbor countries we have decent relations with. Anything else?

Regarding the issue in South Ossetia, things are rather simple: 17 years they tried to negociate something. What do you expect... after a while anyone would get bored. Leaving aside that requesting independence for 70000 is ridiculous from the start.

Let's laugh together.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

The same what NATO did in Georgia case.

correct; was a mistake they didn't join them this spring.

Can't find anything like that.

try harder

May be that's because Romania fought on Nazi's side?

umm, taking a region of a country and then expect them to fight along your side. Man, I wonder why the finns supported the nazis too...

You took off the first line of my answer. I answered your question about neighbor countries we have decent relations with. Anything else?

Niyazov? Ok, he died. Lukashenko? Nazarbayev? Karimov? Rahmon/Rahmonov? It sure is wierd how all your neighbors with whom you have good relations share two common things:

- their president is some kinda dictator who's usually in place since 1991. Ok, Niyazov died... But man, those presidents sure have many terms... they're clearly extremely good and the population keeps voting for them in the... 100th term;
- their president is someone who was the former prime secretary of the said republic in SU times...

I really wonder why. The coincidence... apparatciks back in russia, former prime secretaries as presidents. And, surprise, surprise, those are the neighbors with whom you have good relations... Old habbits die hard...

yep; Belarus - Lukashenko; Kazahstan - Nazarbayev;

Japan - I'm sure they love you for Kurile Islands as much as the Finns for Karelia.

Fact is indeed you have good relations with neighbors which you still control. And China. Quite a select company; dictators from central asia, lukashenko and china...

Rest, more or less everyone regards you like a pest; but don't get me wrong, it's not your fault, it's just because the world is very very evil and has something against you.

 

[red_elk]

correct; was a mistake they didn't join them this spring.

And then NATO did the same, that we saw in August.

try harder

You can't prove your words?

umm, taking a region of a country and then expect them to fight along your side. Man, I wonder why the finns supported the nazis too...

I don't care why, they fought with Nazis against us, and kill Soviet people. Finns too.

yep; Belarus - Lukashenko; Kazahstan - Nazarbayev; Japan - I'm sure they love you for Kurile Islands as much as the Finns for Karelia. Fact is indeed you have good relations with neighbors which you still control. And China. Quite a select company; dictators from central asia, lukashenko and china...

We have normal relations with
Armenia, Belorussia, Finland, China, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia
and many other countries.
If you don't like it, I can't help you.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

You can't prove your words?

no, it's not about that; it's simply that if someone would ask me to prove the world is round, I won't consider it necessary to actually do it...

all the messages from putin/russian diplomacy was that ukraine/georgia/former SU republics are in russia's sphere of influence. Why would I bother? It suffice to read the declarations on any mainstream source...

I don't care why, they fought with Nazis against us, and kill Soviet people. Finns too.

and the poles fought against the nazis and you killed/deported tons too. In Estonia you killed/deported 10% of the population yet they should keep a statue honoring the people who did it. Sorry, it's just dumb.

We have normal relations with
Armenia, Belorussia, Finland, China, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia
and many other countries.
If you don't like it, I can't help you.

yes my friend; that's what I said too, only phrased it abit differently.

 

[red_elk]

no, it's not about that; it's simply that if someone would ask me to prove the world is round, I won't consider it necessary to actually do it...

all the messages from putin/russian diplomacy was that ukraine/georgia/former SU republics are in russia's sphere of influence. Why would I bother? It suffice to read the declarations on any mainstream source...

All messages from putin/russian diplomacy are about keeping good relations with neighbors, at least if they want to. And ensuring safety of country. Read what Lavrov or Churkin are saying. Nothing about sphere of influence.

and the poles fought against the nazis and you killed/deported tons too. In Estonia you killed/deported 10% of the population yet they should keep a statue honoring the people who did it. Sorry, it's just dumb.

Really? Write 30% - somebody will believe.

yes my friend; that's what I said too, only phrased it abit differently.

You wanted to say something else, comrade - why we have so bad relations with neighbors - it's false.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

And ensuring safety of country.

from you? again, it's a forum; we post, people read. I'm sure that everyone it's convinced about your statement, don't worry.

Really? Write 30% - somebody will believe.

try wikipedia.org; it's easiest...

You wanted to say something else, comrade - why we have so bad relations with neighbors - it's false.

Norway - no clue; normal
Finland - you still own them some land;
Estonia - bad;
Latvia - bad;
Lithuania - bad;
Poland - bad;
Belarus - your guy; supposedly good, though he started acting funky... but then guess we saw that movie before;
Ukraine - bad;
Georgia - umm... you just invaded them, guess it qualifies as... bad?
Azerbaijan - president son of former KGB chief there(who was president between '93 - '03 and in the next elections his son won... damn fine family they must be); unexpectedly good...
Kazakhstan - Nazarbayev; should be your guy - maybe he'll defect, though I doubt it; but no problems, he's allowed to run for presidency as many times as he wishes.
China - no clue; normal
Mongolia - no clue; normal
North Korea - umm... you should support them more .

14 neighbors; with 6 you have downright bad relations, in 3 you have your presidents, from another you took some land; % wise you're a dream neighbor.

 

[red_elk]

from you? again, it's a forum; we post, people read. I'm sure that everyone it's convinced about your statement, don't worry.

From NATO.

try wikipedia.org; it's easiest...

In Russian wiki - nothing.
In English:

There is no consensus among historians about the number of repression victims in the Communist countries

Should I try to search Estonian view? Or may be it'd be better to find real figures in NKVD documents?

Norway - no clue; normal
Finland - you still own them some land;
Estonia - bad;
Latvia - bad;
Lithuania - bad;
Poland - bad;
Belarus - your guy; supposedly good, though he started acting funky... but then guess we saw that movie before;
Ukraine - bad;
Georgia - umm... you just invaded them, guess it qualifies as... bad?
Azerbaijan - president son of former KGB chief there(who was president between '93 - '03 and in the next elections his son won... damn fine family they must be); unexpectedly good...
Kazakhstan - Nazarbayev; should be your guy - maybe he'll defect, though I doubt it; but no problems, he's allowed to run for presidency as many times as he wishes.
China - no clue; normal
Mongolia - no clue; normal
North Korea - umm... you should support them more .

14 neighbors; with 6 you have downright bad relations, in 3 you have your presidents, from another you took some land; % wise you're a dream neighbor.

Perfect analysis, only one problem, you asked

is there any neighbor who has decent relations with you?

 

[a_propagandist]

I wasn't talking neither about Poland nor Georgia - I meant neighbours in general. If you entered NATO, then you bring US missiles to our borders. Don't do it and you will have no problems with us. Like neytral Finland or friendly Armenia.

I'll remind you, that it's own country also for the people who was insulted, which rights were violated by this act.
You can do whatever you want at your home, regardless what your neighbours think about it?

For one thing, let me bring up an analogy I used in another thread. Suppose the US puts in the missile shield system in Central/Eastern Europe to contain Russian nuclear capabilities. The equivalent would be Russia putting flak vehicles in Cuba to counter American F-22s. You have to understand that the systems we are setting up in C/E Europe won't have any real impact on Russian nuclear capabilities. The few interceptors that succeed out of the few we are installing will not magically bounce from Russian missile to missile. Stack on the fact that only, I believe, around 10 or 20 are being installed, you'll see that the thousand of nuclear arms of Russia are more than enough if they ever needed to destroy Europe and America.

As for your latter statement, I request that you elaborate. I hope you don't think Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia should be annexed back into Russia.

And the Chinese and Russians aren't really friends anymore.

 

[red_elk]

For one thing, let me bring up an analogy I used in another thread. Suppose the US puts in the missile shield system in Central/Eastern Europe to contain Russian nuclear capabilities. The equivalent would be Russia putting flak vehicles in Cuba to counter American F-22s. You have to understand that the systems we are setting up in C/E Europe won't have any real impact on Russian nuclear capabilities. The few interceptors that succeed out of the few we are installing will not magically bounce from Russian missile to missile. Stack on the fact that only, I believe, around 10 or 20 are being installed, you'll see that the thousand of nuclear arms of Russia are more than enough if they ever needed to destroy Europe and America.

I wasn't talking about missile shield, it is another big topic. Imagine for a second, 50 years later US got technology which could shot down half of Russian ICBMs? They will have a place to put such missiles, and working radar. Would you agree that in this case our defence capability will be seriously reduced? They are starting new arms race.

As for your latter statement, I request that you elaborate. I hope you don't think Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia should be annexed back into Russia.

Agree. Noone country should be annexed to Russia.

And the Chinese and Russians aren't really friends anymore.

We are not friends, not allies (at least now). We have normal, working relations with them. They don't hate us.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

regarding the original question

"how to contain the Russian threat? What should Europe and the West as a whole do?"

since ww2, the former common market/current EU clearly adopted the line that "we pay, you do the flexing" in relation with US. We pay as in economic, you flex as in you invest in the army. Which still holds true despite what France/Germany/whoever dreams.

Now the problem is currently US seems to be stucked with a guy talking with God and waging war on terror in whatever hole in Asia(maybe he wants to fill his pot?). Which is all fine and dandy as long as no pressing matters arise. If you can trust the jews to try and pull another Ossirak(though hopefully it won't get to that - on the other hand jews were always trigger happy), with russia as long as US is spread thin nothing will happen.

The answer is obvious and it's about removing some of the dictators in central asia to gain access to resources there. However, that requires anything but spreading your forces thin. Thankfully, after 8 years, God decided to end the call, so there is hope.

Forcing a change in russia itself is a dream and the '90s experience should be relevant. You can pump as much economic aid as you want, the country is simply too big and everything will be stolen along the way. Leaving aside the population won't support it; and I'd say rightfully so. From an average person POV they saw what? Breshnev, Andropov, Gorby, Yeltzin and Putin. Frankly, Putin would be my choice too.

Get Caucassus, contain Russia(at least this part is already done) and ideally hope in time russian situation will normalize by itself; eventually with some economic help, as noone dreams about empires when things are good(ultimately we're all more tolerant with our bellies filled, as low as it might sound). Obviously the ideal situation would be normal russia, but that'll take as much time as it's bound to take and trying to force a mentality change won't get anywhere(despite it economic failure, the communist regime was quite good at implementing mentalities). It'll take as long as it'll take and that's that.

But basically, it's all down to how many more "visionnaire" presidents the US is willing to have. Hopefully the next one will just have shorter conversations with the Creator... or more insightful...

Equally unrealistic is EU building an army(thank God, there were more then enough built already).

ah, and a switch in Germany; each russia-germany alliance produced only mess...

 

[Desert-Fox]

Red Elk : Read article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russophobia , and you will see that in Finland there are the most "Russophobes". Russia doesn't owe land only to Finland, they owe some islands to Japan, Pechory/Jaanilinn(Ivangorod) to Estonia, some land to Latvia... Border disputes with almost every neighbor. And it was done all after Soviets "liberated" Eastern Europe but why the hell they didn't go back to their homeland?

Some timeline in ww2 :
* 23.08.1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Eastern-Europe was divided by Germans and Soviets.
* September 1939 : Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania got ultimatums, they got 8 hours to decide, that Soviets bases must be allowed in Baltic States. Finland also got that ultimatum, they declined and Russia invaded them in November 1939(Winter War).
* June 1940, Soviets made ultimatum that governments in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania must step down and these were replaced with Pro-soviets. In Estonia the Pro-Soviet was J.Vares who suicided later.
* July 1940 These countries "asked" to join with USSR(no surprise).
* August 1940 SU accepted that.
* 14th June 1941, mass transfer to Siberia from The Baltics, people were lifted off from their houses, got 30 minutes to pack up things and were transported in animal wagons to Siberia, a lot of them died before arrival, the conditions in wagons were more than terrible(Even more has been done in March 1949).
* 22th June 1941 Germany invaded Soviet Union. After these things in The Baltics, our people saw the Nazis as liberators. I think some other countries fought for Nazis in same reason because Soviets made such horrors before. Elder people have told that German solders were more cultured, they asked politely food, toilet etc... while Soviets pillaged, raped, looted.. they acted as barbarians. The fact that Soviets didn't reach into Western Europe doesn't change the fact that Soviets were worse in Eastern Europe than Nazis.
And when Germans left here, Estonia declared independence once again and a day later Soviets invaded us once again... They didn't liberate us from Nazis because Nazis leaved us already. Read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Tief

Also Germans have apologized about their past but Russia still is proud about that and they feel sorry that Soviet Union was collapsed. Putin told that dissolution of SU was the biggest Geopolitical Disaster in 20th Century. That tells everything.

And also about Finland. They main difference between Finland and Eastern Bloc was that Finland wasn't communist state but their government was pro-soviet. Kekkonen ruled them 25 years what is not normal in democratic countries.

 

[Verbose]

Appease? Why appease? Don't bring US missiles to a few hundreds km from Moscow and you won't have problems. Be neytral, like Finland, or be friend, like Armenia. They are not complaining.

The Finns? No they don't complain, and they are invariably polite.

They are also armed to the frikkin teeth, in relation to their size, one of the few fully funded full-scale invasion defences still around in western Europe, and all of it directed against Russia.

They have also been busy buying NATO issue weapon systems, upgrading stuff to NATO standards in recent years. Finnish NATO policy is that if it feels it needs it, Finland will apply. In the mean time, as long as Finland feels it can credibly deter a Russian attack, it remains neutral. If that changes, they're headed towards the NATO. I.e. if Russia rearms sufficiently, and throws its weight around, Finland stops being neutral.

So yeah, they're neutral allright, for the time being, except for the whole EU membership thing I guess. And, unlike most everyone else, they're also prepared, relatively speaking, should Russia come knocking...

 

[Lone Wolf]

While I think that Russia was in its right to stop Georgia bombing Tshinvali even by militiary means and consider Georgia the conflict escalator, I do think that crossing the border between Ossetia and Georgia was a bad move on Russia's part.

To summarize my impressions:

Saakashvili is a dangerous and violent populistic prick;
Putin is a imperialistic half-autoritarian who-knows-what;
The West are a bunch of hypocrtitical blahblahblahs.

 

[leksaaa]

can we find a cure from Russophobia?
Some guys think there is no cure, And then we'll invade Russia

 

[red_elk]

The Finns? No they don't complain, and they are invariably polite.

They are also armed to the frikkin teeth, in relation to their size, one of the few fully funded full-scale invasion defences still around in western Europe, and all of it directed against Russia.

They have also been busy buying NATO issue weapon systems, upgrading stuff to NATO standards in recent years. Finnish NATO policy is that if it feels it needs it, Finland will apply. In the mean time, as long as Finland feels it can credibly deter a Russian attack, it remains neutral. If that changes, they're headed towards the NATO. I.e. if Russia rearms sufficiently, and throws its weight around, Finland stops being neutral.

So yeah, they're neutral allright, for the time being, except for the whole EU membership thing I guess. And, unlike most everyone else, they're also prepared, relatively speaking, should Russia come knocking...

Do you really think, they didn't join NATO in say 1980, because they were armed enough to be safe from USSR? They are neytral because it is profitable. They have good trade relations with us and have no reason to fear us.
So, be armed to the frikkin teeth, like Finland is or Georgia was. Buy NATO issued weapon systems you can afford to buy. Just don't bring NATO itself to us.
If you want to be safe from anybody - let's create new neytral defence alliance, not cold war relic. Preferably with US, Russia and China participation. Who doesn't want it, how do you think?

 

[a_propagandist]

What is your problem with NATO? If the Finns want in, we'll give it to them.

 

[red_elk]

What is your problem with NATO? If the Finns want in, we'll give it to them.

It's cold war military alliance, created initially against us. This structure has enough military power to harm us, and nobody can guarantee, this force will not be used against us. The fact that NATO is expanding to our borders but we are not allowed to join, only supports the claim that NATO is not friendly.

 

[Desert-Fox]

It's cold war military alliance, created initially against us. This structure has enough military power to harm us, and nobody can guarantee, this force will not be used against us. The fact that NATO is expanding to our borders but we are not allowed to join, only supports the claim that NATO is not friendly.

Calm down, NATO will not attack Russia first, but it may push back invading Russian forces.

 

[dosed150]

Calm down, NATO will not attack Russia first, but it may push back invading Russian forces.

the russians always seem to think the point of nato is to attack them and it isnt, the nato alliance is defensive we wont attack russia unless they attack us first

 

[Verbose]

Do you really think, they didn't join NATO in say 1980, because they were armed enough to be safe from USSR? They are neytral because it is profitable. They have good trade relations with us and have no reason to fear us.

Obviously not. Finland didn't join in 1980 because they simply couldn't join in 1980. That part was stipulated in the deal Stalin cut with the western powers after WWII. Finland to stay neutral but with a "special" relationship with the USSR, which meant hands off for the NATO and anyone else, or the Soviet Union would move in on Finland. That was the cornerstone of the situation, which got its own name, "Finlandization". Finland was in the Soviet "sphere of influence" and an no-go zone for the NATO.

No amount of military preparedness would be sufficient for a small state against the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Nevertheless, Finland built as big an invasion defence they could already then, to deter the USSR if possible. The Winter War of 1939-40, when Finland was attacked by the Soviet Union and had to fight it all by its lonesome, is still defining the Finnish view of what it takes to safeguard national independence, and who is the biggest potential threat.

The Finns obviously differ from you in their assesment of present day Russia. They're the ones still with the intact full-scale invasion defence directed exclusively at it after all.