NATO and Russia
- From: "vello" <vellokala@xxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jan 2006 07:00:53 -0800
Nato and Russia
Vladimir started interesting topic in scr, but it get not so much cover
there, so I bring it in scb:
From: Vladimir Makarenko <makar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -
Jan 28, 1:36 am
Cold war style thinking dies slowly. Story is playing on cold War
fears, target is to turn US looking more inside. Still hard to find
serious logic here. There are two possible scenarios for Russia's
a) Russia is developing towards "normal" state.
b) Russia is developing in agressive way, new round of Free World -
Russia confrontation is inevitable.
If to play on card a), all problem is taken from nothing - one day
Russia will join NATO (EU) also, long before that Russia's fears about
bigger NATO are contemporary and will disappear in process of closening
to NATO by Russia himself.
If to play card b) then the further east the free world - Russia's
border then better. In this case "hot border" will be appear anyway, so
there is point to keep potential territory controlled by Russia as
small as possible.
Anyway, by me what Western Community needs, is clear and open defining
of future movements - and defining meaning of "Free world" himself.
Ideally it must be done in partnership with Russia. Enlargening "Free
world" must go in accordance with abilities of particular nations to
really fulfill criterias of free society - it's not race to pick up as
many nations as possible, it's building a Free Earth. On other hand, no
nation on the Earth must not get signal that despite they fulfill all
conditions of democracy, they can't join world community because they
are "too close" to some other nation.
Someway it is hard for me (my problem, of course:-)) to get point of
authors. They seemingly are keen to play card b), coz only in such case
Russia will feel it have or must have some area of influence where
interests of Russia are superior to souvereignty of nations living in
borders of such area. No modern state have declared that he have
interests overruling neighbour's ones and I see no reason why world
must accept such claims in future. But if b) is the future, then, as I
say, then further east the new frontline of new cold war then better
from wiewpoint of democratic community. This way only conclusion I get
is that story is more about US then Russia - must US be active player
in world affairs or turn more inside to solve problems at home. Authors
of that story are clearly on "isolationist" position.
- Prev by Date: Re: I remember Latvian Prezidentsha
- Next by Date: Re: I remember Latvian Prezidentsha
- Previous by thread: The European Court Freak Show
- Next by thread: Re: NATO and Russia