Lord Protector Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Anduril said: Americki ABM sistemi su za sada smesni u poredjenju sa ruskim arsenalom i mogucnostima koje postoje da se ABM izvrda. O polarnoj ruti da ne govorimo. T akodje, ozbiljniji radovi na tome su poceli tek posle rata u Gruziji - dakle, opet jedan od onih redovnih dogadjaja koji je gurao male susede sto dalje od Kremlja. ABM sistemi su i dalje kontroverzni u istocnoj Evropi ali definitivno manje posle dogadjaja u Ukrajini. Sto se konvencionalnih snaga tice, pa Kremlj ne mora da brine ali ove male drzave itekako - zasto mislis da uopste pustaju US da se tu razmestaju. Akcija-reakcija. Kremlj jednostavno ne razume kako da se odnosi prema malim drzavama na nacin da ih se ovi ne plase - tu mogu dosta nauciti od US cija globalna moc pociva na tome a koju Tramp ubrzano erodira. Takvom liku, kao i KGB likovima, jednostavno niko ne veruje bilo sta. Bušova administracija je najveći krivac za pogoršanje rusko-američkih odnosa posle 2000-te. Amerika je jednostrano izašla iz ABMT postignutog 1972. u junu 2002. Pre toga je Rusija sarađivala sa Amerikom u Avganistanu ali to Bušovu administraciju nije sprečilo da steže obruč oko Rusije: 2004 su primljene novih sedam država u NATO: baltičke države, Slovenija, Slovačka, Rumunija i Bugarska. 2004 dolazi do intervencije u Iraku, a ubrzo i do narandžastih revolucija u Ukrajini i Gruziji i namere da se i te države prime u NATO članstvo. Samo je protivljenje Nemačke i Francuske sprečilo takav razvoj događaja. Do 2008. i ruske intervencije u Gruziji odnosi su već bili opasno narušeni. Zvaničnu promenu politike prema Americi i NATO-u Putin je najavio na bezbednosnoj konferenciji 2007. u Minhenu. Dakle nije politika Rusije prema svojim susedima dovela do zaoštravanja već je to zaoštravanje posledica njihovog višegodišnjeg guranja od strane Amerike u konflikt sa Rusijom. Edited December 28, 2017 by slow
MancMellow Posted December 29, 2017 Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) Zavisi. Šta ćemo sa Pridnjestrovljem, Abhazijom i Južnom Osetijom? Da, to je bilo početkom 90-tih, ali svejedno, i odluka o prvom proširenju NATO je iz 90-tih. Mislim, može tako kao ovo što si napisao da se gleda, rekao sam već (npr. Mearsheimer upravo tako gleda), ali to gledište zanemaruje da postoji na globalnoj i evropskoj sceni još faktora osim SAD i Rusije. Naravno, nemam nameru da tvrdim da su ruke Amerikanaa čiste u nameri tih zemalja da se priključe NATO, ali jednako je potrebno staviti u perspektivu i ponašanje Rusije od raspada SSSR do danas. Oni jesu prvo svoje ciljeve (sferu uticaja) hteli da postignu u dogovoru sa US, to stoji 100%. Namerno sam okačio Trenina na onoj strani. Možemo da uvijamo kako hoćemo, ali Rusija želi privilegovan status na teritoriji bivšeg SSSR-a (minus baltičke republike). Nije sve u "guranju". Što ne naprave većinu u Srbiji za NATO? Istorijsko iskustvo. Isto tako i Rumunija, Poljska ili baltičke republike imaju istorijsko iskustvo. Takođe, održavanje tih proruskih džepovaoko Ukrajine ili Rumunije u Srbiji (i da nije bilo bombardovanja) ne izaziva nikakvu posebnu nervozu (geografija I istorijsko iskustvo). Došao sam do zaključka da je osnovni problem u postkonfliktnim odnosima nepoverenje. Ono se prvo javlja kod pobednika. Pobednik odmah posle pobede (naravno) zna šta radi pobeđenom i zna, vidi, kako se pobeđeni oseća i ponaša. Makar i podsvesno (a uglavnom svesno) stvara se tendencija u politici da pobeđeni nikad ne dođe u situaciju da se oporavi jer je uvek preovlađujuće mišljenje (takođe normalno) da će odmah pokušati da bar donekle vrati izgubljene pozicije (dokazano mnogo puta u istoriji). Odlični primeri su odnos Francuske vs Nemačke i Jugoslavije vs Bugarske posle WW1. Pa se onda obično kao kontraprimer daje ponašanje Francuske prema Nemačkoj posle WW2. Well, to nije bilo pružanje ruke pobednika pobeđenom. To je bilo pružanje ruke poraženog uništenom, a u svetlu momentalne mnogo veće pretnje. To je prosto nešto drugo. I da, slažem se, sve je ovo vrlo depresivno. Edited December 29, 2017 by MancMellow
Lord Protector Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) Quote `SORRY CHUMP. YOU DIDN’T HAVE IT IN WRITING’ by Eric Margolis December 16, 2017 At a time when the United States is convulsed by anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin, a trove of recently declassified Cold War documents reveals the astounding extent of the lies, duplicity and double-dealing engaged in by the western powers with the collapsing Soviet Union in 1990. I was covering Moscow in those days and met some of the key players in this sordid drama. Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO. All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners. The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies. Gorbachev was a humanist, a very decent, intelligent man who believed he could end the Cold War and nuclear arms race. He ordered the Red Army back from Eastern Europe. I was in Wunsdorf, East Germany, HQ of the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany, and at Stasi secret police HQ in East Berlin right after the pullout order was given. The Soviets withdrew their 338,000 troops and 4,200 tanks and sent them home at lightening speed. Western promises made to Soviet leaders by President George W. H. Bush and Jim Baker quickly proved to be empty. They were honorable men but their successors were not. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush quickly began moving NATO into Eastern Europe, violating all the pledges made to Moscow. The Poles, Hungarians and Czechs were brought into NATO, then Romania and Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Albania, and Montenegro. Washington tried to get the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The Moscow-aligned government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-engineered coup. The road to Moscow was open. All the bankrupt, confused Russians could do was denounce these eastward moves by the US and NATO. The best response NATO and Washington could come up with was, ‘well, there was no official written promise.’ This is worthy of a street peddler selling counterfeit watches. The leaders of the US, Britain, France, Belgium and Italy all lied. Germany was caught between its honor and imminent reunification. So even its Chancellor Helmut Kohl had to go along with the West’s prevarications. At the time, I wrote that the best solution would be for the demilitarization of formerly Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe. NATO had no need or business to expand eastward. Doing so would be a constant provocation to Russia, which regarded Eastern Europe as an essential defensive glacis against invasions from the West. Now, with NATO forces on its western borders, Russia’s deepest fears have been realized. Today, US military aircraft based on the coasts of Romania and Bulgaria, former Warsaw Pact members, probe Russian airspace over the Black Sea and the vital strategic port of Sevastopol. Washington talks about arming chaotic Ukraine. US and NATO troops are in the Baltic, on Russia’s northwestern borders. Polish right-wingers are beating the war drums against Russia. In 1990, KGB and CIA agreed to the principal of ‘not one inch’ eastward for NATO. Former US ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, confirms the same agreement. Gorbachev, who is denounced as a foolish idealist by many Russians, trusted the Western powers. He should have had a battalion of New York City garment district shyster lawyers to document his agreements in 1990. He thought he was dealing with honest, honorable men, like himself. Is it any wonder after this bait and switch diplomacy that Russia has no trust in the Western powers? Moscow watches US-run NATO oozing ever eastwards. Today, Russia’s leaders firmly believe Washington’s ultimate plan is to tear apart Russia and reduce it to an impotent, pauper nation. Two former Western leaders, Napoleon and Hitler, had similar plans. Instead of carrying on about Hitler’s duplicity after Munich, we should look at our own shameless behavior after 1990. https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/?powerpress_pinw=13741-thescotthortonshow Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times, Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in Asia. He is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post, Lew Rockwell. He appears as an expert on foreign affairs on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC. Edited December 31, 2017 by slow
Anduril Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 Pa sto nisu potpisali? Oh, wait, pa Ukrajina nije u NATO, potpisan je cak i ugovor, i opet nista - puj pike ne vazi. Plus, ovaj kao da ne razlikuje imperijalnu Rusiju, SSSR i danasnju Rusiju, niti ga zanimaju interesi istocne Evrope koja ima zajedno stanovnika koliko i danasnja Rusija.
MancMellow Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 6 hours ago, slow said: Washington’s ultimate plan is to tear apart Russia and reduce it to an impotent, pauper nation Pa nisu ih pozvali/primili u G7/8 i u WTO zato da bi ih sveli na nemoćnu, pauperizovanu naciju/zemlju. Ovo je neozbiljno, stvar je komplikovanija.
Eraserhead Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 I pomagali im humanitarnom pomoci kad su bili u najvecem raspadu a sve to da bi ih razbili. Mocna ruska drzava nije mogla svoju decu da prehrani pa je morala zla Engleska da im salje hranu.
bradilko Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Eraserhead said: I pomagali im humanitarnom pomoci kad su bili u najvecem raspadu a sve to da bi ih razbili. Mocna ruska drzava nije mogla svoju decu da prehrani pa je morala zla Engleska da im salje hranu. Srećna ti nova!
porucnik vasic Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 On 12/31/2017 at 7:26 PM, MancMellow said: Pa nisu ih pozvali/primili u G7/8 i u WTO zato da bi ih sveli na nemoćnu, pauperizovanu naciju/zemlju. Ovo je neozbiljno, stvar je komplikovanija. Није. Ово је суштина.
MancMellow Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 Pa ne slaže se sa činjenicama. Suština je, imho, negde otprilike i u najkraćem (mada to može da se elaborira na više strana i u zavisnosti ko je na vlasti u Rusiji i u zavisnosti od situacije na drugim mestima u svetu), da oni ne žele "uništenje" Rusije, ali žele da ne bude velika sila na taj način da je jedan od ključnih geopolitičkih faktora sa kojim mora 1 na 1 da se dogovara i posebno ne na taj način da imaju neku ekskluzivnu interesnu sferu. I to je suština širenja NATO.
MancMellow Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 14 minutes ago, MancMellow said: posebno ne na taj način da imaju neku ekskluzivnu interesnu sferu eksluzivnu ili dominantnu. Zašto ovako kratko traje edit?
hazard Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 slowe, glavni zaključak svega što pišeš je da Gorbačov bio retard, naivko koji je olako poverovao zapadnim liderima. Mogao je da ponudi sastavljanje sveobuhvatnog ,,mirovnog" sporazuma da se okonča hladni rat, da traži da deo tog sporazuma bude demilitarizacija istočne Evrope, itd., i imao bi dobre šanse za uspeh. Uvek je mogao da preti, ako ničim drugim, nasilnim raspadom sistema u SSSR i da pita Amerikance da li bi voleli da neki ludaci-siloviki dođu do nuklearnog tastera i bojevih glava. On je odlučio da se na časnu pionirsku reč povuče i pusti da se sve sruši kao kula od karata - nije ni čudo da je na tako pokazanu slabost Zapad reagovao tako kako jeste. Ne kažem da nisi u pravu kada pišeš da su zapadni lideri ispali ružni&prljavi&zli (jesu svakako), ali Rusi imaju ponajviše sebe da krive za razvoj situacije.
Takeshi Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) rusi su verovali da sa padom socijalizma postaju deo "zapadnog" kapitalistickog sveta a i ekonomija im je pucala pa nisu imali ni para za odrzavanje bloka. ostale istocnoevropske zemlje su potrcale da naplate transfer. da su svi znali kako izgleda igra najbolje pokazuje dogovor da se celokupno nuklearno oruzje iz ukrajine prebaci u rusiju. Edited January 2, 2018 by Takeshi
Lord Protector Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 (edited) Quote Foreign Affairs; Now a Word From X By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN MAY 2, 1998 His voice is a bit frail now, but the mind, even at age 94, is as sharp as ever. So when I reached George Kennan by phone to get his reaction to the Senate's ratification of NATO expansion it was no surprise to find that the man who was the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union and one of the great American statesmen of the 20th century was ready with an answer. ''I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,'' said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. ''I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.'' ''What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was,'' added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed ''X,'' defined America's cold-war containment policy for 40 years. ''I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. ''And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia,'' said Mr. Kennan, who joined the State Department in 1926 and was U.S. Ambassador to Moscow in 1952. ''It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are -- but this is just wrong.'' One only wonders what future historians will say. If we are lucky they will say that NATO expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic simply didn't matter, because the vacuum it was supposed to fill had already been filled, only the Clinton team couldn't see it. They will say that the forces of globalization integrating Europe, coupled with the new arms control agreements, proved to be so powerful that Russia, despite NATO expansion, moved ahead with democratization and Westernization, and was gradually drawn into a loosely unified Europe. If we are unlucky they will say, as Mr. Kennan predicts, that NATO expansion set up a situation in which NATO now has to either expand all the way to Russia's border, triggering a new cold war, or stop expanding after these three new countries and create a new dividing line through Europe. But there is one thing future historians will surely remark upon, and that is the utter poverty of imagination that characterized U.S. foreign policy in the late 1990's. They will note that one of the seminal events of this century took place between 1989 and 1992 -- the collapse of the Soviet Empire, which had the capability, imperial intentions and ideology to truly threaten the entire free world. Thanks to Western resolve and the courage of Russian democrats, that Soviet Empire collapsed without a shot, spawning a democratic Russia, setting free the former Soviet republics and leading to unprecedented arms control agreements with the U.S. And what was America's response? It was to expand the NATO cold-war alliance against Russia and bring it closer to Russia's borders. Yes, tell your children, and your children's children, that you lived in the age of Bill Clinton and William Cohen, the age of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, the age of Trent Lott and Joe Lieberman, and you too were present at the creation of the post-cold-war order, when these foreign policy Titans put their heads together and produced . . . a mouse. We are in the age of midgets. The only good news is that we got here in one piece because there was another age -- one of great statesmen who had both imagination and courage. As he said goodbye to me on the phone, Mr. Kennan added just one more thing: ''This has been my life, and it pains me to see it so screwed up in the end.'' Edited January 2, 2018 by slow
Lord Protector Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 8 hours ago, MancMellow said: Pa ne slaže se sa činjenicama. Suština je, imho, negde otprilike i u najkraćem (mada to može da se elaborira na više strana i u zavisnosti ko je na vlasti u Rusiji i u zavisnosti od situacije na drugim mestima u svetu), da oni ne žele "uništenje" Rusije, ali žele da ne bude velika sila na taj način da je jedan od ključnih geopolitičkih faktora sa kojim mora 1 na 1 da se dogovara i posebno ne na taj način da imaju neku ekskluzivnu interesnu sferu. I to je suština širenja NATO. Džordž Kenan nije imao dileme kolika se greška pravi širenjem NATO-a. Dešava se upravo ono što je rekao.
Recommended Posts