NATO

[MancMellow]

Ako se sećaš prognozirao sam da će ovakvo utvrđivanje NATO u centralnoistočnoj Evropi izazvati i nervozu u Berlinu, ne samo u Moskvi 

[Prospero]

S tim da je ovo "manji deo" Berlina, tj SPD, ne mislim da je CDU spreman da javno priča ovako, štaviše Štajnmajer verovatno pokušava da pokaže neku kontratežu CDU.

[Anduril]

Ovo je sasvim u tradiciji SPD Ostpolitik i ima smisla kao ravnoteza desnicarskim teznjama i istocnoj Evropi.

Taj balans je i tokom Hladnog rata dobro funkcionisao odrzavajuci pritisak na Kremlj a istovremeno ostavljajuci otvorena vrata za otopljavanje kad se nauce pameti. 

[Prospero]

Filip Bridlav, u autorskom tekstu za Foreign Affairs

 

...
The foundation of any strategy in Europe must be the recognition that Russia poses an enduring existential threat to the United States, its allies, and the international order. Russia is determined to once again become a global power—an ambition it has demonstrated by, for example, conducting confrontational mock attacks on U.S. forces, as Russian warplanes did to the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea in April, and resuming Cold War–era strategic bomber flights along the U.S. coastline. What is more, as Russia’s intervention in Syria has demonstrated, Moscow will seek out all opportunities to expand its influence abroad. Because the Kremlin views the United States and other nato members as its primary adversaries, it considers its relationship with the West a zerosum game. It will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
 
The Putin government will not allow any nation over which it has sufficient leverage to develop closer ties with the West—namely, by moving toward membership in the eu or nato—and it will do everything in its power to sow instability in countries such as Georgia,  Moldova, and Ukraine. Putin no doubt knows that the eu and nato will be reluctant to accept a nation as a member if it is caught up in a so-called frozen conflict.

At the same time, Russia will continue to improve its military’s ability to offset the technological advantages currently enjoyed by nato. Although Russia’s fighter aircraft do not currently match the West’s, the country’s advanced air defenses, coastal cruise missiles, antiship capabilities, and air-launched cruise missiles are increasingly capable. If Moscow managed to keep U.S. reinforcements out of a potential conflict between Russia and nato while preventing Western warplanes from hitting their targets, it would seriously degrade the advantages of the United States and its allies. To this end, Russia is establishing “anti-access/area-denial” zones across its periphery, including in the Baltic and Black Seas, the Arctic, and the Russian Far East. What is more, Russia’s growing footprint in Syria offers Moscow the capability, if it chooses, to threaten U.S. and allied forces operating in the eastern Mediterranean and in the skies over Syria.

Russia has shown that it can cause Washington and its allies significant political and military angst with minimal effort and at relatively little cost. So far, the United States and nato have consistently reacted to Russia’s provocations rather than preempting them. Instead, the United States and its allies should take a proactive stance that seeks to change Russia’s calculus before Moscow acts aggressively. Under such a strategy, the United States and its allies would determine in advance and then clearly articulate when they will counter Russia’s moves, when they will ignore them, and when they will seek cooperation. There are certainly opportunities to work with Russia, as Washington and Moscow’s mutual effort to bring Iran to the negotiating table through economic sanctions has shown. In dealing with North Korea, managing drug trafficking in Central Asia, policing the fisheries in the North Pacific, and undertaking search-and-rescue operations in the Arctic, to name only a few, there are further potential opportunities for the two countries to work together on shared interests. Even as the United States works with Russia on issues such as these, however, it must not allow its stance against Moscow’s transgressions to soften. The Kremlin respects only strength and sees opportunity in the weakness and inattention of others, so the United States and nato must stand firm, especially with respect to Russia’s nefarious and coercive attempts to prevent countries on its periphery from choosing to align with the eu and nato. Washington’s strategy should reassure U.S. allies and ensure that the Kremlin understands the specific consequences that a confrontation would bring.

...

Inaction and indecision on the part of the United States will have consequences far beyond the immediate problems it seeks to address. Unless the country demonstrates its resolve and makes the necessary investments, its adversaries will continue to undermine U.S. interests, and others around the world will lose respect for U.S. power. The cost in blood and treasure to defend the United States and to come to the aid of U.S. allies whose trust has been built up through decades of shared sacrifice will be much greater in the future if the United States fails to act now.

 
https://fs06n4.sendspace.com/dl/409327c3ef2f9254d21367271f59f3f9/57654e59547f2bf0/rdx2og/%5B2016%5D%20Breedlove%2C%20NATO's%20Nex%20Act%20-%20How%20to%20Handle%20Russia%20and%20Other%20Threats.pdf

Rusija "može da izazove ozbiljan politički i vojni bes u Vašingtonu uz mali napor i uz malu cenu"... možda da odu na kolektivnu anger management terapiju pre korišćenja sintagmi "stalna egzistencijalna pretnja"?

Edited June 18, 2016 by Prospero

[MancMellow]

S tim da je ovo "manji deo" Berlina, tj SPD, ne mislim da je CDU spreman da javno priča ovako, štaviše Štajnmajer verovatno pokušava da pokaže neku kontratežu CDU.

 

naravno da nije

[MancMellow]

Filip Bridlav, u autorskom tekstu za Foreign Affairs

 

 

Rusija "može da izazove ozbiljan politički i vojni bes u Vašingtonu uz mali napor i uz malu cenu"... možda da odu na kolektivnu anger management terapiju pre korišćenja sintagmi "stalna egzistencijalna pretnja"?

 

dobro, cini mi se da je angst ovde vise u smislu nemir, strah

Edited June 18, 2016 by MancMellow

[Prospero]

Ok to, ali ako misliš da si fit to lead onda nema temper tantruma i malo-amerikanskih™ pogleda na međunarodni sistem, nego pametnog i upornog inkorporiranja drugih u svoj sistem, uzimanja(manje)/davanja(više) i akomodiranja tuđim kratkoročnim interesima i blesavljenjima kako bi na dugi rok očuvao sistem od koga imaš ogromnu inherentnu korist.

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Prospero

[MancMellow]

da, naravno, pa takvo ponasanje je osnova pametnog hegemonizma

[Takeshi]

zbig se opet zaigrao nad sahovskom tablom, kaze da bi svet trebalo da vodi koalicija amerika, rusija i kina 

ali prvo da amerikanci zaborave na blokove, rusi da su super-sila a kinezi da prestanu da posmatraju iz coska.

 

Toward a Global Realignment

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

 

 

Since the next twenty years may well be the last phase of the more traditional and familiar political alignments with which we have grown comfortable, the response needs to be shaped now. During the rest of this century, humanity will also have to be increasingly preoccupied with survival as such on account of a confluence of environmental challenges. Those challenges can only be addressed responsibly and effectively in a setting of increased international accommodation. And that accommodation has to be based on a strategic vision that recognizes the urgent need for a new geopolitical framework.

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Takeshi

[MancMellow]

Zanimljiv je ovaj "poziv na saradnju" ljudima kojima se u isto vreme saopstava da su isti ko nacisti

[Takeshi]

i malo je u racunici zaboravio na kakvo ce gorivo da idu te silne vojske.

 

ali je glavni utisak poseravanje po evropi.  ^_^

 

The fourth verity is that Europe is not now and is not likely to become a global power.

[MancMellow]

ali ok, ovo ima smisla

 

 

 

That era is now ending. While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail. Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would spell the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably be global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.

[Tribun_Populi]

Znači trebalo je da im Putler iskezi zube da bi promenili ploču?

 

Jbg, size does matter, kome puška veća njemu telegram™.

[dillinger]

Pa neće promeniti ploču, ide se na izolaciju i Kine i Rusije u kompletu, treba od njih stvoriti nove Sile osovine.

 

Matori Zbig još veruje da se ne sme dozvoliti stvaranje tako moćnog saveza na azijskom kopnu. Nove snage misle drugačije, stvaraju transpacifički blok istovetan severnoatlantskom i gledaju da izoluju i ekonomski ubiju i zmaja i medveda. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by dillinger

[hazard]

Filip Bridlav, u autorskom tekstu za Foreign Affairs

 

 

Rusija "može da izazove ozbiljan politički i vojni bes u Vašingtonu uz mali napor i uz malu cenu"... možda da odu na kolektivnu anger management terapiju pre korišćenja sintagmi "stalna egzistencijalna pretnja"?

 

Rusija je egzistencijalna pretnja evt. Ukrajini, a ideja da su egzistencijalna pretnja bilo cemu i bilo kome zapadno od Lavova i Uzgoroda je smesna.

Edited June 19, 2016 by hazard