Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Mar 15, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Surely they would never accept the alleged offer due to memories of the Soviet occupation in the 80's, i'm sure that any Afghans who have good will towards NATO, would turn on them for letting the Russians getting involved. If it is true, it's just a shame our NATO allies are not following and offering to supply more troops.
Russian troops in Agfghanistan? Why not?, it turned out well last time didn't it? er.....
A corridor would be nice. But I doubt we should pay the price he asking. If Ukraine and Georgia wish to join, and meet the criteria, etc. Then it should be NATOs descision to let them in or not.
Just wondering, if Russia is kicking off about NATO and the missile shield, why dont we ask if they want to join Nato, and join the missile shield? They are under as much threat from nutters as the west is...
Makes more sense for russia to be on the same side as europe .Apart from it stops Putin or his replacement having more cold war fantasies .
It would make sense for Russia to join NATO and the EU, their main threat will undoubtedly be from China. Think of the mutually advantageous economic stability Russian EU membership would bring.
We really should have Russia on board, after all they are well known for getting stuck into a scrap, unlike many NATO so called members. In fact we should bin the NATO hitchhikers to make room for the Russkies.
Russia IS on the same side as Europe. However, NATO is not Europe, NATO is America and America IS NOT on the same side as Russia.
I think you are missing the point: NATO protects American interests. Russia is US power competitor in Europe and therefore it is in US interests to weaken Russia and not "take it on board".
"Vladimir Putin is playing a major game with the NATO. He is offering to help the Alliance in its war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, in return expecting the NATO to close its door for Ukraine and Georgia as members, Saturday's Gazeta revealsâ.
translated by Marcin WawrzyÅczak. Å¹rÃ³dÅo: Gazeta Wyborcza.
âIn return for helping the alliance, Mr Putin is demanding two things - that the NATO closes its door for Ukraine and Georgia . . â
With NATOâs attention trans-fixed on the middle-east, NATO should realise it needs to establish an alternate âjumping-offâ point; staging-post; in the area - as an alternate to the increasingly unreliable Turkey.
Turkeyâs long standing illegal occupation of Cyprus, was recently compounded by Turkeyâs unilateral invasion of northern Iraq. It is anyones guess how the unpredictable Turkey will react when it realises that its DEMANDS to join the EU will NEVER come to fruition.
Georgia (and Armenia), could prove to be (geographically) very useful, and appreciated, âpartnersâ, if not (yet) full members, to the like-minded NATO.
â . . and, that during the NATO's summit in Bucharest in April, Mr Putin is received as an equal partner - rather than just a guestâ.
Russia, Ukraine, and a number of others (including most of the Balkan countries), are included in NATOâs âPartnership for Peaceâ programme. Russia is therefore, de facto, already a fully-fledged âPartnerâ of NATO.
However, Russia should know, and be relieved, that participation in the âPartnership for Peaceâ programme, is not a natural precursor or pre-requisite, automatically leading to full NATO membership.
I do not personally believe NATO will ever extend an invitation to join as a full members, to the Slavic Russia, or the similarly Slavic Ukraine.
(I personally believe that the EU will never extend a membership invitation to the Slavic Ukraine - nor should it pursue the membership invitation already extended to the Slavic Serbia, and Slavic Montenegro. It will of course come as a complete surprise to the EU, when Serbia decides to tell the EU where to âstickâ its membership invitation!).
However, I despair that Russia still does not realise that it is Russiaâs responsibility to âcourtâ those whom it wishes to consider friends and allies - such as Ukraine, Montenegro and Serbia !!
My (NATO alliance and right-thinking Afghans) enemyâs (Taliban) enemy (Russia), is my âfriendâ.
Now letâs not get silly!! . . . I like Russia. . . . I respect Russia. . . . But, I donât want to âget-into-bedâ with Russia.
It is bad enough dealing with them around a âconferenceâ table. Can you imagine what it would be like dealing with Russia if they were on the âin-sideâ, sat around the same, common, âboard-roomâ table ?!!
I was going to quite dismissive and disdainful of your outrageous, naÃ¯ve, suggestion, until I read of your interest in âHarley-Davidson motorbikes and Labrador dogsâ!
It is well worth reading armchair_jihadâs opening quotation (in spite of his scary avatar!), with which he started the thread âThe Kremlin's problem with the West - discussâ,
to realise why the EU and/or NATO, will NEVER consider Russia as a member !!
And, why Russia would NEVER consider membership of any organisation (EU and/or NATO), membership of which required Russia to be subservient to the wish of the majority - without being able to dictate the agenda for its own (and only Russiaâs) interests !!
NATO would not need Russian help if some of our supposed NATO allies 'pulled their fingers out' and sent some of their own troops to do the dirty work, instead of leaving it to the usual suspects.
Well it didn't exactly turn out so great for us the first time we invaded the place either did it? Maybe this could be their version of the Second Anglo-Afghan War so they get to win this time.
If that were the case and the article that KGB_Resident is to be believed then why would one of their demands for co-operation be that NATO not allow Ukraine or Georgia membership? Meddling in the foreign relations of sovreign nations, one of them being a European country and the other a transcontinental Europeam country respectively, certainly seems somewhat odd if Russia 'is on the same side' as Europe.
Separate names with a comma.