thats because the west needs russia more than russia needs the west.

would i be amiss in saying realpolitik??

they can't afford to lose the russians, for they need them for many international critical issues. Alöso, there is little, or better: there is nothing Washington can do. simply that. nobody would riosk war over soemthing like Georgia. Even if Georgia would have been member of NATO - I am absolutely sure that NATO would NOT have jumped to it's military defense. Which would have meant an even greater diplomatic defeat and damage to NATO, than it is the case now.

the problem with NATO is the same like with the EU: too many cooks spoil the brew, additonally two different concepts of NATO'S new role after 1989, the american versus the old european conception, hamper NATO'S ability to react. Both organisations did not become stronger but weaker when accepting new members. At the same time, it meant to increase their chances to be faced by crisis, due to the greater surface of the organisation that could be hit easier by fate since they make a bigger target.

Nope. Without money flowing from the West, or someone to sell energy to, Russia basically has nothing. No leverage or relevance in any way. They know this as well. The fact that they have made themselves look a little rogue recently has made NATO more attractive to some of those they wish to try and control. In addition, they cannot truly afford to block our aims in the Iranian row. Russia screwed themselves big time here. And they have helped Bush get his missile defense. Probably on a more expedited time table as well.

You are writing this as if Poland and Finland and all those others would have been friendly if Putin had done otherwise.

I think at this point, with reason after so many years of this, they see the situation this way:
1) Do nothing, or even try to be nice. Result: Poland and all those others might not hate them quite so much, but they'll still get snuggler and snuggler into NATO.
2) Get tough. Result: Poland and all those others might hate them even more, but just maybe they can scare them into a more neutral stance. It sure seems like a good bet considering what 1 had been getting them for years.

Of course, one can argue that 1 is the result of former Soviet policy in Eastern Europe and somesuch, but it doesn't matter. Putin, or any other Russian leader, would have to look out for Russia.

Your interpretation reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

and hasn't your country allways insisted that the missile shield is not meant to be directed against Russia, but against Iran and North Korea and that the russians have no reason at all to feel concerned by modern radar stations close to their borders and looking deep into their territory...? :hmm:

:yep:

And if it comes to that, the way to hit Russia today is to target the middle class, no visas to Europe, economic pressuring, that should heat things nicely in Russia.

Oh, no you don't! I protest:D You are not allowed to politicize the best scene from the best movie ever made:rotfl:

Yeah and take back that Riviera villa some Russian bigshot just purchased for a record amount.

No Riviera for you Ivan!

Your views are driven from internet articles, and bear no resemblance to what is really happening there. Russia has lost face big time and has helped put many more nations directly into NATO's sphere. In addition, missile defense is going to be expedited. I find it funny that some internet jockey's like you can't even view or analyze the true realities of this. And instead have to resort to frail/impotent attempts to insult using stupid youtube videos. Russia has not bolstered itself in anyway despite what your internet articles from derspeigel say. In fact, their actions have been totally counterproductive. And will prove to be even more so in the future.

I know you're a fatalist Skybird, but you're lost on all points in the geopolitics of this. Especially the long term.

It's not directed at them at all. This defensive system is no threat to them in anyway. Yet it will be deployed without their approval. And there is nothing they can do about it. Interestingly enough their actions have put it on the fast track.

1. Is the result of past policies not recognized by the current Russia, instead they seek to continue these policies.

If this is the case, a smart Russia might want to change it's own policies in how it views itself in relationship to NATO. That's what a smart Putin/Russia who are looking out for their own security and interests would do. ;) Not invade potential NATO entrants or threaten another with nuclear attack when Russia themselves would be annihilated if they actively pursued that. (i.e. Empty rhetoric from the Russians).

And again...totally counterproductive to their interests.

From a Russian point of view, NATO's peace noises sounds about as convincing as the Soviets peace noises sounded to NATO.
Cold War NATO: Sees USSR claim peace as it modernizes and increases forces on the inter-German border.
Post Cold War Russia: Sees NATO claim peace as it modernizes and increases forces on the Russian border.
So, why is it OK that NATO saw the USSR peace claims with mistrust, but the Russians can't have the same worries about NATO?
As for counterproductive, that depends on your perception. You seem to think, for example, that they lost because they made Poland accept the missile defense system in 2008 instead of say 2009/10. But that's frankly a lost cause, and slightly accelerating the inevitable is no huge loss.
However, suppose (since that's the apparent rationale for their actions) that by acting tough, they manage to scare say the Ukraine from joining NATO, even if they scare a few others into accelerating their increased cooperation with NATO (which looked to be going to happen anyway). That will obviously be a huge gain for them, and one they'll be happy to take even with some costs elsewhere. And even if the plan didn't work, the worst that happens is that Ukraine joins NATO say in 2009 instead of 2012. From a long-term point of view, slightly accelerating what would happen anyway if you did nothing is a very small risk to take in comparison to the gains of success - a demi-permanent, Ukraine-sized chunk of relatively safe border. And who knows? One success there might just scare Poland and the others into a more neutral position.

Then the Russian point of view is a lost cause for Russia as it has served to gain them the opposite results. This view that they can "scare" anybody into a neutral stance clearly has not worked and has assured resolve against it. Especially in the long term. Not a very smart move at all. Quite stupid really. I don't think Putin counted on the fact that the people of these former client states or other bordering nations are not willing to be controlled from Moscow's point of view, but see themselves as fully independant nations that are going to make decisions that suit their own interests. Including wanting to join the NATO alliance. Poland, nor the Ukraine were "scared" into doing anything Moscow's way. They are actually going in the opposite direction.

I'm not sure if Russia will actually learn the right lesson from this, or take the stubborn route and further bury themselves into a corner. Economic isolation is a potential we are seriously considering. This is not exactly going to help Russian interests if that happens. Sorry to say, but Russia has gained nothing here of any value, and will struggle in the future if they choose the stupid path that Putin has put them on as an opponent of NATO, and excluded from nominal trade relations and financial entities. This pride or counterproductive foreign policy of "force" will be the Russian nations downfall. If they were smart, they would choose to evaluate their foreign policy in regards to NATO, and lose the paranoia. That's truly the only option they have to keep things nominal between NATO/West and themselves. Militarily, they don't have the true might to make the NATO alliance or their candidates do anything. I think that's what you're missing here. And as have been demonstrated, the more they push, the more Poland, the Ukraine and others wil push right back.

If russia becomes isolated, be it by their own doing or by the west, its the west's problem - russia doesnt need the west for energy supplies, the west (europe) needs russia for its energy though.

Not a nice prospect!

People keep seeming to forget russia holds many cards if they feel obliged to use them.. energy is one, iran is another.

Are you sure? It is still very early in the new game. And even if you are right, again, it is just slightly speeding up the inevitable, so it is not a devastating loss.
Basically, from the National Security POV, it is be passive (or even try appeasement) and lose slowly like a man with a terminal disease, or be active and maybe lose quicker, but also maybe win something. It is a no-brainer what to choose.
In the long term, barring a miracle, they would all join NATO the way the waters are pointing.
I think he's all too aware of that, which is why he's going on the Offense.
In other words, if he does nothing, loss is guaranteed, because they'll all join NATO, no? Maybe a bit slower, but that's little comfort.
They are, at most, slightly accelerated in the direction they had already been taking.
Besides, a precedent had been set, at least for Ukraine. The Russians did something, and the West made a lot of its usual noise, but did little.
Nor will it help the West. One can argue with Skybird about who gets hurt more, but it is a lose-lose solution.