Interesting concept. I'm supposed to be ashamed of a person who displays friendship to me because he's too much of a friend? I suppose that conversely i'm supposed to like people like Skybird because his arrogance and hatred keeps us on our toes? :roll:

Yes
We're not a US colony, at least I don't feel like a colonial subject.
That said, when push comes to shove, we will be allies and fight together.
But until that day comes, I will reserve my right to criticize US policies, exactly for the reason that in contrary to lets say China, criticism will be heard and not ignored.
(Russia is something of a middle ground, not yet China but not the US)
As Heartc correctly assumed, I did serve.
I hope this day will never come, but if there were a war and I'd be called up again, I will fight.
Maybe there are some common values, but my first loyalty belongs to my country, not some nebulous alliance, not to some politicians on the payroll of Washinton thinktanks. If our interests converge, fine. They do in many points.
But I "Nibelungentreue" is nothing for me.

Re Skybird, I disagree with him on practically every second subject regarding german internal politics, and on almost every subject regarding the EU, but in regards to foreign policy, I mostly agree with him.
He definitely does neither have an evil agenda, nor does he hate the US. A real hater wouldn't waste his finger musculature on such long, elaborate posts. Anyone who tries to convince does not hate.

PS. Regarding the fighting part, I honestly recommend all NATO forces to clear the 180 deg arc in front of me, I can't hit the broad side of a barn.
On the other hand, I heard, with a G36, it doesn't matter how bad you suck at aiming, you will hit.

So who said you couldn't criticize? Not me, that's for sure. Criticize away. Just realize that if you make a habit of it like Skybird does we might start suspecting you aren't the friend you claim to be.

In the end, I have nothing against you, AntEater. But you are not Skybird, either.
You have your opinion and present it in an honest way and - while I might disagree with it or it might piss me off - that is fine. Unlike Skybird, who is a manipulative pretender. He arrogantly pretends neutrality and objectiveness, while in reality he has neither. These attributes don't even exist in his same universe. That alone wouldn't be a problem. I'm not neutral either (who is?). But I don't pretend to be. It is the show of his that I find repulsive.

for heaven's sake heartc, get a grip man

Oh no! I'm on Skybird's Sh%tlist. :lol: Whatever will I do???? :roll: I don't know how I'll ever recover. :rotfl:

Skybird's sense of self importance is truly comical. Get over yourself Sky.

Frankly, if you represent the thoughts of NATO, we're better off not having that little meeting you proposed a post or two back. No point in leaving further foul tastes in everyone's mouths.
Tell me. How sincere did Soviet promises of peace look as they were building a new SS-20 missile site? Now, why do you expect the Russians to think differently of NATO.
It is about time Westerners re-remember that if you improve your correlation of forces while muttering things about peace, other people concentrate on your improved correlation of forces. I find it hypocritical of NATO to forget this when it is convenient to them.
They are not dictating. They just specify the consequences.
At least you agree to their right to establish the consequences. Since the West has its own interests too, I won't deny them the right to set consequences too. But I bet that realpolitik dictates very little, at least this round.
1) It can be argued that under MAD, strategic thermonuclear missile systems are actually a very defensive weapon.
2) We were talking about sovereignty. If you are serious about sovereignty, then Cuba can place either an offensive or defensive system on their ground, no?
I'll admit they didn't quite try invasions after that, but "no problem" will explain all those economic sanctions...
Anyway, regarding even stereotypically defensive systems, the West has ruled many times that a defensive system can indeed be a threat to stability. There's the ABM Treaty of 1972. Or how about the whole Cyprus S-300 incident of the 90s - and that's b/w 2 members of NATO, so they are nominally friends! Or how about every time the US objects to S-300s or antitank missiles being exported to countries like Iran. I mean, sure, you get it that selling Backfire bombers may be bad, but SAMs - can there be a more defensive weapon than a SAM?
One has to remember that ultimately, weapons are political tools. They generate options for their wielders, including the option to interfere with other wielders' options, and the options produce political force.
Thus, in some ways, a defensive system add up to be as politically threatening as an offensive one if they interfere with his options. Even options he really won't have exercised, because the very existence of those options in itself creates force. When those options are lost or degraded, it is a loss to his position, and anyone can legitimately feel threatened by this.
Tell me, when the US sails 2 CVBGs into the Taiwan Strait, is it "bullying" China? If China arms the coast with more 636s and Moskits, is America unhappy it is worried it won't be able to bully China as well anymore? When Iran buys SAMs, is American unhappy because it won't be able to bully it out of building nuclear weapons quite as efficiently?
Stripping the sentence of loaded language, the operative word is influence, with all its various degrees of coercion. And Russia, like any other country, wants to increase that, especially when target countries are performing unfavorable actions.
Who gets to be the judge of what's "paranoia"?
No one denies them that. But they have to realize their actions do not please everything. And to expect that the person they displeased to just smile and say "Go ahead, Hurt my Interests" is unrealistic.
Here's an alternative thought: Maybe I should stop provoking Russia, especially when (esp. for the Ukraine) I'm getting gas at a bargain price.
I think it is of symbolic value, but it simply can't compensate for real gestures.
If you don't like the example of NATO's expansion or Kosovo, then try this thought for size when you claim that NATO has been acting like a friend:
How many friendly nations insist, on the basis of an obsolete treaty made in a completely different environment (and that in itself was hardly a treaty you'll make with a "friend"), on restricting the movement of your troops inside your own territory?
But I thought we were discussing NATO. Regarding the economics, I don't think you have much to worry about.
Wow, first you say something that implies that they weren't enemies before Georgia, and then you say it is inevitable they take opposing actions? Hmm...
Don't worry. It'll end. As soon as both sides have put on a good show of chest beating for their audiences, realpolitik will most likely say "Wrist-Slap" or thereabouts.
If there aren't enough humanitarians in the government and people of NATO nations to stop a plan involving the starvation of the Russian people, isn't that very good proof that NATO just has it in for Russia and Russians, and as an aside that the West is utterly hypocritical on its humanitarian stances?
Are you saying that NATO is even more opportunistic than I thought?
Telling people to get over it is a sign that you are not going to put in the effort for understanding. Why does Russia think dialogue with the West is futile?
I find it incomprehensible that participation is called "zero" and observer is called "substantive" in your value system...

You're running in circles Kazuaki, and definitely more desperate to get your message out than me. One can only wonder why. At this point, it ain't worth it. I'm done reading your responses. I strongly and completely disagree with you. I've already addressed everything sufficiently. I read this last one from you, and you are free to your opinions. Enjoy!

Russia has a right to defense, no actions are illegal because United States should NOT tell any country what it can or not do. U.S. needs to quit being so dominative and trying to control trade, economy, and movements of foreign countries. This isn't how the world works, or otherwise it would be a nuclear disaster or it may become one soon.

http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

This is an auto-bot-translation of a german editorial from die Zeit. It points at the same direction of what I said: that...

(...or the attempt to do so).

However, the article points at corruption and the immense internal resistance of the Russian generals against Putin'S reforms and raise in defense budget, that has prevented them from acchieveing what could have been acchieved if the money would have been spend for better use.

Russia's military spendings fell from 42.5 billion dollars in 1992 to 13.6 billion in 1997, and since then were raised by Putin to 35.4 billion on 2007 (source: Die Zeit, German original text)

This is an assessement of the dangers and risks in Moldawia, Transnistria and the Crimean.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...575238,00.html

Yesterday it was reported that Russia prepares to establish permanent military bases both in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Abkhazia first announced that it will stay separate from Russia, one day later announced their wish to join Russia. Since it is hard to imagine how both regions will be able to survive as independent nations, a joining with russia sounds reasonable. Why not when after the last Georgian has left, the population - since a very very long time - more or less unisono tends to line up with Russia anyway. This sympathy is living since decades, if not centuries, and is not originated by the passport distribution by russia.

Also, remember that although the Russian defense budget has increased, because of inflation the real term gain is substantially less!

Source: Janes http://www.janes.com/news/defence/tr...0811_1_n.shtml

Also, if investors pull out of the market I think that we will see that Russia's economy will suffer quite a bit. I know they have reserves in place... but how long will that last??

I wonder what Putin would say/do if Ingushetia decides to go the way of South Ossetia and the other province Abkhazia and declare independence?

Probably put them down ruthlessly, I suppose.

Maybe he has successfully deterred them.

At worst, if he suppresses them and the West squawks, he can put all the statements they are making into a tape recorder and Play it back in their faces...