[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

As a matter of fact, the individual you speak of is merely providing false propaganda and energetically promoting Russia's point of view...and it's a typical pattern with this person.

Considering that the only thought that seemed to came to Skybird's head when asked why the Russians are not re-arming as fast as one may expect from defense expenditures is "Corruption" (not denying its existence; never mind that it isn't such a big budget, and never mind such obvious concerns as the Russians being so below-standard from years of deprivation in basics like training and housing (even by Russian/Soviet standards) that a lot of money would have to be spent on those before equipment, I won't call him pro-Russian, much less blindly in that direction.)

But then, Russophobia often seems so prevalent in the West that any argument that does not paint the Russians as completely black and doomed often looks like propaganda...

On the other matter, Russia understands the inevitability of the situation anyway.

They do? You see, here's one of the reasons why I'm favoring SB. At least if the Russians use his thoughts, they might indeed logically proceed with their current COAs, so theory satisfies observation. You basically have to write off all their actions as "wrong", "stupid", or "miscalculated" when they don't fit your ideas of logic, which is actually an acknowledgment of theory failure and abandonment of further thought, and an invitation for an enemy to just maneuver around your brain blocks and get to what he wants.

Imagine that in front of a Russian Army are two paths to a goal. One looks muddy and the other looks clear. The Russians start advancing through the muddy path. You will assume they will have to reverse at some point and prepare your defenses along the clear path. Skybird will work out why they might choose the muddy path and redeploy accordingly (most importantly, he accepts they might actually be serious about choosing the mud path). Who's more likely to stop the enemy is obvious...

You're saying making enemies out of NATO, and in particular the USA is beneficial to Russia?

Wait. You are getting ahead of yourself here.

I mean, a Westerner no doubt feels that NATO was a friend to Russia. From Russia's POV, the only way their actions could have been more hostile is if they started launching cruise missiles (given the West's reluctance to engage with ground troops without a uber-thorough air offensive...)

You're supporting the point of view that NATO is hostile to Russia by treating former Soviet client nations as sovereign nations.

Wait, are you saying if NATO refuses their requests to join, NATO does not treat them like sovereign nations?

Does making friends with former enemies truly threaten Russia? Or is it just deep seeded paranoia?

1) From a Correlation of Forces point of view, addition of additional countries to NATO, which can hardly be called a "pro-Russian" alliance on its most friendly day, worsens the Correlation of Forces, and thus is a threat.
2) It is no secret that many of the nations joining bear little love for Russia.

So, it is a worsening of the strategic situation and an increase of the threat, in at least two axes. Let's at least acknowledge this.

Are these nations actually sovereign nations to you Kazuaki, or are they merely slave states to Russia who should only serve Russia's interests even at the expense of their own? Are you serious?

Aah, false dilemma. So, if they don't join NATO, they automatically become "slave states to Russia?"

Now here's another piece of food for thought. From an independence point of view, alliances are good for a few nations of relatively equal strength, standing in front of a large neighbor or another alliance.

Theoretically speaking, a small state placed between two larger powers (read: Poland, Balts ...) tends to retain its freedom of movement (I define this here by the ability to take at least some actions that displease either / both powers) best by staying relatively neutral and playing the two sides off each other. Or by allying with other small states along the same border to become a third bloc.

A small power that allies with one of the large sides becomes in effect a protectorate of the large nations in said alliance. As they are convinced to take actions supporting their new alliance (read: NMD), they inevitably piss off the other side. Eventually, they may piss off the other side so much they have no choice but to be a protectorate. It doesn't show up much as long as small power is lined up with big power. But what sovereignty it is if you can only take actions approved by big nation - I'm sure you agree with this sentiment.

Just try a small disagreement, one that does extremely little, if anything, to the interests of big nation... Take poor New Zealand, 1980s. They decided democratically that they would no longer allow ships which are not declared nuke-free (something America consistently refuses to do for nebulous reasons - surely, declaring one vessel out of about 600 to not have nuclear weapons is not going to significantly improve the Soviet chances of concentrating on the nuke-equipped vessels...). One might say that it is not too rational, but it is nevertheless the will of the people. Democracies are supposed to follow that, no?

How does the US react? By respecting the right of the sovereign people of New Zealand to decide such things? Well, they did - they didn't quite try "Canberra Spring". But they just expressed their displeasure, and basically kicked NZ out of the alliance system. NZ, of course, was far away from the Soviet Union (and the Soviet threat was beginning to fade by then) and thus could survive this. Poland won't, especially after they pissed Russia off.

Or how about the "Coalition of the Willing". It is well known that many of the "willing" in fact had populations that weren't so "willing". Democratically speaking, those countries shouldn't have sent troops. But you know, they have alliances with the US ... so... We used to call this action of Big State gathering up troops from Little States a name - Feudalism.

Whatever the other pros and cons, how this whole process makes them more sovereign is difficult to note.

The thing is Kazuaki, Russia is like that abusive and jealous ex-husband who used to beat his wife...and now tries to prevent her from seeking other relationships, and indeed turns to stalking her. Then wonders why nobody likes him or thinks he's creepy.

Let's try and add a few elements to it. Many of the wives in this relationship nevertheless lived better than the "ex-husband" (it is no secret that Czechslovakia and East Germany at least had superior living standards to the Soviet Union). And unlike the stereotype of such ex-husbands, Russia let them go. They were richly rewarded as the "wives" not only sought new relationships, but relationships with those who just seem to have it in for Russia (and remember that guy promised he won't try and wed those newly freed wives).

Husband grumbles his displeasure. The wives claim they don't understand why, as does the new husband.

Further, I again repeat, As a state, Russia cannot allow things detrimental to its interests just because of past wrongs. No State can.

We're talking about sovereign nations Kazuaki. I don't give a rat's rear end who's point of view you're looking at it from. Either you respect the right of nations to make decisions for themselves and their own interests.....or you can be like Russia who does not respect the rights of sovereign nations and attempts forced coercion through military threats.

ROFTLMAO! This from a man who lives in the country with the Greatest "Power Projection" capability on the planet (read: the greatest capability, built at enormous expense, to threaten or even actively punish other nations with military force).

If you respect the right of states to make decisions for themselves, then you must respect the right of Russia to express its displeasure and lay out consequences for actions disadvantageous to it. The fact that Decisions don't come with only Plusses is something that all sovereign nations must realize.

Or how about the historical case of the Cubans. When you get down to it, it is their "sovereign" decision to ally with the Soviet Union and even to accept SS-4 and SS-5 missiles on their sovereign soil. However, apparently, this pissed off the Americans with their "Monroe Doctrine"... and we know what happened - Bay of Pigs, followed by CMC. After CMC, America continued to make it as difficult as possible for Cuba to live on. This continues even after the Soviet Union died off...

Tell me, is it so hard to understand that Russia may have similar thoughts to Monroe, or that they have legitimate national security concerns that are being threatened by NATO's latest stunts, or that they have the right to make things as hard on Poland and the rest as possible in return for actions they are taking, while not actually threatening the sovereignty? That's what it means to be a sovereign nation. Your actions have consequences, and when you piss off people, they will punish you (all tempered by realpolitik, of course, which is why I think Russia will get off light for Georgia).

Russia is stupidly choosing to make enemies out of those who were not enemies at all.

Again I refer you to the top. That you guys are not enemies is a Western perception based on a blind belief that smiles and symbolic gestures like an occasional invitation of one ship to BALTOPs and "observer" status on NATO meetings is worth more than NATO continuously expanding and threatening to directly front your border or refusing to relax CFE limitations on Russian military movements within its own territory even though the cause of all those "flank limits" and even CFE itself in the first place are just about gone...

And that includes NATO and the USA. NATO even offered them a seat at the table as an observer with the US blessing. And of course Russia screwed that up. If Russia was smart, and NATO membership in these former states was inevitable, wouldn't it be alot smarter to actually use that seat as a way towards nominal relations? I think that actually sounds quite reasonable really.

"Nominal relations". Oh, you mean relations where Russia gets symbols and the West gets meat? Aah...

Also, again, if any small, fractional chance of getting them out of NATO membership is with getting tough, how would that affect your calculations?

You simply cannot quibble any of this away. Nor can you make yourself look like an unbiased source looking at it "from all perspectives" yourself. If you believe that Russia is proceeding smartly by breaking their cease fire agreements brokered by the French,

Well, it seems the Russians have cleverly arranged the agreement to ensure they'll be able to do so.

is proceeding smartly by increasing their likelihood of economic isolation (perhaps you believe like Skybird that Russia is greater economically than most of the developed nations and needs no trade, no technology sharing or transfers, no food imports, or no lucrative commercial contracts etc. etc. etc. ),

Rather than arguing whether that is the case or not, I'll just note that as you apparently agree, both sides can do real damage to each other. Thus, while the likelihood is no doubt increased, the most likely result, according to [i]realpolitik/i], is next to nothing, at least on this score. No doubt Russia has already factored this in.

As for the food thing, oh good, you can make the West look crueler than Russia in a jiffy! That's where all the humanitarians in the West will stop you.

or if you believe they have proceeded smartly by turning themselves into a hostile player against those they wished to revolve around it's orbit...and now have helped bring NATO right next door (and have ticked them off to boot),

At worst, they made it happen a tiny bit faster. And I bet considering how NATO grabs and grabs in peace, I think the Russians must be finding it a bit difficult to tell when NATO is "friendly" or "enemy", or which is better. I mean, at least when they were "enemy" (Cold War), NATO didn't seem quite so inclined to keep grabbing!

Also consider the lesson of 1999. For months the Russians railed about Kosovo, to little effect. Then, at the last moment, they moved some troops in. Of course the West screamed and roared. But all of a sudden, they got something. They didn't get the command (they probably don't even dream of this) or even a sector (like they hoped but didn't), but at least they got participation and a say (much better than "Observer status"). It is realpolitik, but the lesson is nevertheless obvious.