NATO: Saviour or Warmonger?

[Loki]

Let's discuss NATO. What do you think of NATO?

Inspired by this post:




Without NATO, the Baltic States would end up like Georgia. By the way, there are no NATO troops here. Only the global center of NATO cyber-defense is in Tallinn, Estonia. Because Estonians are the most skilled in that area.

I would feel a lot safer if NATO troops would actually be here. Because of the aggressive Eastern neighbor we have. Estonia may be in NATO, but the only defense here is only the Estonian armed forces. Russia has a million soldiers when Estonia has about 20 000(when mobilized)



I will write my thoughts in more detail when I am not at work. Briefly, let me state that in my view NATO is redundant. NATO is currently being used as a tool to encircle Russia, even though the Cold War has finished ... angering the Russians, breaking down trust on both sides and possibly causing the world's great European powers to enter a phase of armed struggle again. This is so very unnecessary, undiplomatic and counterproductive. :mad:

[The Lawspeaker]

A necessary evil. It had lost it's purpose for a while (Kosovo 1999 and Afghanistan) but thanks to our old "friends" in Moscow NATO can make itself useful again.

If it wasn't for NATO we'd all be speaking Russki by now and live under communism.

[Loki]

If it wasn't for NATO we'd all be speaking Russki by now and live under communism.

But that's just the point. The Communist Soviet Union does not exist anymore. The Cold War was against an ideology. That ideology (communism) has collapsed, apart from North Korea, Cuba and a few other insignificant countries. Comparing modern Russia to the Soviet Union is a bit like comparing modern Germany to Nazi Germany.

On the other hand, if the SU did conquer the rest of Europe, it would likely have been more white and less multicultural today.

[The Lawspeaker]

On the other hand, if the SU did conquer the rest of Europe, it would likely have been more white and less multicultural today.
You're wrong- horribly wrong. If you were to check the population charts of the Baltic you'd see a lot of minorities that weren't there 60 years ago.
Why ? because the Russians brought them in.

Take Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia#Ethnic_and_cultural_diversity) for example (it's wikipedia but I am not in the mood of looking a long time for crappy sources that only provide half the info I need.) Before World War II is was a homogeneous society with 88 percent of the population being Estonian
Or Latvia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia#Ethnic_and_cultural_diversity) where the same process of ethnic fracturing and Soviet colonization took place, or the Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Czech_Republic#Germans) where some of the minorities were invited by the communist authorities.

And I can assure you another thing: there would have no free speech and we wouldn't have been on a nice forum like our own. Being South African, Loki, you wouldn't have had to live through it. The Europeans on the other hand.....

Loki I need to ask you one thing here: have you ever been behind the former Iron Curtain ?


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvians)

[EWtt]

Take Estonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia#Ethnic_and_cultural_diversity) for example (it's wikipedia but I am not in the mood of looking a long time for crappy sources that only provide half the info I need.) Before World War II is was a homogeneous society with 88 percent of the population being Estonian[/URL]

After the German troops left Estonia in 1944 it was even over 95% Estonian (most historical minorities fled due to the imminent Soviet occupation). By 1989 it was down to 64,7%.

[The Lawspeaker]

After the Germans left Estonia in 1944 it was even over 95% Estonian. By 1989 it was down to 64,7%.
And we would have had a minority problem anyways: one of Kazakhs, Belorussians, Russians, Ukrainians, Jews and so on. Those groups that would have been kindly invited by our new "peoples'" government while trains with Dutch families would have gone to Siberia during the late 1940's, early 1950's

[Svarog]

A necessary evil. It had lost it's purpose for a while (Kosovo 1999 and Afghanistan) but thanks to our old "friends" in Moscow NATO can make itself useful again.

If it wasn't for NATO we'd all be speaking Russki by now and live under communism.

That is just ridiculous, if you think Putin is afraid of NATO you're very wrong, as we all remember NATO said they will not allow Russians to enter Georgia and will defend their Georgian allies, Georgia signed a contract with NATO and all confident created a conflict which they knew Putin and Russia won't ignore, they also thought NATO will have their back, in less than few hours hundreds of Russian tanks entered territory of Georgia and even the capital itself was burned to the ground, Georgia was forced to surrender in no time while NATO was sending appeals on Russia to stop the violence during the whole war :D

Beside few guns they sent to Georgian soldiers and very 'strong voice of concern' what exactly NATO did to prevent Russia from entering and conquering the country?

Nope, if Russians wanted to conquer Baltic states or whatever, no chance in hell NATO would risk a confrontation with Russian army, which is btw weaker than it have been in a long time, it's all politics, NATO would not do shit about it.

[EWtt]

Beside few guns they sent to Georgian soldiers and very 'strong voice of concern' what exactly NATO did to prevent Russia from entering and conquering the country?

The difference between Georgia and the Baltics is that the Baltics are full NATO members.


Nope, if Russians wanted to conquer Baltic states or whatever, no chance in hell NATO would risk a confrontation with Russian army, which is btw weaker than it have been in a long time, it's all politics, NATO would not do shit about it.

That would equal the dissolution of NATO, because NATO in theory means "an attack on one member is an attack on all of them". Sure, many NATO countries won't send in their forces immediately, we will have to keep the Russians away from the coastline long enough until NATO mobilizes their armed forces.

Russians wouldn't risk having a direct confrontation with NATO, either.

[Loki]

The difference between Georgia and the Baltics is that the Baltics are full NATO members.


The fact that the Baltic countries belong to NATO doesn't change anything about their security. They belong to the European Union, that in itself would be enough of a deterrent for any Russian attack. NATO is not even necessary. NATO is following an aggressive foreign policy of expansion. In that sense, it is rather not unlike the Soviet Union ...

[EWtt]

NATO is following an aggressive foreign policy of expansion. In that sense, it is rather not unlike the Soviet Union ...

I don't think NATO expansion happens against will. Back when Estonia joined NATO we had public elections in 2003 with an approval rate of 67%. The countries NATO considers for membership have expressed interest in joining NATO.

[Svarog]

They already did, Putin don't care as long as he have a good interest out of whatever he does, Russians do not have an interest to conquer Baltic states, same as they don't have an interest to conquer Poland, but they sure do know that one state is more powerful than a confederation and especially weak military pacts such are NATO and once a Warsaw pact, who, btw, was stronger than NATO in all segments of waring, if I am not mistaken only category NATO was stronger was a number of ships, I am sure that if a great war with Russia or some other fictional event would happen, many countries would decide to leave the NATO and not get involved, and as we all know, the chain is strong just as the weaker link is, I would not anticipate some huge resistance in the case of some newborn Russian imperialism which is buried together with Stalin. And no offense, even if Russians would wish to further expand, I am sure they'd rather go to their south and for oil and other resources they can use than for an Estonian swamp, they have no use of Estonia or Latvia, Russians are for sure not interested in conquering those states, but if they were, NATO would certainly not stand in their way.

[Loki]

I don't think NATO expansion happens against will. Back when Estonia joined NATO we had public elections in 2003 with an approval rate of 67%. The countries NATO considers for membership have expressed interest in joining NATO.

The vast majority of Ukrainians oppose of NATO membership, yet NATO is pursuing eventual joining for Ukraine! They will do it via corrupt politicians who are out of touch with the country's people, like for example Yuschenko.

[EWtt]

And no offense, even if Russians would wish to further expand, I am sure they'd rather go to their south and for oil and other resources they can use than for an Estonian swamp, they have no use of Estonia or Latvia.

Who knows, maybe they like swamps? :D

How about a long Baltic Sea coastline; imperialist expansionism (which is also tied to having a Russian minority); preventing the expansion of NATO and EU to their traditional sphere; general anti-Western stance; the strategic importance of Baltic infastructure and harbours (also their economic value for transit); placing Russian air defenses in the Baltics (which would increase its effectiveness considerably); securing Saint-Petersburg, etc. etc.


Russians are for sure not interested in conquering those states, but if they were, NATO would certainly not stand in their way.

I doubt that. What I also doubt is that Russia is foolish enough to try and see what happens.

[Svarog]

I doubt that. What I also doubt is that Russia is foolish enough to try and see what happens.

Did not they proved that already plenty of times in the past? :D
Challenging Russia is just stupid as they are up for anything, Hitler did it, and then died in his bunker like a rat while red flag waved over Berlin.

And you're right, strategically yes, Baltic states have their advantages, but that is all hypothetically talking, fictional WWIII and post-nuclear era, it is all very irrelevant at this very right moment.

[The Lawspeaker]

Did not they proved that already plenty of times in the past? :D
Challenging Russia is just stupid as they are up for anything, Hitler did it, and then died in his bunker like a rat while red flag waved over Berlin.

And the last time they really tried was in 1962 and they ran like cowards when Kennedy told them in no uncertain terms what was awaiting them if they wouldn't withdraw their missiles from Cuba.

If they hadn't withdrawn Moscow (and the rest of the world) would have looked like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/AtomicEffects-Hiroshima.jpg

[Svarog]

that was a fairytale man, no nuclear war would happen, I am sure American population in general was way more scared of the nuclear war than a Russian one, judging on the real time videos back from the period.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think it's outdated. Russia no longer is trying to push communism worldwide, thus the threat it was formed to protect against is eliminated. The other NATO countries except Britain only sent token forces to Iraq and Afganistan, and in those situations we'd be perhaps better off working with countries like Russia and India who have a mutual interest in getting rid of Islamic extremism.

As to whether the US would intervene to fight Russia over the Baltics, this probably will not happen: after the Iraq fiasco, the US military isn't going anywhere any time soon. This was one of the main reasons for Obama's defeat of McCain, McCain favored more military interventions such as in Georgia and against Iran. This could change if a new President is elected in 2012.


a Warsaw pact, who, btw, was stronger than NATO in all segments of waring, if I am not mistaken only category NATO was stronger was a number of ships.

Numerically, yes. As far as combat readiness and technology, NATO had the edge, the plan was to give up some ground in central Europe (Germany) while inflicting heavy casualties, then destroy the supply lines from the air. Probably whichever side attacked would have been at a disadvantage, enough that total victory could not be assured.

[anonymaus]

Let's not waste time with historical appraisals of the good and bad NATO has done. Let's just be realistic about it:

NATO is comprised primarily of nations who don't have the spine to defend themselves politically, and certainly not militarily, so what more is there to say? NATO = US, UK, CAN. AUS provides more military support to NATO missions than most member countries combined.

Lily-livered governments in Europe haven't the balls to be in any such organization unless they're having a laugh, and that is what NATO has become: the few remaining Western nations with a pair of balls, hauling around European members like whiny children on a road trip.

It should disband.

[Brännvin]

There's a big game starting and it's about grabbing as much as the world's energy resources as possible. Who controls oil and gas controls the world.

NATO was about defending democracy and freedom against the SU, something questionable to some historians, nowadays it's looking more like a tool for the USA & GB in their efforts to play their own power games.

[National_Nord]

NATO - a threat to the peaceful coexistence of European countries, so that the military unit protecting the interests of bourgeois and starts for them the war.

[Äike]

NATO is the protector of Europe and the aggressor of Middle-East.

NATO is good and bad at the same time. It's just the way you look at it. If you look NATO from the Middle-Eastern view or the Imperialistic Russian view, then NATO sucks and is the root of all evil.

If you look at NATO as a small country next to Russia, without a million man army. Then NATO looks quite good.

The Middle-East doesn't pose a real threat to any NATO states, so I don't support NATO being there.

[Loki]

NATO is the protector of Europe That's technically impossible. Some NATO countries aren't even European, whilst several European countries are not members, some have even been bombed by NATO.

[Äike]

That's technically impossible. Some NATO countries aren't even European, whilst several European countries are not members, some have even been bombed by NATO.

European countries alone would be too weak to protect themselves from Russia.

Maybe the Balkan area would still be at war without NATO? I do not support the things that NATO did there, but they ended the war.

Russia not being a threat anymore? Wrong... This following humorous clip sums it up:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1603735/soviet_union/

Putin is ex-KGB/Communist and that goes for most of the leaders of Russia.

[The Lawspeaker]

I have the feeling that those who responded so anti-NATO are either from countries that were unaligned or on the other side of the Atlantic (and have never been on the other side of the Iron Curtain) or in the case of one person: from what used to be the Soviet heartland, the Russian SSR.

I was a kid during the 80's but I remember the euphoria that swept Europe in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR. The threat of a Russian invasion had been hanging over Europe like a Sword of Damocles for over 40 years. And if it wasn't for NATO: the Russians would have come - no doubt about it. When I was in the Czech Republic last year- I could still see how years of communism had damaged them and even last year, 2008, their infrastructure was lagging behind and the countryside was primitive in comparison to the west. And poverty was substantial compared to us. Czechoslovakia used to be one of the richer "partners" during the days of the Warsaw Pact btw.

I am sure you people can remember East Germany 1952, Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968 and last but not least Lithuania 1991.
How easily we forget !

[Loki]

European countries alone would be too weak to protect themselves from Russia.


The Russian bogeyman is in fact a fallacy. Russia does not have any intention of attacking any country in Europe, unless of course it threatens it. Why would it want to do that? This is not the 50's any more.

My dear Karl, I fear your local situation in Estonia with the large Russian minority has caused you to lose perspective on larger-scale international matters. Russia is not going to attack Estonia -- whether it is in NATO or not. What leads you to believe Russia would do that? There is no precedent, it is not the Soviet Union. And please don't mention Georgia.

[National_Nord]

NATO is the protector of Europe and the aggressor of Middle-East.

NATO is good and bad at the same time. It's just the way you look at it. If you look NATO from the Middle-Eastern view or the Imperialistic Russian view, then NATO sucks and is the root of all evil.

If you look at NATO as a small country next to Russia, without a million man army. Then NATO looks quite good.

The Middle-East doesn't pose a real threat to any NATO states, so I don't support NATO being there.


I look at NATO from the imperialist point of view and perspective of the appropriateness of the military bloc. NATO was created against the Communists of the USSR, the Soviet Union fell the results of cowardice, dishonesty and betrayal of power SSSR.Pervonachalny the raison d'être of NATO lost in the course of historical events, the collapse of the Soviet Union.
You may have to build something fundamentally different?

[Äike]

The Russian bogeyman is in fact a fallacy. Russia does not have any intention of attacking any country in Europe, unless of course it threatens it. Why would it want to do that? This is not the 50's any more.

My dear Karl, I fear your local situation in Estonia with the large Russian minority has caused you to lose perspective on larger-scale international matters. Russia is not going to attack Estonia -- whether it is in NATO or not. What leads you to believe Russia would do that? There is no precedent, it is not the Soviet Union. And please don't mention Georgia.

I know that the changes of Russia starting a full scale war with any European country is very small, but I like to use the saying "Better be safe then sorry"

That means "Better be in NATO, then sorry."

In this modern era, full scale wars aren't the only way to achieve your goal. Things like cyber-attacks can destroy the infrastructure of a country(an advanced country, especially Estonia) . That's why the NATO cyber defense center is in Tallinn. To protect NATO members around the world, from cyber-attacks.

Talking about Russian aggression, Russia did a very massive cyber-attack on Estonia, in 2007.

Russia can use other means then normal warfare. Be it cyber-attacks or stopping the energy flow into the European countries.

[Loki]

I know that the changes of Russia starting a full scale war with any European country is very small, but I like to use the saying "Better be safe then sorry"

That means "Better be in NATO, then sorry."


No, on the contrary, being in NATO actually makes Estonia a target. Estonia would be safer if it wasn't in NATO. NATO is being viewed by concerned eyes in Russia (legitimately) as a threat to its national security.

[Brännvin]

European countries alone would be too weak to protect themselves from Russia.
Well, this is not true though. Could you expand on how European countries alone would be too weak to protect themselves from Russia?

Your comment sounds like one (PSYOPS).



Maybe the Balkan area would still be at war without NATO? I do not support the things that NATO did there, but they ended the war.
Before, many countries members of NATO have entered the war, they favored themselves selling weapons and military equipment to the players of this brutal conflict.




Russia not being a threat anymore? Wrong...

NATO is a tool for the USA in their efforts to play their own power games. This has been more or less visible in recent times when, some European countries as the France under Chirac started to wonder what was the utility of NATO and if a European Army should be created instead, the Americans moved on quickly to create yet again that necessity, expanding NATO to the borders of Russia and deploying missiles and other military systems near to its borders, provoking thus Russia's reactions.

[anonymaus]

The Russian bogeyman is in fact a fallacy.

I agree in the common usage of that idea: the return of communism or Russian chauvinism I think is unlikely.

However, Russia is a complicated place and one I'm not overly qualified to speak about so I'll throw out some observations for discussion rather than pretend I know for certain:

So many years of oppressive rule by theocratic autocracy followed by the soul crushing near-century of Sovietism point to much turmoil to be expected internally within Russia; such situations often result in a "strong man" leading when he would otherwise not. I'm not saying this is the case with Putin but, if Putin does not succeed in guiding his people out of such a horrible past, such a thing is likely to happen sooner than later.

Russia MUST be outwardly strong, borderline aggressive even, if she is to maintain integrity in the international community. This can and likely will mean inflaming international relations for her own sake.

NATO was in military opposition to USSR and one system prevailed: NATO no longer has reason to exist in its current form. I've said why I think so previously in this thread; I will add that rather than providing a reasonable check to Russian aggression, NATO is forcing Russia to be more aggressive than she need otherwise be.

[National_Nord]

I agree in the common usage of that idea: the return of communism or Russian chauvinism I think is unlikely.

However, Russia is a complicated place and one I'm not overly qualified to speak about so I'll throw out some observations for discussion rather than pretend I know for certain:

So many years of oppressive rule by theocratic autocracy followed by the soul crushing near-century of Sovietism point to much turmoil to be expected internally within Russia; such situations often result in a "strong man" leading when he would otherwise not. I'm not saying this is the case with Putin but, if Putin does not succeed in guiding his people out of such a horrible past, such a thing is likely to happen sooner than later.

Russia MUST be outwardly strong, borderline aggressive even, if she is to maintain integrity in the international community. This can and likely will mean inflaming international relations for her own sake.

NATO was in military opposition to USSR and one system prevailed: NATO no longer has reason to exist in its current form. I've said why I think so previously in this thread; I will add that rather than providing a reasonable check to Russian aggression, NATO is forcing Russia to be more aggressive than she need otherwise be.
Even if Russia will come to power of extreme right, the main part of the policy would be anti-and counter-migration from the countries of Central Asia and China. None of the most extreme right-wing radicals do not think the Russians to start a war in Europe.

In Russia, many do not like the communist ideology, monuments red Chiefs demolished and destroyed. I myself do not want to see the Communists in the parliament and in government.


Confronting Russia - NATO's beneficial to those who receive income from the sale of weapons and military technology.

[Tabiti]

We don't have an army anymore, thanks to NATO...

[The Lawspeaker]

We don't have an army anymore, thanks to NATO...
So where did it go ?
We haven't got a proper one either at the moment nor do we have national service (since 1997). One should thank our own government for that as NATO always valued us because we could mobilize quickly and because we would quickly permit our partners the use of our transport network in case the Cold War would turn hot.

[National_Nord]

So where did it go ? We haven't got a proper one either at the moment nor do we have national service (since 1997). One should thank our own government for that as NATO always valued us because we could mobilize quickly and because we would quickly permit our partners the of our transport network in case the Cold War would turn hot.

The term mobilization of troops does not depend on the condition in a military unit, and depends on the organization of the army and its supplies.

NATO currently is for many bureaucrats lucrative and prestigious location. International capitalists supported the NATO military bloc, therefore it is harmful for the Europeans: the interests of capitalists and people are contradictory and antagonistic.

[Tabiti]

NATO came and said:
These weapons aren't US made, so destroy them.
Too many Bulgarians in the army - decrease their number, you don't need that.
These uniforms don't look like US ones, change them.
You must go and help our US missions in the Middle East, although you don't have any real interest getting involved.
Leave the poor boys alone, you don't need men who know how to carry guns, because we are going to help you in every situation.

Personally, I feel offended! I don't care that there are 10000 countries to help me in war case, I care that there is no such thing as BULGARIAN soldier and BULGARIAN army anymore. Sure it isn't so bad everywhere, but sovereignty of countries in bad situation always suffers in such alliances.

[The Lawspeaker]

The term mobilization of troops does not depend on the condition in a military unit, and depends on the organization of the army and its supplies.

NATO currently is for many bureaucrats lucrative and prestigious location. International capitalists supported the NATO military bloc, therefore it is harmful for the Europeans: the interests of capitalists and people are contradictory and antagonistic.
I agree with that. But Russia has not shown itself as a good friend and since the other side is worse I still think NATO is better. Your choice of words reminds me of the left-wing propaganda that was used in those days. A bit like those people that were marching here against the deployment of American missiles at Woensdrecht in 1981 but didn't say a word about Russian militarism. (I just saw a program about it the other day).

The Dutch army in those days (1980's) was a modern fighting force and amongst the first to use Leopards, the M16 and the F16-fighter (and later the AH-64 Apache). For a small country like our own we were very good equipped and well staffed: some 40.000 men had to go through military service each year (our population being around 14.5 million) and 10.000 were called up each year for a mandatory repeat exercise. The size of the army alone was 65.000 men and after mobilization it could be as much as 210.000 men and the army had several thousands of APC's, 913 tanks and some 400 mobile artillery pieces.
We are a small country but he sure had teeth.

[Revenant]

NATO is comprised primarily of nations who don't have the spine to defend themselves politically, and certainly not militarily, so what more is there to say? NATO = US, UK, CAN. AUS provides more military support to NATO missions than most member countries combined.

And we aren't even a NATO member state we'd be doing that either at the request of the UN or US.

I think it should be up to the majority of NATO members whether it continues or not. If they see a need for it then it should stay.

I don't think Australia should have anything to do with NATO though. There's no reason for a small country in our part of the world to.

[RoyBatty]

We don't have an army anymore, thanks to NATO...

You're touching on a very interesting and valid topic here, I'll explain my reasons for saying this.

NATO is effectively the military wing of Western special interests groups and their hangers on which includes a number of rich elites, Middle Eastern dictators and so forth.

While NATO may originally have been founded on the principles of defending the US / Western Europe from the Soviet Union and Eastern Block that time of Cold War conflict has come and gone. As many here pointed out, what is the reason for NATO's continued existence because it surely is not to act as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

In other words, NATO has outlived its original use and purpose and has now been transformed into an offensive military organisation as opposed to a defensive alliance.

- It has started operating outside the territory it was supposed to defend.
- It is aggressively expanding its membership and territorial base
- It is not really accountable to the voters of the countries it supposedly protects. It is controlled by the military and political hierarchies in the most powerful member states while the rest are passengers who tow the line.

Now, regarding Bulgaria's military's demise you mention, the same thing has happened elsewhere in countries with NATO aspirations or who joined. Their military capabilities have deliberately been dumbed down by NATO leaders such as the US, UK, Germany, France and so forth. These countries don't want the smaller members to have significant military capabilities. They are primarily interested in using these countries as military bases, training grounds and to use their troops and manpower to do the donkey work (on the cheap of course). In other words, the idea is get cheap and expendible infantery for those unpleasant and repetitive little tasks around the world, everywhere where NATO has decided to take an interest. (Again, note here that NATO is increasingly operating in an offensive capacity outside the borders of its member states).

Why do the US and Western European "bosses" want the smaller countries dumbed down? Naturally because a too well-armed country (even inside the alliance) poses a threat to their rule of affairs and decisions. It gives the smaller countries too much leverage. Therefore they want them to be as backward as possible to fill the cannon-fodder roles for as cheaply as possible.

NATO is increasingly becoming a US / EU tool with which to terrorise the globe and to enforce a type of Neo-Colonialism against third-world countries. It is also being used to encircle and threaten Russia and to stoke up hostilities, particularly in the Caucasus. It is not a "friendly" organisation with "honest" intentions and countries like Russia are well aware of this.

Regarding the Polish and Estonian (and other countries') hysteria surrounding Russia, I agree that NATO will not save them if Russia were truly on the warpath. There is no way that the US, Germans, French or UK will commit suicide to save a bunch of (as they perceive them) "Eastern Euro untermenschen". It simply will not happen. The more aggressive these countries posture against Russia the more likely Russia will be to pencil in targets in those countries.

The results will be extremely unpleasant for those countries should trouble break out. NATO / Western Europe / USA are using and manipulating the Eastern Europeans as the tool with which to antagonise Russia. What these countries don't appear to fully comprehend is that while they may be laughing at Russia's expense, for now, things could easily get out of hand. The retaliation will be merciless.

Georgia is a good recent example of what happens when the US / EU and the Georgian sockpuppet President decide to take liberties with Russia. The Georgians were fortunate as they were only given a small lesson in Kavkaz etiquette. Next time around things may not turn out as rosy for them or for others who want to play games.

The smart thing to do would be to avoid picking fights on one's own doorstep or to act as a proxy for those with hostile intentions. The dumb thing to do would be to maintain the current course that the Baltics and Poland are pursuing.

[National_Nord]

I agree with that. But Russia has not shown itself as a good friend and since the other side is worse I still think NATO is better. Your choice of words reminds me of the left-wing propaganda that was used in those days. A bit like those people that were marching here against the deployment of American missiles at Woensdrecht in 1981 but didn't say a word about Russian militarism. (I just saw a program about it the other day).

The Dutch army in those days (1980's) was a modern fighting force and amongst the first to use Leopards, the M16 and the F16-fighter (and later the AH-64 Apache). For a small country like our own we were very good equipped and well staffed: some 40.000 men had to go through military service each year (our population being around 14.5 million) and 10.000 were called up each year for a mandatory repeat exercise. The size of the army alone was 65.000 men and after mobilization it could be as much as 210.000 men and the army had several thousands of APC's, 913 tanks and some 400 mobile artillery pieces.
We are a small country but he sure had teeth.

Take another in relation to a military unit serving the Freemasons and the world's capitalists? NATO serves the Zionists, in fact, as modern Russia. All of these apparent contradictions, NATO-Russia and Russia-NATO - is attempting to take away workers' opinion of our countries on migration issues and the problems of extinction of the white race. Any sane person can see the relationship of national, racial, economic.

The M16 and the F16-fighter - not the best fighter aircraft, Russian design bureaus are developing where the best fighters (it is - a fact). If you do not believe - read the specialist literature. The fact that even the modernization of old samples of our combat aircraft cost-effective and beneficial, said of the talent of Russian engineers, which, hopefully, recognize.
Still, training of our army is stronger, because we have children with people feeling halt Social Darwinism, both collective and individual. Also, our army uniform, while NATO troops include people are very different people.

Postscript. In Russia, many have accused me in the right-wing ideas.

[RoyBatty]

And we aren't even a NATO member state we'd be doing that either at the request of the UN or US.

I think it should be up to the majority of NATO members whether it continues or not. If they see a need for it then it should stay.

I don't think Australia should have anything to do with NATO though. There's no reason for a small country in our part of the world to.

The reality is that countries like Auz, NZ, Canada are effectively part of the Anglo Establishment and will, one way or the other, follow orders from Washington and London. That includes NATO or whatever other military arrangements are made.

[RoyBatty]

NATO came and said:
These weapons aren't US made, so destroy them.
Too many Bulgarians in the army - decrease their number, you don't need that.
These uniforms don't look like US ones, change them.
You must go and help our US missions in the Middle East, although you don't have any real interest getting involved.
Leave the poor boys alone, you don't need men who know how to carry guns, because we are going to help you in every situation.

Personally, I feel offended! I don't care that there are 10000 countries to help me in war case, I care that there is no such thing as BULGARIAN soldier and BULGARIAN army anymore. Sure it isn't so bad everywhere, but sovereignty of countries in bad situation always suffers in such alliances.

I saw photos where the Georgians arrested a Russian Army conscript truckdriver somewhere in South Ossetia / Georgia border. These guys were wearing US style security guard uniforms with "Police" (in English) written on them, LOL!!!!! :D

Take a look at Ukraine for example. It used to have some fantastic aircraft like TU-22 M3's. For Ukraine's economic capabilities they'd be irreplaceable. The Ukrainian idiots were bribed with smallchange to chop up those planes to please the Pentagon.

Why?

Probably so the US can sell them old model and worn out F-16's with primitive capabilities for high prices and because these aircraft can of course be made "useless" (ban on parts sales, electronic jamming of systems etc) very easily should a country such as Ukraine suddenly change political course again.

They want to make their vassals dependent, they want their technological capabilities dumbed down so that these countries have no ability to act independently anymore. They just want them to buy equipment from Western sources and to shut down domestic high tech industries.

A dumbed down country = a dependent country = a slave country.

[Revenant]

The reality is that countries like Auz, NZ, Canada are effectively part of the Anglo Establishment and will, one way or the other, follow orders from Washington and London. That includes NATO or whatever other military arrangements are made.

With a avid Sinophile for a PM, whose Govt briefs the PRC Govt on our Defense White Paper before the opposition Liberal party, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Our Defense Intelligence Agency has even been spying on our own damned Defense minister and caught him on the take from the chinks. He's still there.

The chinks hate the Anglosphere, that pretty much goes without saying. Whether or not we'll follow orders as usual, who knows, but I know for sure our traditional Allies don't nor should trust us anymore.

[RoyBatty]

With a avid Sinophile for a PM, whose Govt briefs the PRC Govt on our Defense White Paper before the opposition Liberal party, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Our Defense Intelligence Agency has even been spying on our own damned Defense minister and caught him on the take from the chinks. He's still there.

The chinks hate the Anglosphere, that pretty much goes without saying. Whether or not we'll follow orders as usual, who knows, but I know for sure our traditional Allies don't nor should trust us anymore.

If there's one thing in life I've learned that is:

"don't trust anybody"

This particularly applies to politicians. Your fears may be well founded regarding the PM.

BTW, I wouldn't trust "traditional allies" either. They quite happily screwed us over for their profit in South Africa, they abandoned and screwed their own people in Rhodesia / Zimbabwe.

Imo the best thing is to be nationalist, to keep a watchful eye on the local politicians and to keep other countries influence in domestic affairs and the economy (even so-called friends and allies) to a minimum. Unfortunately the theory doesn't appear to translate very well into practice.

[Jamt]

Roy Batten. Considering your profile/ethnicity; what sexual importence do you get from all this?

[RoyBatty]

Roy Batten. Considering your profile/ethnicity; what sexual importence do you get from all this?

Go hump somebody else's leg sonny. Not interested, sorry. :thumbs up

[Jamt]

Its not a wery humping reflection I made, was it.

[Loki]

If you wish, come join the Anti-NATO Alliance (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/group.php?groupid=21) social group. :thumb001:

[SwordoftheVistula]

The reason for the equipment changes in the former Warsaw Pact nations which switched to NATO was so that they now all use the same ammo, parts, all the equipment works together, etc. For example, Ukraine would no longer be able to repair their Russian made planes as the parts are made in Russia, as well as the armaments such as air-to-air missiles.

[Lenny]

I don't think NATO expansion happens against will. Back when Estonia joined NATO...an approval rate of 67%. .
Coincidentally, Estonia was around 70% Estonian at the time.:D


The countries NATO considers for membership have expressed interest in joining NATOWhat does one call this "aggressive expansion" when it is genuinely voluntary on the part of the "victims"?

[Lenny]

I think it's outdated.
I tend to agree.

I am also very skeptical of putinist Russia, though.

Why can't Russia just relax, be humble, and let go of its delusions and aggression? :(

[Loki]

Why can't Russia just relax, be humble, and let go of its delusions and aggression? :(

It probably would, if the West acted more friendly and toned down their aggressively anti-Russian rhetoric -- and NATO stopped encircling Russia.

Western governments and media have basically started with their campaign of anti-Russian criticism ever since the Kremlin started cracking down on the Jewish oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, who were systematically and ruthlessly plundering Russia's wealth. That in itself is very telling on what their ultimate ambitions were for Russia.

This was very clearly an orchestrated mud-throwing campaign, which is still continuing -- and which is obviously effective in influencing gullible people. Scaremongering.

[anonymaus]

I tend to agree.

I am also very skeptical of putinist Russia, though.

Why can't Russia just relax, be humble, and let go of its delusions and aggression? :(


Russia MUST be outwardly strong, borderline aggressive even, if she is to maintain integrity in the international community. This can and likely will mean inflaming international relations for her own sake.

NATO was in military opposition to USSR and one system prevailed: NATO no longer has reason to exist in its current form. I've said why I think so previously in this thread; I will add that rather than providing a reasonable check to Russian aggression, NATO is forcing Russia to be more aggressive than she need otherwise be.

[Lenny]

This was very clearly an orchestrated mud-throwing campaign, which is still continuing

The real question is: Why do Russia's neighbors - almost without exception - hate and fear Russia? I don't think NATO warmongers and their media(s) can be blamed for that.

That's the heart of it.

If we ignore the people who know Russia best, what are we?

[Loki]

The real question is: Why do Russia's neighbors - almost without exception - hate and fear Russia? I don't think NATO warmongers and their media(s) can be blamed for that.


The answer is a simple one: the Soviet Union's ghosts -- and people's inability to look the future and embrace new realities.

These neighbours' fears are not being helped by the West, who are actively stoking anti-Russian sentiment over there. There are so many CIA operatives active in campaigns in the Ukraine, Georgia and others.

A case in point is Georgia, with the notoriously unstable Saakashvilii who is being advised by the CIA.

As for others -- you are generalising. Many of Russia's neighbours have very good relations with Russia. Ever heard of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation)?

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Belarus for example have no major issues with Russia. They view Russia as their strong brother, a source of security and stability in the region. The most vocal anti-Russian attitudes come from those who make the loudest noises: Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic. And Poland of course.

[Birka]

I say disband the UN immediately. NATO, well first I want the US out of it. If the remaining European countries want it, they will have to make it work on their own. Is there a push for a EU military, a united one? Just use NATO minus the US, if you like.

The USA simply cannot go on acting as a world empire any longer. Maybe we can play world police in the movies, but realistically, we cannot afford the real deal any longer. Nor should we.

[Atlas]

Instead of a large global world police like NATO, I'd prefer strong and well-meaned nation in every continent. Brazil for South America, United States for North America, Russia for Europe, India for South Asia, China for east Asia etc. If this is possible.

[DarkZarathustra]

NATO should be disbanded. If new European defence organization will be established it should include Russia. My opinion.

[The Lawspeaker]

NATO should be disbanded. If new European defence organization will be established it should include Russia. My opinion.
But not under the control of Russia, thank you very much. One country- one vote.

It would indeed be a guarantee for stability and peace in Europe.

[DarkZarathustra]

But not under the control of Russia, thank you very much. One country- one vote.

It would indeed be a guarantee for stability and peace in Europe.
Why not?

[The Lawspeaker]

Why not?
Your countries' history would be a very good reason.
But then again- it is better to work together with the Devil then cordon sanitaire him as long as you don't let him swallow you.

[DarkZarathustra]

Your countries' history would be a very good reason.
But then again- it is better to work together with the Devil then cordon sanitaire him as long as you don't let him swallow you.
Come on, mate... If we are Devil then lets write new All-European history... You're too pessimistic...

[The Lawspeaker]

Well. Let's put it bluntly. I don't trust Russia- I don't trust them one bit- but it would still be better to work with them and have all nuclear weapons under joint European control (which would include the British and French nuclear arsenals as well.) Why ? Because then we can be sure that the Russians will not backstab us.

[EWtt]

The answer is a simple one: the Soviet Union's ghosts -- and people's inability to look the future and embrace new realities.

Sure, we don't like a future together with a corrupt state which takes the Soviet system as an example.


Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Belarus for example have no major issues with Russia.

Just yesterday Lukeshenko told his government:

"It's not working out with Russia. We don't need to bow down. We don't need to whine and cry. We need to look for our happiness on a different part of the planet. I consciously say this in public. From this day on, that time has come to an end and another time has started."


They view Russia as their strong brother, a source of security and stability in the region. The most vocal anti-Russian attitudes come from those who make the loudest noises: Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic. And Poland of course.

Notice how many of those who idolize Russia are the less developed, corrupt and authoritarian countries and how the countries which have taken a strict defensive line are those who suffered most under the Soviets, like democracy and don't like seeing a return to Soviet-era mentality in Russian politics.

[RoyBatty]

Coincidentally, Estonia was around 70% Estonian at the time.:D

What does one call this "aggressive expansion" when it is genuinely voluntary on the part of the "victims"?

Because it isn't "genuinely voluntary". Did somebody give me a choice to join or stick with NATO? No.

NATO = Al Qaeda with a larger budget.

Neither is submission to EU rule "genuinely voluntary" yet we're stuck with it because the politicians slipped it in through the back door.

[RoyBatty]

Sure, we don't like a future together with a corrupt state which takes the Soviet system as an example.


The EU in other words.



Just yesterday Lukeshenko told his government:

"It's not working out with Russia. We don't need to bow down. We don't need to whine and cry. We need to look for our happiness on a different part of the planet. I consciously say this in public. From this day on, that time has come to an end and another time has started."


Luka plays both sides of the fence. These kinds of pronouncements are nothing new. By the way, why are you attaching such importance to the words of a Communist Factory Boss like Luka? I thought you're anti Soviet / Communist and all that goes with it. :confused:



Notice how many of those who idolize Russia are the less developed, corrupt and authoritarian countries


Notice how broke the Baltic Republics are.


and how the countries which have taken a strict defensive line are those who suffered most under the Soviets,


Their policies of "defense through pre-emptive ethnic cleansing of Soviet citizens while in service of the Nazi SS" understandably didn't win over many friends in the Soviet Union.

[EWtt]

Notice how broke the Baltic Republics are.

"Broke" compared to the West, because of the Soviet occupation - yes, indeed. That's also one of the reasons we dislike commies.

GDP per capita (2008)
Estonia: 22205.299
Lithuania: 19215.847
Latvia: 18495.731
Russia: 16085.349

[Äike]

"Broke" compared to the West, because the Soviet occupation - yes, indeed. That's also one of the reasons we dislike commies.

GDP per capita (2008)
Estonia: 22205.299
Lithuania: 19215.847
Latvia: 18495.731
Russia: 16085.349

Compared to all the ex-Soviet countries, Estonia is the wealthiest. So we are handling ourselves quite well without being a satellite of Russia:)

[RoyBatty]

"Broke" compared to the West, because of the Soviet occupation - yes, indeed. That's also one of the reasons we dislike commies.

GDP per capita (2008)
Estonia: 22205.299
Lithuania: 19215.847
Latvia: 18495.731
Russia: 16085.349

I wasn't referring to GDP. One could have a low GDP but not be in massive debt or be in a situation where all the country' industries, banks, land and so forth have been sold off or pawned to "foreign investors".

The debts I'm talking about were racked up after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course, no doubt we'll be hearing next how it was "Russia's fault" that certain countries borrowed excessively.

[Loki]

Compared to all the ex-Soviet countries, Estonia is the wealthiest. So we are handling ourselves quite well without being a satellite of Russia:)

Is it possible to like and appreciate both Estonians and Russians? Because I do. I am glad when I hear Estonia is prospering. In turn, Russian prosperity and advancement is good news to my ears. :)

[Äike]

Is it possible to like and appreciate both Estonians and Russians? Because I do. I am glad when I hear Estonia is prospering. In turn, Russian prosperity and advancement is good news to my ears. :)

I am also happy when the Russian economy prospers. My dream is that Russia will become the wealthiest country in Europe, so all the Russians in Estonia would go back to Russia:)

[RoyBatty]

Western governments and media have basically started with their campaign of anti-Russian criticism ever since the Kremlin started cracking down on the Jewish oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, who were systematically and ruthlessly plundering Russia's wealth. That in itself is very telling on what their ultimate ambitions were for Russia.


Khodorkovsky was / is really a front man for the Rothschilds family, hence the massive Western Media interest in his welfare. He was acting on their behalf in Russia, probably doing deals rigging auctions to buy up assets at rockbottom prices with money supplied by them etc. The Rothschilds have terrorised Russia for decades and very likely funded Lenin / the Bolsheviks.

An interesting book on pre-Revolutionary Russia dealing with the Nobel family (they were rivals of the Rothschilds in Russia at the time) here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3DmsQLtWq1wC&dq=russian+rockefellers&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=BxEaZYqELq&sig=i5UMOmxAvEtpIe8DVhkIRRpI76g&hl=en&ei=TW4hSta2A4-RjAf4pum0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1


More on Khodorkovsky Rothschilds connections:

This article says it all about who's pulling the strings, really. It also explains who effectively controls the Western Media and why the Western Media hate Putin so much. After all, Putin was supposed to be the NWO's new lapdog after Yeltsin retired (Putin was on good terms with Jewish oligarchs / bandits like Boris Berezovsky at the time).



The Sunday Times can identify Lord (Jacob) Rothschild as the secret holder of the large stake in Yukos that was previously controlled by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oil company’s chairman.

Khodorkovsky, reputed to be Russia’s richest man, was last week arrested by Russian prosecutors on charges of fraud and tax evasion. His imprisonment has triggered a trustee agreement he put in place with Rothschild a few months ago.


http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article1101531.ece

The "Open Russia Foundation" of Khodorkovsky and Rothschild.


Note how similar it sounds to Soros's "Open Societies". The goal was apparently to promote Russian / Western Cultural ties but more likely it was to promote Western / Jewish influence in Russia's political, economic and military circles and to brainwash legions of Russian students in the West for later re-insertion into Russia. This is a fairly typical practice used by the West to gain control over Eastern European Bananastans.

- Georgia's (ok technically it isn't really in Europe) Saakashvili used to be based in the US.
- Ukraine's Yuschenko is even married to a CIA / US State Dept wife.
- Serbia's Vuk Jeremic (ugly sweaty oinker) studied in the UK and US

All these politicians gained power in "colour revolutions".
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Open_Russia_Foundation

[RoyBatty]

Come on, mate... If we are Devil then lets write new All-European history... You're too pessimistic...

I don't want to sound negative mate but it's useless. A Russian friend of mine thought the same way you did after the end of the Soviet Union. For a while he thought "at last, Cold War is over, we can all now just get along". Later he realised his mistake and how they were fooled into making concessions while receiving nothing back in return.

The US / EU / NATO have expansionist plans and (amongst other things) they want a piece of Russia and everywhere else around the world there is something worth taking.

They already screwed up my country (South Africa). They'll do the same thing to you the minute you turn your back. Never trust them, ever. Always fear and expect the worst.

[Hors]

The real question is: Why do Russia's neighbors - almost without exception - hate and fear Russia?

FYI

Russia is very popular in Belarus, half of Ukraine, half of Moldavia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgizia. And if you support integrity of Georgia, one third of Georgia too :D

[Hors]

But not under the control of Russia, thank you very much. One country- one vote.

It would indeed be a guarantee for stability and peace in Europe.

One man, one vote.

Or one tank, one vote.

[The Lawspeaker]

It's that typical Kremlin attitude (also seen in the higher echelons of Russia's government) that will make sure that a fraternization between Russia and Europe will never take place and that Russia will never be admitted to it's "rightful" place.

[Hors]

It's called "democracy", Cloggy.

PS. Don't be mistaken, nobody in Russia is anxious to solicit the "rightful place" or whatever from you or whoever.

[The Lawspeaker]

No- it's called Imperialism, Russki.
Forcing ideas upon others by use of force.


PS. Don't be mistaken, nobody in Russia is anxious to solicit the "rightful place" or whatever from you or whoever.
Good luck with China in ten years. You'll need it.

[Hors]

Look up definitions of clever words you use in a decent dictionary, Cloggy.

[National_Nord]

FYI

Russia is very popular in Belarus, half of Ukraine, half of Moldavia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgizia.:D


I personally do not need the popularity of Russia in Armenia: Armenians go to Moscow and inhabit it - this is the price of popularity. Armenian Diaspora profits thanks to gains at the expense of the Russians.
There is also an ethnic Armenian organized crime group.
Regarding Kyrgyzstan and Moldova - the same thing.
I do not think it possible that Russia bought popularity in other countries due to the fact that its inhabit another's citizens.

[RoyBatty]

It's that typical Kremlin attitude (also seen in the higher echelons of Russia's government) that will make sure that a fraternization between Russia and Europe will never take place and that Russia will never be admitted to it's "rightful" place.

The best thing that could possibly happen to Russia is that it DOESN'T take ANY kind of place in today's Europe. That would be taking a step backward and embracing NWO enslavement, political correctness and "diversity".

Russia already has everything it needs. Why waste time merging with parasites? :confused:

Together with parts of Eastern Europe it's one of the few remaining relatively "white" countries. No point ruining it.

[National_Nord]

Together with parts of Eastern Europe it's one of the few remaining relatively "white" countries. No point ruining it.

I think the current crisis will cause the aggression of NATO military bloc on one of the countries outside Europe, crisis or armed forces (and) fight with anyone. To remove the question of social tensions in Europe in NATO countries will inflate the image of the enemy of the Russians to take people in the military-industrial complex and military service.

The flow of migrants from Eastern Europe, Africa, can cause the decline of wages of workers in Europe, and indirectly, will be one of the factors accelerating the intervention of NATO in a military conflict.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think the current crisis will cause the aggression of NATO military bloc on one of the countries outside Europe, crisis or armed forces (and) fight with anyone. To remove the question of social tensions in Europe in NATO countries will inflate the image of the enemy of the Russians to take people in the military-industrial complex and military service.

The flow of migrants from Eastern Europe, Africa, can cause the decline of wages of workers in Europe, and indirectly, will be one of the factors accelerating the intervention of NATO in a military conflict.

That's a possibility, that European NATO countries could launch a 1930s-style armaments/jobs program to make up for the lost industrial exports to the US and other countries. They have a large social welfare system now though, which they did not have in the 1930s, so they will probably just move the unemployed workers onto this rather than arms production or the military.

The US under Obama won't assist in any NATO war in Europe, it's possible this could happen if the neo-conservatives could regain power in 2012, but this is unlikely due to the enduring unpopularity of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, McCain etc.

[RoyBatty]

The US under Obama won't assist in any NATO war in Europe, it's possible this could happen if the neo-conservatives could regain power in 2012, but this is unlikely due to the enduring unpopularity of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, McCain etc.

They can and they do, both inside and outside Europe. Atm there's nothing much going on because a number of NATO / NWO objectives have been achieved such as the deliberate breakup of Yugoslavia, establishment of bases on its territory and Eastward expansions.

There's a bit of a lul in proceedings in the Caucasus after Saakashbaboon fluffed the "liberation" of South Ossetia and Abkhazia so this is a period of regrouping and re-arming. Ukraine is in limbo due to the ongoing political stalemate in that country, not to mention the general public mood which is against being forced into NATO by the US, EU and Ukraine's own corrupt politicians.

Democratic Party regimes (Clinton, Omabongo etc) are as fond of foreign military adventures as the Republicans, if not even more so. It's amusing how the "Liberals" often tend to out-warmonger the so-called "Conservatives". In reality there isn't much difference between them with regards to foreign policy. The objectives are the same, the approaches differ a bit. Reps tend to play the "bad cop" role while Dems play the "good cop" but in the end, both are fascists.

[SwordoftheVistula]

It's really more the same methods for different objectives.

With the Bush regime, it was mostly neoconservatives aligned with the Likud Party in Israel, and some old line anti-communists turned anti-Islamist (like Rumsfeld) or lingering Russophobes (Condoleeza Rice).

With Obama, there are still some jews in top spots (Axelrod, Emanual) but they seem more aligned with the Labor Party in Israel, and Obama comes from the leftwing pacifist/third-worlder faction of the Democrat Party. For example, he is more conciliatory towards Iran:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060200947_pf.html

Georgia was intended to be a staging ground for air attacks on Iran, but the Georgian President made the mistake of thinking the US would back him up in a fight with Russia, and screwed that up. Israel now has a more hard-line regime in place, but Obama administration will be much more reluctant to launch a strike on Iran. McCain/Palin top foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann was a former lobbyist for Georgia, which accounts for McCain's pro-Georgia position, but these guys are all gone now.

Ukraine nobody really cares about anymore, and never really mattered that much in the first place. It was mainly a George Soros operation, assisted by some Russophobes, and apparently on the behalf of Soros' tribesman Boris Berezevsky, a jewish oligarch exiled from Russia by Putin.

With Yugoslavia, there was a perfect storm of Bill Clinton needing a distraction from the Monica Lewinsky situation, also this allowed him to simultaneously pacify the left wing by 'combating racism' and elements of the right wing which had accused Clinton of degrading the nation's combat capicity with his downsizing of the military.

Obama's main goal with foreign policy, at least for his first term, will be to avoid anything which could be perceived as a 'disaster' and damage his reelection prospects. Thus, a slow wind-down rather than an immediate withdrawal in Iraq, sending more troops in an attempt to 'stabilize' Afghanistan, and backing off on plans to close Camp Gitmo in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

His other objective, which will be much more in force if he wins a second term, is to advance the interests of the third world and the left, thus we can expect even more money spent on attempts to eliminate AIDS and poverty, more concern about gays/women, etc.

See this for example:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4968