NATO intends to prohibit Russia’s and China’s Development

[Tacitus]

Your NATO Agressive alliance had a 10 year advantage in possession of Nuclear weapons over Russia.
And opposite to what agressors do, not only did they not attack Russia conventionaly, but inconventionaly too.

So every time a country that Russia thinks should Serve Russia, decides not to do so they get invaded?
And NATO is the agressor?
Only Russia has a right to its own foreign policy. Everyone else obeys Russia.
Tzar - Tzardom - Orthodoxy logic of 19th century in action 2 centuries later

Not an aggressor in the traditional sense of invasion, but an aggressor in the sense of needling and provoking through passive-aggressive means (pushing NATO up to Russia's borders in areas that should be neutral, war exercises near Russia territory, economic sanctions etc.).

It would be one thing Eastern European countries on their own decided to build up their defenses, but it's another when the decisions are being made in Brussels, London, and Washington. Ukraine is nether of strategic significance nor is it key to American security so the US leading the way on "punishing" Russia is totally needless since Russia can actually be of help to the US over issues like Syria and Iran, where they were key in the breakthrough nuclear agreement regarding the latter.

[RandoBloom]

The US acquired the atomic bomb in 1945. The USSR did the same thing in 1949. NATO had only a couple years of existence by then, and the whole Western arsenal was very reduced to say the least, considering how neither the UK nor France had yet acquired nuclear material.

Attacking the USSR with nuclear bombs before 1949 was completely implausible for the US seeing as they would have been unable to establish any sort of stability in Eurasia (The agreement in Yalta was made prior to the end of the War even). That is of course skipping the technical problems they had during the 40s, when the US barely managed to collect enough Uranium 235 and Plutonium for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs respectively.



People don't like aggresive and hostile neighbours. Sometimes even an economic rivalry is enough. The Brits declared war on their perpetual lapdogs, the Dutch, several times for purely commercial reasons, even though they had no real political or ideological problems.

The fact most European nations no longer have an independent foreign policy, doesn't give them the moral high ground to criticise countries that still do. If anything, it's somehow pitiful.

Nuclear bomb numbers in Russia werent even close to threatening to US and its allies in 1949.
Only 10 years later did that happen.

So people should get invaded just for wanting to be free and not lapdogs?
Two faces everywhere.

[RandoBloom]

Not an aggressor in the traditional sense of invasion, but an aggressor in the sense of needling and provoking through passive-aggressive means (pushing NATO up to Russia's borders in areas that should be neutral, war exercises near Russia territory, economic sanctions etc.).

It would be one thing Eastern European countries on their own decided to build up their defenses, but it's another when the decisions are being made in Brussels, London, and Washington. Ukraine is nether of strategic significance nor is it key to American security so the US leading the way on "punishing" Russia is totally needless since Russia can actually be of help to the US over issues like Syria and Iran, where they were key in the breakthrough nuclear agreement regarding the latter.

Why doesnt Russia do the same? Its not forbidden.
NATO pushed the borders diplomaticaly.
Russia wants to force others into pacts, and when refused they invade.

Yes, because Poland, Belarus, Finland, Moldavia, Romania can form their own defence to stop Russia?

Russia can be of help? Every time there has been a crisis Russia has always took the opposing stance to US. Regarless what is happening.

[Ars Moriendi]

Nuclear bomb numbers in Russia werent even close to threatening to US and its allies in 1949.
Only 10 years later did that happen.

You misread my post completely. I said that the US (sole country with nuclear weapons) till 1949, had neither the interest nor arguably the means to pummel down the USSR completely (Russia didn't exist in this time period) using nuclear weapons in the period 1945-1949.

The CIA reports from 1946 and 1947 argued that the USSR wouldn't be able to develop nuclear till the mid 50s. When Fast Lightning happened in 1949, all the calculations made by the West had to be reassessed. After all, if they had failed in their calculation in more than half of decade to predict the development of Soviet atomic capacities, how could they be sure that a hypothetic nuclear attack against the USSR (again, completely counterproductive during this time) would not result in a reaction against them?

So people should get invaded just for wanting to be free and not lapdogs?
Two faces everywhere.

Foreign policy isn't morally normative. Good intentions are almost non-existant.
What exists is the struggle between blocs and great powers. Georgia and Ukraine were never close to being independent. They were just close to becoming effective staging points for the Anglo-American powerbase to surround Russia. Instead of allowing that to happen, the Kremlin conducted reduced intervention campaigns (even more reduced in Ukraine than in Georgia) to prevent that inconvenient change from happening.

[Empecinado]

People simply don't like having "defensive" systems pointed at them. It's fairly easy to see the US has been trying to cockblock Russia every step of the way since WW2 as to where the European peninsula is concerned.
Shit, I myself don't feel safe at all being surrounded by American "defences" planted among our neighbours. Especially since they have the ability to use atomic weapons locally stocked at their own discretion if the US gives its say-so.

I feel threatened by American bases because they would be inmediately nuked in case of a big scale war and feel occupied because no foreign army should be in my land. Even they have nukes in our territory.

[Bloodnigger]

I feel threatened by American bases because they would be inmediately nuked in case of a big scale war and feel occupied because no foreign army should be in my land. Even they have nukes in our territory.

This. American bases in eastern europe are a trojan horse just waiting to happen.

Considering the state america is today, another war, no matter how small the scale, could just be the thing that tips them over the balance.

EDIT: Though I bet if you asked Jim Crow and Melonhead they'd be voting for war if only to take advantage of the chaos and throw all the blacks out of the border, lol.

[Empecinado]

This. American bases in eastern europe are a trojan horse just waiting to happen.

Considering the state america is today, another war, no matter how small the scale, could just be the thing that tips them over the balance.

Especially given the precedents. It would be not the first time they take part or instigate a war to solve their economic problems.

[Ars Moriendi]

Fars released something yesterday that is quite relevant to contrast with Meyssan's essay regarding NATO's build-up:

Iran-Russia-China Axis to Fight Western Sanctions
Iran Starts New Cooperation Plans with Russians, Chinese to Fight Back Sanctions

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext...13930617001468


TEHRAN (FNA)- Iranian Deputy Oil Minister for Planning Mansour Moazzemi announced that the country has started a new set of cooperation with Russia and China to confront the sanctions imposed by the western states.

"We have started a serious job with the Chinese and Russians (in the energy sector) in such a strong way that the oil minister has now been appointed as the head of Iran-Russia joint economic commission instead of the foreign minister and we have started a good job to make use of the common capacities and capabilities," Moazzemi said in a press conference at the venue of the oil ministry on Monday.

"Russia is Iran's strategic partner and we will cooperate with them in any area we can, including oil," he added.

"We have also started a serious job with the Chinese which will be revealed to the public in the future," Moazzemi said.

He underlined that Iran's cooperation with Moscow and Beijing is aimed at confronting the western sanctions against Iran, and said, "It is natural for Iran to be willing to bypass the sanctions, and don't want to be stopped behind the dam of the sanctions and make use of every method to break it."

Iran and Russia are expected to sign an agreement to strengthen economic cooperation, another deputy oil minister said today.

Ali Majedi said the agreement is to be signed by Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh and Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak on Tuesday.

A Russian delegation is in Tehran to attend the 11th meeting of Iran-Russia Trade Council.

Majedi said the council is to discuss energy, transportation, banking, industry and mining, agriculture and insurance fields on Monday.

Zanganeh said recently that Tehran-Moscow economic cooperation faced no restrictions.

“There are no restrictions for Iran in cooperating with Russia in different economic sectors,” he said.

Also, Iran is currently China's third largest supplier of crude, providing Beijing with roughly 12 percent of its total annual oil consumption.

A senior energy official announced in August that Iran was cooperating with renowned Chinese and German energy firms in its shale gas and oil projects.

"We are negotiating with Germany to use their advanced technology for the hi-tech section of Lorestan shale projects," Hormuz Qalavand, the exploration director of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), told FNA.

Qalavand noted that Iran was also cooperating with a Chinese company on the hi-tech parts of its gas hydrate project in the Sea of Oman.

Iran has vast shale oil and gas reserves in the West and the South. While some market analysts believe that shale oil and gas reserves might endanger market prices for conventional oil and gas, Iran's oil minister said he does not see the situation this way.

In January, Zanganeh said he did not perceive shale or tight oil as a threat to OPEC.

Oil shale, also known as kerogen shale, is an organic-rich fine-grained sedimentary rock containing kerogen (a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds) from which liquid hydrocarbons called shale oil (not to be confused with tight oil—crude oil occurring naturally in shales) can be produced.

Shale oil is a substitute for conventional crude oil; however, extracting shale oil from oil shale is more costly than the production of conventional crude oil both financially and in terms of its environmental impact.

Deposits of oil shale occur around the world, including major deposits in the United States. Estimates of global deposits range from 4.8 to 5 trillion barrels of oil in place.

[Tacitus]

Why doesnt Russia do the same? Its not forbidden.
NATO pushed the borders diplomaticaly.
Russia wants to force others into pacts, and when refused they invade.

Yes, because Poland, Belarus, Finland, Moldavia, Romania can form their own defence to stop Russia?

Russia can be of help? Every time there has been a crisis Russia has always took the opposing stance to US. Regarless what is happening.

NATO may have expanded through diplomatic means, but the devil's in the details: if the Cold War is over, why continue to push east? Why press Georgia into joining, why plant missile pads in Poland close to the Russian border? Not calling Russia an angel, but it isn't like NATO isn't being provocative either.

Lavrov helped push the deal over Assad handing over and destroying his chemical weapons cache, and Russian diplomacy had an impact on Iran and the West coming to terms over the nuclear deal last year. So, yes, Russia can be a diplomatic partner for the US in certain cases.

[RandoBloom]

You misread my post completely. I said that the US (sole country with nuclear weapons) till 1949, had neither the interest nor arguably the means to pummel down the USSR completely (Russia didn't exist in this time period) using nuclear weapons in the period 1945-1949.

The CIA reports from 1946 and 1947 argued that the USSR wouldn't be able to develop nuclear till the mid 50s. When Fast Lightning happened in 1949, all the calculations made by the West had to be reassessed. After all, if they had failed in their calculation in more than half of decade to predict the development of Soviet atomic capacities, how could they be sure that a hypothetic nuclear attack against the USSR (again, completely counterproductive during this time) would not result in a reaction against them?



Foreign policy isn't morally normative. Good intentions are almost non-existant.
What exists is the struggle between blocs and great powers. Georgia and Ukraine were never close to being independent. They were just close to becoming effective staging points for the Anglo-American powerbase to surround Russia. Instead of allowing that to happen, the Kremlin conducted reduced intervention campaigns (even more reduced in Ukraine than in Georgia) to prevent that inconvenient change from happening.

It had more than enough means to pummel Russians in any way they wanted.
They outproduced soviets greatly.
They had nuclear weapons, thus all they needed to do is win air battles.
Which looking at Soviet airfoce would have been easy.
Why would they care? You said they are an agressive aliance whose only goal is to attack Russia and in no means defend from it.
Any such agressive nation would use the advantages.

And that inconvenient change will happen. The countries not aligned to nato are afraid of Russia and will do anything they can to join NATO.
And looking at Russian actions NATO will allow them that.

Ukraine has no interest in doing anything together with Russia after all that bad blood, and ocupation of Crimea.

NATO may have expanded through diplomatic means, but the devil's in the details: if the Cold War is over, why continue to push east? Why press Georgia into joining, why plant missile pads in Poland close to the Russian border? Not calling Russia an angel, but it isn't like NATO isn't being provocative either.

Lavrov helped push the deal over Assad handing over and destroying his chemical weapons cache, and Russian diplomacy had an impact on Iran and the West coming to terms over the nuclear deal last year. So, yes, Russia can be a diplomatic partner for the US in certain cases.

Who pressed Georgia into joining? If that was their goal they could have signed the deal in a day at the most.

And Russia also escalated Syrian war with its veto's, which led to rise of ISIS in the area, and hundreds of thousands of dead people.