Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: NATO's Steady Advance: A View From Russia

  1. #1
    Senior Member tuddorsped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, January 28th, 2006 @ 10:32 PM
    Location
    South London
    Gender
    Occupation
    Taxidermist
    Posts
    294
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    NATO's Steady Advance: A View From Russia

    Some interesting points if somewhat alarmist.

    http://oag.ru/reports/advance.html

  2. #2
    Member werwolf1488's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 23rd, 2005 @ 01:17 AM
    Location
    Illinois/Switzerland
    Age
    33
    Occupation
    Student
    Posts
    21
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Really interesting point of view, but it seems to me, that the justification of a Russian invasion would be really difficult, it hasn't worked with Irak, so why should it work with Russia. And if an invasion would take place, we probably have a nuclear war, because the weaker nation (Russia) would not hesitate to use what ever it takes to defend itself.
    But all in all, very interesting.
    "Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt" by Oberst Hans-Ulrich Rudel

  3. #3
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Basically, anyone who seriously advocates a military invasion of Russia is insane.

    That was the fatal mistake that ended the Swedish empire, it ended Napoleon's reign and it finished Hitler.

    Russia today is militarily weaker than in a very long time, but still the NATO cannot possibly be so stupid as to seriously consider this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Aptrgangr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 09:07 AM
    Ethnicity
    -
    Ancestry
    Alemanni-Suebi/Irish
    Subrace
    Dalophælid-Nordid
    State
    Hessen-Darmstadt Hessen-Darmstadt
    Location
    Starkenburg
    Gender
    Family
    Hagestolz
    Politics
    reactionary ancap
    Posts
    991
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    98
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    159
    Thanked in
    70 Posts
    It´s a fact Russia is surrounded by NATO troops. But these troops aren´t there to invade Russia. Russians always were a little bit paranoid (and they have good reasons to continue to be so in future...). NATO forces are
    deployed in countries having belonged to the Soviet Union to watch, and
    sometimes fight a little bit muslim insurgents (in fact soldiers want to give them hell, but they aren´t allowed to to so by politicans...) and to
    watch China, the red dragon, an enemy that makes Russians frightened as well...

  5. #5
    Senior Member tuddorsped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, January 28th, 2006 @ 10:32 PM
    Location
    South London
    Gender
    Occupation
    Taxidermist
    Posts
    294
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    The problem is that there ARE dangerous lunatics, or wily geopolitical strategists, depending on your point of view, who would be quite happy to see Russia fragmented and destroyed as a Eurasian power. These men, such as Brzezinski have powerful friends in the US establishment and amongst the PNAC crowd.

    There is no doubt in mind that the British and Americans have been stirring up trouble in the southern border regions by facilitating the spread of Saudi-funded Wahhabi muslim extremism. And to a ceratin extent, this was merely just a continuation of their policy in Afghanistan in the 80s. Indeed, they have also sponsored and encouraged the same destabilising influences in Southern Europe. One can argue that the modern global Mujahideen movement owes its very existence to Anglo-American interests.

    Interestingly enough. I had some excerpts from Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives in which he claimed that it was in America's economic and military interests to weaken the social and political cohesion of Europe through the encouragement of massive immigration from Africa and the Middle East. I will see if I can try and dig those quotes out.

  6. #6
    Senior Member tuddorsped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, January 28th, 2006 @ 10:32 PM
    Location
    South London
    Gender
    Occupation
    Taxidermist
    Posts
    294
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Just found this article. A quick summary of Brzezinski's influence.

    http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article38.html

  7. #7
    Senior Member RoyBatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017 @ 08:34 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Paleface
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Occupation
    Arbeit Macht Frei
    Politics
    Rightwing / Socialist
    Posts
    2,415
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    12
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by werwolf1488
    Really interesting point of view, but it seems to me, that the justification of a Russian invasion would be really difficult, it hasn't worked with Irak, so why should it work with Russia. And if an invasion would take place, we probably have a nuclear war, because the weaker nation (Russia) would not hesitate to use what ever it takes to defend itself.
    But all in all, very interesting.
    The long term strategy would likely be more subtle than an actual invasion which as you point out would be suicidal. By controlling surrounding countries and routes it becomes easier to facilitate heroine smuggling into Russia, insert more Wahabist fanatics and stir up trouble amongst the various ethnic communities.

    One can argue that this has already been achieved to some extent, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Russia would be the next logical target.

    NATO aren't conducting a military buildup around Russia to

    (a) fight the war on terror.
    (b) prevent Russian aggression against its neighbours.

    One can only suspect that the motivations are driven by the ancient desire to acquire resources, power and land. Some of the same interest groups who complained the loudest about the arrest of the bandit Yukos oligarch Khodorkovsky (who was on the verge of selling an asset of vital national interest to ExxonMobil) are the ones agitating for more and more NATO influence in the area.

    See this site for a list of the greatest US based supporters of Chechen terrorism in the oil rich Caucasus. It includes many big names from Washington and an ex CIA director.

    http://www.peaceinchechnya.org/about_members.htm

Similar Threads

  1. UK Troops Deployed in Estonia to Defend NATO from Russia
    By Wulfaz in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, March 18th, 2017, 10:52 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 1st, 2017, 11:27 AM
  3. Russia Risks War with NATO Over Arctic Oil and Gas
    By Roderic in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, May 18th, 2011, 09:12 PM
  4. Russia Threatens NATO With Nukes
    By Caledonian in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Thursday, January 27th, 2011, 05:40 AM
  5. Germany's Position in Russia vs NATO
    By SwordOfTheVistula in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 09:37 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •