Saturday - August 16, 2008

Nato is pushing Russia into a new Cold War.  (this is NOT pro American, be warned.)

This is another of those damned RCOB articles that make me boil. Yes, I’m PO’d but blogging it anyway.
I don’t agree and don’t like what he says about my country. So why give this guy space on an American conserv. blog site?

First, I don’t wanna be like the liberal left and act as I think they do. I am not editing this writer in any way. If I blogged conserv. Littlejohn, maybe I should add this guy as well.
Second, I want folks at home in USA to see this and see proof of what they already know.  Namely, not everyone on this side of the globe is on our side.
I also believe (without any personal proof I confess) that his is the prevailing view.  And yes, that bothers the heck out of me. That said, I can’t say that everything single thing this fellow says is wrong. He has a point or two that might be valid.  As in, “Russia will do as it pleases.” I think he’s correct on that.
I think too he’s right about the UN and protecting jobs and pensions and fringe benefits. 

When he asks, “Whatever made Washington think it could keep pushing Nato right up to Russia’s border without provoking conflict? “
I have to answer with ,,,, that’s a fair question and I really don’t have the answer.  Maybe some of you do.

I greatly am in much favor of his wish that America would become “isolationist.” Oh, if only.  I wonder tho how fast he’d be to ask for guns and aid and request we give up our hoped for isolation, in the face of a major war (which ain’t gonna happen) that might threaten his country and his way of life.
I think we all know the answer to that too.

By ANDREW ALEXANDER
The Daily Mail

As so often, the Americans are proving a menace on the international stage. And the term humbug is wholly inadequate to describe the reproaches that President Bush heaps on the Russians.

As are reckless and irresponsible to describe the use of the U.S. military to carry humanitarian aid to Georgia. That is the way conflicts can escalate.

It is easy to imagine the frenzy in Washington if Russia treated the U.S.’s Latin American neighbours as though they were within its sphere of influence.

One question has been lingering for years.

Whatever made Washington think it could keep pushing Nato right up to Russia’s border without provoking conflict?

Some European governments have long been uneasy about this provocative strategy, but never the United States.

This dangerous recruitment drive started under President Clinton.

Now we have Poland and the Czech Republic agreeing to U.S. missile and radar sites.

Almost beyond belief, Nato is wooing the Ukraine.

Yet, as anyone with an ounce of history knows, fear of encirclement has characterised Russia for centuries - after so many invasions from east, west and south.

This fear has a deep hold on the country’s psyche. This is not just being ignored by the U.S., it is being flouted.

The problem about Nato is that it may be a multi-nation alliance in theory, but Washington has always led it by the nose, being the dominant power, by virtue of size, funds and military technology.

There is also a curious fear that if we upset the Americans they might lose interest in Europe and become isolationist. If only!

Few would have believed that East-West relations should have so declined 20 years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Nato itself has been a principle cause. With the collapse of Communism, the organisation lost its principal purpose.

But anyone familiar with large international organisations knows that no great military and bureaucratic machine is ever easily persuaded to dismantle itself or even shrink.

Jobs, pensions, prestigious appointments, fringe benefits, visa privileges and all the other comforts of officialdom were at stake.

So Nato set about devising a new role - expansion to the east.

This fitted all too well with Washington’s expansionist instincts.

Every quarter of the globe is regarded as the business of the U.S.

Everyone is seen as needing American guidance, to say nothing of lectures on human rights and the rule of law (from the creators of Guantanamo Bay).

The expansionist urge gained impetus from the ‘neo-cons’ in the late 1990s, with their ‘Project for the New American Century’, in which they lamented a lack of forcefulness in Washington’s policies.

Commanding huge sums of money, not least from the defence contractors, they succeeded in getting their pawn into the Oval Office and themselves into key government posts.

The American defence industry has good reason for backing the drive to the east.

The former Soviet satellites could be offered American military technology, naturally on comfortable terms.

The ‘industrial-military complex’, which a disillusioned President Eisenhower warned against nearly half-a-century ago, is alive and well.

Now we are in a position as if the Cold War had never ended.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has announced that the current conflict does not mean that Georgia may not yet become a Nato member.

He seems happy, like Bush, to strengthen the hardliners in the Kremlin.

In the course of its relentless expansion, Nato has acquired dangerous commitments.

The alliance is pledged to come to the aid of any member under threat.

Thus, we assume a responsibility for the policies of an array of former Soviet satellites, many of them traditionally unfriendly to Russia.

The belief that because these countries are now democracies they are bound to behave responsibly is absurdly optimistic.

We cannot be certain that none of the new Nato states - nine of them resentful, former Soviet satellites - may not drag us into conflict with Russia.

The position of Russian passport-holders in the Baltic states, a remnant from the Soviet conquest in World War II, has already been seen as a potential source of trouble.

Baiting the Bear is not only dangerous, it is wholly unnecessary.

Russia will do as it pleases - which may sometimes be disagreeable - when it thinks its own security is at stake.

It is hard to see why President Bush, of all people, should be surprised, let alone shocked.

http://tinyurl.com/6o6vc7

Posted by Drew458     on 08/16/2008 at 11:22 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • UK •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner