InvestorsHub Logo

fuagf

06/23/14 2:43 PM

#224218 RE: oldberkeley #224216

The cost of surrounding Russia militarily is that Russia feels surrounded militarily. Allowing NATO to die after it achieved its mission after the Cold War would have left Moscow with a freer hand in Eastern Europe -- and some current NATO member states would have faced negative consequences. Their relations with Russia would have reflected relative power and geography, and they would have had to defer to Russian prerogatives more than at present.

At the same time, other states, such as Ukraine, have arguably been worse off as a result of NATO's persistence. Its internal politics have been more consequential to Moscow because not only of its economic orientation, but also because of the threat that it may someday become a NATO member. The downside of drawing lines across Europe, as NATO has, is that lines have two sides. And being on the non-NATO side of the line makes one a particularly appetizing target for predation, incentivizing the Kremlin to act before it's too late. The choice facing, say, the Baltic states becomes even starker.

NATO expansion has validated the narratives of Russian nationalists and made Russian liberals look like suckers, a nuance that is lost on many in the West.

"Absent NATO, Europe couldn't defend itself."

With NATO, it won't.

more .. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/06/20/think_again_nato

.. the Bush invasion of Iraq birthed ISIS .. meanwhile more Russian tanks roll into Eastern Ukraine .. on the face of it, at least
in foreign affairs, world leaders are failing us spectacularly .. the whole mess feels, understating it, outstandingly ridiculous ..