The future of Russia and NATO

[KarlXII]

To keep the South Ossetian thread about South Ossetia, I decided to make this thread to discuss the future of Russia, if Russia will get bolder, and how NATO and the world as a whole deal with that.

So, discuss, what does the future hold if Russia pursues an aggresive path? How will NATO deal with it?

[Lord Winter]

I'm not sure a ton will/can be done about Russia unless if it lauches a full blown invasion of a major NATO country. Economic sanctions besides being weak in normal circumstances can just be overturn if they decide to cut the gas lines. Any millatary option would also mean no more gas for europe. So unless if europe finds a new suplier or moves on from gas and oil there's really nothing that will be done.

[Jolt]

To be honest, I think Russia is a giant with clay feet. As I already had said in the Ossetian Thread, Russia is impossible to maintain united, given it's gigantic size. Providing war comes, if Russia suffers some setbacks/defeats in the European Front and in the Pacific front (If they make an offensive and that offensive is turned back by NATO), then the most probable outcome would be a military coup, with each side blaming the other for the failure in the war. That would be followed by a polarization of Russian Forces and consequent Civil War. Amongst the chaos, several small nationalistic rebellions would certainly spring up. (The Caucasus would certainly light up in rebellion again), NATO would then start to pick sides (Thus actually allying with the Russians, or a part of them) and eliminate the divided Russian force. No missiles, no nukes. That is what I think it would happen, in general terms.

[Lord Winter]

I think a lot of people underestimate Russia, its to big to stay out of power and WWII for one has shown that its possible to administrate through major defeats.

[Sarmatian]

To be honest, I think Russia is a giant with clay feet. As I already had said in the Ossetian Thread, Russia is impossible to maintain united, given it's gigantic size. Providing war comes, if Russia suffers some setbacks/defeats in the European Front and in the Pacific front (If they make an offensive and that offensive is turned back by NATO), then the most probable outcome would be a military coup, with each side blaming the other for the failure in the war. That would be followed by a polarization of Russian Forces and consequent Civil War. Amongst the chaos, several small nationalistic rebellions would certainly spring up. (The Caucasus would certainly light up in rebellion again), NATO would then start to pick sides (Thus actually allying with the Russians, or a part of them) and eliminate the divided Russian force. No missiles, no nukes. That is what I think it would happen, in general terms.

Just wondering, did you give some thought to this or did a light bulb suddenly appear over your head?

On what facts are you basing this? Do you know that Russian military leadership is divided in several factions? Some generals that are ready to support a coup or a foreign intervention? Are Russians strongly divided as a nation? Who is going to rise in rebellion in Caucasus? Ossetians? Georgia is a separate country, in order to qualify for a rebellion it needs to be a part of Russia.

Antagonism between communists and non-communists was much greater in pre-ww2 Soviet Union than anything you can imagine in modern day Russia and the country still didn't fall apart after several defeats that would probably knock out any other country in the world out of the war. This really has no basis in reality...

[JR-]

To be honest, I think Russia is a giant with clay feet. As I already had said in the Ossetian Thread, Russia is impossible to maintain united, given it's gigantic size. Providing war comes, if Russia suffers some setbacks/defeats in the European Front and in the Pacific front (If they make an offensive and that offensive is turned back by NATO), then the most probable outcome would be a military coup, with each side blaming the other for the failure in the war. That would be followed by a polarization of Russian Forces and consequent Civil War. Amongst the chaos, several small nationalistic rebellions would certainly spring up. (The Caucasus would certainly light up in rebellion again), NATO would then start to pick sides (Thus actually allying with the Russians, or a part of them) and eliminate the divided Russian force. No missiles, no nukes. That is what I think it would happen, in general terms.

interesting article that may add some colour to your deliberations:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html

[JR-]

i think NATO needs a two stage mechanism, the first of which remains collective defence, the second is a security guarantee for infrastructure/geography/shipping-lanes/etc considered vital by NATO and concluded with the nation playing host to that vital thing.

NATO itself is fine, but it needs to be more in this globalised world.

[Adrian II]

interesting article that may add some colour to your deliberations:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html

Nice article. Apart from the hyperbole, it states the classic case for Russian encirclement paranoia.

Russia is fighting for its survival, against a catastrophic decline in population and the likelihood of a Muslim majority by mid-century. The Russian Federation's scarcest resource is people. It cannot ignore the 22 million Russians stranded outside its borders after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, nor, for that matter, small but loyal ethnicities such as the Ossetians. Strategic encirclement, in Russian eyes, prefigures the ethnic disintegration of Russia, which was a political and cultural entity, not an ethnic state, from its first origins.

The obvious answer to this is that ever since the nineteenth century Russia has treated these minorities so badly that it shouldn't be surprised at recent developments. But since Russia does not have a free press there isn't even the start of a national debate about this issue. And because there is no debate, the obvious remedy, i.e. treat your underlings better, is easily smothered in jingoism. The longer we allow this jingoism to flourish, the deeper the rot will go and the worse the final ethnic explosion of Russia will be. I still feel that we should have slapped Putin upside the head in Georgia last week.

As for the oil and gas, I have tried to make some sense of that issue this week. That doesn't make me an expert by a long stretch, but one thing I have discovered is that Russia depends on the income from its oil and gas sales just as much a Europe depends on the delivery of same. Russia simply can't afford to lose the cash and international reserves from its oil and gas sales. I really wonder who would be hit hardest by an embargo.

[Tribesman]

I really wonder who would be hit hardest by an embargo.

The question there is who can last longest , Western Europe without the fuel or Russia without the money ?
My bet would be on Russia , Putin can sell his people all the economic problems on "western imperialism" attempting to bring mother russia to its knees and get a good old political nationalist solidarity boost out of it , Europe will have population moaning about shortages and prices then calling for a change of government because the politicians have put them into hardship .

[rory_20_uk]

We're not the only market. China would happily buy enough fuel to keep Russia buoyant.
Although this would be unpleasant medicine for Europe, better to go cold turkey and make a clean break than go on being a user.

[Adrian II]

We're not the only market. China would happily buy enough fuel to keep Russia buoyant.

Snag. The Russians would have to build that itty-bitty length of pipeline first, which take anything from 5 to 10 years.

But the plans are ready to lay pipelines to the Pacific to reach both China and equally oil-strapped Japan.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We should be discussing when Russia should be engaged in talks about joining NATO. This issue with Georgia and Ukraine should allow us to understand the nature of those national insecurities. The come from a fear of Russia. They are afraid of Russia because Russia is afraid of the west. What better way to silence that fear than pull them into NATO?

Sounds crazy at first, but Gorbachev suggested it, then Yeltsin, then Putin. They would no longer need western satellites, because they would have the west. They would be less likely to oppose Georgian integration and Ukranian admission because Russia would be next on the list.

NATO has been a tremendous source of peace in Europe and has provided an ability for governments to focus on what works economically rather than relying on strongmen. This ability to put national defence on the second burner would lead to a new focus on democratic dialogue all around the federation. This would also allow a strong NATO presence bordering China in Siberia - dettering the inevitbale land grab. Those resources would be decidedly westernized in advance.

What do you think?

[Adrian II]

We should be discussing when Russia should be engaged in talks about joining NATO.

Nato membership requires:

1. A working democracy
2. Decent treatment of minorities
3. Legal harmonization

Somehow I don't see Russia complying with these in the foreseeable future.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nato membership requires:

1. A working democracy
2. Decent treatment of minorities
3. Legal harmonization

Somehow I don't see Russia complying with these in the foreseeable future.

Lets extend them the possibility and they can decide if it is worth getting their house in order. I isn't impossible for Russia to turn around now. It would also pave he way for Ukraine and Georgia who would be admited the year before Russia's hearing.

[Lord Winter]

Interesting thought, if we could get pastthe demoauging and get Putin to give free and fair elections it may force a democratic government into Russia. After all how will the Russian people veiw Putin's fear mongering if there's no threat.

Puting it into action may be harder then it appears on paper though. Esspiccilly if Putin wants to stay in Power.

[Sarmatian]

We should be discussing when Russia should be engaged in talks about joining NATO. This issue with Georgia and Ukraine should allow us to understand the nature of those national insecurities. The come from a fear of Russia. They are afraid of Russia because Russia is afraid of the west. What better way to silence that fear than pull them into NATO?

Sounds crazy at first, but Gorbachev suggested it, then Yeltsin, then Putin. They would no longer need western satellites, because they would have the west. They would be less likely to oppose Georgian integration and Ukranian admission because Russia would be next on the list.

NATO has been a tremendous source of peace in Europe and has provided an ability for governments to focus on what works economically rather than relying on strongmen. This ability to put national defence on the second burner would lead to a new focus on democratic dialogue all around the federation.

This is a possible long term solution. Although there would to be very serious adjusting to do, both within Russia and within NATO.

This would also allow a strong NATO presence bordering China in Siberia - dettering the inevitbale land grab. Those resources would be decidedly westernized in advance.

That is one of the prime reasons why European have used much milder tone than US for example. Europe will be hit much harder when resource crisis hits (not just oil and gas, everything). Compared to the population and level of industralization, Europe is very scarce in resources and relies on outside sources much more than US...

On the issue of Adrian asking who would be hit harder if Europeans close their market - it would be Europe. Both side would be hit of course, but in case of Russia it would be short term, while in case of Europe it would be long term...

[Jolt]

Just wondering, did you give some thought to this or did a light bulb suddenly appear over your head?

For the first question, I suppose it would be a bit of both. As for facts...Well, one can't give very specific facts since I'm predicting the outcome of a war which isn't even close to beginning.

On what facts are you basing this? Do you know that Russian military leadership is divided in several factions?

From what I know of the Russian leadership, from the Soviet period up to this day is that there were a lot of hardliners, and many cling on to a proud Russian state. (An example would be the "Kursk Submarine Incident" where the military dealing with the crisis apaprently preffered letting their own man die than "appearing" weak and calling the West for help. The same antagonism could very well come into effect in case of early defeats.) As well as having apparent tiques of authoritarism (Phreaps a result of the importance of the military in the recent history of Russia's regimes.), which could lead to meddling in political affairs in case the war doesn't go so well.

Some generals that are ready to support a coup or a foreign intervention?

And I meant the coup coming in sequence of Russian defeats. And I know that defeats tend to bring about dissent. I'm pretty sure there was no generals ready support coups or foreign intervention in Germany in the beginning of WW2. I'm sure von Stauffenberg wouldn't plot the assassination of Hitler in case Germany was winning the war.

Are Russians strongly divided as a nation? Who is going to rise in rebellion in Caucasus? Ossetians? Georgia is a separate country, in order to qualify for a rebellion it needs to be a part of Russia.

Rebellion in the Caucasus? Heck, the common example is the Chechens. Then we could mention Dagestani's, Ingush's, etc.

Antagonism between communists and non-communists was much greater in pre-ww2 Soviet Union than anything you can imagine in modern day Russia and the country still didn't fall apart after several defeats that would probably knock out any other country in the world out of the war.

The thing that kept the Soviet Union united in WW2 was the repression regime which Stalin had submitted the general population, the military and his own party into (The entire country, really). I don't doubt even for one second that in case Russia was a democracy by the time Hitler invaded, that the country would wholly collapse before the German advance.

This really has no basis in reality...

Exactly. Because there is no war going on in reality. This really is speculation, based on some basic associations, but it is still a valid opinion of what could happen in my eyes.

[Tribesman]

Nato membership requires:

A working democracy
Decent treatment of minorities
Legal harmonization
Somehow I don't see Russia complying with these in the foreseeable future.

Well thats where it ****s up isn't it ,can you aply that to either Georgia or Ukraine ?
Can you bollox .
Seriously Adrian , you have a situation where one region (or two)is calling for independance and for tjhat tobe legally recognised . what is offerd instead is automaqny with guarantees that the automany will be recognisd .
Now the latter would seem acceptable wouldn't it , relavively fair and all that bolox
So now I sk you what is georgias resord on rspcting coperfastened political deals on automony and can you see why other regionsain't gonna take georgias word on bugger allm?

[Sarmatian]

From what I know of the Russian leadership, from the Soviet period up to this day is that there were a lot of hardliners, and many cling on to a proud Russian state. (An example would be the "Kursk Submarine Incident" where the military dealing with the crisis apaprently preffered letting their own man die than "appearing" weak and calling the West for help. The same antagonism could very well come into effect in case of early defeats.) As well as having apparent tiques of authoritarism (Phreaps a result of the importance of the military in the recent history of Russia's regimes.), which could lead to meddling in political affairs in case the war doesn't go so well.

What do you know really of the Russian leadership? Did you know a name of at least one Russian general before this conflict? Just a name, not political views, ideology, stances...

And I meant the coup coming in sequence of Russian defeats. And I know that defeats tend to bring about dissent. I'm pretty sure there was no generals ready support coups or foreign intervention in Germany in the beginning of WW2. I'm sure von Stauffenberg wouldn't plot the assassination of Hitler in case Germany was winning the war.

The thing that kept the Soviet Union united in WW2 was the repression regime which Stalin had submitted the general population, the military and his own party into (The entire country, really). I don't doubt even for one second that in case Russia was a democracy by the time Hitler invaded, that the country would wholly collapse before the German advance.

Wrong. What kept Soviet Union united were Hitler's action, if you're looking at outside sources. If you're looking at the sources within, defense of the country against foreign invader was much more important.

So in WW2, you had USSR where people were infinitely more repressed than in Russia now, that had many more different nationalities and religions than in Russia now, that was heavily divided on ideology and the country still didn't fall apart and you're saying there are great chances that Russia would be completely torn apart after a few consecutive defeats (assuming those defeats were to happen)?

When a nation is invaded and under great hardships, it generally tends to unite more rather than the other way around. Been there, seen that. For 78 days Milosevic was the most popular guy in the country...

Exactly. Because there is no war going on in reality. This really is speculation, based on some basic associations, but it is still a valid opinion of what could happen in my eyes.

No problem, just discussing. You have an opinion about a hypothetical case. Nothing wrong, most discussions here are hypothetical, but my opinion is that your opinion doesn't make any sense and that's why I'm challenging it...

[Jolt]

What do you know really of the Russian leadership? Did you know a name of at least one Russian general before this conflict? Just a name, not political views, ideology, stances...

Bleh, do I really need to know the names? I remember some important General Something Barakov from the Chechen Wars. I don't even know the names of my own country's Generals. What I know about the Russian leadership is based on how the Russian generals are regularly portrayed and act like.

Wrong. What kept Soviet Union united were Hitler's action, if you're looking at outside sources. If you're looking at the sources within, defense of the country against foreign invader was much more important.

I beg to differ greatly from that point of view, for the reasons I already said.

So in WW2, you had USSR where people were infinitely more repressed than in Russia now, that had many more different nationalities and religions than in Russia now, that was heavily divided on ideology and the country still didn't fall apart and you're saying there are great chances that Russia would be completely torn apart after a few consecutive defeats (assuming those defeats were to happen)?

Once again, I have already answered that. Purges were conducted by Stalin everywhere, from the military to his own party. That state of fear and intimidation served as a warning for any real traitor wannabe. The entire leadership was forcibly united under Stalin. Now those things do not exist in modern Russia (To my knowledge.), therefore in my opinion it would be quite possible for a coup to happen in Russia in case the war might turn sour fast.

When a nation is invaded and under great hardships, it generally tends to unite more rather than the other way around. Been there, seen that. For 78 days Milosevic was the most popular guy in the country...

As I also said, Russia is a gigantic nation. That blessing (Given that the country stays united) could very well turn into a malus given the great geographical length the army would have to cross to put down revolts and such should the country shatter.

[Adrian II]

Well thats where it ****s up isn't it ,can you aply that to either Georgia or Ukraine ?

No. I don't think Georgia should accede anyway under Saakashvili and/or any of his cronies. They are totally discredited and their country is in tatters.

Ukraine would have to settle its differences with Russia and its internal ethnic issues first.

The real problem for both countries however is that Russia will not let them settle their internal issues or any border problems because Russia doesnt want them to become Nato members.

That's a catch-21 situation. A country wants to be member of Nato in order to prevent Russian meddling in its affairs, but it can't because of Russian meddling in its affairs.

Meanwhile I think Nato should camp troops in Georgia in its own (Nato's) interest, primarily to prevent further Russian military encroachments. In the end this is about energy and power politics, and I like to win.

[JR-]

No. I don't think Georgia should accede anyway under Saakashvili and/or any of his cronies. They are totally discredited and their country is in tatters.

Ukraine would have to settle its differences with Russia and its internal ethnic issues first.

The real problem for both countries however is that Russia will not let them settle their internal issues or any border problems because Russia doesnt want them to become Nato members.

That's a catch-21 situation. A country wants to be member of Nato in order to prevent Russian meddling in its affairs, but it can't because of Russian meddling in its affairs.

Meanwhile I think Nato should camp troops in Georgia in its own (Nato's) interest, primarily to prevent further Russian military encroachments. In the end this is about energy and power politics, and I like to win.

agreed.

[Strike For The South]

No. I don't think Georgia should accede anyway under Saakashvili and/or any of his cronies. They are totally discredited and their country is in tatters.

Ukraine would have to settle its differences with Russia and its internal ethnic issues first.

The real problem for both countries however is that Russia will not let them settle their internal issues or any border problems because Russia doesnt want them to become Nato members.

That's a catch-21 situation. A country wants to be member of Nato in order to prevent Russian meddling in its affairs, but it can't because of Russian meddling in its affairs.

Meanwhile I think Nato should camp troops in Georgia in its own (Nato's) interest, primarily to prevent further Russian military encroachments. In the end this is about energy and power politics, and I like to win.

its catch 22

[Marshal Murat]

I don't know, it seems a chicken vs. egg problem to me.

[KarlXII]

I, for one, think a worldwide vodka embargo should be enacted. That'll teach them.

[Sarmatian]

Actually most of the vodkas you drink in the US are made in the US, especially cheap ones. Usually only expensive Vodka is Russian or European (Polish, Dutch, French, Finnish, Swedish)

[Abokasee]

Well thats where it ****s up isn't it ,can you aply that to either Georgia or Ukraine ?
Can you bollox .
Seriously Adrian , you have a situation where one region (or two)is calling for independance and for tjhat tobe legally recognised . what is offerd instead is automaqny with guarantees that the automany will be recognisd .
Now the latter would seem acceptable wouldn't it , relavively fair and all that bolox
So now I sk you what is georgias resord on rspcting coperfastened political deals on automony and can you see why other regionsain't gonna take georgias word on bugger allm?

Awww the charm of the irish drunk!

[Adrian II]

its catch 22

That one is taken, so I called mine Catch-21.