Kkremyenuk should not blame “all recent American Presidents” for Russia’s refusal to undertake membership conditions that apply to all other WTO members, and to expect special treatment for itself. America promised to help Russia achieve WTO membership, not bend the rules on Russia’s behalf.

Kremyenuk has it exactly the wrong way around when he infers that the existence of non-NATO and NATO countries (ie, essentially Russia on the one hand and everyone else on the other) is a cause of the division of Europe. It is not the cause, but a symptom of a fundamental division that is both underlying and pre-existing. Russian history is characterised by an internal debate has continued for as long as Russia has been, namely, does or does not Russia belong in Europe? In its values, philosophies, politics and actions, Russia has and continues to position itself not only apart from Europe, but confrontationally and damagingly apart from Europe. NATO is a reaction to these Russian characteristics; it is not a cause of them. It is Russia’s habitual behaviour that creates the unnecessary tensions that Kremyenuk laments, and that shapes Europe’s attitude towards it. For example, if post-Soviet Russia had acknowledged the fact of the Soviet occupation of the Baltics instead of continuing to broadcast Stalin’s ridiculous nonsense of their legal and willing incorporation into the SU, if it had respected their post-Soviet sovereignty instead of refusing to deploy Russian troops out of the Baltics for years until US pressure forced its hand, if it had respected the Baltics’ territorial integrity instead of repeatedly violating it with military aircraft, if it had joined with the Baltics in helping to positively solve the problem of illegal Soviet colonists who became stranded there after the fall of the SU, if it had ceased its persistent hostile criticism of the Baltics both internally and in international forums, if it had fulfilled its own post-Soviet commitments to the Baltics and if it had refrained from applying non-declared trade war against them, Baltic countries would have had no motivation to join NATO. Kremyenyuk has Moscow, and no one else, to thank for NATO’s advance to Russia’s border.

Since the end of the USSR, almost 20 years ago, it has been repeated that NATO is a past matter. Anyway, NATO has continued its expansion, and the most immediate consequence is that a dozen countries that previously bought Russian or Russian-compatiple weapons, now buy American or American-compatiple weapons... If Ukraine and Georgia become NATO members, NATO would continue being called a "past matter"....but in the news of today. It is true that becoming part of NATO could exclude Russia from a great part of its markets, as Russia is considered an "alternative provider" by many countries which are vetoes in NATO territory. For example, the European Union cannot sell weapons to China as a consequence of an embargo imposed upon China after Tianamenn. So that market is covered by Russia. Venezuela is also excluded by the U.S. for all its allies. When Spain tried to sell Venezuela $2 bn in war ships., the U.S. forbade selling American technology in those ships...

1) NATO is not a transparent and democratic system, in spite pf propaganda of the contrary; aside being clearly hegemonized by the US, it is very likely to fail approval in many western countries if transparent referendums about membership were held. 2) NATO is much more realisticlly an instruent of US command and control on Europe than a defense against Russia or "Terror", and much more a tool to prevent the emergence of autonomous western europe military structures than anything else. 3) France, Germany and many western countries have friendly and necessary (eg, energetic) relationships with Russia; the desperate need for "American defense" is propaganda that doesn't convince anyone there; it is common perception that the US causes many more wars (Afghanistan, Iraq etc) and abuses (extraordinary renditions and see Wikileaks). 4) The most fervent NATO members are the ex-Soviet bloc republics, still terrorized by imaginary foregin invasions. The real divide is paranoid Eastern governments vs relaxed Western governments. 5) Georgia and Ukraine are by far too unstable and out of the alleged rule of law standards purported by Nato to be admitted without undermining the already arguable NATO credibility.

Marzipan6, do think that Kkremyenuk is being diplomatic for he skirted addressing three main problems for Russia and the world: First, the Missile Shield in Europe are directed against Russia, not some maginary terrorists with power to launch nuclear warheads 5000KM away. Second, he failed to name the most aggressive and radical state in the ME today is nuclear Israel and as long as nuclear Israel exists in the ME—threatening Iran with nuclear attack—as the author himself pointed out Israel can attack Iran with nuclear weapons—Iran has the legal and moral right to pursue its own nukes—the fact one nation can threaten another nation with nuclear attack and that the present world powers do not wish to disarm the nation that both possess nuclear weapons and is threatening to use nuclear weapons but instead want to disarm a nation that does not have nuclear weapons is clear example of the current chaos of the global order—Russia has failed to restore global order because Russian elite do not wish to confront U.E empire. Second, North Korea will never disarm as long as the US remains the sole hyper power. In Korean war, the U.S wanted to drop nuclear weapons on China and North Korea and it was the position of nuclear weapons by then USSR that prevented the empire of chaos from resorting nuclear weapon on first strike basis. The United States has already brought Russian into the fold—now the aim is to isolate China.. the war on Iran is a war in China by other means—Russia has lost the initiative and has accepted to play "the reset" game with the empire of chaos.. yenuk,

Also, Russia's political and security elite have failed to ask the following questions. First, why socalled terrorists may want to target Bulgaria, Poland , Romania and other eastern European countries? Second, where will these invisible and ingenuous terrorists are going to find technical facilities and the launch sites to launch long range nuclear warheads? We do know from media reports that Vladimir Putin has asked these questions in the past but now he is silent—as he is not the President of Russia. Has he changed his previous views on the creeping of U.S Missile Shields ever closer to Russia? Second point—which I have already stated- is the there will be no peace in the ME as long as one nation possess nuclear weapons—and continue to threaten its neighbors with nuclear attacks.. We know why Stalin was eager that the USSR obtains nuclear weapons- it was because as soon as the U.S obtained nuclear weapons—it used it immediately and more than once has threatened to use nuclear weapons against U.SSR—that changed as soon as USSR got its own nukes--

Here is the math: In the U.S., Portland, Oregon, there is only ONE FEDERAL JUDGE with a smart synapse in his brain cell gray matter. Now this is not good odds for a country that can nuke and set-up the WORLD PRESIDENT ("Obama") to take a fall that is not unlike his icon, Lincoln. JUDGE GARR M. KING, remember his name because he is a Thomas Jefferson in modern times. How to protect him from the Clintons, et al? SHINE A LIGHT ON HIM, RT, the New York Times did. He deserves to be the ARMY WITH A POWER OF ONLY ONE, and that means NATO has been momentarily detained in its MERS free lunches infinitely via the iron law destroyed in America for globalism.

Biloxi, “Synapse” – junction between two nerve cells consisting of minute gap… “MERS” – small town or “MERSE” – number of the form 2n – 1, where n is a prime number (divisible only by itself as 2, 3, 5, 7 etc) Kindly explain, thx Rikard

PR101, your reasoning doesn’t seem logical. First, you describe the European missile shield as “a problem for Russia and the world.” A shield, whether classical or figurative, may be used in the context of aggression by defending an aggressor against counter-attack. But of itself, it is not an aggressive weapon. If Russia has no hostile intent against others, then others’ shields remain without use. As far as Europe and the West generally are concerned, Russia is of much greater utility to it as a successful, confident, democratic and prosperous partner than as an enemy. It is not in the West’s interest to attack Russia, and therefore it would be pointless for it to set up shields to protect against reaction to some hypothetical aggression of its own against Russia. Secondly, you write of Israel threatening Iran with nuclear attack. Your comments are very selective, and overlook that it is Iraq’s zany leader who has not just once or twice, but repeatedly and consistently called for Israel’s extinction from the map of nations, to say nothing of denying the Holocaust. The experience of insane attacks against Jewish people, both before and since the creation of the State of Israel, has been so traumatic and out of all proportion to anything resembling civilized norms, that Israel is understandably and justifiably sensitive to raves of characters like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Given the huge disparity of population, territory and resources between Israel and Iran, and given the historical reality of what Jewish people have experienced, it would be irresponsible for them not to rely on nuclear defence against such threats. Thirdly, you suggest a spurious reason for Russia “failing to restore global order.” Russia cannot restore order anywhere else unless and until it first restores order at home, based on the rule of law and on truth before history. Until it achieves this, Russian power cannot be trusted or taken seriously at home or abroad.

NATO's expansion may not be so much politically motivated as it is bureaucratic: Like other public sector organisations, NATO's budget and importance is largely set by its size and therefore, the number of member states. The Georgian assault on South Ossetia helped remind several NATO members that signing treaties was not just a political exercise but could get their countries sucked into regional disputes in support of questionable aims. There is some degree of acceptance amongst NATO members that America is the only NATO member who can spend huge sums on defence and that this makes their presence necessary. However, whilst the newer NATO members tend to be quite pro-American, the situation for other members tends to vary with the attitude of the government of the day. The French in particular are very wary of US involvement in Europe and together with the Germans, often promote the idea of converting NATO to be an EU organisation in which the USA and other non-EU states would not participate. The major sticking point for this idea is that, whilst Turkey is a member of NATO, they are unlikely to join the EU for the foreseeable future and that some EU members are neutral, with no military affiliations. Putin has the right idea though: Russian military hardware built to NATO standards might be a popular option for NATO members looking to constrain their defence spending.

In my previous post's second paragraph, I mention "Iraq". That was a typo, and I obviously meant "Iran".