# 'NATO-Russia Rapprochement'



## VinceW (22 Nov 2009)

They're restructuring their armed forces to be better at oppressing their neighbours.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/223698/page/1

 Here's to hoping that this reorganization fails. :cheers:


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Nov 2009)




----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2009)

Good luck on that:

The Russians are heading for a population crash, and the financial situation is not very good either. They will have a difficult time maintaining their position in the long run, but will certainly be dangerous until the 2020's.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2010)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

*
'NATO-Russia Rapprochement Still Faces Big Hurdles'
*
11/22/2010
SPIEGEL ONLINE


LINK 

*Leaders have declared the agreement at the NATO summit in Lisbon on closer cooperation between the alliance and Russia to be "historic." But German commentators say it amounts to no more than a declaration of intent that still faces major obstacles both in Russia and the West, arguing that the praise being heaped on it is premature.*

The Cold War was -- for the umpteenth time -- declared finally over after the Lisbon NATO summit on Friday and Saturday. Leaders of the Western military alliance and Russia agreed to cooperate on a missile shield for Europe to intercept long-range missiles that could be fired from the Middle East.


Leaders said the agreement reached between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the 28 NATO leaders, could be the beginning of a long-term strategic and security partnership. 

"The fact that we are talking to Russia about common threats and the chance to cooperate with Russia on missile defense is an extremely important step," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "That could be proof that the Cold War has finally come to an end." 

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Medvedev said the former enemies had made a "historic" new start in relations that had been upset by Russia's military intervention in Georgia in 2008. They agreed to expand their cooperation on global security issues, including Afghanistan.

The summit also agreed on a timetable aimed at handing control of security to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.

German media commentators say the label "historic" is unwarranted because the summit resulted in little more than the expression of good intentions. NATO's rapprochement with Russia now needs to be put into practice with concrete progress on missile defence, nuclear arms reductions and cooperation in other areas, they say. 

There are obstacles both within Russia's power structure and in the West to the rapprochement, editorialists write. Those need to be overcome before the Lisbon summit can truly be hailed as historic, they say. 

*SPIEGEL ONLINE correspondent Ralf Neukirch* writes:

"NATO leaders gathered in Lisbon because the alliance's old concepts aren't sufficient any more for the new threats, such as terrorism, cyber attacks and Iran. What can a military alliance do against suicide bombers? At what point does an attack with a computer virus trigger a mutual defense response by NATO? NATO is an alliance of insecurity, and Lisbon demonstrated that. No issue makes that as clear as Afghanistan. The only thing that's clear is that the NATO members want to get out of this disastrous war as quickly as possible for domestic political reasons. The withdrawal is due to start in 2012 and due to be completed in 2014. That's the message of Lisbon." 

"Such numbers games don't fit in with the political and military situation on the ground. The situation hasn't improved much. It is more than doubtful that the Afghan government will be able to guarantee stability in the future."

"It is similarly unclear what the alliance's relationship with Russia will look like in the future. It is a positive sign that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev traveled to Lisbon to reaffirm his desire to cooperate with the former enemy. But no one knows if the grand gesture will lead to an improved relationship. It is far too early to declare a new era in relations with the former arch-enemy, as some did in Lisbon." 

"Moscow is still dreaming of dividing Europe and the US. The hardliners in the Russian leadership are thinking in terms of the Cold War. They want to safeguard Russia's influence on its immediate neighbors, and they continue to see NATO as a threat. Western diplomats are trying to assess the strength of the conservatives, who include Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. And it is totally unclear whether Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin supports Medvedev's policy."

The center-left *Süddeutsche Zeitung* writes:

"At the start of his presidency, Medvedev demanded a new order for Europe. At the time, people thought Russia wanted to divide Western Europe and drive a wedge into its alliance with the US. A few crises later, the motives and interests have been clarified: Russia, the nations of Central and Western Europe and the US can only benefit if they end their anachronistic rivalry. The world has other problems."

The conservative *Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung* writes:

"NATO and Russia have enough common worries. Both should be able to remember that there is nothing that brings two sides together more than a common enemy."

"For the first time, former enemies want to join forces to shield themselves from a third party. Given the history of this relationship between two former enemies who used to threaten to destroy each other several times over, one can describe that development as 'historic.' But so far this new era only consists of declarations of intent that don't even correspond completely. The conditions that the Russian president is attaching to Russia's participation in the missile shield aren't to everyone's taste in NATO. If they aren't fulfilled, Russia will withdraw not only from this project but from the new era as a whole.

"But the new friendship also faces pitfalls in the West," the newspaper writes, adding that there is a chance that Republicans in the US may refuse to ratify the New Start nuclear arms reduction treaty.

Business daily *Financial Times Deutschland* writes:

"It is all too understandable that NATO is celebrating its rapprochement with Russia as a historic success. After all, the alliance urgently needs a taste of success. Chancellor Angela Merkel even declared after the weekend NATO summit that the Cold War was 'finally over.' But there's not much substance behind the grand words. The rapprochement with Russia is an important first step, nothing more. There are too many question marks hanging over the new partnership that NATO and Russia are now declaring, not just regarding the longevity of Moscow's enthusiasm for it, but also NATO's own position. 

"The biggest drawback is the unstable power base in Moscow. The rapprochement with NATO is being driven by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev who was remarkably open and ready to talk in Lisbon -- the exact opposite of Vladimir Putin's Rambo-like performance at the previous NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008. But it is unclear how strong Medvedev really is, and how strong Russia's internal government opposition to a rapprochement is. A lot depends on that, and on the outcome of the presidential election in 2012. 

"But the second big unknown is the US. President Barack Obama is weakened and can't be sure even of securing the next small step towards rapprochement: the ratification of the New Start disarmament treaty with Russia in the foreseeable future. If that doesn't work out, NATO's new closeness with Russia would suffer a severe setback. 

"Historic progress in foreign policy often consists of small, hard-fought steps. But they are worth the trouble. If the cooperation with Moscow succeeds, it could serve as an example of how blocs that used to be enemies can settle their differences. That would really be historic." 

The left-leaning daily *Die Tageszeitung* writes: 

"The NATO summit in Lisbon is a further episode in the long line of celebrated 'historic events.' Unfortunately, everyday life always seems to catch up with the much-praised reconciliation between Russia and NATO. Whether that is NATO's wars in Yugoslavia or in Iraq, or Russia's invasion of Georgia, Cold War thinking has always returned to the fore. Nevertheless, the intention to analyze the problem of a European missile defense shield together is a success." 

The business daily *Handelsblatt* writes:

"Whether it is the Germans, the Dutch or the French, the allies want to get out of Afghanistan. The withdrawal is now due to start as early as the middle of next year, and from 2012 for Germany. The timetable reveals the intention (behind the plans): The first Bundeswehr soldiers must start coming back before the 2013 German election. By end-2014 at the latest, the Afghans should be responsible for their own security. It is doubtful that the country will then finally come to peace. In the worst case, a failure in Afghanistan will reveal the limits of NATO's capabilities." 

-- David Crossland

==========================================================

Covers the broad spectrum of German political views.


----------



## Haligonian (26 Nov 2010)

I'm skeptical of any rapprochement with Russia. Historically their interests have not aligned with those of the west.  This is not to say that there are not area of agreement, however, in general I think it is very optimistic to believe that Russia will move within the western/US sphere of influence in the future within the near to mid term. Additionally, Russia is a great power and has no interest in being led by another power and desires the return of their satellite countries to their sphere of influence, as seen with the invasion of Georgia.


----------



## GAP (26 Nov 2010)

Russia and China just agreed to trade agreements and used each country's currency as payment, rather than the US dollar, which was the standard.....

The West may be being played a little bit here.....


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2011)

This thread seemed the best place to put this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110228/wl_csm/366331



> *With Russia's $650 billion rearmament plan, the bear sharpens its teeth*
> By Fred Weir Fred Weir Mon Feb 28, 4:22 pm ET
> 
> Moscow – The graying bear is getting a make-over. Russia's military is launching its biggest rearmament effort since Soviet times, including a $650 billion program to procure 1,000 new helicopters, 600 combat planes, 100 warships, and 8 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2011)

Eastern Europe takes steps:

http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/05/a-wonderful-thing-is-happening-in-eastern-europe.html



> *A wonderful thing is happening in Eastern Europe*
> 
> This according to Stratfor:
> 
> ...


----------



## Flanker (6 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Good luck on that:
> 
> The Russians are heading for a population crash, and the financial situation is not very good either



It seems that your need to refresh some numbers.

Public debt, % of GDP:
Russia - 9.5
US - 100

GDP growth, %:	
Russia - 4.9%
US - 1.3%

As for demographics it is also improving drastically.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Aug 2011)

Flanker said:
			
		

> > Quote from: Thucydides on November 24, 2009, 16:24:42
> 
> 
> It seems that your need to refresh some numbers.


Seriously? 

Even after a quick skim of your six pages of 'insightful posts'.....did it really take you 21 MONTHS to cobble together that depth of an "oh...oh _YA_?!" response?  

      :


----------



## Nauticus (7 Aug 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It seems that your need to refresh some numbers.Seriously?
> 
> Even after a quick skim of your six pages of 'insightful posts'.....did it really take you 21 MONTHS to cobble together that depth of an "oh...oh _YA_?!" response?
> 
> :


If the numbers are accurate, then it's a perfectly legitimate response. Everyone hates it when people start new threads anyway, so I really don't understand your problem.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> If the numbers are accurate,



Accurate or not, Flanker responded to something almost 2 years old with "you might want to refresh your numbers...."

Because we all know, international situations never change.........certainly not in 2 years.

So, yeah, an intelligent and timely response.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Aug 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> ..... so I really don't understand your problem.


Further to the comments of CDN Aviator, critiquing a two-year old post with unattributed statistics (you know, that whole "lies, damn lies, and statistics" thing) provides absolutely no value to this site.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Aug 2011)

They seem to be increasing their medal count.  I think we're doomed!



;D


----------



## Flanker (7 Aug 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It seems that your need to refresh some numbers.Seriously?
> 
> Even after a quick skim of your six pages of 'insightful posts'.....did it really take you 21 MONTHS to cobble together that depth of an "oh...oh _YA_?!" response?
> 
> :



As you might notice during your "skimming" that is my first visit since 2009. 
Did you?

If your prefer to start personal attacks that is your choice.
Does it mean that you have no objections to the numbers I posted?
I think it does.


----------



## Flanker (7 Aug 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> They seem to be increasing their medal count.  I think we're doomed!
> ;D



Not very respectful post to the WWII veterans, which were your allies by the way.
I am surprised to see such an attitude at the army forum.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2011)

Do you have anything informative to say, or are you here to just blindly back up Russia?


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Aug 2011)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Not very respectful post to the WWII veterans, which were your allies by the way.
> I am surprised to see such an attitude at the army forum.


I am more than aware of the fact that the USSR defeated the Germans in that war, and I'm also aware of the fact that the USSR was an ally of convenience, and that from 1939 to 1941 they were allies, of sorts, with the Germans.  And I also remember that the focus of NATO was originally to prevent that same USSR from "liberating" western Europe from the USA.  

I also remember that I have a sense of humour.  Perhaps you could try not to take things so seriously?


----------



## Flanker (7 Aug 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do you have anything informative to say, or are you here to just blindly back up Russia?


Sir,
My informative post about economics numbers is just above.
In response I received some irrelevant comments and personal attacks
I hope you will ask their authors the same question.


----------



## Flanker (7 Aug 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I am more than aware of the fact that the USSR defeated the Germans in that war, and I'm also aware of the fact that the USSR was an ally of convenience, and that from 1939 to 1941 they were allies, of sorts, with the Germans.



Will you remember other facts like Munich of 1938 or GM being very supportive of Hitler's war machine.
Anyways, there are jokes that can be very ambiguous.
Hope you understand it.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Aug 2011)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Does it mean that you have no objections to the numbers I posted?


 Had you spent a moment to ponder the words posted, you would have noticed the objection; it was even underlined. 
Since that was apparently lost on you, I'll repeat it again for your benefit:
Critiquing a two-year old post with unattributed statistics provides absolutely no value to this site



			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> Not very respectful post to the WWII veterans, which were your allies by the way.
> I am surprised to see such an attitude at the army forum.


Feel free to Google "sanctimonious" while looking up "unattributed statistics."   :





> As you might notice during your "skimming" that is my first visit since 2009


As amazing as it may sound, your absence went completely unnoticed.


----------



## Flanker (7 Aug 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Critiquing a two-year old post with unattributed statistics provides absolutely no value to this site



The numbers of are pretty of common knowledge. At least their order and trends.

Some sources:

Debt:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/04/us-debt-reaches-100-percent-countrys-gdp/
http://oregoncatalyst.com/10928-stop-posturing-fix-problem.html


GDP growth 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904800304576475811201857064.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/05/26/50861401.html

Now I hope you will stop personal attacks and will pronounce your objections (if any).


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2011)

Easy to have a massive GDP growth when your GDP previously was non-existent.


----------



## canada94 (7 Aug 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Easy to have a massive GDP growth when your GDP previously was non-existent.



They are part of the "BRIC"...

Many economist believe these countries to be the future leader's of the world economy. I also wouldn't call Russia's 11th largest economy in the world "non existent". 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC - BRIC I know.. wikiepedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) - GDP's


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2011)

In 2001 they were recognized as a "newly developed advanced economy". That to me says that after the cold war ended, it took them till 2001 to start actually increasing their GDP to recognizable levels.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> They are part of the "BRIC"...
> 
> Many economist believe these countries to be the future leader's of the world economy. I also wouldn't call Russia's 11th largest economy in the world "non existent".
> 
> ...




The BRIC is an entertaining Goldman-Sachs creation that is very useful shorthand for "advanced developing economies," but the BRIC members are each sui generis ~ none more so than Russia which has, consistently, displayed an incredible capacity to squander its (acknowledged) great natural and human wealth. Brasil is not quite Russia but experience should tell us to hedge our bets.


----------



## canada94 (7 Aug 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The BRIC is an entertaining Goldman-Sachs creation that is very useful shorthand for "advanced developing economies," but the BRIC members are each sui generis ~ none more so than Russia which has, consistently, displayed an incredible capacity to squander its (acknowledged) great natural and human wealth. Brasil is not quite Russia but experience should tell us to hedge our bets.



Squander its natural resources made me think of the US and OIL.. the US peaked in 1970.. all that said you are right Russia has peaked in OIL as well, it was simply 5 years ago. I am sure no one can paint a perfect picture of what the world will look like.. however I can't see Russia or China for say out of the picture as top contenders.


----------



## Nauticus (7 Aug 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Accurate or not, Flanker responded to something almost 2 years old with "you might want to refresh your numbers...."
> 
> Because we all know, international situations never change.........certainly not in 2 years.
> 
> So, yeah, an intelligent and timely response.


Well, I'm sure you would have had no problem with the post if he started a whole new thread about it ...


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Well, I'm sure you would have had no problem with the post if he started a whole new thread about it ...



If he had worded his post something like "as of xxxxx date, the Russian GDP compares to the US like this........." instead of quoting something from 2 years ago and essentialy saying "OH YEAH.......well heres some numbers from now to show you you were wrong 2 years ago !!!!!" i'm sure it would have gone over much better.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Aug 2011)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Some sources....


There, now was that so difficult? 
Merely providing credible sources changes your post from soap-box pontification into one of somewhat more informed opinion.


Oh, and if you seriously believe that anything I posted amounted to a "personal attack," you are free to use the 'Report to Moderator' button in accordance with the site's guidelines.



Edit: Typo. Now _that's_ scandalous!


----------



## Greymatters (8 Aug 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> In 2001 they were recognized as a "newly developed advanced economy". That to me says that after the cold war ended, it took them till 2001 to start actually increasing their GDP to recognizable levels.



...or it took them until 2001 to start releasing what they regard as classified information.  Not quite the same thing.


----------



## Scott (8 Aug 2011)

Okay, fun's over.

Flanker, you got a rough ride because of how you posted your information. Unqualified, that is. We have a rule regarding that and we also have another stating that you are responsible for what you post and how it is interpereted. Derailing the htread by claiming you were attacked does not take away from the fact that you could have avoided this by being more clear and backing up your "facts"

I also see the fly shit being picked from pepper about "how" responses are formulated here. We do not need another in the long annals of how to post on Army.ca so you offend no one. Nor do we need any more crusading, on either side of the game, from anyone. Use the report to mod feature if you are feeling outraged at how someone is treated here.

Scott
Staff


----------



## DBA (8 Aug 2011)

Russia has less than 1/4 the GDP per captia and less than 1/2 the population of the US.  Lot of ground to make up if they are to surpass the US. There are a lot of challenges that will need to be met along the way. 

I don't trust extrapolating trends except to get some estimation of the challenges ahead. You just get meaningless results as trends usually don't continue. 






XKCD Cartoon


----------



## Greymatters (11 Aug 2011)

Nice one!  I'll have to remember that one...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2011)

Haligonian said:
			
		

> I'm skeptical of any rapprochement with Russia. Historically their interests have not aligned with those of the west.  This is not to say that there are not area of agreement, however, in general I think it is very optimistic to believe that Russia will move within the western/US sphere of influence in the future within the near to mid term. Additionally, Russia is a great power and has no interest in being led by another power and desires the return of their satellite countries to their sphere of influence, as seen with the invasion of Georgia.




And, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, you are right to be skeptical:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/with-putin-as-president-russias-experiment-with-democracy-comes-to-an-end/article2179374/


> With Putin as president, Russia’s experiment with democracy comes to an end
> 
> MARK MACKINNON
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




The Russians, the leadership, must think that Russia is in worse shape than we understand; they know (ought to know, anyway) that returning to oligarchy will lower productivity and stifle investment. That they are (willingly?) doing so suggests, to me, that Russia's domestic socio-economic situation is worse that we can see.

But, of course, the Americans and Europeans will ignore this because they are, incorrectly, in my view, impressed with Russia's military/political power and/or its economic potential or maybe just its oil or nukes, if they still work. They ought not to be - it is time to kick the Russians out of the G8 and G20 and let China deal with them.


----------

