Georgia and Ukraine NATO MAP stalls; Russia glad

[K. A. Pital]

Russia is satsfied with the US' denying NATO Membership Action Plan to Ukraine and Georgia - Medvedev

HAVANA, 28 Nov - RIA Novosti. Russia is satisfied by the US decision to deny MAP (membership action plan) in the NATO for Ukraine and Georgia, Dmitry Medvedev said.

"I am satisfied that rational mind prevailed, regrettably, only at the end of the current US administration. This shows the current state of things. The most important is that this idea is not being pushed forward so radically and senselessly as it was pushed ahead a few years ago", - told Medvedev.

He noted that Ukraine and Georgia should determine what they need on their own, through a nationwide referenda.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice announced Wednesday, that Washington does not intend to push through for a Georgia and Ukraine NATO MAP during the meeting with NATO nations' foreign ministers in early December.

In April 2008 on a NATO summit in Bucharest Georgia and Ukraine's inquiries for a MAP were rejected, but it was said that both nations will be made NATO members in the future.

What is this? A result of Obama's victory? A result of Russia's swift but effective show of force versus Georgia? In any case, good for us.

[Sidewinder]

I think it's a result of Obama's victory. If Georgia and/or Ukraine become NATO members, their militaries must spend billions upgrading their equipment and retrain their service members to be compatable with NATO standards. Those nations don't have that much money to spare, nor do any and all NATO members except the US. That means the US will end up paying the bill, and with a different party coming to power, there's no guarantee the new administration is willing to spend that much money on the previous administration's plans.

[Ryan Thunder]

You know, I hate to ask the stupid questions, but if I don't, nobody will: Why do you cheer when NATO fails to expand? Would it be bad for you as a Russian citizen if it did, or something?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think it's a result of Obama's victory. If Georgia and/or Ukraine become NATO members, their militaries must spend billions upgrading their equipment and retrain their service members to be compatable with NATO standards. Those nations don't have that much money to spare, nor do any and all NATO members except the US. That means the US will end up paying the bill, and with a different party coming to power, there's no guarantee the new administration is willing to spend that much money on the previous administration's plans.

I just read an article that apparently, the Ukrainian President is siphoning off Ukrainian war materiel at rock bottom prices. Which is not surprising since a lot of Ukrainian stuff is ending up everywhere. Some of that ended up in Georgia. So Ukraine spending on its military? Heh... and they just took on a few billion dollar loan.

[K. A. Pital]

Why do you cheer when NATO fails to expand?

NATO is Potential Enemy #1 for Russia, being a bloc created to hinder Russian influence and thus having the goals of "neutering" Russia rather high on it's priority list. Any decline in actual or potential NATO strength is beneficial to Russia. It also gives us more geopolitical influence as NATO's geopolitical influence erodes.

Less worry about NATO strategic weaponry moving yet closer to Russian borders as well.

Would it be bad for you as a Russian citizen if it did, or something?

I may get killed fighting a war trying to stop it's expansion - say, into Georgia. That's issue one. Next, I will not be able to freely roam the former Soviet republics, which so far I am able to do without any visas with a mere Russian passport, one of the nice legacies of being a single nation in the past. Including Crimea, which is a good spot to spend your holiday. Aside from those personal issues, I do identify with my nation as a larger community of people.

[Ryan Thunder]

Why do you cheer when NATO fails to expand?

NATO is Potential Enemy #1 for Russia, being a bloc created to hinder Russian influence and thus having the goals of "neutering" Russia rather high on it's priority list. Any decline in actual or potential NATO strength is beneficial to Russia. It also gives us more geopolitical influence as NATO's geopolitical influence erodes.

Well, as a citizen of a NATO member nation, I guess its good for you, but I believe in expansionism and unification as a solution for the scarcity of resources and a means to generally improve the quality of life in nations, so it's bad for me.

Less worry about NATO strategic weaponry moving yet closer to Russian borders as well.

While I can understand your concern, to an extent, if those weapons are ever used, you, I, and probably a few billion people are all fucked. Frankly, I don't expect them to be. Maybe I'm full of shit, but I just can't see NATO hitting you people unless you hit them first, even if you had no nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Putin would show similar restraint, were the situation reversed, which is why, I believe, organizations like NATO still exist.

Would it be bad for you as a Russian citizen if it did, or something?

I may get killed fighting a war trying to stop it's expansion - say, into Georgia. That's issue one.

Again, I can relate to that. On the other hand, however, the only way there's going to be a shooting war over NATO's expansion is if Russia fires the first shot. We don't get new members by subjugating them, so your reasons for fighting such a war would be tenuous at best, I think.

Next, I will not be able to freely roam the former Soviet republics, which so far I am able to do without any visas with a mere Russian passport, one of the nice legacies of being a single nation in the past. Including Crimea, which is a good spot to spend your holiday.

Easily the best reason you've given.

Aside from those personal issues, I do identify with my nation as a larger community of people.

Well, yes. I don't think you quite understand what the sort of 'end goal' is here. NATO isn't here to destroy Russia.
It's here to ensure that Russia is not a threat to its member nations, so your leaders can't push them around like bullies. Would you say that's unreasonable, when the most powerful position of authority in Russia, AFAIK, is held by a former member of the KGB with nostalgic feelings for "the old days" when he got to 'disappear' folks he didn't like?

[K. A. Pital]

I believe in expansionism and unification as a solution for the scarcity of resources and a means to generally improve the quality of life in nations

NATO is a military alliance. If you were speaking about EU membership, that is in no way tied to NATO membership and is decided by EU politicians. If you believe in expansionism and unification, perhaps you'll understand my... slight discontent with the inevitable question that will be raised, who will be overseeing the unification? In whose interests is the expansion?

Maybe I'm full of shit, but I just can't see NATO hitting you people unless you hit them first, even if you had no nuclear deterrent.

NATO is a giant sponge for the United States. Do we think Europe's leaders are suicidal? No, we don't... as for US leaders, ask yourself - when someone says he is loved by the angels and god told him to attack Al-Quaeda, is it not reasonable to at least be wary of the nation which is helmed by that man?

I don't believe that Putin would show similar restraint

Does Russia want to be nuked? Even if NATO is disbanded, France, USA, etc. have nukes. There's no way Russia will start a nuclear war for gigs. Moving airbases closer to Russia upsets the nuclear balance and makes Russia's position more prone to decapitation strikes, etc.

On the other hand, however, the only way there's going to be a shooting war over NATO's expansion is if Russia fires the first shot.

Why do you think it's so? What if Georgia attempts to clamp down Ossetia and Abkhazia once again, but after they are granted NATO membership? It will become a proxy war very soon. What if Ukraine's eastern regions start seceding and a proxy war starts once again? Those are very real possibilities and they do not require of Russia to "fire the first shot" at all.

Would you say that's unreasonable, when the most powerful position of authority in Russia, AFAIK, is held by a former member of the KGB with nostalgic feelings for "the old days" when he got to 'disappear' folks he didn't like?

I would say my nation's interests do not necessarily correspond with those of other nations. Erosion of NATO influence is good for us, I did not say it's good for potential or real NATO members. Though there is a benefit, NATO lessens the risk of getting into proxy war by denying membership to nations with unresolved internal issues.

[ray245]

So bascially, Russia have no problem with Ukraine and Georgia joining the EU as it is more of a economic alliance than a military alliance.

And the expanding influence of EU is not something that Russia should be afraid of.

The potential benefits of joining the EU is better than the potential benefits of joining NATO for any country in eastern europe.

Ryan Thunder, I do suggest that instead of viewing Russia as a potential enemy, try and view Russia as a potential ally.

[Karza]

Why do you think it's so? What if Georgia attempts to clamp down Ossetia and Abkhazia once again, but after they are granted NATO membership? It will become a proxy war very soon. What if Ukraine's eastern regions start seceding and a proxy war starts once again? Those are very real possibilities and they do not require of Russia to "fire the first shot" at all.

This is the reason I don't want to see NATO expanding to East Europe. Personally, I don't trust Russia at all, but I trust the former Soviet republics around it even less. It's bad enough when some lunatic like Saakashvili directly provokes Russia because he imagines the west supports him. It'd be double triple fucked up if said lunatic actually was a NATO member.

In fact, the only nation bordering Russia that I'd trust with NATO membership is Finland . But Russia would have to get a shitload worse for our politicians to seriously start trying to get us into NATO.

So bascially, Russia have no problem with Ukraine and Georgia joining the EU as it is more of a economic alliance than a military alliance.

And the expanding influence of EU is not something that Russia should be afraid of.

Actually, the impression I've gotten is that Russia isn't too happy about EU expanding to former Soviet states either. EU membership does invariably reduce Russian influence, and of course gives the members a better bargaining position for whatever they're looking to trade with Russia (Though the EU's inability to consistently present a unified front towards Russia does reduce that problem. Still, the potential is there). Stas might know more about the particulars of this?

The potential benefits of joining the EU is better than the potential benefits of joining NATO for any country in eastern europe.

Indeed.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, the impression I've gotten is that Russia isn't too happy about EU expanding to former Soviet states either.

More happy than about NATO. We have been progressing towards several mutual trade agreements and free travel agreements with EU members and constantly press this issue with EU brass; if the EU takes more Soviet republics into itself, the issue of free travel and trade with Russia will become impossible to ignore.

NATO on the other side, Uncle Sam's military alliance - zero reason to tolerate NATO's attempts to widen. Especially considering the massive treachery that Russia considers NATO behaviour is - when we disbanded the WARPAC, it was tacitly implied NATO would be likewise disbanded soon; instead, it started advancing by eating up former WARPAC nations, then former Soviet republics, and placing strategic weapons right on Russian border. If that's "goodwill", then anal rape is goodwill as well.

[Count Chocula]

Here's a little bit off-the-wall query: is it possible this is an under the table agreement to keep Russia from drilling for oil off Florida (see the Drinking our milkshake thread)? Granted, I have no basis to suspect this, but is smells like realpolitik to me. And not between NATO and Russia.

[ray245]

Actually, the impression I've gotten is that Russia isn't too happy about EU expanding to former Soviet states either.

More happy than about NATO. We have been progressing towards several mutual trade agreements and free travel agreements with EU members and constantly press this issue with EU brass; if the EU takes more Soviet republics into itself, the issue of free travel and trade with Russia will become impossible to ignore.

NATO on the other side, Uncle Sam's military alliance - zero reason to tolerate NATO's attempts to widen. Especially considering the massive treachery that Russia considers NATO behaviour is - when we disbanded the WARPAC, it was tacitly implied NATO would be likewise disbanded soon; instead, it started advancing by eating up former WARPAC nations, then former Soviet republics, and placing strategic weapons right on Russian border. If that's "goodwill", then anal rape is goodwill as well.

Would Russia ever consider joining the EU as well? Instead of viewing the EU as a number of states that will oppose Russia in some sense, will Putin and his sucessor view that it might be in Russia's interest to join NATO?

Assuming the western european nations can get past the image of Russia being undemoratic.

[Guardsman Bass]

NATO on the other side, Uncle Sam's military alliance - zero reason to tolerate NATO's attempts to widen. Especially considering the massive treachery that Russia considers NATO behaviour is - when we disbanded the WARPAC, it was tacitly implied NATO would be likewise disbanded soon; instead, it started advancing by eating up former WARPAC nations, then former Soviet republics, and placing strategic weapons right on Russian border. If that's "goodwill", then anal rape is goodwill as well.

Indeed - 1993 would have been a good year to do that, then work out some kind of new security arrangement. In fact, I wonder if that would have been something on the list of Bush Sr.; wasn't he the one that more or less made an oral promise to Gorbachev that he wouldn't expand NATO into Eastern Europe?

In any case, disbanding NATO sometime from now would probably have some interesting effects. I'm guessing either that the Eastern Europeans would buy plenty of arms themselves, or you'd get a major push to actually get a European Defense Force underway to accompany the EU itself.

[Guardsman Bass]

Actually, the impression I've gotten is that Russia isn't too happy about EU expanding to former Soviet states either.

More happy than about NATO. We have been progressing towards several mutual trade agreements and free travel agreements with EU members and constantly press this issue with EU brass; if the EU takes more Soviet republics into itself, the issue of free travel and trade with Russia will become impossible to ignore.

NATO on the other side, Uncle Sam's military alliance - zero reason to tolerate NATO's attempts to widen. Especially considering the massive treachery that Russia considers NATO behaviour is - when we disbanded the WARPAC, it was tacitly implied NATO would be likewise disbanded soon; instead, it started advancing by eating up former WARPAC nations, then former Soviet republics, and placing strategic weapons right on Russian border. If that's "goodwill", then anal rape is goodwill as well.

Would Russia ever consider joining the EU as well? Instead of viewing the EU as a number of states that will oppose Russia in some sense, will Putin and his sucessor view that it might be in Russia's interest to join NATO?

Assuming the western european nations can get past the image of Russia being undemoratic.

Keep in mind that unless the EU wanted to break their own rules, Russia would have to meet a number of varying economic and political criteria to get in (although considering that mafia-run Bulgaria managed to get in, Russia probably could too), and get passed objections from existing member states (meaning the Eastern Europeans). That's not going to happen overnight.

[ray245]

Keep in mind that unless the EU wanted to break their own rules, Russia would have to meet a number of varying economic and political criteria to get in (although considering that mafia-run Bulgaria managed to get in, Russia probably could too), and get passed objections from existing member states (meaning the Eastern Europeans). That's not going to happen overnight.

I was wondering if the Russian politican themselves will push for such a goal like what Turkey is doing.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Keep in mind that unless the EU wanted to break their own rules, Russia would have to meet a number of varying economic and political criteria to get in (although considering that mafia-run Bulgaria managed to get in, Russia probably could too), and get passed objections from existing member states (meaning the Eastern Europeans). That's not going to happen overnight.

You can bet the Polish President will be screaming bloody treachery at the mere idea of Russia joining the EU. In part because it will dilute Poland's influence within the EU itself.

[Chris OFarrell]

I'm sort of of two minds about this whole thing.

On one hand, many of the Eastern Europe 'client states' of the former USSR have every right to want to join NATO and tell Russia to go fuck itself, after a half century of Russia keeping its boot firmly on their neck; they have every reason and justification to want to get close to NATO and the West, Russia getting nervous about these 'zones of influence' going West, frankly I don't give much of a shit about.

That is, if the aforementioned countries are very much pro NATO / Pro Europe and want to join for protection from Russia -Poland being a good example- and are willing to both invest the resources and accept the consequences of it, then by all means they should be integrated into NATO post haste.

Balancing that however is the fact that you also have states who should NOT be allowed into NATO, period. Georga and the Ukraine are two good examples for various reasons, but the primary ones are;

A. Their populations are hardly united in wanting 'in' into NATO.
B. Their leaders are batshit insane.
C. They are unwilling/unable to bring their forces up to NATO standards and properly integrate.

So there are a number of states who should -and have been- included into NATO quite well and some others who by all means, with the proper timeframe, should be brought in and brought up to spec. And if Russia feels 'threatened' or 'encircled', then let me play the worlds smallest violin after recalling the later half of the 20th century where the USSR anexed half of Europe and more then once made noises about the rest of it.

With that said, NATO and the EU shouldn't encroach into Russia itself, or into nations that can't make up their mind WHO they want to be or WHO they want to support, nor even think about touching the strongly Pro-Russian states who chose to be directly aligned with Russia. The EU should also keep working to open up greater trade and travel with Russia by all means, but if Putin and Medvedev want to keep ratteling the saber, then NATO and the EU should match right up with them...just not by backing crazy ideas like bringing Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO.

[K. A. Pital]

And if Russia feels 'threatened' or 'encircled', then let me play the worlds smallest violin

Yeah, it's real smart to ignore a nuclear-armed great power and spit in it's face. That does not escalate the situation, or create tensions, in the slightest

...if Putin and Medvedev want to keep ratteling the saber, then NATO and the EU should match right up with them...

Another smart move - you propose to intentionally escalate an already tense situation with hostility claims flying left and right? Tell me please, which ideas are not crazy? Bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO is insane, you're right. But you speak of "other options" to annoy Russia? Which are those? Putting strategic weapons ever closer to Russia? Creating an ABM shield to neutralize Russia's nuclear arsenal? Deploy nuclear weapons in Europe and elsewhere?

All of those do not sound harmless or good at all. They sound like warmongering lunacy, frankly. East European states like Poland, etc. are not under any threat from Russia - a conventional invasion of those nations, with multimillion populations, is infeasible, totally needless - there's economic and political pressure enough to influence them, without ruining your economy by starting a massive European land war.

And Putin and Medvedev are "rattling the saber"? At whom, praytell? Georgia and Ukraine? You already said those two are not to be included into NATO.

[Chris OFarrell]

I never said 'ignore' Russia, I said if Russia wants to play hardball, then so should NATO. NATO is not 'spitting in the face' of Russia, the fact is that if real democratic nations want to join NATO -nations not like Georgia or the Ukraine whose Governments can hardly pretend to represent all their people- in full acceptance of the consequences therein, then that is there choice and Russia can frankly screw off. I don't care if they were historically part of Russia or in the Russian sphere of influence; if their current people don't WANT to be in that zone but want to allign themselves with the west, well thats the way the cookie crumbles and frankly, we're not exactly talking about many countries here at all.

The EU/NATO shouldn't ignore Russia's concerns, but Russia frankly has no right to tell sovereign countries what they can and can't do, especially countries where the population as a whole WANT to move closer to the West, not the East and THOSE are the nations I support for the process of possible NATO/EU memberships down the track if they so want it. Its not like NATO is staging 50 divisions of troops, 600 aircraft and 1000 nukes in each new country as a 'welcome to the club' present. Hell, even the US ABM shield is utterly no threat to Russia and upgrading it to *become* one would be a GIGANTIC task, even if all the expensive C4I systems get in place, your talking about an ABSURD amount of work and time before it would get there. The silos and interceptors might be 'cheap', but only in the most abstract of senses, you're still talking about an absurd amount of time and money. And Russia has every ability to to easily work up its own counters, be it via advanced cruise missiles, IRBM's, whatever.

In a perfect world, I'd love NATO to be disbanded and Russia to pull back to its boarder and just learn to live with the gigantic country they have like most of the rest of the world have countries that learn to live inside their borders, but until Russia gets over this whole preoccupation that every country around it should take its orders from Moscow because Russia has some kind of inalienable right to have a buffer zone around it, well, NATO is frankly needed as a political and military counterweight.

[Shroom Man 777]

In a perfect world, I'd love NATO to be disbanded and Russia to pull back to its boarder and just learn to live with the gigantic country they have like most of the rest of the world have countries that learn to live inside their borders, but until Russia gets over this whole preoccupation that every country around it should take its orders from Moscow because Russia has some kind of inalienable right to have a buffer zone around it, well, NATO is frankly needed as a political and military counterweight.

Isn't this exactly what happened in the 1990s when Russia lost its balls and became a shell of its former self? Russia DID pull back its border, the Warsaw Pact WAS disbanded, Russia became a joke and an utter non-threat and the Cold War was over.

But, as Stas said, the West was not generous in victory and chose to spit in Russia's face. There was no longer any need for NATO - an alliance designed to counter a large and militaristic Soviet Union, not a neutered Russia. But yet, NATO grew and grew even though its existence no longer had meaning.

Now, Russia has found its balls. With its regained strength, what do you think Russia is gonna do when it wakes up and sees that NATO hasn't exactly been doing the gracious thing by cooling off and leaving Russia space? Russia's actions now is a direct response to Western actions in the immediate post-Cold War period. They see NATO - an alliance designed to fight Russia - bigger than ever before and now they are scrambling and going on the defensive because now they have the means to do so.

In the 90s, they lost their balls and got rolled over. Now, because they can, they're standing up and pushing back because the West has walked up to their face.

Well, that's what I think Stas is trying to say.

[Guardsman Bass]

In a perfect world, I'd love NATO to be disbanded and Russia to pull back to its boarder and just learn to live with the gigantic country they have like most of the rest of the world have countries that learn to live inside their borders, but until Russia gets over this whole preoccupation that every country around it should take its orders from Moscow because Russia has some kind of inalienable right to have a buffer zone around it, well, NATO is frankly needed as a political and military counterweight.

Considering that post-Soviet Russia has yet to actually overthrow a ruler of one of the surrounding countries, no matter how provocative (like Saakashvili), pardon me if I take your statement with a slight grain of salt. NATO hardly stops indirect pressure (it's a defensive military alliance), and as Stas pointed out, Russia probably couldn't invade and depose the leadership of most of Eastern Europe even if it wanted to. You keep talking about how it's Eastern Europe's right to join NATO if they want to, but NATO's not a charity club; we only supposed to let countries into NATO when it is in our interest.

To put it more bluntly, how is it in, say, the US's interest to pull these countries in to NATO, when they are no longer the frontline in the Cold War? I don't mean any offense to our Eastern European members here, but we're talking about US strategic goals.

[Kane Starkiller]

All of those do not sound harmless or good at all. They sound like warmongering lunacy, frankly. East European states like Poland, etc. are not under any threat from Russia - a conventional invasion of those nations, with multimillion populations, is infeasible, totally needless - there's economic and political pressure enough to influence them, without ruining your economy by starting a massive European land war.

In other words you are saying that Russia has so much influence on Eastern Europe it doesn't even need to militarily invade them and yet those same countries should not feel threatened by Russia? Furthermore you are saying that Poland has nothing to fear, militarily, from a country which is 50 times bigger, has 3.6 times greater population, several thousand nuclear warheads, is a short stroll through Belarus away from it's borders and was dominating it just two decades ago while at the same time Russia is perfectly justified in fearing US? US is certainly more powerful than Russia but the margin is not exactly the same as between Russia and Poland. So if Russia is justified in feeling threatened by NATO I fail to see how Eastern Europe is somehow irrational in fearing Russia.

But, as Stas said, the West was not generous in victory and chose to spit in Russia's face. There was no longer any need for NATO - an alliance designed to counter a large and militaristic Soviet Union, not a neutered Russia. But yet, NATO grew and grew even though its existence no longer had meaning.

Now, Russia has found its balls. With its regained strength, what do you think Russia is gonna do when it wakes up and sees that NATO hasn't exactly been doing the gracious thing by cooling off and leaving Russia space? Russia's actions now is a direct response to Western actions in the immediate post-Cold War period. They see NATO - an alliance designed to fight Russia - bigger than ever before and now they are scrambling and going on the defensive because now they have the means to do so.

You make it sound as if Cold War was a game of football and US didn't kick the ball out of the court when Russia was injured on the ground in the interest of fair play. Soviet Union and US were struggling for world domination and then USSR went splat, obviously US is going to take advantage of that to the fullest extent. The real question is does anyone think Russia would not be trying to extend it's influence back to Eastern Europe if NATO graciously declined to expand eastwards? I find that very hard to believe.

You keep talking about how it's Eastern Europe's right to join NATO if they want to, but NATO's not a charity club; we only supposed to let countries into NATO when it is in our interest.

It isn't? Eastern Europe without US security guarantee is automatically dominated by Russia, which then makes Germany a lot more willing to compromise with Russia which then makes France a lot less willing to anger Moscow. If that isn't against US interest I don't see what is.

[Guardsman Bass]

It isn't? Eastern Europe without US security guarantee is automatically dominated by Russia, which then makes Germany a lot more willing to compromise with Russia which then makes France a lot less willing to anger Moscow. If that isn't against US interest I don't see what is.

That's bullshit. Do you see Ukraine dominated by a Russian stooge, even though it doesn't have a US security guarantee? Georgia (which still has Saakashvili, and is rearming)?

And define "dominated". If we're going by indirect measures, like economic size and influence, then the US, for example, more or less dominates Mexico economically - a majority of Mexican trade goes to the US.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In other words you are saying that Russia has so much influence on Eastern Europe it doesn't even need to militarily invade them and yet those same countries should not feel threatened by Russia? Furthermore you are saying that Poland has nothing to fear, militarily, from a country which is 50 times bigger, has 3.6 times greater population, several thousand nuclear warheads, is a short stroll through Belarus away from it's borders and was dominating it just two decades ago while at the same time Russia is perfectly justified in fearing US? US is certainly more powerful than Russia but the margin is not exactly the same as between Russia and Poland. So if Russia is justified in feeling threatened by NATO I fail to see how Eastern Europe is somehow irrational in fearing Russia.

Why would Poland feel threatened? The combined weight of NATO would have swarmed Russia, aside from burnt out atomised cities. But hey, when you choose sides, you are letting someone else use you as a pawn, to be sacrificed. I'm not sure if Poland's situation has changed much, except Russia is now holding onto the nuclear trigger. I won't be surprised the United States was aiming in the opposite direction during the Cold War.

[Guardsman Bass]

You make it sound as if Cold War was a game of football and US didn't kick the ball out of the court when Russia was injured on the ground in the interest of fair play. Soviet Union and US were struggling for world domination and then USSR went splat, obviously US is going to take advantage of that to the fullest extent. The real question is does anyone think Russia would not be trying to extend it's influence back to Eastern Europe if NATO graciously declined to expand eastwards? I find that very hard to believe.

If I recall correctly, that was supposed to be the lesson of World War I; you don't kick the enemy when he's down, out of the fight, and willing to change, because that generally leads to more unpleasant ramifications later on. We basically had an opportunity where Russia was weak and poor in which we probably could have re-defined the relationship, and instead we basically said "Try our economics" while heading eastward with NATO.

And no, I don't think Russia wouldn't be trying to extend it's influence back into Eastern Europe if NATO wasn't there. But it depends on what "influence" we're talking about; all countries try to indirectly influence those around them.