The Future Russia-China Alliance Takes Shape

georgia isn't in nato.. and that's why russia could attack them. and that is exactly why so many of russia's nieghbors either already are nato members, or want to join.

you talk about russia's perspective.. what about estonia's perspective? latvia, poland, georgia, ukraine? Are you claiming that Russia's "right" to determine the foreign policy of their nieghbors, is more important than those countries right to sovereignty and independence? They want to be with nato. tough luck for russia, but it's their fault for being such shiitty company. as i've said, this isn't about the US trying to encircle russia, trying to place troops near russia. It's about russia's neighbors wanting protection from russia.

 

how did Ukraine did when favoring nato? do they think Russia would not do something about it under putin!! the problem is sure they can join nato and ask nato put troop etc, but its same if Cuba invite Russia/Chinese troop, the other major power on the other side will not just stay idle. hence, for these countries best policy is stay neutral, and don't let themselves become battlefield between major power. even if some these country want to join NATO, nato might not want them. by overly align with Nato, especially those eastern Europe countries, Russia will put more troop/pressure in the area, so they are doing the opposite of protecting themselves. the more troop right next to Russia the more Russia has justification to put more on the opposite side, tension rise, who would suffer the worst? those small countries neighboring Russia.

 

Latvia and Estonia became independent 25 years ago, and all this time they used every opportunity to (*)(*)(*)(*) off Russia. They refused to grant citizenship to Russians living in these countries, even though they gain independence absolutely peacefully. Russians (and also people of other nationalities like Ukrainians, Jews etc.) are deprived of civil rights, they can't vote, moreover authorities close Russian schools, they forbid to use Russian language in state bodies, in schools, universities, and even in hospitals - and this is in the country where 40% of population are Russian speaking. Actually, Latvia and Estonia are modern apartheid regimes in Europe.

Despite all of this not a single time Russia tried to threaten them.

The racist regimes of Latvia and Estonia suffer bad economic and demographic crisis. For example, Latvia has lost one third of its population since 1991. Estonia is doing a bit better. You may tell as much as you can about prosperity in the EU, but people usually don't run away from the place where they feel good. The racist government of the countries have to explain their fails to people, that's why they actively use Russian "card". Spreading Russophobia and cultivating myths about Russian threat help them to avoid inconvenient questions about poor economy.

Have no idea who would like to occupy this depressive depopulated territory.

As for Ukraine, it wasn't going to join NATO until this country survived coup d'etat supported and encouraged by the West.

 

countries are safer inside nato than outside it. ukraine should've joined nato back when their nieghbors to the west did, but ukraine didn't join because they thought they could be friends with russia. but it turns out that their "friend" russia isn't a friend, but more like an overlord, who didn't like ukraine trying to sign deals with the EU. A "friend" which would annex a part of your country, and start a civil war. What happened to Ukraine only shows that eastern europe did right by joining nato. What happened to ukraine could only happen because they weren't in nato. a country like estonia also has large numbers of russians. Narva, an estonian city just on the border with russia, is 94% russian, and the province is 74% russian. If estonia hadn't been in nato, russia might have "liberated" parts of estonia. But fortunately, estonia is in nato, so russia can't do anything. for countries like estonia, the only other alternative is to be alone.. completely helpless against whatever the russians want to do.

after decades of illegal occupation, wouldn't you also want to say feck you to your former masters? Russia signed a deal with hitler, and then invaded the baltics. Has russia apologised for this yet? It's looks very bad for you to speak of the baltics as if they should be thankful. they have nothing to thank you for. you should apologise. You should be ashamed of your history towards them.

as for the russians living there: international law says that since russia illegally occupied the baltics, they don't have to give citizenship to people who moved there under russian rule. Why don't these russians just move back to russia instead?

Russia has already annexed crimea... which by any standards is also depressingly poor and depopulated. stop the bullshiet.

it was going to sign a deal with the EU though.. but russia didn't like that did they?

 

Dear Mr. Swedish Guy, could you tell me please, what agressive actions are you talking about? And what is the criteria of consideration which action are agressive and which are not? Because as I see you do not consider NATO actions in Yougoslavia, Libia, etc agressive at all

And do you consider the coup in Ukraine as agressive actions? And do you consider it legal?

 

Another question is do you really think that people who live in Donetsk, Lugansk, Crimea really wanted Ukraine to be member of NATO?
If you have difficulties answering this question just search for the first military trainings of Ukranian and american forces in Crimea under the presidency of Yushenko, I think in 2009 it was...

 

nato action in yugoslavia was to stop genocide. action in libya was done to depose dictator. libya stuff wasn't very smart, but it was well-intentioned. both were done agreed upon by numerous free and democratic countries and the justifications were valid. Russia on the other hand has invaded several of its nieghbors and directly or indirectly annexed parts of them. their justifications are pure fabrications and bs. and the international community strongly condemns russia's actions. There's the difference: NATO had 1) valid cause and 2) international support. Russia had neither.

"coup" in ukraine isn't aggressive. Who are they aggressing against?

 

regardless of what those people think, it doesn't give russia the right to change borders by force. Borders in europe are to be changed by negotiations and treaties.. but russia invaded crimea and eastern ukraine.

 

And how do you decide which cause is valid?
What about this one?

https://news.vice.com/article/libya...idney-blumenthal-sent-hillary-clinton-in-2011

 

for traditional NATO countries in west/middle Europe such as france/german etc that's true, but for countries that's right next to Russia, its not, it will guarantee raise of tension and retaliation from current Russia, which is why NATO didn't accept these countries membership. There is line that neither country should not cross, ignore that line, tension will raise and could lead to war. Nato has pros/cons, for the western/middle Europe its pretty much all pro, but for country right next to Russia its not a pro but a battlefield waiting to happen. Sweden is not a NATO, they are fine during cold war and now. Also NATO is not just gonna invite every eastern Europe country to join, they need to see the pro/cons of the member. There are plenty countries neighbor with Russia that's fine despite not been nato member, most country in central asia that was former USSR such as Kaza. during 90s NATO can expand east ward because Russia was just dissolved from USSR, but now is different.

 

No, it is especially true for countries in eastern europe. tensions may rise.. but what is russia going to do? Start a nuclear war over estonia? not likely. Russia leaves them alone for the most part, because they can't do anything when there's nato troops there.

other russian nieghbors only have one choice: do what russia wants them to, or russia will do to them what they did to georgia and ukraine. But countries like estonia, latvia etc. don't need to care about what russia thinks anymore. They can join the EU, and trade, and be free and democratic. They are free to do what they want.

What are you talking about, nato not inviting eastern european countries? Nato has already invited estonia, latvia, lithuania, romania, poland etc.. honestly, none of those contribute much to the strength and security of the alliance, but nato accepted them anyways.

 

And what Russia has done with Ukraine and Georgia?Sorry, but I have to repeat.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=469032&p=1066490597#post1066490597

 

Well said, lunecat. Stand by for a reputation - that's worth much more than a Like. It's just as likely that if the two of them cooperate the nutty NK will take the opportunity to get in on the act as well - what price American imperialism then? But at least it would silence the loonies.

 

you do know Georigia, Ukraine want to join NATO, but Nato refused right. nuclear war no, but things like Ukraine will happen more often. the reason eastern Europe has such high tension is because NATO vs Russia mentality after cold war. like I said there is a line, crossing over will push both Russia and china closer, and closer to new cold war.

 

There'll be a US friendship with Russia long before a Chinese one. China doesn't care about anyone. At least Russia is smart enough to know how valuable allies can be. China wouldn't back Russia in a conflict.

 

they refuse because nato can't accept members which have territorial disputes. guess who made sure ukraine and georgia has territorial disputes? Russia.

 

EU Independent Fact Finding Mission Report
http://echr.coe.int/Documents/HUDOC_38263_08_Annexes_ENG.pdf
The report claimed that open hostilities started "... with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008".
However, the report said that Georgia had a non-use of force commitment under the legally binding international documents, such as the 1992 Sochi Agreement and 1996 Memorandum on Measures to Provide Security and Strengthen Mutual Trust between the Sides in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict.
As far as legality of use of force by Russia was concerned, the report took a "differentiated" approach, dividing "the Russian reaction to the Georgian attack" into two phases – the one, which was the immediate reaction "in order to defend Russian peacekeepers" in Tskhinvali and the second one, "the invasion of Georgia by Russian armed forces reaching far beyond the administrative boundary of South Ossetia", which was "beyond the reasonable limits of defence".

 

Probably can make as much case for Alliance with China.

Now... there's alliances that are solid, and others that are variable. We, at least, have a few allies we can count on. We have other allies that.... are rather lightweight.

 

Right now..... "imperialism" is NOT cost effective. The USA is a "big fish" in the pond. Do we CONTROL anyone? Not much. We don't even Control Canada...or S Korea. We MAY have " mutual interests" but that is HARDLY real Imperialism.

 

Yep, the Ukrainians have become pawns in America's game of global chess.

 

your link on these territorial dispute before Ukraine or Georgia war?

 

Did I say they should be thankful? What a strange manner to put your words in others' mouths? I believe we don't have to apologize. Because there is nothing to apologize for. What else we should apologize for? Maybe we should apologize to Sweden as Russia conquered Estonia and Latvia in 1721?

I don't know what international law you are refernig to? Specify, please.
But if you start talking about international laws, the USSR borders were internationally recognized in Yalta Conference of 1945 and in Helsinki Final Act of 1975.

The whole Ukraine is poor and depopulated. Millions of their men work in Europe and in Russia.
But in general I would say you are trying to judge with simple definitions about very complicted things. There is long and very complictaed history of the region - of Russia, Ukraine, Baltic states and so on - and you don't know anything about it.

As far as I remember, the Ukraine's legitimate president Yanukovich refused to sigh the deal, not Russia. Immediately after that - what a coinsidence! - Yanukovich was overthrown under West's applauds.

 

yes, you kind of did. You said "even though they gain independence absolutely peacefully" as if they should be thankful russia didn't use force. you have much to apologise for: You made a deal with hitler, then invaded them, and annexed them, then you deported people and colonised with russians, and you occupied them until 1991. and worst of all is you refuse to admit to anything wrong. russians are truly an immature people.

You can read about baltic state continuity here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_continuity_of_the_Baltic_states

the USSR illegally invaded and annexed the baltic states. However, since the annexation was illegal, the baltic states still continued to exist as de jure countries under international law. When they got their de facto independence back, they claimed to be the continuation of the pre-1940 countries. They have no obligation to grant russians living in their countries citizenship, because those people did not automatically qualify for citizenship under pre 1940 laws. Soviet laws are not valid because soviet occupation was illegal. That is why.

do you admit that russia did just annex a poor and depopulated region, and that what you thus said is wrong?

oh, I know the history of region pretty actually.. better than most i can assure you

oh really, russia had nothing to do with it?

"Mr Yanukovych, who attended an EU summit in Lithuania on Friday cited pressure from Russia for his decision.
EU leaders said in a statement that they "strongly" disapproved of Moscow's pressure on Ukraine not to sign - while Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the EU of "blackmail"."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25162563

 

You can read this agreement. http://ukraine-eu.mfa.gov.ua/en/page/open/id/2900
After signing the agreement. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/ukraine/
2013 exports 23.9 billion euros
2015 exports 13.9 billion euros

 

Libya was a complete violation of the UN mandate granted to it in defence of civilians. Despite any evidence of massacres, or even intention to commit a massacre NATO unleashed a wide scale bombing campaign in the region eventually bringing down the regime. It was, however, absent during the massacres that followed against civilians in government held areas, and curiously quiet on the execution on mercenaries by the rebels. The mandate was to protect civilians. That was it, not to force back government troops, not to assist the rebels and not to lead to regime change. As far as this is concerned the action was wholly illegal.