NATO official: Russia now an adversary

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

WASHINGTON (AP) — After two decades of trying to build a partnership with Russia, NATO now feels compelled to start treating Moscow as an adversary, the alliance's second-ranking official said Thursday.

"Clearly the Russians have declared NATO as an adversary, so we have to begin to view Russia no longer as a partner but as more of an adversary than a partner," said Alexander Vershbow, the deputy secretary-general of NATO.

In a question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Vershbow said Russia's annexation of Crimea and its apparent manipulation of unrest in eastern Ukraine have fundamentally changed the NATO-Russia relationship.

"In central Europe, clearly we have two different visions of what European security should be like," Vershbow, a former U.S. diplomat and onetime Pentagon official, said. "We still would defend the sovereignty and freedom of choice of Russia's neighbors, and Russia clearly is trying to re-impose hegemony and limit their sovereignty under the guise of a defense of the Russian world."

(snip)

Vershbow said NATO, created 65 years ago as a bulwark against the former Soviet Union, is considering new defensive measures aimed at deterring Russia from any aggression against NATO members along its border, such as the Baltic states that were once part of the Soviet Union, Vershbow said.

"We want to be sure that we can come to the aid of these countries if there were any, even indirect, threat very quickly before any facts on the ground can be established," he said.

To do that, NATO members will have to shorten the response time of its forces, he said.

Vershbow, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, said that among possible moves by NATO is deployment of more substantial numbers of allied combat forces to Eastern Europe, either permanently or on a rotational basis.

For the time being, he said, such defensive measures would be taken without violating the political pledge NATO made in 1997 when it established a new relationship with Moscow on terms aimed at offsetting Russian anger at the expansion of NATO to include Poland and other nations on Russia's periphery. At the time, NATO said it would not station nuclear weapons or substantial numbers of combat troops on the territory of those new members. For its part, Moscow pledged to respect the territorial integrity of other states.

Vershbow argued that Russia has violated its part of that agreement by its actions in Ukraine, and thus, "we would be within our rights now" to set aside the 1997 commitment by permanently stationing substantial numbers of combat troops in Poland or other NATO member nations in Eastern Europe. He said that question will be considered by leaders of NATO nations over the summer, culminating in a meeting in Wales in September of President Barack Obama and the heads of the 27 other members of the alliance.

Simon Saradzhyan, an expert on Russian security policy, said it's doubtful that Vershbow's view that Russia is now an adversary of the Western alliance will be embraced by NATO's other major powers. He said he doubts Germany and France, which have substantial economic and business ties to Russia, would do so.

If NATO were to officially designate Russia as an adversary, Moscow likely would retaliate by cutting off avenues of cooperation, including the use of Russian territory for the movement of war material in or out of Afghanistan, Saradzhyan said. He is assistant director of the U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-official-russia-now-adversary-150211090--politics.html

[GandD 5,966]

The undiscovered country, nice.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

NATO has become the drug-buyer who got ripped off and calls 911 to report a crime.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The undiscovered country, nice.

Klingon's reciting Shakespeare. What could be better?

[GandD 5,966]

#truth.

[BatmanUSA 105]

When and how has NATO tried to build a partnership with Russia.?

Over the past 20 years, NATO has expanded to include former FSU countries in order to isolate and threaten Russia.

NATO has always considered Russia an adversary and has acted accordingly. Now they blame Russia for the failing relations?

Why is Poland and Georgia a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? Geography? Long standing political ties? Or a continued assault to threaten Russia.?.. Who is the aggressor.???

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's a safe bet that Poland and some of the FSU countries opted to join NATO because they wanted insurance from their obviously and openly aggressive neighbor. NATO has not annexed territory from a sovereign nation as far as I remember. Russia, on the other hand, has done so repeatedly and from the looks of it intends to continue to do so. The only nation threatening anyone is Russia. If anything, it's Russia that has pushed the former Eastern Block and FSU countries towards NATO. Joining NATO guarantees their territorial integrity. Counting on Russia - not so much.

[BatmanUSA 105]

I am sure those are the reasons why Poland and Georgia wanted to join NATO..

But Im confused as to why NATO has needed to expand over the past 20 years.. and (which Im saying that this is the reason that Russia feels threatened)..

Other than Georgia (which was actually started by Georgia) and Crimea (where the Crimeans asked Russia for help).. what else has Russia done to be aggressive.???

As compared to the US invasions of Iraq and Afganistan, and quietly supported military coups in Libya and Syria.. In addition to the quiet support for revolt against the pro-Russian government in Ukraine..

I agree with you about the way the Russians handled things in Crimea.. but when you look at the bigger picture, how can you say Russia is the aggressor compared to all the things the US has gotten involved in over the past 20 years.??

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

NATO did not need to expand. Russia's neighbors sought protection from their neighbor under NATO's umbrella. Quite understandably so. Two illegal land grabs from neighboring countries in half a decade - what more aggression do you need? I mean Hitler only took the Sudetenland, right? In much the same fashion, by the way, as Putin grabbed Crimea. What else has Russia done to be aggressive? Why worry? Are you serious?

The US is not at issue, by the way. NATO is. And NATO has committed no act of aggression that I am aware of. The Iraq invasion was NOT a NATO action. The Afghanistan invasion was an act of collective self-defense of one of the NATO members. Yes, one can certainly argue about the validity of that point of view but one cannot argue that a NATO member was attacked and that Afghanistan hosted the attackers. And let us not talk about Libya and certainly not Syria where Russia's role is less than glorious. Russia has been and continues to prop up that murderous Assad regime that is responsible for tens of thousands of dead Syrians over the last few years. The deaths in eastern and Southern Ukraine over the last couple of days - that's Putin's work, too.

You can spin this all you want but the threat originates not from NATO. It originates from the Kremlin.

[BatmanUSA 105]

I don't want to spin anything.. I want the closest thing to the truth...

Russia and Europe/Nato were basically trying to bribe Ukraine to go their way.. when the legal government of Ukraine went Russian, that's when the pro-european riots started...and the west cheered..

Who instigated and supported those riots???

Now in eastern Ukraine there are pro-Russian riots, and the west is not happy...

it just seems like the whole thing was a set-up by Europe/nato.. and then continued by Putin.

either way, Ukraine is just a pawn...

you say NATO has committed no act of aggression, but they continue to expand far from their original mission... and Russia considers this a threat and an aggressive act.

you say Poland and Georgia asked nato for help, and you say this is ok... but you condemn Russia for helping Crimea when they asked for help... whats the difference.?

Russia supports Assad because they are allies, just as the US supports Israel

.

I know you are anti-putin because of your past, and I am leaning pro-russia because I married Russian..

but I still would like to get to the truth...

[novedsac 355]

you say NATO has committed no act of aggression, but they continue to expand far from their original mission... and Russia considers this a threat and an aggressive act.

you say Poland and Georgia asked nato for help, and you say this is ok... but you condemn Russia for helping Crimea when they asked for help... whats the difference.?

Um … NATOs help didn't include annexing Poland or Georgia to one of its member states.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The Afghanistan invasion was an act of collective self-defense of one of the NATO members.

Which NATO member country was attacked by Afghanistan?

[Sousuke 1,214]

Which NATO member country was attacked by Afghanistan?

The implication is the US....which is a bit gray but I sort of agree.

[Dakine10 5,452]

The implication is the US....which is a bit gray but I sort of agree.

Funny thing though, when you "sort of" agree with something, because to the extent that you don't completely agree, you then also "sort of" disagree. The sort of is just a convenient way to reduce cognitive dissonance.

We invaded Afghanistan because we believed they were harboring Bin Laden. NATO countries followed because they were either "with us or against us". The Taliban did not turn over Bin Laden thus they were "against us". There was never any implication that Afghanistan attacked us. Intelligence wass mixed on whether or not Bin Laden was even still in Afghanistan in 2001.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Price of politics and war.