Twenty years after the fall

It's discouraging to see yet another article on Russia. And the title was "20 years after the fall". I expected to read something about Berlin Wall, but it was mentioned only in the first sentence.

"We are now at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall ..."
followed by usual "yadi-yadi-yada- Russia!"
Can Western intelligencia find something else to think about for a while and give us all a break?
I mean- what it is with "Russia obsession"?
Russia was not aggressive in any way since the collaps of Soviet Union. It did not treathened its neigbourghs.
And it acted even friendly towards the US and other NATO powers.
That did not change with Putin being in power,as many seem to think.
Putin was a first foreign leader to express his condolances to President Bush over 9/11, and to offer significant political and military assistance in conduct of anti-Taliban operations.
Number of influential Russian politicos (lead by Sergey Ivanov)were opposed to any US military deployment in central Asia and saw it as enroachment of Russia's "sphere of influence", going as far to propose weapons supply to Taliban. This oppostion was overriden by Putin on Sep. 24, 2001.
Russia did not only arm Norther Alliance considerably (with Soviet-made weapons they needed no training for), but actively participated in initial steps of campaign by ordering its 10.000-strong 201st Motorized Rifle Division to invade Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in order to set and defend pontoon bridges. This greatly facilitated flow of armaments and supplies to Northern Alliance in subsequent phases of campaign.
Advance of Northern Alliance was considered to be most decisive factor in demise of Taliban regime aside from US military intervention.
It was mostly remembered by massacre of thousands of captured Talibans in Mazar-i-Shariff, though.
Russia also used several contigents of Speznats (Special Forces) to pinpoint Taliban and Al-Qaeda mountain strongholds for the US Air Force during October and November 2001.
In December 2001 he welcomed NATO's expansion into Baltic republics. In May 2002 he abolished ABM Treaty (that US wanted abolished.
This was heralded even in the West as "historical shift away from "Great Power" syndrom of Russian diplomacy over the last 300 years." (Washington Post)

Russia does not appear to have an ambition of becoming a superpower again.

Besides the following is true.

" The Russians once again faced their classic situation: If they abandoned geopolitical interests, they would be physically at risk. But if they pursued their geopolitical interests, they would need a military force capable of assuming the task. Expanding the military would make the public unhappy as it would see resources diverted from public consumption to military production."

This time they don't want to be able to fight (and win) war on any point of planet (as a superpower). Rather, they want to have influence on their "near abroad", and mostly due to their own security concerns.
To put it in STRATFOR's words
"If they abandoned geopolitical interests, they would be physically at risk."

And they know, that they don't have to be involved in Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter. They already are in possession of vast natural resources (energy, ores, etc.).
There is no wastefull military spending on aircraft carriers, etc. that would give them ability to project power globally, but they don't seem to be interested in that anyway.

Putin's "about turn" came after "orange revolution" in Ukraine , and a bid to bring Ukraine in NATO.
This would "render Russia indefensible" to use the term that Stratfor used in several previous articles.

Looking at Russian-Western relationship, it's not hard to notice some good will on Russian part.
West for their part, gave assurances that, should Warsaw Pact dissolve, NATO will not advance toward east.
"Not one inch" to use exact words of US Secretary of State Baker. (no surprise that this was an empty promise. He was US secretary of state, afer all. How could anyone ever trust those guys?)

NATO also rejected a Russian proposal for a nuclear-weapons-free-zone from the Arctic to the Black Sea, which would have “interfered with plans to extend NATO,” strategic analyst and former NATO planner Michael MccGwire observes.
The process was sharply escalated by Bush’s further expansion of NATO, dismantling of crucial disarmament agreements (unilaterally), and aggressive militarism.

The heart of Russian-West problem is at advancement of NATO closer to Russia. One has to wonder what is a purpose of such advancement?
Let's face it.
If it was other way around.
And if NATO collapsed, and Warsaw Pact remained...
Would American leaders be favorable of Mexico joining Warsaw Pact?
Would they think it's not something aimed at them, but rather it's because of North Korea?
Not likely.

After all, US did not have a problem to declare Latin-America its own "sphere of influence" not very long ago.
Can anyone remember when Ronald Reagan pulled on his cowboy boots and declared a national emergency because the Nicaraguan army was only two days from Harlingen Texas, and might lead the hordes who are about to “sweep over the United States and take what we have,”

(Nicaraguan army attacking US? Hahaha. It is to laugh.)

But, seriously, I truly hope that Russia will not resort to methods used by US in its own "near abroad" few decades ago.

The elephant in the room that everyone ignors is that NATO is still here. Why?
Its mission is far from clear.
Cold war is not over in heads of many (they really need help).
Why do they need to enlarge NATO? What is a treat to many of those Eastern European countries?
Western officials argue that expansion of NATO posed no military threat, and was no more than a move to allow former Russian satellites to join the EU . That is hardly persuasive. Austria, Sweden and Finland are in the EU but not NATO.

Sane advice along these lines has recently been given by former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian Shlomo ben-Ami, writing in the Beirut Daily Star: “Russia must seek genuine strategic partnership with the US, and the latter must understand that, when excluded and despised, Russia can be a major global spoiler. Ignored and humiliated by the US since the Cold War ended, Russia needs integration into a new global order that respects its interests as a resurgent power, not an anti-Western strategy of confrontation.”

It is often wise to retreat. Leaders like De Gaulle abandone expensive to run empires and thus preserved the peace and the security at home. But one needs clear lines to which retreat to. At the height of Perestroyka, may be a year before the fall of the Berlin Wall Solzhenytsin, still in exile send to the Congress of People’s Deputies, the Soviet Parliament an interesting proposal. To create a Russian Union comprising: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Northern parts of Kazakhstan. All other republics were to be given the option to join in, to agree to some association with the union or to become independent!
Nobody took the proposal seriously. Instead a meaningless referendum for the preservation of the Soviet Union was held. People in most republics voted FOR, but the constitutional powers of the republics were preserved, and a post of a Russian president, parallel with the Soviet president was established. Gorbachev introduced a measure of rule of law in a structure where the rule hitherto was treating the law as a formality.The legally unrestricted structure collapsed. Gorbachev either was not really planning a retreat, or was very ill-prepared for it.

It's discouraging to see yet another article on Russia. And the title was "20 years after the fall". I expected to read something about Berlin Wall, but it was mentioned only in the first sentence.

"We are now at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall ..."
followed by usual "yadi-yadi-yada- Russia!"
Can Western intelligencia find something else to think about for a while and give us all a break?
I mean- what it is with "Russia obsession"?
Russia was not aggressive in any way since the collaps of Soviet Union. It did not treathened its neigbourghs.
And it acted even friendly towards the US and other NATO powers.
That did not change with Putin being in power,as many seem to think.
Putin was a first foreign leader to express his condolances to President Bush over 9/11, and to offer significant political and military assistance in conduct of anti-Taliban operations.
Number of influential Russian politicos (lead by Sergey Ivanov)were opposed to any US military deployment in central Asia and saw it as enroachment of Russia's "sphere of influence", going as far to propose weapons supply to Taliban. This oppostion was overriden by Putin on Sep. 24, 2001.
Russia did not only arm Norther Alliance considerably (with Soviet-made weapons they needed no training for), but actively participated in initial steps of campaign by ordering its 10.000-strong 201st Motorized Rifle Division to invade Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in order to set and defend pontoon bridges. This greatly facilitated flow of armaments and supplies to Northern Alliance in subsequent phases of campaign.
Advance of Northern Alliance was considered to be most decisive factor in demise of Taliban regime aside from US military intervention.
It was mostly remembered by massacre of thousands of captured Talibans in Mazar-i-Shariff, though.
Russia also used several contigents of Speznats (Special Forces) to pinpoint Taliban and Al-Qaeda mountain strongholds for the US Air Force during October and November 2001.
In December 2001 he welcomed NATO's expansion into Baltic republics. In May 2002 he abolished ABM Treaty (that US wanted abolished.
This was heralded even in the West as "historical shift away from "Great Power" syndrom of Russian diplomacy over the last 300 years." (Washington Post)

Russia does not appear to have an ambition of becoming a superpower again.

Besides the following is true.

" The Russians once again faced their classic situation: If they abandoned geopolitical interests, they would be physically at risk. But if they pursued their geopolitical interests, they would need a military force capable of assuming the task. Expanding the military would make the public unhappy as it would see resources diverted from public consumption to military production."

This time they don't want to be able to fight (and win) war on any point of planet (as a superpower). Rather, they want to have influence on their "near abroad", and mostly due to their own security concerns.
To put it in STRATFOR's words
"If they abandoned geopolitical interests, they would be physically at risk."

And they know, that they don't have to be involved in Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter. They already are in possession of vast natural resources (energy, ores, etc.).
There is no wastefull military spending on aircraft carriers, etc. that would give them ability to project power globally, but they don't seem to be interested in that anyway.

Putin's "about turn" came after "orange revolution" in Ukraine , and a bid to bring Ukraine in NATO.
This would "render Russia indefensible" to use the term that Stratfor used in several previous articles.

Looking at Russian-Western relationship, it's not hard to notice some good will on Russian part.
West for their part, gave assurances that, should Warsaw Pact dissolve, NATO will not advance toward east.
"Not one inch" to use exact words of US Secretary of State Baker. (no surprise that this was an empty promise. He was US secretary of state, afer all. How could anyone ever trust those guys?)

NATO also rejected a Russian proposal for a nuclear-weapons-free-zone from the Arctic to the Black Sea, which would have “interfered with plans to extend NATO,” strategic analyst and former NATO planner Michael MccGwire observes.
The process was sharply escalated by Bush’s further expansion of NATO, dismantling of crucial disarmament agreements (unilaterally), and aggressive militarism.

The heart of Russian-West problem is at advancement of NATO closer to Russia. One has to wonder what is a purpose of such advancement?
Let's face it.
If it was other way around.
And if NATO collapsed, and Warsaw Pact remained...
Would American leaders be favorable of Mexico joining Warsaw Pact?
Would they think it's not something aimed at them, but rather it's because of North Korea?
Not likely.

After all, US did not have a problem to declare Latin-America its own "sphere of influence" not very long ago.
Can anyone remember when Ronald Reagan pulled on his cowboy boots and declared a national emergency because the Nicaraguan army was only two days from Harlingen Texas, and might lead the hordes who are about to “sweep over the United States and take what we have,”

(Nicaraguan army attacking US? Hahaha. It is to laugh.)

But, seriously, I truly hope that Russia will not resort to methods used by US in its own "near abroad" few decades ago.

The elephant in the room that everyone ignors is that NATO is still here. Why?
Its mission is far from clear.
Cold war is not over in heads of many (they really need help).
Why do they need to enlarge NATO? What is a treat to many of those Eastern European countries?
Western officials argue that expansion of NATO posed no military threat, and was no more than a move to allow former Russian satellites to join the EU . That is hardly persuasive. Austria, Sweden and Finland are in the EU but not NATO.

Sane advice along these lines has recently been given by former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian Shlomo ben-Ami, writing in the Beirut Daily Star: “Russia must seek genuine strategic partnership with the US, and the latter must understand that, when excluded and despised, Russia can be a major global spoiler. Ignored and humiliated by the US since the Cold War ended, Russia needs integration into a new global order that respects its interests as a resurgent power, not an anti-Western strategy of confrontation.”

It is often wise to retreat. Leaders like De Gaulle abandone expensive to run empires and thus preserved the peace and the security at home. But one needs clear lines to which retreat to. At the height of Perestroyka, may be a year before the fall of the Berlin Wall Solzhenytsin, still in exile send to the Congress of People’s Deputies, the Soviet Parliament an interesting proposal. To create a Russian Union comprising: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Northern parts of Kazakhstan. All other republics were to be given the option to join in, to agree to some association with the union or to become independent!
Nobody took the proposal seriously. Instead a meaningless referendum for the preservation of the Soviet Union was held. People in most republics voted FOR, but the constitutional powers of the republics were preserved, and a post of a Russian president, parallel with the Soviet president was established. Gorbachev introduced a measure of rule of law in a structure where the rule hitherto was treating the law as a formality.The legally unrestricted structure collapsed. Gorbachev either was not really planning a retreat, or was very ill-prepared for it.