Majorian posted:

A fair point, but keep in mind, absolute force reduction matters less to states in decline like Russia in the 90's than relative reduction. NATO may have been spending less on its armed forces, but A, there wasn't an arms race anymore, and B, its ability to slap Russia around in 1992 was a hell of a lot greater than it was in 1989.

Majorian posted:

I'd like to hear how Brazil can better project its power without consequence than Russia, because I'm sure your answer will be hilarious.

e: Also, given Germany's lack of an actual military, I think your criteria has some major flaws.

My Imaginary GF posted:

A Buttery Pastry posted:

So NATO should essentially have dismantled its military to match the decline of Russia?

Majorian posted:

All you're saying at this point is, "Russia is not currently as economically powerful as the United States." Which is kind of a "no poo poo" point to be making.


No, but NATO should have realized how that factor colored Russia's perception of them, ie: as an alliance that was powerful and getting more powerful compared to Russia, and was moving closer and closer to Russian borders, seemingly unchecked. That's going to make any country feel at least a little threatened.

Majorian posted:

No, but NATO should have realized how that factor colored Russia's perception of them, ie: as an alliance that was powerful and getting more powerful compared to Russia, and was moving closer and closer to Russian borders, seemingly unchecked. That's going to make any country feel at least a little threatened.

Majorian posted:

e: To go back to neorealists like Mearscheimer and Stephen M. Walt, it's the "Balance of Threat" that matters here - ie, NATO's capacity to pose a serious threat to Russia's continued existence as an independent nation.

Bro Dad posted:

Isn't that already called the Commonwealth of Independent States? They already have the vaguely menacing flag and everything:

Forgall posted:

It's missing the ring though.

Typo posted:

True, but those guys' popularity seems to increase with Russians in proportion with how long they've being dead for.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Hwre, lets start a list. Things Russia will have millions less of in 10 years:

Russians

My Imaginary GF posted:

That's about the only reason their invasion of Ukraine isn't going Gulf War I.

Fabulous Knight posted:

A NATO-style alliance led by Russia could actually be a good idea, if it helps sooth their concerns about NATO creeping on their borders. Better than that invading sovereign states and making land grabs around them. They're going to need like Iran in there though to be credible at all.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

The problem with that idea is that almost every country that borders Russia loving hates Russia. Mostly because the last "alliance" they were in with Russia started with a Russian invasion and consisted of half a century of genocide, brutal repression and re-invasions when they got uppity.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

The problem with that idea is that almost every country that borders Russia loving hates Russia. Mostly because the last "alliance" they were in with Russia started with a Russian invasion and consisted of half a century of genocide, brutal repression and re-invasions when they got uppity.

Fabulous Knight posted:

Many of them, yes. Currently Moscow could really only count on states like Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia to be surefire members. The same thing really goes for the political Eurasian Union, too. Russia needs some really obvious boost to its alliances to really make them worthwhile, something like Ukr... oh right.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Then the problem is the expansion, because there was nothing NATO could really do about the disparity of strength unless it decided to actively subsidize the Russian military.

As you yourself has pointed out, Russia still has a bunch of nukes. What difference does NATO bordering Russia really make, except ensure the independence of states wishing to remain independent of Russia? Unless that is encroaching on Russia in itself. Does the independence of Russia include a sphere of influence big enough that Russia can exist as an autarky?

axelord posted:

Here's the thing your assuming that NATO was created as some altruistic alliance to protect the "Freedom" of Europe or some bullshit. It wasn't it was created to protect the Strategic interests of it's primary member the US.

It has expanded into Eastern Europe to contain and limit Russian power as the US see a resurgent Russia as a potential threat to it's Global Hegemony. The countries surrounding Russia wanting the protection of an outside power has no bearing on the US's decision to push NATO in the region only US's interests matter.

It really shouldn't be surprising that surrounding a nation with a military alliance aimed against it is seen as a threatening act.

quote:

Moscow. September 6th. INTERFAX.RU - Russian forces create a permanent base for the Northern Fleet in the Arctic, located in the New Siberian Islands.

"The main goal of the next campaign detachment of the Northern Fleet in the Arctic - to deliver personnel, equipment and property of the Northern Fleet task force, which from this year will be to serve in the New Siberian Islands on a regular basis," - said the commander of the Northern Fleet, Admiral Vladimir Korolev, whose words are reported to the Office of the Press and Information of the Ministry of Defense, received by the "Interfax" on Saturday.

Go to the New Siberian Islands from Severomorsk came a detachment of ships and vessels as part of a large anti-submarine ship "Admiral Levchenko" large landing ships "George" and "Kondopoga" tanker "Sergey Osipov", rescue tug "Pamir" and mooring the ship of the Baltic Fleet, "Alexander Pushkin. "

Commander of the Northern Fleet, also stressed that "to ensure the safest possible conditions for navigation in complex, in terms of navigational situation, arctic regions, the transition squadron will be organized taking into account the features of hydro-meteorological and continuous monitoring of ice conditions, which will be involved in aircraft and helicopters of naval aviation Northern Fleet. "

It is expected that certain stages of the transition regions of the Northern Sea Route, a detachment of ships of the Northern Fleet will be accompanied by nuclear icebreakers State Corporation "Rosatom".

This is the third large-scale campaign of the Northern Fleet in the Arctic over the past few years. In 2012, the Marines of the Northern Fleet for the first time in the history of the Russian Navy carried out amphibious landing on unequipped coast Boiler. In 2013, a detachment of ships led by the flagship of the Northern Fleet nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" delivered to the New Siberian Islands techniques and equipment to restore aviation commandant "Temp".

In late August, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia intends to develop and strengthen their position in the Arctic, including restoring military infrastructure, but is ready to consider the interests of other states.

"Many perceive our activities as a wary, scared of this activity. We have said many times that we act solely in the framework of international law, we have always acted so and so are going to act in the future", - Putin said on August 28, speaking at the youth forum "Seliger-2014".

In just a few days before the Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird in an interview with the Danish newspaper Berlingsk expressed concern buildup of Russian military forces in the Arctic, and said that his country is ready to defend its interests in the region, including the use of force.

axelord posted:

Here's the thing your assuming that NATO was created as some altruistic alliance to protect the "Freedom" of Europe or some bullshit. It wasn't it was created to protect the Strategic interests of it's primary member the US.

It has expanded into Eastern Europe to contain and limit Russian power as the US see a resurgent Russia as a potential threat to it's Global Hegemony. The countries surrounding Russia wanting the protection of an outside power has no bearing on the US's decision to push NATO in the region only US's interests matter.

It really shouldn't be surprising that surrounding a nation with a military alliance aimed against it is seen as a threatening act.

DarkCrawler posted:

you don't usually attack allies...

axelord posted:

Here's the thing your assuming that NATO was created as some altruistic alliance to protect the "Freedom" of Europe or some bullshit. It wasn't it was created to protect the Strategic interests of it's primary member the US.

axelord posted:

It has expanded into Eastern Europe to contain and limit Russian power as the US see a resurgent Russia as a potential threat to it's Global Hegemony. The countries surrounding Russia wanting the protection of an outside power has no bearing on the US's decision to push NATO in the region only US's interests matter.

It really shouldn't be surprising that surrounding a nation with a military alliance aimed against it is seen as a threatening act.

Peel posted:

That we're threatening them for a reason doesn't mean we aren't threatening them. If you decide to do so nontheless, then you should do so in awareness of the consequences.

HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:

Russia will set up a permanent naval base in the Arctic because all that arctic oil exploration and drilling will need protection. Hello, Norway, Canada.

http://www.interfax.ru/world/395316

Paladinus posted:

Has anything of importance happened in Ukraine since Poroshenko and Putin agreed on a ceasefire plan?

Fabulous Knight posted:

Many of them, yes. Currently Moscow could really only count on states like Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia to be surefire members. The same thing really goes for the political Eurasian Union, too. Russia needs some really obvious boost to its alliances to really make them worthwhile, something like Ukr... oh right.

Typo posted:

Paradox Victoria II style Great Power rankings:

USA
PRC
Germany
India
Russia
UK
France
Japan

If UK/France ever manages to achieve the "form EU" event, then they'll go all the way up to #1

Paladinus posted:

Has anything of importance happened in Ukraine since Poroshenko and Putin agreed on a ceasefire plan?

Peel posted:

That we're threatening them for a reason doesn't mean we aren't threatening them. If you decide to do so nontheless, then you should do so in awareness of the consequences.

quote:

Thanks for taking the time to write and for sharing your insights. For us, Russian behavioral analysis requires a constant weaving of official statements, news coverage and physical acts on the ground. For example, it was always clear Russia intended to take back Crimea because its actions matched its official statements and the news coverage served as a double check.

In southeastern Ukraine, Russia has not encouraged secession, but has consistently supported by words and lately by actions fragmentation into a federal arrangement.

We do not subscribe to a deterministic view of Russian actions, i.e, that Putin and his acolytes have wanted to fracture Ukraine all along. Their actions do not support that hypothesis, in our view.

We think the Kremlin crowd has been quite confused and in disarray about events. They thought they had a deal with NATO about eastward encroachment. The Western backed coup caught them by surprise, but evidently not Victoria Nuland. It also surprised the Yanukovych's parliamentary majority. They wanted to dump him for mishandling protests, but not their majority in parliament.

The point is this confrontation shows no signs of a pre-determined outcome. However, we think it certain that Russian leaders have been encouraged by Western weakness in Ukraine and will try to break NATO. Medvedev as president said Russia did not consider Baltic membership in NATO irreversible. If anything is predetermined, it is that NATO will soon be in another confrontation with Russia, but this time directly.

Consider Kosovo in August 2008, followed by Abkhazia and South Ossetia that August. The Russians always try to get even. The US stoke the government in Kyiv and Russia stole Crimea.

As for a federal arrangement other sources report much of western Ukraine would not mind seceding to Poland, speak Polish and think of themselves as Poles.

We suspect everybody west of the Dniepr might not mind a federal arrangement, compared to outright secession, provided the terms were reasonable.

Having watched peaceful and forcible fragmentation in other states, it is doable without an apocalypse and could prove extremely profitable for Kyiv and Donetsk at Russian expense.

As for hypocrisy, the Western states, Germany and the US, have engaged in more than their share; the Kyiv regime will be at the front of the list of complainants.

We look forward to the results of the Ukrainian elections, if the ceasefire lasts.

We try to not pass judgment on the events, just to explain and predict. Thus far, we think we have done well in predicting Russian actions.

Thanks again for your note,
NightWatch

Lawman 0 posted:

I'm actually extremely impressed that the Russians have managed to get their birthrate back to normals levels.

Fabulous Knight posted:

Russia's population is growing. I don't know, maybe it's not permanent and annexing Crimea and three million people helped, but that's in addition to natural growth.

Some stuff on the subject:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/08/18/russias-total-fertility-rate-is-rapidly-converging-with-americas/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/09/03/8-things-masha-gessen-got-wrong-about-russian-demography/

quote:

Anatoly Vishnevsky, director of the Demography Institute at the Higher School of Economics, warned that Russia's recent population growth is not sustainable, as the next few generations of potential mothers will be those born after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when fewer children were already being born.

"In 2019 there will only be 12.9 million women of the most active maternity age of between 20 to 35, while in 2013 there were 17.2 million, so of course there will be fewer children in the future," he said in emailed comments.

Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

How do they think the US stole the government in Kiev? Is this some sort of bizzaro world where if they say that the US was behind the coup enough it'll suddenly become true? The US has done enough dumb things, people don't need to make things up.

Zohar posted:

I wrote to KGS NightWatch (a widely-read geopolitical newsletter) a few days ago taking issue with some of their analysis, and they actually replied to me. Thought people here might be interested in their reply, for what it's worth:

quote:

The US stoke the government in Kyiv and Russia stole Crimea.