The allies reach out to the Kremlin, and start to think about the unthinkable

The biggest problem for NATO existence is lack of enemies. The world is not fooled by creation of artificial enemies. Using NATO in Serbia or Afghanistan will hardly enhance the profile – constitution says defensive system for Europe. NATO is a cold war relic that lost its purpose – especially when the original enemy became a resource supplier.

walterbenjamin

I wish not to antagonize you.
Let us just agree that you, as a representative of new Europe, and I, as a rep of old Europe, disagree on Russia, as well as what the relationship between NATO and Russia will look like in the decades to come.

Let me share with you a link as well, as a show of solidarity to my Russian friends:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4451549967320430759#

Don't know if you realize it walterbenjamin, but your last post is full of hate. Just what anyone needs to feel sympathy for Russia. If you represent NATO thinking, then NATO has indeed outlived its mandate.

walterbenjamin

You write as if your line of thinking (or you) represents the west. I assure you that it does not (you don't).

Russia is a vital element of European integration and stability. Most Europeans (west) agree. Most new Europeans, as so eloquently labeled by the Bush administartion, still live in the past, perhaps even justifiably. The latter, however, are NOT Europe's policy shapers. As a result, they need to discern where Europe is heading and adjust accordingly.

Honorius

Exactly. All you need is an enemy. Who knows, if you can't manufature one abroad ('cause the world is cathing one to anglosaxonic idiocy/connivery), there may be room at home. For those equipment and personnel just have to be in top shape. Else why keep on spending 40% of total worldwide defense budgets. Just remember, unless the world ends up with a "democracy" like in Turkey (God forbid), the generals with their toys obey the politicians.

A lot of enlightened words in Blackvoice's comment.

Just to add: could it be that some circles in the west, the more conniving ones, wish just for that, i.e. for Russia to be that foe again? Expecting her (rather, "helping" her) to make the wrong move which will validate their cassandric prophecies? And pawns like Ukraine or Georgia, poor and susceptible, are just so perfect to use to achieve the end result.

For if the Russian threat completely disappears, as the poet asks, what will it mean for them & their relevance in the greater scheme of things?

Didomyk

Russia will always be Russia. Big. It will triumph big, it will mess up big. My personal guess is that her next historical phase will be one of triumph. I have not followed these discussions for long, but I gather you are Ukrainian. Perhaps learning to live with Russia and build on the many things you have in common is a more prudent strategy. Being antagonistic to Russia only serves short-sighted (and self-serving) Anglosaxon interests, as the UK and US seem unable/unwilling to view the world in non cold war terms, but may very well prove unhealthy for Ukraine in the long run. Russia is not getting any weaker, is certainly not going away, and a part of Russia's soul lives in Ukraine. No?

kcdavid

Is there one US or two? Is Obama's US the same as the one celebrated at tea parties? The former is more European. The latter, well, more phobic, sometimes to the extend of paranoia. Putin means what he says, having in the back of his mind the former US I suspect.

"Think of Russophiles when considering Sinophobes"?
Not sure I understand. If you are suggesting that a Russophile is by definition a Sinophobe, you find me in complete disgareement.

For those interested, read below what Russias's Ambassador to Greece Vladimir I. Chkhikvishvili had to say last year, published in Kathimerini daily newspaper on May 21, 2009:

“Russia, Greece: strategic partnership based on common historical, spiritual heritage”
http://www.greece.mid.ru/news_e_03.html

The language is perhaps an even stronger link than religion between the two nations. Russian alphabet has 33 letters. Greek has 24 letters. It is striking to notice that 19 letters of the Greek 24-letter alphabet have been introduced into the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet, spelled (the capital letters) and pronounced exactly as in Greek. Also, the structure of the language is 100% borrowed from Greek, albeit a previous version with more complexity (6 cases, as opposed to 3 of the modern Greek). Most western languages borrow heavily from Greek, but Russian even more so. A plethora of Russian first names are basically Greek.

It does not take a genious to observe that the Franco-German axis sees integrating with Russia as a far more sound policy than stepping on its toes (eg. Ukraine). Greece, when it does not outrage its European allies by being sloppy financially, sees herself as an extension of this European axis and certainly sees Russia NOT as a threat. The UK and US do not hide the fact that they prefer Turkey, a NATO ally, to Russia. Turkey however, as dynamic as it seems to be, has fundamental problems with both its democracy (see ongoing state-military brawl) and its ethnic Kurdish minority (an internal war for independence in essence that only Cameron does not see). NATO will not be able to chart a course going forward unless it decides a clear strategy vis-a-vis Russia and Turkey. It seems to me that the Anglo-Saxons will be loosing to the Franco-German axis. A draw will mean 'we agree to disagree' which will inevitably render NATO almost purpose-less. Ofcourse, we should never underestimate the Turkish generals' ability, as divine intervention in ancient Greek tragdies, to provide the excuse outsiders need to rethink their relationship with Turkey. They will soon have to make their move, 'cause democracy is out to get them. And if democracy indeed does, then let's hope it is as mild, islamically speaking, as the Economist has been suggesting.

On Greece and Russia, and history, yes this love-affair in the making can be explained rather easily through history. Russia borrows so much from Greece (I doubt modern Russians are aware of the extend), that is why the average Greek reception of Russians is always positive, throughout time. Now there is talk for a naval base in Greece. If Papandreou is asked for a naval base in Syros for example, it won't be public opinion that will not allow for it to happen. The 100 billion euros is also an incentive. Papandreou would have to convince France and Germany. With Germans wanting to get their money back from the recent loans, the naval base prospect guarantees the fastest return wire transfer.

Russia's going forward with democratic and economic reform is more likely to resemble Greece's development pattern, rather than any other western nation's path. But I cannot really back up such an assertion. It is just a hunch.

I say this with all due respect, and out of curiousity, nothing more. Why are this paper and many of the readers (or at least commentators) so hung up on Russia? The odds of Russia attacking any NATO members with traditional military tactics are near zero. Modern threats are much less conventional, as we all know. Terrorism, mostly. The days of state vs. state are long gone, at least for western countries. Afganistan is anything but a traditional war, which is why NATO is having so many problems with it.

Cyber attacks are certainly possible, but it's very difficult to prove that a state government was directly involved. Look at Google vs. China. And if you can't prove that the state was responsible, it's hard to retaliate with direct methods, as NATO was designed for.

Regarding Georgia, in all honesty, Saakashvili walked (or rather leaped) into that trap head first. The Russians had been salivating about slapping him down, but needed a pretext. He gave it to them. There is no comparible situation with any NATO member in Europe or North America, and Saakashvili should have been much more severely reprimanded by his allies for being such an idiot as to try to slip in a milatary attack on those separatist regions while Putin was at the Olympics.

I wish The Economist published the names of the authors of each article. Sometimes the articles about Russia are balanced, but other times they're closer to paranoid rants... It's a shame, because in general, the editorial standards are quite high. Russia is the most noteable exception.

Walter: "Cyber-defence, and building ties with India and China " - China and India will be our main allies in this war against Russia..."

===Please, elaborate on this garbage (but no nonsense) that you are putting on these pages. How do you expect any close ties with India when you (the West) are making ties with Pakistan or close ties with communist China when you are married to Taiwan. You do not know anything about the world politics. Grade 9 student knows better.

Ian B wrote: "Why are this paper and many of the readers (or at least commentators) so hung up on Russia? The odds of Russia attacking any NATO members with traditional military tactics are near zero.

Let me try to respond to your questions and your remarks as objectively as possible. You may, or may not agree with all my comments but please try to be objective as well.

First, having been a reader of the Economist for some ten years I don't see how its editorial policies could be defined as being "hung up on Russia". Indeed sometimes I wish the authors and editors should have been more critical, instead of advocating their wishful thinking that has the effect of confusing a poorly informed reader. Its no secret that for decades some British academics have been influenced by a pro-Moscow school of thought, a fact reflected in many books written by British historians. Please note, I said 'some' academics, not 'all academics'. Undoubtedly, most Economist articles about Russia are written by Brits, or at least those who studied in the UK, and who have been influnced by viewpoints advocated by various British authors.

Second, among the commentators there are plenty of Russian ultra-patriots, some of them apparently trained in the art of 'ideological polemics', who have been assigned by their Moscow superiors the task of contradicting any and all views critical of Russia. A civil discourse on political or historical topics is not their style as they see anyone challenging a Russian position - or, even worse, a unique Russian "right" to domination, the right to the Moscow 'dictat', - as being a Russophobe or (to use the Soviet jargon) 'the enemy of the people'. The 'people' are of course defined as the 'blue blood' 'Great Russians', not the tens of millions with mixed non-Russian blood inhabiting the vast East European and East Asian territories as a result of the 19th cent. Russian imperial conquests. Non-Russians account for some 20 % of the total population with a large proportion being Muslims.

Third, those of us on this forum who are not Russians and may have had bitter life experiences with the Russian 'dictat' are targeted for virulent, often insulting personal attacks by annonymous but clearly trained defenders of the Russian "glory". One cannot argue in a civilised manner with opponents deliberately employing Soviet era propaganda slogans, relying clearly on KNOWN falsehoods invented decades ago by the Kremlin AGITPROP professionals(Soviet Department of Agitation and Propaganda).

Fourth, keep in mind that, unlike the communist party autocratic rulers in the Soviet Union, today's Russian rulers claim to follow democratic rules of the law, including freedom of the press, opinion and assembly. Even though today's Russians cannot agree among themselves if they are the followers of the Lenin-Stalin 'dictatorship of the proletariat', or of the 19th cent. Romanov dynasty of Russian Tsars with their inherited titles and blood privileges, or of a not well-defined early 20th cent. Russian 'republicanism' that was represented by the likes of Kerensky, gen. Denikin and the cream of the Russian emigres both in Western Europe (mainly Paris and Berlin) and in the USA .

So, what KIND of Russia are they talking about ? What kind of a state are they trying to build for the coming generations ? Before we can logically discuss the issue of Russia-NATO , or Russia-USA, or Russia-China, or Russia-Ukraine relationship it is essential that we clarify WHAT KIND of RUSSIA ?

What better way to get people to accept increased war spending than to fabricate a new enemy.

In my opinion it would be much cheaper and more productive to encourage Russia to become a full member of NATO. After all together we would be more not less secure.

And then we could prepare for the inevitable accession of the Russian Federation to the European Union. Russia is in Europe is it not?

IndusPutra wrote: ..." they should focus on reviving there economies and taking lessons from their past mistakes"

But the most effective way to revive Western economies is by increasing production of military equipment and supplies ( from planes, tanks and guided missiles to field hospitals and emergency evacuation facilities). Past mistakes include trusting Russians not to pursue their neo-imperial agenda.

The article says: "The Kremlin would not have a veto on NATO’s anti-missile shield, he adds, but the two could share data."

What's the point in having a shield if you have to share data on its capabilities ? That move would contribute to a significant increase in unemployed Russian spooks (or scouts, or spies, or whatever name the Russians prefer) and force them to lower their living standards in foreign lands by assuming their true names and identities. Not a very friendly gesture. Not recommended.

Walter..."It is really extraordinary that an Ukrainian , so brilliant, as Didomyk, could write this."

===What does it mean...is it a rarity for the Ukrainians? I consider this a mild insult making a warmongering comments and hate, of everything Russian, brilliant.
Walter, Didomyk is a male, in case you don’t know.

Didomyk: "The case (Russia's) looks hopeless."

===so why you “add couple” with walter keep slander this sinking ship...for your info the shift from production to services is a unavoidable trend in all industrialized economies...check the alarming non-productive segment of the U.S. economy, excluding of course military and annual routine of rebuilding hurricane destroyed wooden structures.

The prerequisite of the EU success is to have their independent security, made in Europe and for the European interest...send Yankees packing from Germany...NATO is only American instrument providing some control and interference in Europe and does not serve one bit to European interests...the cultural divide is too great and encompasses even such trivial things like different military calibration, metric vs. old imperial.

Imagine life without post cold war NATO...the Balkan situation would have been handled differently...the Turkey-EU conundrum would be nonexistent and free from American agitation...young European dying in Afghanistan would be spared and a lunatic in Georgia would be unknown.

@ Ian B

Who are you? Russian? European? From which country?

Wars among "nations" are not possible?

Could you tell us since 1945 how many wars happen between nations?

How could you prove that no war in Europe could happen? For example between Russia and the West?

You have your ignorant way to speak about the events of August 2008 - with the invasion and occupation of 20% of Georgian Territory by Russia.

I advice you to read the independent EU report on these events.

Also please read the Russian military doctrine and explain us why they have the right to attack us with tactical nuclear missiles in a conventional war? Also explain us why they have 5,000 nuclear warheads when we have only 200 ?

But of course if you are a Russian who lives in a neutral European country or one of the citizens of these countries - I could see why you are writing like that.

Today the topic is about NATO strategy - and who is the main enemy of NATO members.

For many of us in Europe, it is clearly Russia our enemy. And vice versa for Russian chauvinists.