Reply to Paul L
As you seem impervious to evidence,I am no doubt wasting my time.But for the sake of those less prejudiced ,here goes:
1. You ignore my substantive point about an "undeclared war..." Instead, you introduce a propaganda point about Russia bullying Ukraine et al, and again ignore the facts.In Soviet times,they were supplied with gas at very low prices, now with Ukraine independent and hostile, Russia is insisting on market prices.

2.Again , you willfully ignore my point which was about Camp Bondsteel.

And so on for the rest of your diatribe.

But I cannot pass over your insensitive ignorance about Russian history and how invasions have contributed to suspicion and paranoia.
This denies you any credibility.If the wars of intervention are too remote, you might have remembered the tens of millions killed in the German invasion.

Leslie,

The Cold War ended for all intents and purposes as a result of two things happening and single real cause, the two things, (1) the massive drain on resources that was Afghanistan (and the effect(s) of that conflict on the USSR's moslem satellite States); and (2) Reagan's spending on the Military. The underlying cause, poverty, they simply could not maintain the spending needed to (a) replace the material losses in Afghanistan; and (b) maintain parity with the USA.

The minute that a reinvigorated Russia, under Medvedev/Putin began to make loud rumbles about wanting to take back it's prime position in world affairs, the United States (under Bush, whose spending on the military exceeds that of Reagan), which is currently involved in not one, but two wars (and quite probably in the immediate future a third) with the potential to go as badly as the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, took notice. America at the present time cannot afford to allow Russia to return to what it was in the Cold War (nor I believe should it).

I am well aware of the historical paranoia of Russia, which is why I feel that Merkel's switch from being strongly against the admission of Ukraine/Georgia to NATO, to basically threatening Medvedev with the statement that she believed they would both be members of NATO in the near future, did more to stop the Russian ground war than the French brokered ceasefire was capable of doing (http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29041). The Russian's might have to respond to the USA, but they have a visceral fear of the reunified Germany (especially with the entry of Poland & soon the Ukraine to NATO).

The Russians “have a visceral fear of the reunified Germany” not unreasonably so, considering twentieth century history.
Why would Angela Merkel’s switch to forecasting an expanding NATO pressure upon Russia’s borders do anything other than further increase Russian militaristic attitude?
Gorbachev seems to be the only statesman in the whole of this sorry environment. He recognised that continuously expanding militarism had to cease. Yes, his nation was the under-dog in the attrition of resources, but it cut both ways.
Unfortunately the USA has still not come to grips with a mathematical certainty: neither it, nor the world, can continue expansion of consumption of earth’s resources. Especially by gratuitous provocation of a political competitor towards military confrontation

Paul.L

‘The western media has discraced itself because it didn’t support Russia (population 150,000,000) and its invasion of Georgia (population 5,000,000). Are you kidding?’

I’ll address only the first half of this argument, because the second is a red herring.

In the very unlikely event that the Western media were to have ‘supported’ Russia, it would have equally disgraced itself. In an increasingly dangerous world, the last thing we need is yet another biased viewpoint.

Some things the Western media could have done, and should have done, include:

- To take a more investigative approach regarding the Georgian motives and timing of its military assault on South Ossetia
- To be more forthcoming about US-led complicity in the Georgian arms build-up, instead of leaving it to the alternative online media to do the mainstream’s job for them
- To give at least equal humanitarian coverage to the traumatic effect on the South Ossetian people by the Georgian attack, instead of focusing so much media attention on the trauma of the fleeing Georgians
- To use more neutral wording in describing the Russian actions – e.g. why do ‘we’ intervene, but ‘they’ invade? And why must Russia be continually described as ‘resurgent’?
- To co-operate more with the Russian media to give Western media consumers a balance between the Georgian and Russian/Ossetian points of view. For example, this wrenching video, that has been publicly available since 14 August on the Russia Today website, has been largely ignored by the Western press:

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28951/video

Haganah Bet

‘I feel that Merkel's switch from being strongly against the admission of Ukraine/Georgia to NATO, to basically threatening Medvedev with the statement that she believed they would both be members of NATO in the near future, did more to stop the Russian ground war than the French brokered ceasefire was capable of doing.’

This is precisely why NATO is a stupid, dangerous dinosaur that should have been disbanded long ago. Its ‘resurgence’ – along with the increased muscle-flexing bravado of EU politics – is far more of a threat to world peace than a revitalised Russia.

I find it disturbing that in the current climate of anti-US sentiment, that an enormous number of people are willing to ignore the fact that a resurgent Russian Federation (previously known as the USSR/Warsaw Pact/Soviet Bloc) is unlikely to be a bigger supporter of human rights than its predecessor. Given that Putin in particular has overseen the resurgence of Russia, the establishment by Russia of a whole new arms race in Asia.

But be that as it might, why on earth does the current anti-American sentiment; and its transfer to NATO; mean that the ex-soviet states have no choice but to subjugate themselves to Moscow's whim once more? I mean, we hear a LOT about how evil NATO/USA are in attempting to make Russia feal apprehensive and/or fearful about being surrounded by NATO States, but the DEMOCRACIES that have grown in the ex-Soviet States that are seeking to align themselves with NATO (the only real alternative to subjugation to the Russian Federation) have done so in order to ensure their own safety (see http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/oped/29441/). Their citizen's have little wish to return to their previous existence and one cannot really blame them for that. Especially as, having first-hand knowledge of the costs/benefits associated, they can be presumed to be acting in their own best interests.

Or would those here prefer that such people were denied their rights to freedom/security in order to pacify Russia? Because that would appear to be the alternative, the cold-blooded abandonment of millions of people to a fate they seek to avoid in order to ensure your own safety? Sort of reminds me of 'better red than dead', I say not in this lifetime.

Leslie,

I seem impervious to evidence? I made counterclaims to all of your points, none of which you actually bothered backing up with referencing.

1. I totally agree that Russia has been carrying out an undeclared renewed cold-war on its former minions and NATO at large. The recent “intervention” in Georgia makes it CRYSTAL clear to Russia’s former satellites what will happen to them if they step out of line. Ukrainian President Yushenko’s poisoning during the orange revolution is merely one more example of the lengths Russia will go to to get what it wants. Medvedev has recently WARNED Ukraine not to join NATO.
2. Your point about camp bondsteel was SO inane that its barely worth mentioning. To suggest that the reason that Kosovo was assisted by the UN/NATO/US was so that they could build camp bondsteel is puerile in the extreme.\

I was asking for invasions AFTER Russia was NO LONGER a superpower, ie post USSR. That you had to go back over 60 years to find an example shows how weak your point actually was. I guarantee you my knowledge of Barbarossa and its associated actions as well as the Russian counterattacks is well above the average. To suggest that Russia fears a resurgent reunified German led NATO is preposterous. I can only hope that is not what you are suggesting.

Putin ex-KGB, EX-president and now Prime minister has totally hijacked the constitutional process, creating his very own human puppet in Medvedev. Russia under Putin leadership is taking a highly confrontational approach to the West, including the resumption of long range nuclear bomber patrols (as far afield as Britain).

Your total failure to address the suggestion that 10 Polish intercept missiles cannot possibly reduce Russia’s nuclear deterrence shows clearly you have fallen for Russian propaganda at every turn. Russia nuclear deterrence cannot be negated in ANY meaningful sense within current US/NATO outlays on missile shields. So Russia has NOTHING to fear from the West. On the contrary, Putin et al are not afraid for Russian security, they are fighting for a renewal of Russia’s former power.