NATO won't be going anywhere. But I don't see it being a vehicle for anti-Russian policy for much longer.
US has long dominated it, used it to fulfil its goals - expansion to Russian borders, while throwing a bone to Germany and other players with the bombing of Yugoslavia, and so on
Well that is the amusing thing... America uses NATO to keep the EU opposed to Russia, but it controls it mainly because it pays for it.
Now that they are demanding NATO members pay more they might find they are less inclined to do as they are told when they are paying more of their share they will probably feel less inclined to do as the US tells them to.
But now you have Turkey, which is complaining - very much vocally, that NATO isn't taking its security concerns in Syria seriously enough
Which is fair enough when you see ISIS and the kurds using weapons clearly supplied by their western allies... I mean a US company contracts a Serbian company to make weapons and ammo and then that same ammo turns up in the hands of ISIS and the Kurds but that US company no longer exists and of course that Serbian company was told the weapons were going to be sent to Albania...
And at the same time you have France, with the quiet support of several other members - saying that NATO shouldn't be focused on Russia/China, and verbally opposing Turkey, trying essentially to move it into the direction of an EU army.
Trump got really upset being lumped together with Russia and China as reasons the EU needed an EU army, but at the end of the day that should be no real surprise... America drags europe in to wars they don't have anything to do with... like Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps soon Iran... it really isn't in the interests of Europe to be part of such conflicts that cost money and kill people when they would much rather be selling them stuff and buying their oil.
The only European Army that could be effective needs a strong leader... like Napoleon, like Hitler, or dare I say it... like Stalin... and looking at Micron, Merkel, and Putin... that would mean Putin... which is amusing and ironic because for all the bullshit the west goes on about Putin being like Stalin he has had the same transformational effect, but without the deaths and disappearances and the fear that Stalin used... imagine what the Soviet Union could have been with Putin instead of Stalin...
Now you have Corbyn, the other contender for PM post in Britain - saying that he supports Macron's ideas on NATO reformation (and has been very vocally opposed to the whole organization for many years now). It shows a wind of change.
Most of Britain treats Corbyn worse than they treat Bojo, which is ironic because while Bojo deserves it... and more... I think Bojo is treated rather better than an idiot of his mania should get, but when Corbyn says what the Israelis are doing is not right all of a sudden he is anti semitic... which is of course bullshit.
Corbyn will fight for the 99.9% to get back on their feet and start making money again at the expense of those 0.1%... the richest of the rich, but those 0.1% will use the media companies they own and the industry they control to keep him out of office... but of course with Brexit they are likely to leave anyway.
Syria is not a Russian region or protectorate, it's a fairly large country and it will need recognition by Europe again
Syria is a sovereign country that has been pissed on from high altitudes by the west and the Europeans in particular for a very long time. Most of their problems derive from choices made by the UK and France in the 1920s.
There is the rest of the world to trade with... you seem to suggest that the west is an essential component of the world... it is not.
and not through this whole Geneva talks clownshow; so that investment can start back in again. France can benefit with partnership with Russia in the Middle East, even if at a limited level. At the very least Moscow's Middle Eastern adventure has yielded a more stable, viable result than Washington's ever did.
And now the west wants to swoop in and get contracts and deals and make some money... just like the oil they have been stealing from Syrian oil wells for the last decade has been pocketed by certain people who want this to continue. Peace is not in the interests of most western countries because war is so lucrative.
The effect Moscow has had in the region has been eye opening... many countries in the region have taken note of the actions of Russia. Russia talks to all parties and negotiates and respects other parties that deserve respect. (not ISIS of course).
It is not an accident that factions in Libya want Russian assistance there... and not just to supply weapons.
The main thing that it's not doing it for the neo-cons in Washington and their discredited agenda - who Trump is increasingly sidelining anyhow.
Americas use of the dollar and sanctions has only weakened its controls and leverage over Russia and China and more and more countries are looking for alternatives to current international norms which further undermines US control.
France is jumping ship because it recognises Russia as being the more stable ship that seems to be heading in a sensible direction, while the US ship is taking on water and the last 3 or four presidents have gone with bad advice... they are being told to drill holes in the hull to let some of the water out... which just lets more water in so their response is to drill faster...
But American voters are stupid and believe they are on the best ship in the world... soon to be the best submarine in the world... but it is pretty obvious when you are not balancing your budget and the amount you owe keeps creeping up eventually you are going to have to start paying people and literally when you print your own money some people are going to stop accepting that because it is worthless... just printed paper... they will want gold or other valuable commodities... all the richest 0.1 percent will leave... and now they will have a big powerful military and no money and demands for payment in something other than cash... odds are they will probably start a serious war... preferably against a country they owe most of their money to so when they win they can simply wipe their debt without having to pay it... so who holds a lot of US debt?
Of course they control moodys and the other financial institutions and could simply force them to give them AAAAA++++++ status which means they have to pay 0% interest on the money they owe anyone... which makes owning US debt worthless...
Turkey is an important partner but geography, differences in world view and so on pretty much doom it to be a competitor to Russia in its current state.
Turkey has been thrust together with Russia and China because he has a spine and does what is right for Turkey... there is not a huge amount of things in common between Russia and Turkey but there are not a huge amount of things in common between China and Russia, India and Russia, or Turkey and the US.
They don't have to be best buddies, but they need to follow some basic principles of decency like not murdering people in embassies like the Saudi Arabians do, and they can cooperate on many levels. Russia doesn't need to become part of the Ottoman empire and Turkey does not need to become part of the Soviet Union.
I buy lots of odd things at a Chinese grocery store in Dunedin... the owner is Chinese... seems a nice enough guy. I wont be marrying his daughter, but I can buy things from him.
Russia and Turkey are both in the Middle East, and they don't have much in the way of commonality there;
Actually they do... they both want terrorists removed from Syrian territory. The americans are not helping the Kurds for Turkeys benefit or for Russia or Assads benefit. As far as Russia is concerned the Kurds and ISIS forces seemed to cooperate too often and their focus was always against Assad rather than against each other, so if ISIS is destroyed Russia is happy, but if the Kurds as a military entity are destroyed Russia really doesn't care because they are primarily anti Assad and for Russia Assad represents Syria... anything else wont have structure or order and will be Libya style chaos.
Now Turkey cooperated with ISIS... they certainly bought oil from these people which is where they made their money, but the Turks see the Kurds as the terrorists in the region. If Russia can convince Turkey to treat the ISIS forces as terrorists... perhaps in return for Russia seeing the Kurds as terrorists then Turkey and Russia and Assad are happy... as would be Iran no doubt... the only unhappy people would be the Kurds, ISIS of course, and the Americans and Israelis... so frankly that would be the ideal outcome for everyone concerned that matters.
what with Erdogan being a Muslim Brotherhood fanatic. Plus Erdogan is a loose cannon and you can't trust him. If an opposition bloc in Turkey seizes power then there is more room for partnership; but whenever will that be?
Any opposition block to Erdogan will be CIA supported and anti Russian... but not likely pro Kurd so similar but different.
France on the other hand is mostly focussed on West and North Africa, some islands somewhere;
Its focus is remaining a colonial power hoovering up resources and plundering the poor. Russia on the other hand is interested in projects that can help those countries as well as Russia to make money and develop.
During the Georgia war it was Sarkozy that brokered the ceasefire.
And it was France and Europe and the west that continued to blame Russia for the conflict in the first place... even after it became clear what actually happened.
And of course during the Chirac years the French and Russians (and Germans under Shchroder) joined forces to oppose the Iraq war.
They verbally opposed it but did little to actually stop it.
The point is that Franco-Russian co-operation can also serve as a good example for Germany, and for other Western and Central European countries; that co-operation with Moscow brings greater benefits than confrontation.
You mean like the cooperation during WWII to fight Hitler that is now being rewritten, just like any Russian cooperation can be rewritten to suit any narrative needed at the time... their memories are very selective and very short.... like a gold fish...
I believe it is an exagerration
Ask someone in the west about WWII and the role of the Soviet Union and Russia... they write history, and it is everyone elses fault... a non aggression pact with hitler shows that Stalin was in cahoots with Germany... but agreements signed by Chamberlain for appeasement are the opposite it seems... the Soviets fought the Germans tooth and nail like cowards, while the French bravely surrendered and the British bravely ran away... with their most powerful Royal Navy doing fuck all...
it can eventually lead to a WW1 style confrontation of blocs and so on.
It was power blocks that created WWI which at best should have been a small conflict over fairly quickly... certainly not the bullshit that happened and with Britain and France being total
ensuring WWII was the inevitable consequence of them treating Germany like it was all their fault.
WWII happened because the west didn't know how to be gratious winners and believed its own propaganda that they were good so by definition the other side must be bad/evil... of course when the Soviet Union appeared they quickly changed west germany and japan from evil bad guys to heroic new allies against the new menace... they claimed the problem was communism but managed to get right in to bed for WWII when it was useful and of course to get friendly with China during the cold war to counter the Soviet Union. Of course that showed that it really had nothing to do with communism... if they could get friendly with communist china then they could just as easily have gotten friendly with the Soviet Union too which would make more sense... but they didn't.
But what is clear is that you don't embrace it and limit your range of partners, other more pragmatic countries will leave you behind.
There are several myths to be broken.... the first is that the best chance for future growth and development for Russia is with closer ties with the Europeans and Americans... it is bullshit... they don't want you to grow and develop and will do everything they can to sabotage that.
The second myth is that the people of the third world are stupid and poor and there is no point trading with them except to offer charity... the truth is that after about 4 centuries of the first world trading with the third world the third world is still the third world because the first world goes out of its way to make it so.... they are on top and want to keep it that way... but look at Russia and China.... they make their own stuff and haven't farmed out production to cheap labour in third world countries like the west has so they still have people that work in factories and earn money... in the west most of the factories are closed.
If Russia wants to grow and develop and make its own choices in terms of morality and ethics then it needs to avoid the west... it needs to make its own path forward, it needs to develop trade ties to the rest of the world, and it can offer all those countries in Africa and Asia and central and south america a better alternative for growth and development... and you can all grow and develop together.
The problem for the world is that the best way to make money is to have money, so it is people with lots of money that make the big money and the rest of us are just trapped working to earn it the hard way.
I see that China now has more millionaires and billionaires than the US does... maybe their morals and ethics will be better and they wont focus on hoarding as much for themselves as they can at the expense of everyone else like western rich people seem to do.