As an informed amateur, your analysis dovetails with what I expect to happen as well.

The thing I don't understand about Russia is why it has never really fully integrated into the European structure. I understand there is a pride thing, but when it comes down to it, I can't help but think Russian security and energy interests throughout central Asia could be much more readily achieved by having a tit-for-tat attitude with respect to the US specifically, and the West generally.

I know it is heresy to say it, but I've been wondering for years why they don't just work toward eventual NATO accession. Is it because of what was lost after the USSR fell?

Is this a case where domestic politics demands the sort of strongarm rhetoric, or do you think Russia identifies these areas as vital interests?

Originally posted by cassandranova
As an informed amateur, your analysis dovetails with what I expect to happen as well.

The thing I don't understand about Russia is why it has never really fully integrated into the European structure. I understand there is a pride thing, but when it comes down to it, I can't help but think Russian security and energy interests throughout central Asia could be much more readily achieved by having a tit-for-tat attitude with respect to the US specifically, and the West generally.

I know it is heresy to say it, but I've been wondering for years why they don't just work toward eventual NATO accession. Is it because of what was lost after the USSR fell?

Is this a case where domestic politics demands the sort of strongarm rhetoric, or do you think Russia identifies these areas as vital interests?

I'll try to be objective. Due to some reasons I can not disclose my real name and the degree of my personal involvement with the processes you are interested in. But for what it is worth, I participated (mostly as a consultant) in the talks Russians had with EU in the early nineties. Russians always expressed their desire and willingness to join NATO (even when NATO was just created SU requested to be accepted as a member, upon receiving nye The Warsaw Pact was created) and that desire was reiterated during the talks. German participants expressed understanding while the rest especially observes from the Baltic states were belligerently against. I'd like to stress that Germans felt somewhat indebted, since the Wall was down and with the Warsaw Pact disintegrated, it would be quite logical to accept New Russia. But there was USA, who would and will never allow such a thing to happen. It would mean... Yet it's out of topic here.

Concerning Central Asia. Please try to grasp a picture I'm going to offer: Imagine US dissolves, yet let say 30 states manage to stick together and assume all the former glory of the deceased Empire. Now shortly after such a tragic event for the nation, Russkies show up in the separated, liberated states and begin actively and shamelessly prepare say oil to be shipped to Russia. they build bases, they alienate people, they do whatever they think fit. It is an obvious threat to the remaining Union, isn it? Now, with all due respect, what kind of respect are you talking about. Central Asia for centuries, let's call it a given historical geosynchrocy, has been Russia's backyard. Just a parallel, a visual aid.



I'll gladly continue this discussion but not here - I think we are way too far from the subject.

Thanks for your responses. I actually was trying to figure out what thread would make sense to continue this discussion, but I'm at a loss for which forum to use!

Originally posted by cassandranova
Thanks for your responses. I actually was trying to figure out what thread would make sense to continue this discussion, but I'm at a loss for which forum to use!

I think POLITICS thread WW3 scenarios or The balance of powers now
I can't start a thread since I'm a newbie to this site and haven't reached 20 requirement yet. So someone else should launch it.