Quote Originally Posted by Basil77
Ты имеешь в виду_ на восточное побережье США? Действительно, чтобы полностью защититься, надо какие-то американские базы и в России!
Нет, как раз на западное. В Калифорнию, к примеру. Тогда не в России, а в Китае нужны перехватчики. [/quote]

я сказал восточное восточное побережье, а хотел сказать западное. В любом случае, если смотришь на глобус, самый короткий путь тменно через Россию (и Казакстан). А через китай намного дальше.

Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile
True words. All I was trying to say is that Russia has all the rights in the world to get alarmed. You see, if Russia doesn't get the explanation about a missile base in Poland (however convincing might that explanation be from the US' point of view) it can lead to much more dangerous situation than what we have today with Iran. And that in my opinion is the sufficient reason to stop the "box" process.
But Russia has received the explanation, it just doesn't accept it. I think all this about missile base = west vs. russia is all rhetoric on Russia's part, to get more attention

Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile
The same could be said about "buying more boxes." If the US, say, invests in military coaching of Georgia, what would the military target for Georgia be? Iran?
I think, and I won't speak for the American adiministration here, that the goal of the Americans with training the Gerogians was:
1) A favor returned for Georgian helping in Iraq
2) To create a well-trained army as a deterrent for anybody who would want to invade this American ally (and we all saw how that was a waste of time and money) and "democratically" elected government

I don't think the Americans were smart enough to realize that the Georgians would use the american equipment to attack their own citizens. Of course, now they have to cover their guilt by blaming it on the Russians!

Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile
Unlikely. So if Georgia wants to be "an integral part of the West" why should that necessarily imply the membership in NATO? If Georgia wants to save on the amount of its army but still feel confident, that doesn't necessarily imply NATO membership either.
NATO membership implies (in many goverments view) protection from outside threats. But NATO membership isn't automatically given to any willy-nilly country who wants it. That process is long and demanding, and Georgia (and Ukraine) is FAR from membership. however, with the recent events, they might be closer.

Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile
By no means was Kosovo a member of NATO. However, NATO gladly helped it in need. And to Kuwait as well. Had Kuwait ever been a NATO member? I can assure you that if Georgia would have been attacked by Russia, NATO wouldn't stay still regardless of whether Georgia is actually a member of NATO or not.
The NATO campaigns you mentioned are indeed controversial, no doubt about that. But you can't say they were not unprovoked. I am don't have the foresight to tell what would have happened if Georgia was a part of NATO. I guess, if it was, it wouldn't have internal breakaway conflicts which I believe is a criteria for NATO membership.

Quote Originally Posted by Crocodile
And again, I'm not trying to say that NATO is longing to attack Russia. Most probably not. But things like NATO expansion near Russian borders should run by Russia first. And if not approved by Russia, the expansion should be terminated. Regardless of Iran. Does that make sense?
While in a perfect world, everybody would be invovled in everybodies decisions, then in that world NATO would be unneccesary. However, I don't see why Russia shouldn't join NATO themselves?