Ar Rusija vis dar kelia grėsmę Lietuvai?

[LC.]

Prašom. Tiems, kurie galvoja, kad Rusija nesiskolina (dėl AE statybų) ir valdo neribotus turtus:

Rusijos užsienio skola šiemet padidėjo 4 proc. iki rekordinio dydžio

Rusijos visa užsienio skola per pirmąjį šių metų ketvirtį paaugo 20,097 mlrd. JAV dolerių, arba 3,7 proc., iki rekordinio dydžio – 565,247 mlrd. dolerių, pranešė centrinis bankas.

[Aleksio]

Prašom. Tiems, kurie galvoja, kad Rusija nesiskolina (dėl AE statybų) ir valdo neribotus turtus:

Rusijos užsienio skola šiemet padidėjo 4 proc. iki rekordinio dydžio

O JAV ar kokia nors Graikija ar Belarusija dar daugiau skolingos. Tuo labiau, kaip rašo kai kurie forumo dalyviai - valstybės skolinimasis nėra taip blogai, nes tie pinigai padėda plėoti šalies ūkį, mažinti socialinę įtampą ir t.t.

[LC.]

O JAV ar kokia nors Graikija ar Belarusija dar daugiau skolingos. Tuo labiau, kaip rašo kai kurie forumo dalyviai - valstybės skolinimasis nėra taip blogai, nes tie pinigai padėda plėoti šalies ūkį, mažinti socialinę įtampą ir t.t.

Tokiai šaliai kaip Rusija iš viso nereikia jokių užsieninių pinigų. Nereiktų. Jeigu būtų normaliai sureguliuota ekonomika. Pajamos iš gamtinių resursų užtikrintų stabilų finansavimą, tarkim, nereiktų vyriausybei skolintis. Dabar iš Rusijos pinigai tik išplaukia.

[Aleksio]

Tokiai šaliai kaip Rusija iš viso nereikia jokių užsieninių pinigų. Nereiktų. Jeigu būtų normaliai sureguliuota ekonomika. Pajamos iš gamtinių resursų užtikrintų stabilų finansavimą, tarkim, nereiktų vyriausybei skolintis. Dabar iš Rusijos pinigai tik išplaukia.

Net tokia turtinga ir visus nuskriaustosius lepinanti Norvegija ir tai užsienyje skolina. O kas liečia Rusiją - taip, pinigai iš jos milžiniška upe teka. Visų pirma dėl nežinojimo, "kas ten su mano pinigais bus rytoj, kas neteksiu valdžios palaikymo - atims viską ar paliks truputi" - todėl ir išveža pinigus, o dalį duoda valdžiai, kad leistų ir rytoj pinigus išvežti, o valdžia taip pat išveža, nes bijo, kad kiti į jų šiltas vietas atsisės.

[dts]

tai visgi, ar Rusija vis dar kelia grėsmę Lietuvai?

[J.U.]

tai visgi, ar Rusija vis dar kelia grėsmę Lietuvai?

Grėsė, gresia dabar ir grės visada.

[MikasRidikas]

Kuo toliau tuo labiau panašu, kad daugybei tautiečių ta Rusija tiesiog ant proto kritusi.

Na, nė kiek ne daugiau, negu jums ant proto kritusi JAV

[Al1]

JAV atvirai deklaruoja savo interesų zona visa pasaulį, todėl nieko nuostabaus, kad su JAV spec. tarnybų "pagalba" gali net kur nors Sibire nukristi lėktuvas.

[surskis18]

JAV atvirai deklaruoja savo interesų zona visa pasaulį, todėl nieko nuostabaus, kad su JAV spec. tarnybų "pagalba" gali net kur nors Sibire nukristi lėktuvas.

O ėmė ir nukrito Lietuvoje. Ir ne amerikietiškas, o rusiškas.

[Al1]

Ir tai puikiai parodė, kaip "labai" mes NATO rūpime... Taip kad tas nukritimas išėjo tik į naudą.

[Klajojanti Mintis]

Plačiau čia

[savanoris]

Įdomu ar raudonieji meškėnai nepuls grasinti teismais

[surskis18]

Įdomus straipsnis iš Stratfor. Keliu visą, nes kitaip reikia įvedinėti e-mail'ą.
A1 ir Combat nuomonės neįdomios (nes nemokate anglų k.).

Specialiai iškeliu vieną citatą:
The Baltic states have re-established their independence, and all three are east and north of the Baltic-Carpathian line (the final defensive line on the North European Plain). Their presence in a hostile alliance is unacceptable. Neither is an independent or even neutral Belarus (also on the wrong side of that line).

Editor's Note:This is the fourth in a series of monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs. This was originally published in October 2008.

The western expansion was not nearly so "simple." No matter how far west the Russians moved on the European plain, there was no point at which they could effectively anchor themselves. Ultimately, the last effective line of defense is the 400 mile gap (aka Poland) between the Baltic Sea and Carpathian Mountains. Beyond that the plains widen to such a degree that a conventional defense is impossible as there is simply too much open territory to defend. So the Soviet Union pressed on all the way to the Elbe.

At its height, the Soviet Union achieved all but its final imperative of securing ocean access. The USSR was anchored on the Carpathians, the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Urals, all of which protected its southern and southwestern flanks. Siberia protected its eastern frontier with vast emptiness. Further to the south, Russia was anchored deeply in Central Asia. The Russians had defensible frontiers everywhere except the North European Plain, ergo the need to occupy Germany and Poland.

Strategy of the Russian Empire

The modern Russian empire faces three separate border regions: Asian Siberia, Central Asia and the Caucasus (now mostly independent states), and Western Europe.

First, Siberia. There is only one rail line connecting Siberia to the rest of the empire, and positioning a military force there is difficult if not impossible. In fact, risk in Russia's far east is illusory. The Trans-Siberian Railroad (TSR) runs east-west, with the Baikal Amur Mainline forming a loop. The TSR is Russia's main lifeline to Siberia and is, to some extent, vulnerable. But an attack against Siberia is difficult -- there is not much to attack but the weather, while the terrain and sheer size of the region make holding it not only difficult but of questionable relevance. Besides, an attack beyond it is impossible because of the Urals.

East of Kazakhstan, the Russian frontier is mountainous to hilly, and there are almost no north-south roads running deep into Russia; those that do exist can be easily defended, and even then they dead-end in lightly populated regions. The period without mud or snow lasts less than three months out of the year. After that time, overland resupply of an army is impossible. It is impossible for an Asian power to attack Siberia. That is the prime reason the Japanese chose to attack the United States rather than the Soviet Union in 1941. The only way to attack Russia in this region is by sea, as the Japanese did in 1905. It might then be possible to achieve a lodgment in the maritime provinces (such as Primorsky Krai or Vladivostok). But exploiting the resources of deep Siberia, given the requisite infrastructure costs, is prohibitive to the point of being virtually impossible.


We begin with Siberia in order to dispose of it as a major strategic concern. The defense of the Russian Empire involves a different set of issues.

Second, Central Asia. The mature Russian Empire and the Soviet Union were anchored on a series of linked mountain ranges, deserts and bodies of water in this region that gave it a superb defensive position. Beginning on the northwestern Mongolian border and moving southwest on a line through Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the empire was guarded by a north extension of the Himalayas, the Tien Shan Mountains. Swinging west along the Afghan and Iranian borders to the Caspian Sea, the empire occupied the lowlands along a mountainous border. But the lowlands, except for a small region on the frontier with Afghanistan, were harsh desert, impassable for large military forces. A section along the Afghan border was more permeable, leading to a long-term Russian unease with the threat in Afghanistan -- foreign or indigenous. The Caspian Sea protected the border with Iran, and on its western shore the Caucasus Mountains began, which the empire shared with Iran and Turkey but which were hard to pass through in either direction. The Caucasus terminated on the Black Sea, totally protecting the empire's southern border. These regions were of far greater utility to Russia than Siberia and so may have been worth taking, but for once geography actually helped Russia instead of working against it.

Finally, there is the western frontier that ran from west of Odessa north to the Baltic. This European frontier was the vulnerable point. Geographically, the southern portion of the border varied from time to time, and where the border was drawn was critical. The Carpathians form an arc from Romania through western Ukraine into Slovakia. Russia controlled the center of the arc in Ukraine. However, its frontier did not extend as far as the Carpathians in Romania, where a plain separated Russia from the mountains. This region is called Moldova or Bessarabia, and when the region belongs to Romania, it represents a threat to Russian national security. When it is in Russian hands, it allows the Russians to anchor on the Carpathians. And when it is independent, as it is today in the form of the state of Moldova, then it can serve either as a buffer or a flash point. During the alliance with the Germans in 1939-1941, the Russians seized this region as they did again after World War II. But there is always a danger of an attack out of Romania.

This is not Russia's greatest danger point. That occurs further north, between the northern edge of the Carpathians and the Baltic Sea. This gap, at its narrowest point, is just under 300 miles, running west of Warsaw from the city of Elblag in northern Poland to Cracow in the south. This is the narrowest point in the North European Plain and roughly the location of the Russian imperial border prior to World War I. Behind this point, the Russians controlled eastern Poland and the three Baltic countries.

The danger to Russia is that the north German plain expands like a triangle east of this point. As the triangle widens, Russian forces get stretched thinner and thinner. So a force attacking from the west through the plain faces an expanding geography that thins out Russian forces. If invaders concentrate their forces, the attackers can break through to Moscow. That is the traditional Russian fear: Lacking natural barriers, the farther east the Russians move the broader the front and the greater the advantage for the attacker. The Russians faced three attackers along this axis following the formation of empire -- Napoleon, Wilhelm II and Hitler. Wilhelm was focused on France so he did not drive hard into Russia, but Napoleon and Hitler did, both almost toppling Moscow in the process.

Along the North European Plain, Russia has three strategic options:

1. Use Russia's geographical depth and climate to suck in an enemy force and then defeat it, as it did with Napoleon and Hitler. After the fact this appears the solution, except it is always a close run and the attackers devastate the countryside. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened in 1942 if Hitler had resumed his drive on the North European Plain toward Moscow, rather than shift to a southern attack toward Stalingrad.

2. Face an attacking force with large, immobile infantry forces at the frontier and bleed them to death, as they tried to do in 1914. On the surface this appears to be an attractive choice because of Russia's greater manpower reserves than those of its European enemies. In practice, however, it is a dangerous choice because of the volatile social conditions of the empire, where the weakening of the security apparatus could cause the collapse of the regime in a soldiers' revolt as happened in 1917.

3. Push the Russian/Soviet border as far west as possible to create yet another buffer against attack, as the Soviets did during the Cold War. This is obviously an attractive choice, since it creates strategic depth and increases economic opportunities. But it also diffuses Russian resources by extending security states into Central Europe and massively increasing defense costs, which ultimately broke the Soviet Union in 1992.

Contemporary Russia

The greatest extension of the Russian Empire occurred under the Soviets from 1945 to 1989. Paradoxically, this expansion preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union and the contraction of Russia to its current borders. When we look at the Russian Federation today, it is important to understand that it has essentially retreated to the borders the Russian Empire had in the 17th century. It holds old Muscovy plus the Tatar lands to the southeast as well as Siberia. It has lost its western buffers in Ukraine and the Baltics and its strong foothold in the Caucasus and in Central Asia.

To understand this spectacular expansion and contraction, we need to focus on Soviet strategy. The Soviet Union was a landlocked entity dominating the Eurasian heartland but without free access to the sea. Neither the Baltic nor Black seas allow Russia free oceangoing transport because they are blocked by the Skagerrak and the Turkish straits, respectively. So long as Denmark and Turkey remain in NATO, Russia's positions in St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad, Sevastopol and Novorossiysk are militarily dubious.

There were many causes of the Soviet collapse. Some were:
Overextending forces into Central Europe, which taxed the ability of the Soviet Union to control the region while economically exploiting it. It became a net loss. This overextension created costly logistical problems on top of the cost of the military establishment. Extension of the traditional Russian administrative structure both diffused Russia's own administrative structure and turned a profitable empire into a massive economic burden.
Creating an apparent threat to the rest of Europe that compelled the United States to deploy major forces and arm Germany. This in turn forced the Russians into a massive military buildup that undermined its economy, which was less productive than the American economy because of its inherent agricultural problem and because the cost of internal transport combined with the lack of ocean access made Soviet (and Russian) maritime trade impossible. Since maritime trade both is cheaper than land trade and allows access to global markets, the Soviet Union always operated at an extreme economic disadvantage to its Western and Asian competitors.
Entering an arms race with much richer countries it could compete against only by diverting resources from the civilian economy -- material and intellectual. The best minds went into the military-industrial complex, causing the administrative and economic structure of Russia to crumble.

In 1989 the Soviet Union lost control of Eastern Europe and in 1992 the Soviet Union itself collapsed. Russia then retreated essentially to its 17th century borders -- except that it retained control of Siberia, which is either geopolitically irrelevant or a liability. Russia has lost all of Central Asia, and its position in the Caucasus has become tenuous. Had Russia lost Chechnya, its eastern flank would have been driven out of the Caucasus completely, leaving it without a geopolitical anchor.

The gap between Kazakhstan in the east and Ukraine in the west, like the narrowest point in the North European Plain, is only 300 miles wide. It also contains Russia's industrial heartland. Russia has lost Ukraine, of course, and Moldova. But Russia's most grievous geopolitical contraction has been on the North European Plain, where it has retreated from the Elbe in Germany to a point less than 100 miles from St. Petersburg. The distance from the border of an independent Belarus to Moscow is about 250 miles.

To understand the Russian situation, it is essential to understand that Russia has in many ways returned to the strategic position of late Muscovy. Its flank to the southeast is relatively secure, since China shows no inclination for adventures into the steppes, and no other power is in a position to challenge Russia from that direction. But in the west, in Ukraine and in the Caucasus, the Russian retreat has been stunning.

We need to remember why Muscovy expanded in the first place. Having dealt with the Mongols, the Russians had two strategic interests. Their most immediate was to secure their western borders by absorbing Lithuania and anchoring Russia as far west on the North European Plain as possible. Their second strategic interest was to secure Russia's southeastern frontier against potential threats from the steppes by absorbing Central Asia as well as Ukraine. Without that, Muscovy could not withstand a thrust from either direction, let alone from both directions at once.

It can be said that no one intends to invade Russia. From the Russian point of view, history is filled with dramatic changes of intention, particularly in the West. The unthinkable occurs to Russia once or twice a century. In its current configuration, Russia cannot hope to survive whatever surprises are coming in the 21st century. Muscovy was offensive because it did not have a good defensive option. The same is true of Russia. Given the fact that a Western alliance, NATO, is speaking seriously of establishing a dominant presence in Ukraine and in the Caucasus -- and has already established a presence in the Baltics, forcing Russia far back into the widening triangle, with its southern flank potentially exposed to Ukraine as a NATO member -- the Russians must view their position as dire. As with Napoleon, Wilhelm and Hitler, the initiative is in the hands of others. For the Russians, the strategic imperative is to eliminate that initiative or, if that is impossible, anchor Russia as firmly as possible on geographical barriers, concentrating all available force on the North European Plain without overextension.

Unlike countries such as China, Iran and the United States, Russia has not achieved its strategic geopolitical imperatives. On the contrary, it has retreated from them:
Russia does hold the northern Caucasus, but it no longer boasts a deep penetration of the mountains, including Georgia and Armenia. Without those territories Russia cannot consider this flank secure.
Russia has lost its anchor in the mountains and deserts of Central Asia and so cannot actively block or disrupt -- or even well monitor -- any developments to its deep south that could threaten its security.
Russia retains Siberia, but because of the climatic and geographic hostility of the region it is almost a wash in terms of security (it certainly is economically).
Russia's loss of Ukraine and Moldova allows both the intrusion of other powers and the potential rise of a Ukrainian rival on its very doorstep. Powers behind the Carpathians are especially positioned to take advantage of this political geography.
The Baltic states have re-established their independence, and all three are east and north of the Baltic-Carpathian line (the final defensive line on the North European Plain). Their presence in a hostile alliance is unacceptable. Neither is an independent or even neutral Belarus (also on the wrong side of that line).

Broader goals, such as having a port not blocked by straits controlled by other countries, could have been pursued by the Soviets. Today such goals are far out of Russian reach. From the Russian point of view, creating a sphere of influence that would return Russia to its relatively defensible imperial boundaries is imperative.

Obviously, forces in the peripheral countries as well as great powers outside the region will resist. For them, a weak and vulnerable Russia is preferable, since a strong and secure one develops other appetites that could see Russia pushing along vectors such as through the Skagerrak toward the North Sea, through the Turkish Straits toward the Mediterranean and through La Perouse Strait toward Japan and beyond.

Russia's essential strategic problem is this: It is geopolitically unstable. The Russian Empire and Soviet Union were never genuinely secure. One problem was the North European Plain. But another problem, very real and hard to solve, was access to the global trading system via oceans. And behind this was Russia's essential economic weakness due to its size and lack of ability to transport agricultural produce throughout the country. No matter how much national will it has, Russia's inherently insufficient infrastructure constantly weakens its internal cohesion.

Russia must dominate the Eurasian heartland. When it does, it must want more. The more it wants the more it must face its internal economic weakness and social instability, which cannot support its ambitions. Then the Russian Federation must contract. This cycle has nothing to do with Russian ideology or character. It has everything to do with geography, which in turn generates ideologies and shapes character. Russia is Russia and must face its permanent struggle.

[Sula]

Įdomus straipsnis iš Stratfor. Keliu visą, nes kitaip reikia įvedinėti e-mail'ą.
A1 ir Combat nuomonės neįdomios (nes nemokate anglų k.).

Labai jau viskas suvesta į geografiją, kas šiais laikais nėra pagrindinis geopolitinis veiksnys.

[Al1]

Įdomus straipsnis iš Stratfor. Keliu visą, nes kitaip reikia įvedinėti e-mail'ą.
A1 ir Combat nuomonės neįdomios (nes nemokate anglų k.).

Kas tau sakė??? Tavo nuomonė irgi neįdomi, nes nemoki rusų kalbos. O remtis trečios šalies (anglosaksų), kuri visada buvo priešiška Rusijai, nuomone, nėra korektiška.

[J.U.]

Na, pagaliau prabilta atvirai, kas iš tikro vyksta Baltijos šalių informacinėje erdvėje. Tai buvo matyti visus 20 metų, o pradėta kalbėti tik dabar:

http://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/abro....d?id=58138186

[Al1]

Vėl eilinį kartą daromas baubas. Vakarai seniai kontroliuoja mūsų informacinę erdvę, o ne Rusija. Taip, ji irgi reiškiasi, bet tai natūralu.

[J.U.]

Vėl eilinį kartą daromas baubas. Vakarai seniai kontroliuoja mūsų informacinę erdvę, o ne Rusija. Taip, ji irgi reiškiasi, bet tai natūralu.

Čia jau nieko nepadarysi. Yra tokių, kuriems visai nesvarbu, jog už 40 km į rytus nuo Vilniaus šlaistosi va toks sbrodas. Jei peržengtų sieną, atsirastų sveikinančių su gėlėmis - praktikos jau turime.

[surskis18]

Kas tau sakė??? Tavo nuomonė irgi neįdomi, nes nemoki rusų kalbos. O remtis trečios šalies (anglosaksų), kuri visada buvo priešiška Rusijai, nuomone, nėra korektiška.

Kai rašiau aną komentarą (su straipsniu) galvojau į tavo pykčio priepuolį nereguoti. Bet vis tik... Ar moki anglų k.? Taip ar ne? Kol neatsakysi į šį klausimą paprastu žodžiu, galvosiu, kad nemoki.

Remiuosi Lietuvos (kuri gan dažnai pasiremia rusų puslapiais) ir anglosaksiška žiniasklaida. Man įdomu kas kam labiau priešiški. Atsivertus rt.com daug daugiau neigiamų straipsnių apie Vakarus, nei BBC ar CNN neigiamų straipsnių apie Rusiją.

[J.U.]

Jo, ir labai nesenos praktikos, kokių 2004 metų, kai buvo integruojamasi į NATO. Kai bobelės megztomis beretėmis, į Lietuvą atvažiavus Bušui ir skeliant kalbą miniai, klykė ir plojo alpdamos iš džiaugsmo. Ir su tomis pačiomis gėlėmis.

Net lentelę prikalė ant sienos - čia buvo Bušas. Įamžinti gi tokį įvykį reikia - mūsų kaimą aplankė šitokie dideli ponai!

Bušas mano giminių nevežė pas baltas meškas. Matyt būsi iš tų sluoksnių kilęs, kurie sąrašiukus sudarinėjo, ką reikia išvežt. Ir jų baldus sau susitempt.