I agree with You completely: The only problem is that Russia/Soviet has constantly tried to be a naval power to her own misfortune. The problem for the rest of us is, that with that absolute lack of realism, Russia is very difficult to predict, thus not to be trusted.

Thomas, I think you are very wrong in believing that Russia and Russians haven't changed after the fall of the Soviet Union, even more wrong in assuming that the essence of power-politics in our region hasn't changed much from past centuries. This is the 21st century for crying out loud! No world power regardless of its size can commit a large-scale miliary action against another sovereign country and expect to get away with it. Not in this era of increasing globalization and efficient high-tech mass media. The old world order of military expansionism and imperialist adventures is no more. This is a new world Thomas, weak up! So you think Russia wants control of Scandinavia in order to increase its military blue-water potential? I suppose this will include mainly Norway, as it has the most coastline, and Sweden and Denmark occupy really bad strategic positions generally speaking. Are you really serious about this? I think the Russians aren't. Not only on the grounds of redundancy of military solutions to political problems and otherwise in the modern world, but on the grounds that Russia never primarily has been a naval power, probably never will be, and most of all doesn't need to be. Russia is mainly continental power. There is no question about it. Im am however, not implying in this that Russia doesn't need a capable navy, just that most of Russia's interrests are mainly tied to conditions arising on land rather than the high seas, and that these in interrests can with the regard to Scandinavia will and eventually must be resolved through mutual cooperation instead of conflict. And no. Historical emnity (which you recite left and right) cannot, under any circumstances become the basis for present policies. Sincerely OplotMira

Well: I think the following is going to happen. NATO will change the Baltic Command bringing Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia under one command. The Danish materiel will be transferred to the 3 countries. With Denmark acting as reserve. Now this role is foreseen, BECAUSE Denmark is a small nation, it will cater for the Baltic Countries needs under the present circumstances, it will indicate to Russia, that the situation is so peacefull that it does not need the immmediate attention of the USA. It is a soultion I'm much in favour of, because it will reflect the reduced tension - which will allow the Russians to reduce their level of preparedness - the thought of the 4 countries occupying Moscow lacks credulity. When I say I mistrust Russia, I am for giving them a chance for letting them act in accordance with their political posture. I sincerely hope Russia will take this chance to prove their peacefull intentions. The muttering between clenched teeth: "When we are strong again, nobody will laugh!" That is NOT helpfull in any way: Either it is meant, which leads to the conclusion, that Russia must never rise again. Or it is just hot air, which at best is pathetic.

If you are afraid of strong Russia, just think of another possibility. When your Baltic States will share borders with PRC, it would be far more dangerous to you. And in the case of economic and military collapse of Russia, Europe will face real threat. Certainly, its almost impossible to think about China invading Russia. But if Russia is mistrusted, can be China trusted? Also, anything strange can happen in modern world, including Canadian Frigate firing to Danish Patrol Ship somewhere near the North Pole :-(

Well that is where You are wrong. For planning You have to look at where there are weapons, trained soldiers and command-structure of a kind and within range. You plan your defence based on the the potential enemys capabilities NOT intentions. For one thing a military is so expensive, that the capabilities are more likely to reflect intentions, than political statements. As to China: You have heard of the update of the Thule Radar for the missile defence system?? As to Canada: We do have a dispute over Hans Island in the Nares Strait (which is rather close to the North Pole). It is my guess that it is more of hint to Canada, that it should be pulling its weight.

I agree with roadcop that Europe's interests are better served by having a strong Russia at its' orders, not a weak one. Not only because of the threat of possible territorial assertions or otherwise by the comming Asian powers, (China chief among them) but also for protection against the consequences of a possible power-vacuum if the the Russian Federation should somehow break up or loose its hold of the fringe provinces in the Causasus or Siberia. As far as Central-Asia is concerned, the US has taken on "responsibility" for these regions traditionally under Russian influence in the light of "The War On Terror", but this is only a temporary condition. The future will need a strong Russia to assert control of this vast territory and prevent it form falling pray to organised crime, militant islamism, big-time banditry and international terrorism. That's my stance on the subject. Sincerely OplotMira

Thomas, what the Thule radar has to do with conventional 3-million army and 12-million ready reserve? And 60-million militia? Wars are being fought by men not by missiles (dont tell me about Gulf War or Yugoslavia, there was no occupation of vast territories).

The Thule (or rather if You want to be nitpicking: Pitufik) Radar is the the point about preventing attack.

And no. Historical emnity (which you recite left and right) cannot, under any circumstances become the basis for present policies. ----------------------------------------- I assume by cannot you mean should not. big differance.

When I say I mistrust Russia, I am for giving them a chance for letting them act in accordance with their political posture. I sincerely hope Russia will take this chance to prove their peacefull intentions. The muttering between clenched teeth: "When we are strong again, nobody will laugh!" That is NOT helpfull in any way: Either it is meant, which leads to the conclusion, that Russia must never rise again. Or it is just hot air, which at best is pathetic. ____________________________________________________ I agree. I DON'T "trust" Russia-because Russia is a potential rival power, not my grandmother. At the same time I don't wish Russia ill. I wish for a prosperous Russia that can defend itself resonably well but is unlikly to threaten others. And I would hardly make fun of russia because it is having a run of bad luck. That is I might make fun of it the way I might make fun of every other tribe, people, and tongue-but not because it is unfortunate. That would make it less likely not more.