What is the real cause of increased tensions between Russia & the US?

What is the real cause of increased tensions between Russia & the US?

Please be a little more informative than “they want attention”.

Simplistic answers…you know…

I am a clueless member of the great unwashed, but to my knowledge:

  • a couple of provinces in Georgia don’t like being part of Georgia - long history
  • Georgia began occupation-type actions in at least one of the provinces, South Ossetia
  • Russia used that as rationale to bombard Georgia and occupy part of it - commonly seen as a land grab on Russia’s part
  • Russia is concerned that Georgia is talking with NATO which if joined would mean that Georgia has allies
  • Russia has increased economic strength due to its natural resources and has regained a bit of growth
  • as a natural resource producer Russia will see prices rise at the threat of un rest increases - but their stock market sinks for the same concerns

…All I got - does that help?

The root cause is that we sold the end of the cold war as a mutual agreement to the Russians, and when they agreed, we went around acting as if we’d beaten them. See this article for a much more in-depth explanation.

I couldn’t say. I only came in to deny any involvement what-so-damn-ever.

I blame the Baba Yaga.

Another clueless member of the great unwashed here.

Russia and the U.S. have a history going back sixty-odd years now. And with the economy taking a nosedive and the Iraq war blowing up spectacularly in the government’s face, the U.S. is sliding away from being the world’s top superpower–and other superpowers, China and India and yes, Russia, are scrambling to fill the vacuum.

Plus, of course, it’s the Baba Yaga.

Swell.

An old lady that lives in a hut with giant chicken legs attached.

:smack:

Oil

Quite possibly that the USA is reminding the Russians that they lost the cold war with every former soviet satellite that is taken under the umbrella of Nato. Now Russia has decided that enough is enough and is drawing a line in the perma frost.

Their (Russian) problem really is that sooner or later the US is gonna draw down on them and they are going to back down.

Declan

Part of the the problem is that those soviet satellites are full of russian citizens (or at least russian passport holders). This (in the mind of Putin) gives the russians the right to act on behalf of their citizens. It also creates a voting bloc within said satellites that can oppose the local west-leaning governments.

I doubt it - NATO countries do not have the stomach or the popular support for a confrontation that costs soldiers lives over soviet satellite states like Ukraine and Georgia. Even if such a state did join NATO, I find it hard to believe that NATO would commit troops against the russians.

Si

Russia has a long history of bullying its neighbors (going back to the partition of Poland, and continuing through the Cold War). When the Soviet Union crumbled, Russia was temporarily weakened sufficiently that they had to back off. They’ve recovered somewhat recently (although still much weaker than the Soviet days) and are exerting themselves over their neighbors again. Some of those neighbors don’t like that and are looking for any help they can get. The US sees an opportunity to further its own interests, and has helped those neighbors. Thus, the conflict.

It’s also worth noting that for Russia the whole idea behind the hegemony of the Iron Curtain and the satellite states was that throughout recent history (I’m talking about the past 500 years, at least) Russia has been invaded by outsiders to their great cost. It’s simplistic to characterize Russian foreign policy as institutionalized paranoia. It’s also a convenient trap to fall into because it so often will explain the actions of the various Russian governments vis-a-vis their neighbors.

I believe that one factor that is driving this is that the Russian government is seeing the expansion of NATO as a hugely threatening action. Not because the Russian government serious believes that NATO intends to invade Russia, but because the potential for an invasion is inherent in the alliance. AIUI most of the former Soviet satellite states that are trying to join NATO are looking for that to provide some kind of toehold for meshing with the European economic community, often with the implication that they’d love to join the EU. And from an economic point of view, this makes a lot of sense. The Russians see it as a primarily military action, and fear the potential this builds up in what had been their own frontiers.

IMNSHO much of the increased tensions are rooted in competing views of what the national good for the individual nations might be. The specific actions being taken in response to those concerns and competing interests often seem worthy of criticism, but many of the underlying tensions are justified, I believe.

I think part of it is saber-rattling to make future U.N. concessions more likely. Global warming is revealing more and more oil rich sea beds in the arctic, and Russia is preparing to present a claim to the U.N. that those beds are part of Siberia. Taking advantage of rising Russian nationalism and doing some muscle-flexing might gain them some political advantage.

They want Yakov Smirnov back.

I blame moose and squirrel.

Okay lets try this again, an earlier attempt to post a reply met with a small screw up with my pda.

Russia is a soverign nation and if your above reasons want to drive a more aggressive foreign policy, then fine.

The USA is also a soverign nation with its own foreign policy and wants to see some of the former ssr’s included in nato.

Since we now have friction, it behooves us to have a multi point response to future russian moves with diplomacy taking the obvious lead. With the resumption of russian bombers doing flybys and a naval squadron showing the flag, russia is letting the world know , or trying to anyways , that the bear is back.

If that was the case then georgia would have been admitted into Nato back a few years ago. That they were denied is a tacit admitance that most of the member states did not want to defend a cadet member.

Since the invasion of georgia following georgia’s military action within its own frontiers, russia has put itself on a collision course with the USA.

As posted in other replies, russia has been the subject of several traumatic invasions that have institutionalized their policy of forward defense.

While I don’t think that previous to georgia, russia was especially leary of anyone invading.The fact that their buffer zone has markedly shrunk has probably forced their attention to the next ten years and they don’t like what they see.

Another point that I would throw into the mix, is that its possible that russia is going to be losing its nuclear deterent.

A number of years ago’ wired did an article on the pentagon bringing back nuclear bomb makers from retirement, as the skills to make devices was fading with nature taking its toll as people retired and passed away.

Its not out of the realm of possibity that the same problem faces each nuclear power. When the soviet union fell, a number of scientists were offered employment in other countries, to deter them from entering the workforces of hostile nations.

Now obviously what has been created can be re-created if the national will is present. It just brings into question if the current russian nuke force is still certified, and that would just give the russian joint chiefs hives over an American nuke shield ringing its borders.

declan