An RT article (for Deez!)

[Musburger1]

Might need your legal expertise for this one.
Here's the article. It's an interview (link). And here's an excerpt from the interview.

RT: NATO is preparing to send more battalions to Eastern Europe, saying it is bolstering its forces in response to greater levels of Russian activity. How justified is that explanation? What is really going on behind the scenes?

Hall Gardner: Well, there is a toughening of the American position here. General [Curtis] Scaparrotti has argued - it hasn’t been approved yet - for a permanent stationing of a third battalion in Europe. And this would be a significant difference between the previous General [Philip] Breedlove, who was for a rotating deployment. This is a major change in policy. In effect, it would go back on the NATO–Russia Founding Act of 1997 in which the US had promised not to permanently deploy either troops or nuclear weapons in the new NATO countries.

RT: This is going to attract a strong reaction from Moscow too, isn’t it?

HG: Certainly, and Moscow has a problem with just the idea of rotating forces. But, as I said, those aren’t permanent and can be more easily drawn back than a proposed third permanent deployment. This is a major issue and it could undermine the NATO–Russia Founding Act.​

So at this point I followed the link to see what this NATO-Russia Founding Acto of 1997 stated about that. I'll excerpt what appears to be the relevant part.

IV. Political-Military Matters
NATO and Russia affirm their shared desire to achieve greater stability and security in the Euro-Atlantic area.

The member States of NATO reiterate that they have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, nor any need to change any aspect of NATO's nuclear posture or nuclear policy - and do not foresee any future need to do so. This subsumes the fact that NATO has decided that it has no intention, no plan, and no reason to establish nuclear weapon storage sites on the territory of those members, whether through the construction of new nuclear storage facilities or the adaptation of old nuclear storage facilities. Nuclear storage sites are understood to be facilities specifically designed for the stationing of nuclear weapons, and include all types of hardened above or below ground facilities (storage bunkers or vaults) designed for storing nuclear weapons.

Recognising the importance of the adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) for the broader context of security in the OSCE area and the work on a Common and Comprehensive Security Model for Europe for the Twenty-First Century, the member States of NATO and Russia will work together in Vienna with the other States Parties to adapt the CFE Treaty to enhance its viability and effectiveness, taking into account Europe's changing security environment and the legitimate security interests of all OSCE participating States. They share the objective of concluding an adaptation agreement as expeditiously as possible and, as a first step in this process, they will, together with other States Parties to the CFE Treaty, seek to conclude as soon as possible a framework agreement setting forth the basic elements of an adapted CFE Treaty, consistent with the objectives and principles of the Document on Scope and Parameters agreed at Lisbon in December 1996.
​

I'm no lawyer, but it appears to me there is no teeth to this. It doesn't say we agree not to deploy etc., only that we intend not to deploy. Am I correct, in that its just about legally worthless? Even so, I can see where the Russians would be pissed. I don't think Putin would have signed on to this nonsense had he been in charge at that time. But anyway this "agreement", is the kind of thing that is a big deal in Russia, and isn't even discussed in the US. I bet if you asked 10,000 Americans if they were familiar with this pact not to employ nukes on new NATO members you couldn't find five people that knew what you were talking about.

 

[Mr. Deez]

General [Curtis] Scaparrotti has argued - it hasn’t been approved yet - for a permanent stationing of a third battalion in Europe. And this would be a significant difference between the previous General [Philip] Breedlove, who was for a rotating deployment. This is a major change in policy.

From what I've read, Gen. Breedlove wasn't against a permanent stationing per se, but I don't think he thought it was a realistic option. The Pentagon's budget was being cut, and there was a major military draw down that was already in process. Breedlove's first priority was to stop the draw down, and parts of it have been reconsidered. Permanent stationing of troops was out of the question (the Obama Administration wasn't interested in that anyway), but he was able to get significant rotational deployments.

Sounds like Gen. Scaparotti wants to take the next step of permanently stationing troops. Will he get that? Maybe. That's a big deal, but frankly it makes sense from a money standpoint. Stationing more troops in Germany (and even Italy) would be expensive, because the costs of living and housings are high. Stationing them in the East would certainly be cheaper and closer to potential action - not just with Russia but also with Syria and the Middle East.

I'm no lawyer, but it appears to me there is no teeth to this. It doesn't say we agree not to deploy etc., only that we intend not to deploy. Am I correct, in that its just about legally worthless?

Yes, I think you're correct.

I don't think Putin would have signed on to this nonsense had he been in charge at that time.

Do you assume that Putin can just drag his nuts across the table and get whatever he wants? There's only so much even he could have done. Think about the context. In the mid '90s, Russia's economy was a mess, and though they inherited the powerful Soviet military, they didn't have the money to fund it. Furthermore, embarrassing facts were being uncovered about the Soviet government. I doubt that the Russian public would have had much of an appetite for a former KGB official to try to play hardball with the West on their behalf. In contrast, the US had about 100,000 troops in Europe, a strong economy, and a budget surplus. We had virtually all of the cards and therefore the power to dictate the terms of any agreements.

Also, even if this agreement didn't have any legal teeth, it wasn't worthless. It did give Russia a de facto short term assurance that there wouldn't be a NATO military buildup in the East. Furthermore, it developed good will between Russia and the West, which opened up economic opportunities perhaps not as much with the US but certainly with Western Europe. They did have plenty to gain by playing ball, and I think even Putin would have been able to see that.

 

[Musburger1]

In the context of that time in the 90s, your explanation makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

It's a different time now and clearly both sides have different agendas. If I want to know the Russian perspective on something, I have to search for sources outside of traditional western media because they simply don't cover these things.
You can make the argument the reason for those omissions is that the public is more responsive to the Kardashians, but I believe vigorous debates would generate interest and the US power structure doesn't encourage that.

 

[Musburger1]

Despite warnings by the Kremlin, NATO has installed missiles in Romania. Putin has promised Russians they will not let the US surround them. This action kind of crosses a red line. https://www.rt.com/news/342734-us-missiles-romania-russia/

 

[Mr. Deez]

Despite warnings by the Kremlin, NATO has installed missiles in Romania. Putin has promised Russians they will not let the US surround them. This action kind of crosses a red line. https://www.rt.com/news/342734-us-missiles-romania-russia/

When people colloquially use the phrase "install missiles," it usually implies the installation of offensive weapons, such as those installed in Cuba in the early '60s (or the Jupiter missiles deployed by the US in Turkey). What they installed in Romania was a component of the Aegis antimissile system. These aren't offensive weapons. Yes, the sites could be configured to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, but unless that happens (and I don't see why we'd do that - not much reason to since we can easily deploy Tomahawk missiles from ships and submarines without violating the INF Treaty), you're on weak ground. (In fact, to my knowledge, we don't have Tomahawks deployed from land anywhere in the world.)

What I'm starting to notice in your sources is an attempt to frame the deployment of a missile defense system as a violation of the INF Treaty, when it isn't. That's why we hear the more subjective phrase "violates the spirit of the INF Treaty" (and it doesn't even do that) rather than the more definite and objective "violates the INF Treaty." Rather than try to fit the square peg into the round hole, why not just rip the US for withdrawing from the ABM Treaty? We clearly did withdraw from that and are now violating what was in that Treaty, and that's obviously what your people are pissed about.

Also, I do have to chuckle with Russia (and obviously RT) summarily dismissing the idea that the missile defense sites are mainly concerned with Iran. As most know, Iran is developing a ballistic missile system. There's very good reason for the West to be concerned about that. (Of course, Russia should be too, but they're in the sack with Iran, at least for right now.)

 

[ProdigalHorn]

When people colloquially use the phrase "install missiles," it usually implies the installation of offensive weapons, such as those installed in Cuba in the early '60s (or the Jupiter missiles deployed by the US in Turkey). What they installed in Romania was a component of the Aegis antimissile system. These aren't offensive weapons. Yes, the sites could be configured to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, but unless that happens (and I don't see why we'd do that - not much reason to since we can easily deploy Tomahawk missiles from ships and submarines without violating the INF Treaty), you're on weak ground. (In fact, to my knowledge, we don't have Tomahawks deployed from land anywhere in the world.)

It's always telling to me when a country sees you putting in counter-measures to an offensive position, and they get upset about it. But Russia would probably argue that when you put up defenses against their offense, and they consider their ability to launch an offensive as their defense, then your defense is actually offensive...

 

[Musburger1]

Dee's, Russia looks at like this. Russia sees its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. They believe the US objective is to be able to nullify this deterrent and make it possible to then hit Russia with a first strike and eliminate the possibility of a response. In addition, Russia sees the deployment as a means of intimidation and leverage.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that their reasoning is irrational, but that won't change the fact that's what they think. Rational US policy should factor in what an "irrational" response to our policy might entail. It does not.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Dee's, Russia looks at like this. Russia sees its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent. They believe the US objective is to be able to nullify this deterrent and make it possible to then hit Russia with a first strike and eliminate the possibility of a response. In addition, Russia sees the deployment as a means of intimidation and leverage.

You're making the argument in favor of the ABM Treaty, which isn't the point made by RT and its puppet master. It's at most background noise, because it's a lot more sensational to accuse someone of violating a standing agreement. In other words, their goal in this article is propaganda, not news.

Nevertheless, since you're going there, the ABM Treaty made sense in 1972. The Soviet Union was the only country with a major ballistic missile arsenal that was a serious adversary of the US, and the reverse was also true. (Other nations had missiles, but they were aligned with the East or the West.) If both countries agreed not to have ABMs they didn't put themselves at risk of other missile-wielding countries that didn't sign the Treaty. That's not true today, and that's why the Treaty isn't a good idea today.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that their reasoning is irrational, but that won't change the fact that's what they think. Rational US policy should factor in what an "irrational" response to our policy might entail. It does not.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that we didn't factor in or consider Russia's position, how would our policy on this particular issue be different if we did?

 

[Musburger1]

The answer to your question is simply not to expand NATO to countries where we have no vital interests and not deploy missiles in those countries. It would be illogical for Russia to invade and then occupy a hostile nation as the USSR did in the 80s which precipitated it's implosion. Even if Russia had the desire to invade Poland or Romania, they economically can't afford to. What we are doing is poking the bear. You can cite your legal mumbo jumbo and interpretation of treaties all you want. The problem which is developing boils down to the US pushing the boundaries and Russia responding in kind.

 

[Musburger1]

It's always telling to me when a country sees you putting in counter-measures to an offensive position, and they get upset about it. But Russia would probably argue that when you put up defenses against their offense, and they consider their ability to launch an offensive as their defense, then your defense is actually offensive...

The Russian "offensive position" are located within the borders of Russia. Our "defensive counter-measures" are being deployed in every location possible on their border.

By contrast, the US "offensive positions" that lie within our borders are not met with a similar "defensive counter-measure" by the Russians. Suppose Russia, Mexico, and Cuba struck up an agreement to allow Russia to construct ABM missiles in Juarez, Tiajuana, and Havana. You think we'd be OK with that?

 

[Musburger1]

Here's a NY Times article covering the story. Link. There is a short video clip where the US representative insists the whole project is designed solely for the purpose of being able to intercept missiles launched from the middle east. Get real. This is ridiculous.

The Russian spokes person points out that the Aegis system being deployed is practically identical to the Aegis warship system that launches Tomahawk cruise missiles. In other words, they could very easily be fitted with nuclear weapons.

Also, another Russian commentator pointed out that the hosting country could become a target as a preventative strike. In other words, by allowing NATO place these missiles on their soil, they are now prime targets for Russian retaliation. But that's OK. They are only there to make these countries safer and halt the Russian aggression, oops, Iranian offensive.

But yeah. Let's go ahead with this. We mean you no harm.

 

[Musburger1]

I realize people have things to do, but just in case anyone has an hour to kill, here's a video I'd recommend. It's a US foreign policy expert that has a view which is at odds with prevailing US policy. The focus is on Crimea and policy toward Russia, but if you listen to the whole thing, including the Q&A at the end, he works in China. And no, I don't believe this guy is a Putin spy.

 

[Joe Fan]

Maybe this is simply stating the obvious, but it needs to be said nonetheless.
RT is state-run media. It is funded by the Kremlin.



And thanks for the new load of Russian phishing emails Musberger.

 

[Musburger1]

Maybe this is simply stating the obvious, but it needs to be said nonetheless.
RT is state-run media. It is funded by the Kremlin.



And thanks for the new load of Russian phishing emails Musberger.

I gave you a link to the NY Times article. I posted a video that of a lecture given Poland, hardly a pro-Russian country. What more do you want?

 

[Joe Fan]

I gave you a link to the NY Times article. I posted a video that of a lecture given Poland, hardly a pro-Russian country. What more do you want?

Even Putin has admitted RT is a Kremlin operation

 

[Musburger1]

Even Putin has admitted RT is a Kremlin operation

I don't care if Stalin runs RT. What does that have to do with Romania being a US vital interest?

 

[Mr. Deez]

The answer to your question is simply not to expand NATO to countries where we have no vital interests and not deploy missiles in those countries.

That's not taking the irrational country's view into consideration. It's letting the irrational country be the overriding driver of US foreign policy. That's absurd. And what if the US and Eastern Europe want to have economic or security interests? Vladimir Putin shouldn't be able to dictate whether or not they do that, and he sure as hell shouldn't be able to dictate who is and is not defenseless against Iran (his ally).

And let's cut the crap. If NATO deployed an ABM system in Italy, Germany, Spain, the UK, or probably anywhere in the Eastern Hemisphere, you'd throw a fit. It has nothing to do with the fact that this is in a nation that recently joined NATO.

It would be illogical for Russia to invade and then occupy a hostile nation as the USSR did in the 80s which precipitated it's implosion. Even if Russia had the desire to invade Poland or Romania, they economically can't afford to.

If Poland or Romania had no backing from NATO, Russia certainly could invade them. Nevertheless, that's not the point here. I doubt anyone would raise that as the primary concern.

What we are doing is poking the bear. You can cite your legal mumbo jumbo and interpretation of treaties all you want.

"Legal mumbo jumbo?" Do you think they get plumbers and pole dancers to write these treaties? INF was undoubtedly written by Soviet and American international law experts who were highly skilled in legal draftsmanship. The exact words used, the words not used, the context of the words (meaning the surrounding words), and the context of the agreement itself (meaning how the treaty works with other treaties such as the ABM Treaty that was already in place) were not only relevant but extremely important. Dismiss it as "mumbo jumbo" if you want, but it's how treaties and contracts work. If you can't handle that kind of nuance, then this isn't a topic for you.

The problem which is developing boils down to the US pushing the boundaries and Russia responding in kind.

Again, get this **** written down if you care about it. This isn't a gentleman's agreement over who's buying the next round of beers.

Here's a NY Times 4article covering the story. Link. There is a short video clip where the US representative insists the whole project is designed solely for the purpose of being able to intercept missiles launched from the middle east. Get real. This is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous if it's coming from a US official. It's gospel if it's coming from a Russian official. After all, they never lie or violate treaties, right?

The Russian spokes person points out that the Aegis system being deployed is practically identical to the Aegis warship system that launches Tomahawk cruise missiles. In other words, they could very easily be fitted with nuclear weapons.

"Practically identical" means it's not identical - again, more subjective language from your Russian friends. Nevertheless, I'm skeptical of this claim either way. I'm no expert on missile launchers, but what's going to Romania are SM-3 missiles, which are quite distinguishable from Tomahawks not only in performance but in appearance including size and shape. For one thing, Tomahawks are cruise missiles, so they have a jet engine on them and fly at airliner speed - basically like a drone with a bomb inside. SM-3s are true interceptor rockets. They fly hundreds of miles into the atmosphere at Mach 10 and blow stuff like ballistic missiles and satellites out of the sky. They're not similar, and I doubt that you could just pull out the SM-3s and stuff Tomahawks in there. Could it be done with some modifications? I'm sure it could be, but I could turn my bidet into a Tomahawk missile launcher if I made enough modifications to it.

Also, another Russian commentator pointed out that the hosting country could become a target as a preventative strike. In other words, by allowing NATO place these missiles on their soil, they are now prime targets for Russian retaliation. But that's OK. They are only there to make these countries safer and halt the Russian aggression, oops, Iranian offensive.

I'm sure Romanian officials were aware of this risk when they decided to host these facilities and surely knew Russia would oppose this move. After all, Russia doesn't want the West to be protected from Iran. They're in the sack with Iran.

 

[Musburger1]

You are wrong on so many levels. I'll take on a few. With respect to putting up an ABM shield in France, Italy, etc. what's your point? These countries possess nukes which Iran doesn't even possess. Why do they need a shield? Also, the Iranian treaty which was recently signed supposedly ensures that Iran has given up a nuclear program and doesn't have the ability with the treaty enforced to begin one. If that's true, what is the rationale for erecting missiles all around Russia to prevent an Iranian attack. That's absurd on its face.

As to the Aegis missiles not being nuclear capable, how the **** would you know? And just because they aren't armed at the moment, how long does it take to engineer that adaption?

The Russian spokes person in the article explained why Russsia believes the missiles are in violation. If you bring a cannon in to your house next door to mine and have a paper saying you are authorized to use it if an enemy comes into the neighborhood, but I look out my window and its pointed at me, do I say, oh well, he means me no harm?

The Romanian government may be ok with the move, but I'd like to know how the people in Romania would answer in a poll if they now knew they have a target painted on them. I'd also be interested to know what back room deals, bribes, and threats (US diplomacy) were used to convince the Romanian government to give this the go ahead. I wonder if Romanians are more worried about a non-existance rocket attack from Iran or a real rocket retaliatory strike from Russia.

 

[Mr. Deez]

With respect to putting up an ABM shield in France, Italy, etc. what's your point?

My point is that you and your hacks in Moscow would complain either way. You're disingenuous when you raise the NATO expansion in the context of this discussion.

These countries possess nukes which Iran doesn't even possess. Why do they need a shield?

Because Iran (as well as North Korea) is developing a ballistic missile program. They may not have nukes today, but they may very well have them tomorrow, and even if they don't, what's wrong with not wanting to be hit by from conventional missile attacks?

Also, the Iranian treaty which was recently signed supposedly ensures that Iran has given up a nuclear program and doesn't have the ability with the treaty enforced to begin one. If that's true, what is the rationale for erecting missiles all around Russia to prevent an Iranian attack. That's absurd on its face.

Key word is "supposedly." Nobody believes this for the long term. Even your buddy Trump understands this.

As to the Aegis missiles not being nuclear capable, how the **** would you know? And just because they aren't armed at the moment, how long does it take to engineer that adaption?

Because rather than relying on a propaganda rag, I actually looked and found out what missiles are going to be in Romania. It's basically a fancy surface-to-air missile. It's made to go up and blow something up in the sky. It's not designed to carry a nuclear weapon. Could it be re-engineered to carry one? I'm sure it could be. Anything's possible, but under that logic, nobody in Europe could have any kind of missile, because some engineer somewhere could probably ghetto-rig it to carry a nuclear weapon of some kind. The point is that we're getting light years away from your original complaint (which you seemed to have jettisoned) that we're violating the INF Treaty.

The Russian spokes person in the article explained why Russsia believes the missiles are in violation. If you bring a cannon in to your house next door to mine and have a paper saying you are authorized to use it if an enemy comes into the neighborhood, but I look out my window and its pointed at me, do I say, oh well, he means me no harm?

First, I don't believe Russia actually believes that. I think they're posturing. Second, it's a ridiculous analogy. It's more like buying a handgun for your own home because some ******* with a criminal record has threatened to kill you and is actively buying weapons to do it. And your prick neighbor next door who claims he isn't a threat to you is bellyaching because your handgun could also be used to stop him if he decides he wants to kill you.

The Romanian government may be ok with the move, but I'd like to know how the people in Romania would answer in a poll if they now knew they have a target painted on them.

We don't have to do that. They'll have an election soon, and if the Romanian people see it your way, then they'll oust their current government and replace it with one that's sympathetic to your position, and that government will remove the facility.

I'd also be interested to know what back room deals, bribes, and threats (US diplomacy) were used to convince the Romanian government to give this the go ahead. I wonder if Romanians are more worried about a non-existance rocket attack from Iran or a real rocket retaliatory strike from Russia.

As usual, you descend into speculative conspiracy theories. It's remarkable that you presume stuff like this without evidence, but you think Putin did nothing to influence events in Ukraine. He just stood by as a man of benevolence and let things happen.

 

[Musburger1]

Apparently your conditioning to the neocon mindset has you frightened out of your mind when any country outside of the uni polar world order asserts sovereignty and independence outside of that framework. The military and especially NATO now refer to Russia as an existential threat. Yet they, and you, cling to the ridiculous statements that NATO expansion and missiles deployed all over Europe is only to deter Iranian aggression.

Probably over 50% of the West and 90% of the US population agrees with this nonsense. Any contrary opinion is Russian propaganda. Dissent and public debate is always discouraged. Talk about paranoia.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Apparently your conditioning to the neocon mindset has you frightened out of your mind when any country outside of the uni polar world order asserts sovereignty and independence outside of that framework. The military and especially NATO now refer to Russia as an existential threat. Yet they, and you, cling to the ridiculous statements that NATO expansion and missiles deployed all over Europe is only to deter Iranian aggression.

Probably over 50% of the West and 90% of the US population agrees with this nonsense. Any contrary opinion is Russian propaganda. Dissent and public debate is always discouraged. Talk about paranoia.

Mus,

The one who's caught in a mindset is you. You accept without question what comes out of the Russian government, and not only do you summarily and without consideration reject anything that comes from the US government, you presume the existence of an enormous conspiracy between the US government, every government in the West, and every media outlet and journalist in the West to falsify pretty much everything that happens in the world. Frankly, our government doesn't have the competence to pull off what you think they're doing.

Furthermore, if I was really caught in a neocon mindset, would I agree with you on Syria? No. Even on this point, my ideology (which isn't neocon anyway) isn't what incited me to call your people propagandists. I simply had the audacity to read the friggin' treaty, and in doing so, I caught them in a self-serving lie. It's not just a lie about what's happening. They're simply not being honest, and when I called them on it, you started doing a dance and redirecting the conversation. Furthermore, they (and you) are intellectually dishonest by playing the INF Treaty game in the first place. This has nothing to do with that. That's all ********, and you're people (and you) know it.

(Also, I never suggested that NATO expansion was about Iranian aggression. That's ultimately a separate (and bigger) issue.)

 

[Musburger1]

Who are "my people" that you refer too? I've yet to meet them.

As far as believing everything I read that doesn't follow the status quo narrative, let's keep it to the current topic. It's not that gray.
1. Ukraine coup creates a barrier between Russia and Ukraine, and a threat to the Russian base in Crimea.
2. Russia annexes Crimea.
3. US implements sanctions, accelerates Eastern European buildup, and ABM construction.
4. Putin threatens a response.

Other.
1.Syrian protests lead to Assad response.
2. US and gulf countries bring in foreign fighters. US offers training and support to bring about regime change.
3. Russia stabilizes government and dismantles US supported jihadis.
4. Turkey shoots down Russian fighter.
5. Putin calls off the dogs and Turkey reopens the jihadi pipeline.

These are facts. The only difference is the terminology that is used to report them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The Romanian government may be ok with the move, but I'd like to know how the people in Romania would answer in a poll if they now knew they have a target painted on them. I'd also be interested to know what back room deals, bribes, and threats (US diplomacy) were used to convince the Romanian government to give this the go ahead. I wonder if Romanians are more worried about a non-existance rocket attack from Iran or a real rocket retaliatory strike from Russia.

The underlying assumption of this passage is that Russia is an innocent bystander when their history in the shadow of the Cold War and actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine clearly should give any former Soviet Bloc nation cause for concern. You may call it "irrational" but Putin has clearly stoked the "return Russia to it's former U.S.S.R glory" sentiment in Russia with his own rhetoric.

 

[Musburger1]

Why is it wrong for a country's leader to aspire greatness for their country so long as they do not threaten another country's sovereignty? Is that so terrible?

 

[Seattle Husker]

Why is it wrong for a country's leader to aspire greatness for their country so long as they do not threaten another country's sovereignty? Is that so terrible?

Said in light of "annexing Crimea" comment above. Of course, you have all the justifications for said annexing lined up but it ultimately boils down to "Russia annexed Crimea" and every other former Soviet Bloc country has a large Russian population that could easily fall under the same pretenses for annexing Crimea.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

So long as it's referred to as "annexing", it's ok?

 

[Musburger1]

The underlying assumption of this passage is that Russia is an innocent bystander when their history in the shadow of the Cold War and actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine clearly should give any former Soviet Bloc nation cause for concern. You may call it "irrational" but Putin has clearly stoked the "return Russia to it's former U.S.S.R glory" sentiment in Russia with his own rhetoric.

Suppose after the coup, the Russians did nothing. The soldiers remain in their base and become bystanders. Tell me what you think happens next.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Said in light of "annexing Crimea" comment above. Of course, you have all the justifications for said annexing lined up but it ultimately boils down to "Russia annexed Crimea" and every other former Soviet Bloc country has a large Russian population that could easily fall under the same pretenses for annexing Crimea.

I almost fell out of my chair when I read his comment. Regardless of the justifications and excuses (and he's got a ton of them), the biggest news story about Russia in the last 25 years is them threatening another country's sovereignty.

Either way, I'm learning that it's too tough to have a discussing with Musburger on this sort of issue. He thinks we're all a bunch of stooges who believe whatever our government spoon feeds us, but the reverse is much closer to the truth. The guy just accepts whatever he hears come out of Putin's mouth as gospel, and there's no talking sense to him. There's no skepticism whatsoever, and there's no gray areas or nuance. Russia is always 100 percent right, and the West is always 100 percent wrong. Even if he's shown to be wrong about something, he just changes the subject or frames the issue in a different way so he can keep on haggling. I laughed off SH's suggestion that he's a paid internet troll for the Russian government, and now I'm not so sure I should have.

 

[Musburger1]

Said in light of "annexing Crimea" comment above. Of course, you have all the justifications for said annexing lined up but it ultimately boils down to "Russia annexed Crimea" and every other former Soviet Bloc country has a large Russian population that could easily fall under the same pretenses for annexing Crimea.

You're projecting yourself on to me. You are hilarious.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You're projecting yourself on to me. You are hilarious.

Really? How did I project from this?

As far as believing everything I read that doesn't follow the status quo narrative, let's keep it to the current topic. It's not that gray.
1. Ukraine coup creates a barrier between Russia and Ukraine, and a threat to the Russian base in Crimea.
2. Russia annexes Crimea.
3. US implements sanctions, accelerates Eastern European buildup, and ABM construction.
4. Putin threatens a response.

Why is it wrong for a country's leader to aspire greatness for their country so long as they do not threaten another country's sovereignty? Is that so terrible?

Do you not see how those facts and your statement are irreconcilable? Then on cue, you have a justification ready.

Suppose after the coup, the Russians did nothing. The soldiers remain in their base and become bystanders. Tell me what you think happens next.

Does Guantanamo ring a bell?