If this won't scare you

[Musburger1]

...perhaps nothing will.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nat...ttack-units-moscow-has-issued-warning/5522104

US-NATO Military Escalation on Russia’s Doorstep, Deployment of “Nuclear Attack Units”. Moscow Has Issued Warning
The United States feigned surprise during the simulation of an attack by the Russian aviation against the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea. And yet, as we have reported, Russia already has the capacity to block the ship’s Communications & Commands, and did so, observes Manlio Dinucci, because the ship was in the process of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Furthermore, the US nuclear deployment occurred as China is developing hypersonic launchers, a part of whose trajectory will be in glide mode, inspiring new research by DARPA. As from now, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are participating in the Tactical Boost Glide Program.

The White House is «preoccupied» because Russian fighters flew over a US ship at very close range in the Baltic Sea, making a «simulated attack» – as reported by our news agencies. However, they did not inform us as to which ship it was, nor why it was in the Baltic Sea.

In fact, it was the USS Donald Cook, one of the four missile-launching units deployed by the US Navy for the «defence of NATO missiles in Europe». These units, which are to be increased in number, are equipped with the Aegis radar system and SM-3 interceptor missiles, but also with double-capacity Tomahawk cruise missiles, both conventional and nuclear. In other words, they are nuclear attack units equipped with a «shield» designed to neutralise the enemy riposte.

The Donald Cook, which left the Polish port of Gdynia on the 11th April, cruised for two days at scarcely 70 kilometres from the Russian naval base of Kaliningrad, and for that reason was visited by Russian fighters and helicopters. Apart from these missile-launcher ships, the USA/NATO «shield» in Europe, in its present configuration, includes an «advance base» radar site in Turkey, a battery of US ground missiles in Roumania, composed of 24 SM-3 missiles, and another similar battery which is to be installed in Poland.

Moscow has issued a warning – these ground batteries, which are also capable of launching nuclear Tomahawk missiles, constitute an evident violation of the INF Treaty, which forbids European deployment of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

The United States accuses Russia of provoking «a useless escalation of tensions» with their over-flights – but what would they do if Russia were to send missile-launching units along the US coast-line and install missile batteries in Cuba and Mexico?

No-one is asking this question in the major media, which continues to cloud reality. The latest hidden news – the transfer of F-22 Raptors, the most advanced US nuclear attack fighter-bombers, from Tyndall base in Florida to Lakenheath base in England, announced on the 11th April by the United States European Command.

From England, the F-22 Raptors will be «deployed to other NATO bases in an advanced position, in order to maximise the possibilities for training, and also exercise dissuasion against any action which might destabilise European security».

This is the preparation for the imminent deployment in Europe, including Italy, of more US B61-12 nuclear bombs which, launched from approximately 100 kilometres away, will hit their target with a warhead offering «four selectable power options». This new weapon takes place in the programme for the potentialisation of nuclear forces launched by the Obama administration, which plans, amongst other things, for the construction of 12 more attack submarines (at 7 billion dollars apiece, the first of which is already being built), each one armed with 200 nuclear warheads.




The New York Times reports that a new type of nuclear warhead is currently in development, the «hypersonic glide vehicle» which, on its return to the atmosphere, manoeuvers in order to avoid interceptor missiles, and heads for its target at more than 16,800 miles/hour [1]. Russia and China are following, and developing similar weapons.

Meanwhile, Washington is harvesting its fruit. By transforming Europe into the front line of a nuclear conflict, and, with the help of the European governments themselves, is sabotaging EU-Russian economic relations in order to permanently link the EU to the USA via the intermediary of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). By the same token, it is forcing its European allies to increase their military expenditure to the advantage of the US war industry, whose exports have increased by 60% over the last five years, becoming the strongest sector in US exports.

Who said war doesn't pay?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mus,

I'll take this guy more seriously when he shows that he has actually read the INF Treaty. He has not. I've never heard of this guy, but he's a hack.

 

[Musburger1]

Deez, I'm not familiar with the specifics of the treaty you reference. Both Russia and the US accuse the other sides of breaking proliferation agreements. Both the US and Russia are going to continue modernizing their nuclear weapons arsenals. Fine. The difference is that the US is positioning these weapons all over Eastern Europe. First the rationale was to protect against Iranian missile strikes and now it's to stop Russian aggression.

Eastern Europe is not a vital US national interest. As NATO continues to push the envelope it becomes more and more likely Russia will launch a strike against one or more of these facilities. The probability of a nuclear exchange increases as the weaponization on Russia's borders escalate. We're placing our trust that all actors remain rational. This strikes me as a totally unnecessary and stupid risk.

 

[Seattle Husker]

There is a lot of conjecture in that article. This is typical of the pro-Russia articles though. They consistently say "the US might do X justifying our real military action".

 

[Mr. Deez]

There is a lot of conjecture in that article.

You're actually being extremely generous to call it "conjecture." The contention that our ship was violating the treaty was complete and total ********. This guy's a blatant propagandist lying through his teeth.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I'd also point out that a number of the Eastern European countries (Poland specifically, if I remember right) were very upset that we pulled back those defenses to begin with.

I don't believe for a minute that we'll go to war because we've put defensive positions in those locations, unless Russia decides to flat-out invade anyway. If they do that, let's face it, we're going to war. But I just don't see it.

 

[Musburger1]

I'd also point out that a number of the Eastern European countries (Poland specifically, if I remember right) were very upset that we pulled back those defenses to begin with.

I don't believe for a minute that we'll go to war because we've put defensive positions in those locations, unless Russia decides to flat-out invade anyway. If they do that, let's face it, we're going to war. But I just don't see it.

The two most likely scenarios to precipitate war that I see are these:

Russia draws a line in the sand and says don't place this here or else. We then proceed and Russia launches an attack on the country in question. Perhaps this would be a missile strike targeting the area of deployment. In which case the US is forced to either walk away with a bloody nose or retaliate which could escalate to nuclear winter.

Another possibility is something like what happened last week with the simulated attacks but this time the US fires back and downs the plane. Russia responds by taking down the carrier and then all hell breaks loose.'

Russians see the current situation like we saw the Cuban missile crises. Most of our country as well as politicians think like Deez and can't fathom why there is a problem.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The two most likely scenarios to precipitate war that I see are these:

Russia draws a line in the sand and says don't place this here or else. We then proceed and Russia launches an attack on the country in question. Perhaps this would be a missile strike targeting the area of deployment. In which case the US is forced to either walk away with a bloody nose or retaliate which could escalate to nuclear winter.

Another possibility is something like what happened last week with the simulated attacks but this time the US fires back and downs the plane. Russia responds by taking down the carrier and then all hell breaks loose.'

Russians see the current situation like we saw the Cuban missile crises. Most of our country as well as politicians think like Deez and can't fathom why there is a problem.

Nuclear winter? Can we agree that a nuclear war is a virtual impossibility? That's rhetoric that only serves Russia interests and hyperbole at best. It's a blatant reference to Russia's glory years and where Putin wants to get back to when the USSR and USA were on more equal footing. In 2016, it's laughable to even reference.

Worst case scenario is that Russia and the US end up embroiled in prolonged proxy wars. Putin is already trying to provoke that scenario in Ukraine and Syria with very limited effect. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't have the economic muscle to feed his desires. Instead, he's left with North Korea-like activities of buzzing US ships and planes screaming "LOOK AT ME!! I NEED ATTENTION!!"

 

[Musburger1]

That's a very naive and dangerous assumption. At some point proxy wars turn into direct confrontations when a mistake is made. You're willing to gamble humanity to project power into regions where we have no vital interests? Really?

You want to know why Ukraine is important to the west? It's because they are a 3rd world country with valuable resources. When the former Ukraine President decided against the partnership with Europe it closed the door to western investment. It would have allowed the west, including the US to move capital into Ukraine and take advantage of cheap labor and plentiful resources. When the President said no, the Eastern portion of the country got pissed and the US helped to instigate a coup. What business of it is ours to interfere in the first place.

The refrain from the US is that Ukraine must leave their geographical integrity intact and Crimea must be forced back despite the overwhelming Russian population that said no.

Meanwhile, the US is working to split Syria into regions. Their geographical integrity doesn't matter.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's a very naive and dangerous assumption. At some point proxy wars turn into direct confrontations when a mistake is made. You're willing to gamble humanity to project power into regions where we have no vital interests? Really?

You want to know why Ukraine is important to the west? It's because they are a 3rd world country with valuable resources. When the former Ukraine President decided against the partnership with Europe it closed the door to western investment. It would have allowed the west, including the US to move capital into Ukraine and take advantage of cheap labor and plentiful resources. When the President said no, the Eastern portion of the country got pissed and the US helped to instigate a coup. What business of it is ours to interfere in the first place.

The refrain from the US is that Ukraine must leave their geographical integrity intact and Crimea must be forced back despite the overwhelming Russian population that said no.

Meanwhile, the US is working to split Syria into regions. Their geographical integrity doesn't matter.

What's more dangerous? To give in to the Russia escalations which is what you appear to be advocating or acknowledge them for what they are, the last vestiges of a once powerful nation longing for yesteryear?

 

[Musburger1]

What's more dangerous? To give in to the Russia escalations which is what you appear to be advocating or acknowledge them for what they are, the last vestiges of a once powerful nation longing for yesteryear?

How many countries of which the US has a vested interest has Russia intervened in? I cant think of a single one. In fact, I can only come up with Georgia and Crimea, but both of those were places where Russia has vital interests and the US does not. In the first case, the Russian military responded to Georgian aggression. In the second case, Russia responded to a plea from Crimean and to protect their vital interest in the naval base.

Now what about US intervention in countries where Russia as a vital interest? You can go back to Serbia under Clinton, Syria recently, and Ukraine where we not only supported the coup, but continue to fund and help arm a government every bit as corrupt as the one it replaced.

 

[Horn6721]

Mud
That is an interesting point and pretty salient .
But I am not ready to declare Putin nd Russia all cheerful innocents.

 

[Musburger1]

Mus,

I'll take this guy more seriously when he shows that he has actually read the INF Treaty. He has not. I've never heard of this guy, but he's a hack.

Deez,
Check this out. More propaganda?
https://southfront.org/russia-defense-report-who-is-afraid-of-iskander-m/

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mud
That is an interesting point and pretty salient .
But I am not ready to declare Puri6m and Russia all cheerful innocents.

He frequently makes good points, and I often agree with him about Syria. However, there are fundamental problems with his approach.

First, he believes that what he reads from Western media sources should be dismissed as biased but that what he reads from state-sponsored media sources in Russia should be accepted as infallible gospel. Thousands of Western journalists who don't know each other are in cahoots, but the big-tittied Russian gal on RT who most likely got her job by blowing Vladimir Putin is honest and free to tell the truth. It's extremely counterintuitive. This leads to his assumption that the US and the West are basically always wrong and that Putin is always right.

Second, he relies heavily on the assumption that we had an agreement not to expand NATO after the Cold War and screwed the Russians by incorporating Eastern Europe and the Baltic states into NATO. No such agreement was reached - just some diplomatic hearsay, and there's no reason to act as though it was. If there had been an agreement, there would be a treaty or some kind of multilateral written agreement most likely between the US, Russia, and the countries at issue.

Finally, he thinks there's a moral equivalence between Russia and the West which is why he makes the Cuban Missile Crisis comparison. There is no such equivalence. Over the last 100 years, the US has built tremendous credibility as a moral leader. We're not perfect, but most nations think, based on our actions, that we're generally trying to do the right thing. Why? Because in the history of mankind there has never been a nation that had so much power and exploited it so little. Accordingly, nobody thinks the US plans to launch an attack on Russia. It wouldn't matter of we had 3 million troops deployed on the Russian border. By contrast, the Russians crushed Eastern Europe for decades. That's why those countries wanted to join NATO. I'm sure Mus has conspiracy theories about it all being a US-driven sham and that these countries really want to align with Putin, but common sense suggests otherwise. Russia's history with Eastern Europe is one of aggression. Why the heck would they want to trust them now?

 

[Musburger1]

First, he believes that what he reads from Western media sources should be dismissed as biased but that what he reads from state-sponsored media sources in Russia should be accepted as infallible gospel. Thousands of Western journalists who don't know each other are in cahoots, but the big-tittied Russian gal on RT who most likely got her job by blowing Vladimir Putin is honest and free to tell the truth. It's extremely counterintuitive. This leads to his assumption that the US and the West are basically always wrong and that Putin is always right.​

Investigative reporting by western media is minuscule compared to what is was decades ago. Your big companies such as the BBC, Fox, ABC, etc. have been reduced to spouting the government line as dictated by the state department or the pentagon when the subject matter is foreign affairs. RT is certainly biased toward Russia, but at least they send journalists into war zones and also give a platform to western free-lance journalists who do not simply spout the American company line and aren't given the same platform in the West. For example, the article at the top of the thread was not written by a Russian, nor was the source RT. Your entire premise quoted above is based on a straw-man argument you whipped out of thin air.

Second, he relies heavily on the assumption that we had an agreement not to expand NATO after the Cold War and screwed the Russians by incorporating Eastern Europe and the Baltic states into NATO. No such agreement was reached - just some diplomatic hearsay, and there's no reason to act as though it was. If there had been an agreement, there would be a treaty or some kind of multilateral written agreement most likely between the US, Russia, and the countries at issue.​

There is no documentation I'm aware of that an agreement was signed declaring NATO would not expand, but enough sources have indicated that at the least, it was an implied understanding. And no, I don't "heavily rely" on the premise there was a breach of an agreement to come to the conclusion that the expansion of NATO is causing friction. That's just common sense.

Finally, he thinks there's a moral equivalence between Russia and the West which is why he makes the Cuban Missile Crisis comparison. There is no such equivalence. Over the last 100 years, the US has built tremendous credibility as a moral leader. We're not perfect, but most nations think, based on our actions, that we're generally trying to do the right thing. Why? Because in the history of mankind there has never been a nation that had so much power and exploited it so little. Accordingly, nobody thinks the US plans to launch an attack on Russia. It wouldn't matter of we had 3 million troops deployed on the Russian border. By contrast, the Russians crushed Eastern Europe for decades. That's why those countries wanted to join NATO. I'm sure Mus has conspiracy theories about it all being a US-driven sham and that these countries really want to align with Putin, but common sense suggests otherwise. Russia's history with Eastern Europe is one of aggression. Why the heck would they want to trust them now?​

I would argue there has been an accelerating evolution over the past two decades where this moral authority or moral credibility you reference has been eroded by a neocon led ideology that wasn't as dominant prior to this time period. I imagine you dismiss such a statement as conspiracy theory, but if so its only because you fail to do any analysis behind the massive propaganda you are bombarded with day after day. My God, just look at what we've done the past decade.

Under the Soviet Union, there was a forced mixing of Russians with the Eastern European countries living under the Soviet block. So when the USSR broke up, those countries were sovereign again, however now there are natural schisms within the population. When you say that I believe they want to align with Putin and you say they do not, that is overly simplistic. Since most of the posts I've commented in this region were about Ukraine, this shows you are making another straw man argument.

Since the breakup up the USSR, Ukraine has always been a battle between the anti-Russian western population, much of which sided with Hitler in WWII, and the Russian speaking Eastern population which fought with the USSR. The country has been controlled by oligarchs and is one of the most corrupt in the world. When the coup occurred, the Western media portrayed it as if Russian had invade Crimea and forced them at gun point to secede and join Russia. This is about as blatant, intentional of a representation of reality as I've seen in my entire life. And probably 95% of the US public believe this version of events.

Prior to say, the late 60's I would agree your description of the United States as a moral leader was basically correct. As a government, we help rebuild Europe and Japan, and as individuals we created charitable groups that provided aid and expertise all over the globe. But absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There has been a seesawing back and forth between labor and corporate power in our country. It's probably not a coincidence that at the same time the pendulum of power began to swing back toward the corporation and away from labor, globalization began to flourish, wealth began to accumulate at the top and not trickle down, wages stagnated, and Wall Street and large industry began to have more political say with both parties. The goal of most any capitalist institution, as well as any government institution, is to expand. That expansion requires a global economic system where the parameters are controlled by the United States and enforced by economic and military might. Under Putin, Russia has chosen not to play the role of a subservient vassal and the US has pursued aggressive policies, both economically and politically, toward Russian and other states that threaten US hegemony. When the media portrays Putin as Hitler, and constantly uses the term "Russian Aggression," in a time frame where the US has either attacked or sponsored attacks of sovereign governments posing no threat to the US or other sovereign countries, the irony is Orwellian.

Deez, you are a very knowledgeable poster, but in many ways the blinders you wear make it impossible to evaluate contrarian positions. So your natural tendency is to construct straw man arguments in an effort to discredit the messenger so that you don't have to critically examine the content of the message.

 

[Musburger1]

First, he believes that what he reads from Western media sources should be dismissed as biased but that what he reads from state-sponsored media sources in Russia should be accepted as infallible gospel.​

Most of what western media presents is neocon garbage. Two sources that I respect would be David Stockman and Pat Buchanan, both of whom have been considered Republicans and neither of whom agree with the neocon agenda which now dominates that party. From their positions on limited government and military restraint, I would say they are of a libertarian bent.

I don't agree with everything they say, but their assessments of our foreign policy is pretty much right on from where i stand. Stockman's appearances on main stream media are limited to short sound bites about the federal reserve and economic matters and generally won't let him talk about US military insanity. I'm not sure that anybody allows Buchanan or anyone like him to get significant air time. I suppose they're just Putin sympathizers too, right Deez?

 

[Musburger1]

By contrast, the Russians crushed Eastern Europe for decades. That's why those countries wanted to join NATO. I'm sure Mus has conspiracy theories about it all being a US-driven sham and that these countries really want to align with Putin, but common sense suggests otherwise. Russia's history with Eastern Europe is one of aggression. Why the heck would they want to trust them now?​

The Baltic states experienced a turbulent relationship with the USSR and Germany. Putin gives a brief lesson in response to a journalist asking for an apology.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Investigative reporting by western media is minuscule compared to what is was decades ago. Your big companies such as the BBC, Fox, ABC, etc. have been reduced to spouting the government line as dictated by the state department or the pentagon when the subject matter is foreign affairs. RT is certainly biased toward Russia, but at least they send journalists into war zones and also give a platform to western free-lance journalists who do not simply spout the American company line and aren't given the same platform in the West.

Western media sources (including those you mentioned) send people into war zones all the time, and they get reported on. I don't get Fox or ABC where I am, but I watch BBC and France 24 (as well as RT). They all send journalists into war zones. Those that are state-sponsored news agencies generally spout their government's line. That's nothing new, and RT (which I actually do enjoy watching) certainly does it a lot.

For example, the article at the top of the thread was not written by a Russian, nor was the source RT.

I don't particularly care if he was a Russian or not. My issue with him is that he's judging the acts of a US warship as in violation of a treaty that he very, very clearly has not read. He's either extremely sloppy in his work, or he's a lying propagandist. Either way, he has no credibility, and I'm not going to take him seriously.

There is no documentation I'm aware of that an agreement was signed declaring NATO would not expand, but enough sources have indicated that at the least, it was an implied understanding. And no, I don't "heavily rely" on the premise there was a breach of an agreement to come to the conclusion that the expansion of NATO is causing friction. That's just common sense.

Mus, you bring this up as a justification for Russian action (won't call it "aggression" because it'll send you down a rabbit's trail) on a regular basis. You don't claim that there was a formal agreement. This time you used the term "implied understanding, but there's no reason to get caught up in semantics on this. The bottom line is that you frequently claim that we're screwing Russia around by expanding NATO. Call it what you want, but that's what you're suggesting. Issues like this aren't resolved on "implied understandings" for the same reason you don't buy a $1M house on a handshake. They're too important, and the stakes are too high. When countries make agreements, it's written down somewhere, and if it's not, it doesn't exist.

I would argue there has been an accelerating evolution over the past two decades where this moral authority or moral credibility you reference has been eroded by a neocon led ideology that wasn't as dominant prior to this time period. I imagine you dismiss such a statement as conspiracy theory, but if so its only because you fail to do any analysis behind the massive propaganda you are bombarded with day after day. My God, just look at what we've done the past decade.

I don't dismiss it at all. We've done a lot of damage in the last several years, though not as much as you suggest. Most of the damage to our credibility doesn't come from a "neocon ideology." It comes from being wrong, especially about the Iraq War. Had evidence of a significant WMD program been found, our standing and credibility would look radically different. The "neocon ideology" predated the loss of credibility by decades. (By the way, I don't consider myself a neocon. There is some overlap, but I have some pretty fundamental disagreement with them.)

Under the Soviet Union, there was a forced mixing of Russians with the Eastern European countries living under the Soviet block.

Yes, there was. Do you see why this might make Eastern Europe interested in aligning with the US?

So when the USSR broke up, those countries were sovereign again, however now there are natural schisms within the population. When you say that I believe they want to align with Putin and you say they do not, that is overly simplistic.

When countries have free elections, I presume their people's intentions by the acts of their leaders and subsequent elections. That's all one can do.

When the coup occurred, the Western media portrayed it as if Russian had invade Crimea and forced them at gun point to secede and join Russia. This is about as blatant, intentional of a representation of reality as I've seen in my entire life. And probably 95% of the US public believe this version of events.

I don't agree that this is the common portrayal of Russia's actions. Nobody thinks there was a Russian invasion to force the secession.

Deez, you are a very knowledgeable poster, but in many ways the blinders you wear make it impossible to evaluate contrarian positions. So your natural tendency is to construct straw man arguments in an effort to discredit the messenger so that you don't have to critically examine the content of the message.

What I think you call "straw men" is a difference of semantics and spin more than anything based on established facts. Also, my post wasn't intended to attack your original post but was actually directed to Horn6721 to explain my opinion of what's wrong with your worldview in general.

Also, I am very capable of evaluating contrarian positions. Keep in mind that I practiced law for several years. Dealing with contrarian positions was essential to my work. Furthermore, contrary to your implication, I do think for myself. I'm a fiscal and social conservative who opposes tort reform and right to work laws, but I'm pragmatic about almost everything. I'm pro-military but reject many core neocon principles. My views are weird, and nobody led me to embrace them. I did so on my own after careful deliberation. Hell, who else in the world has that combination of views?

That expansion requires a global economic system where the parameters are controlled by the United States and enforced by economic and military might. Under Putin, Russia has chosen not to play the role of a subservient vassal and the US has pursued aggressive policies, both economically and politically, toward Russian and other states that threaten US hegemony.

Mus, surely you see what a loaded characterization of the facts this is.

The Baltic states experienced a turbulent relationship with the USSR and Germany. Putin gives a brief lesson in response to a journalist asking for an apology.

I watched the clip, and I'll say a few things about it. First, I'm not a fan of these national "apologies" decades after the fact and long after the perpetrators and victims of the injustice are dead. They're phony and are mostly just a ploy for the apologizing nation's leaders to look sanctimonious.

Second, I don't condemn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as much as others do. Yes, there were sleazy secret deals as part of it, but in context, it was an act of national survival. Stalin and Molotov's predecessor had tried to warn the West (the UK, France, and the US) about Hitler's ambitions and mostly got blown off. They also knew that they were Hitler's real target in part because they were communist but largely because they were the key to Hitler's goal of "lebensraum" - more "living space" to build a greater German Reich. (In other words, they actually read Mein Kampf and took it seriously.) No amount of negotiating, deal-making, or not making deals was going to change that. In short, they were basically isolated by the future Allies, knew they were going to be attacked by Hitler no matter what they did, and needed to delay war long enough to build up the USSR's military to defend itself. The Pact bought them that time and gave them a greater buffer in the West. Frankly, I think it's a pretty defensible move even in retrospect.

Third, either way, Putin's answer was more diversion than a true answer to the question. The Supreme Soviet's apology was a condemnation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That's not an apology for the occupation/annexation (or whatever we want to call it) of the Baltic states. It's an apology for the deal with Hitler. A true apology would have addressed the continued annexation of the Baltic states after the War. The USSR could have granted independence to the Baltics as well as to Eastern Europe. It didn't. That's what they should apologize for, again, if they're going to go down the national apology route, which I don't think they should.

He's also somewhat contradictory. He seems to concur with the Supreme Soviet's resolution that the Pact was illegal and a mere personal initiative between Stalin and Hitler, but then he impliedly embraces the Pact's legitimacy by claiming the Baltics were part of the state (meaning the USSR) in 1939 as the basis of his disagreement with using the term "occupation." (I've also heard Putin at least offer a qualified defense of the Pact as I do, so who knows what he actually thinks?)

Either way, if Putin really thinks the swapping of the Baltics between German and Russian control was wrong, the best way to deal with it today is to understand and respect why the Baltics are suspicious of Russia today based on recent history and respect their sovereignty. That means he shouldn't interfere if they choose to align with the US or join NATO.