Russian army under equipped?

[sburke]

44 minutes ago, HUSKER2142 said:

 

Let NATO give a written guarantee that the missile defense system in Romania and Poland is not aimed against Russia. Leaders of NATO countries answered only by word of mouth and the fact that the missile defense system directed against Iran. Now Iran will not create nuclear weapons. And Russia only in response warns countries to take the missile defense system, will now be under the gun.

 

You don't aim a missile defense system at a country, you aim it at incoming missiles.  So if Russia doesn't intend to launch missiles Voila! it isn't aimed at Russia.  Russia's argument is so incredibly stupid it is amazing that anyone buys into it.

Poland: "Hey I am buying a bullet proof vest."
Russia : "Don't aim that at me"

Poland: "I am not, it is just there in case someone tries to shoot me,"

Russia: "Preventing me from shooting you is an attack on me!"

Poland: " What the f**K, you would shoot me?  I better keep my bullet proof vest!"

Russia: "If you wear that bulletproof vest I might shoot you"

Poland: "Freakin nut job, I am damn well wearing this vest all the time!"

[Kinophile]

53 minutes ago, sburke said:

You don't aim a missile defense system at a country, you aim it at incoming missiles.  So if Russia doesn't intend to launch missiles Voila! it isn't aimed at Russia.  Russia's argument is so incredibly stupid it is amazing that anyone buys into it.

Poland: "Hey I am buying a bullet proof vest."
Russia : "Don't aim that at me"

Poland: "I am not, it is just there in case someone tries to shoot me,"

Russia: "Preventing me from shooting you is an attack on me!"

Poland: " What the f**K, you would shoot me?  I better keep my bullet proof vest!"

Russia: "If you wear that bulletproof vest I might shoot you"

Poland: "Freakin nut job, I am damn well wearing this vest all the time!"

Best. Summary. Ever.  

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not locking this up because I think it is good for both Russians and non-Russians to discuss this stuff directly instead of only relying upon media and (gasp...) social media to form opinions.

On the topic of Putin... he's a dictator.  He fits every single definition of a dictator, zero exceptions.  Cult of personality, effective single party state answerable to him, invasive security services answerable to him, military forces answerable to him, suppressed political dissent, restrictions on the Freedom Of Assembly, restrictions on Freedom of Speech, centralized economy run by friends/allies, no independent judiciary, weak rule of law, rigged elections, effective total control over the media, personal enrichment, personally appoints most people holding power, intensive campaign to make people fear change, intensive campaign to make people fear a false external enemy, seizes neighboring territory (not just Crimea) by force, etc.  The list is very long, but that covers the basics.

This does not mean he is equal to Joseph Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot, or any other dictator.  Every dictator, and dictatorship keeping him in power, is different in detail and in deed.  On the scale of dictators of Russia's past (including Tzars), Putin is definitely the best by far in comparison.  But that doesn't make him any less a dictator according to commonly accepted assessments.  And let's remember that Hitler was both elected and very popular.  Anybody who thinks he wasn't a dictator because of those two things is insane

About NATO...

4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

There was more or less only Polish and Baltic troops there until Russia invaded the Ukraine.  There was occasional training exercises, but no additional large scale permanent non-Polish/Baltic NATO member presence.

And let's not forget that Russia was often part of those training exercises in some way, even if just being aware of them through their presence at NATO HQ (IIRC there were 70 Russian military/political staff at NATO HQ before the war against Ukraine).

Quote

Of course Russia screwed that up pretty bad now.  Russians only have Russia to blame for NATO being in Eastern Europe.  Without your aggression, NATO was on the verge of becoming a historical organization vs an active one.

This is the thing I find most sad about Russian perceptions.  They view the introduction of US armor to Europe as a sign of NATO's aggression, completely ignoring the fact that this is still less military force than was there in the 1990s or 2000s when the US and Russia had pretty good relations.  In fact, the reason the US is putting armor back into Europe is it had completely withdrawn it prior to Russia attacking Ukraine!  Not to mention that NATO country GDP spending is still below NATO requirements in almost all cases and was headed even lower before Russia attacked Ukraine.

Personally, I think one of the reasons Putin has done things like fly nuclear bombers with transponders off and buzzed US warships is to make sure that NATO becomes more active.  Putin is, as I just described, a dictator.  Dictators require an external threat to both distract the population and to make them fearful.  NATO was headed down the road of obscurity prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, despite Russia's invasion of Georgia, cyber attacks against Estonia, funding of far right European political parties, etc.  The absolute worst thing for Putin would have been NATO dissolving. 

Since NATO is a disorganized defensive organization that has ZERO intention of attacking Russia (Russia has made it clear attacking it's soil will result in nuclear war, and the West takes that at face value), a more active NATO poses no threat to Russia.  Well, unless it really is planning on attacking the Baltics or Poland.  In that case provoking NATO to become more active is very, very stupid.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, sburke said:

You don't aim a missile defense system at a country, you aim it at incoming missiles.  So if Russia doesn't intend to launch missiles Voila! it isn't aimed at Russia. 

Very good analogy.  Similar to this one:

Russia: NATO, you are threatening us

NATO: How so?

Russia: you're talking about putting a couple of battalions in the Baltics, that is a direct threat to us

NATO:  Er, you're saying a Russian Federation can be put at a military disadvantage by a couple thousand NATO soldiers on the Russian border?

Russia:  Yes!  I mean, no... uhm... well, a couple thousand troops isn't a threat to the great forces of the Motherland.  But it's symbolic of your aggression since we have absolutely no intention of attacking the Baltics.

NATO:  Your President and leading members of the government did threaten to attack them on a number of occasions, cyber attacked one in 2008, kidnapped a government official at gun point from their side of the border, no-so-covertly fund political parties inside their borders which are pro-Russian, beam pro-Russian propaganda to rile up ethnic Russians within their borders, and have invaded two former Soviet Republics in the past 6 years.  You don't think this is just a little bit threatening?

Russia:  No, not at all.  Russia is good neighbor to the Baltics.  On the other hand, NATO invades peace loving, stable countries like Libya and Syria.  Russia feels threatened by this.

NATO:  What?  Are you serious?  What the Hell does NATO getting involved in civil war in North Africa have to do with threatening Russia?  Man, this is pointless.  Look, we're going put a few thousand men into countries you have directly threatened.  If you don't like it, change your behavior and we'll go back to the way things were.

Russia:  No thanks, we prefer things the way they are headed since it allows us to distract our people.  Can't let them think we're the real threat now can we?  Pleasure doing business with you.  Now if you could just get Finland to apply for membership to NATO that would be great.  We'll do some more things with nuclear capable aircraft and turned off transponders if that helps.

NATO:  Sigh...

Quote

 

Russia's argument is so incredibly stupid it is amazing that anyone buys into it.

When you control the education, media, and every other aspect of civil society... you can make otherwise intelligent people believe all kinds of stupid stuff.

Steve

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

I can't help but think that NATO's encroachment into Eastern Europe played a big part in driving Russia towards a more aggressive posture and it's decision to intervene in Ukraine.

Ukraine literally means 'borderland' and that is the role it has played historically, separating the western powers from Russia. Ukraine's leaning to the West, and the sudden and tumultuous fall of the elected pro-Russian government must have made Putin sweat, and perhaps jump the gun.   

It is equally important to understand how important Sevastopol is to Russia's national security being its only warm water port. Losing Sevastopol would be like losing the Pacific islands for the US. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by AtheistDane

[Codename Duchess]

12 minutes ago, AtheistDane said:

I can't help but think that NATO's encroachment into Eastern Europe played a big part in driving Russia towards a more aggressive posture and it's decision to intervene in Ukraine.

Ukraine literally means 'borderland' and that is the role it has played historically, separating the western powers from Russia. Ukraine's leaning to the West, and the sudden and tumultuous fall of the elected pro-Russian government must have made Putin sweat, and perhaps jump the gun.   

It is equally important to understand how important Sevastopol is to Russia's national security being its only warm water port. Losing Sevastopol would be like losing the Pacific islands for the US. 

Again, NATO only expands where it's invited. Eastern European countries felt they needed a security assurance from Russia and thus asked to be let in. If they didn't feel threatened they wouldn't have asked.

 

Again, prior to Crimea, there was talks of breaking up NATO, and efforts to improve Russian relationships with the US and organization. They screwed the pooch royally on that one, and they can spin it all they want but that's how it is. Russia isn't exactly making any efforts to ease NATO weariness. 

 

And if we lost the Pacific Islands we'd still have the entire Pacific Coast, so not the best comparison. There is no US choke point like that, and you also have warming arctic ports as well.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, AtheistDane said:

I can't help but think that NATO's encroachment into Eastern Europe played a big part in driving Russia towards a more aggressive posture and it's decision to intervene in Ukraine.

Then you need to better understand the facts.  Russia invaded Ukraine for reasons that have zero to do with NATO or Eastern Europe.

Plus, you can't "encroach" if you're invited.  The countries formally occupied by Russia and the Soviet Union should have a say in this since they have been repeated victims of Russian expansionism.  Don't you think?

2 minutes ago, AtheistDane said:

Ukraine literally means 'borderland' and that is the role it has played historically, separating the western powers from Russia. Ukraine's leaning to the West, and the sudden and tumultuous fall of the elected pro-Russian government must have made Putin sweat, and perhaps jump the gun.   

Sure, it made Putin sweat.  Having a true Russian speaking Democracy on its borders which is actively opposed to Russian government and oligarch exploitation isn't in Putin's ruling circle's best interests.  Definitely not.  Which is why NATO has nothing what-so-ever to do with the invasion of Ukraine.  This was about domestic Russian politics, not international politics.

2 minutes ago, AtheistDane said:

It is equally important to understand how important Sevastopol is to Russia's national security being its only warm water port. Losing Sevastopol would be like losing the Pacific islands for the US. 

Sure, but that's what negotiations and treaties are for.  Invading within HOURS of the change of government, lying about it, faking a referendum, and not compensating Ukraine one bit for taking post-Soviet infrastructure, properties, and businesses is unjustifiable.  Understandable given the Russian government's approach to things, but not acceptable.

Steve

[c3k]

6 hours ago, sburke said:

You don't aim a missile defense system at a country, you aim it at incoming missiles.  So if Russia doesn't intend to launch missiles Voila! it isn't aimed at Russia.  Russia's argument is so incredibly stupid it is amazing that anyone buys into it.

Poland: "Hey I am buying a bullet proof vest."
Russia : "Don't aim that at me"

Poland: "I am not, it is just there in case someone tries to shoot me,"

Russia: "Preventing me from shooting you is an attack on me!"

Poland: " What the f**K, you would shoot me?  I better keep my bullet proof vest!"

Russia: "If you wear that bulletproof vest I might shoot you"

Poland: "Freakin nut job, I am damn well wearing this vest all the time!"

Ditto on the applause! Well said, sir.

[BTR]

I'm not sure if people are serious here or they are just defending a moot point for ****s and giggles. ICBM defense impairs our ability to retaliate in case of a nuclear strike, and as far as MAD principles go, feeling of impunity only makes total strikes more appealing and therefore probable. Gun analogy doesn't really hold up there since these are US proposed, built and operated centers. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 minute ago, BTR said:

I'm not sure if people are serious here or they are just defending a moot point for ****s and giggles. ICBM defense impairs our ability to retaliate in case of a nuclear strike, and as far as MAD principles go, feeling of impunity only makes total strikes more appealing and therefore probable. Gun analogy doesn't really hold up there since these are US proposed, built and operated centers. 

I'm not trying to be too insulting, but frankly if you are worried about the ABM systems installed in Eastern Europe or even Alaska seriously degrading your nuclear strike ability, there's only two realistic reasons for this:

1. Russia is capable of only firing less than 10 ICBMs.  

2. You are possibly scared of literally everything.  There's small woodland animals you see a need to destroy via SSM and napalm strikes because THEY MIGHT GET YOU.

Whatever remains of the Moscow ABM sites is more of a threat to MAD, and that alone should let you know how overblown your fears about our ABM systems is.

[Baneman]

2 hours ago, BTR said:

... ICBM defense impairs our ability to retaliate in case of a nuclear strike, and as far as MAD principles go, feeling of impunity only makes total strikes more appealing and therefore probable. Gun analogy doesn't really hold up there since these are US proposed, built and operated centers. 

And you seriously think that a nuclear strike by anyone ( insane jihadists aside ) is likely ?
I mean, not just on Russia, but on anyone ?

Total strikes are more appealing and therefore probable ? To who ?   We don't even have vastly different and competing ideologies anymore like in the Cold War days.

[John Kettler]

Vladimir Tarasov,

This is a most useful reconstruction of the downing of MH17. Additionally, there is the open source info, shown on the Ukrainian OSINT site InfoNapalm, on the Russian soldier, from an identified Russian Army unit, transporting a Russian Army Buk TELAR No. 232. TELAR is Western nomenclature and stands for Transporter Erector Launcher and Radar, When the shattering revelations from the soldier's social media were noticed by the Ukrainian OSINT organization, reported out and screen grabbed, shortly thereafter the soldier's account was shut down and removed, later replaced by another person's. Then there's the matter of the white Volvo truck with a blue stripe. Not only was it shown carrying the Buk in Lugansk, but it was the only such vehicle the truck rental company in Donetsk had. We have Girkin claiming credit for the shootdown, only to change his page once he realized he had 295 deaths to deal with. An entirely different OSINT organization, bellingcat, has produced a comprehensive report on the entire RA transport side of the Buk's movement from within Russia (Kursk) clear down to Millerovo just across the border from Ukraine. I may not have all the details right, since I spot read the report. But what I read is really bad for Putin!

Let's recap, Buk fire unit 232, was clearly shown, with an identified Russian soldier, being driven to the area of the the Ukrainian border. The aforementioned white Volvo truck was imaged both with and without the Buk while in pro-Russian separatist territory. Said truck was the only one of its type available from the truck rental firm in Donetsk. MH17 is blown out of the sky, and shortly thereafter, we have this remarkable piece of video. It shows that very same truck returning to Russia, a Buk fire unit clearly in view, and two missiles missing from the usual four! Russian SAM firing doctrine has long been to ripple fire two missiles. This improves the kill probability, tends to reduce the effects of defensive maneuvering (second SAM arrives after target has lost energy from hard jinking and such) and, of course, is insurance in the event the SAM fails for whatever reason once launched. Since we know from wreckage analysis there was only one hit, it appears, however grisly, this was a sound decision.

Also, we now have direct confirmation from the owner of the truck that the one imaged is his. It is the only such truck, because of unique cab design, in his fleet. He says quite clearly the pro-Russian separatists took over his business nine days before MH17 was shot down. This man is in fear for his life! As if all of the above weren't enough, we have the intercepts of communications between a GRU handler and a high level pro-Russian separatist! Not only does it explicitly acknowledge the receipt by the latter of a Buk-M (of two originally expected)--with crew, but it goes on to talk about the receipt from Russia of 3 x Gzodvika SPH, the status of the proxy force (hurting) in the face of UA Grad strikes and whether the proxy force needs Russian fire support from the Russian side of the border, plus a side discussion of the need for FOs for the proxy force to direct Russian Grad fire!

 

Finally, in another devastating bellingcat report, we have direct photographic proof, despite blatant lies Russia no longer had it in service,  the RA did have, near Ukraine, the very same 9M38M1 SAM type manufacturer Almaz-Antei said was used to down MH17, used by the brigade whose fire unit it was, said brigade known to have been transported to that very same area! If you think I made up the Almaz-Antei stuff, here's the Russian internal analysis of the downing of MH17 in which it says Almaz-Antei concluded it was a 9M38M1 missile that downed MH17. 

People have been imprisoned for life or executed with far less evidence than what I've presented here. Also, there is an earlier SBU intercept in which the proxy army guy is lamenting his side's failure to shoot down a Ukrainian plane and is consoled by his GRU handler, in Russia who informs him he's sending him something better than what he has; something which will get the job done!

Means (Russian supplied SAM system), motive (aid Russian proxy forces in downing Ukrainian aircraft), opportunity (SAM brigade moves to, by RA transport, and operates near Ukrainian border) , mens rea (Russia knowingly, willingly and with malice aforethought sent the Buk system (with crew!) to the Ukrainian border, and the GRU and the proxy senior guy first discussed details of original plan to get 2 x SAM systems across the border (but only one made it), then what happened (drove across on its own tracks), where it went, where it was to be parked (with already present proxy weaponry). If any further doubt remains as to awareness of wrongdoing, there is the explicit instruction to camouflage the fire unit! Further evidence of a guilty mind lies in that Girkin officially claimed pro-Russian separatists had shot down a plane, only to quickly retract the statement and completely change his SM page after learning it wasn't a Ukrainian Air Force plane but a Dutch airliner.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited June 9, 2016 by John Kettler

[Sublime]

9 hours ago, AtheistDane said:

I can't help but think that NATO's encroachment into Eastern Europe played a big part in driving Russia towards a more aggressive posture and it's decision to intervene in Ukraine.

Ukraine literally means 'borderland' and that is the role it has played historically, separating the western powers from Russia. Ukraine's leaning to the West, and the sudden and tumultuous fall of the elected pro-Russian government must have made Putin sweat, and perhaps jump the gun.   

It is equally important to understand how important Sevastopol is to Russia's national security being its only warm water port. Losing Sevastopol would be like losing the Pacific islands for the US. 

err Kaliningrad is a warm water port. IIRC Vladivostok doesnt freeze over.

Second the idea the that US is going to attack Russia even if you guys had no nukes is laughable.  We could have before you or China had any - we could have when you had maybe a couple but nowhere near the methods we had of getting them to your country.

The concept of  MAD is just that. Insane. Thinking that the worlds a safer place because 2 countries can completely destroy it thus itll never happen is idiotic  the whole concept only exists because it was coined after MAD was the de facto state of things.

Instead of worrying so much about our ABMs why dont you make some. Id much rather see a ABM race than any other kind of weapon race. I doubt the US could or would say much. Or you guys could get more aggressive about scrapping your nukes.

But you wont. The US hasnt been activelu updating its icbms since the 80s. You have. We elected not to use MIRVs. You still do. We elected to not use cluster munitions. You still do.

In fact no other nation including the US has ever explicitly threatened nuke use except you with 6 exceptions I can think of most of which are very similar/veiled/or threats that cant even be acted on.

1. US to Japan after first A Bomb

2. US has said in the past if WMDs were used on its troops it.d respond in kind. Im thinking of ODS/OIF. Note the US never said if you invade the US its nuke holocaust and thats about it for direct nuke threats. I think Ive heard Kremlin speakers threaten nuke use more than that in the last 2 years.

3. DPRK constant refrain. Laughable.. someday wont be so laughable.

4. Iraq in 03. Lots of threats. Bout it.

5. Iran on Israel. Laughable though the intent is definitely serious.

6. Israel on if its about to lose a ground war or is attacked with WMDs. Dead serious.

[TheVulture]

19 minutes ago, Sublime said:

5. Iran on Israel. Laughable though the intent is definitely serious.

This is possibly going to derail horribly, but I don't think Iran ever said anything of the sort.

The closest I can think of is Ahmadinejad's comments that were often translated as "Israel should be wiped from the map", which certainly US observers decided to interpret as "Israel should be destroyed by military force", but seems rather more likely to have meant "Israel, as a political entity that promotes the rights of Jewish Israeli citizens to the exclusion or Palestinian and Arab rights, ideally should not exist."  Ahmadinejad was something of a nutter though, so to be fair you can't entirely rule anything out, but it is much more consistent with Iranian political positions that it is the political existence of the Israeli state imposed in the middle east that is the problem, not the actual presence of Israeli jews. (Iran doesn't seem to have any problems with its native Jewish population).

Actually it is debatable whether Iran ever really intended to create a nuclear weapons program with the intention of developing weapons. Sure, they'd have developed them if they could get away with it, but it is possible that they never expected to and merely wanted to use the program as a bargaining chip: what will you give us to stop doing this thing that we're not that bothered about doing in the first place? Ooh, help with a commercial nuclear energy generation project - that'll do nicely.

[Codename Duchess]

6 hours ago, BTR said:

I'm not sure if people are serious here or they are just defending a moot point for ****s and giggles. ICBM defense impairs our ability to retaliate in case of a nuclear strike, and as far as MAD principles go, feeling of impunity only makes total strikes more appealing and therefore probable. Gun analogy doesn't really hold up there since these are US proposed, built and operated centers. 

The US and Russia have thousands of missiles and warheads against <100 ABM missiles each. If we want to wipe each other out we still can. There's like, 24, VLS cells in Romania. Preeeeeeetty sure Russia can handle that. 

[sburke]

Thread heading for closure. Hey look an iceberg!  How close do you think we can get, my drink needs a few cubes. 

[Holien]

Surprised it has lasted this far.

[Sublime]

Soooooo saying they.d turn all of Israel into a sea of fire doesnt mean anything?

I mean hey no offense but we can all agree the Israeli intelligence is excellent right?

Well their intel led to lots of Iranian scientests being assasinated and the bombings of certain sites in Iran. We.re just people on a message board. Israel certainly felt threatened enough to assasinate and bomb Iranians.  If nothing else such actions risk war and their own men so I dont think it was just a boring weekend so lets bomb Iran.

And fine you can scratch Iran off my list and my point still stands no problem.

[Sublime]

18 hours ago, IanL said:

While I cannot speak for @kinophile I highly doubt that is what he intends.  One of the dangers of criticism is in the how it will be taken and how the response to that will be taken too.  I see the same pattern repeat it self.  I could site many other examples but I'll stick to recent Canadian history to minimize the number of people I'll upset . When Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan I would say most Canadians supported that move but it was far from unanimous.  The problem came when someone spoke out against the war frequently what people heard was "you are against our troops" and not "this is why I do not feel our troops should be there".  I personally know people were opposed to that military action.  Not a single one of them actually thought our soldiers were bad people they wanted our government to make a different decision.  Huge difference.  But alas one that is lost on too many people.  We had people with bumper stickers that said "If you are not behind our troops feel free to stand in front of them". When to a person I never hear a single soul say that they did not support our troops.  One sizable segment of our society just could not hear the actual message and seemed to only hear something else.

So, I believe those that serve their country honourably should be honoured regardless of if you support the politician who sent them or the ideology behind it. Those are two separate things.

Welll said.  Much like the mania that gripped America circa 02 03  with Freedom Fries hatred twds the Dixie Chicks and anyone who didnt want war was all but accused of treason. Here we are 13 years later and the same people who were tormented and demonized are forgiven and political candidates argue who was more against invasion. Lmao.

[Kinophile]

And that was in a relatively open and free democracy (sorry Americanski friends,  but corporate money has far too big a hold on your political process to be honestly called 100% fair,  open and transparent. Tbh,  I suspect only a smaller countries can give 100% demo,  as the pot of gold is so much smaller). 

Trying to fight the popular/state endorsed trend in an authoritarian society = death by thug/cop/no difference. 

 

[kraze]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

When you control the education, media, and every other aspect of civil society... you can make otherwise intelligent people believe all kinds of stupid stuff.

That, or many russians are lying on purpose. It's people itself who make rulers get power, even by not stopping them. No honest person will ever claim that people dressed as russian army, armed with modern russian guns and driving modern russian vehicles invading Crimea are "local self-defense volunteer forces". Or those T-72B3-riding asian "miners" from Donbass, who captured modern russian tech from ukrainians with bare hands. Especially here where everybody knows which single army possesses them AK-100s, Tigrs, Vystrels and T72B3s.

Many russians do love and support Putin. And after all there are "enemies" everywhere and maybe russians are fighting for the "greater good of the Motherland" in that way.

Edited June 9, 2016 by kraze

[VladimirTarasov]

This just turned into a bash Russia and curse Putin thread not that shocked. I had honestly written a bunch of stuff but I decided its not worth it, if Russia is evil in your eyes its evil. Nothing me or you or the average person can do about it, so I'll just get back into my scenario on CMBS.  

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

You know, maybe if you actually read what we were saying vs simply chalking it up to "bashing" Russia, you might learn something.

Regardless I'm not terribly surprised.  Russia isn't evil, but it certainly isn't a net positive for anyone.  

[Battlefront.com]

12 hours ago, BTR said:

I'm not sure if people are serious here or they are just defending a moot point for ****s and giggles. ICBM defense impairs our ability to retaliate in case of a nuclear strike, and as far as MAD principles go, feeling of impunity only makes total strikes more appealing and therefore probable. Gun analogy doesn't really hold up there since these are US proposed, built and operated centers. 

Extremely flawed logic.  First, as has already been stated, the missile defense systems that the US has deployed in Europe, at the request of those countries, can not defend against a Russian nuclear strike.  Therefore, even if one accepts that Russia feels it is threatened then Russia is a wimp of titanic proportions.  Or it is overreacting knowing that is overreacting.  Take your pick, because the missile defense system is in no way, shape, or form a true threat.  Plus, as others have pointed out, Russia is the one threatening people with nuclear war.

Russia has a choice... be friends with the West, be enemies with the West, or be neither.  For many years it has been somewhere between friend and neither.  Russia has deliberately chosen the path of enemy.  It is the one that has chosen this path and it is the one that has refused to steer onto another course, no matter how hard the West tries.

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

This just turned into a bash Russia and curse Putin thread not that shocked.

For the most part Russians are posting illogical and factually incorrect statements and other people are very politely trying to show them there is a different way of thinking about this.  One that is more logical and factually informed.  If this is offensive to you then I feel very sorry for you.  It makes me sad because if intelligent Russians who can gather information from outside of their country reject reason and facts then I do not hold much hope for Russia's future.  Russia will continue it's decline until it falls apart and/or explodes.  This will not be good for anybody, in particular the Russian people.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Regardless I'm not terribly surprised.  

Nor am I.  Human capacity for denial and Russian capacity for pure nationalism are not good combinations.

8 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Russia isn't evil, but it certainly isn't a net positive for anyone.  

Russia could make a very positive mark on the world in pretty much anything it wanted to.  Engineering, sciences, industrial process, production, raising the standard of living in impoverished countries, etc.  Instead it is falling further and further behind.

If one compares the advancements of Poland over the last 25 years compared to Russia, it shows how absolutely poorly the Russian government has performed.  Even under Putin the country has totally under performed compared to its potential.  Which is why the Russian government must keep Ukraine as chaotic, corrupt, and impoverished as possible in order for it to survive long term.  If Ukraine pulled ahead of Russia economically and politically... could that be ignored as easily as the prosperity in former Warsaw Pact countrie?  No.

Steve