Russian army under equipped?

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe... PzKraut and I cross posted AND cited the same article.  Guess we are both lazy and copied/pasted the first of the several dozen articles debunking the myth that the West gave the Soviet Union some sort of promise about not expanding eastward.

Folks, Google is not that hard to use.  It really can help understand the world around us.  I encourage people who are curious about this topic to at least try to see what it turns up.

Steve

[VladimirTarasov]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I understand the conflict quite well.  Besides Russia already having "peace keepers" in place in sovereign Georgian soil to start with, Russia tried for years to provoke a war with Georgia.

Whether or not Russia tried to provoke a war before 2008 is irrelevant, what is relevant is that Georgia launched an operation into Ossetian and targeted Russian peacekeepers. And before we say stuff like Russia is occupying Georgia let's look at the war prior to Russian peacekeepers coming to the region:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991–92_South_Ossetia_War

i know wikipedia isn't a good source, but just look at the conflict prior to Russian peacekeepers being ejected into the area. 

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

We've had this discussion before, I've shown you evidence of Russia's deliberate attempts to provoke an armed conflict in Crimea, and I can dig up a link to the dozens of Russian provocations prior to the Georgian War

I can dig up some from Georgia as well. 

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, not at all!  I think you're wrong about a lot of things, but I do not think you are mentally defective like the guys I was talking about.  

I was joking hehe

 

[HerrTom]

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The people that were there negotiating, including Gorbachev, know.  And they all say that such assurances were never made.  I'm not aware of Gorbachev being on the CIA payroll, so I think it's pretty safe to presume he's telling the truth.

If you looked at the article I posted, it points to slightly different circumstances as well as, I believe.  Perhaps Germans aren't to be trusted!

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I agree that the Russian sponsored takeover of Crimea and the Russian sponsored uprisings in the East do make things worse.  Oh wait, you were probably implying that the Maidan was foreign sponsored?  Well, that's simply untrue unless you mean that millions of Ukrainians were inspired by the West to stand up for themselves.  That evil West, always putting such dangerous ideas into people's heads.  They should be ashamed of themselves!

I didn't mean to be so vague as to let you make that huge assumption.  I did very much mean the Russian sponsored uprising in the Donbass. 

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I agree that the Russian sponsored takeover of Crimea and the Russian sponsored uprisings in the East do make things worse.  Oh wait, you were probably implying that the Maidan was foreign sponsored?  Well, that's simply untrue unless you mean that millions of Ukrainians were inspired by the West to stand up for themselves.  That evil West, always putting such dangerous ideas into people's heads.  They should be ashamed of themselves!

I had no intention of implying that.  What did I said anything about the evil west?

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

No.  Russia poured the benzine, lit the match, and blamed it on everybody else but itself.  In fact, Russia is saying that there was no benzine in the first place, but rather Ukraine spontaneously combusted.  And it put a green globule on a seat to prove it (yes, that is a cultural reference!).

I like the reference!  So you're saying that absolutely everything about the situation is entirely manufactured by the Kremlin?  I mean, I've heard they're good at that sort of thing, but I think to that level is giving them a bit too much credit.  All I was saying is that that area of Ukraine was on its way to being powder keg already.  There was a lot of friction in that region before Russia agitated it.  I'm not saying the war is a good thing.  On the contrary, it's very very bad.  Even I prefer the weapons systems I work on to be bought and not used.

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Er... did you read the backstory to Black Sea?  We wrote that 2-3 years before Putin invaded Ukraine.  So if we expected it I'm sure others did too.  I also expected the housing bubble to collapse starting in about 2003 and I expected it to be really bad when it did. The key to not being surprised is to pay attention to what's going on while it is going on.

I have indeed read it, but I don't think even your story involves a several year long "civil war" causing tens of thousands of casualties and undue suffering on both sides, especially in the Donbass.

Steve, I don't know why you have me pegged as an apologist or whatever you think of me.  Perhaps spending too much time around Russian immigrants has corrupted me into seeing everything wrong!

At any rate, thank you Steve and PzSaKrWfr for correcting me, even though I did post a link to NATO's statement on it which says exactly what you said.  I am wondering why this Brookings blog is more authoritative than Spiegel or NATO, though.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, HerrTom said:

At any rate, thank you Steve and PzSaKrWfr for correcting me, even though I did post a link to NATO's statement on it which says exactly what you said.  I am wondering why this Brookings blog is more authoritative than Spiegel or NATO, though.

Because:

1. It's not a blog.  The Brookings Institute is a well established Public Policy thinktank.  In that regard it's a pretty good source. 

2. It involves Mikhail Gorbachev himself definitively saying there was no agreement.  In the event you were unaware, he was the President of the Soviet Union during the time this "agreement" was supposed to have occurred.  He has nothing to gain by lying about such an agreement, and has been sharply critical of eastward NATO expansion.

Here's the relevant Gorbachev discussion:

" . The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
 

Bold text is mine.  So either the president of the Soviet Union was entirely unaware of the agreement, OR more likely it simply did not exist.  In the interest of seeing both sides of the issue, he does well display that Russians might feel that the spirit of the agreement might have been violated, but there was no legal obligation on the part of NATO to follow that "spirit."

But there was nothing legally binding to not expand NATO east.  And even worse this assumes the Soviet Union has a right to dictate the fates of countries and governments that didn't even exist when signing that treaty.  It's absurd to think that Poland should be left exposed to Russian aggression now because a now dead country made an agreement that doesn't appear to exist, with an alliance that doesn't appear to have done anything it requires to come to an agreement on excluding future members.

The Russians likely really regret that the Soviet Union did not do more to force NATO to agree not to expand.  But that desire does not make for a legal, or even arguably moral requirement.  And as the case is, with Russian military aggression against Eastern Europe on the rise, the Russians realistically only have themselves to blame for NATO expansion.  

 

[HerrTom]

Ah, thank you for the clarification.  I was not aware of Brookings before.  Perhaps I should stop speaking since my knowledge of history gets fuzzier past the building of the Mauer.

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

But there was nothing legally binding to not expand NATO east.  And even worse this assumes the Soviet Union has a right to dictate the fates of countries and governments that didn't even exist when signing that treaty.  It's absurd to think that Poland should be left exposed to Russian aggression now because a now dead country made an agreement that doesn't appear to exist, with an alliance that doesn't appear to have done anything it requires to come to an agreement on excluding future members.

The Russians likely really regret that the Soviet Union did not do more to force NATO to agree not to expand.  But that desire does not make for a legal, or even arguably moral requirement.  And as the case is, with Russian military aggression against Eastern Europe on the rise, the Russians realistically only have themselves to blame for NATO expansion.  

I don't think the contention was that there was any official treaty or statement coming from Mr. Baker, but a promise from Genscher which Baker supposedly agreed with.  I guess he was acting outside of the purview of NATO, and there was certainly never anything legally binding.  I guess the situation may be akin to your neighbour telling you he has no intention of planting ugly bushes on your property line, but doing it anyway, or perhaps "Niemand hat der Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten."  Promises are never binding, and I guess that's why treaties are important in international politics!  All I was trying to say at the beginning is that the Russians may be placing too much emphasis on a single sentence in a speech made by the BRD's Vice Chancellor, hence their behaviour in the international field being that of a cornered cat.

Though part of your argument I think hits the nail on the head, despite our disagreement on the fine details.  The strongest argument I think you can make against any and all treaties and promises was that they were made to a now-defunct country.  Try as I might on a map there is no USSR to be found!  And you're right, Gorbachev has no reason to lie, already being one of the most hated people in Russian history!  I doubt aping Putin would change that.

As an aside, while I enjoy dry sarcasm on subsequent reads, the first pass always comes off as dismissive and aggressive.  Perhaps that could be attributing to flared tempers sometimes?

Edited September 17, 2016 by HerrTom

[Kinophile]

As I noted, NATO absorbing new Eastern Europe applicants was driven by the very sensible,  long term thinking of those applicants. 

They knew full well that Russia was down,  but not out, seeing a similarity with Russia post- October l revolution and WW1. Damaged, internally conflicts,  distracted

But once it's domestic situation stabilized the external aggression started up right on cue. 

Same situation today,  and curiously, developing within a very similar time frame.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

46 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

As an aside, while I enjoy dry sarcasm on subsequent reads, the first pass always comes off as dismissive and aggressive.  Perhaps that could be attributing to flared tempers sometimes?

It's more increasing irritation in a lot of ways.  You know how many people I've run into that absolutely insist NATO had a signed and bonded agreement to never ever expand, and to be super nice to Russia?  Who then insist whatever Spiegle/Pravda/Uncle Boris's Truthblog information they have is still correct in the face of overwhelming evidence?  It's the same basic myths, as repeated over and over again.  Imagine if you went to a forum that discussed topics related to your job/hobbies, and you had the literal same wrong information presented on repeat.  

Even if there had been an agreement, a 100% top to bottom never expand NATO agreement, I am certain we'd have seen some sort of Eastern European security agreement that was NATO in every way but name given the continued bad faith actions of Russia, and security anxiety of Eastern Europe from same. 

Which gets to the heart of the matter, the problem is not Russian insecurity because NATO is coming,*  it's Eastern European anxiety at continued Russian attempts to assert hegemony over the region, and taking measures to ensure continued independence.   If Russia had not presented a threat to its neighbors (or, violated the "spirit" of being a good neighbor), NATO would have never made it east of the old GDR.  

*And even then, you'll note virtually zero lasting deployment of "western" NATO troops in Eastern Europe until post Ukraine.  NATO went out of the way to placate Russian anxiety by NOT building up forces in Eastern Europe.

And that good faith attempt to lower tensions was rewarded by the Ukrainian situation.  High fives, way to go Russia.  
 

[VladimirTarasov]

Where as I do agree with panzersaurkrautwerfer (aka armored brigade commander but lies about it ) that NATO can expand towards Russia because the nations are not being forced into it, I will disagree that they did it out of fear. There are many benefits to being aligned with superpower country 

Let's use Poland for an example now. Poland even before the USSR hated Russia. In fact, Poland first attacked Russia way long before any USSR. They came and did brutal things to Russia. The USSR collapsed Russia emerged, you don't see Russia scared of Poland because the Polish Empire came all the way to Moscow before. That's wrong thinking. Poland is just geopolitiically aligned with the US. Their government is pro Western now, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Eastern European countries should be given the rights to do whatever, no one should force them to not join NATO. However, it starts getting messy when they get involved with the tensions. Russia being the new threat to world peace now, agreeing with it and adding to the tensions is what aggravates the Russian government. Or else, who cares if Poland or Estonia joins NATO, but adding to the anti-Russia policy is where issues are met. I'd also like to point out that, Russia is ready to bring back ties with the NATO countries. Even with NATO ever since its creation being made against Russia (USSR) and now they've reverted back to it and are anti-Russia again. This is where the Russian government starts having issues IMO.

[Sublime]

NATO was never anti Russia it was anti USSR. You didnt have NATO with the Tsars... troublesome as they were as well.

And the Russians are the ones who started messing with the free movement in zones in Berlin, then with allowing people to move to the West, and finally completely locking down th GDR and all the other zones and even blockading Berlin in 48. There are no equal NATO aggressive measures. As is often said people voted with their feet - so land mines were planted.

The US or Britain or France certainly did not impose each successive repressive and non ally like action considering that in May to mid summer 45 there was total free movement between zones of troops all armed etc 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Sublime

[HerrTom]

34 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Who then insist whatever Spiegle/Pravda/Uncle Boris's Truthblog information they have is still correct in the face of overwhelming evidence?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Der Spiegel is just equivalent Russia Today or a failing communist newspaper?  Have you even read my post or the article I linked?  They're talking about somewhat different events and situations surrounding the same Unification.  Sometimes I feel people on this forum read what they want to see.

13 minutes ago, Sublime said:

 

NATO was never anti Russia it was anti USSR. You didnt have NATO with the Tsars... troublesome as they were as well.

And the Russians are the ones who started messing with the free movement in zones in Berlin, then with allowing people to move to the West, and finally completely locking down th GDR and all the other zones and even blockading Berlin in 48. There are no equal NATO aggressive measures. As is often said people voted with their feet - so land mines were planted.

The US or Britain or France certainly did not impose each successive repressive and non ally like action considering that in May to mid summer 45 there was total free movement between zones of troops all armed etc 

 

The core of the USSR and the WarPac was certainly Russia, however.  Governed from its high castle of Moscow.  I think you can see two forces at work here, stemming from very polar European opinions of communism and the leftovers of the World Revolution.  The Soviet government (rightfully) didn't trust local governments to behave the way they wanted under the Soviet banner, and so dominated them from the top, essentially treating the satellite states more as states in the USSR compared to independent fraternal socialist comrades.  (There's a joke: "Fritzchen, why do you refer to our Soviet Friends as our Soviet Brothers? | Well, you can choose your friends..."  that pretty accurately describes the situation.)  And this doesn't and didn't work due to the plurality of national identities under the Iron Curtain.

Add to that unrest and the traditional Soviet approach of using hammers on everything, and you get those situations.

[Sublime]

Ahaha i like the joke. Is it from Berlin? I know at least in the ww2 era they were famous for their humor.

[HerrTom]

Haha, it's an old Ossi joke.  I often trade jokes with my Russian girlfriend, and it's remarkable how similar they are.  Maybe the unifying force of socialism comes in self-deprecating jokes?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

40 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

*snip*

The same people making the choice to join NATO are the same people who were on hand to see both the Nazis and Soviets roll through.  And who saw what benefits being Soviet aligned brought.  That's a far cry from the crimes of centuries past, whatever you may claim them to be (or about as relevant as the Aztecs are to Mexican-Spanish relations).

 

 

9 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Der Spiegel is just equivalent Russia Today or a failing communist newspaper?  Have you even read my post or the article I linked?  They're talking about somewhat different events and situations surrounding the same Unification.  Sometimes I feel people on this forum read what they want to see.

Re: Der Spiegel

Back when my German was current, and I was in German class and had resources to help me figure things out, I'd read Der Spiegel.  I was never good enough to feel terribly confident in what I was reading, but it was interesting and about as accurate as most newspapers go.

I did read the article.  It misquotes quite a few people, and is highly reliant on one guy's recollection.  I think it wasn't the worst piece of journalism, but I wouldn't give it high fives for accuracy.  As the case is though, it certainly mouths a lot of the same stuff that comes from garbage sources too, and it makes the same argument that in a treaty that stipulates specific numbers of weapons allowed in Germany, and the fates of Soviet monuments, in writing, in triplicate, that there's a massive unwritten "NATO NEVER EXPANDS EAST" clause that the NATO assembly never saw or agreed to.

There might have been a belief NATO should not expand, but as pointed out, it was simply not a likely event when the event itself went down.

The Russians got a raw deal, in that the agreement was made in a way that assumed there'd still be a Soviet Union, and Warsaw Pact in 1999 or something.  But there was no agreement.  And it's really a matter that needs to be put out of its misery, and stop being dragged out to justify Russian paranoia.  



 

[VladimirTarasov]

48 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The same people making the choice to join NATO are the same people who were on hand to see both the Nazis and Soviets roll through.  And who saw what benefits being Soviet aligned brought.  That's a far cry from the crimes of centuries past, whatever you may claim them to be (or about as relevant as the Aztecs are to Mexican-Spanish relations).

LOL good one. but seriously let's look at it this way. The USSR under Stalin is not the Russian Federation of today. That's like Russia being scared of the Germany of today because world war 2 happened. We need to be realistic here. Poland joined NATO for many other reasons, but being scared of the Russian Federation is totally out the equation. It is however a good justification, and if countries in Eastern Europe would like to be apart of NATO there's nothing we can do about it. But again, adding to the "RUSSIAN BEAR AWOKEN" hype does not help the situation at all. 

Especially if you add more units in those countries, with the official goal of countering a Russian threat, that just adds more very unneeded tension.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The USSR still did plenty terrible stuff after Stalin died off.  I know it's handy for your country to dump everything bad the USSR did on Uncle Joe, but circa 1944-1989 it was pretty lousy, and at the best, total political domination with threat of military intervention in the event the government wandered too far off message.

There's plenty of reasons to join the EU, or other political bodies, but there's no practical reason to join NATO unless you're looking for a defensive military pact against foreign aggression.  

Russia has a long legacy of brutality, and terror in Eastern Europe.  You are unwanted, unloved, and seen as a threat.  Your country goes as far as to deploy nuclear capable bombers in intimidation operations, or to use places like Warsaw as a targets for nuclear weapons in training scenarios.  The list goes on.

I could very well keep going.  But if it's not fear, then at the least, it's distrust.  And your country keeps validating these negative impressions with every dead Ukrainian.  

[VladimirTarasov]

Quick replies to your points:

If the US nuclear forces do not simulate bombing Moscow, then you guys need quick modifications to your nuclear armed forces. We fly bombers around so what, they're well in coordination with international law. I'm even too scared to write what you guys do, because I get hit with the God almighty NATO warhammer "whataboutism" c'mon if we want to put in history I can bring up lots of dirt on lots of countries. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Missing the point.  US Strategic weapons are limited to end of days type missions given our nuclear focus.  For your country, the innocents of Warsaw are again, acceptable losses to preserve Russian ambitions.  

[VladimirTarasov]

22 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Missing the point.  US Strategic weapons are limited to end of days type missions given our nuclear focus.  For your country, the innocents of Warsaw are again, acceptable losses to preserve Russian ambitions.  

I understand where you're getting at, I'm not trying to imply anything other than you're thinking over it too hard Our main policy relies on our nuclear forces even today, but obviously we aren't going to nuke someone out of nowhere. There will be certain situations where such sinfully wrong devices will be used. The only one being used in a defensive role, where our country is under threat by a very powerful unforgiving force. The days of nuclear bombs being used during offensives (atleast on Russia's side) are over after 1991. The Russian public would not accept us nuking Warsaw for anything other than retaliation. Plus let's not forget, we aren't the country who has used nuclear weapons. I'm not happy when my country is demonized for having nukes, when we've never even been close to using them. The closest we've gotten is on a drawing board for a hypothetical conflict that never happened.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Good lord.

1. The Russian people accepted an illegal war that doesn't exist according to your government, shooting down a civilian airliner filled with innocent people, and continued aggression against your "brothers."  You'll excuse me if I'm less than convinced the Russian people are currently a barrier to opportunistic nuclear weapons release.  You include nuclear weapons into your conventional wardrills, and not even counter-force strikes but out and out strikes against population centers.  

Basically your government counts on the west not wanting to end the world as we know it over the radioactive remains of Warsaw, because it plays by its calculus that the people of Eastern Europe are only pawns to be sacrificed as needed.  This is not the case, although sadly your government does not seem to recognize it.

2. We are the only country to have used nuclear weapons.  We dropped them at a time in which entire cities were being blotted out through entirely conventional means.  The methods of destruction for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were novel, the outcome was not.

This is certainly also whataboutism at its utter base and craven, a red herring tossed out to try to shift the blame away from the sins of the Russian state.  What relevance does a 1945 use of nuclear weapons have to this discussion?  None.  If anything it's a very interesting statement that Japan despite being totally crushed and burned to the ground by literally thousands of American planes dumping napalm, and then two dropping atomic weapons on her cities, is still a staunch US ally, while the entirety of Eastern Europe (minus those wacky Belorussians), despite being liberated by the USSR, has totally forsaken you.  Your monuments are torn down, the partisans that murdered Russians are held up as heroes.

You ever think that might be indicative of what regard your country is held in?  Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe your government is on the wrong side of this one?  You ever think that the memory of the Soviet Army sitting on it's hands and letting the flower of the Polish people die in the gutters of Warsaw because they're the wrong sort of Poles would leave a negative memory?  Do you think the dead in the streets of Budapest might cast long shadows?  That dead Germans hanging in the barbed wire that the Soviet Union erected to keep them from fleeing the virtual prison they turned Eastern Europe into might color impressions of Russia now?  

You guys lost Eastern Europe.  You are hated and feared.  NATO offers a fence to keep green men where they belong, and to protect free countries from Russian tyranny.  

Take a hard look man.  It's not just vague "benefits," it's decades of Tsarist/Soviet/Russian nightmare that drive this by far more than anything we can do.  Eastern Europe doesn't want our ideals, our jeans, our pop music, they want our steel, our bayonets, and our protection from you.

[VladimirTarasov]

But talking about what the USSR did in the early-middish 20th century is okay? Okay I'll just agree to disagree and stop this one. If this is the view the West has of Russia, then I'm afraid this is not going to end well at all. 

[Kinophile]

It's the view in terms of Russia's relationship with Eastern Europe. 

As Steve noted,  the Russian Government has constantly had the opportunity to not act in a zero-sum,  you or me fashion yet has consistently done so. This has only served to confirm very deep seated and justified fears about how trustworthy Russia is as a neighbour. 

And,  you have still not dealt with the regular notes about why, in the first place,  Eastern Europe has turned west and not east. 

As our Steel Plated Vegetable Catapult friend noted,  you haven't looked at the expansion of NATO through the eyes of Easter European nations. It's not OH NOES RUSSIAN BEAR AWAKES,   it's more GODDAMMIT THIS CRAP AGAIN? They want to avoid a repeat of the past,  both pre WW1 and post WW2. 

I really dont want this to sound snide or smug but please, can I suggest, (purely as a thought exercise), that in your next post,  instead of staying purely on the Russian side, that you lay out your understanding of why Poland etc would join NATO and become so very anti-Russian? Russia has a lot yo offer,  yet theirs is a very collective,  and coherent rejection of almost all Russian values. 

Ie Burn a post by looking at things through the eyes of non-Russian Eastern European states. 

Surely you can see their logic? And by extension,  NATO's raison d'etre? 

Edited September 18, 2016 by kinophile

[HerrTom]

33 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

You include nuclear weapons into your conventional wardrills, and not even counter-force strikes but out and out strikes against population centers.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the whole point of Soviet war doctrine?  That nuclear and conventional weapons were one and the same?  While NATO was busy contemplating the fantasy of "limited nuclear war" the theorists on the other side of the Mauer just considered nuclear weapons just another tool.  It doesn't seem so "out there" that relics of this doctrine still exist.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

26 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the whole point of Soviet war doctrine?  That nuclear and conventional weapons were one and the same?  While NATO was busy contemplating the fantasy of "limited nuclear war" the theorists on the other side of the Mauer just considered nuclear weapons just another tool.  It doesn't seem so "out there" that relics of this doctrine still exist.

The doctrine has still changed.

In the context of the Cold War, it was simply one long spectrum of Gotterdammerung.  I would contend the greater fantasy is that in a modern world you could spike a nuclear weapon into a population center and continue on to the simple status quo end of conflict or something.  

58 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

But talking about what the USSR did in the early-middish 20th century is okay? Okay I'll just agree to disagree and stop this one. If this is the view the West has of Russia, then I'm afraid this is not going to end well at all. 

Again, the whataboutism.  In a war that the US flattened possibly hundreds of population centers (as did the British, Germans, and the Soviets certainly didn't show excessive gentleness to cities), two of those hundreds were destroyed with nuclear weapons.  We can debate the morality of destroying cities, or total war, but that the US when presented with nuclear weapons as part of a cataclysmic conflict of annihilation, opted to use them is not surprising.  

Soviet acts however went far and beyond prosecuting war.  The US/Allied forces didn't hang out and let communist resistance forces in France simply die.  On the other hand, the Soviets bluntly allowed the Nazis to rape Warsaw because it was a handy way to dispose of the wrong sort of Poles.  The Hungarian revolution was simply a Soviet run slaughter of a dissenting population.  The Berlin Wall, and excesses of the various Soviet puppet governments all, again are well and beyond what other nations did.

No nation on earth reasonably expects the US to deploy nuclear weapons outside of part of a deterrence/counter strike context.  We're trustworthy on that much.

The Soviets, and now the Russian federation has a long history of constantly oppressing, invading, and butchering the peoples of Eastern Europe.  And shockingly enough, here you are, the Russian state is murdering Ukrainians again.  Which certainly plays into the reasoning that Russia is a threat, and it's why NATO membership is doing so good these days.   

[Baneman]

8 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

... Poland joined NATO for many other reasons, but being scared of the Russian Federation is totally out the equation. It is however a good justification, and if countries in Eastern Europe would like to be apart of NATO there's nothing we can do about it. ...

Hang on, didn't Russia say that if it looked like Ukraine was going to join NATO ( unlikely though that is ), it would be war ?

7 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

... We fly bombers around so what, they're well in coordination with international law. ... 

Actually, flying around in civilian airspace without transponders is NOT "in coordination with international law".

[Wicky]

"... We fly bombers around so what, they're well in coordination with international law. ... "

This is just a list from 2014 > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/full-list-of-incidents-involving-russian-military-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html

Notably > A 2013 Russian aerial exercise was actually a 'simulated nuclear attack' on Sweden and this was before Ukraine kicked off.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Wicky