Russian army under equipped?

[VladimirTarasov]

3 hours ago, Baneman said:

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 ?

I don't recall such a thing, however geopolitics does show that Russia is not happy when countries join NATO.

3 hours ago, Baneman said:

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

Hmm, do not act like we are the only ones in the region who flies without a transponder. There have been NATO craft without transponders on. The recent interception of the US spy plane in the Black Sea, the P8 had its transponder off as well. It's a standard now. At least we don't actually violate a country's airspace and "accidentally" bomb the country in questions army. Honestly I'm being accused of whataboutism on here but that's whataboutism in its own sense. Please only pay attention to Russian craft. They're flying around running "simulations" while others fly around uninvited in other countries's airspace, actively doing strike missions.

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I don't recall such a thing, however geopolitics does show that Russia is not happy when countries join NATO.

Hmm, do not act like we are the only ones in the region who flies without a transponder. There have been NATO craft without transponders on. The recent interception of the US spy plane in the Black Sea, the P8 had its transponder off as well. It's a standard now. At least we don't actually violate a country's airspace and "accidentally" bomb the country in questions army. Honestly I'm being accused of whataboutism on here but that's whataboutism in its own sense. Please only pay attention to Russian craft. They're flying around running "simulations" while others fly around uninvited in other countries's airspace, actively doing strike missions.

 

Funnily enough, it appears those countries are not happy when Russia does threatening things.  If you wanted to keep people out of NATO perhaps stop giving them reasons to join?  There's no other realistic benefit to NATO membership outside of collective defense, and you all remain the only reasonable threat to Eastern Europe (as you are again, demonstrating in the Ukraine).  

Russia regularly claims US aircraft especially had their transponders off.  Frequently there is evidence this is entirely incorrect, which keeps with the Russian state's standards of truthfulness.

However an interesting spin off of this discussion is:

Assume US reconnaissance assets are flying without transponders, in some sort of mysterious fashion.  This could present a major navigation hazard, and in many ways is just dangerous as there's no way of really knowing if it's a P-8 or airsofters flying a stolen Russian bomber for the rest of Russia's neighbors.  

Why does no one but Russia care?  Why does a variety of non-NATO countries (as Sweden and Finland both certainly would be concerned by "ghost" planes around their airspace) not even really protest it?

The answer is simple really, the US is a valued partner, ally, and is most certainly not doing something really insidious.  No one trusts Russian planes to do what they're supposed to, and apparently they are flown by blindmen who need to fly within ten feet of airplanes to see if they're actually there or not.

Regardless, the rest of your post is whataboutism nonsense to the extreme.  It's a lot more complex than you make it out to be, and the fact is, again, we can get away with bombing people in countries we were not invited into (at least, overtly invited into) and you all can't even go into international waters without protest.  This should again, tell you something about why Eastern Europe joined NATO en masse, and how Russia is viewed by the world thanks to your government's actions.

Your government has made your nation a fountain of weapons, gas, and little else.  That's a real shame.

[VladimirTarasov]

All you are proving is that USA can do whatever and get away with it because the countries in question are either taking orders from the top bossman, or they really just love America. I'll agree with that! And that's what I've been pointing at. A double standard. If Russia even points to the same things the US does again we get that God awful dreaded word whataboutism.

It's not even worth arguing because you always revert to it, and try to shame Russian actions, where you know deep in your armored heart that you guys have done way worse things in the recent history. You guys get away with it because you are the world police, Steve has mentioned it, everyone knows that the US thinks of itself as the world police. You guys put your noses into everything, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, the list goes on and on.

If Russia is being hated because we aggressively intercept your air craft and ships which are very near our borders with the goal of countering a Russian threat, or Russia taking Crimea and supporting a rebellion that's goal is not to topple a country's power unlike other rebellions (cough Syria) then so be it. That is a double standard beyond me, and the only thing you guys have to say about the things you've done, that have gone without any condemnation is that "stop your whataboutism you evil Russian" Okay we are evil demons, what about you guys? Must be angels or something. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

But what you're saying now gets to the heart of your problem.  It's functionally irrelevant if America is powered by throwing screaming infants into a giant metal bull that then grants the president Terrible Powers, when speaking about what Russia has done.  Russia's actions in the Ukraine are still immoral and wrong, regardless of whatever America has done.  The problem is not, if it existed, a double standard, because that implies that as long as someone else does something wrong, it's okay as long as you get to do it too.

No, if you've got a problem with what America is doing, then you SHOULD have a problem with what Russia is doing.  If you think Russia is peachy keen awesome to invade the Ukraine, then you really don't have a moral leg to stand on in regards to what the US has done.

But instead the argument you're making is that you should be allowed to do wrong things too.

I'm trying to illustrate to you the world in which Russia occupies.  The US is not half as powerful as you seem to think, if Poland viewed Russia as a friend, we'd be really hard pressed to change that impression.  We struggle with even getting some of our closest allies doing things they've agreed to do let alone things that they do not agree with.

We're running rampant in your back yard because your country is hated, and mistrusted for realistically a century at the minimum's worth of crimes, misrule, and oppression in same.  It's easier to point to American puppetlords supreme, but the fact is we're there because your neighbors asked us to be there.  So in this discussion, again it's irrelevant to what America has done anywhere, except for that even with this bloody terrible country toppling bloodlord reputation you've granted the US, Eastern Europe still willingly and enthusiastically allies with us against you.   And worse for you, it's not even like we've got American biker gangs bullying people into believing this, it's a genuine from ruling elite to hobo street sweeper level approval.  We are seen as a guardian against you.

Heck even in the darkest hours of recent American international impression, Eastern Europe is the one place that virtually never flagged in terms of popular support for America.

So drop this whataboutism nonsense, ignore what we've done elsewhere, and instead ask why we of all people are more loved, and more welcome than Russians will likely ever be once you cross certain lines on maps.  

[Sublime]

Vlad noones called you an evil russian and people have gone out of their way to point out they know the US arent angels. However we do own our attacks. We do say yes we did that.  And id say the bad things we did in recent history cant be compared with you only bc russia was such an utter mess it could barely police itself let alone mess with other nations. Once you guys regained the power rhe nastiness began and last time russia could project force in the 80s you guys had one leader order Op Ryan and was utterly convinced the US was gonna kill him and he needed to start a massive nuclear war. You have the Korean Airlines shootdown. You have.. well it was 30 yrs ago. The only reason you cant say the russians have been just as nasty recently, ( thiugh they have and openly lied and been caught *cof* clusterbombs on RT deleted then put back in) and you guys have been VERY nasty in Ukr and wont even admit it nor give the war widows compensation or recognition, but the only other reason u can say you guys havent been as atrocious as usual is the collapse of Russia in the90s

[sburke]

13 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

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.

Convenient to forget both Hungary 1956 and Prague 1968.  To the West's view Ukraine 2014 is just an addition to the list.

Hungary 1956

At 3:00 a.m. on 4 November, Soviet tanks penetrated Budapest along the Pest side of the Danube in two thrusts—one from the south, and one from the north—thus splitting the city in half. Armored units crossed into Buda, and at 4:25 a.m. fired the first shots at the army barracks on Budaõrsi road. Soon after, Soviet artillery and tank fire was heard in all districts of Budapest. Operation Whirlwind combined air strikes, artillery, and the coordinated tank-infantry action of 17 divisions. By 8:00 am organised defence of the city evaporated after the radio station was seized, and many defenders fell back to fortified positions. Hungarian civilians bore the brunt of the fighting, and it was often impossible for Soviet troops to differentiate military from civilian targets.^[46] For this reason, Soviet tanks often crept along main roads firing indiscriminately into buildings. Hungarian resistance was strongest in the industrial areas of Budapest, which were heavily targeted by Soviet artillery and air strikes.^[46] The last pocket of resistance called for ceasefire on 10 November. Over 2,500 Hungarians and 722 Soviet troops had been killed and thousands more were wounded.^[48][49]

Prague 1968

The Czechoslovak government held an emergency session, and loudly expressed its disagreement with the occupation. Many citizens joined in protests, and by September 1968 at least 72 people had died and hundreds more injured in the conflicts. In the brief time after the occupation, which had put an end to any hope that Prague Spring had created, about 100,000 people fled Czechoslovakia. Over the whole time of the occupation, more than 700,000 people, including significant part of Czechoslovak intelligentsia left. Communists responded by revoking Czechoslovakian citizenship of many of these refugees and banned them from returning to their homeland.

At a meeting of the United Nations Security Council, Yakov Malik, Soviet ambassador to the United Nations issued a proclamation, claiming that the military intervention was a response to a request by the government of Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union being a permanent member of the Security Council — with veto right —, was able to circumvent any United Nations' resolutions to end the occupation.

Prague Spring's end became clear by December 1968, when a new presidium of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia accepted the so-called Instructions from The Critical Development in the Country and Society after the XIII Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Under a guise of "normalisation", all aspects of neo-Stalinism were returned to everyday political and economic life.

Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia ended in 1989 by Velvet Revolution, 2 years before the collapse of Soviet Union. The last occupation troops left the country on 27 June 1991^[51]

My bold.... not exactly ancient history eh?  This is what you do to your "friends", is it any wonder Russia has no real allies?  The Russian federation IS the Russia formerly of the USSR.  Your gov't and its policies towards its neighbors hasn't changed, just the resources and capabilities are far less than they were.

[VladimirTarasov]

Okay I'll agree with that too, but again if we're going back into history we will find wrongs from the US or Russia. We are talking about the current world era, obviously the USSR collapsed and that regime is over. The Russia of today cannot be compared to the Russia under the Tsar or the USSR's policies. The "rigged" referendum in Crimea was without death when the Russian military intervened into the process. Supporting the rebellion in Donbas who's only goal is to separate from Ukraine because their region was ignored through out a whole country is not comparable to anything the USSR has done, or even close too. 

So let's stop pretending Russia is the only bad guy here and start looking into the details, quick fact checks: The Russian Federation beyond Ukraine has not done any "aggression" and it was only an isolated case. Crimeans were already having unrest long before the Russian intervention took place, Donbas region is historically pro-Russian so they will obviously rebel against the Ukrainian government that is so anti-Russian. Whether Russian covert ops in Donbas was wrong is arguable, and in some aspects it is wrong mostly due to the fact that they were covert, but other then that there is a legitimate rebellion which Russia has supported in the region. 

If you want to throw shade at Russia by bringing up screw ups on the Soviet and Tsar systems, then ok fine. Russia has actively condemned molotov ribbentrop. We have acknowledged the mistakes and crimes committed. But this new out cry of the Russian threat is no more justified than Vietnam screaming for an alliance against the US threat for bad history a while back under a different era because the US has intervened in another war. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Russia of today can easily be compared to Russia of the past.  If there was a break in behavior, or suddenly Russia got a lot more open and friendly to Eastern Europe, then there's clearly a new day dawning or something, but your actual policies have not changed outside of the fact you have less control over Eastern Europe than you used to.  Heck in a lot of ways the Ukrainian situation is just a hybrid warfare rehash of what happened to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, a country broke too far from the official Soviet/Russian party line and tried to control it's own destiny, and it got invaded.  

You can't do the same thing you've always done, and pretend its different now because the country has rebranded.  

Regardless:

1. Crimea should have been left to be decided by someone who wasn't Russia.  If I think my neighbor's fence is on my side of the property line, I am the wrong person to arbitrate if it is or not.  We have court systems for this, and other means of figuring out what's really right.  Using my analogy, what Russia did was bulldoze the fence, annex the pool, and then claimed the fence fell down in a windstorm and the pool was always really Russian so who cares?

There's a good argument for the Crimea being within Russia, it was only really given to the Ukraine as part of internal Soviet silliness back when the distinction did not mean anything.  But the methods were underhanded, illegal, immoral, and frankly just cemented all the more reason to not trust Russia to be a good faith actor.

2. In the Donbass, if you accept the Chechens are Russia's problem to deal with, and everyone else should butt out, then you need to accept the same for Donbass.  It's a bunch of Ukrainians of Russian descent living in internationally recognized Ukraine.  I'm sure you would be deeply offended if Saudi Arabia sent in a bunch of "miners" to Chechnya with "mining tanks" and "anti-aircraft drilling machines" and started killing Russians.  That would in no way be any different than what Russia has done.

And you're still whatabouting all over the place.  It's also a profoundly silly analogy.  The Ukraine is just a slightly new paint job on the way your country has always acted in Eastern Europe.  Violating the agreements at Yalta, suppression of dissent in the Baltic states, mass deportations of Eastern Europeans, the Hungarian revolution fighting, the Czechoslovakian actions, and now the continued Ukrainian tensions and posturing all are a continued spectrum of the same acts, against the same people, from the same origin.

This obvious and continued pattern of crimes and abuses makes joining a defensive alliance against Russian predatory behavior both attractive, and frankly as you all are showing right now, very pragmatic.  

[VladimirTarasov]

5 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

In the Donbass, if you accept the Chechens are Russia's problem to deal with, and everyone else should butt out, then you need to accept the same for Donbass.

Russia's policy towards Chechnya in the first Chechen war was immoral because of the heavy handedness of the operation there. Chechens who had nothing to do with the rebellion were brutally killed by our operations. It is a sad reality. I'd wish something could have been done so that Russia could have solved the Chechen problem differently. But again there are minor details that play important roles in these conflicts. The Chechens who have rebelled had ties to actual terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ect. Where as I'm sure there were genuine Chechens who chose to rebel against Russian rule there were also many Chechens who did not. So we can't compare the conflict in Chechnya to Donbas. The only thing we can compare is the brutality of the operations in those countries on the behalf of government forces.

11 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Crimea should have been left to be decided by someone who wasn't Russia.

I'll agree that Russia acted fast and could have tried other ways to get Crimea back, but again there was no guarantee. If in your case Russia did illegal stuff in Crimea to get the referendum, the majority of Crimea rather be in Russia, don't you agree? If you don't agree I'm all ears on why you think so.

16 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

 It's also a profoundly silly analogy

 I can't compare Vietnam to EE of course so you're right. It wasn't the right analogy in this case. 

 

[Baneman]

Just now, VladimirTarasov said:

.... Whereas I'm sure there were genuine Chechens who chose to rebel against Russian rule there were also many Chechens who did not. So we can't compare the conflict in Chechnya to Donbas.

Why not ? There are surely thousands of people in Donbas who did not want to rebel** and would rather not be living in a war zone.

** The majority in fact, otherwise Russia would not have had to send in Girkin and other paramilitary types to get the "rebellion" started.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Yeah, no the Chechen rebellion was arguably more legitimate than the Russians in the Ukraine in terms of homegrown support.  If anything Russian actions are what invited in the various extremist Islamic elements into the country by giving the folks that missed Afghanistan another go at the infidel/another place full of dead muslims at the hands of blah blah whatever.  

At the start, it was a nationalist movement that never felt especially part of, or bonded to, the Russian people, which is exactly why Stalin depopulated the place to begin with.

Anyway.  There's a not small number of people who object to the Donbass mess judging by the refugee flow, and without Russian intervention, they almost doubtlessly would still be comfortably in their homes.  

Your country started that war, and remains entirely in control of ending it (or, in a word, the US was NOT in control of the insurgents in Iraq, and ending that conflict had nothing to do with US forces being in country, or not.  The only thing keeping the Ukraine at war is the continued involvement of Russia, which is only leading to massive suffering on the part of everyone in Eastern Ukraine).  

[VladimirTarasov]

7 minutes ago, Baneman said:

Why not ? There are surely thousands of people in Donbas who did not want to rebel** and would rather not be living in a war zone.

** The majority in fact, otherwise Russia would not have had to send in Girkin and other paramilitary types to get the "rebellion" started.

Of course, there are many people who did not want a war in Donbas. But the vast majority support the DPR/LPR forces and not the Ukrainian government. Ukraine IMO had the right to change their government, just not the way they did it. The reason why the DPR/LPR rebellion is supported in Donbas is left on two events, first one being the brutality of the Ukrainian's ATO the second being that Donbas was not taken to account when Yanukovich's government was overthrown.

And that is why I've been trying to point out that Russia is not the cause of this war, it has played a part and this is certainly not deniable. But to say the thousands of deaths solely rest on Russia's shoulders is too sharp of a verdict. Russia would not have intervened if Ukraine atleast sat down and listened to Donbas's issues. I don't get how Ukrainians have the right to overthrow their government but Donbas Russians have no right to separate from the government they had no choice in. Again this is a double standard, let's not act as if there is no actual civil war over there. 

[sburke]

7 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Of course, there are many people who did not want a war in Donbas. But the vast majority support the DPR/LPR forces and not the Ukrainian government.

Based on what? - even the supposed rebel forces have complained of a lack of support.  The reality is you have nothing to base any  claim of support of the people of the Donbass for this Russian action.  The truth is there is actually very little indication that there is any kind of groundswell of support for this "insurrection" imposed by Moscow.  And why would they?  The supposed gov't of these regions are just a bunch of thugs who respect no laws whatsoever - what civilian would choose to move from a society governed by an actual gov't (even one you have major disagreements with) to being ruled by a bunch of gangsters?

Russia is the cause of this war and the only reason it continues. 

[VladimirTarasov]

13 minutes ago, sburke said:

Based on what? - even the supposed rebel forces have complained of a lack of support. 

Yeah during 2014 there was a lack of man power, guys were staying home with their families. Once the war kicked off and the ATO committed some atrocious crimes fighting local "terrorists" thats when things started getting personal. There is however no lack of support for them, go ahead search the videos of the local populace showing their disgust of the Ukrainian government's actions in the region. You can see videos where women usually of the older age yell at OSCE observers for not recording the Ukrainian government's shelling. I'd provide the links but some of them contain graphic materials, so I'd rather you go search it on your own. 

 

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Baneman said:

Why not ? There are surely thousands of people in Donbas who did not want to rebel** and would rather not be living in a war zone.

** The majority in fact, otherwise Russia would not have had to send in Girkin and other paramilitary types to get the "rebellion" started.

Correct. Also, those several hundred thousand refugees would not have left the Donbass to the Ukraine (many left for Russia also, but we can assume those who headed west were the dissenting portion of the population. And there appear to have been a LOT of them).

[sburke]

2 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Yeah during 2014 there was a lack of man power, guys were staying home with their families. Once the war kicked off and the ATO committed some atrocious crimes fighting local "terrorists" thats when things started getting personal. There is however no lack of support for them, go ahead search the videos of the local populace showing their disgust of the Ukrainian government's actions in the region. You can see videos where women usually of the older age yell at OSCE observers for not recording the Ukrainian government's shelling. I'd provide the links but some of them contain graphic materials, so I'd rather you go search it on your own. 

 

sorry you don't get a pass.  You have to provide data to the same standard you keep requesting it, not some staged video of folks under occupation supporting the occupation.  The quotes of non support from the local populace are much more recent than you would seem to indicate.

[VladimirTarasov]

4 minutes ago, sburke said:

sorry you don't get a pass.  You have to provide data to the same standard you keep requesting it, not some staged video of folks under occupation supporting the occupation.  The quotes of non support from the local populace are much more recent than you would seem to indicate.

The evidence I will provide is extremely sensitive (graphic, and touchy) I already feel as if I'm offending our Ukrainian forum mates on here whether or not who's side they are on. So I'll PM you some of my links instead. 

 

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

Correct. Also, those several hundred thousand refugees would not have left the Donbass to the Ukraine (many left for Russia also, but we can assume those who headed west were the dissenting portion of the population. And there appear to have been a LOT of them).

700K plus fled to Russia, 400K to Ukraine. At least that's what the wiki numbers say. 

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Vlad, I'd just give it up if I were you, truth, balance and accurate reporting of facts have no place here, they'll just be drowned out by the virtual equivalent of shouts of USA! USA! USA!

To discover that a forum moderator is apparently 'Troll In Chief' just makes the whole situation (and this forum) laughable.....Steve, you have well and truly destroyed BF's credibility in my book, nice job! 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

15 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Vlad, I'd just give it up if I were you, truth, balance and accurate reporting of facts have no place here, they'll just be drowned out by the virtual equivalent of shouts of USA! USA! USA!

To discover that a forum moderator is apparently 'Troll In Chief' just makes the whole situation (and this forum) laughable.....Steve, you have well and truly destroyed BF's credibility in my book, nice job! 

He really should quit before the NGO death teams eliminate him.  

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

700K plus fled to Russia, 400K to Ukraine. At least that's what the wiki numbers say. 

Correct to a point -  my understanding is that those numbers are from the area under DPR/LNR  control, not Donbass as a whole. Anyone,  please correct me with links if this is the wrong impression. 

Even then,  400K is a pretty significant chunk of people who want nothing to do with the puppet regimes. 

And serves to demonstrate that a peaceful,  non violent referendum would at least have given them a say

[VladimirTarasov]

I surrender guys panzer scared me with the NGO teams ?

[hattori]

Uggg, too much to comment on over the past few days.

I will say I am aware there was no agreement on paper about no NATO expansion eastwards.  Again, irrelevant.  The line of thought on here seems to be if you apply to NATO, you get in automatically.  This is not the case.  We have blocked Macedonia for example.  We ignored Turkey for the longest time, until we needed them, then invited them in despite our previous concerns -- now that is turning to really bite as as Turkey might suck us into a conflict we want no part of, with a government we are increasingly disliking, but have no way to kick them out.

We were under zero obligation to invite those countries to NATO.  We had other treaties with them, and could have easily guaranteed independence without a NATO invite.  There seems to be this belief that without a NATO invite, a country would automatically ... be annexed by Russia at some point?  To Russia, NATO is a threat, regardless of how peaceful we say we are (we in the west have a habit of turning on "allies" on a dime, even Saddam Hussein has (had?) a key to Detroit).  I also see (or missed?) no one addressing the building of missile defense systems in the face of all nuclear treaties.

You have also been saying Russia was not acting nice -- actually, they were showing all signs of cooperating, until we started talking to those countries about NATO expansion -- we were in discussions years before they actually signed.  We basically gave them 3 years before we started pushing east.

You talk about Russia acting like a bully ... while America was an even bigger bully at the time.  Iraq anyone?  How about signing free trade in North America, then refusing to get rid of your corn subsidies because of your powerful corn lobby (because you can because you are the big economic partner on the block) which then in turn wiped out the Mexican corn agriculture industry because they couldn't compete with subsidized corn -- some 15 million people worked in that industry -- and then wondering my Mexicans are coming into your country looking for work.  The U.S. didn't care about Mexican complaints, they just stomped all over them, and I'm not even sure a single American noticed what they inflicted on Mexico.

Anyways, here's a better third party source about what happened after the cold war (not russian or U.S. sourced which is obviously going to be biased, even if they don't mean to be)  It seems other people that like to claim they have amazing google-fu tend to only read links that back up their viewpoint

https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-americaine-2009-1-page-37.htm

 

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by hattori

[hattori]

And Vlad, come on.  The Russian move in Georgia was purely a response to NATO promising Georgia they would get invited into the alliance in the future at the 2008 Bucharest summit, and Russia flexing it's influence there and basically saying, "ummm, no you're not".  Let's not pretend otherwise, it was like 4 months after the summit that that Russia moved into Georgia.

[VladimirTarasov]

9 minutes ago, hattori said:

And Vlad, come on.  The Russian move in Georgia was purely a response to NATO promising Georgia they would get invited into the alliance in the future at the 2008 Bucharest summit, and Russia flexing it's influence there and basically saying, "ummm, no you're not".  Let's not pretend otherwise, it was like 4 months after the summit that that Russia moved into Georgia.

Sure, but Georgia provided us the oppurtunity by attacking our troops and attacking South Ossetia. Of course Russia used the moment to end a possibility for NATO expansion to the country. 

[hattori]

9 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Georgia provided us the oppurtunity by attacking our troops and attacking South Ossetia

Just how it was played at the height of the cold war by both sides.  An event to dress up the geo-political decision enough for domestic consumption, and the veneer of just enough of an excuse to not trigger world wide action.  It is getting tiresome both sides are pretending this is not what is going on.

Canada provides 40% of U.S. oil, among other vital resources.  If Russian influence spread in this country to the point where we might break off our exports and absolutely destroy the U.S. economy, I'm 100% certain the U.S. would act and prevent this.   Just like Israel has fought and will fight any country that tries to divert any of the Hasbani River -- anyone messing with the Jordan River water supply is a threat to their country, and will be dealt with.