The Russians don't believe that institutionally, they have been invaded so many times in their history that they firmly believe that they will be attacked at any turn, and frankly to them NATO's actions are not perceived as friendly here's a puppy.
I'm sure they heard the whole nobody is going to invade russia thing before. Freight cars full of food and fuel destined for Germanypassed german convoys invading russia.
You can say the same thing for just about every country in Europe. Russia is no different. Borders didn't change and countries didn't disappear because of peaceful agreements and negotiations. Why does Russia get a pass on this?
The Following User Says Thank You to Rerun For This Useful Post:
You can say the same thing for just about every country in Europe. Russia is no different. Borders didn't change and countries didn't disappear because of peaceful agreements and negotiations. Why does Russia get a pass on this?
And of all the countries that fear this, an exceptionally well nuclear armed country should have the least to worry about.
You can say the same thing for just about every country in Europe. Russia is no different. Borders didn't change and countries didn't disappear because of peaceful agreements and negotiations. Why does Russia get a pass on this?
20 million dead in ww2 tends to have an effect of the psyche and the history books. Nobody is giving a pass on it.
but its pretty silly to just sit there and judge the action without having an idea of context. It would be the same as outright condemning a dog for biting his master after the master has beaten him for 12 years.
I can understand how Russia see's Nato as a threat to both itself and its naval base.
NATO has done a lot of pressing against Russia.
Do I think that Russia handled this wrong, absolutely its heavy handed and destabilizing, but Russia has a history of heavy handed handling of situations.
And of all the countries that fear this, an exceptionally well nuclear armed country should have the least to worry about.
So your saying that the use of nuclear arms should be option one on a countries defense list?
Especially when the use of nuclear arms even in defense of their nation would invite annihilation as America see's the use of nuclear arms against a NATO ally in any situation as a attack on American soil?
That's a bizarre bizarre statement.
In terms of defending your nation
1. Distance
2. superior military strength
3. dooms day scenario with clearly laid out trigger lines.
And attached to each of them is the diplomatic option that has usually failed.
I'm saying a nuclear armed country is incredibly unlikely to be invaded, regardless of past history.
Agreed, its a huge deterrent for anyone thinking about invading a country with a nuclear arsenal. What country would you rather invade? One with nukes? or one that doesn't have the nuclear capabilities?
Agreed, its a huge deterrent for anyone thinking about invading a country with a nuclear arsenal. What country would you rather invade? One with nukes? or one that doesn't have the nuclear capabilities?
The Falkland Islands got invaded. Israel gets their territory invaded all the time. India and Pakistan have had wars where they've invaded each other. Don't forget that Georgia fired the first shot against Russia in their war a few years back.
The threshold for use of nuclear weapons has been set at MAD. I firmly believe the only way those weapons ate unleashed is if other nukes are airbourne heading that particular countries way.
Russia has lost many of its former "satellite" states. The insulation is gone so to speak. It feels vulnerable and wants a buffer again, the west is actively working against that by wooing breakaway states with trade, finances and NATO. In some respects the Cold War never died. There is still great mistrust on their side when viewing ours.
The Falkland Islands got invaded. Israel gets their territory invaded all the time. India and Pakistan have had wars where they've invaded each other. Don't forget that Georgia fired the first shot against Russia in their war a few years back.
The threshold for use of nuclear weapons has been set at MAD. I firmly believe the only way those weapons ate unleashed is if other nukes are airbourne heading that particular countries way.
Russia has lost many of its former "satellite" states. The insulation is gone so to speak. It feels vulnerable and wants a buffer again, the west is actively working against that by wooing breakaway states with trade, finances and NATO. In some respects the Cold War never died. There is still great mistrust on their side when viewing ours.
Except that it's not NATO wooing those countries... Every single NATO addition since 1990 is a country that has been terrorized, threatened or invaded by Russia or one of its allies sometime within the 50 years prior to joining. These countries all came to NATO looking for membership as soon as they were safe to do so.
Russia is not entitled to have satellite countries to use as a buffer and the countries (and people in the them) should not be treated as if their existence is to act as a human shield so that Russia can behave anyway it wants without repercussions. Russia's security (if it was even in question), could be ensured if they simply behave like a friendly country.
I bet more people in places like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc.; are far more thankful to be part of NATO than they ever were to be in the Warsaw Pact (or in Soviet Union as in the case of the Baltic States).
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 03-24-2014 at 08:46 AM.
While that may be, it's not seen that way on the other side of the fence
I doubt most of the people sitting on the other side of the fence truly believe that. Many of the leaders certainly like perpetuating the Western threat myth, because that is what gives people like Putin their power and I am sure that many are successfully indoctrinated, but I think most of the leaders know that it has more to do with being able to control the region than about self-preservation from hostile external forces. I don't believe for a second that the Western bogeyman keeps Putin awake at night, at least more so the thought of losing control and economic power in the region and looking weak internally does.
The one thing that the post-Soviet era has shown us, is that as soon as the people are granted a choice, they tend to want to gravitate to the West on their own accord. Even Lukashenko from Belarus, which is probably the only ex-soviet state that never gravitated west, has been highly critical of Putin's policy on Crimea. If this was really about trying to tame NATO, then they are going about it the wrong way because all they are doing is justifying the expansion.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 03-24-2014 at 11:16 AM.
20 million dead in ww2 tends to have an effect of the psyche and the history books. Nobody is giving a pass on it.
but its pretty silly to just sit there and judge the action without having an idea of context. It would be the same as outright condemning a dog for biting his master after the master has beaten him for 12 years.
I can understand how Russia see's Nato as a threat to both itself and its naval base.
NATO has done a lot of pressing against Russia.
Do I think that Russia handled this wrong, absolutely its heavy handed and destabilizing, but Russia has a history of heavy handed handling of situations.
What % of that 20 million was due to their own bullets?
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
According to CNN "U.S. and six other Western nations vote to kick Russia out of G8 in response to annexation of Crimea, White House says." Not sure if this actually means anything...
According to CNN "U.S. and six other Western nations vote to kick Russia out of G8 in response to annexation of Crimea, White House says." Not sure if this actually means anything...
I honestly think Putin doesn't give a rats ass what the west thinks about him, especially Obama
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
According to CNN "U.S. and six other Western nations vote to kick Russia out of G8 in response to annexation of Crimea, White House says." Not sure if this actually means anything...
Well this early it doesn't mean a whole lot, but it could down the road. Being left out of world discourse and decisions will affect them in time, especially economically. Not to mention I think Putin may just start to hate it on a personal level. He's a prideful man that wants Russia to be seen as not just relevant but important. Not being allowed to the table will weaken that image somewhat.
Of course, I wonder if they'd still participate in the G20 and such. That might minimize the impact.
I know we would all like to believe that this invasion is all Putin's fault and its only supported by his puppet Russian government, but the truth is... its not.
The Russian people support Putin and this invasion enormously.
Quote:
A recent poll by the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research showed that more than 90% of Russians supported unification with the Crimean Republic, while 86% believe that Crimea, which was transferred to Ukraine by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, is part of Russian territory.
Quote:
Putin's approval rating has skyrocketed since the Kremlin got approval to send troops to Ukraine, jumping by nearly 10% in less than a month to 71.6%, the highest in three years, according to the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research.
Quote:
Putin said Tuesday that he doesn't want to split Ukraine, easing fears that tensions in the region will escalate further. Still, two weeks earlier, Putin had also said that Russia had no intention to annex Crimea.
"I don't know what he will do next. He's not a predictable politician," said Malashenko. "National leaders come to power on their own, rather than being appointed, like Putin was."
Quote:
In the past, Putin cared quite a bit about what Western leaders thought of him, but he has since become more indifferent. "The Crimea decision was a chance to show that Russia can take decisive action internationally, and to teach America a lesson that it has its own interests that it is willing to defend," Makarkin said. "There were two aims: maintaining Russia's sphere of interest and self-assertion."
I know we would all like to believe that this invasion is all Putin's fault and its only supported by his puppet Russian government, but the truth is... its not.
The Russian people are behind and support this invasion enormously.
Which came first, the pro-invasion Russian propaganda machine or the Russian support for invasion? I'd bet the former rather than the latter. People just don't think of "hey, I think it's a good idea invade the neighbours!" in the living room over supper.
Which came first, the pro-invasion Russian propaganda machine or the Russian support for invasion? I'd bet the former rather than the latter. People just don't think of "hey, I think it's a good idea invade the neighbours!" in the living room over supper.
Bad wording on my part... fixed it to reflect what I meant.
