NATO tests its capabilities - and wants Russia to take note

[webfact]

NATO tests its capabilities - and wants Russia to take note
By JOHN-THOR DAHLBURG

ZARAGOZA, Spain (AP) — NATO is putting on its most fearsome display of military might in over a decade, a choreographed large-scale movement of soldiers, ships and planes meant to hone its capabilities as well as transmit an unmistakable signal to Russia and other possible foes.

The U.S.-led alliance's aim is to train and exercise, but it is also "sending a very clear message to our nations and to any potential adversary," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference Wednesday.

"NATO does not seek confrontation," Stoltenberg said. "But we stand ready to defend all allies."

For three weeks starting Oct. 21, more than 36,000 personnel from all 28 NATO allies and eight partner nations, as well as more than 160 aircraft and 60 warships, are taking part in exercises across a broad swath of southern Europe stretching from Portugal to Italy.

The No. 1 objective of the maneuvers, code-named Trident Juncture, is to ensure NATO's beefed-up Response Force is up to the job, and that the United States and its allies can respond promptly and in unison to a crisis.

For more than a year, the alliance has been in the throes of a major makeover, largely in response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and support for a pro-Russia separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, but also to better meet the new types of security threat represented by Islamic State and other armed extremist organizations.

"The last time NATO regularly held exercises of this magnitude, we were in the midst of the Cold War, facing the Soviet threat," Alexander Vershbow, Stoltenberg's deputy and the ranking American civilian at NATO, said at last month's official opening of Trident Juncture at Trapani air base in Sicily.

On Wednesday, more than 500 paratroopers from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, parachuted onto a military training ground in northeastern Spain after a nine-hour flight aboard C-17 Globemaster IIIs from their home base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

"High ceiling, low winds, bright sky — it's a beautiful day to be a paratrooper," said Master Sgt. Patrick Malone, 31, of Stow, Ohio, a member of the brigade's advance party

Earlier in the day, also as part of Trident Juncture, 1,800 troops from 12 NATO nations, backed by helicopters and tanks, simulated an attack against an imaginary enemy holed up in a mock village at the San Gregorio training ground near the Spanish city of Zaragoza.

The displays are meant to showcase the alliance's military muscle and the trans-Atlantic bond it was founded to safeguard.

And NATO has said it wants other countries to witness what it's doing. It said three Russian inspection teams arrived in late October to examine Trident Juncture activities in Italy, Portugal and Spain, and that "in the interest of promoting transparency," observers from 11 other countries, ranging from the United Arab Emirates to Mexico, have also been invited.

So far, the Russians appear unpersuaded. They stayed away from Wednesday's events at the San Gregorio training grounds, according to German Army Gen. Hans-Lothar Domroese, Trident Juncture's commander.

On Monday, Alexander Grushko, Moscow's permanent representative to NATO, told the Rossiya-24 television channel that the "key process underway" at NATO these days is military planning that he said indicates the U.S.-led alliance is moving "from the policy of partnership to the policy of containing Russia."

The exercises, which end Nov. 6, will test the new, ultrafast-response "spearhead force" of 5,000 ground troops that has been created to reinforce NATO allies under threat in as little as two days. The war games, which took two years of planning, were rejiggered to add areas where many NATO officials say the alliance has been deficient, including defending against cyberattack.

Even if Trident Juncture is deemed a success, some observers say NATO must do more to adapt. Retired Adm. James Stavridis, dean of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and former NATO supreme allied commander, said he has been discouraged by the alliance's "tepid response to Syria," inadequate cyber-defense measures and the continuing reluctance of many European allies to spend more on their militaries.

When it comes to NATO's success in remaking itself, the former supreme commander said, "if you want a letter grade, I'd say a B minus."

In the Romanian capital of Bucharest, leaders and representatives of nine Eastern European NATO member nations called Wednesday for an increased U.S. presence in Europe to boost security in response to Russia's annexation of Ukraine and threats from the Islamic State.
___

Associated Press Writer Alison Mutler in Bucharest contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-05

[Publicus]

The only people on the planet who believe Russia could defeat NATO are in the Kremlin and no one who's been in the Kremlin for 1000 years has been in his right mind.

The following chart compares and contrasts Nato vs the Soviet Russia in 1986 to the present day Nato and Russia, as of 2014.

Putin needs to recognise today's Russia is not his mother's Russia although one could easily say something specific of Russia as a mother.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Publicus

[BuaBS]

With 12.000 nukes , the Russians sure would kick some a-- . Let Nato play with its toys for a couple of days.

It's Gorbatjov 's fault , the Soviet union should never have fallen appart.

[Publicus]

With 12.000 nukes , the Russians sure would kick some a-- . Let Nato play with its toys for a couple of days.

It's Gorbatjov 's fault , the Soviet union should never have fallen appart.

The US because of the timely appointed hawk SecDef Ashton Carter is in the process of placing a still publicly unannounced 20 tactical nuclear bombs at a German Air Force base in the western part of Germany with the still unannounced approval of Chancellor Merkel. It is little reported except for a few news organisations, to include the link below, in Germany.

The US and Nato are showing and upgrading their conventional and nuclear capabilities against Russia. People who want to discount Nato fail to recognize that Nato collectively is a powerful and well trained and equipped synergistic military force of a deep experience whose member countries don't need to spend any more on defense than they have been spending.

Only the insane need 12 000 nukes when 20 make the point more than effectively and efficiently. That's 20 places in Russia. If the nutcases that populate the thousand year old nuthouse called the Kremlin want to go for broke, then that would be up to those nutcakes supported by their fanboyz.

The U.S. will station new atomic weapons and 20 new nuclear bombs in Germany, according to Tuesday reports from Germany’s ZDF public television network.

Each of the 20 new American nuclear bombs are four times the destructive power of the one that was used on Hiroshima in 1945, according to the article.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/u-s-to-station-nuclear-weapons-in-germany-against-russia-report/

Reports: US nuclear 'upgrades' in Europe

Upgrades of six US air bases set to stock modernized B61 nuclear bombs are continuing in Turkey and Europe, according to US and German researchers. They claim Turkey's Incirlik base stocks at least 50 such US weapons.

http://www.dw.com/en/reports-us-nuclear-upgrades-in-europe/a-18731756

President Obama chose Ashton Carter as the present SecDef because the world is becoming more dangerous than it was during the Cold War, as Putin's Russia now has the CCP Boyz in Beijing and the Iran ayatollahs working as a group. Carter has worked for or been a senior advisor to eleven secretaries of defense and the consensus is that now is his time to run the Pentagon. Carter is doing exactly that.

Ash Carter spent his first few months updating his list of names. Now comes the next step after taking names.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Publicus

[chiang mai]

In 1415 French and British forces fought at Agnicourt, the British force measured about 6,000, the French up to 36,000. The death toll from that battle was circa 8,000 French dead, 112 English dead.

Numerical supremacy and statistics mean zilch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#Numbers_at_Agincourt

[Publicus]

So all we need then are 300 Spartans.

Or the equivalent, which are 50 US special ops forces in Syria.

Russians after a thousand years are no better than 100 000 Persians were at Thermopylae or 1000 of 'em are in Syria today.

Several dozen US and Nato nukes in Germany and Turkey for backup of course.

Just for safe keeping.

[Publicus]

In 1415 French and British forces fought at Agnicourt, the British force measured about 6,000, the French up to 36,000. The death toll from that battle was circa 8,000 French dead, 112 English dead.

Numerical supremacy and statistics mean zilch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#Numbers_at_Agincourt

Keep in mind you guyz fought the French, okay?

The US military still has the popular quip from when I wuz a young grunt in the Infantry and which well preceded my time of active service: Why is the Champs Elysees lined with trees? So the Germans can march in the shade.

Here's a significant variation on that....

"American troops of the 28th Infantry Division march down the Champs Elysees, Paris, in the 'Victory' Parade." 08/29/1944, Poinsett, Photographer, (National Archives Identifier: 531209); Signal Corps Photographs of American Military Activity, 1754 - 1954; Records of the Office of the Chief Signal Officer, 1860 - 1982; Record Group 111; National Archives.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Publicus

[johna]

Its one thing for the 28 NATO members to hold exercises, its not at all certain all 28 would agree to go to war with Russia.

Russia fought of Napoleon, it made sacrifices in WW2 that no western nation would be willing to accept.

Do you really think Russia would be a push over??

Any war between Russia and NATO would end with nuclear weapons, our leaders are dumb but hopefully not that dumb.

[does]

Ah, power and the willingness to use it.

Remebmer the Truman adage "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

Nato speaks loudly and carries a big stick but lacks the guts to use it.

Putin speaks softely and carries a small stick but has the guts to use it.

Since you seem to be an expert in military matters, can you explain why Nato has found it necessary to surround Russian since the end of the Cold War against the advice of many Western experts on Russia?

The only people on the planet who believe Russia could defeat NATO are in the Kremlin and no one who's been in the Kremlin for 1000 years has been in his right mind.

The following chart compares and contrasts Nato vs the Soviet Russia in 1986 to the present day Nato and Russia, as of 2014.

Putin needs to recognise today's Russia is not his mother's Russia although one could easily say something specific of Russia as a mother.

[chiang mai]

In 1415 French and British forces fought at Agnicourt, the British force measured about 6,000, the French up to 36,000. The death toll from that battle was circa 8,000 French dead, 112 English dead.

Numerical supremacy and statistics mean zilch.

Keep in mind you guyz fought the French, okay?

The US military still has the popular quip from when I wuz a young grunt in the Infantry and which well preceded my time of active service: Why is the Champs Elysees lined with trees? So the Germans can march in the shade.

Here's a significant variation on that....

And I thought this was going to be a sensible discussion!

Edited November 5, 2015 by Scott

[razer]

Ha-Ha-Ha ... What? Doesn't NATO want to have a conference at a 5-Star hotel overlooking the Alps in Switzerland first? That's what they do best, isn't it. Oh ... maybe they already had the meeting and it wasn't covered by mainstream media. Hush Hush. Right?

Oooooh ... I am sure Putin is shaking in his boots.

[Publicus]

Its one thing for the 28 NATO members to hold exercises, its not at all certain all 28 would agree to go to war with Russia.

Russia fought of Napoleon, it made sacrifices in WW2 that no western nation would be willing to accept.

Do you really think Russia would be a push over??

Any war between Russia and NATO would end with nuclear weapons, our leaders are dumb but hopefully not that dumb.

Discussing Russian leaders present or past is of course one thing, however, it is quite another matter to discuss the Russian people and their thousand year old pride in showing how much they can suffer, how tough they are to be deprived, to be striken, to be miserable and to endure extreme hardship indefinitely. This chatter and drivel is meaningless and insignificant. It is absurd and ridiculous. It would be laughable, if it weren't so insane and tragic.

The Europeans will not submit to Putin's Russia which is why Nato continues to exist. Recall Nato was formed in 1949 to protect Europe against a Soviet Russian invasion that Stalin and his successors would have executed had it not been for Nato.

If during the cold war the Soviet Russians could have taken control of Canada they would have done it. As it was, the Soviets had no prayer of it in either Canada or in the United States. The Russians will continue to do whatever they believe they can get away with, anywhere, anytime, against anyone. Nato is the wrong one at any time for any reason and Putin knows this.

Those fanboyz who respect the bizarre joys of pride in ethnic suffering and misery need to know and to face the concrete reality that if for any inconceivable reason the Europeans won't fight the Russians moving against them militarily, the United States will fight and will fight the Russians for keeps. The Putin fanboyz need to know and to consider the cold hard fact of it.

[lannarebirth]

Ah, power and the willingness to use it.

Remember the Truman adage "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

Nato speaks loudly and carries a big stick but lacks the guts to use it.

Putin speaks softely and carries a small stick but has the guts to use it.

Since you seem to be an expert in military matters, can you explain why Nato has found it necessary to surround Russian since the end of the Cold War against the advice of many Western experts on Russia?

You're thinking of Teddy Roosevelt, Not Harry Truman.

[rijit]

Jeez don't you just love it when the spooks come out to play.!!!Saying that the st Petersburg mob are being remarkably restrained perhaps its tactical,, cos normally they just never shut the fun up & lose the argument cos of it. A new dawn awaits !!!

[Publicus]

Ah, power and the willingness to use it.

Remebmer the Truman adage "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

Nato speaks loudly and carries a big stick but lacks the guts to use it.

Putin speaks softely and carries a small stick but has the guts to use it.

Since you seem to be an expert in military matters, can you explain why Nato has found it necessary to surround Russian since the end of the Cold War against the advice of many Western experts on Russia?

The only people on the planet who believe Russia could defeat NATO are in the Kremlin and no one who's been in the Kremlin for 1000 years has been in his right mind.

The following chart compares and contrasts Nato vs the Soviet Russia in 1986 to the present day Nato and Russia, as of 2014.

Putin needs to recognise today's Russia is not his mother's Russia although one could easily say something specific of Russia as a mother.

<<>snip>

Your post above my quote causes a strange effect but no matter.

No military expert. Went through US Army ROTC at university and served on active duty as an officer of Infantry, eight years all told. It was a long time ago but I've kept up with the education in things military by the qualified professors of military science and history and all of that stuff. I'm chief of staff around here only

The countries applied to EU for membership and to Nato for membership. The history of that region of the world is a history of rotating military powers among the Europeans but Russia has always been the big deal for the countries of eastern Europe and Scandinavia especially (and Eurasia). Crimea has been a hot spot since before the British Empire and the Crimean War (immortalised by Tennyson and as if there had been only one).

Even during the times of the past thousand years when Russia has been backward and introverted, it was always still big, stronger, ever expanding; reaching out, grabbing, threatening, dangerous. Since 1917 especially it's been so in one way, shape or form up to the present.

The EU and Nato were never going to say no and everyone in the Kremlin back then knew it, and they knew why those former Soviet satellite countries wanted to be European, not Russian. Yes, the countries at issue want to be European, Western, not Russian. Putin and Russia need to accept and respect that choice and the self-determination of the subject peoples.

The 20th century proved the maliciously horrible destructiveness of revanchism and irredentism but Putin and his gang have learned nothing from it. Absolutely nothing.

[does]

I stand corrected. You are right - it was Teddy Roosevelt.

Ah, power and the willingness to use it.

Remember the Truman adage "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

Nato speaks loudly and carries a big stick but lacks the guts to use it.

Putin speaks softely and carries a small stick but has the guts to use it.

Since you seem to be an expert in military matters, can you explain why Nato has found it necessary to surround Russian since the end of the Cold War against the advice of many Western experts on Russia?

You're thinking of Teddy Roosevelt, Not Harry Truman.

[manarak]

the problem with these statistics is readiness.

Nearly two thirds of all military combat aircraft and ground combat vehicles are not available due to maintenance. scraping together two fighter wings is nowadays a major effort for any small to medium size country. These figures are kept a secret and might be even worse.

If attacked by a swarm of ground forces, I don't see what NATO could do in Europe to repel the attack using conventional armaments on air and ground forces.

But European countries are equipped with mini-nukes, which would certainly be used against a serious attack.

Any info on mini nukes is top secret AFAIK, we only know they exist and that they probably are deployed in at least Germany but probably other European NATO countries as well.

Russia got mini-nukes as well, so a conflict would be very very costly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

* I don't trust the official version saying all small tactical nukes have been eliminated.

Edited November 5, 2015 by manarak

[FangFerang]

Analysts are usually spokespeople for one side or the other. In truth the Soviet Union cut loose every unproductive holding and consolidated.

They have sophisticated aircraft, both Sikorsky jets and helicopter gunships, as well as advanced mobile ordnance and highly developed tanks.

Most analysts are criticizing NATO for investing in very expensive toys that lack utility. We are at a severe disadvantage in many terrain environments, including Afghanistan.

We develop economical, efficient, multi use assets and...retire them, like the warthog and a dozen others, including Jeeps.

Boots on the ground are more effective than toys in the air. Many suggest we pay the soldiers better wages and actually take care of them after service, but the defense contractors and the politicians they own will have none of that.

[does]

"The 20th century proved the maliciously horrible destructiveness of revanchism and irredentism but Putin and his gang have learned nothing from it. Absolutely nothing."

With the invasion if Iraq, could we say the same thing about the Western powers?

Ah, power and the willingness to use it.

Remebmer the Truman adage "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

Nato speaks loudly and carries a big stick but lacks the guts to use it.

Putin speaks softely and carries a small stick but has the guts to use it.

Since you seem to be an expert in military matters, can you explain why Nato has found it necessary to surround Russian since the end of the Cold War against the advice of many Western experts on Russia?

The only people on the planet who believe Russia could defeat NATO are in the Kremlin and no one who's been in the Kremlin for 1000 years has been in his right mind.

The following chart compares and contrasts Nato vs the Soviet Russia in 1986 to the present day Nato and Russia, as of 2014.

Putin needs to recognise today's Russia is not his mother's Russia although one could easily say something specific of Russia as a mother.

<<>snip>

Your post above my quote causes a strange effect but no matter.

No military expert. Went through US Army ROTC at university and served on active duty as an officer of Infantry, eight years all told. It was a long time ago but I've kept up with the education in things military by the qualified professors of military science and history and all of that stuff. I'm chief of staff around here only

The countries applied to EU for membership and to Nato for membership. The history of that region of the world is a history of rotating military powers among the Europeans but Russia has always been the big deal for the countries of eastern Europe and Scandinavia especially (and Eurasia). Crimea has been a hot spot since before the British Empire and the Crimean War (immortalised by Tennyson and as if there had been only one).

Even during the times of the past thousand years when Russia has been backward and introverted, it was always still big, stronger, ever expanding; reaching out, grabbing, threatening, dangerous. Since 1917 especially it's been so in one way, shape or form up to the present.

The EU and Nato were never going to say no and everyone in the Kremlin back then knew it, and they knew why those former Soviet satellite countries wanted to be European, not Russian. Yes, the countries at issue want to be European, Western, not Russian. Putin and Russia need to accept and respect that choice and the self-determination of the subject peoples.

The 20th century proved the maliciously horrible destructiveness of revanchism and irredentism but Putin and his gang have learned nothing from it. Absolutely nothing.

[Usernames]

Analysts are usually spokespeople for one side or the other. In truth the Soviet Union cut loose every unproductive holding and consolidated.

They have sophisticated aircraft, both Sikorsky jets and helicopter gunships, as well as advanced mobile ordnance and highly developed tanks.

Most analysts are criticizing NATO for investing in very expensive toys that lack utility. We are at a severe disadvantage in many terrain environments, including Afghanistan.

We develop economical, efficient, multi use assets and...retire them, like the warthog and a dozen others, including Jeeps.

Boots on the ground are more effective than toys in the air. Many suggest we pay the soldiers better wages and actually take care of them after service, but the defense contractors and the politicians they own will have none of that.

Hmm. Sikorsky is an American company.

[toooa]

From what I've seen, it's NATO and the US that are the aggressors, and have been for quite some time. I wouldn't under estimate the Russians, and I don't see any indication that Putin is shitting himself in fear. Take the situation in Syria, Putin is easily the bigger, harder man compared to Obama. What an embarrassment Barry is. This is how worried Putin is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjmiyOgO66g

[zig]

It's Gorbatjov 's fault , the Soviet union should never have fallen appart.

Quite correct from Russia's perspective but all other countries that managed to break away are quite happy with their choice and want it to stay this way.

[Ulic]

Ah, power and the willingness to use it.

Remebmer the Truman adage "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

Nato speaks loudly and carries a big stick but lacks the guts to use it.

Putin speaks softely and carries a small stick but has the guts to use it.

Since you seem to be an expert in military matters, can you explain why Nato has found it necessary to surround Russian since the end of the Cold War against the advice of many Western experts on Russia?

The only people on the planet who believe Russia could defeat NATO are in the Kremlin and no one who's been in the Kremlin for 1000 years has been in his right mind.

The following chart compares and contrasts Nato vs the Soviet Russia in 1986 to the present day Nato and Russia, as of 2014.

Putin needs to recognise today's Russia is not his mother's Russia although one could easily say something specific of Russia as a mother.

<<>snip>

Your post above my quote causes a strange effect but no matter.

No military expert. Went through US Army ROTC at university and served on active duty as an officer of Infantry, eight years all told. It was a long time ago but I've kept up with the education in things military by the qualified professors of military science and history and all of that stuff. I'm chief of staff around here only

The countries applied to EU for membership and to Nato for membership. The history of that region of the world is a history of rotating military powers among the Europeans but Russia has always been the big deal for the countries of eastern Europe and Scandinavia especially (and Eurasia). Crimea has been a hot spot since before the British Empire and the Crimean War (immortalised by Tennyson and as if there had been only one).

Even during the times of the past thousand years when Russia has been backward and introverted, it was always still big, stronger, ever expanding; reaching out, grabbing, threatening, dangerous. Since 1917 especially it's been so in one way, shape or form up to the present.

The EU and Nato were never going to say no and everyone in the Kremlin back then knew it, and they knew why those former Soviet satellite countries wanted to be European, not Russian. Yes, the countries at issue want to be European, Western, not Russian. Putin and Russia need to accept and respect that choice and the self-determination of the subject peoples.

The 20th century proved the maliciously horrible destructiveness of revanchism and irredentism but Putin and his gang have learned nothing from it. Absolutely nothing.

Of course these former Eastern Block countries should be able to choose there destiny and

lean west for economic development and trade. But the west should have drawn the line

there. Nato membership is a step too far. Poke the bear and expect a growl, snap, and swipe.

Crimea was always Russian in my opinion, so not a big loss. The situation you have in Ukraine

with the ousting of a democratically elected (extremely corrupt) government at the hands of

a mob and not an election was a poorly thought out transition. Eastern Ukraine is the poor red

headed Russian stepchild of Ukraine, while the west European leaning western Ukraine is the

favorite son. The current situation was easily forecast and easily avoidable.

1/ Wait for change at the ballot box.

2/ Europe should have sent a clear message that Ukraine would be welcomed as a trading

partner with favored nation status and trade agreements, but it would never be considered

for NATO membership because of its proximity to Russia and the need to keep a buffer

zone between Europe and Russia.

3/ Investment by Ukraine in the eastern part of the country to develop the country and

give everyone a feeling of equality and opportunity in Ukraine.

For now Putin uses the excuse of just protecting Russians in Ukraine. The same excuse

he used in Georgia. Of course Putin is a megalomaniac. But he is also the undisputed

leader of a very powerful nation. While the bear may have lost a few claws and maybe a

few teeth, she is still powerful and grumpy. Of course no match for the USA in a struggle, but

in an all out fight there would be no winners, just lots of losers.

[Publicus]

"The 20th century proved the maliciously horrible destructiveness of revanchism and irredentism but Putin and his gang have learned nothing from it. Absolutely nothing."

With the invasion if Iraq, could we say the same thing about the Western powers?

Ah, power and the willingness to use it.

Remebmer the Truman adage "Speak softly but carry a big stick."

Nato speaks loudly and carries a big stick but lacks the guts to use it.

Putin speaks softely and carries a small stick but has the guts to use it.

Since you seem to be an expert in military matters, can you explain why Nato has found it necessary to surround Russian since the end of the Cold War against the advice of many Western experts on Russia?

The only people on the planet who believe Russia could defeat NATO are in the Kremlin and no one who's been in the Kremlin for 1000 years has been in his right mind.

The following chart compares and contrasts Nato vs the Soviet Russia in 1986 to the present day Nato and Russia, as of 2014.

Putin needs to recognise today's Russia is not his mother's Russia although one could easily say something specific of Russia as a mother.

<<>snip>

Your post above my quote causes a strange effect but no matter.

No military expert. Went through US Army ROTC at university and served on active duty as an officer of Infantry, eight years all told. It was a long time ago but I've kept up with the education in things military by the qualified professors of military science and history and all of that stuff. I'm chief of staff around here only

The countries applied to EU for membership and to Nato for membership. The history of that region of the world is a history of rotating military powers among the Europeans but Russia has always been the big deal for the countries of eastern Europe and Scandinavia especially (and Eurasia). Crimea has been a hot spot since before the British Empire and the Crimean War (immortalised by Tennyson and as if there had been only one).

Even during the times of the past thousand years when Russia has been backward and introverted, it was always still big, stronger, ever expanding; reaching out, grabbing, threatening, dangerous. Since 1917 especially it's been so in one way, shape or form up to the present.

The EU and Nato were never going to say no and everyone in the Kremlin back then knew it, and they knew why those former Soviet satellite countries wanted to be European, not Russian. Yes, the countries at issue want to be European, Western, not Russian. Putin and Russia need to accept and respect that choice and the self-determination of the subject peoples.

The 20th century proved the maliciously horrible destructiveness of revanchism and irredentism but Putin and his gang have learned nothing from it. Absolutely nothing.

No. Certainly not. Of course not. That's a question from the margins of knowledge and awareness.

The United States has never attacked or invaded anywhere on the basis of revanchism or irredentism.

Putin is both, and that is all he is.....as were Hitler and Mussolini; as are the CCP Boyz in Beijing. Nato countries know Putin the dictator is dominated by these severe and menacing faults and are responding accordingly and preparing justifiably.

[Publicus]

From what I've seen, it's NATO and the US that are the aggressors, and have been for quite some time. I wouldn't under estimate the Russians, and I don't see any indication that Putin is shitting himself in fear. Take the situation in Syria, Putin is easily the bigger, harder man compared to Obama. What an embarrassment Barry is. This is how worried Putin is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjmiyOgO66g

So what happened to Putin shutting off the supply of oil and natural gas to Europe?

What happened to Putin closing Russian airspace to Western airlines in retaliation to Ukraine closing its airspace to Russian planes?

Why has Putin's offensive in Ukraine become called the "Frozen War?"

When is Putin going to at long last play chess against someone he can't put in jail ???

[BeefSlapper]

Watch that doc.

The man who saved the world

http://video.pbs.org/video/2295274962/

Sent from my SM-A800F using Tapatalk

[toooa]

read this...

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/320747-soros-european-values-orban/

something to think about.... Russia is just protecting its interests...

[Publicus]

The former satellite republics of the Soviet Union that joined the European Union and those that also joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation did so because they wanted to become an integral part of Europe and the West. Those countries want democracy, peace, prosperity. They don't want Russian suffering, misery, dictatorship, a mangled pride in being backward and in being severely deprived.

It is very clear cut and easy to recognise, understand, comprehend, support, accept, which is what the EU did and Nato did in respect of those countries.

Who in his right mind wants to be under the powerful influence or control of Russia or in the sights of Russia to be within their ever expanding sphere of control or determining influence. No one in his right mind wants it.

Russia's interests suck big time.

Ukraine tried to straddle the fence and the fence predictably came up and stuck Ukraine where it hurts. Now Ukraine is in the process of moving as far in space and time from Russian influence and control as it can possible get. This would not have happened but for Putin's brainless and wholly discredited revanchism and irredentism.

[konying]

For someone who did not know Publicus usual patriotic drivel, one might actually think US and West are just unbeatable.

Reality speaks different.

Not going off topic, but just common sense, a better and stronger fighter does not need to "show " its might to someone weaker, because a stronger fighter has nothing to fear.

A smaller weaker fighter always makes lots of noise in hope to scare the opponent and in deep fear on opponent.

US has shown its capabilities for the past decade if not longer and sadly nothing to impressive.

Russia shown its capabilities in 3 weeks,

Now back over to resident patriot with more patriotic drivel

[Thongkorn]

In 1415 French and British forces fought at Agnicourt, the British force measured about 6,000, the French up to 36,000. The death toll from that battle was circa 8,000 French dead, 112 English dead.

Numerical supremacy and statistics mean zilch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt#Numbers_at_Agincourt

Mainly becasue the British soldiers did not wear armour, also the french had to cross an open field which was saturated from the rain on horseback , causing them to get bogged down, along with the foot soldiers. But the English soldiers were using the new armour piercing arrowheads, but yes it was planned.