Russia must be ready to respond to NATO’s ‘aggressive actions’, says Putin

[Guest]

Putin is out of control. He has been put in to a corner after Russia invaded Crimea.

The reason why western world introduced the sanctions after the invasion, was to say it's not really ok to simply use Russia's military power to take over weaker members of the global stage. The sanctions reduce the power of the Putin regime due weakening the Russian economy.

Putin might be a good strategists, when he is without enemies, but he is over his head on global scene. It's time for Russia to remove him from the power and find a better leader for the country. Yes, there are many great thinkers still in Russia and many who have left the country due Putin's politics.

The neighbouring countries of Russia have always been aware what is going on in Russia. There was a long, sweet period of peace and mutual trust, until Putin started to loose internal power and decided to distract the local political talks by.. what else than having different wars. There is no better way to get internal peace than creating a common enemy.

Neighbouring countries of Russia are afraid. They are afraid for a reason. Putin is out of the control of Russia and therefore he is able to do desperate actions over the borders.

Playing chess when nuclear weapons are in stage is always a bad idea. There are no winners, none.

[Publicus]

America is in Europe playing Winston Churchill, willing to defend EU borders to the last American dollar; meanwhile Europe plays Neville Chamberlain and don't seem too bothered with Russia building 3 new divisions on their borders spending a paltry 1.35 % of GDP on defense.

Many of us believe it is time for these roles to change.

No need to make any of the radical and irresponsible changes Donald Trump is proposing from out of the blue, i.e., absent facts, data, information. Or as suggested by anyone else who might be equally ill informed and misguided.

Nato countries in Europe (that is, not including the United States) spent $242.8 billion on defense in 2013 while Russia spent $98 billion. Even if Russia increased its military budget by 50% it would be more armed but waaay behind the Nato countries of Europe. USA and Canada are the only Nato countries outside of Europe and the two between 'em spent $ 601 billion in 2013 (USA $582 bn and Canada $19.6 bn).

The USA-Canada $601 billion combined (2013) plus the $242 bn spent on defense by the Nato countries of Europe total more than $800 billion. Nato is a defensive alliance formed in 1949 to defend Europe against Stalin and now it is defending Europe against Putin, both of 'em Kremlin guyz.

The wake up data in this equation is that Nato countries' GDP (excluding USA GDP) is $18 Trillion, so 1.4% of $18 Trillion supports 3 million Nato active armed forces that have more weaponry land, air, on the sea and under it than Russia could dream of having to include the total number and quality of armed forces personnel.

The Nato secretary general is always from Europe while the Nato supreme commander is always from the USA (going back to General Eisenhower in WW2).

Trump and the people who think Nato countries in Europe aren't carrying their share of the load are completely ill informed if they are informed at all. Same as Putin himself, they all make a lot of noise to include The Ignoramus Donald Trump. And when Nato initiates an attack on Russia I'd want to be among the first to know.

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/aerospace-defense-terrorism/global-defence-budgets-overall-rise-first-time-five-years

It takes more than money to start, fight and even win a war - recent history should have taught us this.

Good thing then money doesn't grow on trees and that love makes the world go round, if that's what you meant.

Europe is not Afghanistan nor is it Iraq nor is it Vietnam. Modern warfare in Europe continues to be Land-Air combat that would be fought by large ground maneuver units of both sides, similar to WW II (WW I was minimum maneuver warfare aka Trench Warfare).

Presently however the largest ground force units Nato military doctrine will employ is the brigade which is typically 5000 soldiers in up to several battalions. No units of division size (WW2 = 20,000 and today half that) or of an army group made up of numerous divisions.

Putin btw can't sustain his military involvement in Syria never mind invade Europe with divisions and army groups. Putin's army consists of little green men who appear on your front lawn with already marked voting ballot papers, which is why the Baltic states are nervous in the extreme and why Nato is positioning brigades there. Putin's only war options are either little green men or nukes.

[Orac]

America is in Europe playing Winston Churchill, willing to defend EU borders to the last American dollar; meanwhile Europe plays Neville Chamberlain and don't seem too bothered with Russia building 3 new divisions on their borders spending a paltry 1.35 % of GDP on defense.

Many of us believe it is time for these roles to change.

No need to make any of the radical and irresponsible changes Donald Trump is proposing from out of the blue, i.e., absent facts, data, information. Or as suggested by anyone else who might be equally ill informed and misguided.

Nato countries in Europe (that is, not including the United States) spent $242.8 billion on defense in 2013 while Russia spent $98 billion. Even if Russia increased its military budget by 50% it would be more armed but waaay behind the Nato countries of Europe. USA and Canada are the only Nato countries outside of Europe and the two between 'em spent $ 601 billion in 2013 (USA $582 bn and Canada $19.6 bn).

The USA-Canada $601 billion combined (2013) plus the $242 bn spent on defense by the Nato countries of Europe total more than $800 billion. Nato is a defensive alliance formed in 1949 to defend Europe against Stalin and now it is defending Europe against Putin, both of 'em Kremlin guyz.

The wake up data in this equation is that Nato countries' GDP (excluding USA GDP) is $18 Trillion, so 1.4% of $18 Trillion supports 3 million Nato active armed forces that have more weaponry land, air, on the sea and under it than Russia could dream of having to include the total number and quality of armed forces personnel.

The Nato secretary general is always from Europe while the Nato supreme commander is always from the USA (going back to General Eisenhower in WW2).

Trump and the people who think Nato countries in Europe aren't carrying their share of the load are completely ill informed if they are informed at all. Same as Putin himself, they all make a lot of noise to include The Ignoramus Donald Trump. And when Nato initiates an attack on Russia I'd want to be among the first to know.

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/aerospace-defense-terrorism/global-defence-budgets-overall-rise-first-time-five-years

It takes more than money to start, fight and even win a war - recent history should have taught us this.

Good thing then money doesn't grow on trees and that love makes the world go round, if that's what you meant.

Europe is not Afghanistan nor is it Iraq nor is it Vietnam. Modern warfare in Europe continues to be Land-Air combat that would be fought by large ground maneuver units of both sides, similar to WW II (WW I was minimum maneuver warfare aka Trench Warfare).

Presently however the largest ground force units Nato military doctrine will employ is the brigade which is typically 5000 soldiers in up to several battalions. No units of division size (WW2 = 20,000 and today half that) or of an army group made up of numerous divisions.

Putin btw can't sustain his military involvement in Syria never mind invade Europe with divisions and army groups. Putin's army consists of little green men who appear on your front lawn with already marked voting ballot papers, which is why the Baltic states are nervous in the extreme and why Nato is positioning brigades there. Putin's only war options are either little green men or nukes.

Of course i don't think love makes the world go round I am more concerned that money will not stop an out of control ego that feels threatened.

[Guest]

Of course i don't think love makes the world go round I am more concerned that money will not stop an out of control ego that feels threatened.

If we, as human kind, are not able to stop the big egos with lesser intelligence, it doesn't really mean too much what we thought before.

When there is a possibility of even a 'restricted' nuclear war between any nations who hold the nuclear weapons, it's really bad news for all of us.

One nuclear detonation opens the pandoras box, which have been closed for the last decades, for a good reason.

Nuclear war don't just kill the few hundreds of millions of people it directly affects. Nuclear war fills our atmosphere with dust. This drops the temperatures, kills the flora, which we depend on. The hunger kills 90% of the population, maybe less, maybe more.

I really hope we'll never get there, but if we are stupid enough, it's one helluva bad situation to be in.

[Guest]

In case someone romantices the global nuclear war, do the following.

Make a list of the 10 people you love the most. Your mother, your father, your spouse, your kids, your sisters and brothers. Once you have concluded the list, play Russian roulette with each of your loved one, separately.

In case you survive all the 10 rounds; and at the same time; have seen your loved ones to die, you are the 'lucky one'.

That's the nuclear war for you.

Ah, did I mention that the people who die at the first strikes are the lucky ones. The people who survive and have to live, are the ones who really have to suffer. Did you previously hope that your son or daughter survived your Russian roulette? Think again.

[happy Joe]

Mr. Putin how many countries has NATO invaded......Hmmmm Zero. How many countries has Russia invaded in the last two years?

I rest my case Mr. *(edited out)* Putin.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine by foul supporting Israel ... And in contrast to the Crimea and North East of Ukraine, people was not need to them.

The huge refugee problem we have today in Europe is the direct consequence of military action NATO and US.

And now they will cause "our friend" Putin solely to block any rapprochement and prevent greater Europe from Atlantic to Ural.

Frankly, with friends like USA we do not need enemies...

[bassman]

America is in Europe playing Winston Churchill, willing to defend EU borders to the last American dollar; meanwhile Europe plays Neville Chamberlain and don't seem too bothered with Russia building 3 new divisions on their borders spending a paltry 1.35 % of GDP on defense.

Many of us believe it is time for these roles to change.

No need to make any of the radical and irresponsible changes Donald Trump is proposing from out of the blue, i.e., absent facts, data, information. Or as suggested by anyone else who might be equally ill informed and misguided.

Nato countries in Europe (that is, not including the United States) spent $242.8 billion on defense in 2013 while Russia spent $98 billion. Even if Russia increased its military budget by 50% it would be more armed but waaay behind the Nato countries of Europe. USA and Canada are the only Nato countries outside of Europe and the two between 'em spent $ 601 billion in 2013 (USA $582 bn and Canada $19.6 bn).

The USA-Canada $601 billion combined (2013) plus the $242 bn spent on defense by the Nato countries of Europe total more than $800 billion. Nato is a defensive alliance formed in 1949 to defend Europe against Stalin and now it is defending Europe against Putin, both of 'em Kremlin guyz.

The wake up data in this equation is that Nato countries' GDP (excluding USA GDP) is $18 Trillion, so 1.4% of $18 Trillion supports 3 million Nato active armed forces that have more weaponry land, air, on the sea and under it than Russia could dream of having to include the total number and quality of armed forces personnel.

The Nato secretary general is always from Europe while the Nato supreme commander is always from the USA (going back to General Eisenhower in WW2).

Trump and the people who think Nato countries in Europe aren't carrying their share of the load are completely ill informed if they are informed at all. Same as Putin himself, they all make a lot of noise to include The Ignoramus Donald Trump. And when Nato initiates an attack on Russia I'd want to be among the first to know.

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/aerospace-defense-terrorism/global-defence-budgets-overall-rise-first-time-five-years

That's a lot of blah, blah, blah. Lets look a two recent European events that took American intervention, Kosovo and Bosnia. Took the USA to come over there twice, to put the county sized country of Serbia, back in its box. You really think the EU has a chance against Russia? Think again, Russia could be in Berlin in 4-5 weeks. Their weapons procurement is many times cheaper, military pay is similar cheap and they don't have the west's legacy costs. Add on the ability to draft instantly and no protestors.

Remember France had the largest Army in the world, backed by the UK and was smashed in a few short weeks. Numbers, especially with $ are far from everything.

[Publicus]

America is in Europe playing Winston Churchill, willing to defend EU borders to the last American dollar; meanwhile Europe plays Neville Chamberlain and don't seem too bothered with Russia building 3 new divisions on their borders spending a paltry 1.35 % of GDP on defense.

Many of us believe it is time for these roles to change.

No need to make any of the radical and irresponsible changes Donald Trump is proposing from out of the blue, i.e., absent facts, data, information. Or as suggested by anyone else who might be equally ill informed and misguided.

Nato countries in Europe (that is, not including the United States) spent $242.8 billion on defense in 2013 while Russia spent $98 billion. Even if Russia increased its military budget by 50% it would be more armed but waaay behind the Nato countries of Europe. USA and Canada are the only Nato countries outside of Europe and the two between 'em spent $ 601 billion in 2013 (USA $582 bn and Canada $19.6 bn).

The USA-Canada $601 billion combined (2013) plus the $242 bn spent on defense by the Nato countries of Europe total more than $800 billion. Nato is a defensive alliance formed in 1949 to defend Europe against Stalin and now it is defending Europe against Putin, both of 'em Kremlin guyz.

The wake up data in this equation is that Nato countries' GDP (excluding USA GDP) is $18 Trillion, so 1.4% of $18 Trillion supports 3 million Nato active armed forces that have more weaponry land, air, on the sea and under it than Russia could dream of having to include the total number and quality of armed forces personnel.

The Nato secretary general is always from Europe while the Nato supreme commander is always from the USA (going back to General Eisenhower in WW2).

Trump and the people who think Nato countries in Europe aren't carrying their share of the load are completely ill informed if they are informed at all. Same as Putin himself, they all make a lot of noise to include The Ignoramus Donald Trump. And when Nato initiates an attack on Russia I'd want to be among the first to know.

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/aerospace-defense-terrorism/global-defence-budgets-overall-rise-first-time-five-years

That's a lot of blah, blah, blah. Lets look a two recent European events that took American intervention, Kosovo and Bosnia. Took the USA to come over there twice, to put the county sized country of Serbia, back in its box. You really think the EU has a chance against Russia? Think again, Russia could be in Berlin in 4-5 weeks. Their weapons procurement is many times cheaper, military pay is similar cheap and they don't have the west's legacy costs. Add on the ability to draft instantly and no protestors.

Remember France had the largest Army in the world, backed by the UK and was smashed in a few short weeks. Numbers, especially with $ are far from everything.

Yes, my post you quote invalidates the OP report (not the OP itself) of what Putin says and is doing -- the doing being to raise three more divisions of the Czar's Soviet Russian ground forces. So the Putin fanboyz need to dismiss my post.

Well life doesn't work that way, at least not realistically or successfully.

If Putin could be in Berlin in 4-5 weeks then he could have been in Kiev in the two weeks he'd boasted during the height of Putin's aggression against Ukraine carried out by Russian regular army forces thinly disguised as the infamous 'little green men.'

Putin is long frozen in Ukraine with his greatest failure due to Nato being that Putin's been unable to grab the land corridor to Crimea through the strategic south Ukraine city of Mariupol. (US intelligence reports this month Putin is preparing militarily to solidify the Russian position in Donbas but is not moving to act against Mariupol, all of which accomplishes little or nothing by Putin -- Ukraine military intelligence disagrees saying Putin will also move against Mariupol.)

The point is however Putin has not moved at all against Kiev much less taken it in his blah blah blah two weeks.

My post provides data to include the superior size of Nato forces to include their equipment, personnel, overall quality, over those of Russia. The posts of the Putin fanboyz who always and forever support Putin and everything Putin says, does, believes, rely entirely on Putin's rhetoric. Putin's rhetoric falls far short of Putin's performance.

All we need to know about the master strategist Putin's fanboyz claim him to be is that Putin hasn't ever played chess against anyone he couldn't put in jail. Or have shot. Or poisoned. Etc.

[AlexStepashkin]

[Caps]

America is in Europe playing Winston Churchill, willing to defend EU borders to the last American dollar; meanwhile Europe plays Neville Chamberlain and don't seem too bothered with Russia building 3 new divisions on their borders spending a paltry 1.35 % of GDP on defense.

Many of us believe it is time for these roles to change.

No need to make any of the radical and irresponsible changes Donald Trump is proposing from out of the blue, i.e., absent facts, data, information. Or as suggested by anyone else who might be equally ill informed and misguided.

Nato countries in Europe (that is, not including the United States) spent $242.8 billion on defense in 2013 while Russia spent $98 billion. Even if Russia increased its military budget by 50% it would be more armed but waaay behind the Nato countries of Europe. USA and Canada are the only Nato countries outside of Europe and the two between 'em spent $ 601 billion in 2013 (USA $582 bn and Canada $19.6 bn).

The USA-Canada $601 billion combined (2013) plus the $242 bn spent on defense by the Nato countries of Europe total more than $800 billion. Nato is a defensive alliance formed in 1949 to defend Europe against Stalin and now it is defending Europe against Putin, both of 'em Kremlin guyz.

The wake up data in this equation is that Nato countries' GDP (excluding USA GDP) is $18 Trillion, so 1.4% of $18 Trillion supports 3 million Nato active armed forces that have more weaponry land, air, on the sea and under it than Russia could dream of having to include the total number and quality of armed forces personnel.

The Nato secretary general is always from Europe while the Nato supreme commander is always from the USA (going back to General Eisenhower in WW2).

Trump and the people who think Nato countries in Europe aren't carrying their share of the load are completely ill informed if they are informed at all. Same as Putin himself, they all make a lot of noise to include The Ignoramus Donald Trump. And when Nato initiates an attack on Russia I'd want to be among the first to know.

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/aerospace-defense-terrorism/global-defence-budgets-overall-rise-first-time-five-years

That's a lot of blah, blah, blah. Lets look a two recent European events that took American intervention, Kosovo and Bosnia. Took the USA to come over there twice, to put the county sized country of Serbia, back in its box. You really think the EU has a chance against Russia? Think again, Russia could be in Berlin in 4-5 weeks. Their weapons procurement is many times cheaper, military pay is similar cheap and they don't have the west's legacy costs. Add on the ability to draft instantly and no protestors.

Remember France had the largest Army in the world, backed by the UK and was smashed in a few short weeks. Numbers, especially with $ are far from everything.

Let's not start on the US is great thing!

You could say they are as bad if not worse than Russia

You could also say they also would not stand a chance against Russia.

You could also say that the only conflict they did on their own went downhill

So really not that superior than other countries on the planet

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk whilst drinking a cold beer

[MJP]

I think Russia and China should publicly apply to join NATO.