|
Majorian posted:Please. Russia's not in any shape to go to into another conflict beyond the one they're supplying in Ukraine. They're not going to attack the Baltics or Poland because they're NATO countries, they're not going to attack Belarus for obvious reasons, and they're not going to attack the Central Asian countries because he gets along well enough with leaders like Nazarbayev and Karimov. Moscow certainly doesn't have the motivation to risk becoming a true out-and-out pariah state. Putin is getting ready to cash in his chips in the conquering game; he knows he's been lucky up to this point, but won't push his luck that much further. Also simply Russia ability to protect power outside the former Soviet Union is far weaker than inside of it where for the most part the other republicans have even more aged Soviet equipment and are closely economically tied to Russia. Putin's strategy is to rebuild Russian dominance over the "Soviet space" but Russia clearly doesn't have the resources to move beyond it. They may saber rattle but there is very obviously only so much they can do outside their "neighborhood." Of course, the those in their "neighborhood" may not be so thrilled with permanently being dominated by Russia.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Majorian posted:The fact that he's calling for the development of new weapons to replace old ones does not mean he's abrogating New START. There is no indication that Russia is going to expand its total arsenal to exceed the New START limitations. That isn't what he said or claimed to be doing. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/04/putins-nuclear-option/ quote:
quote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/russia-violating-1987-nuclear-missile-treaty/?page=all I think you grossly underestimate Putin's willingness to embroil Ukraine in turmoil for the foreseeable future. He has specifically broken treaties about nuclear weapons buildups and short/medium range nuclear first strike devices. Putin isn't just trying to secure his borders through the Ukraine action and the annexation of Crimea: He is testing to what degree he can go before someone stops him. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
You're quoting an article from the Washington Times and James "Global Warming is a Homofascist Hoax" Inhofe. I wouldn't use either as sources to prove that Russia is violating New START. \/\/\/that's quite all right, I remember being really shocked and kind of incensed that FP published an Inhofe piece when it came out. I expected much better from them. \/\/\/ Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're quoting an article from the Washington Times and James "Global Warming is a Homofascist Hoax" Inhofe. I wouldn't use either as sources to prove that Russia is violating New START. drat, I should've check that author. Got me there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
The best move is probably to lure Putin into a huge escalation and then bleed him dry and shove him out. This will also probably destroy him as a politician.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Please. Russia's not in any shape to go to into another conflict beyond the one they're supplying in Ukraine. They're not going to attack the Baltics or Poland because they're NATO countries... As regards the Baltics you seem more sure about this than many past and present NATO officials. Why would this be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
That's very insightful, thank you very much. So, I'll concede Russia is afraid of U.S. nuclear weapons programs. That's still a long way from saying that their actions in Ukraine can be explained by that. What does encirclement even mean to ICBMs and nuclear submarine launched missiles? The primary effect of Ukraine being in NATO, Russia's worst fear, is that Russia would lose the ability to dominate Ukraine. Even if Ukraine got in NATO, the danger of nuclear annihilation from the U.S. has not changed at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
The Russians know they are way behind in space technology, they fear the realization of SDI which would allow NATO to obliterate them with impunity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:That's very insightful, thank you very much. My pleasure! It's a weirdly well-written study on the issue; I think that's what sold me on the topic so thoroughly in the first place. quote:So, I'll concede Russia is afraid of U.S. nuclear weapons programs. That's still a long way from saying that their actions in Ukraine can be explained by that. What does encirclement even mean to ICBMs and nuclear submarine launched missiles? The primary effect of Ukraine being in NATO, Russia's worst fear, is that Russia would lose the ability to dominate Ukraine. Even if Ukraine got in NATO, the danger of nuclear annihilation from the U.S. has not changed at all. Wellll, but keep in mind, public threat assessments are not always the most logical thing. The USSR putting medium-range missiles in Cuba didn't do much to shift the balance of powers between them and us, but we still shat a brick over it. Putin may be an authoritarian ruler, but that doesn't mean that he can ignore the public on issues that scare them and still hope to hold onto power. We've already shown a willingness to put ABM sites in former Eastern Bloc states. Even though Obama has scrapped that incarnation of the plan, the Russians don't believe that we've given up on it entirely - and not without reason. I don't deny that the Russians want to maintain significant influence over Ukraine's government politically and economically, but the priority number 1 for them - and our best bargaining chip - is making sure that NATO missiles and ABMs don't end up in Ukraine. vegetables posted:As regards the Baltics you seem more sure about this than many past and present NATO officials. Why would this be? Which post-Cold War NATO commanders have thought that Russia would attack the Baltics?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which post-Cold War NATO commanders have thought that Russia would attack the Baltics? Well, here in the UK the most senior commander has raised it, the former Secretary General calls it a "highly likely" possibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
Face it, Majorian, you're sympathizing with the commies when you should be rooting for their death and the liberation of eastern europe from the shadow of the Russian menace. Who's going to stop Putin if not US? Nobody, and I don't trust Putin to stop himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Face it, Majorian, you're sympathizing with the commies when you should be rooting for their death and the liberation of eastern europe from the shadow of the Russian menace. Hush, let's hurry up and cede Eastern Europe to Putin. I would rather every man, woman and child in Europe be ruled by kleptocracy and every journalist be assassinated than for the world to be nuked as a result of think tank brinkmanship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
vegetables posted:Well, here in the UK the most senior commander has raised it, the former Secretary General calls it a "highly likely" possibility. Yeah, well, these are military leaders. Their duty is to envision the worst-case scenario and prepare for it. But if Putin's career has taught us anything about him, it's that he's too cautious to risk an actual war with NATO, especially to that degree. He'll poke states like Estonia in the eye, but he knows that the risks would be too great for his regime's survival to do much more than he has been doing. Also, the commander of the NATO units in the Baltics has said an actual attack on those countries is very unlikely. Given that he's the one on the ground, I'm inclined to trust his judgment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Pure Clancychat question: Could NATO mount a credible defense (or offense) against the Russian military if the US, fed up with other members not meeting their budgetary or readiness requirements, withdrew from the Alliance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Sorus posted:Pure Clancychat question: Could NATO mount a credible defense (or offense) against the Russian military if the US, fed up with other members not meeting their budgetary or readiness requirements, withdrew from the Alliance. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Sorus posted:Pure Clancychat question: Could NATO mount a credible defense (or offense) against the Russian military if the US, fed up with other members not meeting their budgetary or readiness requirements, withdrew from the Alliance. I think it depends on what you'd consider a "credible defense." Assuming you're talking about purely conventional forces, Russia's pretty strong right now, but A, as much as they've revolutionized over the past century, they still have the same difficulty with being able to mobilize quickly. So if such an invasion were to happen anytime in the next couple decades, the EU would probably be able to see it coming from a ways away. And B, perhaps more importantly, even if Russia was able to get a sucker punch out and hit the EU forces before they were ready, there's a decent chance they'd still be strong enough to hold back the Russian forces at some point before the US rushed in to help. Even if the US left NATO in a huff, you can bet that they'd still have some sort of defensive arrangement with Europe in case this sort of thing happened. So it's one of those things where I doubt, even under the circumstances you've described, a leader like Putin would take that risk. The chances of it failing and blowing up in his face would just be too high. Such a huge gamble from him would require the stars to align more perfectly, ie: Russia engineers a deal to keep the US out of such an invasion, or something equally crazy like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Let's continue with this now that I have a bit of time, because I literally have to go sentence by sentence:Majorian posted:Richard Davies (former ambassador to Poland) does a good job of summarizing what else could have been done: Seriously, I know you're perfectly aware that this statement isn't even the truth. There were two separate NATO expansions 5 years apart that you love conflating. The two expansions concerned countries of completely different strategic value to Russia. Do you really think that relations with Russia were irreparably ruined forever when Hungary joined NATO? How is Russia being "encircled" when Poland joined NATO? quote:The West did try to placate them after relations began to sour - thus the NATO+1 Council and the NATO-Russia Council. But that was too little, too late. You're making it sound like NATO acted unilaterally and high-handedly snubbed Russia, but this is factually wrong again. NATO signed the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation" in 1997, BEFORE the first eastern European expansion. It addresses all of the concerns Russia has/had. Which is why in TYOOL 2014, NATO does not install permanent bases in Eastern Europe, because that would violate the 1997 pledge. Additionally, NATO armies are subject to the "Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe", which Russia a party to and are fully aware of. There are NATO bases in Poland because there are Polish bases in Poland, and they existed there even before the country joined NATO. So the claim that "NATO is encircling Russia with its bases" is once again, absurd and is nothing more than Russian rhethoric. Incidentally, Russia was violating this treaty back in the mid 90s due to the war in Chechnya and their military presence is Moldova. quote:Had the recommendations of Davies et al. been followed, I think it would have helped Russia integrate into Europe a lot better. Again, what does the phrase "integrating into Europe better" even mean, when Russia is an equal partner in European international organizations, like the Council of Europe and OSCE? How does kicking Eastern European countries out of NATO help Russia integrate better? Wouldn't that just greatly reduce the European integration of those countries instead without improving Russia's integration? quote:Yeltsin may not have been forced from power, the nationalists wouldn't have gained as much of a foothold, etc. Your statement here is a bunch of wishful suppositions all hinging on the assumption that it was NATO expansion, rather than NATO bombing of Yugoslavia that seriously angered Russia, as I will argue later. But there is a different point I want to make here: You really shouldn't fault Western diplomats for misreading Russia in the early 90s, because it was Andrey Kozyrev who was sending them quote:And remember, while the former Eastern Bloc states officially joined NATO in 1997, it was decided that they would be let in, and Russia would be excluded indefinitely, back in 1991. Excluded from what? As I've shown NATO was not snubbing Russia when it came to joint security concerns. Do you honestly mean you wanted Russia to join NATO in the 90s? Are you insane? Horns of Hattin fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:Seriously, I know you're perfectly aware that this statement isn't even the truth. There were two separate NATO expansions 5 years apart that you love conflating. The two expansions concerned countries of completely different strategic value to Russia. Do you really think that relations with Russia were irreparably ruined forever when Hungary joined NATO? How is Russia being "encircled" when Poland joined NATO? You're right, I misspoke - those two waves of expansions did not happen at the same time. The decision to expand into those countries and not into Russia, however, was indeed made in a relatively small period of time in the early 90's - many years before the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security was signed. You also mention the "no permanent bases in Eastern European countries" provision, which is nice and all, but it doesn't cover strategic nuclear or ABM sites. Also, the Founding Act is non-binding, so what you're saying doesn't provide much comfort for the Russians who are afraid of eastward NATO expansion. You're doing your best to hand-wave away Russia's fear of being encircled, but even if the reasoning behind that fear doesn't resonate with you, you can't really deny that it's there. But it absolutely does exist, and it's a big part of what's driving their politics. quote:Excluded from what? As I've shown NATO was not snubbing Russia when it came to joint security concerns. Do you honestly mean you wanted Russia to join NATO in the 90s? Are you insane? Well, first of all, given that a lot of people who understand Russia a lot better than you or I do have argued that Russia should have been let into NATO, I think it's a little silly to say that it's such a crazy idea. If you were the ghost of George Kennan telling me it's an insane idea, I'd take your contemptuous dismissal a little more seriously. But given that Kennan, shortly before his death, spoke out strongly against NATO expansion, I kind of doubt that's the case. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't necessarily think that NATO should have let Russia in. I do think, however, that they should have done a better job of responding respectfully and open-mindedly when Yeltsin floated the idea in the first place. You can have a constructive, productive conversation with someone without necessarily saying "yes" to their proposal. Not humiliating them with our non-response probably would have gone a long way towards making sure that they didn't view NATO as still an anti-Moscow organization. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
But Nato is a anti russian alliance in all but name. Why is everyone concerned with only the russian point of view and how the poor ole russians are being encircled. I think we need to bring into focus american grand strategy when it comes to marginalizing russian influence as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:19
|
|
Greataval posted:But Nato is a anti russian alliance in all but name. Why is everyone concerned with only the russian point of view and how the poor ole russians are being encircled. I think we need to bring into focus american grand strategy when it comes to marginalizing russian influence as much as possible. Why would you assume that this is the case? The only person who is at all concerned with the Russian POV is Majorian. Everyone else has said, at one point or another, that Russian views are irrelevant, ironically validating the idea that Russia is being encircled by making it clear that their desire is to dominate Russia. You are an exception, I guess, validating it unironically. With that being said, it's really not at all clear that American grand strategy is about marginalizing Russian influence as much as practical, and it certainly is not at all about marginalizing them as much as possible. Nor, of course, does that explain whether our grand strategy should be about marginalizing Russia at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Face it, Majorian, you're sympathizing with the commies when you should be rooting for their death and the liberation of eastern europe from the shadow of the Russian menace. Let's be realistic here and say that if NATO didn't exist, the Europeans & Russians would probably go back to doing what they do best: dividing up Poland. \\ I bet there are probably still people in Germany that unironically fantasize about liberating the "good parts".
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Russia "fearing" encirclement relies on the unfounded assumption that it hasn't been encircled since about 1955.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Greataval posted:But Nato is a anti russian alliance in all but name. This is unfortunately true, a fact belied by NATO leaders' frequent statements on the issue. NATO is supposed to have had a new mission in the post-Cold War context, but it certainly has seemed an awful lot like the old mission. The important question we need to ask ourselves is, has this been a wise strategy to take in engaging Russia? Or has it only helped to radicalize the public and the government? My money's on the latter. Nintendo Kid posted:Russia "fearing" encirclement relies on the unfounded assumption that it hasn't been encircled since about 1955. There are degrees of encirclement. By your logic, there's no way France could have felt encircled by the Hapsburgs during the Thirty Year's War, because hey, they had been bordered by the Hapsburgs in Spain and the Holy Roman Empire for a couple centuries. Yet they did, in fact, feel encircled, so they intervened in that war, and changed the course of history. E: More to the point, what the Russians fear most is that this encirclement is only getting tighter. As was the case with France, this feeling of the enemy closing in on all sides is alarming, to say the least. Job Truniht posted:Let's be realistic here and say that if NATO didn't exist, the Europeans & Russians would probably go back to doing what they do best: dividing up Poland. Please back up statements like these if you feel compelled to make them. That goes for everyone here. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is unfortunately true, a fact belied by NATO leaders' frequent statements on the issue. NATO is supposed to have had a new mission in the post-Cold War context, but it certainly has seemed an awful lot like the old mission. The important question we need to ask ourselves is, has this been a wise strategy to take in engaging Russia? Or has it only helped to radicalize the public and the government? My money's on the latter. Russia could liberate itself and join NATO. Russia refuses to do so because Russia enjoys bombing apartments and gasing opera houses a bit too much. Without NATO, Russia would be attempting to partition Poland with Germany. NATO exists because tsarist russia, in whatever form it takes, whether wrapped in communist or revanchist rhetoric, must be destroyed. Why do you defend tsarism more fervantly than you defend your own nation, Majorian? What are you, some kind of Graham Phillips?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Russia could liberate itself and join NATO. Russia refuses to do so because Russia enjoys bombing apartments and gasing opera houses a bit too much. Without NATO, Russia would be attempting to partition Poland with Germany. NATO exists because tsarist russia, in whatever form it takes, whether wrapped in communist or revanchist rhetoric, must be destroyed. My grandfather descended from Russian nobility; Putin's promised me a barony for this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Okay, but is there anything in the literature prior to the second half of 2001 that mentions Russia being encircled? I'm picking this cut-off point deliberately because there is a certain event that happened late in 2001 that changed things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Please back up statements like these if you feel compelled to make them. That goes for everyone here. Let's start with the 2012 Munich Security Conference and statements by the Polish president. But seriously, anyone can refer to the long history of German-Polish relations as a reasonable standpoint for arguing that Poland is a frequent target of eastern and western imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:Okay, but is there anything in the literature prior to the second half of 2001 that mentions Russia being encircled? I'm picking this cut-off point deliberately because there is a certain event that happened late in 2001 that changed things. That depends on if you are specifically looking for someone using the word "encirclement." Kennan certainly predicted Russia's reaction 18 years ago. he doesn't specifically use the word "encirclement," but that is obviously what he's talking about. Job Truniht posted:Let's start with the 2012 Munich Security Conference and statements by the Polish president. The only thing that this demonstrates is that Poland is afraid of Russian aggression. I don't blame them for being afraid. I do, however, blame NATO leadership for adopting some really stupid, self-defeating policies towards Russia based on that fear. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is unfortunately true, a fact belied by NATO leaders' frequent statements on the issue. NATO is supposed to have had a new mission in the post-Cold War context, but it certainly has seemed an awful lot like the old mission. The important question we need to ask ourselves is, has this been a wise strategy to take in engaging Russia? Or has it only helped to radicalize the public and the government? My money's on the latter. Well I think the easy answer is that American foreign policy brooks no competition and Russian worries wouldn't be considered, it doesn't matter if they were warranted or unwarranted to DC. Ultimately the problem for the West is that while the US is still militarily potent, American interests are split as are European economic interests. I believe the movement toward Russian revanchism was a long time coming, and while during the 1990s there was a desire for Western consumerism, the adoption of Western strategic interests really didn't happen to any meaningful degree. If the 1990s were as harsh economically they might have been some type of compromise position but I have a feeling Ukraine was going to be a bone of contention. The equilibrium point will be simply occur on what borders NATO would defend and that is going to be the NATO states themselves while Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine looking from the outside. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There are degrees of encirclement. Yes, for example before 1955 all naval routes out of the Baltic Sea were not controllable by NATO and before 1952 exiting the Black Sea was not controlled by NATO. NATO + countries under the thumb of NATO members has encircled Russia completely since 1955. Majorian posted:
Then Russia's foreign policy experts have all had too much vodka recently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The only thing that this demonstrates is that Poland is afraid of Russian aggression. I don't blame them for being afraid. I do, however, blame NATO leadership for adopting some really stupid, self-defeating policies towards Russia based on that fear. Poland is pretty much afraid of any aggression because it's a frequent target for it. The two things that should be interpreted by the Eurozone Crisis and the Crimea should be the following: 1. Old habits die hard. There's no reason to believe modern foreign policy circumvents old, traditional feuds and a lot of bad blood. 2. The scope and objectives of NATO are inherently Eurocentric if not Germanocentric. Nobody is talking about the American hegemony anymore in a post Cold War environment, and this has been true or has been clearly true since Bosnia. The idea of calling NATO as impartial as the UN is absurd, and calling the UN impartial even moreso. The encirclement of Russia was just as long and calculated of a political move as Putin's antics in Crimea and Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, for example before 1955 all naval routes out of the Baltic Sea were not controllable by NATO and before 1952 exiting the Black Sea was not controlled by NATO. E: misread your post. This is a silly thing to say though. The U.S. was far from encircled in the Western Hemisphere, and NATO controlled the Mediterranean, and at least maintained naval parity with Russia in the Atlantic. The only NATO outpost that was encircled was West Berlin. quote:Then Russia's foreign policy experts have all had too much vodka recently. You're allowed to believe whatever you like. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, for example before 1955 all naval routes out of the Baltic Sea were not controllable by NATO and before 1952 exiting the Black Sea was not controlled by NATO. There have been many cases of encirclement since then- most notably Reagan putting Pershing IIs in Germany and well within range of Moscow or the deployment of medium range ballistic missiles in Turkey prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're forgetting that Russia had a major buffer zone in the form of the Warsaw Pact. Also, there weren't major concern by Moscow about the fate of Ukraine or Georgia in 1955. Obviously, as surrounded as the Soviets were in 1955, the Russian Federation is in a far weaker position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Okay Majorian, let's hear your opinion on the 1954 Soviet bid to join NATO. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, there weren't major concern by Moscow about the fate of Ukraine or Georgia in 1955. Obviously, as surrounded as the Soviets were in 1955, the Russian Federation is in a far weaker position. If Putin had his way, or in anyone in Russia had their way, Poland would be the buffer zone. Simple geography dictates it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:45
|
|
eigenstate posted:Okay Majorian, let's hear your opinion on the 1954 Soviet bid to join NATO. So what's your interpretation of it, and of the various attempts by the USSR to reunify Germany before the formation of the Warsaw Pact? Surely this should be bilateral, non?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
eigenstate posted:Okay Majorian, let's hear your opinion on the 1954 Soviet bid to join NATO. Ah yes, because such a bid from a pre-deStalinization USSR that is still ideologically committed to destroying the U.S. is exactly the same thing as a post-Cold War, pro-Western Russian regime wanting to join. Job Truniht posted:If Putin had his way, or in anyone in Russia had their way, Poland would be the buffer zone. Simple geography dictates it. No one's denying this here, though. What we ARE trying to get across to you is that we in the West made mistakes that helped lead to this historical juncture. We didn't have to drive the Russian voting public into the arms of the nationalists - but we did, in spite of the warnings of school me very smart, very experienced diplomats and Russia-watchers. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:If Putin had his way, or in anyone in Russia had their way, Poland would be the buffer zone. Simple geography dictates it. Ultimately, though there is a imperative on the part of the West to still support NATO's borders so the only workable Russian expansion is within the former Soviet Union. One thing is that Poland can actually defend itself so Russian dreams have to meet reality at a point even if the West completely rolled over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
hey majorian if you are so unthreatened by russia why don't you go live there for a while? What are you, coward?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:50
|
|