6 ms·

Odd that Russia would feel threatened, considering they have been annexing territory rather than losing it for decades. Do they feel threatened that the US will

Odd that Russia would feel threatened, considering they have been annexing territory rather than losing it for decades. Do they feel threatened that the US will try to stop them from aggressively seizing territory?

baq 6y ago
They always feel threatened, that’s the only way the country can be kept mostly together. Whether they’re actually threatened is debatable, but in those matters if you really know, you’re likely working for an intelligence agency.
- gdy 6y ago
  I wonder how would you explain why the US always feels threatened. For example [0]: "“Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only existential threat to the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective,” the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, or STRATCOM, Air Force Gen. John Hyten said during the Association of the United States Army’s Air and Missile Defense conference Wednesday." [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/nuclear-commander-russia-is-only-existential-threat-to-us-right-now.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/nuclear-commander-russia-is-...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    If there are no threats then how can you argue to increase or even maintain our already massive military budget.
SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
Have you considered that they took those steps because they felt threatened? NATO influence has been expanding eastwards for decades. Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea unless they felt there was a real chance that Ukraine would host NATO bases and they would lose access to their Crimean naval base- which were absolutely real possibilities. Russia is surrounded by NATO bases. I wonder how the US would react to Mexico hosting Russian troops and weapons...
- drumhead 6y ago
  Threatend by what? I cant recall NATO invading or annexing the territory of a sovreign nation. Russian on the other hand, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovkia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia to name but a few European nations that have felt Russias "non-threatening behaviour". Nations voluntarily join NATO, because having seen Russian agression in neighboring states it makes them feel safer. If Russia doesnt like that maybe they should stop their aggressive behaviour.
  - gdy 6y ago
    "I cant recall NATO invading or annexing the territory of a sovreign nation." Funny you can't recall NATO bombing and partitioning Serbia. Funny you can't recall NATO members invading Iraq. Funny you can't recall NATO members bombing Libya. Funny you can't recall NATO members occupying parts of Syria. And most likely you haven't even heard that supreme NATO commander in Europe ordered to attack Russian forces in Prishtina [0]. "Russian on the other hand, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovkia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia" if you've decided to talk about WW2 and its aftermath, don't forget that Germany and countries which joined its war against the USSR -- Italy, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, are all NATO members now. This invasion from the West cost the USSR 26 million lives. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Pristina_International_Airport_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Pristina_Internat...
    - free_rms 6y ago
      But, you see, there are very narrow technical explanations for all of those things. We're actually the good guys. We would never drone-strike a general who we're not at war with, while on his way to a peace conference to help fix countries that we broke in the first place. That's not in our national character.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      Your point is valid, but the parent said "NATO" and you moved the goal posts to "any country that is a member of NATO". That's a bit disingenuous.
gdy 6y ago
"considering they have been annexing territory rather than losing it for decades" That's a lie. The only territory Russia got is Crimea which was Russian until 1954.
- free_rms 6y ago
  There's also South Ossetia, which is even smaller than Crimea. Two tiny chunks of land representing very important military positions. The USA is outraged, as Saudi Arabia bombs women and children in Yemen and nobody cares.
  - gdy 6y ago
    South Ossetia just like Abkhasia are recognized by Russia as independent countries.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      Fair enough, but just as I don't buy the narrow technicalities from my own country..
      - gdy 6y ago
        I wanted to add the word 'technically', but recalled that in Abkhasia they have elected a candidate not supported by Moscow. Which countries do you think the US has 'annexed'?
        free_rms 6y ago
        The US doesn't 'annex', we 'liberate' :) I'd say that any location in a strategic mountain pass that was invaded by a great power who has interest in that mountain pass.. ok, there are technicalities about whether they're annexed or not. But they're clearly on a short leash. An 'anti-moscow' candidate could be tolerated -- one who let foreign troops in would absolutely not be. I'm not passing any moral judgment, just calling the dynamics as I see them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SllX 6y ago
Decades is a pretty bold claim. It hasn’t yet been 3 decades since the USSR fully dissolved, and that was a bigger territorial loss from the Russian perspective than anything they’ve gained since. There were active political discussions about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO prior to Russia annexing Crimea; Vice President Biden also gave a few speeches on how Ukraine and Georgia had a right to determine their own political and military futures which was effectively code for “we want them in NATO” without coming right out and saying it. Right now neither country has full sovereign jurisdictional control over their territorial claims so bringing them into NATO is infeasible. No matter what else happens in Ukraine and Georgia from now until the foreseeable future, that’s a geopolitical win for the Russians.
- qserasera 6y ago
  It’s not infeasable full stop. Russia is tied together by a shoe string and Putin’s heartbeat. Ethnic cleansing is continuing in the federation. As long as that goes relatively unopposed ‘ethnic Russians’ will be loyal to Putin as terrible as that sounds.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Putin is young by modern American Presidential standards, and I don’t see any of the spineless “contenders” running for President in the near term this election or the next doing anything to make Putin’s heart to so much as skip a beat. I hope I’m wrong about that, but I don’t have faith.
  - gdy 6y ago
    "Ethnic cleansing is continuing in the federation." That's a lie. Perhaps, you are confusing Russia with Baltic states. Share of all ethnicities with exception of the titular nations has dramatically dropped in these countries since they gained independence [0], [1], [2]. Considering that Estonia was first to be declared Judenfrei [3] with the support of the titular nation, it is not at all surprising. Nowadays NATO praises Latvian Forest Brothers (former Waffen SS members) as freedom fighters. [4] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Ethnic... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Ethnic_... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lithuania#After_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lithuania#Afte... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenfrei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenfrei [4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5rQFp7FF9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5rQFp7FF9c

baq 6y ago

They always feel threatened, that’s the only way the country can be kept mostly together. Whether they’re actually threatened is debatable, but in those matters if you really know, you’re likely working for an intelligence agency.

gdy 6y ago
I wonder how would you explain why the US always feels threatened. For example [0]: "“Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only existential threat to the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective,” the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, or STRATCOM, Air Force Gen. John Hyten said during the Association of the United States Army’s Air and Missile Defense conference Wednesday." [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/nuclear-commander-russia-is-only-existential-threat-to-us-right-now.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/nuclear-commander-russia-is-...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jjeaff 6y ago
  If there are no threats then how can you argue to increase or even maintain our already massive military budget.

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago

Have you considered that they took those steps because they felt threatened? NATO influence has been expanding eastwards for decades. Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea unless they felt there was a real chance that Ukraine would host NATO bases and they would lose access to their Crimean naval base- which were absolutely real possibilities. Russia is surrounded by NATO bases. I wonder how the US would react to Mexico hosting Russian troops and weapons...

drumhead 6y ago
Threatend by what? I cant recall NATO invading or annexing the territory of a sovreign nation. Russian on the other hand, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovkia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia to name but a few European nations that have felt Russias "non-threatening behaviour". Nations voluntarily join NATO, because having seen Russian agression in neighboring states it makes them feel safer. If Russia doesnt like that maybe they should stop their aggressive behaviour.
- gdy 6y ago
  "I cant recall NATO invading or annexing the territory of a sovreign nation." Funny you can't recall NATO bombing and partitioning Serbia. Funny you can't recall NATO members invading Iraq. Funny you can't recall NATO members bombing Libya. Funny you can't recall NATO members occupying parts of Syria. And most likely you haven't even heard that supreme NATO commander in Europe ordered to attack Russian forces in Prishtina [0]. "Russian on the other hand, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovkia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia" if you've decided to talk about WW2 and its aftermath, don't forget that Germany and countries which joined its war against the USSR -- Italy, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, are all NATO members now. This invasion from the West cost the USSR 26 million lives. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Pristina_International_Airport_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Pristina_Internat...
  - free_rms 6y ago
    But, you see, there are very narrow technical explanations for all of those things. We're actually the good guys. We would never drone-strike a general who we're not at war with, while on his way to a peace conference to help fix countries that we broke in the first place. That's not in our national character.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Your point is valid, but the parent said "NATO" and you moved the goal posts to "any country that is a member of NATO". That's a bit disingenuous.

gdy 6y ago

"considering they have been annexing territory rather than losing it for decades" That's a lie. The only territory Russia got is Crimea which was Russian until 1954.

free_rms 6y ago
There's also South Ossetia, which is even smaller than Crimea. Two tiny chunks of land representing very important military positions. The USA is outraged, as Saudi Arabia bombs women and children in Yemen and nobody cares.
- gdy 6y ago
  South Ossetia just like Abkhasia are recognized by Russia as independent countries.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Fair enough, but just as I don't buy the narrow technicalities from my own country..
    - gdy 6y ago
      I wanted to add the word 'technically', but recalled that in Abkhasia they have elected a candidate not supported by Moscow. Which countries do you think the US has 'annexed'?
      - free_rms 6y ago
        The US doesn't 'annex', we 'liberate' :) I'd say that any location in a strategic mountain pass that was invaded by a great power who has interest in that mountain pass.. ok, there are technicalities about whether they're annexed or not. But they're clearly on a short leash. An 'anti-moscow' candidate could be tolerated -- one who let foreign troops in would absolutely not be. I'm not passing any moral judgment, just calling the dynamics as I see them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

SllX 6y ago

Decades is a pretty bold claim. It hasn’t yet been 3 decades since the USSR fully dissolved, and that was a bigger territorial loss from the Russian perspective than anything they’ve gained since. There were active political discussions about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO prior to Russia annexing Crimea; Vice President Biden also gave a few speeches on how Ukraine and Georgia had a right to determine their own political and military futures which was effectively code for “we want them in NATO” without coming right out and saying it. Right now neither country has full sovereign jurisdictional control over their territorial claims so bringing them into NATO is infeasible. No matter what else happens in Ukraine and Georgia from now until the foreseeable future, that’s a geopolitical win for the Russians.

qserasera 6y ago
It’s not infeasable full stop. Russia is tied together by a shoe string and Putin’s heartbeat. Ethnic cleansing is continuing in the federation. As long as that goes relatively unopposed ‘ethnic Russians’ will be loyal to Putin as terrible as that sounds.
- SllX 6y ago
  Putin is young by modern American Presidential standards, and I don’t see any of the spineless “contenders” running for President in the near term this election or the next doing anything to make Putin’s heart to so much as skip a beat. I hope I’m wrong about that, but I don’t have faith.
- gdy 6y ago
  "Ethnic cleansing is continuing in the federation." That's a lie. Perhaps, you are confusing Russia with Baltic states. Share of all ethnicities with exception of the titular nations has dramatically dropped in these countries since they gained independence [0], [1], [2]. Considering that Estonia was first to be declared Judenfrei [3] with the support of the titular nation, it is not at all surprising. Nowadays NATO praises Latvian Forest Brothers (former Waffen SS members) as freedom fighters. [4] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Estonia#Ethnic... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Ethnic_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Latvia#Ethnic_... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lithuania#After_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lithuania#Afte... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenfrei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenfrei [4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5rQFp7FF9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5rQFp7FF9c