> Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, China started building military bases in Mexico? There were NATO military bases being build in Ukraine or M

> Can you imagine what would have happened if, say, China started building military bases in Mexico? There were NATO military bases being build in Ukraine or Moldova? > No country with the power to stop such things allows hostile military presence to build up at its border - that's really the be-all, end-all of much of Russia's decisions. This is one of most repeated "justifications" for Russian military aggression, but it makes no sense if you think about for a second. Russia have already had land border with several NATO member states (Estionia, Latvia) for quite some time now, and Pskov and Saint-Petersburg are still unmolested by NATO's hostile legions, as far as I'm aware. > Russia's military is hundred of times smaller than NATO's. If NATO ever decides to attack Russia, Russia's military will be easily wiped out. There are US nukes on Russia's borders (in Turkey, arguably in Israel; slightly further away, in UK, France). There are anti-missile shields near to Russia's borders (in Romania). Are you saying anti missile systems in Europe can provide protection from whole Russian missile arsenal? What are you basing this on? Did you consider their capabilities to launch from submarines? All analyses that I read on the subject suggests that nuclear war between NATO and Russia is still MAD.