nato - assembling biggest troop buildup since cold war

Drawing the line ever closer to the Russian border.

Rightfully so.

That wasn't what was agreed during the negotiations over German reunification.

And, in any case, if the West continues to push eastward into the Russian sphere, don't be surprised when Putin draws his own line and annexes more of Eastern Europe.

That wasn't what was agreed during the negotiations over German reunification.

And, in any case, if the West continues to push eastward into the Russian sphere, don't be surprised when Putin draws his own line and annexes more of Eastern Europe.

Well these Eastern European countries wanted to join NATO because of Russian aggression.

That is a pretty pathetic excuse from you... You're basically saying " NATO is expanding so we should invade Estonia"

Explain to me how the Russian federation acted aggressively toward the former Warsaw Pact countries after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and up until they joined NATO.



You seem to be pretty ignorant about the German reunification agreement: one of the conditions states that NATO would not expand east of the newly reunified German state.

If you take your rose-tinted Western glasses off for a mere minute and view the European continent from a Russian perspective, it is quite clear that NATO has moved increasingly closer toward Russia, moving into the Eurasian Steppe, setting up missile defence systems -which they claim were installed against Iran, a state without nuclear weapons, let alone ballistic missiles that can reach Europe - and is thus in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty.

I suppose the West is allowed to violate international law because Putin is bad, right?

Is the West pushing, or are the remains of the East reaching out?

The more prudent action on Russia's behalf would be to try to understand why those countries have requested NATO assistance in the first place, no...?

I am well aware of the treaty, but these countries specifically requested to join NATO to distance themselves from Russia and embrace the EU. I have no problem with that.

Putin is a horrible man, no doubt

AEGIS systems are necessary at this point.

All the world powers break international law - all the time.

And, in doing so, the West created unnecessary tension between itself and Russia. Instead of viewing the Soviet Union's successor state as a potential partner, it was always going to be a foe; and instead of violating the agreement by absorbing Central Europe into NATO, and leaving a neutral zone from the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, and Bulgaria, it couldn't help itself.

If anyone is to blame for the idiotic arms race and renewed Cold War it is the West - and in particular the neocons and military industrial complex who gave the world the disasters in Iraq and Libya.



That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Is he worse than Obama, Hillary or Bush, or their European poodles? Iraq; Libya; Guantanamo; War on Drugs; 90% of drone strikes do not kill their intended target(s); unconditional support for Israel; cosy relationship with Saudi Arabia; support for the Saudis turning Yemenis into flying mincemeat while playing the human rights card in Aleppo; largest arms exporter in the world; the fact that the US has become an oligarchy... I could go on.

Putin is by no means a saint, but I don't think you fully understand the complexity of running a country like Russia, and, in comparison to the leaders/politicians and examples I've just given you, if he is undoubtedly a horrible man, what does that make them?





Elaborate.



The United States set the precedent by expanding NATO, violating the INF treaty, invading Iraq, vetoing resolution after resolution threatening Israel at the UNSC, et cetera. Why should China and Russia abide by international law when the US couldn't care less?

Ok, first of all. The Russian system isn't even a democracy. Only Putin or one of his cronies can wih their "elections" - absolute sham.
You also seem to see Russia as a peace loving country, and make it out that they are somehow victims.
This "unnecessary tension" you speak of is an inevitability when you have two powers like these. There will always be disagreements between the two.

There's a lot of evidence on Putin, everything from bribery to homophobia - he's been accused of it all. Whether it's rigging elections or oppressing gays, he's done it. 90% of drone strikes don't hit their intended target? Sounds like RT/Sputnik propaganda to me...
I'll admit the US's faults all day, but it's still better than Russia!

Ok, first of all. The Russian system isn't even a democracy. Only Putin or one of his cronies can wih their "elections" - absolute sham.

You also seem to see Russia as a peace loving country, and make it out that they are somehow victims.

This "unnecessary tension" you speak of is an inevitability when you have two powers like these. There will always be disagreements between the two.

There's a lot of evidence on Putin, everything from bribery to homophobia - he's been accused of it all. Whether it's rigging elections or oppressing gays, he's done it.

90% of drone strikes don't hit their intended target? Sounds like RT/Sputnik propaganda to me...

I'll admit the US's faults all day, but it's still better than Russia!

Naturally, a bit of both. I find it interesting that as the EU enlargement process got under way in Central and Eastern Europe, it coincided with NATO enlargement. Which begs the question: did Western elites offer the aforementioned areas a 'accession to both organisations or go **** yourself' deal.

My point was that under the German reunification deal the West agreed to stop NATO enlargement east of the newly unified German state. But, unsurprisingly, the agreement was ignored because, at the time, Russia was in no shape to respond to NATO enlargement, and Western planners saw an opportunity to absorb all of Central Europe, and as much as possible of Eastern Europe into its organisation.

The tension in Eastern Europe we have today is a direct consequence of NATO enlargement encroaching into the Russian sphere, the violation of the INF treaty, and meddling in Ukraine (see Euromaidan).

Can you actually source firm evidence that was what NATO was promising? Because the history on NATO'S promise not to expand is incredibly contentious and seems to be a case of both sides walking away with very different ideas of what was agreed.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Russian aggression LOL

Even what happened in Ukraine, most Westerners are completely ignorant of what went down. It was a violent coup that overthrew a Democratically elected leader who would have lost the next election anyway. They put in a load of anti-Russian ultra-nationalists, some with neo-nazi like views.

They still don't know who shot those protesters.....

They're really just mad about Russia ruining the Zionist agenda in the Middle East. The West and some Arab governments supports people who should be labelled terrorists, but are not when they further their agenda...

Russia is in Syria after being invited there by Syria's government. We are supporting the real terrorists.