You are correct and Russia wants these buffer zones to remain in place. It's clear that Russia had enough of NATO's desire to keep expanding East after having gobbled up several former Warsaw-pact countries already.

Russia is prepared to go to war if places like Crimea becomes threatened by NATO which is completely understandable because of Sevastopol and Russia's black sea fleet.

The West reacts in the same way, we can look in history and ask ourselves if the West liked it when USSR came to Cuba and installed missiles next door to the US.

The same applies to Russia; They don't want NATO influence and NATO installations next door to them. That users like fenderp and saucepot cannot understand such simple logic is mind boggling but then again these users are part of the club of purple haired "progressives" so there we go




They didn't start a war on you, you started a war on them after declaring the "Arab Spring", a happy event that was going to spread EU-style democracy further! How fantastic! Lets send our bombers to bomb the crap out of them!

Then, after another country like Russia prevents you from taking over Syria, you cry and moan because this is obviously Russian expansionism!

You Idiots



This post was edited by Djunior on Aug 16 2020 02:04am

Russia are a militarily aggressive nation which leads to NATO intervention. NATO have troops in places like Estonia at their behest because they don't want to be annexed like Crimea.

It's not surprising guys like Putin support every tinpot dictatorship in the world considering he runs one. If Lukashenko were to be outsted, it would negatively impact his own reputation.

The EU should publicly support the democratic will of the Belarusian people, but it's not their responsibility to physically intervene unless there is a genocide taking place.

Russia will point out that NATO is military aggressive and prove that by pointing out that NATO already has gobbled up several former Warsaw-pact countries and installed military installations there.

It's hilarious but also incredibly sad that people cannot see what the hell they are doing. That includes people like YOU, you happily consume the narrative presented to you without even asking yourself what is really happening.

Russia annexed Crimea because of the EU flirting with Ukraine and the possibility that Ukraine would fall to EU's expansion desires. Now Crimea is annexed. You made things more shitty than it already was.

What are you going to do about it, physically intervene and throw some bombs on Russia? Let me know how you envision this. Go

Former satellite states wanted to join NATO to protect themselves against Russia. That was their decision based on a real experience of Soviet rule and the desire to secure their own country's future.

People forget that Russia hasn't been a world power since the 1970's. Now their GDP is just about smaller than South Korea, a country with 35% of their population; and nearly 2x smaller than the UK, a country with half their population.

Therefore, lots of their tech is outdated and they don't have the productive capacity to sustain wars against a Western alliance. Nukes also wouldn't be used as it would be suicide for both sides.

This post was edited by dro94 on Aug 16 2020 03:38am

Did you know that Russia developed a new arsenal of missiles just because they felt threatened by NATO installations in Eastern Europe? Which in turn caused the US to step out of a long standing missile treaty? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/02/us-ends-inf-nuclear-missile-treaty-with-russia.html

Did you know that this new tech is so advanced that current missile defense systems cannot deal with these and that the US works on developing counter measures against the Russian counter measures? Sound funny no? Costs tons of money once again yes?

Did you know they also developed a range of new hyper-sonic missiles like this one here?





This post was edited by Djunior on Aug 16 2020 04:29am

A lot of it is propaganda, their military budget is roughly 13% of the US'. Even in comparison to the Soviet Union, which was a far bigger economic and military power than Russia currently is, military spending is low:



Russia's poor economy necessitates smaller spending on its military, and despite it spending a far higher % of its GDP on military than Western nations, countries like France, UK and Germany spend close to the same amount as Russia.

Russia used to be a superpower and now they try to showcase bravado to fool the world into thinking they are a genuine superpower. The threat of the 21st century is China and that is where the West's focus should be (and it is).

You went from "Russia the aggressor" to "Russia is a Mickey Mouse" to "China! not Russia". What are you even trying to say at this stage.

Russia is probably the leading country in the world when it comes to missile tech. And they don't spent a fortune on policing the world which is why the countries you mentioned are spending so much more.

Lastly I like to point out that you suggested Russia cannot sustain a long war. How can you be so wrong. Some of the largest oil and natural gas reserves are in Russia along with other untapped resources. This country is vast. Massive.

I was just providing some context to the argument, but my points are quite clear:

- Russia is an aggressor and threat to former satellite states. NATO is justified in protecting them when they request help
- Russia is not a world power or a threat to the likes of the USA or China, so we shouldn't be apprehensive in securing Europe's best interests if they act out of line
- China are the biggest threat to the West in 21st century

I agree that they don't waste money on policing the world like the USA does, but the fact remains that the USA is an economic powerhouse and has the money to waste in the first place. They still have the most advanced military in the world by far.

Russia does have extensive land mass, vast resources and a large population, which are the prerequisites to be a superpower...but how do they use them? They don't invest in their own people and the oligarchs stole all the wealth. Look at GDP per capita, life expectancy, education level, and so on - the standard of living there is very poor. If they get their act together they could be a force at some point, but it would take 50+ years to overtake even Germany or Japan.

Well my point of view is also quite clear. I don't believe Russia is threatening former satellite states which they viewed as a buffer between them and the West. Don't forget what happened in WW2, it basically justifies the Russians for doing so. Had they not beaten the Nazis btw, they'd all be dead as the Nazis had a hunger plan for for these territories already in place and the Russians know that. If you want to know about this search TIK on youtube for some of the most detailed docus on WW2.

Secondly to "physically intervene" as you called it is playing with fire. This is no Libya or Iraq that you can bomb without severe consequences. Which side will have the upper hand in the end is not even important.

Perfide Albion

“Perfidious Albion” is a pejorative expression used in the context of international relations to refer to England and, by extension, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, referring to Albion, its former name. It refers to alleged acts of diplomatic maneuvering, duplicity, treachery and therefore infidelity (vis-à-vis promises or apparent alliances formed with other nation-states) by monarchs or governments of the United Kingdom (or England before 1707) in their quest for their selfish interests.

Arguments used for British "perfidy"
The almost permanent antagonism of the two countries for nearly a millennium causes many arguments used to establish this "perfidy" (in the modern, non-religious sense of the word).

For example, we cite acts of war that did not respect the customs of the time.

While imprisoned by the English, a lord tries to take advantage of Joan of Arc's weakness to rape her.6
In 1415, at the Battle of Azincourt, on the orders of Henri V, the English killed the French prisoners and finished off the wounded survivors the next day.
In 1450 the English general John Talbot was released by the King of France against the promise of no longer bearing arms against France, he died 3 years later at the head of the English army defeated at the Battle of Castillon.
In 1704, an Anglo-Dutch force commanded by Admiral George Rooke took possession of the Rock of Gibraltar. The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 conceded ownership to Great Britain. This concession not having been an abandonment of Spanish sovereignty, it would therefore be an abuse on the part of the United Kingdom to continue to claim full sovereignty.
In 1755, without a declaration of war, the British captured 300 French merchant ships and imprisoned 6,000 civilian sailors. This preventive action, known as the "Boscawen roundup", seems to have had a great influence on the outcome of the battles requiring the support of the navy during the future Seven Years' War.
In 1801, Horatio Nelson, under the orders of Admiral Hyde Parker, attacked and defeated the Danish fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen by surprise and without declaration of war.
In 1803, without a declaration of war, the British government seized all French ships within its reach and confiscated 200 million goods.
In 1815, a yellow fever epidemic decimated the British in Gibraltar. Spain then offered generous humanitarian assistance to the British, but the latter then seized new Spanish territories.
In July 1815, Emperor Napoleon I, at the end of the Hundred Days, sought asylum from Captain Maitland du Bellerophon, who accepted and invited him aboard his ship. Napoleon says he accepts out of respect for an old enemy. Along the way, the Perfidious Albion changed her mind and declared him a prisoner of war, before sending him to Saint Helena Island for the rest of his life, living in conditions unrelated to his past glory or even his previous exile on the island of Elba, despite a strict etiquette observed by those around him7. Despite his official protests, Napoleon, officially qualified as General Bonaparte, was not received by the British government. We tell him his new status from a distance. Out of fear or contempt, he was preferred as far as possible to avoid any hold on European history. On his deathbed, he blames the ruling house, accusing it of poisoning (arsenic in significant amounts was found in his hair). Legénéral Montholon will also be suspected.
In 1878, British ships entered the Sea of ​​Marmara and threatened to interfere during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. They prevent the takeover of Constantinople by the Russians despite the neutrality guaranteed previously.
In 1898, Commandant Marchand embarked on a perilous expedition towards the Upper Nile. In the name of France, he occupied the small town of Fachoda and renamed it Fort Saint-Louis. Upper Sudan is then under the jurisdiction of Egypt, therefore indirectly under that of the Sublime Porte (government of Constantinople) through the khedive, the king of Egypt. In practice, Egypt is a British protectorate. Lord Kitchener is sent there by Lord Salisbury, British foreign minister in Benjamin Disraeli's cabinet, to demand the withdrawal of French troops. The two detachments face each other but do not engage in combat. This is the Fashoda crisis. The government of the Third Republic gives in to British injunctions on this territory in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom concerning the French protectorate in Morocco. The Fachoda episode is experienced in France as a deep humiliation.
From July 3 to 6, 1940, Royal Navy planes bombarded the Allied French fleet stationed at the port of Mers el-Kébir in Algeria causing the death of 1,295 sailors.


According to a Celtic legend, Albion would take its name from Albine, eldest of the Danaids who, condemned to wander at sea for the murder of their husbands, would have landed on the English coast



---> Translated from French Wiki because you can't find so much content on the english page.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Sep 10 2020 12:56pm