So you don't want Russia to rule over eastern europe? good. But why then is russia building up their military? What threat is there to Russia? why not just trade instead? who is the judge? there is plenty evidence. someone HAS to be a judge, or all talk of genocide is pointless. maybe russia tried to solve it.. it obviously didn't work very well.
arh I have to disagree on this regarding eastern Europe join NATO, its like saying US has no worry when Russia place troop in Mexico and expect not to do anything about it. Now due to eastern Europe and ScS China and Russia start getting much more closer than before
No, not comparable. Did Mexico recently gain its independence after decades of american occupation? No. Unlike eastern europe and Russia, the US and Mexico actually has a good friendly relationship, and they cooperate. Mexico doesn't need or want foreign troops to protect against the US.
Silly question. We are building up our military because we do not want to be conquered, we need to be able to defend ourselves. Because we do not believe NATO and because Hillary Clinton threatens Russia during her election campaign. Don't you know? Lol. Chechnya now is one of the safest regions in Russia. Grozny 15 years ago. Grozny today
defend against NATO? Did you notice that NATO started to build up their military after russia annexed crimea? Nato doesn't want to invade you.. Russia has nukes for christ sake.. it would be suicide. definitely not worth it. You're just being paranoid. I was talking of yugoslavia, not chechnya.
Just answer me one question please. If NATO is so peaceful organization and it is not going to attack anyone, why they do not dissolve themselves in this a case? As to Yugoslavia, NATO has made it impossible to bring the order to Kosovo. Now, Kosovovan Albanians have made ethnic cleansing in the territory and the organization NATO together with Albanians are responsible for this crime. Now you can compare two cases. In the first one, NATO has intervened, and you see the terrible consequences of their intervention. In the second case, they could not intervene and you see the results as well. So ask yourself the question: who is the main criminal on this planet?
You got those numbers from your Russian sources? http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf As far as I can see most countries were cutting NATO spending until 2014. Quite a few have raised military spending after 2014.
Here is conservative Pat Buchanan on what has happened in Ukraine and Crimea: http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2016/08/08/got-us-endless-wars/
The guy wrote a book called; A quite terrible book from what I can see. Hmm... Why is it that people who see WWII as an unnecessary war are almost always antisemites? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
That was then and this is now. Now we're talking about Ukraine, Crimea, and the Mid-East. I noted that Buchanan is a conservative. I certainly am not, but I still think this recent article of his is spot-on. http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2016/08/08/got-us-endless-wars/
I'm not talking about Mexico perspective, I'm refer to from Russia perspective, troop near Russia border lead by NATO, its same as Russia put troop in mexico or in Cuba. Yes I know US/Mexico has good relationship, but If there is Russia troop in Mexico or Cuba, ill bet we would be worried, and do something about it. you can't just say putting Nato troop next to Russia is no big deal but when Russia put troop in Cuba or hypothetically Mexico is big deal. The fact is due to eastern Europe and South China sea, both China and Russia see US as threat, thus they become closer than ever.
because honestly russia is a spent power. Their best hope is to become our next britain (think of robin to batman) while china hopes to become batman.
the thing is.. russia's perspective doesn't matter, because they're wrong. Nato isn't there to p!ss off russia.. they're there because the countries there want them there. the way you're speaking of it, it seems as if the US is just choosing to place troops near russia for no reason, just to be provocative. No, that's not the case. The US is invited by the countries, like estonia and poland. They want americans there. They want to join NATO, have a defensive alliance. This matters. that is why it's not comparable.
after the cold war, and before this mess with russian annexation of crimea etc, there was some talk about dissolving NATO, since it no longer had a purpose. ironically, Russia gave NATO a new purpose with their aggressive actions. the answer to your question is: NATO exists because countries want an alliance against Russia.
When they don't want to join NATO, NATO explains them why they must to join. Because Russians can invade Goteborg. And because Russian subs are hanging around somewhere near Stogholm. Sometimes it becomes clear it's not Russian subs, and it's not subs at all, but doesn't matter.
The want protwction agaibst russia Perhaps no sub, but theres undoubtedly russian airplanes...russian military build up. Russian surface ships. Annexation of crimea.. is it nato that is telling russia to do all those things in ordee to get sweden to join nato?
I wonder what Sweden has to do with the Crimea? Looks like neither bombings of Yugoslavia, nor invasion of Libya and Iraq by NATO countries didn't fear you too much? Oh, I see - it's because it's "defensive" alliance. It's much more scary that Russians can invade and seize Goteborg with its Arab citizens. - - - Updated - - - And continue the thread:
Maybe we wouldnt care about crimea so much if russian planes and ships werent so provocative over here.. if we join nato its all your fault.
so if Cuba or Mexico (hypothetically) invite Russia or China troop you think US gonna be ok with it. other perspective always matter, war started because the other side didn't bother to understand the other perspective. Georgia is NATO, how does that work out in 2008.