If you aren't frightened yet then you haven't been paying attention.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Dave Alpert

The U.S. and NATO have decided to embark on a massive military buildup along Russia’s western borders. Professor Stephan F. Cohen, expert and teacher of Russian studies at Princeton University and at New York University, states that this buildup has no precedent even during the hottest moments of the 40 years of the Cold War.

Russia has not experienced this kind of amassing of foreign and, without question, hostile military forces along its borders since 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Professor Cohen did not hesitate to say that this kind of massive mobilization gives the impression that NATO is preparing for actual war. Of course, Russia has responded by amassing their own military forces on their side of the border.

The last time we had this potential collision between the nuclear powers was the Cuban missile crisis with the Soviet Union where we were on the threshold of a nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviets.

The question remains, why would the U.S. and NATO provoke these hostilities and potential confrontation with Russia? It appears that Ashton Carter, U.S. secretary of defense, is the man who formulated this “creative” plan. He, and most of the upper echelon of military strategy, claim that these actions are a response to Putin’s aggression . . . .

http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/18311

[marble falls]

1. I know, The Russians have been swarming their borders for over a year. Thank goodness NATO is up....

to responding to Russia's threat to eastern Europe generally and Poland specifically. Look at the damage and death Russia meets out in Ukraine and Georgia. And these poor countries have no agency to protect them from Czar Putin.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

3. You seem to have somehow...

...missed some of the more important points from the piece. No worries:

....What aggression are they referring to? The “aggression” they refer to is the “annexation” of Crimea over two years ago and Russia’s support of the rebels in the Ukraine.

Let’s look at the specifics of each accusation. The United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. The Soviets agreed to withdraw from Germany while the U.S. promised to not expand NATO any further into Eastern Europe.

It’s therefore not surprising that Russia was incensed when Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states and others were ushered into NATO membership starting in the mid-1990s. NATO began looking even further eastward, to Ukraine and Georgia.

It is important to note that Putin’s decision to annex Crimea was not done against the will of the Crimean people. They were clearly against joining NATO and assuming an anti-Russia stance and voted for annexation....

[Igel]

19. That promise has been widely reported.

It's undocumented.

In fact, it was undiscussed.

It goes back to a game of telephone. Away from the table, the idea was floated--in exchange for something, no NATO expansion. At the table it wasn't introduced. But it was reported in the Russian press. It quickly went from suggestion to offer to promise to commitment. From there, it got into the American press, typically the portion of the press that looks at the two sides, US and other, and picks "other." It suited those doing the writing to think this was the case: They didn't like NATO.

Gorbachov had no trouble saying there was no promise or commitment. He, after all, was in charge at the time, at the table at the time, and said there was no such deal, written or oral. But nobody much liked what he said. Soon thereafter, the idea of charging him for the crime of letting the USSR break up was floated by a FOP (friend of Putin) and he became a much better patriot, with such disloyal, different-thinking talk vanishing from his oratory. Immediately the FOPs were brought to heel, as fops should be.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

4. You should probably drink...

...this one in too, Marble:

To read the Western mainstream media, we would be led to believe that the big, bad Russian Bear, with Vladimir Putin atop, shaking a fistful of nuclear warheads, is confronting the West in the most threatening manner imaginable. We should believe Russia is provoking at every turn, frothing at the mouth and threatening to invade the Baltic countries and perhaps all Western Europe. We would feel quite justified, as the propaganda spin of Washington claims, to protect America’s European allies from surprise Russian nuclear attack by surrounding Russia with anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems.

So we as citizens in the Western NATO countries have little reaction at all when we read some days ago that the Obama White House announced it had activated the first phase of its anti-ballistic missile defense system (BMD), known as AEGIS, in an air base in Deveselu, Romania. Poland will be next to become activated with Washington’s Aegis.

The Aegis Ashore system has been officially put into operation and can already launch SM-3 interceptor missiles. The system includes 24 anti-aircraft SM-3 missiles. At the same time the Pentagon is placing its BMD installations in Japan and South Korea and possibly, Australia, aimed at China. Our perception of world reality is primarily shaped for us by what we read in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or hear on CNN or BBC. We sigh a small sigh of relief that our world is now more secure. Nothing is farther from reality. That’s a grave error.

On May 13, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, alongside officials representing the United States and European NATO members, announced the activation of a new missile system, based in Romania. Stoltenberg announced, “The United States’ Aegis ashore system is declared certified for operations.”....

http://journal-neo.org/2016/06/04/washington-military-planners-have-gone-mad-2/

No need to thank me, Marble, always happy to shine some light for those still stumbling around in the dark.

[Darb]

5. So what are you saying?

Russia is going to start a hot war over defensive missiles in Poland?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. Was the US prepared to...

...respond to Soviet missiles in Cuba? We regarded that as a highly provocative and hostile action. An act of war in and of itself.

Please feel free to explain how all the escalating Western provocations of the last few years should be viewed any differently by Russia.

[Igel]

24. ICBMs are defensive?

The problem is you only see certain bits of information.

You didn't see the move of nuclear weapons to the Crimea. The buildup of the fleet.

You didn't see the embargo of Lithuania over Kaliningrad, to allow unhampered, uninspected trains to go from part of territory to part of territory. (Most only reluctantly like to ponder ho Kaliningrad became Russian.)

Or the exercises along the Baltic state's borders.

In the '00s you missed having the Polish resistance ignored and the German resistance in WWII given a higher place of honor. Or the beatings of those Poles who remained in BR, under the guise of ethnic solidarity and "they're trying to undermine us." Mostly by being in the Polish Union and trying to secure civil rights for Poles, treated as 2nd class citizens after the borders shifted so that long-standing Polish villages were suddenly East Slavic.

And we forget that Poland in the last 250 years has had perhaps 45 years of freedom from Russian imperialism. Not the "imperialism light" that Cuba has suffered at the hands of the US, but imperialism like France suffered under Germany in 1943.

We forget that Latvia was invaded and occupied earlier in WWII than WWII, because the briefly free country didn't adequately acknowledge and accommodate the USSR's "legitimate" defense needs, and therefore was accused of being allied with Nazi Germany. (Sort of the first use of "fascism" meaning "not sufficiently pro-Russian", its now-standard definition a la russe).

Lenin lamented Poland's loss and tried to stop it. Stalin tried to roll it back. Putin has said that the idea of drawing boundaries that acknowledged different ethnicities in the USSR was a horrible mistake--Latvia should have been just part of Russia, not a separate SSR. Lenin restored the empire by means of various tricks: Have a small group of revolutionaries declare themselves the legitimate government and call for Red Army help as they flee, enjoying no public support. Then they march in behind the Red Army and assume control, immediately joining the USSR. No election. No voting. Just 10 or 12 men deciding the will of The People, who are just those who agree with them.

We forget that there were large population movements of Russians resettled in the Baltics. If you were Estonian or Latvian, you needed to know Russian to work for your own government and to graduate school; if you didin't know Latvian, you took a couple of years of it in school. (So, how much French or Spanish do you remember from high school?) The left had a hissy fit in the '90s and early '00s over Baltic language policy. Imagine, defending the indigenous language against imperialist colonizers! Nobody used the phrase "colonizer rights," but they should have; they trumped indigenous folk's rights in the minds of many. Mostly because they couldn't give up the idea that somehow the USSR was better, or at least necessary to stop the true evil.

And we hear Putin saying that he's the defender of anybody who is Russian, meaning "speaks Russian" or adheres to "Russian culture." On the heels of the Donbas mess, and his neo-Nazi biker band's shameful performance in Crimea, with the nice "lets do the can-can in swastika formation while holding burning torches" routine that got a standing round of applause from the anti-fascists in the audience ...

The Poles remember Katyn. And the non-pact that existed, vanished, existed again, and then is sort of quibbled over now that divvied up Poland as a sacrifice to the great gods Stalin and Russian nationalism and Hitler and German nationalism.

[yurbud]

32. none of these are reasons why our government does anything

If you obey the bankers, oil companies, and Wall Street, you can abuse your own people and your neighbors however you like.

Just ask Saudi, Indonesia, or even Iraq in the 80s.

[Darb]

40. Those missiles in Cuba were not "defensive".

Just saying.

[marble falls]

6. All I really need to know about your source, a Russian government mouthpiece:

http://journal-neo.org/about/

About

Our journal is called the New Eastern Outlook, so we are primarily interested in processes taking place at the broad expanse that stretches from Japan and the remote coasts of Africa. However, we do not limit ourselves geographically. We also look at political events happening in other areas of the world as they relate to the Orient. We cover political and religious issues, economic and ideological trends, regional security topics and social problems.

We are committed to develop NEO into a notable international networking platform offering unbiased expert opinions and open dialogue among all thinking people worldwide regardless of their nationality, race or religion. NEO editorial staff appreciates viewpoints of any reader or contributor ready to share and defend his convictions and approaches, whether commonplace or unconventional.

Our priority is to promote understanding rather than ideology, strategic outlook rather than simple reporting on events and to reveal causes rather than its consequences. We are focused on creating a new culture of partnership where opinions influence decisions. We have launched NEO community spaces in Facebook and Twitter for you. Plese do join in, invite your friends, write, comment, argue, send us your contributions, and share!

Address: 12, Rozhdestvenka Street, office 111, Moscow
Phone: [phone]

http://journal-neo.org/about/

[Surya Gayatri]

8. Well spotted...the source says it all.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

10. The source was actually...

...F. William Engdahl, but by all means, don't let a minor detail like that stand in the way of your desperate and transparent smear rhetoric.

[marble falls]

39. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._William_Engdahl

Engdahl is also a contributor to the website of the anti-globalization Centre for Research on Globalization, and Russian websites New Eastern Outlook,[2] and the Voltaire Network ...,[3]


http://journal-neo.org/ :"Few Americans know what they have lost. Few understand to what extent they have been victimized by something far beyond a police state, far beyond simple surveillance ..." Nothing over the top about that. Compare the Russian police state to the alleged US police state.

http://www.voltairenet.org/en : /From Wikipedia - "Internal dissensions

Several senior members of the Réseau have complained about a lack of control of the administration council over actions of the president and general secretary. They alleged that the president fostered an environment that suppressed criticism and failed to focus impartially on the board's general goals. Furthermore, they also cited what they believed to be an excessive critique of American foreign policy that was not balanced by reporting on the lack of political freedoms in the Middle East, where most network members tended to operate. The group also suggested that politically illiberal organizations or political figures believed to sponsor anti-Semitic views were treated uncritically. One example was Entretien avec le Hezbollah (Meeting with the Hezbollah) which presented the group, which is closely allied to Iran, as a "social group of Muslim inspiration, comparable to the Liberation theology in South America". Chairman Messyan was said to have visited Tehran to discuss his alternative theories positing that the United States conducted the 9/11 attacks as a false flag operation to justify intervention in Muslim affairs.[3]

Three members of the administration council (Michel Sitbon, Gilles Alfonsi and Jean-Luc Guilhem) resigned in February 2005, over what they consider to be an adhesion to the theory of the so-called "Clash of Civilizations", although the Network's publications clearly oppose the theory as a neo-conservative strategy to control the world's last remaining oil reserves, and the instrumentalisation of the network. They object that "With the pretext of resisting American Imperialism, lenience toward Chinese and Russian imperialisms and closeness with Islamists is symptomatic of a latent anti-Semitic drift among the direction." They also claim the existence of links with intelligence agencies, arguing that the Voltaire Network had been constructed against such organizations. However, they also underline that the new stance of the direction shouldn't cause the previous work of the network to be forgotten.[4] Since 2002, these members had been in conflict with Bruno Drweski, director the Communist review La Pensée. These accusations were denied by the Réseau Voltaire, which evokes mere "changes in dimension." [5] Founding member Michel Sitbon cited the arrival of controversial personalities like Claude Karnoouh (who was never actually an administrator) and Bruno Drweski, while the Réseau, in a 2005 declaration, said that "administrators favourable to a French petty political conception of the association have been put in minority. They resigned either before or during the general assembly".[citation needed]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire_Network

Nice try. Using you own cant to document your allegations. That's a lot like a RW using Ayn Rand to document their economic philosophy. Just because its in written words doesn't make it true or factual. The Voltaire website is full of unfactual assertions: "NATO arrests Polish dissenter". Just plain old fashioned untruth.

[Doctor_J]

36. Good thing we nominated the most bellicose candidate in party history

This should go really well.

[islandmkl]

2. Cohen is always a good interview...lot of knowledge...and a lot of attitude...

typically doesn't like simplified/general questions from interviewers...

[marble falls]

41. From Wikipedia on Stephen F. Cohen

<snipped>

"Since 1998, Cohen has been professor of Russian Studies and History at New York University, where he teaches a course titled "Russia Since 1917." He previously taught at Princeton University. He has written several books including those listed below. He is also a CBS News consultant as well as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

<snip>

Cohen's first book, published in 1973 and republished in 1980, was a biography of Nicolai Bukharin, a Bolshevik leader who was purged and executed under Stalin.[6] During the Cold War, Cohen was critical of western hawks, but also of the Soviet government, which banned him from visiting the Soviet Union from 1982 to 1985.[6] He supported the perestroika reform program of Mikhail Gorbachev.[6]
Views on the Russian Federation
Ukraine

During the 2014 unrest in Ukraine, Cohen drew criticism for his "pro-Russian" views[7] with sources describing him as an apologist for Putin[8][9] and the Russian government.[7] Cohen personally describes himself as an American "dissenter"[10] and argues that the media stifles anyone who even tries to understand the situation from the Kremlin's perspective while stigmatizing them as Putin apologists for doing so.[10]

In an article in The Nation, Cohen stated that the US political-media establishment was silent about "Kiev's atrocities" in the Donbass region.[11] His article was, in turn, criticized by Cathy Young as "error-riddled" narrative and "embarrassing" repetition of Kremlin propaganda.[6]
US-Russia relations

Cohen has argued in The Nation that the USA continued the Cold War after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, without US leaders acknowledging that they were doing so.[12] He says that a flawed interpretation of an "American victory" and a "Russian defeat" since the time of Bill Clinton had led to treating post-communist Russia like a defeated nation, even though Russia still possesses weapons of mass destruction inherited from the USSR. Cohen says that this "triumphalism" led to the expectation that Russia would submit completely to American foreign policy.[12] Public shows of friendship like those between Clinton and Boris Yeltsin were without real value taking into account the real background, according to Cohen.[12] Cohen argues that Clinton, contrary to the promise of his predecessor, extended NATO eastward and implemented a strategy of containment. Russia inevitably reacted with suspicion. Moreover, Cohen cites the cancellation of the ABM-treaty in 2002 and the refusal of admission to the WTO at the G8-summit in Saint Petersburg 2006. Cohen also criticises the "pointless demonization" of Vladimir Putin as an "autocrat".[12][13]

In an interview given in July 2015, Cohen said that Putin's handling of the crisis in Ukraine — his annexation of Crimea and his support for rebel fighters in the east — was a reaction to aggressive behaviour of the United States and its allies, when they supported the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych.[4] Cohen went on to say that even if Putin's reaction was also aggressive, the US should now negotiate with Russia to avoid escalation of the conflict.[4]
Munk Debate

Cohen participated in a Munk Debate in Toronto, Canada over the proposal "Be it resolved the West should engage not isolate Russia…" He and Vladimir Posner argued in favor of engagement, while Anne Applebaum and Garry Kasparov argued against. Prior the debate, 58 percent of the audience were in favor of engaging with Russia and 42 percent against. After the debate, 52 percent of the audience agreed with Applebaum and Kasparov, and 48 percent with Cohen and Posner.[14]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_F._Cohen

Sounds pretty damned biased to me.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

47. I agree.

[zeemike]

7. Massing military force on the Russian border...

Confronting China in the south China sea...what could go wrong.

But you could feel it coming on...the obvious demonization of Putin in the media was a clue.
I think we have some power mad people in our government who think they can win this.

[ReRe]

16. The presumptive candidates...

... are both war hawks. It takes time to get everything in place. As soon as we get a new chickenhawk in place on Jan 20th, 2017, they'll be ready to move. Orrrr, this will be our October surprise?

[DissidentVoice]

26. Chickenhawk

As a veteran (USAF ANG), the definition of "chickenhawk" by most who served is understood as one who actively got out of serving, but is eager to beat the war drums.

By definition of her gender and the social mores of her time, I don't think Hillary Clinton really qualifies for that. There was never a push for women to serve, and of course women would still not currently be subject to conscription were it to be reinstated. Unfortunately, very few female war heroes get recognition, unless it's complete bullshit against their own will, like Jessica Lynch, or the real thing, like Lieutenant Colonel Tammy Duckworth.

Trump, however, is most definitely a chickenshit chickenhawk. Daddy's money bought him five deferments and he is of course a Cozy Powell, John Bonham or Bill Ward when it comes to beating war drums.

Others: Dick Cheney, Rush ("boil on my arse&quot Limbaugh, Ted (pissed and shat myself) Nugent and George W. Bush.

Yes, I know Bush was in the ANG (just as I was), but if he had been in my ANG unit the chances are he would be out the base gate with a Big Chicken Dinner (BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge) and a boot in his arse for violations of Articles 87 ("missing movement&quot , 92 ("failure to obey order or regulation&quot , 133 ("conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman&quot and 134 ("general article&quot of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Trump is definitely in that "proud" tradition.

[zeemike]

28. I fear you are correct.

They seem itching for a war...but one of them more so than the other I think...to prove she is as good as the men at war.

[ReRe]

29. Iron Lady syndrome...

... mentor Henry taught her well.

[Doctor_J]

37. Come next week du will be one of the most pro-war sites on the internet.

All that will be left are hillarians, who go along with everything her majesty says and does. Since she's never seen a war she didn't love, it will be interesting.

[ReRe]

38. It is sad, is what it will be. eom

[Cosmocat]

22. Putin

I missed the "demonizing" thing with Putin.

He's fairly malevolent in his behavior and honestly, the reporting of him does not even really match the level he is in that regard.

It could be worse, frankly, given his actions.

[DissidentVoice]

25. Remember that Putin is a former KGB Colonel

He still thinks like one, and acts like one.

In essence, he has appointed himself President-For-Life by his switching back and forth between the offices of President and Prime Minister with Dmitry Medvedev and whoever else will happen to hold the office Putin's not currently holding at the time.

I am no warhawk. However, when I was in the Air National Guard I worked in Communications/SIGINT/COMINT. To be able to defeat a potential enemy, one must understand how they think.

The power structure of Russia v. the USSR has actually changed very little since the Soviet years. Removing the hammer and sickle and replacing it with the Tsarist Eagle was only cosmetic. The Russian Air Force (and the Belarusian Air Force - even closer to the old Soviet structure under Alexsandr Lukashenko) still uses the same Red Star on it's aircraft that the USSR used, while the former Warsaw Pact countries that used a modified Red Star (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary) got rid of it. East Germany, was of course reunified with the West, and Poland never used a Red Star insignia.

Gorbachev separated the positions of Chairman of the CPSU and President of the USSR. Putin has essentially reunified them under the names of President of Russia and Prime Minister of Russia - separate on paper but not in practice.

It's not unlike the major flaw in OUR government, where the Head of State and Head of Government are the same person.

In constitutional monarchies, like Britain and the Commonwealth Dominions, the Scandinavian monarchies, or true Presidential Republics like Ireland, Germany and France, the holding of two separate offices by two separate people serves as a check on itself.

It doesn't happen often, but these "reserve powers" held by the largely-ceremonial Head of State can be brought into play.

In 1975 Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam received a vote of no confidence in Parliament (a mechanism I dearly wish we had) and was ordered by Governor-General (representative of Queen Elizabeth II) Sir John Kerr to resign and call a new election. Whitlam refused, so Kerr fired him and called a new election under the "Reserve Powers of the Crown."

There is no such check upon Putin...or upon a US President.

There is no way to put such a check upon a US President without rewriting the Constitution, which so many on the far right view in the same manner as Holy Writ from Mount Sinai.

However, one possible way to change things in Russia would be to allow the descendants of the Romanovs to return to the position of Head of State...except Putin won't allow it! WONDERFUL circular argument.

[Cosmocat]

33. Interesting Post

thanks!

[zeemike]

27. Well I don't think he has done anything that our own president would not do.

And in fact much less aggression than say Bush...who invaded a country for no reason at all and destroyed it and set off the worst crisis in the middle east ever.
How many countries have we been in war now with?...

But even here on DU you see "fuck Putin" all the time, and posters declaring him a monster as if we are back in the days of the cold war propaganda.

It sucks IMO.

[Cosmocat]

34. Well

Childish responses that you noted are childish.

I tend to think, maybe just hope, that he won't cross the line.

But, Putin is pretty nasty character, in a country and part of the world that is a good bit nastier than we are.

No excusing iraq, obviously, or any of our other fucknut moments.

But, we don't as a regular practice throw acid in people's faces, kill our political opponents and media who dare speak out against us with radioactive poisen ...

He has totally walked away from prior agreements to engage in nuclear drawbacks, and pacts to try to get a handle on loose nukes, they just had a big get together on this a few weeks ago and every major country involved was there ,he no showed it ...

[zeemike]

35. Putin threw acid in someones face?

You seem to know him personally...and know all about Russia...kind of an expert are you?

But before I cast aspersions on some other country I will try to make sure my country does not do "nasty things"...you know like sending a hellfire missile into a wedding party and killing them all...or executing an American citizen without charges and his son. Or launching a war for false reason that killed 100,000 people without even an apology...or any number of things like that too numerous to post here.

Putin and Russia has done nothing of that scale...not even close, yet we hear he is the monster.
Typical fear mongering propaganda.
They think we are fools and will react just like they want us to...same as Saddam.
You can buy into that crap if you want but don't expect everyone to. Some of us can still think critically.

[DissidentVoice]

44. None of us really know WHAT our government has done

Under the USA Patriot Act, the worst shredding of our Constitution in history, a President has virtual carte blanche to do whatever s/he pleases to anyone s/he chooses to designate an "enemy combatant."

One thing I will probably never forgive Mr. Obama for is his extension of this hateful Act. In fact, much of the Bush policies have continued under his watch.

Gitmo remains open. Black sites overseas likely remain available.

We are listed by many human rights organisations as a "surveillance state" on par with China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

Until that changes, we cannot call ourselves a free democracy.

[Nitram]

9. No, not frightened yet. It seems you are the one who hasn't been paying attention.

What's so hard to understand? Russia has invaded two neighboring countries, Georgia and Ukraine. Every one of Russia's neighbors are now nervous and have invited NATO and the US to help them defend against the imperial ambitions of Putin. Haven't you even been listening to Putin's rhetoric? Observing Russia's reckless military provocations? Wake up.

[MattSh]

15. ...

[Nitram]

21. Dictatorship: a country's resources benefit the dictator and his family and friends.

[valerief]

11. Isn't a buildup to war just a reason to steal taxpayers' money? Without the problem, you don't have

a reason for the theft.

[longship]

12. I am more worried about the Hillary vs Bernie narrative.

If anybody thinks that either one of these candidates are worse than Donald Trump, they are barking, fucking mad.

[davidthegnome]

14. I think war is unlikely, at this time.

One thing to consider is Russia's rather severe economic issues... frankly, I'm not convinced that they have the funding to maintain any sort of military campaign against a major power. Another issue, which perhaps should concern us more... is the age of their weapon systems - and particularly their nuclear weapons. Most of them probably will simply not work. This is not like the days of the cold war, Russia has neither the economic power, nor the military technology to wage war against the west with any level of success.

I do not think they will attempt to do anything without both financial and military support from China - and the US and our allies may be rattling the sabers while Putin shakes his - but...

The time in which major powers could go to war with each other without mutually assured destruction has passed. No one, not even Putin, wants to risk that.

A ground invasion of Russia would be worse than a nightmare - and a ground invasion of the US... if they could land here to begin with, would be the same. I suppose there are motivations, benefits to be gained in dominating some of the world's resources, more land and so on... but none of these powers involved are stupid enough to actually go to war. Not yet. If Trump becomes President, we may have to rethink that. If Putin does, somehow, moronically invade Poland (I suspect Putin is too smart to do this), we may have to rethink that.

Massing on the borders though? Doesn't mean much. Nations in conflict (though not at war) have been doing this since before the Roman Empire was built. It only rarely leads to actual war.

[Cosmocat]

23. I would hope

that it is a measured response to keep Putin from getting too froggy ...

[406-Boz]

17. All the world needs now is President

All the world needs now is President Donald F-ing Trump, or Hillary, either way, it's not good!

[Baitball Blogger]

18. They must have intercepted Putin's emails.

[beastie boy]

20. I am frightened. I can't find a single independent reference to Intrepid Report.

Who is the international relations genius responsible for this article?

[Norman Conch Quest]

30. Stephen Cohen, Russian Apologist Extraordinaire

He did this same routine during Soviet times.

PS: The three Baltic States border on Russia proper; Poland borders only Kaliningrad.

[felix_numinous]

31. After all those arms sales

all is needed is a war hawk to put them to work. No wonder there is so much $$ against Bernie Sanders, they are invested already in a future war...$%&*.

[Lodestar]

42. The Russian Threat: NATO Struggles to Recover after Years of Budget Cuts

Last edited Wed Jun 8, 2016, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

RAND Corporation simulations aren't for the faint of heart. The think tank in Santa Monica, California is a progeny of the Cold War and the 1960 study conducted by legendary systems theorist Herman Kahn -- which examined the consequences of nuclear war -- has not been forgotten.'

He believed the aftermath could be managed. Following a nuclear conflict, Kahn proposed, contaminated food should be reserved for the elderly since they would likely die before contracting cancer as a result of radiation. The researcher thus became one of the inspirations for Stanley Kubrick's film satire "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

Several weeks ago, the California-based game theorists released another study that received a fair amount of attention. Financed by the Pentagon, they created a series of simulations for a hypothetical Russian invasion of the two Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia.

"The outcome was, bluntly, a disaster for NATO," the RAND researchers wrote in their report. In each simulation, the Russians were able to either circumvent the outnumbered NATO units, or even worse, destroy them. Between 36 and 60 hours after the beginning of hostilities, Russian troops stood before the gates of Riga or Tallinn -- or both.

cont'd
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-struggles-to-prepare-for-potential-threat-from-russia-a-1093358.html

=======

So Russia is suffering economically under sanctions and 'artificially' low oil prices, while the U.S. and its NATO allies are struggling with their own survival. Seems like a game of economic chicken. Who will fold first?

------

[laserhaas]

43. A line in the sand...has been drawn

[uhnope]

45. Once again you link to a source full of white supremacists & Kremlin-based conspiracy theories

A quick scan of "Intrepid Report" finds Paul Craig Roberts, already exposed on DU as a white supremacist: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6370573
and Wayne Madsen: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026060015

and of course the usual anti-Semitic CTs blaming Israel for 9/11 is on their homepage, not going to link to that trash you've proffered.

You've posted about "Anglo-Zionist" controlling the media, which is obvious neoo-Nazi speak: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=362091

Your agenda/job is obvious. Why you post RW neo-Nazi BS on DU, and why you are not yet banned, is less obvious.

[Oneironaut]

46. So? Let Putin put defensive missiles in Cuba, then. Who cares?

They're defensive missiles. They can't attack anything. Their effectiveness against a nuclear barrage would be next to nothing. This is all political posturing and nothing more. That is why I lean towards the U.S. on this one. Russia has thousands of ICBMs. Defensive missiles are going to stop that? Get serious.

They're clearly not for use against Russia because there would be no point.