Lawyers are looking at these "statements" at all angles. So, "unjustified" isnt really that bad of wording. Because, if NATO felt Russia was "justified" in another case, such as Chechnya, than it would be OK.

So basically Russia CAN do exactly what the US says it can do, Pre-emptive War, because NATO will say it is "justified" in those cases when Russia makes its case in front of a G20 session or in front of NATO itself. I believe most of the debates over the War in Iraq or threatening Venuzuela a couple years ago there were Leaders from those Countries debating and arguing in front of the NATO members.

Can anyone properly explain why this missile shield needs to be located
in Eastern and Northern Europe?

I don't think the Russians would dare launch a preemptive strike against the West. I think they just want
us to Listen and cut a deal, and very likely a deal will be done.

Problems are ahead if the next president of the US is a hawkish republican though, then the entire situation might get a little hot!

So russia says, we will pre-emptively attack you. And in return the best nato can say is, you cannot say that russia you are unjustified.

I thought nato was tough. Big weapons and super world force to be reckoned with. Nato sure talks tough when the little guys have something to say. Where is all that tough talk now.

Hey nato there is a gorilla in your room and it wants some bananas.

Well this reminds me of over half a year ago Russia putting their missiles on alert, and explained this threat in full, and said in the video that the US side was simply asking for them to trust them on this.

Sounds alot like this article. "Sure we're buiding nuke bases all around you, but just trust everything is alright"