It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The simple fact is that this is not a Cold War Mark II - far from it. Russia with its declining economy is nothing like the Soviet Union, which aspired to establish a different world order to that pursued by the capitalist West.
Russia is in many ways a weak country. Its leadership has a strong sense of encirclement - a view that the West is only eager to do it down - and, rightly or wrongly, this is driving Mr Putin's more assertive approach.
SOURCE
originally posted by: Tjoran
And now we have things like the BBC trying to egg them on with insults of being weak.
Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia's land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members.
Russia shares land borders with 14 countries (Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea). Only five of them are NATO members.
Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat.
With respect to the permanent stationing of U.S. and other Allied forces on the territory of other Allies in Europe, NATO has full abided by the commitments made in the NATO-Russia Founding Act. There has been no permanent stationing of additional combat forces on the territory of other allies; and total force levels have, in fact, been substantially reduced since the end of the Cold War
NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an attempt at encirclement.
originally posted by: Profusion
He seems to be speaking for NATO directly because he used the phrase "here at the Nato headquarters in Brussels."
originally posted by: Tjoran
a reply to: Profusion
We have 2 super powers pointing thousands of nukes at each other, playing who's dick is bigger. There is nothing "Weak" about either of them and to think otherwise is moronic. Tensions have been high forever between these two nations, and now they are throwing insults at each other on a daily basis and moving troops into defensive positions. And now we have things like the BBC trying to egg them on with insults of being weak.
Oh but I'm sure everything's fine, nothing to see here folks. What cold war?
originally posted by: gunshooter
originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Xcathdra
The US destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. So what exactly is your point?
Don't waste your time, he has no point. He's trolling the thread with a weak argument, that's all. Just tell him, he's wrong.
originally posted by: Profusion
originally posted by: Tjoran
And now we have things like the BBC trying to egg them on with insults of being weak.
The article linked to in the original post was written by Jonathan Marcus. He is a "Diplomatic correspondent" for the BBC. I researched his biography before I posted the article, but I found out very little about him. He seems to be speaking for NATO directly because he used the phrase "here at the Nato headquarters in Brussels."
The BBC got a true expert to write an article on this matter to describe the situation as accurately as possible, and people criticize it?
All I see in the article is a clear explanation of where we are and what's going on. It probably represents the official stance of NATO. It's apparently written by someone with personal knowledge of what's going on.
How did you get the idea that the BBC is "trying to egg them on" or making insults or anything like that?