Search results

Well the Secretary General has come out and announced the decision was made back in 2008 to bring in Ukraine. Yes, you read that right; years before the Euromaidan the fix was already in.

Out of a population of about 140 million, without much in the way of strategic resources. It's pretty clear why the Russians can be concerned about NATO in Ukraine (the ability to cut off the Kuban and advance positions on Moscow, Kazan, etc) and not as much about Kaliningrad.

I think even Moscow would agree Kaliningrad is not the Russian heartland, either.

It was composite division of elements from multiple others, so not even a full combined arms cavalry division. There's also the point to be made that an exercise in Poland is certainly less hostile than one in Ukraine or Belarus, because then Russia still has a buffer. Follow the quote chain...

Care to name the U.S. armor division stationed in Poland? I'll wait. And you seem to have forgotten the context was if NATO invaded Russia through Ukraine, would Moscow resort to nuclear weapons.

I guess I missed the report of NATO having armored divisions at all there, or that we had invaded Russia, which was the context I was speaking of. Let's stop creating strawman, shall we?

They didn't, it created a crisis: What followed was a textbook example of a political crisis almost entirely devoid of substance. The presence of 2,000 to 3,000 Soviet combat troops in Cuba was unacceptable to many Washington leaders, both Republican and Democrat. Sen. Frank Church, a liberal...

In the context of NATO armored divisions there rolling on the border, I have no doubt they would.

I have feeling if we switched NATO with Iran and Syria with Ukraine, your whole tune would shift on this.