Russia - General Discussion.

[Vivendi]

It's not the actual numbers but the fact that troops are there in area which is in Russia's backyard. NATO no doubt has a small number of troops there but it could easily raise those numbers if required. Ultimately whether it's 4,000 or 10,000 NATO troops; it's a very significant political statement and is viewed by Russia as a threat or as provocative; just like how NATO would view Russian troops who were 'invited' into Belarus; whether it's 1,000 or 5,000.

I disagree. First, it will take quite some time for NATO to bring in substantial troops into Eastern European NATO countries. I recommend you have a look at this: Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics | RAND. Please consider how long it will take to bring six-seven brigades to the Baltics. This is for defense only of course, not for an offensive. which would require something else.

Second, It is not clear to me how a few thousand troops can be viewed as a "threat" by Russia, especially given the massive concentration of Russian troops in Kaliningrad, Belarus, and Western parts of Russia. Can you explain how such a low number of troops is a threat against Russia? Russia have amassed more than 100,000 troops close to Ukraine, a much smaller country than Russia, which a much smaller and weaker military. This is (according to Russia) not a threat to Ukraine. It seems incredibly odd then to claim that 2000 extra US troops poses a "threat" to Russia.

Can you also please let me know where NATO says that 1000 or 5000 Russian soldiers in Belarus is a "threat" to NATO?

 

[Vivendi]

Since Turkey joined in 1952 there has been 4 coup d'etat by the military, the most recent one in 1997, you can hardly call Turkey a democracy then and even now it's hard to call them a democracy

Since 1952 when Turkey became a NATO member, there have been four successful coup d'etat, the most recent on in 1997, Turkey was not a democracy then and it's highly questionable if Turkey is a democracy now, coup d'etats are not common practice in democracies, the last coup attempt in Turkey was against current sitting president Erdogan in 2016, he manage to survive it. NATO can change the rules pending on how important they see a country to their own spheres of influence

The rules were different in 1952 than today. There was a cold war at that time. Turkey also served as a lesson to NATO, it clearly demonstrated that one must avoid letting non-democratic countries in. This is one of the reasons why Ukraine needs to change quite a lot before it could potentially join NATO. NATO definitely does not want to let more "Turkeys" join.

 

[Atunga]

Heated exchange between state department and journalists on evidence Russia fabricating attacks by Ukraine on its soldiers..
Is this the kind of intelligence that's making some EU countries reluctant to support US on Ukraine? the German Naval commander was very sure Russia don't want to attack Ukraine and the President of France has chosen a different diplomatic route entirely to deal with the Russians, the Hungarian Prime Minister was in Moscow signing deals at a time when the west should be united against Russia. It's funny how Matthew Lee was grilling Ned Price and asked him if it was the same kind of intelligence from Iraq on WMD

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

It's funny how Matthew Lee was grilling Ned Price and asked him if it was the same kind of intelligence from Iraq on WMD

Well there were people in 2014 who were convinced that Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine and that it was all just a spontaneous uprising of aggrieved Russian-speaking minorities.

It's obvious to anyone with more than half a dozen brain cells in their noggin that Russia would invent a pretext for attacking Ukraine, the easiest one of which would be faking an attack on Russians. The fact that the US is flagging this is not to justify attacking Russia, it's to forewarn naive people who might be easily tricked into thinking Ukraine really had attacked Russians.

I'm sure Putin sees Matthew Lee as a useful idiot. He reminds me of Jeremy Corbyn when he wanted iron-clad evidence that Russia had deployed chemical weapons in the UK, including giving them all the intelligence we had and waiting for them to "respond", as if that was going to achieve anything.

 

[Atunga]

Interesting interview featuring retired Colonel Larry Wilkerson of the US army, he was also the chief of staff to the late Col Colin Powell. this guy ran NATO to the ground, he made some vital points about how many Warsaw pact countries shouldn't be in NATO because they never would never meet the requirements, they were rushed in to join because of dubious reasons and he also high lights how dangerous it is to have them as NATO members. this calls into question how corrupt countries like Bulgaria and Hungary and even to some extent Czech and Slovakia became NATO members

 

[STURM]

Please consider how long it will take to bring six-seven brigades to the Baltics.

I'm aware that pouring it units and supporting equipment takes time and effort but slightly adding to the numbers of troops already there can be done in relatively short notice; albeit the troops will be in small numbers and without most of their heavy equipment.

Great footage of the 600 man German battle group.

Can you explain how such a low number of troops is a threat against Russia?

As I clearly explained in a previous post; deploying troops there is a highly significant political move and is seen by Russia as a threat in that more troops could be sent [in addition to various types of weaponry]; irrespective of the fact that troops numbers are small and that deploying complete units takes time and effort. It's not so much the numbers but the very politically symbolic act of deploying troops.

Russian troop buildup in Belarus is a 'big worry' to US and European officials | CNN Politics

US and European officials have expressed alarm at Russia's military build-up in Belarus, describing it as a significant and concerning development as the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine looms and calls for Moscow to de-escalate appear to be going unheeded.

edition.cnn.com

I've done some explaining as you requested but by the same token 'can you explain' how a few thousand troops in Belarus along with their equipment is seen as NATO as a ''significant and concerning development''. from a Russian perspective they can point out that the troops are there for an exercise with the agreement of Belarus and are not related to the situation in the Ukraine ....

Can you also please let me know where NATO says that 1000 or 5000 Russian soldiers in Belarus is a "threat" to NATO?

I would like to oblige you but the hypothetical scenario of Belarus inviting Russian troops [as opposed to troops ostensibly there for an exercise] in has not occurred yet has it? This is what I wrote. It was an assumption based on a hypothetical scenario ... '' just like how NATO would view Russian troops who were 'invited' into Belarus; whether it's 1,000 or 5,000''.

 

[Vivendi]

I'm aware that pouring it units and supporting equipment takes time and effort but slightly adding to the numbers of troops already there can be done in relatively short notice; albeit the troops will be in small numbers and without most of their heavy equipment.

Yes that is true, and it sends an important signal, but it does not pose a threat to Russia until much more troops are actually committed.

As I clearly explained in a previous post; deploying troops there is a highly significant political move and is seen by Russia as a threat in that more troops could be sent [in addition to various types of weaponry]; irrespective of the fact that troops numbers are small and that deploying complete units takes time and effort. It's not so much the numbers but the very politically symbolic act of deploying troops.

OK so it seems we just use the word "threat" to mean different things.

I've done some explaining as you requested but by the same token 'can you explain' how a few thousand troops in Belarus along with their equipment is seen as NATO as a ''significant and concerning development''. from a Russian perspective they can point out that the troops are there for an exercise with the agreement of Belarus and are not related to the situation in the Ukraine ....

I would like to oblige you but the hypothetical scenario of Belarus inviting Russian troops [as opposed to troops ostensibly there for an exercise] in has not occurred yet has it? This is what I wrote. It was an assumption based on a hypothetical scenario ... '' just like how NATO would view Russian troops who were 'invited' into Belarus; whether it's 1,000 or 5,000''.

It is quite common to use exercises as a camouflage for an invasion. Russia is very good at creating a certain perception and hiding what is really going on. Therefore I suggest you do not consider so much whether Russia explain the troop movements into Belarus as an "exercise" or whether they have been "invited" into Belarus. The facts are: 100,000 troops already on Ukrainian border; another 30,000 Russian troops are now moving into Belarus. Please also consider what they are moving into Belarus:

"This is the biggest Russian deployment there since the Cold War, with an expected 30,000 combat troops" as well as Spetsnaz special operations forces, SU-35 fighter jets, S-400 air defence systems and nuclear-capable Iskander missiles, he said.

NATO says Russia to have 30,000 troops on drills in Belarus, north of Ukraine | Reuters

In addition to the ground and air forces, more than 140 Russian ships and more than 60 aircraft and more than 10,00 servicemen are participating in various naval exercises.

Given the current picture, it would be pure negligence of NATO to not send reinforcements to the Baltics and Poland.

Even non-NATO country Finland has concluded that Russia has increased the threat level, and Finland has therefore taken concrete steps:

As several observers on Twitter already have noted, while Finland doesn’t directly shout “We’re raising the readiness!” there’s certainly been a flurry of the – as usual rather low-key – messaging to that effect from the Finnish Defence Forces.

Ready when you are – Corporal Frisk

 

[Vivendi]

Interesting interview featuring retired Colonel Larry Wilkerson of the US army, he was also the chief of staff to the late Col Colin Powell. this guy ran NATO to the ground, he made some vital points about how many Warsaw pact countries shouldn't be in NATO because they never would never meet the requirements, they were rushed in to join because of dubious reasons and he also high lights how dangerous it is to have them as NATO members. this calls into question how corrupt countries like Bulgaria and Hungary and even to some extent Czech and Slovakia became NATO members

The thing with the past is that you cannot change it (although it is common to try to rewrite the history). Bulgaria and Hungary are now in. NATO and EU need to work with those countries and assist them in becoming more democratic and less corrupt. That is the only way forward for both NATO and EU. Kicking them out of NATO and EU would be an even bigger disaster at this point, both for Bulgaria and Hungary, but even more so for EU and NATO. If they go full authoritarian then it may become a necessity, but I don't think we are there yet.

They could of course leave -- The UK did leave EU. However in spite of all their complaints about EU in particular, it seems even Hungary prefer to stay in and make a lot of noise instead of just leaving. I also strongly doubt they want to leave NATO, given the current Russian behavior against non-NATO countries...

 

[STURM]

It is quite common to use exercises as a camouflage for an invasion.

Czechoslovakia 1968 comes to mind. There were Soviet large scale exercises prior to that which fooled the West.

Russia is very good at creating a certain perception and hiding what is really going on.

It is. Look a operations conducted in WW2 which deceived/fooled the Germans at a strategic level. Even the invasion of Afghanistan was preceded by exercises and various statements which caught the West off guard.

Therefore I suggest you do not consider so much whether Russia explain the troop movements into Belarus as an "exercise" or whether they have been "invited" into Belarus.

It's preposterous to assume that Russian troops in Belarus are not connected to events in the Ukraine. The Russians see it as a response to NATO troops nearby [irrespective of the numbers] and its part of the sabre rattling which every country indulges in.

Given the current picture, it would be pure negligence of NATO to not send reinforcements to the Baltics and Poland.

Agreed and it is within it's right. As it is of Russia's to send troops to the Belarus on 'exercises or 'on the 'invitation' of the Belarus government. ;

Even non-NATO country Finland has concluded that Russia has increased the threat level, and Finland has therefore taken concrete steps:

So has Sweden. Practically the whole of Europe is caught up in it; the anxiety and uncertainty of not knowing what the Russians plan on actually doing. Russia in contrast has been subdues; most statements have come from the Foreign Minister and Putin a few days ago made his first comments on the issue in nearly a month.

''He warned that a Ukrainian accession to NATO could lead to a situation where Ukraine launches military action to reclaim control over Russian-annexed Crimea or areas controlled by Russia-backed separatists in the country’s east. Imagine that Ukraine becomes a NATO member and launches those military operations,” Putin said. “Should we fight NATO then? Has anyone thought about it?''

The question really is not who is right or wrong but the fact that achieving peace required efforts from both sides. Unless one assumes all this diplomacy is a facade; that Russia has already made up its mind to invade and that its demands were intended by it to be rejected. It's my opinion that it is Russia which holds the initiative; it's created a situation where others react to its moves and it know NATO lacks the will to go to war over the Ukraine.

Biden’s gambit in Ukraine is a risky gamble

Biden’s strategy to whip war threat frenzy will not help contain Russia.

www.aljazeera.com

''To be sure, Moscow and Beijing have been making aggressive moves in their neighbourhoods to cement their influence, which the West has taken as a justification to enact preventive measures, such as raising the diplomatic temperature, establishing coalitions, and issuing sanctions threats.

But pushing Russia and China into a corner at the same time leaves little room for serious diplomacy. Such attempts at “dual containment” have been tried and have failed against the far weaker non-nuclear powers, Iraq and Iran, in the 1990s. In the following decade, this mutated into the “axis of evil” strategy, which also proved a foolish disaster.

When US Secretary of State Antony Blinken met his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Geneva last month, he sounded eerily like his predecessor, James Baker, after meeting with his Iraqi counterpart, Tariq Aziz, in the Swiss city three decades earlier.

Like Baker, a confident Blinken said the talks were “not negotiations”; they meant to inform not threaten, and warned against another terrible miscalculation while stressing the need for a peaceful outcome.

The US has fought two wars against Iraq and held Iran under sanctions for decades at a terrible cost for all three nations, sowing further instability, insecurity and prompting Iran to pursue nuclear power status.''

 

[Atunga]

Yes that is true, and it sends an important signal, but it does not pose a threat to Russia until much more troops are actually committed.


OK so it seems we just use the word "threat" to mean different things.

It is quite common to use exercises as a camouflage for an invasion. Russia is very good at creating a certain perception and hiding what is really going on. Therefore I suggest you do not consider so much whether Russia explain the troop movements into Belarus as an "exercise" or whether they have been "invited" into Belarus. The facts are: 100,000 troops already on Ukrainian border; another 30,000 Russian troops are now moving into Belarus. Please also consider what they are moving into Belarus:

NATO says Russia to have 30,000 troops on drills in Belarus, north of Ukraine | Reuters

In addition to the ground and air forces, more than 140 Russian ships and more than 60 aircraft and more than 10,00 servicemen are participating in various naval exercises.

Given the current picture, it would be pure negligence of NATO to not send reinforcements to the Baltics and Poland.

Even non-NATO country Finland has concluded that Russia has increased the threat level, and Finland has therefore taken concrete steps:

Ready when you are – Corporal Frisk

This is the reason why Russia will never allow Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, see how the Baltics and Poland quickly becomes NATO staging points against Russia, see how close they are.. if the Western sponsored coup d'etat in Belarus and Kazakhstan were successful, imagine the situation Russia would have found it self in. Remember the Mistral assault amphibious warships Russia bought from France and the US was so kin to make sure Russia don't get them, that's the same thing happening to NS2 pipeline, the US don't want this pipeline to deliver gas. Victoria Nuland even joked that the pipeline will deliver vodka.

Pump vodka through Nord Stream 2 – Nuland

US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has joked that pumping vodka through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline wouldn’t be a bad idea Read Full Article at RT.com

breaking48.com

 

[STURM]

My view is that the numbers are deliberately kept small so as not to cause too much of a threat to RF

My view is that that's indeed the case but if we want to focus on the actual numbers we'll be losing sight of the main point of having the the troops there to begin with. It's a highly political and symbolic move; it shows that NATO is doing something and it also shows that more troops can be deployed if needed. Ultimately whether it's 4,000 or 10,000 troops; NATO has showed its cards by declaring from the onset that it will not go to war over the Ukraine. Also having troops in the Baltics and Poland makes good headlines and demonstrates resolve, solidarity and various other things but it's the Ukraine which Russia has issues with; not the Baltics or Poland per see. Another question is whether NATO troops in the Baltics and Poland; on NATO soil so to speak actually plays a part in influencing Russia's actions over the Ukraine. We can safely assume that the answer is no...

Meanwhile this also makes good headlines and is significant politically but doesn't change anything for Russia.

Ukraine latest updates: US troops arrive in Germany

Ukraine news from February 4: Troops deployed to reinforce Washington’s NATO allies arrive in Wiesbaden, US army says.

www.aljazeera.com

As far back as 1999 when Russia and China [for slightly different reasons] were not pleased with what was happening in Kosovo; both issued a joint declaration to oppose U.S. led Western hegemony in the world or something along those lines but nothing significant resulted. No surprises.

 

[Vivendi]

This is the reason why Russia will never allow Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, see how the Baltics and Poland quickly becomes NATO staging points against Russia, see how close they are.. if the Western sponsored coup d'etat in Belarus and Kazakhstan were successful, imagine the situation Russia would have found it self in.

NATO is a defense organization. It also requires consensus. I strongly recommend you read this: NATO - Topic: Consensus decision-making at NATO

Consensus decision-making is a fundamental principle which has been accepted as the sole basis for decision-making in NATO since the creation of the Alliance in 1949.

Consensus decision-making means that there is no voting at NATO. Consultations take place until a decision that is acceptable to all is reached. Sometimes member countries agree to disagree on an issue. In general, this negotiation process is rapid since members consult each other on a regular basis and therefore often know and understand each other's positions in advance.

Facilitating the process of consultation and consensus decision-making is one of the NATO Secretary General's main tasks.

The principle of consensus decision-making applies throughout NATO.

Can you please explain to me how and why e.g., the Baltics would agree to being used as a "staging point against Russia"? In particular all Eastern European countries are in NATO mainly as a protection against Russian aggression. It is a deterrent, not an attempt to build an "Estonian empire" or "Hungarian empire" by invading Russia.

The US also has no interest in aggressive actions against Russia, the main focus for the US is China not Russia. But even if you buy into the conspiracy theory that the US wants to attack Russia, how on earth would they manage to convince European NATO countries to agree to such a suicide mission? It is less than unlikely. It is not going to happen.

Perhaps one of the reasons why Russia is behaving so aggressive now, is because Russia knows that at the moment, China and not Europe is the main concern for the US. The US wants peace and tranquility in Europe to better being able to focus on China. Thus Russia sees the opportunity to create trouble and win concessions from a distracted US. Furthermore, Europe is still weak after reducing defense budgets until 2008 (and in many cases until 2014/2015). One of the few benefits I see to Europe of the current Russian behavior is that it may open the eyes of more European politicians, in particular in Western Europe, that they really must get their acts together and start rebuilding their defences. Winter is coming.

 

[Vivendi]

My view is that that's indeed the case but if we want to focus on the actual numbers we'll be losing sight of the main point of having the the troops there to begin with. It's a highly political and symbolic move; it shows that NATO is doing something and it also shows that more troops can be deployed if needed. Ultimately whether it's 4,000 or 10,000 troops; NATO has showed its cards by declaring from the onset that it will not go to war over the Ukraine. Also having troops in the Baltics and Poland makes good headlines and demonstrates resolve, solidarity and various other things but it's the Ukraine which Russia has issues with; not the Baltics or Poland per see. Another question is whether NATO troops in the Baltics and Poland; on NATO soil so to speak actually plays a part in influencing Russia's actions over the Ukraine. We can safely assume that the answer is no...

Meanwhile this also makes good headlines and is significant politically but doesn't change anything for Russia.

Ukraine latest updates: US troops arrive in Germany

Ukraine news from February 4: Troops deployed to reinforce Washington’s NATO allies arrive in Wiesbaden, US army says.

www.aljazeera.com

As far back as 1999 when Russia and China [for slightly different reasons] were not pleased with what was happening in Kosovo; both issued a joint declaration to oppose U.S. led Western hegemony in the world or something along those lines but nothing significant resulted. No surprises.

I agree it is mainly about signaling. Looking at the size of the troops is however not wrong; it is possible to consider more than one aspect at the same time, without losing sight "of the main point".

Also, although the main issue for Russia right now is Ukraine, this is not the only issue that Russia aims to address. We do not know the true intentions of Russia. Although it is an unlikely scenario, one should not completely dismiss the possibility of Russia invading the Baltics, and/or invading Swedish or Finnish islands in the Baltic Sea. Sweden and Finland have these concerns right now, and presumably NATO share those concerns. Russia and China are talking to each other and there are indications they are synchronizing their actions. How would the US react if China moves against Taiwan and Russia invades the Baltics at the same time? Perhaps Russia would be tempted to make such a move if they sense the US will not have the capacity to properly address two invasions at the same time. Moving NATO troops to the Baltics now will make such a scenario more risky for Russia and therefore less attractive for Russia, who has clearly stated that they want their empire back. Thus European NATO countries should in my opinion move some additional troops and equipment to Poland and the Baltics, right now. This will strengthen the defence of the region, without risking a reduction of US capabilities to address potential Chinese aggression that might happen at the same time.

 

[STURM]

one should not completely dismiss the possibility of Russia invading the Baltics

The Russians understand fully that there are 'red lines' [to use a cliche] that would result in NATO military action; going for the Baltics is one such 'red line'. The Russians would have various reason why they would want to invade the Baltics but there are also various reasons why they won't. Not only are the Baltics NATO territory but they simply don't hold the same strategic importance as the Ukraine does for the Russians nor does it resonate with the Russians; either historically or in other ways; that the Ukraine does.

Note that it's the West that is making such a huge fuss about the Baltics and is talking about threats but as a speaker pointed out in a video in YouTube [in one of the two below]; for Russian planners trouble with NATO over the Ukraine or Belarus is seen as a much higher possibility than the Baltics.

I agree it is mainly about signaling. Looking at the size of the troops is however not wrong; it is possible to consider more than one aspect at the same time, without losing sight "of the main point".

To me it's simplistic to suggest that just because the numbers of troops NATO has is small; that the Russians won't see it as a threat or as provocative. As such it's not the numbers which are the point or are significant but the fact that troops are there and can be reinforced should there be a need.

Thus European NATO countries should in my opinion move some additional troops and equipment to Poland and the Baltics, right now.

Well I think they should stop pussy footing and actually move troops in numbers with certain types of equipment. The problem here is that whilst it would annoy the Russians it would not influence their planning on the Ukraine. Thus moving extra troops might make good headlines; show NATO's resolve and other things but might not actually lead to any tangible benefits with regards to the Russians.

there are indications they are synchronizing their actions

In some areas yes but in ways that would lead to actual present tangible benefits for Russia over the Ukraine. No. Also as I pointed out in a previous post; this isn't the first time both countries have declared that they will cooperate.

Russian/China cooperation has major limits as a large level of mutual distrust/suspicion still exists.

How would the US react if China moves against Taiwan and Russia invades the Baltics at the same time?

The U.S. would be overstretched. Bear in mind that the U.S. has various commitments worldwide; in addition to NATO. It has strategic allies whose security the U.S. is committed to and it has non NATO treaty allies; in my neck of the woods that would include Thailand and the Philippines.

Unlikely to happen but if China and Russia wanted to make life difficult for the U.S; in addition to both countries respectively going for Taiwan and the Ukraine [more plausible than the Baltics]; China could arrange for North Korea to do something highly provocative; whilst Russia could get Iran to do something similar. The U.S. would be hard pressed to react.

 

[Vivendi]

Latest on the developing Russian/Chinese relationship:

"Friendship between the two States has no limits, there are no 'forbidden' areas of cooperation," they declared, announcing plans to work together in a host of areas including space, climate change, artificial intelligence and control of the Internet.

- Russia voiced its support for China's stance that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and opposition to any form of independence for the island. Moscow and Beijing also voiced their opposition to the AUKUS alliance between Australia, Britain and the United States, saying it increased the danger of an arms race in the region.

- China joined Russia in calling for an end to NATO enlargement and supported its demand for security guarantees from the West - issues at the heart of Moscow's confrontation with the United States and its allies over Ukraine.

Elsewhere, without naming Washington, they criticised attempts by "certain states" to establish global hegemony, fan confrontation and impose their own standards of democracy.

Russia and China line up against U.S. in "no limits" partnership | Reuters

 

[STURM]

Elsewhere, without naming Washington, they criticised attempts by "certain states" to establish global hegemony, fan confrontation and impose their own standards of democracy.

They announced something similar in 1999 during the Kosovo war. Will this lead to anything tangible? Really remains to be seen but I highly doubt it,

 

[Vivendi]

The Russians understand fully that there are 'red lines' [to use a cliche] that would result in NATO military action; going for the Baltics is one such 'red line'. The Russians would have various reason why they would want to invade the Baltics but there are also various reasons why they won't. Not only are the Baltics NATO territory but they simply don't hold the same strategic importance as the Ukraine does for the Russians nor does it resonate with the Russians; either historically or in other ways; that the Ukraine does.

Note that it's the West that is making such a huge fuss about the Baltics and is talking about threats but as a speaker pointed out in a video in YouTube [in one of the two below]; for Russian planners trouble with NATO over the Ukraine or Belarus is seen as a much higher possibility than the Baltics.

I agree that Ukraine and also Belarus are much more probably targets of Russian aggression, however, I think one should not completely discount other scenarios, even if their likelihood seems much lower. The probability of having a fire in my house is quite low, nevertheless I still pay insurance, and have smoke detectors and basic fire extinguishing equipment in my house, because the consequences of having a fire can be so bad that taking those precautions make a lot of sense even if likelihood is very low. Also note that it is not just "the West" that is making "a huge fuss about the Baltics" -- it's the Baltic countries themselves. They feel very unsafe at the moment and are asking for extra support. Not providing support would weaken NATO.

To me it's simplistic to suggest that just because the numbers of troops NATO has is small; that the Russians won't see it as a threat or as provocative. As such it's not the numbers which are the point or are significant but the fact that troops are there and can be reinforced should there be a need.

I think we are talking past each other. You say numbers don't matter. What if NATO amassed not 2,000 troops but 100,000 troops in the Baltics and Poland? I think this could potentially have sent a different message to Russia. For instance, perhaps Russia would then be concerned about a NATO invasion, or blockade of Kaliningrad. With 2,000 troops such scenarios are simply not possible.

Well I think they should stop pussy footing and actually move troops in numbers with certain types of equipment. The problem here is that whilst it would annoy the Russians it would not influence their planning on the Ukraine. Thus moving extra troops might make good headlines; show NATO's resolve and other things but might not actually lead to any tangible benefits with regards to the Russians.

NATO forces in eastern European countries will help calm those countries, and also reduce the probability of some improbable but not "impossible" options for Russia. Before 2014, few people believed Russia would invade Crimea and send clandestine troops into Eastern Ukraine, actively supporting a war in Europe that has killed 14,000 people. Yet here we are.

 

[Atunga]

Link deleted, as source document is provided by kato without your ideological spin.

Leaked NATO and US written response to Russia's security proposal, the US written response is more accommodating to the Russians than that of NATO

 

[kato]

Link to the actual document without going through youtube is here (or if taken offline here on archive.org). It's published by conservative Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Also apart from issueing separate responses the actual content behind the diplomatic speech used in both is rather telling about the state of things at NATO and the lack of consensus on certain sub-issues.

 

[Feanor]

Link to the actual document without going through youtube is here (or if taken offline here on archive.org). It's published by conservative Spanish newspaper El Pais.

Also apart from issueing separate responses the actual content behind the diplomatic speech used in both is rather telling about the state of things at NATO and the lack of consensus on certain sub-issues.

Would you be willing to elaborate? I'm curious because often the internal things within NATO/EU often escape my notice.