Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
Dayuhan--three T72s and a number of other armored vehicles "crossed" today into eastern Ukraine through a Russian border that Putin officially stated he had instructed the FSB and Federal Border Security Service to close the border. They crossed at a known official Russian border crossing point.

So is this a perceived or actual threat.
It's a threat to the Ukraine. The US is not the Ukraine.

Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
So did Putin actually tell the US/EU the truth that the border was secure and he is not supporting separatists are was he basically lying.

so if lying on this ---are you willing to then trust him when he says something else.
Of course he's lying, and of course we shouldn't trust him. Nothing new there; did anyone ever trust him?

Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
Have you really read both the 2010 new Russian nuclear doctrine and their 2013 UW strategy called the New Generation Warfare?

Please read both and then tell me how you view and interpret both documents and please refrain from making comments until you read them an answer my question ---perceived threat or actual threat on the two doctrines which are the core basis now for all Russian foreign policy decisions?
I think you cherry pick these documents and distort them to justify an elevated perception of threat. I would use the term "potential threat", rather than perceived or actual.

Russia spending more than the US on their nuclear arsenal is not necessarily a huge deal: like much of their military, the nuclear side has suffered from neglect for a long time, and they've a lot of expensive catching up to do just to keep it functional. MAD remains firmly in place and remains a considerable deterrent to nuclear use.

Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
By the way I noticed you failed to respond to the Saudi article concerning their private deal offer to the Russians---perceived or actual threat to the US?
You mean the points where you copy/past quotes from articles nearly a year old, fail to cite the source articles, misrepresent the supposed deal as "new", with the inevitable breathless and unsupported references to miscellaneous Interfax press releases?

Please see post #32 above. It's old news and non-news. That offer was made last August, and it was simply an attempt to bribe the Russians into dumping Assad. It failed; the Russians didn't bite. So what? Where's the threat?