Dayuhan---I would have agreed with you had this sentence been said and the Ukrainian events not occurred.
But there is something going on and I have come to the conclusion that they truly do believe what they are writing and saying publicly.
Take the 4 plus 2 agreements that were signed after the reunification of Germany that in fact state that NATO will not place any nuclear weapons into the new eastern countries if they join NATO nor will they build and base large contingents of troops in those countries.
Something that by the way slowed down NATO decision making about the Ukraine as they actually debated for days what and how the treaties defined long term troop contingents.
Thus the sending of "rotational troop contingents conducting exercises".
There has been building a drum beat in the Russian media ie Interfax, TAS and RIA about NATO's shifting of troops and beefing up of AF assets in the eastern flank of NATO "potentially" forcing Russia to "adjust" it's defense posture towards the eastern flank. But the term used was "permanent" troop contingents.
Today a sudden shift and the Russia media is now stating "permanent" long term bases is also being defined by them to mean "rotational" troop for exercises". Again an example of how Russia claims the right to interpret any treaty anyway they want to.
Back on the Ukraine thread side I mentioned that Stalin once at a CP meeting in the 30s stated---treaties are treaties---and when and if necessary we can define them how we want to---his thinking has never died.
See how the Russian are attempting to control NATO actions and decisions.
So comments made about US actions that Bill points out are actually being believed inside Russia.
I would not be as worried by these comments as I am about their New Generation Warfare which is a pure UW strategy and it has been successfully carried out in eastern Ukraine.
Bookmarks