Russian Unconventional Strategy

[OUTLAW 09]

I don't see how they've "split the EU from the US"... if anything the Ukraine events have brought the EU and US closer.



The distractions have been multiple, and the "right/left/tea party games" are less a problem than the economic crisis and the burden of legacy wars. Still, I don't see any evidence to suggest disconnection from "what the rest of the world is thinking". As always, the "rest of the world" is thinking all kinds of different things, all of which have to be managed on a case to case basis.



How does that constitute a threat?



Who exactly have they "scooped up", and who have they sponsored?



Or we could go all hysterical and exaggerate the threat all out of proportion.

Or we could stay calm and assess the threat realistically.

In specific, real-world terms, what are we afraid of? What do we think the Russians are going to do that we don't want them to do?



So what's the supposed deal, and what's it meant to accomplish? Claims like that need a reference.

Dayuhan---here is a short reply to your comments---flashing onboard weapons array to an in neutral waters flying RJ135 is even in say the height of the Cold War "absolutely abnorm"---even today Russian pilots are still centrally controlled meaning before he made his move it was approved from higher---thus a serious violation of "neutral waters norms" even from Cold War "norms" thus a threat to the aircraft and crew---which I am sure was immediately passed to the National Command Authority during a security briefing.

Secondly, and this goes to the questions Bill raises---what are the Russians thinking/doing and are they a "perceived or direct threat to the US".

Example: how many times here in SWJ comments have you seen written "well NATO did in fact push membership right up to the Russian borders and yes Russia has a right to feel threatened by these moves"---recognize the comments--you see them all the time from various American political pundits and left leaning writers.

Russia has been drum beating this idea to death--we are in violation of agreements about how far NATO can go with recruiting new members ie Baltics, Georgia, Moldavia etc.
REALITY: Gorbartschow and Bush senior did have a small side bar conversation during those talks ---there Bush did casually mention to Gorbi when Gorbi asked about NATO intentions that NATO would not push eastwards---this was during the 4 plus 2 treaty discussions on German reunification conducted in Berlin. The side bar THOUGH continue with the following comment---we will need to further discuss this---it was never then followed up on by either side nor ever written up and agreed to as a side treaty such as was the plus 2 agreements.

Gorbartschow admitted in a recent Russian TV interview in the last few days that this was a big failure on his part and it has led to the Ukrainian problem. Interesting comment if one asks me.

BUT just how did Russia get the conversation written into a treaty that they are now constantly complaining about we "violated"---good question is it not? There is a propaganda theory that says if one repeats something often enough then the general population starts to believe it is true---is that at work here with this drum beat?

Next: Russian has been constantly throwing in the face of the US/NATO/EU that the Ukrainians were not holding to the Feb 21 agreements worked out by France, Germany, Poland FMs--NOW here is the kicker Russia only sent a Human Rights Observer to those meeting and both he and the Russian government "refused" to sign them BUT now these agreements somehow has the power of a "treaty"---JUST how did that happen?
Next: The Swiss Chairman of the OCSE visited Putin recently to discuss with him a proposed roadmap for deescalating the Ukrainian issue---REMEMBER this was a discuss only visit and he had no legal binding commitment from the rest of the OCSE---then there is still the drum beat by Russia even today that the Ukrainians are in violation of the OCSE agreements---REALITY---is was a discussion JUST how did it become a "treaty" in the eyes of Putin to be throw against the West as an example of how aggressive the West is against Russia.
Next: The Russians did sign the 1994 Memorandum to Recognize the Sovereignty of the Ukraine in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons--REALITY---Russia openly recently stated that they do not feel bound by that Memo.
Next: In the 4 plus 2 German Reunification treaties it clearly states that NATO will out create long term large scale military bases in the eastern part of Germany or the new eastern NATO members nor will they station nuclear weapons in eastern German and the Baltics. Notice the mention of eastern Germany. REALITY: For the last week or two there has been a Russian media drumbeat that NATO has violated those treaties by conducting military exercises using rotational troops and stationing additional aircraft in Poland and the Baltics.
AGAIN claiming NATO somehow violated treaties but no where in those treaties is it defined that military exercises cannot be held in those countries. And NOW Russia "feels" physically "threatened" by those exercises. WHAT are the Russians reading that the West cannot seem to understand when the treaties written in English?
Next: The current Russian signed INF treaty states that the development and deployment of mobile launched nuclear cruise missiles over a certain distance is a violation---Russia is in direct violation of this treaty and the US has refrained from bringing this to the attention of the world because they think they need Russia assistance in Syria, Iran, and NK---but notice the Iranian talks are breaking down with absolutely no assistance from Russia, the Syrian issue is just as dead with no assistance from Russia and NK is still threatening a nuclear test which even concerns the Chinese--again no Russian assistance. And in Iraq the Russians are merrily pumping oil/gas and developing new fields.

And you find none of this is a "perceived threat or direct threat to the US"?