Replies

This is a really complicated issue. I think it is important to give it perspective. These are just some of my thoughts on this:

1.) 2009 thru 2012 - Obama scraps the Eastern European missile defense shield, attempts Russian reset and to strike what people call the grand Russian bargain. Similar in scope to middle east peace.

2.) Back in 2012 Obama scoffed at Romney’s assertion that Russia was our number one external threat. That is debatable. It could be China, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. Obama and Clinton/Kerry begin Asia Pivot.

3.) Obama is re-elected. He makes a strategic error to turn his campaign rhetoric into policy and ignore Europe. Essentially turning it over to the EU and NGO’s. This is crucial because it feeds into the Russian narrative of the regime change mentality of Obama. Arab Spring serves as backdrop, including Libya (and now Syria).

4.) 2014 - Putin, sensing an opening as well as feeling threatened by U.S. regime change policy considers Ukraine the last straw and annexes Crimea. The debate on whether Ukraine was a western-backed coup or internal uprising is irrelevant. The pattern is already well established.

5.) Obama is made aware of his strategic error by whatever levelheaded advisor (they’re not all homos, trannies and NWO globalists)confronts him. And to avoid Eastern European allies from either making deals with Putin or furthering the militarization of the EU realizes that an American show of force is necessary.

6.) Summer 2016 - Deployment of U.S. forces to Poland is announced. They will spread out from Poland to the Baltics and other nations.

7.) If you listen to Trump he’s essentially said two things. One: NATO needs to up its contributions, and he’s against Obama’s regime change policy (phrased as endless wars, etc.) This has been interpreted by us, incorrectly, as Trump repudiating NATO as part of an anti-globalist stance. Not true.

The NATO alliance is crucial in order to avoid European chaos. Despite what we all think, Putin needs to be kept honest (trust but verify). This deployment does achieve that goal.

It is irrelevant that it was initiated under Obama’s watch. It’s not enough to just laugh at his stupidity or to blame him because of his policies. He screwed up and is trying to fix it. We shouldn’t be in this mess, but we are. The time for recrimination has passed. He is gone in five days.

This is what is really going on. With all of the bullsh*t stripped out of it.

Interesting that you mention the militarization of the EU. I have not seen that discussed (in the US) as a threat or a problem, though I think it should be. The issue has been discussed in Britain, because there it is understood as an eventual choice that has to be made between the EU and the USA. That choice was eventually made by the British people last summer... However the foreign policy establishment in the US appears to be unaware of the problem, or have I missed something?

Even a broke n clock is riight once a day. But 3500 soldiers, a brigade, will hardly shift any balance of power. But 350,000 would.

This has to be perceived by Putin to be just the beginning.

Useful timeline for a general framework. There are some details that could be filled in to expand it--a few that come to my mind are Russia's increase of its uranium production from 2005 on and growing acquisition of U.S. uranium assets after 2009, Putin's 2007 announcement of a new arms race in response to NATO's moves towards an Eastern European missile shield (I would suggest that the current crisis represents a resuming of tensions over this underlying issue), the 2007 diplomatic fallout between Britain and Russia over the Litvinenko assassination, the escalation of Russian-NATO tensions following the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, the economic weakening of the West by the Great Recession and by the rising price of Russian natural gas, the subsequent efforts of the EU to liberate itself from dependence on Russian energy, and the impact of falling gas prices on Russia's economy and Putin's political position (for example Crashing oil prices could crush Vladimir Putin (October 2014) and The US is headed for a natural gas price war with Russia (February 2016)--but the gist is on target, and points to Ukraine as a key turning point. This article gives a good glimpse into how the foreign policy establishment is framing the current escalation of tensions: This Interactive Map Shows the High Stakes Missile Stand-Off Between NATO and Russia.

Yes. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the liberation of Eastern Europe, and the breakup of the Russian Empire were the most important strategic victories for the West since 1945, followed by the still-incomplete opening of China. Consolidating the new settlement in Europe and easing Russia's integration into the democratic West should have been among Obama's top priorities from 2009 forward. Instead, he seemed oddly indifferent to the whole subject. I've never been able to shake the thought that Obama is nothing more than an upjumped student radical who still thinks the wrong side won the Cold War.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is Obama's legacy in the Mideast. He has done his level best to do the same in Europe. It's late in the game for Obama to suddenly respond to Eastern European security concerns; it's like Jimmy Carter, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, suddenly opening his eyes. At least Carter was man enough to acknowledge that he had been wrong.

And I still can't shake the suspicion that the main reason Obama may have rethought Russia is Syria. I suppose one has to start somewhere.