Churchill may not have understood because he did not know Russian history well. Russis has been invaded many many times and their people slaughtered and oppressed.
But about this latest chess move: Unfortunately the US is moving away from “deterrence” posture and moving into a “compellence” posture. Not a good idea and stupid too.
“These European ABMs are an adjunct to the longstanding US policy of nuclear first strike against Russia, ...” (Professor Francis Boyle, Global Research, June 2007)
This is very dangerous thinking on the part of this administration.
We should be working more cloasely with the Russians not jousting with them. I do not think many Americans take seriously the menace from the islamic world...Russians do.
Oh, please. If Churchill didn't know it, it must have been because this cliche and excuse for murder and mayhem had not been invented yet, Captain Obvious. And just who it was that invaded "Russis" "many many times"? Have they been invaded more more times than the Hungarians? In fact, the "Russis" and the various ethnicities on the territory of present day Russia have been the invaders themselves. How do you figure Russia has acquired such vast territory? And, by the way, Churchill and his contemporaries were better educated than any of us here graduates of 20th century American universities, you can bet on that!
Hey Elenil, most every comment I see you make is pro-Russian, pro-communist and socialist. You do make some intelligent points but I don’t ever hearing about the benefits of capitalism. Why is that? Yes, we will joust with the Russians. In 2005 Putin gave his blanket assurance to the madmen in Iran. Now we will provide blanket assurances to ALL of our allies in Europe. Putin moves his pawn back and we move ours back. Thats how it works -
But about this latest chess move: Unfortunately the US is moving away from “deterrence” posture and moving into a “compellence” posture. Not a good idea and stupid too.
“These European ABMs are an adjunct to the longstanding US policy of nuclear first strike against Russia, ...” (Professor Francis Boyle, Global Research, June 2007)
This is very dangerous thinking on the part of this administration.
We should be working more closely with the Russians not jousting with them. I do not think many Americans take seriously the menace from the Islamic world...Russians do”
There is so much wrong with your reply that I needed to address each statement.
Churchill did understand Russian history-as much as anyone can. He was a student of history don't you know. He simply could not make sense of the Russians. Everything about them is counter intuitive. Yes Russia has been invaded many times but so has just about every country in Europe. What about the invasions of Europe by the Muslims? Read about the Muslim invasion of Spain and France in the 8th Century and in invasions to the east that were finally stopped in Vienna in 1683.
You will have to explain to me what you mean by “compellence” as you have stated. We lived under the policy of MAD for nearly 50 years. The US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons for 5 years and didn't choose to use them them. There is a giant difference between a shield to protect Europe (and possibly Russia as well) from countries in the Middle East who may eventually get nuclear weapons and the systems to deliver them . This is why Russia was invited into the alliance for these shields as a full partner and they declined. So we don't take seriously the threat from the Islamic World? Honestly!
I don't know who this crackpot professor Francis Boyle is but his claim of a first strike policy against Russia is BEYOND ludicrous. This is so absurd as it doesn't even warrant a response. The US would never have a first strike policy against Russia. Never has! Absolute idiocy by this Boyle fellow.
We have made many overtures towards working with the Russians. It is they who have refused to work constructively with the West (United States). Yes we have have extended NATO to countries that were in the former Warsaw Pact. This is for the benefit of those countries who had to suffer from Soviet occupation for nearly 50 years. Do I need to mention Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States and so on!
So many of us in the United States do not take the threat of the Islamic World seriously? Well on this one you are partially correct. Those on the left do not take this threat seriously. They have the Neville Chamberlain disease. There is no known cure. They are beyond hope. However most Americans do take this threat seriously particularly after 9/11. And if the Russians take seriously the threat why do they keep selling arms to the countries that they would supposedly fear? You know your post is is a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma.