Posted on 01/02/2016 8:26:02 AM PST by Decombobulator
A new appraisal names the United States as one of the threats to Russia's national security for the first time, a sign of how relations with the west have deteriorated in recent years.
The document, "About the Strategy of National Security of Russian Federation", was signed by President Vladimir Putin on New Year's Eve. It replaces a 2009 version, endorsed by then- President Dmitry Medvedev, the current prime minister, which mentioned neither the United States not NATO.
It says Russia has managed to heighten its role in solving global problems and international conflicts. That heightened role has caused a reaction by the West, it says.
"The strengthening of Russia happens against the background of new threats to the national security, which has complex and interrelated nature," the document says.
Conducting an independent policy, "both international and domestic" has caused "counteraction from the USA and its allies, which are striving to retain their dominance in global affairs."
That in turn is likely to lead to "political, economical, military and informational pressure" on Russia, the document says."
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I watched Ted Kennedy and his ilk turn cartwheels in order to appease Russia. I never could have imagined that they would find a home in a wing of the conservative movement.
No, but the neocons made NATO break its promise to Russia to not encroach further toward its borders.
Not ignoring your reply, but I have an appointment to get my car oil changed. I’ll read responses later.
It started with the idiocy in Kosovo, at the behest of our Saudi masters.
It is not appeasement to simply keep promises made and agreements signed. NATO and the US promised to not encroach toward Russian borders. Russia no longer has the USSR or the Warsaw Pact as its defense. It wanted assurances that NATO (its longtime enemy) would not move closer to its borders. That is not appeasment. That is integrity. Keeping promises. Making your word mean something.
Then we also take this newly open country, Russia and reward their move toward capitalism and free trade by controlling them with sanctions. That is plain stupid. How long did we work to help move them in a freer direction?
Gotta go.
Boy I wonder if Russia promised not to encroach toward NATO borders at the same time. LOLOL
It’s unfortunate that Communism fell in Europe on Bush’s watch instead of on Reagan’s watch.
“No, but the neocons made NATO break its promise to Russia to not encroach further toward its borders.”
1. Use of the word “neocon” does not win the argument. Be specific. Where exactly did NATO make a promise to abide by a NATO/WARSAW Pact set of rules? And where is this encroachment breaking any international or Russian law?
2. The US, Russia, nor NATO have any right to tell any European country that they may not align economically, diplomatically, nor militarily with any other European nation. It is their SOVEREIGN freaking right to live as they and their countryman wish.
2. The US foolishly via Obama and Clinton hit a reset button and cancelled plans to send BMD to Poland. Since then, Russia has invaded Ukraine with special forces and annexed Crimea illegally, violating sovereignty of those nations.
...and it is Russia who is playing the cold war game by taking territory by tank and playing the old cat and mouse chicken game on the high seas and air.
It wanted a veto over what the newly freed nations could freely do?
Yup.
That’s pretty much it. Imagine: countries that were illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union ultimately declaring their independence and breaking free. Fast forward 25 years: conservatives arguing that Russia is “justified” (for lack of a better term) in gobbling them up again, piece by piece. Because NATO.
NATO;s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow/5380144?print=1
To avoid war, Putin is non-provocative and low-key in his responses to Western provocations. Putin's responsible behavior, however, is misinterpreted by neoconservatives as a sign of weakness and fear.Why World War III is on the Horizon, Paul Craig Roberts (Kremlin tool), December 28, 2015.
www.globalresearch.ca
The piece I linked to was a translation from Der Spiegel posted at global research.
I don’t know if they are Russian tools or not.
I don’t know if globalresearch.ca is funded by the Kremlin, either. But I know our resident FRussians fawn over it.
Always the Saudi’s, they are parasites.
We should have got some of our own damn oil elsewhere.
I remember going on base back in the Soviet days and being greeted by Ground Zero anti-nuc protesters once a week.
They mysteriously disappeared after the USSR did.
I’ve kind of missed screwing with them at the gate ever since.
Hmmm... Why did the US get so upset when we found out that Cuba had made a request to the USSR to install nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba, and that the USSR was planning on doing it? Shouldn’t Cuba, as a sovereign country, have a right to form alliances, and arm itself, as it sees fit?
Also, during the First World War, the US got REALLY upset (and it was cited as one of the major reasons for our entering the war) when we found out there were conversations going on between Germany and Mexico regarding Mexico’s entering the war on Germany’s side, and that Mexico would receive as compensation land in the Southwest USA? (The XYZ Affair.) Shouldn’t Mexico have a right to form its own alliances?
Please direct me to the information that indicates Lithuania wants to target nuclear missiles at Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.