Great Power contentions

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, it is one thing having an outpost in a friendly / neutral country compared to having troops in one that is actively hostile.

To point out the obvious, the USA / NATO etc should never have bothered going into Afghanistan and the longer that is spent in that quagmire the more resource is squandered. It took hundreds of thousands of troops to win in Malaya against an insurgency and there at least the borders are the sea, not porous ones with other countries - and even if enough military might was used to subdue the place, what then? Or was the thought if we point enough guns at them for long enough they'd suddenly want to emulate us? Their culture is currently so different from what we view as acceptable in the West the best that can be hoped for is relative peaceful coexistence which we ignore pretty much everything that takes place against the local populace. But we have a lot of experience in doing that so we should cope.

If the argument the "better over there than over here" then Syria is a much better outpost / festering warzone to have - although I thought that this mentality was the whole point of the slavish support of Israel in the area.

[Hooahguy]

Of course in hindsight we should have never invaded Afghanistan, but even though I was young I remember the jingoism of the immediate post-9/11 world. We were itching to get back at those who did those attacks so I don't think there was serious forethought into what happens after the Taliban is toppled. Plus there still was the idea that we were so star-spangled awesome that as soon as we toppled those oppressive governments, everyone would want democracy.

[spmetla]

To point out the obvious, the USA / NATO etc should never have bothered going into Afghanistan and the longer that is spent in that quagmire the more resource is squandered. It took hundreds of thousands of troops to win in Malaya against an insurgency and there at least the borders are the sea, not porous ones with other countries - and even if enough military might was used to subdue the place, what then? Or was the thought if we point enough guns at them for long enough they'd suddenly want to emulate us? Their culture is currently so different from what we view as acceptable in the West the best that can be hoped for is relative peaceful coexistence which we ignore pretty much everything that takes place against the local populace. But we have a lot of experience in doing that so we should cope.

I still think that invading Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and Al Queda was worth it. The mistake was getting into nation building which is something the US has a very poor track record on. If the the mission had remained a SOF/CIA mission once the Taliban was removed from power by the Northern Alliance and US Coalition then it wouldn't have had this mission creep of the US trying to provide security for the local population. We were never going to be seen as liberators and even in the areas were we were welcomed (the Tajik and Hazara regions) the ignorance general bullying methods used by average US Soldiers/Marines made enemies of people that initially saw us as at least allies against the Taliban.
Hell, we should even have considered bringing the king of Afghanistan back as that'd add legitimacy to the Afghan government and he'd have some sway with the Pashtun tribes which largely are what form the Taliban.

Malaya took lots of troops, time, but most importantly a clear vision and promise of Malayan independence. Not to mention that the commonwealth troops used at least had a broad 'colonial' understanding that while not too culturally aware was at least not completely ignorant of the region. Other thing there is that because it was an 'emergency' and not a war that insurance companies still had to cover for the terrorism done by the communists which meant that employment kept up and there wasn't a flight of capital which would have made the situation untenable.

An Afghanistan with only low footprint elements of SOF and the CIA working to only fight the Taliban instead of nation building and area security missions together with some funding and backing for a new Afghan government *might* have worked. The resulting Afghanistan would probably more resemble the other 'Stans' to the North but would likely have been more successful than the current GIROA government that's there and once the Taliban/Al Queda threat was diminished to the point of not being a global threat we could have left. As for dealing with the pro-Taliban regions, more autonomy for the different provinces sorta like the Moros got with the Philippines might have resulted in an acceptable peace.

Russia retaliates, tells 10 U.S. diplomats to go
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp
Russia to consider Biden plan for Putin summit
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56746138

Just a tit for tat response to the new sanctions, it seems a summit between Putin and Biden is still likely to happen. Glad that that there will still be talks at the top, just curious as to what the US goals would be. I doubt that anything would get the Russians to withdraw from the Crimea or stop supporting the eastern separatists. The other 'frozen conflicts' from the fall of the USSR still have the same borders with the only exception being Armenia/Azerbaijan which was only changed through war. The only way I see Ukraine regaining Crimea is if they were to try and take it back themselves, something they are incapable of doing and something I have no desire to see NATO or the EU attempt doing either.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, Bin Laden hid in Afghanistan... but he was a rich Saudi. Revenge didn't include any action against the Saudis since on this matter, it seems Realpolitik won out And it should have done with Afghanistan. In essence the Taliban (the sovereign government of the country) refused to extradite someone - something many, many countries refuse to do all the time. And with the Afghani, this is also cultural. The response is not to go and get them with extrajudicial assassinations. I'm almost certain there are laws that civilised countries sign up to to not do that sort of thing.

Toppling a government and replacing with another rarely works out the way you want it since it is generally clear who did the toppling and being a puppet of a foreign power isn't something people will tolerate. Given you have driven probably thousands to the ousted "heroes" and the regime will not have democracy (since they'll most likely vote in the last lot given a chance in several areas at least) you are once again supporting a totalitarian leader of a pseudo-colony with most people in to take as much money before the country with legindary ADHD gets bored and goes and kills some other people. And of course you'll not truly have managed to rid either the Taliban nor Al-Queda. The country is massive, CIA spooks don't fit in and unless you want to play whack-a-mole with kill teams it isn't going to work (which again will either require a massive amount of logistical support or are going to be fighting the locals on home turf.

Russia almost wants to be back in the news and seen as a Great Power and the only way for them to do that is to act like a toddler (albeit one with nukes). Few countries televise their invasion plans so unless this is a cunning plan they just want some quality time with Uncle Sam.

[spmetla]

As much as I dislike the Saudis it's not like they worked or harbored Bin Laden, they'd expelled him a decade before 9/11. That so many of the hijackers were Saudi though should have resulted in a lot more pressure on them to clamp down on extremism. Their funding of extremist clerics throughout the world continues to be a factor in people radicalizing.

I agree on the problems of toppling governments, regime change is extremely difficult, you can't really end a war if there's not one you can make peace with. Even in WW2 we needed Admiral Donitz and Emperor Hirohito to surrender so that their people could accept the war as done. In hindsight all that was really needed was ousting Al Queda from Afghanistan, once the more or less fled to Pakistan the efforts in Afghanistan should have really only been some limited support to the Northern Alliance to help them win the civil war. Putting pressure on Pakistan to keep tabs on Al Queda and not shelter Bin Laden would've been more useful than the billions spent there in the decade before Bin Laden's assassination raid.

Russia definitely is acting like a toddler, I doubt they're doing anything new in Ukraine. The troop buildup is probably most useful for seeing if Biden's backing of NATO has any more teeth beyond the words of support and like you said, to get to the table with uncle sam.

What do you guys think of India, it's got potential for Great Power status but it's widespread poverty, poor infrastructure, and fractious internal politics seem to limit it's ability to grow. I know the US is looking to India as a balance to China but I can't see that happening any time soon outside of the limited border disputes.

Also, what do you think of Russia's tepid reactions to China's silk road initiatives? Russia has historical and cultural ties to central asia but China's larger purse will probably erode Russia's ability to influence those nations. Russia has seemed to align itself with China so that it can piss off 'the west' but without the economic might to really sustain that effort. Russia has a lot of territory that used to belong to the Qing Empire so I can't imagine that they see China as a long term ally as they are the last colonial European power remaining in East Asia.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/16...ad-initiative/

[Viking]

Few countries televise their invasion plans so unless this is a cunning plan they just want some quality time with Uncle Sam.

It is unclear how much Russia stands to gain by moving troops clandestinely. Ukraine and Russia have already been informally at war for years, with Ukraine on a permanent war footing. Even if Russia did attempt to move the troops with greater discretion, they could still be discovered. Troops moved stealthily would certainly look suspicious, and could set off alarm bells that could lead to a decisive short-term mobilisation on the Ukrainian side.

Russian troops could now sit on Ukraine's borders for at least month before they do anything. The Ukrainian military, on the other hand, might not necessarily strengthen or fortify much more than it likely would have done during that time (or already have done in the last years), anyway.

At the time of writing, Putin himself might not even know what's next for the Russian forces. With one set of signals, he could withdraw the troops; with another, he could order an assault.

[spmetla]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp
White House: US-China war over Taiwan 'would broaden quickly'

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Top Iranian General Says Israel Could Be Defeated With 'a Single Operation'
Pentagon Can’t Say When, Where Chinese Rocket Will Crash Into Earth

China and the United States face a growing likelihood of conflict over the status of Taiwan, a contest that current and former officials fear could lead to upheaval unseen since World War II.
“I am sure that we are going to be in a kinetic conflict with China in five years,” retired Army Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said Wednesday. “I hope I'm wrong, but I believe within the next five years there's going to be a kinetic conflict — missiles, submarines, aircraft; not so much land operations. … It’s just about inevitable.”

That prospect presents a high-stakes dilemma for U.S. officials, who could face a choice between rallying to the embattled island democracy or conceding the loss and allowing Chinese communist officials to achieve a major victory that might empower Beijing to break the broader U.S. alliance network and dominate the Indo-Pacific region. President Joe Biden’s team has declined to say explicitly whether he would send U.S. forces to defend Taiwan, but his administration is telling Chinese General Secretary Xi Jinping not to risk a clash with the United States.

"I think it would broaden quickly, and it would fundamentally trash the global economy in ways that I don't think anyone can predict," Kurt Campbell, the White House National Security Council’s lead official for the Indo-Pacific, said Tuesday during a discussion hosted by the Financial Times while contemplating what would happen if the U.S. and China were to come to blows.

Campbell refused to declare explicitly that the U.S. would defend Taiwan in a crisis, in keeping with a long-standing U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” about how Washington would respond.

"I believe that there are some significant downsides to the kind of what is called strategic clarity that you lay out,” he said.

U.S. officials and lawmakers are nevertheless growing more emphatic in their message of support for Taiwan, as Campbell’s boss made clear last week.

“What we would like to see is stability in cross-strait relations and no effort to unilaterally change the ‘status quo,’” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan told the Aspen Institute in remarks that attracted attention in Taiwanese media. “That is how we are going to continue to approach the Taiwan issue going forward, with steadiness, clarity, and resolve with respect to our view that there should be no unilateral changes to the 'status quo.'"

Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned China on Tuesday that “it would be a very serious mistake” to change the status quo — a multi-decade situation in which Beijing has refused to relinquish its claim to sovereignty over the island, but likewise refused to try to bring the island under the mainland regime’s control by force. Chinese communist officials have never renounced the possible use of force, but they have prioritized “peaceful reunification” nonetheless.

Blinken’s statement dovetailed with then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s pledge in October that “whether it's Taiwan or the challenge presented to Japan, the United States will be a good partner for security in every dimension.”

Hodges, speaking to the United Kingdom-based Council on Geostrategy, suggested that the Western failure to make Chinese officials regret their crackdown on Hong Kong over the last year has emboldened Beijing to risk a military conflict.

“I just think the language coming out of Beijing about Taiwan, the fact that nobody did anything, truthfully, about what the Chinese have done in Hong Kong, to include the U.K. surprisingly, how little the response has been, and then the increasing aggression, aggressiveness, by the Chinese in the South China Sea — it seems to me it’s just about inevitable,” Hodges said. “I don’t want to say inevitable, but it’s very close to it.”

A not unsurprising but still worrying situation. Given the diplomatic blitz that Blinken has done in the region I can assume that the 'quad' plus UK and maybe some bits of the EU will stand by Taiwan if the island of formosa is attacked outright.

With the UK's new Carrier Strike Group on it's first operational world tour I wonder if it will choose to pass through the Taiwan straits at all for freedom of navigation purposes or go East around the island when headed to Japan.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp
Exclusive: China plans to revive strategic Pacific airstrip, Kiribati lawmaker says

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - China has drawn up plans to upgrade an airstrip and bridge on one of Kiribati's remote islands about 3,000km southwest of Hawaii, lawmakers told Reuters, in a bid to revive a site that hosted military aircraft during World War Two.

The plans, which have not been made public, involve construction on the tiny island of Kanton (also spelled Canton), a coral atoll strategically located midway between Asia and the Americas.

Kiribati opposition lawmaker Tessie Lambourne told Reuters she was concerned about the project, and wanted to know whether it was part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.

"The government hasn't shared the cost and other details other than it's a feasibility study for the rehabilitation of the runway and bridge," Lambourne told Reuters. "The opposition will be seeking more information from government in due course."

The office of Kiribati President Taneti Maamau did not respond to questions.

The Chinese foreign ministry did not immediately respond to questions.

Despite being small, Kiribati, a nation of 120,000 residents, controls one of the biggest exclusive economic zones in the world, covering more than 3.5 million square kilometres of the Pacific.
Any significant build-up on Kanton, located 3,000 kilometres (1,864 miles) southwest of Hawaii and U.S. military bases there, would offer a foothold to China deep into territory that had been firmly aligned to the U.S. and its allies since World War Two.

"The island would be a fixed aircraft carrier," said one adviser to Pacific governments, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the project.

The U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet and U.S. State Department's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Kiribati (pronounced Kiribas) has in recent years been at the centre of a tussle between China and the U.S. and its Pacific allies.

In late 2019 it severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan in favour of China, in a decision overseen by Maamau, who went on to win a closely contested election on a pro-China platform.

The diplomatic shift, which mirrored events in the Solomon Islands, was a setback for self-ruled Taiwan, which China claims as a province with no right to state-to-state ties. Taiwan counts the U.S. as an important international backer and supplier of arms.

Kanton has been used by the U.S. for space and missile tracking operations and its near 2-kilometre (6,562 ft) runway hosted long-range bombers during the war.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) said in a paper last year that Chinese facilities on Kiribati would be positioned across major sea lanes between North America, and Australia and New Zealand.

Beijing has labelled the think tank as "anti-China".

Along with its strategic significance, the waters around Kanton are rich in fish, including tuna, although commercial fishing is prohibited as the island is in a marine protected zone.

There are around two dozen residents on Kanton who rely on subsistence fishing and supply ships.

(Reporting by Jonathan Barrett. Additional reporting by Beijing Bureau. Editing by Gerry Doyle)

China's navy has used the establishment of a base in Djbouti to learn how to conduct operations far from their shores and what it would take to really project naval power. wonder if this airfield would lead to a port as well. Either way it's China extending influence into an area that the 'west' has largely ignored since it's been decolonized. I'm sure the locals would appreciate some investment into their infrastructure, also it would make deep sea exploitation easier, mining rare earths from the ocean's bottom will be an industry relatively soon.

[spmetla]

Just thought I'd keep it in this thread as Turkey bringing up the idea has implications for NATO, the EU, and the US relationship with Israel and Turkey.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp
Erdogan pushes for Turkey to oversee Jerusalem and provide air support to Palestinians

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his domestic political allies have floated sending military forces to Jerusalem, including fighter jets, to give Palestinians air cover as the Israel-Hamas crisis gives him an opportunity to boost his regional influence and standing at home.
“If there is a call, let us answer it,” Turkish lawmaker Devlet Bahceli, who leads the nationalist party in a coalition with Erdogan, said Tuesday. “Let us stop the bloodshed and ensure peace and stability.”

That statement reinforces Erdogan’s message in a late Monday speech, in which the Turkish leader proposed to alter the administration of Jerusalem. Such a development would upend the current Arab oversight of the holy sites and place a NATO country and its military in an adversarial setting with Israeli forces.

"At this point, we believe there's a need for a separate arrangement on Jerusalem,” Erdogan said Monday. "In today's circumstances, it would be the most correct and consistent course of action for Jerusalem to be administered by a commission of representatives from the three faiths. Otherwise, it doesn't appear it will be easily possible to achieve lasting peace in this ancient city.”
Erdogan floated the idea of sending an “international protection force" last week following a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, although the Kremlin team showed no public sign of interest in such an effort.

The Turkish leader observed that Israel has air power while the militants in Gaza do not, without committing to a specific military proposal — a notable absence that lends itself to the assessment that Erdogan is trying to boost his sagging political approval ratings at home, rather than orchestrate a major shift in the regional balance of power.

“This is Erdogan being strategically ambiguous on purpose,” former Turkish opposition lawmaker Aykan Erdemir, a senior analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Washington Examiner. “He’s proposing a vague idea of either a peacekeeping force or a Turkish deployment, knowing fully well it will not materialize, but at the same time, appealing to his voter base and his fans around the world.”

Still, such a domestic political maneuver could reinforce the suspicions between Gulf Arab states and Erdogan, whose Muslim Brotherhood sympathies and affinity for the late Ottoman Empire has fed tensions between the leaders of the Sunni Muslim world.

“Arab leaders would see this as threatening, even if it’s just rhetoric because ultimately such rhetoric not only appeals to Erdogan’s support base at home, but it also appeals to the Arab street and sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Erdemir said. “Even though nothing concrete is expected to come out of Erdogan’s calls, it still has the capacity to undermine traditional Arab leaders.”

Jordan’s King Abdullah II has “custodianship” of the holy sites in Jerusalem, a status he has determined to maintain in the face of speculation that other Arab powers might try to muscle him out. “I will never change my position toward Jerusalem in my life,” he said in November. “All my people are with me.”
Erdogan and Bahceli, his coalition ally, accused the United States of emboldening Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “The indifference of leaders in the Muslim world strengthens Israel’s hand,” Bahceli said.

I'll assume all of this is just Erdogan posturing for domestic politics benefit but Turkey has been a bit of a wild card the last few years and looking at the resource exploration they're doing around Cyprus I wouldn't put it past them to form an 'alliance' of sorts with Hamas or the PLA.

[Furunculus]

Surprised the Oz submarine shenanigans hasn't made it to the backroom yet:

Australia cut's bait, Shorfin Barracuda boned, UK happy as a clam, yanks Cock a snook, and china Done up like a kipper!

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/...lia-submarines

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...ty-2021-09-16/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...f-eu-impotence

https://www-politico-eu.cdn.ampproje...rine-deal/amp/

[rory_20_uk]

Given how much business Australia does with China I was rather surprised they've chosen purchase this - although it does make a smidge more sense than diesel subs. Anything that annoys the French in general and Macron in particular is something to smile at.

And on what apparently might be a related event, China has asked to join the Pacific trade pact which again was quite surprising since I imagine the entry requirement is a level of transparency that they don't usually do.

Given the UK has also asked to join the group, the UK could end up with a trade agreement with China. Given that both the UK and China would have to be unanimously voted in this is something of a stretch.

[Suraknar]

While I do not want to derail the current military & warfare turn of this discussion, I am replying here based on the Original Thread.

I think overall, Humanity seems to have learned nothing from its past and the lessons of History. Greed and Lust for Power still reign supreme in the motivations of so called Leaders of Nations & the World along with their associates whom they cater to and often are the ones pulling the strings and lobbying policy at the expense of the people and the planet.

Especially those that sit on the Geopolitical Table playing its Game, move after move.

And on top of it the entire world has managed to ignore the issues of the environment and climate and has continued its business as usual day by day further destruction of the earth upon which the geopolitics happen.

Some speak of the Thucydides Trap, and how rivalry between a declining power and a rising power has led to terrible wars in the past starting with Sparta in Decline falling for the trapping and waging war on rising Athens of ancient Greece.

Today it is the declining USA and the rising China which constitute the powers with the potential to fall in that trap. Will they fall for it and wage war on each other? It remains to be seen and we can only hope that this rivalry ends peacefully as it has happened in some few occasions where the rivals did not fall for the trap.

Yet, again, no matter one's optimism and wishful thinking, in the end the facts are what counts. So in a more factual thinking mode, I am afraid that it may not end well for humanity the way things are going now and if there is no change. If there is no space for pause and if no one gives in and compromises a bit for their own good first and the good for all as a side effect.

Russia's War on Ukraine is a testament to this. Russia has been provoked by broken promises (NATO) and failed accords (MINSK, MINSK2) by its rivals and a foreign policy by the world which mishandled a Civil War waging in Ukraine for 8 years.

Where was the UN and its peace keeping forces? Where were the Blue Helms. There should have been immediate Diplomatic Effort along WITH Russia to mitigate the conflict in Ukraine and ensure peace instead of 14,000 casualties during 8 years. With peace and proper oversight then the right to self determination for the Russophone Ukrainians of the East could have been respected and handled properly even advance to Referendums of the population while the whole world was looking. Of course Ukraine and the people of teh west will have to make a concession and let some territory go allong their brethren of the east wishing to be independent.

Is that too much of a price to pay for Democracy, Sovereignty and Self-Determination in today's world order?

We all are called upon to defend Ukraine's rights of Self-Determination yet itself Ukraine has not led by example. Instead shady dealing and dirty policy of opportunism happened not to mention some questionable movements with Nazi allures (Azov Battalions, and Training Camps etc) which triggered much concern all over too.

In addition, Trump/Biden debacle taking place on Ukrainian affairs, and Ukraine being categorized as the most Corrupt Country in Europe. I think Ukraine is not innocent completely and did mishandle this situation with the civil war and bombings of schools in the east etc (Ref: Human Rights Watch). nevertheless it did not deserve War upon it. The world should have handled this differently.

On the other hand, Russia made a huge mistake as well, a folly really, that I condemn equally, to fall for it and decide to pull the trigger instead. Cause death and suffering and destruction for so many innocent people while using the above as justifications for it. And because the saddest part of these Wars is that the innocent. once more are the collateral to the machinations of the players of the Geopolitical game.

I knew that Russia was a bit backwards in many ways, I estimated some 40-50 years backwardness in terms of Socio-Economical progress compared to the west and many Asian countries. Yet was making progress nevertheless. Historically if you think about it, the Russian people never really lived under a Democracy, direct, participatory or representative. It was from the authority of kings to Tsars to Soviet Regime...so to a point there is the understanding that there were still some milestones to its roadmap.

But to see it respond with same Tsarist concerns and motivations of some 200 years ago was somehow surprising to say the least.

Factually thinking about all this one can but wonder if the provocation was planned or if it resulted from reckless mishandling of issues by the recent leaders of involved nations.

As surprising as Russia's response was it is equally surprising to think that foreign policy makers acted in such incompetent and near sighted ways for these issues.

Which cause me to evaluate another view, the one of a planned policy for years, to provoke again and again ever for tightly having foreseen and calculated the other side's reaction.

Which then begs the question of why, and also, how does the US. NATO and EU benefit from the current Polarization in the world. Why do we want this polarization and how do we benefit from China (and others) being put in a position where they have to refuse to condemn Russia's actions?

Is this an attempt to put everyone in the same basket and say "hey look, Russia is the big bad wolf and anyone else's that supports it" so that China becomes a target too in the eyes of the world?

What is the goal here? Is this an indication of the US & Co failing for Thucydides Trap leading us towards an eventual armed conflict where the whole world is mainly split in between the two and will end in Armageddon?

Or a new Economical reality? Do we realize that Russia, China India, South Africa and Brazil alone constitute half of the word's population? What is the goal here to split the global economy in two separate financial, banking and trading systems?

Can all this end well? I really do wonder... and look foreword to hear from any interested patron here own thoughts on all this. (unless these aspects were already discussed in the thread then kindly point me to those posts).

I really think that we need to put a collective and to Geopolitics period lest we risk to lose our Human Civilization. I really think that we have to shift our minds and put people value above some arbitrary border delimitation on a map and above the value of the land these people live upon.

We need to put lives above materialism, we need to end Greed and Lust for Power and start thinking before whom we vote in to power seriously and for what Agenda. We may even need to change our Democracies to be more participatory structure and decision making, the technology is there to do so, lets use it, for the benefit of the many and stop being used by it for the profit and benefit of the few. And for an earth whose inhabitants live in peace and prosperity equally with one another and in all our diversity as one Humanity.

[rory_20_uk]

There's a lot to unpack here.

NATO never made any promise to Russia. President Bush might have said something but it isn't up to the USA. It is not up to other countries to make Russia feel good about itself. When the USSR it had to give up its occupation by force of many countries - and far from feeling any guilt for 50 years of oppression Russia thinks it is owed something??!?

Why isn't the UN involved... The same reason the UN doesn't get involved in any conflict that one of the Security Council doesn't want them to - and with China, Russia, UK, USA and France that rules out most of the world.

I am unclear how exactly Europe has provoked Russia - unless we pretend that Russia somehow owns Eastern Europe. Europe has been investing in Russia, buying a lot of (and IMO far too much) of its energy from Russia, receiving investments from Russia, all whilst leaving Europe's Eastern flank practically unarmed. In the meantime, Russia undertook several assassinations in Europe where the response was pretty limited.

Ending a post that we should in essence just ignore reality would have been better to start the post so I could have not bothered reading it.