Deez, I think you are saying that NATO is merely a paper tiger with no teeth behind it; that Russia should not view NATO encroachment as any kind of threat, therefore Russia should acquiesce to regime changes that take place in countries surrounding it since their is no chance of NATO invading Russia. If that's part of your argument, I think you've missed my point concerning what the threat to Russia is. The battle is really between the United States and Russia, and its currently being played out both financially and politically with the regions bordering Russia as a major fault line. I'll get back to this again further down, but back to the military aspect. The ABM missiles are a provocation and the US has developed a first strike nuclear strategy - crazy as that sounds - as one of the scenarios for defeating Russia and/or China. Imagine if you will, a country like Iran developing nuclear weapons and then aligning with Mexico and deploying missiles outside of San Diego and El Paso. Would the US shrug that off because the Mexican army poses no military threat in terms of invading the United States? I rather doubt it.
First of all, the countries in question tend to be composed of diverse populations, some of which very much fear Russia and have bad memories dating back to Stalin or earlier. Other people in these same countries are pro-Russian, many having migrated there when the country was integrated under the USSR umbrella. In such cases elections might well determine which way the country goes in terms of policy. And that's where whomever has the greatest political influence, Russia or the US, can swing the elections. Propaganda, bribes and threats play into this, both pre and post election. The US has never been above bribing regimes, offering deals, or making financial threats in order to get what they want. Certainly Russia has similar capabilities, but the US has the world reserve currency, has leverage with the World Bank and IMF, and can project force around the globe. There are other ways to conquer a nation or to control its policies other than bombing them to smithereens. In the case of Ukraine, both Russia and the US have vied for quite a few years to influence and literally pick the regime in charge. Which oligarch will be in power? Ours or theirs? As it turned out, US controlled propaganda (US sponsored NGOs and media owned by Ukraine Oligarchs), natural schisms between East and West, and a corrupt administration fueled the flames for a rebellion. Hatred spilled over after the coup and the Southeastern part of the population wanted no part of it. As this was the area that both Russia and the US were most interested in, the US and the new government refused to allow those people self-determination. Russia naturally refused to have that denied.
I think the hope, from the US perspective, is that the "skirmishes" would follow the template in the Ukraine. That is, the Russians would not directly be involved, therefore NATO would not have to commit forces. Instead, you have a proxy war where the Albanian factions (or whatever country is involved) provides the cannon fodder.
I tried to address this in my reply to the second quotation. Elections and political decisions don't have to made at literal gunpoint when bribes and threats are more effective. Although, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, you could argue the road to NATO was accomplished at gunpoint.
As far as Russia's stance on gays, I have no problem with it. They treat them much better than Saudi Arabia does. Russia has a long history of accomplishments in the arts, ballet, etc. Male Russian figure skaters have won medals, and I seriously doubt they are all straight. Russia doesn't have gay pride celebrations as far as I'm aware of and that doesn't bother me in the least. I don't know that Putin cares what the American left thinks.
Last edited: Mar 31, 2015