US Troops To Russia's Border - To Fight 'Russian Aggression'

[Origanalist]

US military will send 4500 troops to Europe

US military will send 4500 troops to Europe : THE US military will send an armoured brigade combat team to Eastern Europe next February as part of the ongoing effort to rotate troops in and out of the region to reassure allies worried about threats from an increasingly aggressive Russia, officials say.

Two US CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters prepare to leave a base in Manila. Picture: AFP PHOTO / TED ALJIBE
THE US military will send an armoured brigade combat team to Eastern Europe next February as part of the ongoing effort to rotate troops in and out of the region to reassure allies worried about threats from an increasingly aggressive Russia, officials say.

The US army will announce Wednesday it will send a full set of equipment with the brigade to Europe. Earlier plans had called for the Pentagon to rotate troops into Europe, where they would have used a set of training equipment pre-positioned there.
The new proposal would remove the pre-positioned equipment, send it to be refurbished, and allow the US forces to bring more robust, modern equipment in with them when they deploy. There are about 4500 soldiers in an armoured brigade, along with dozens of heavy vehicles, tanks and other equipment.

The news comes as leaders arrive in Washington for the fourth global Nuclear Security Summit chaired by President Barack Obama. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said it would be a critical chance for leaders to forge nuclear co-operation and discuss ways of preventing terrorists gaining access to nuclear material or sabotaging nuclear facilities.

The announcement is aimed at easing worries in Europe, where allies had heard rumblings about the pre-positioned equipment being removed and feared the US was scaling back support.

Officials also said the Army would send additional communications equipment to Europe so that headquarters units could have the radios, computers and other equipment needed to work with the brigades.

The officials were not authorised to discuss the announcement publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity.

The changes underscore promises made by defence leaders to protect Europe and send a message to Moscow that any aggression against allies would be unacceptable. And they provide more details to budget proposals rolled out earlier this year that quadrupled military aid to Europe and called for a more constant rotational presence.

Over the past nine months, during trips to Eastern Europe and in NATO meetings, Defence Secretary Ash Carter has pledged additional military support for the region.

Last June, while visiting Estonia, Carter announced the US would spread about 250 tanks, armoured vehicles and other military equipment across six former Soviet bloc nations to help reassure NATO allies facing threats from Russia and terrorist groups.
Each set of equipment would be enough to outfit a military unit, and would go on at least a temporary basis to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania.

The equipment could also be moved around the region for training and military exercises, and would include Bradley fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzer artillery guns.

In February, the Pentagon announced it would seek $A4.42 billion in the 2017 budget to increase troop rotations and military exercises in Europe.
The plan essentially calls for the constant presence of a third brigade in Europe. Two are already permanently stationed in Europe — a Stryker brigade and an airborne brigade. And now a brigade will rotate in and out, likely every nine months or so, on a continual basis.

The 2016 budget included about A$1.01 billion for the so-called European reassurance initiative, which covered the costs of sending hundreds of US troops in and out of Europe for short deployments, military exercises and other training missions.

Carter’s proposal to quadruple that amount would allow the US to send more troops to Europe for short-term deployments and also provide additional equipment and improve facilities so that more forces could be accommodated.

continued..http://canmua.net/washington/us-mili...pe-600088.html

[AZJoe]

[Zippyjuan]

US military will send 4500 troops to Europe

There are about 4500 soldiers in an armoured brigade, along with dozens of heavy vehicles, tanks and other equipment.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/30/...uth-china-sea/

The Pentagon currently has about 65,000 troops assigned to the U.S. European Command, down from about 200,000 during the height of the Cold war in the 1980s

http://www.cfr.org/russian-federatio...ilitary/p33758

Think Russia is worried about 4,500 troops with "dozens" of vehicles which will be rotated in and out?

[Chomp]

Paranoid whackos. Our days Russia indeed doesn't need this EU. Today's Russia is the land of the free who hates wars. The US is going to fall as Rome and the USSR.

[Origanalist]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/30/...uth-china-sea/




http://www.cfr.org/russian-federatio...ilitary/p33758

Think Russia is worried about 4,500 troops with "dozens" of vehicles which will be rotated in and out?

I swear zippy, if we bombed Moscow you would say there's nothing to worry about.

[Zippyjuan]

4500 troops is a very, very, very long ways from bombing Moscow.

[Origanalist]

4500 troops is a very, very, very long ways from bombing Moscow.

You sure it's not a very, very, very, very long way from bombing Moscow?

[Zippyjuan]

Against 700,000? Strategically, it is nothing- completely insignificant. It is meant to be a symbol of support though.

THE US military will send an armoured brigade combat team to Eastern Europe next February as part of the ongoing effort to rotate troops in and out of the region to reassure allies worried about threats from an increasingly aggressive Russia, officials say.

The announcement is aimed at easing worries in Europe, where allies had heard rumblings about the pre-positioned equipment being removed and feared the US was scaling back support.

Just to get troop levels in Europe back to cold war levels we would need to send 30 times that amount (no- I am not advocating we do that either).

This is just a token move.

[Origanalist]

Against 700,000? Strategically, it is nothing- completely insignificant. It is meant to be a symbol of support though.

Just to get troop levels in Europe back to cold war levels we would need to send 30 times that amount (no- I am not advocating we do that either).

If you and others that have no problem with it want to pay for it, I'm ok with that.

[enhanced_deficit]

Don't get it. Instead of putting our own troops in harm's way, why can't US just arm/fund Islamic Jihadeens to fight Russian infidels as we did back in 70-80s at Russsian-Afghan border?

Even if Osama is daed, aren't there other Jihadeen leaders US can arm against Russian commies for someting like "Operation freedom here and there" etc?

Mark Kirk of Illinois, Marco Rubio of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and John McCain of Arizona, in Libya.

[TheCount]

Today's Russia is the land of the free who hates wars.

Explain Ukraine then.

[CPUd]

Why they poke the bear?

[RJB]

It looks like they were on their way to a foam party.

Mark Kirk of Illinois, Marco Rubio of Florida, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and John McCain of Arizona, in Libya.

[TER]

Explain Ukraine then.

Oh, you mean that time when the democratically elected leader of Ukraine was overthrown with the help of CIA operatives?

[Danke]

Oh, you mean that time when the democratically elected leader of Ukraine was overthrown with the help of CIA operatives?

Was Israel against that?

[TheCount]

Oh, you mean that time when the democratically elected leader of Ukraine was overthrown with the help of CIA operatives?

No, I mean that time when Russia deployed troops into another country and then pretended it didn't.

Wait, I should narrow that down a bit because it's happened more than once. I mean the time they did it this decade.

[TER]

No, I mean that time when Russia deployed troops into another country and then pretended it didn't.

Wait, I should narrow that down a bit because it's happened more than once. I mean the time they did it this decade.

Lol! Narrow it down the amount of times our nation has done that, and get back to me!

[AZJoe]

Explain Ukraine then.

UKRAINE EXPLAINED

Here is your explanation:

I understand TheCount’s confusion. The American populace has been programmed by the media. In the US, the MSM has become nothing more than a spokesperson for the Department of State propaganda. Western media spin is so blatantly unbalanced, biased and even falsified it has reached the point of absurdity.

On the Ukraine issue for example. The best analysis is to look at it objectively, and that means beginning with the underlying source, fundamental causes, and events.

First there would never have been a civil war faction and there would have been no shooting down of the MH17 if the US government had not funded a coup overthrowing the Ukraine government in the first place. US assistant secretary of State Victoria Nuland admitted the US poured $5 billion into setting up this regime change. (The US with an $18 trillion official debt by magical government accounting and $75+ trillion actual debt by accounting methods required of you and me and everyone else, the government has no business pouring a single dime into any other nation’s politics).

If Washington does not like the consequences of its actions, it should never have fostered the overthrow of the Ukraine government to begin with. Where the blame lies is with this idiotic NeoCon foreign policy implemented by Obama, Bush, Kerry, Clinton, McCain, etc. It’s intellectually defective.

Even before Yanukovych was ousted from office, you have the taped conversation of US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria “Yats is the guy” Nuland discussing with the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. They were determining who to select to install as the leader of Ukraine. When the recording was leaked, the US media focused all the hoopla on the fact Nuland said “$#@! the E.U.” Well that reflects the juvenile mentality of the egotists running US foreign policy and the contempt they have for Europe and U.S. trading partners, but that is nothing but a distraction. The real issue was the fact the Washington was selecting the new leader of Ukraine - and doing so even before the Ukraine government was overthrown, while the elected president Yanukovych was still in office.

And who did Nuland and Pyatt pick? Why they picked Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Their joint selection in the conversation decided “Yats is the guy.” And sure enough who became prime minister after the regime change coup? – Why it was Arseniy Yatsenyuk. What great luck!

Washington has no business whatsoever selecting the leaders or any foreign nation. It must respect the sovereignty of other nations. That is what American exceptionalism means – respecting the sovereignty of other nations. Sure the prior Ukraine government was corrupt. So is the current government. So is any puppet the U.S. chooses. So was every prior Ukraine government since its beginning in 1991. Nevertheless it belongs to the Ukraine people, not Washington. It is their country, their process, their leaders, their government. It does not belong to the USA. It does not border the USA. It is not even in the same continent let alone the same hemisphere as the USA.

During the Maidan revolution, Victoria “Yats is the guy” Nuland was down on the street handing out pastries and goodies to the rebels. John McCain went to Ukraine and did photo ops and campaign stumps with Svoboda and Right Sector. These are openly Nazi parties with actual swastikas and heil salutes. This is what Washington supported.

And think about how embarrassing that is. Imagine if the Venezuelan ambassador joined in operation Wall Street protests and gave away goodies in support; or foreign Chinese or Russian politicians came to USA to campaign for US politicians, or a Putin ambassador came to the USA to support the tea party movement. Think about how ridiculously insulting that is. But that is what our politicians are doing. Thanks McCain.

And what was the precipitating factor to cause Washington to push the Coup through at the beginning of 2014. It was the fact Ukraine rejected the E.U. trade agreement in favor of the Russian trade agreement. When you look at the actual proposals, it was a complete no brainer. It was not even a close call. The E.U. offered $5 billion in loans, and in exchange they would have more open trade with the E.U., however in return the Ukraine’s monetary policy would be dictated by the European Central Bank. Additionally, Ukraine’s fiscal directives would be subject to requirements by the E.U. In other words they would become a puppet state under the thumb of E.U. fiscal and monetary control like Greece or Portugal. Additionally, Ukraine’s natural gas, farm and commodity resources would be open to “investment” and 50% ownership by European companies. Additionally, they were forbidden from entering separate trade agreements with Russia or China.

That does not sound like a deal, that sounds like an ass raping by the E.U. They were right to reject it even if Russia had not even offered any alternative. But let’s look at what Russia offered. Russia offered $15 billion in low interest loans. That’s three times the available loans. Plus, those loans came with no mandates over Ukraine monetary or fiscal decisions. That’s not to say there is no influence. Of course there is influence between a large creditor and a debtor nation, especially when it is Ukraine’s largest trading partner and has an extensive joint cultural history going back thousands of years. But influence is separate from mandates placing them under the control of a foreign entity. Ukraine keeps its sovereignty. In addition, the Russian trade agreement gave Ukraine completely open trade access for all goods and services with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Russia is solidly Ukraine’s largest trading partner. In addition, Ukraine would also receive subsidized prices to Russian natural gas at nearly half the price on the world market. Lastly the Russian agreement had no provision preventing Ukraine from entering any free trade agreements with any other nations.

All in all, the decision was not even a close choice by any margin. It was a no brainer. And sure enough the democratically elected government of Ukraine chose the Russian deal and rejected the E.U. deal. And rationally they should have rejected the E.U. deal even if there was no Russian proposal on the table at all. Nevertheless the U.S. could not fathom that a foreign sovereign government would not do as it says. The U.S. neocon foreign policy is all about force – bribe them or regime change or bomb them. Don’t do as we say and it’s time for “regime change.”

And who was the coalition Washington put together with its NGOs like the NED for this Maidan revolution? (By the way NGO or Non-governmental organization is a misnomer because they are funded by the government) Why it was a coalition of a couple fascist parties with a couple openly NAZI parties – Svoboda and Right Sector. This is utter madness.

And aside from the fact it is a sovereign nation in which the US should not be meddling in its internal affairs and politics at all, the US has absolutely no significant interest in Ukraine at all. Ukraine borders Russia, not USA. In fact it’s not even in the same continent as the USA. It’s not even in the same hemisphere.

By contrast it does border Russia. Russia is its largest trading partner. It has a long cultural history with Russia going back millennia, before USA even existed or even before Columbus ever set sail. In fact Ukraine is the birthplace of Russia. Kiev was the original capital of Rus. It wasn’t until Kiev got sacked by the Mongols that the capital was transferred to Muscovy.

Imagine if Russia poured $5 billion into overthrowing the government of Canada or Mexico on USA’’s border. And they used a coalition of Nazi parties to do so. Then they tried to install their own puppet government. Do you think the US might not sit idly by and let it happen? Of course not.

Now imagine it is not only Canada or Mexico, but imagine a country with close cultural history such as England actually bordered the USA, and Russia fostered a coup in England and overthrew their government and installed their puppets. Would you expect USA to sit by and do nothing?

By contrast, Russia has shown extreme restraint compared to what the US would have done. The US would already have invaded.

And the western spin on everything is ridiculous. The US Department of State is now the US Department of State Propaganda. It runs circles around anything the old Soviet Union could ever have imagined with Pravda, and US media are not journalists, but act like spokespersons for Obama’s Department of State Propaganda. One has to turn to alternative or foreign media to find any sense of balance to accurately investigate issues these days.

MH17

Look at the handling of the plane crash. When they thought MH17 could be exploited, the media was quick to immediately impute blame to Russia. It must have been the “rebels” and Russia is behind it. Don’t wait for any investigation. It was exploited 24/7. They fail to mention that Kiev air traffic control directed the plane off route and directly over the war zone. Why? They fail to mention that Kiev air traffic control directed it to fly under 33,000 feet. Why? They failed to mention that Kiev sent two fighter jets on an intercept course with the civilian plane and flew directly under it. Why? They fail to mention that Kiev to this day refuses to release its air traffic control recordings and records. Why? They fail to mention that the US refuses to this day to release its detailed satellite imagery over the location from before during and immediately after the incident. Why? They fail to mention that the US and Europe refused to allow Malaysia to participate in the investigation of its own aircraft. Why? The fail to mention that Russia was excluded from participating in the “official” investigation. Why?

John McCain said there will be hell to pay if the “rebels” were responsible. By doing so he verifies he is purely using the incident for political exploitation. There is no hell to pay if the Kiev regime is behind it or anyone else? Would the media response be just as outraged if Ukraine shot down a Russian civilian aircraft? Oh, they did. In 2001 Ukraine accidentally shot down a Russian civilian aircraft killing all passengers and crew. Was the US outraged? Was McCain out demanding hell to pay? Was it all over the US media 24//7? Of course not. Its fake sympathy. They only are concerned with what they can exploit. Or how about when the US shot down a civilian aircraft Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 people on board. Where was the media frenzy? That incident was far more atrocious. The US shot down the plane, but the plane was not even in the US, or US airspace or anywhere near the US. Rather it was on the other side of the planet near Iran and shot down near Dubai. It’s all simply for how can the State Department exploit the incident.

CRIMEA

Take the whole Crimea issue for instance. Crimea was never previously part of Ukraine. Crimea was “gifted” to Ukraine by Kruschev in 1954 when they were both in the Soviet Union. At that time it was a purely symbolic but meaningless in practice, nothing more than a gesture as they were both part of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Ukraine came out of it larger than it went in. At least on boundaries it now had Crimea as well as Russian province in the east made up of Russian people speaking Russian. The Russian naval base in Crimea has been there for decades. It was there before the Maidan rebels and after. They did not “invade” Crimea any more than the US just invaded Cuba because there is a US naval base there. Crimea was wholly independent politically with their own parliament and their own laws, and own leaders, attached to Ukraine merely by political boundary. Its people are overwhelmingly Russian. When the Maidan revolution overthrew the government of Ukraine, the elected government ceased to exist. None of the regions were obligated to subjugate themselves to the revolutionaries. The government was overthrown. Ukraine did not exist. Crimea voted by referendum overwhelmingly to part with the rebels in Kiev. That is their right. The US should not be involved. US tried to spin that this was an election under duress. It’s BS. OSCE observed the election as well as media from all over the world. The people there are ecstatic to be parted from the Keiv regime. The people of Crimea are not out in the streets protesting the election. They aren’t demanding return to the Kiev junta. No, they are happy to be away from the Maidan rebels and Svoboda and Right Sector.

Likewise the people of Donetsk, Kharkov, Lugansk, all also have the same right to self-determination. The destruction of the elected government of Ukraine by the Maidan rebels, gives them the right to part ways. The government of Ukraine they once belonged to, exists no more. They have the right to self-determination and neither the US, nor Russia, nor EU, nor any nation should interfere with their right to self-determination. Just as the US parted ways from England, they have even greater justification to part from the Kiev Maidan rebel regime.

The only reason the incompetent Kiev regime refuses any diplomatic solution with the eastern provinces (independence, political independence, self-governing like Crimea had, etc) is because they perceive they are backed militarily, politically, fiscally by the giant – US government. If the US stopped interfering like a bull in a China shop, not only would none of these events ever transpired, but the Kiev Regime would already have been forced to sit down and establish a workable solution with the citizens in the East.

The US government has no consistent policy. They support independence movements if the political agenda can exploit it and oppose it if doing so fuels the US political elite’s agenda. The Washington supported independence of Kosovo. Where two weeks before changing policy the US listed the KLA Kosovo Liberation Army as the number one terrorist organization. Then simply took them off the list and supported their independence. Why? Simply because they wanted to poke a finger in the eye of Russia when they thought it was weak. Serbia was politically loyal to Russia. And the result? The US created the first and only openly Muslim based political government in the heart of Europe.

NATO EXPANSION

Right now and the past two decades Russia has been defending Russian sovereignty.
Look at the recent history. In 1991 when the Soviet Union was ending, Bush Sr. agreed with Gobachev that if he allowed the Warsaw pact as well as the Russian Republics to separate peacefully, NATO promised it would not expand into any of the newly released/formed nations. Gorbachev did so, as we saw.

However, only 8 years later just as Russia was beginning recovery from collapse, and developing markets and a great opportunity to open up markets and trade and commerce, instead Clinton reneged on the agreement and in 1999 expanded NATO into Czech, Poland and Hungary. Then he immediately moved missiles into these nations. Russia protested. The US claimed it was putting these missiles there not as a threat to Russia but as a defense against Iran. The US explanation was so ridiculous it does not even pass the straight face test. Iran had no and still has no ICBMS. They have no missiles even capable of reaching Europe. Iran could reach Russia. Russia offered as a compromise and way US could keep its word, that instead missiles go into Azerbaijan and Armenia, -which actually do border Iran. The US refused, completely exposing the US farcity of its explanation.

Then in 2004 the US further expanded NATO right up against Russia’s border – expanding it into Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. How would the US feel, if Russia expanded a military partnership into Mexico and Canada and then moved missiles into positions along US borders?

GEORGIA

After the US fostered the Rose Revolution in Georgia, bringing Saakashvili to the presidency it further tried to bring Georgia into NATO in 2004 – another nation right up against Russia’s border. Germany saw Georgia as a trip wire, and politically unstable and protested. It vetoed Georgia’s entry by using a NATO requirement that before any member can join it cannot have any border disputes. Georgia had signed ceasefire treaties with South Ossetia and Abkhazia signed in 1992 that allowed them autonomous self-rule, but did not recognize them as independent nations. Because of this, Germany was able to veto expansion of NATO into Georgia.

The WAshington sponsored Rose Revolution brought Saakasahvilli to power, and his prime directive was NATO membership for Georgia. The ceasefire treaty agreements between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia stated that any disputes would be arbitrated by Russia and designated Russia as a peacekeeper of the agreement. Neither Georgia nor Ossetia were independent nations prior to the Soviet Union as they both became part of Russia in 1801. Georgia could have simply recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence at that point. They were independent functioning states and for all practical purposes they were sovereign entities. Those territories speak Russian, not Georgian. But Saakashvili did not. Instead, from 2004 to 2008, Georgia became a lead recipient of US foreign aid under multiple US programs (Georgia Train and Equip Program, Sustainability and Stability Operations Program, etc.) that were used to build up Georgian military – mostly US weaponry but also some Israeli made weapons. In addition, US provided direct training and advising of Georgian military tactics and operations.

In 2008, during the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics on 8/8/8 Georgia invaded Ossetia. The timing was explicitly planned for media purposes. With all the world’s eyes directed upon the 8/8/8 opening ceremony, the world would not be focused on Georgia’s invasion but the by the time it took the limelight the world would be focused on Russia’s response – required by the ceasefire treaty. Per the 1992 agreement, Russia had peacekeeping forces on the border between South Ossetia and Georgia. Georgia invaded with over 10,000 troops and blew passed the Russian peacekeepers and attacked the civilian center of Tsinkvali. They killed hundreds of civilians including Russian citizens in Ossetia. If Georgia had any dispute they were obligated under their agreement to submit it to Russia for arbitration. However that would not yield the result of conquering Ossetia to remove any territorial dispute so they could enter NATO. Russia responded quickly. They obliterated the Georgian troops despite US training and US equipment, and despite having US military advisers directly in Georgia at the actual time of the Georgian invasion. Russian forces pushed the Georgian military all the way back to their capital Tbilisi. They could easily have taken the capital, taken the entire country, but they stopped. They increased the peacekeeping forces in Ossetia and Abkhazia. They left Georgia. They showed extreme restraint under the circumstances. Ask yourself how the US would have responded if say Guatemala had executed hundreds of American citizens in violation of a treaty with their neighbor. You can bet the response would be overwhelming. The US would still be occupying the nation and have military bases built – we see it in Iraq and Afghanistan. By contrast the Russian response was extremely restrained compared to anything the US would have done.

WASHINGTON's MADNESS

When you look at Washington's actions rather than words, you see Washington is systemically implementing a program of militarily surrounding Russia. Why? They are doing it in Russia’s front yard, on its borders. Why? They are currently pushing an isolationist policy against Russia with sanctions. This is a concerted effort. Why? What is the objective? How would the US respond if China and Russia decided to systematically bring US neighbors into military agreements with Russia and China and begin putting bases and missiles in throughout the America’s and then claim it is to protect against say Venezuela. How do you think the US would respond? Russia’s responses have not only been completely logical and predictable, they have been remarkably restrained in comparison to what the US would be doing.

Washington is also systemically trying to surround China militarily as well with its “pivot to Asia” - Philippines, Pakistan, Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Cocos Island, Malaysia, etc. China and Russia are currently the only two nations that can resist a US invasion militarily. Why? These are two nuclear armed nations. They are also two extremely powerful nations economically, and their trade, manufacturing, markets, economies are growing, while the US is shrinking. The US should instead be expanding its trade and commerce into these nations. It should be shoring up its economy by removing trade barriers, cutting taxes, reducing government, reducing regulatory impedance, shoring up the strength of the dollar by ending deficits, preferably eliminating the income tax altogether. But instead it wants command and control over the US economy and therefore contributes to its decline. Instead of reaching for solutions, it seeks to dominate through military means – eliminate perceived competition rather than embrace economic opportunities.

When you stop and look at all the events in total, there appears what seems to be a tactical strategy. They are surrounding these nations with missiles and anti-missile technology. Objectively, it looks like a systematic operation to prepare for implementing a first strike and resisting a retaliation. From an objective analysis it appears these nutballs think they can win a nuclear war and are preparing to implement one. Let’s hope and pray this is not what it seems to suggest.

[RonPaulMall]

Against 700,000? Strategically, it is nothing- completely insignificant. It is meant to be a symbol of support though.
.

Europe being overwhelmed by millions of invaders from the South, so US sends troops to the East to protect against Soviet threat that extinguished over twenty years ago. Great symbolism there.

[TheCount]

Lol! Narrow it down the amount of times our nation has done that, and get back to me!

And if someone said that the US is the land of the free that hates wars, I would call bull$#@! on them too.

This isn't a 'who is better' competition.

[TER]

And if someone said that the US is the land of the free that hates wars, I would call bull$#@! on them too.

This isn't a 'who is better' competition.

With regards to which nation has shown greater restraint and has also sacrificed more to protect the Christians from the genocides happening in the Middle East, you are right there is no competition. One nation has been instrumental in aiding the genocide, while the other one is Russia.

[TheCount]

With regards to which nation has shown greater restraint and has also sacrificed more to protect the Christians from the genocides happening in the Middle East, you are right there is no competition. One nation has been instrumental in aiding the genocide, while the other one is Russia.

Is either Russia or the US a peaceful country that hates wars?

[TER]

Is either Russia or the US a peaceful country that hates wars?

If the past 2 decades have demonstrated anything, it would be that the US is by far the greater threat to world peace.

[TheCount]

If the past 2 decades have demonstrated anything, it would be that the US is by far the greater threat to world peace.

Have you considered a career in politics? Your ability to ignore the point being made in a post and continue on track with your original message is astounding.

I agree with you that the US is the greater threat to world peace, but I think that the cause of that is due to greater power and ability to impose its will on the world as a whole. Russia is generally limited to invading its neighbors. Neither country is peaceful culturally.