I personally wouldn't care if Russia created bases around the world, just as I don't care that the US does.
And just because you have a lot of bases doesn't automatically mean you are a threat, it depends on how you make use of them. All these countries have nuclear weapons which is more than enough of a threat to the rest of the world, so why does it matter how many bases they have?
It seems that if one is claiming that one is a larger threat to world peace than the other, the size, scope, and disposition of their military forces should be good evidence to show that, one way or the other.
I would also add that the locations and regions they're involved with might also play a part. If the US or Russia were dealing with an issue on their borders or in their own "backyard," so to speak, that should be viewed far differently than military incursions far, far away from their home territory.
For example, if Canada's government decided to change up and wanted to form an alliance with China and Russia, the US might very well view Canada as a grave threat to US national security. I can't imagine very many Americans thinking otherwise. When viewed that way, it should be easy to see why Russia would be worried about Ukraine forming an alliance with the West.
What does it matter what Russia think about FORMER Russian countries, they are not part of Russia anymore!!! Are these countries supposed to be "slaves" of Russia forever or what?
These are countries which still border Russia, so whatever a bordering country does is a legitimate national security concern. Just as the U.S. border with Mexico was a significant issue in this past election (and many elections before that).
The U.S. has an interest in keeping an eye on Mexico and our border with that country, just as the Russians have a similar interest regarding countries which border them.
It doesn't mean that they're slaves of anyone, but if they make choices which might be construed as threatening, then it could lead to trouble.
Sweden and Norway and a lot of England were part of Denmark in the past, so should we be allowed to decide what they should or shouldn't do forever?
No, the U.S. will decide for all of you.
It is kind of fascinating when one considers how often the lands of this world have changed hands (and names, too). I recall speaking with a Native American activist who not only believed that all of the Americas should be reclaimed by the Native tribes, but that the Native Americans should also get large chunks of Europe as "punitive damages" for what Europeans did to the Native Americans. So, the land you're on right now may someday be under Apache control.
There is no survival scenario here, Russia wasn't threatened even remotely. Why do you think the US has been criticizing EU countries for lack of paying to NATO? Because most of the EU hasn't cared to spend a whole lot on the military and if you don't do that, then clearly you have no intention of going to war.
I don't know which country you are from, but EU countries are not warmongering countries, if you have lived in any of them you would know that.
The EU countries who are also members of NATO have participated in various military actions along with the U.S. They're part of the U.S.-led coalition and ostensibly leave the responsibilities of warmongering to the US leadership. That's why the U.S. President is often called the "leader of the free world." Before the creation of NATO, the nations of Europe were very much warmongering countries. The World Wars devastated that continent, and it was all of their own making.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Russia wasn't threatened even remotely." I don't think anyone can say that with any certainty. From my own experience, I have observed that what the U.S. or other Western nations perceive as "threatening" may not necessarily be viewed that way by other parts of the world - and vice versa.
Also, I would note that it may not really be about threats as much as it's about provocation. Even though a threat and a provocation are different things, they can often evoke the same kind of (hostile) response.
Why do people think they have to bow and be on the knees for a maniac like Putin I just don't get it, he is a warmongering murderer and psychopath who doesn't care about anyone other than himself.
Really, isn't that kind of a melodramatic way of putting it? "Bow and be on the knees"? I hear this a lot. "Appeasement" gets mentioned a lot, as well as the notion that "giving in" to Putin will be seen as a sign of weakness on our part and will only encourage him to invade even more countries.
At least for the countries of the NATO alliance, they are in the stronger position, so bargaining from strength can hardly be seen as "bowing" or being on its knees. On the other hand, we're in kind of a standoff and the greater danger is in the potential for escalation. So, if nothing else, I think Western governments should approach this thing in a level-headed, rational, and practical way. Putin might very well be a maniac, but that doesn't mean that we have to become maniacs ourselves.
