The troops in Poland and Germany were requested by Poland and Germany in order to defend themselves against Russia- they don't have fond memlories of Russian domination, mind you.
Russia hasn't threatened Germany or Poland. Regardless of whether the Americans were asked (though I've seen little evidence of this) or not, a massive build up of forces from an international aggressor is still aggression. In fact, the only open threat from Russia was in response to the increase in US activity in the region.
The no-fly zones Clinton suggested were in Syria, to stop the Syrian Government from murdering their own citizens. Why is that a provocation againt Russia?
It was to effect Russian aircraft too. It's also rich coming from America considering how many non combatants they've killed with air strikes in the past 5 years. Neither Russia or America should be there, but it is not for America to tell Russia who can and cannot fly in another country's air space where the Russians were invited (since you see this as justification in Europe) and the Americans were not.
The troops in Lithuania were requested by Lithuania, who is terrified of getting invaded again by Russia the way it was in the 1940s, either openly or through the back door, like when Russian troops invaded Ukraine.
The same Lithuania that was occupied by the Polish? The same Lithuania that was invaded by Germany in the same decade? The same Lithuania that Russia has not officially threatened? This is just beating around the bush trying to avoid addressing the threat Russia feels from the Americans. Again, Assad invited Russia into Syria, does that make the presence of Russian forces there ok? Does it justify Russian hardware being set up to 'defend' the government there? If we're going by your logic on this then I'm kind of curious as to where your double standards inevitably begin.
Again, they don't have fond memories of Russian domination- and they have seen many of their neighbours getting invaded by Russia in the past years (Georgia, Ukraine).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions#2000.E2.80.93present
If by "many" you mean the only two you listed, then sure.
Only Ukraine wasn't a typical invasion, it was the securing of Russian Strategic interests during a civil war. It's really no different to the Libyan civil war where the British SAS were sent in to British oil fields to secure the assets there and evacuate workers where applicable.
So really you have Georgia, which Russia did invade. Nearly a decade ago. It's fairly clear you're deliberately removing context of complicated international situations that took years to come to a head to paint the 'many' (read - two) actions Russia has taken over the past 25 years (Since the fall of the USSR) as nothing more than imperial expansionism. Whilst defending countries that have been actively involved in actual imperial expansionism in the middle east pretty much consistently for the past 15 years. It's disingenuous.
In fact, fear of being invaded by Russia is precisely why Sweden has just reinstated the mandatory draft for teenagers and why Montenegro is applying to join NATO. It's pretty funny that apparently the US is "threatening" Russia and yet it's all the countries near Russia who are asking the US for help.
Russia hasn't threatened either Montenegro or Sweden. You'll notice this is a recurring theme here. In that Russia hasn't actively threatened any of these countries you paint as incapable babies who need the US to protect them from this phantom of the Soviet Union. I could say I feel threatened by you and ask another member to come onto my profile and defend me by antagonizing you on every post. That doesn't mean you actually did threaten me or justify my actions. Although a similar scenario is your entire point.
The neo-nazi line is a popular argument of Russian propaganda
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26468720
I didn't realise the British Broadcasting Corporation were Russian Propagandists.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/13/ukraine-far-right-fascism-mps
Or the Guardian
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/how-fascist-is-svoboda/#
Or the Spectator
I mean I could go on but there's only so many news outlets in the West that are notable enough to link and I think you get the point that, once again, you're being disingenuous.
but the Maidan revolution was about stopping the then president from ditcing a trade agreement with the EU in order to sign another with Russia. Most of the country had really bad memories of Russian domination, etc, and didn't want to depend on them anymore, they'd ratehr be close to the EU.
That must justify Fascism, ultra nationalism, antisemitism, racism and all manner of other far right nasties that the Ukrainians find themselves muddled up in.
I don't know, maybe you should stop getting your news from Kremlin-sponsored media like RT, Sputnik or Breitbart.
Wow. This is genuinely one of the worst and most lazy statements I've ever replied to here.
I have never read Sputnik (I had to google them before typing this) and I have rarely read RT (though they're really no worse than CNN, FOX or Sky when it comes to vested interests). I've only browsed Brietbart in preparation whilst debating against the alt-right. Regardless of any of this and how outright wrong your statement was, you had zero evidence to make it. It's just a lazy dig. Either reply to my comments within reality or don't reply to me at all.
Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship that censors media, manipulates elections, murders dissenters, uses the Government to enrich Putin and his henchmen, threatens their neighbours and sometimes outright attacks them, openly flouting international law. All of that painting itself as a victim. Russia is nothing short of WWI Germany or other militaristic dictatorships.
That really isn't far off from America either. Not that it matters if one is a nastier place than the other. We're talking about international aggression, and only one side has deployed masses of troops to the borders of the other.
