The Russian objectives are expressed in Russia's actions, and as I said these actions are on open display. Words by politicians and their ways to hide the nasty things and consequences of their intentions do not interest me, I judge it by what I see being achieved in deeds and consequences. Maybe you do not like Russia being called out for what it does - and by what it does, it is effective, but not overly humane or pleasant...!?


As far as the West'S relation to Russia is meant, I prefer to have a Russia that is stable, due to it having nukes, and being predictable in what it wants. Like Israel preferred to stay with Assad before the war changed everything. Syria and the situation inside its border were known and calculatable variables 7 years ago - good enough for Israel.



And what exactly do you refer to when mentioning my "suggested cause of action" and how it relates to security?

I know what the Russian interests are because I talk to those who formulate them, rather than viewing the events externally through the lense of confirmation bias.



The term if "security dilema", essentially by trying to improve your security you generate threat and through reaction decrease your security. This is why the build up in Baltics was slowed down by both sides, as to avoid this happening quickly.

Against such iron and naive determination to trust politicians and leaders, all argument is helpless, and all reason must fail, always.


Russia has - slowed down...? :) More like they have completed their set buildup targets. ;) The West still lags behind in that region, very seriously. Also, it has run out of money a bit. The number of Armata tnaks to be pruced thus has been recued. Good will had nothing to do with it. They could not all be afforded, simple as that.

But since you talk to those who formulate Ruissia'S interests and naively trust in the truth of what they tell you, again I am in a hopeless situation here. Believe in what you want - I still form my views by what I see happening in real life - and that is in full collision with your description of it. Reality beats theory. Every time. And claiming right the opposite of what one is doing, has been integral part of Russian policy again since the Krimean operation at the latest.


I start wondering whether you intentionally try to take me as a fool... That I am more neutral and by attempt more objective on Russia than many others here in this forum does not mean that I am stupid and believe just any propagandy, ikalugin. Don't try me. If you would understand my thinking on Russia coimpletgely, you maybe would be surprised how determined I am indeed regarding it. I just see the weakness of Europe and its indifference with as great objectivity and neutrality. That is why I see options against Russia the way I do. Sympathy has nothing to do with. Nothing. - On the political level, all this. Nothing personal - not against you, nor against the Russians as private people.

Politicians are people. If you know them in private and share alcohol with them you grow to trust them.


Russian build up in the Baltics has been very limited so far, when compared to elsewhere (ie south-western direction), if you want I can quantify both. Quality wise, for example Baltics were the last to receive Iskander-M as replacement to the ageing Tochka-U system. Previous deployments were from outside of the region and thus temporary.

Don't.