Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (942902)	7/4/2016 10:57:50 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574830

Yes pretty small. 40,000 military personell aren't much of a threat to invade Russia. And the initial deployments (before Russia took an even more threatening posture) where far smaller then that. Its probably not even enough to defend the countries that the forces were deployed to, much less to be a serious threat to Russia. Its the "largest deployment in to Eastern Europe since WWII" since for most of that time there was zero deployment in Eastern Europe, and only very recently there had been tiny deployments (rather then merely small deployments like the one the article discusses). Its noticeably smaller then many other previous deployments in NATO countries. As for being a "one sided thing", Of course Russia would respond in its own sovereign territory to a buildup on its border. It was more a response to Russia then the other way around. Crimes has been 90% Russian for 70 plus years. That is both false and largely irrelevant. Its false since Crimea was less then 60% Russian, not 90%. Its largely irrelevant since it doesn't justify conquering the area any more then the concentration of Germans in the Sudetenland justified Hitler's annexation of the area.