[CapricornNoble]

> In the US, they want to fuel instability and separatism through ethnic, social and racial conflicts to keep Americans busy with holding their country together while Russia rules the world.

If they want it they can have it. Not that Russia makes enough babies to have the manpower necessary to achieve their megalomaniac dreams. Most Americans are quite isolationist; I rate Woodrow Wilson as the worst US President ever because he violated the Monroe Doctrine and dragged us into Europe's problems...which still costs us blood and treasure a century later. We have the advantage of geography: two gigantic oceans protect us East/West, a frozen forest wasteland to the North, and a stretch of desert to the South. Our homeland is unassailable by conventional means (especially if we keep our Navy well-funded) and we can also sit behind our nuclear arsenal.

>Asia would be divided with China, with countries like the Philippines and Australia left for China to invade and take over

This is a good indication someone isn't a serious thinker and is likely stuck in a WW2-ish mental framework when populations were much smaller and it was easier to "paint the map". Nobody in their right mind would genuinely attempt to invade the Philippines in the 21st century, with its population over 100 million and a history of violent insurgencies. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I'm familiar with the basics of Dugin's ideology but I haven't read his work yet. As I understand it, all the English translations are unofficial but I suppose they are better than waiting for a formal one.

>Arguments like this clearly show that you have been consuming Russian propaganda without pulling out a globe and a ruler to check whether there is any actual credibility to the prepackaged narratives.

I would challenge you to do the same. Not once in this discussion have you made any critical analysis of the US's actions, statements, or motivations. NOT. ONCE.

>The Romanian ABM sites lies on the direct flight path between Iran and large US military bases in Germany and makes perfect sence that the US would want to have ABM site there. The missiles at the Romanian site are unable to reach Russian missile launching sites, nor are they on their flight path.

So ABMs in Romania make perfect sense to you based on a forecast future threat of Iranian nukes (which they don't have) on Iranian missiles with ranges of 3,000km+ (which they didn't have at the time). This was a proactive, preventative measure for the US.

ABM sites in Romania could also, forecasting into the future, be home to hypersonic missiles which could engage Russian launch sites with little or no warning and completely destabilize their MAD capability. Very similar to when we stuck missiles on their doorstep in Turkey in the 1960s....ya know, that stupidly provocative decision that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis? That is a far bigger security concern for Russia than the destruction of bases in Germany is for the US. So applying your logic for justifying the US action, why shouldn't the Russians ALSO take proactive, preventative measures against that?

Here's a simple sanity check:

Does the US have legitimate national security concerns? Does Germany have legitimate national security concerns? Does Romania have legitimate national security concerns? Does Russia have legitimate national security concerns?

If your answer to the first three is "Yes" and your answer to the fourth is "No", you probably think everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian propagandist.

[mopsi]

  > Our homeland is unassailable by conventional means (especially if we keep our Navy well-funded) and we can also sit behind our nuclear arsenal.

Unless you intend to nuke the White House, the nuclear arsenal remains entirely useless against the political subversion that Russia has very successfully used to destabilize and isolate the US. The official US envoy was recently caught advising Russians on how to manipulate the US president. Who needs tanks and missiles when you have reach like this? Without a single bullet being fired at the US, the sitting president is rolling out red carpets for Putin and praising him as genius while verbally attacking the Canadian prime minister and openly undermining Canada's sovereignty.

  > I would challenge you to do the same. Not once in this discussion have you made any critical analysis of the US's actions, statements, or motivations. NOT. ONCE.

My entire initial reply was a criticism of the US and EU naivety in thinking that buttering the KGB-military circles could lead to long-term positive outcomes, an idea you seemed to share. Overall, when it comes to Russia's relations with its European neighbors, the US is simply not an important factor. It is a question of sovereignty, enlightenment and other European values versus Russian imperialism, which is focused on finding ways to suppress them both at home and abroad. The people of Europe want to mind their own business, but Russia will not leave them alone. For 80 years, the US was a partner in this. Nowadays not so much, but the long-standing confrontation continues nevertheless.

  > ABM sites in Romania could also, forecasting into the future, be home to hypersonic missiles which could engage Russian launch sites with little or no warning and completely destabilize their MAD capability.

Russian ICBMs are primarily in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, many thousands of kilometers from Romania. Not even hypersonic missiles would pose a threat. The danger from such sites is political in nature: closer US-Romanian defense cooperation directly threatens Russian ambitions in Romania, because the US would then be more likely to assist Romania if it comes under Russian political, economic or military attack.

  > Does the US have legitimate national security concerns? Does Germany have legitimate national security concerns? Does Romania have legitimate national security concerns? Does Russia have legitimate national security concerns?

Yes, yes, yes, yes. But focusing on Russia's overplayed "security concerns," when Russia has been the main aggressor in the region for centuries, is out of balance and unjustified. It is like writing about fire safety by centering the narrative on the inconvenience suffered by the arsonist.