This is why I thought the Bush admin policy of "pre-emption" was so wrong. Now we have Russian military saying the same thing. How many other nuclear countries will be adding "pre-emption" to their military strategy next? Such madness.

The problem is one of staging and build up. We don't want to be sitting waiting for the western criminal attack like Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan.... was. We don't want to be threatened by the building of an invasion force in Europe or elswhere. We will not wait another Barbarossa. We will act decisively to remove the threatening points of action. Indeed the mere threat of us to act, will hopefully act as a deterent in itself. Our posture is one of defense, if you leave us alone then you will have no issues, we don't look to expand, we have enough real estate. But if you engage on an agressive path, which stages military hardware in such proximity and numbers, that the threat level crosses the line, then we need to act, and that action should be efficient, decisive, and sufficient to remove the threat to our security. That action will be pre-emptive, it is as simple as that. You can play games, trying to ratchet things up, you can try to encircle more and more, but know this , you choose the point you go too far, you choose the point at which you will get a reaction, not us! We will merely give the reaction as detailed in transparent documents shortly to be before you. Therefore you know the rules of the game you play with us, so understand them well, and let your actions be guided wisely, for ours are guided by rules and logic, so are totally predictable.