It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Backstory to the Russia-Ukraine Confrontation: The U.S. and NATO Encirclement of Russia

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+18 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:05 PM
This whole Ukraine story is very serious. NATO has been surrounding Putin and Russia with by getting past Russian allies and possessions joining NATO so Putin finally has drawn a red line of his own and taken a stance to stop this assault on his countries national interest and security.

Ever since even Bill Clinton, who started the NATO march to surround Russia with NATO coming into the small countries at Russia’s border, has the Western NATO powers basically abused the end of the cold war with such provocative steps towards Russia.


The Big Picture: The U.S. and NATO Have Been Trying to Encircle Russia Militarily Since 1991

The American press portrays Putin as being the bad guy and the aggressor in the Ukraine crisis. Putin is certainly no saint. A former KGB agent, Putin’s net worth is estimated at some $40 billion dollars … as he has squeezed money out of the Russian economy by treating the country as his own personal fiefdom. And all sides appear to have dirt on their hands in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. But we can only see the bigger picture if we take a step back and gain a little understanding of the history underlying the current tensions. Indeed, the fact that the U.S. has allegedly paid billions of dollars to anti-Russian forces in Ukraine – and even purportedly picked the Ukrainian president – has to be seen in context.

Indeed, the fact that the U.S. has allegedly paid billions of dollars to anti-Russian forces in Ukraine – and even purportedly picked the Ukrainian president – has to be seen in context. Veteran New York Times reporter Steven Kinzer notes at the Boston Globe: From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. [Background here, here and here.] It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies.”

Indeed, NATO, whom I call SLOW NAZIS, has done everything in its power (from Mideast adventures to riling up the caged Russian Bear with these NATO moves of aggression) to advance the possibility of A WORLD WAR III.

What we must understand is that WWI was started over the small country of Serbia, and WWII was started over the small country of Poland, these smaller countries are always what eventually gets the big powers to the battlefield, as to protect their allies against an aggression of the other side, as in this case Russia attacking Crimea.

But just like in WWII, when the US put heavy sanctions on the Japanese empire and forced the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the threat to heavily sanction Russia, along with the NATO aggressive moves to have Russia’s neighbors all join NATO, could easily be the catalyst to WWIII.

And I think if that happens history will record that it was the WEST and NATO who was responsible for starting this war.

Stephen Cohen – professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University who has long focused on Russia – explained this weekend on CNN: We are witnessing as we talk the making possibly of the worst history of our lifetime. We are watching the descending of a new cold war divide between west and east, only this time, it is not in far away Berlin, it’s right on Russia’s borders through the historical civilization in Ukraine. It’s a crisis of historic magnitude. If you ask how we got in it, how we got into the crisis, and how therefore do we get out, it is time to stop asking why Putin – why Putin is doing this or that, but ask about the American policy, and the European Union policy that led to this moment.


I don’t know if you your listeners or views remember George Kennan. He was considered [a] great strategic thinker about Russia among American diplomats but he warned when we expanded NATO [under Bill Clinton], that this was the most fateful mistake of American foreign policy and that it would lead to a new Cold War. George lived to his hundreds, died a few years ago, but his truth goes marching on. The decision to move NATO beginning in the 90′s continuing under Bush and continuing under Obama, is right now on Russia’s borders. And if you want to know for sure, and I have spent a lot of time in Moscow, if you want to know what the Russian power elite thinks Ukraine is about, it is about bringing it into NATO. One last point, that so-called economic partnership that Yanukovych, the elected president of Ukraine did not sign, and that set off the streets – the protests in the streets in November, which led to this violence in and confrontation today, that so-called economic agreement included military clauses which said that Ukraine by signing this so called civilization agreement had to abide by NATO military policy. This is what this is about from the Russian point of view, the ongoing western march towards post Soviet Russia.

Jonathan Steele writes at the Guardian Both John Kerry’s threats to expel Russia from the G8 and the Ukrainian government’s plea for Nato aid mark a dangerous escalation of a crisis that can easily be contained if cool heads prevail. Hysteria seems to be the mood in Washington and Kiev, with the new Ukrainian prime minister claiming, “We are on the brink of disaster” as he calls up army reserves in response to Russian military movements in Crimea. Were he talking about the country’s economic plight he would have a point. Instead, along with much of the US and European media, he was over-dramatising developments in the east, where Russian speakers are understandably alarmed after the new Kiev authorities scrapped a law allowing Russian as an official language in their areas. They see it as proof that the anti-Russian ultra-nationalists from western Ukraine who were the dominant force in last month’s insurrection still control it. Eastern Ukrainians fear similar tactics of storming public buildings could be used against their elected officials. Kerry’s rush to punish Russia and Nato’s decision to respond to Kiev’s call by holding a meeting of member states’ ambassadors in Brussels today were mistakes. Ukraine is not part of the alliance, so none of the obligations of common defence come into play. Nato should refrain from interfering in Ukraine by word or deed. The fact that it insists on getting engaged reveals the elephant in the room: underlying the crisis in Crimea and Russia’s fierce resistance to potential changes is Nato’s undisguised ambition to continue two decades of expansion into what used to be called “post-Soviet space”, led by Bill Clinton and taken up by successive administrations in Washington. At the back of Pentagon minds, no doubt, is the dream that a US navy will one day replace the Russian Black Sea fleet in the Crimean ports of Sevastopol and Balaclava.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:07 PM
I think what is happening is that now, after the Arab Spring season of NATO and US destruction of Arab governments they don’t like, we are having a Russian Spring that may turn into a return to world-wide cold-war that will eventually bring a hot real WWIII.
Vladimir Putin’s troop movements in Crimea, which are supported by most Russians, are of questionable legality under the terms of the peace and friendship treaty that Russia signed with Ukraine in 1997. But their illegality is considerably less clear-cut than that of the US-led invasion of Iraq, or of Afghanistan, where the UN security council only authorised the intervention several weeks after it had happened. [Indeed, top American leaders admit that the Iraq war was for reasons different than publicly stated. And the U.S. military sticks its nose in other countries' business all over the world. And see this.] And Russia’s troop movements can be reversed if the crisis abates. That would require the restoration of the language law in eastern Ukraine and firm action to prevent armed groups of anti-Russian nationalists threatening public buildings there. Again, we don’t believe that there are angels on any side. But we do believe that everyone has to take a step back, look at the bigger picture, calm down and reach a negotiated diplomatic resolution. And see this, this, this and this (interview with a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

+10 more 
posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:12 PM
Just as the Cuban missile crisis was kicked off by the US putting Nukes in Turkey, Russia responded by putting them in Cuba.

Seems US news and propaganda likes to forget the history of Poking the bear that comes before these events.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by benrl

Indeed, now that the bear is growling back, the ignorant sheep, the American people, have only like Pavlov’s dog responded to the one-sided nonsense of warmongers like Kerry and that naïve McCain.

Now, distracted by the Malaysian fiasco, no telling what they will do while the sheep bask in a likely contrived tragedy.

Put the sheep even deeper in a trance, and steal the whole farm!

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:53 PM
Remember one very important thing. We in the USA are not exactly pleased with the government right now. A restoration of the age old "people should never fear their government, the government should fear its people" and will in fact still play out. There is MUCH needed change here in the states. But when it comes to the foreign policy, we are instigators. I think the rest of the world, all the while they sit their and look at the US as a bunch of boligerant a**holes that dont know any better, will be pretty surprised when it all comes down to the fact that we have been playing a game this entire time. Everything is business and control, and the PTB are not done with the USA yet - there's too much invested. I mentioned it in another forum, gulf of Tonkin, Lusitania, Pearl, even as mentioned above the instigations with the Cuban missle crisis - we, as in the US goverment and NOT its people, KNOW what they're doing.

Just sayin. I see a commonality with countries outside the USA that label us as sheeple, which all people are unless they are awakened to the threats looming over them, but we are in fact waking up and soon revolution will strike the USA, believe me, and i hope it happens. BUT, our goverment knows what game its playing. The US Goverment isnt nieve- they do some shady, devious, heartbreaking things in the name of a greater good, or for a higher purpose, one that we may not even see for the next two to three decades.

Trust me. i want nothing more than for all of us to get together, have a beer, and live like united PEOPLE of this beautiful world, as we should. It aint going to happen. We're still stuck in kingdom rule, that is all about control and money.

The people around the world should seek that common bond, while the governments seek to bury it.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:57 PM
the bigger an empire grows ...the moore they need
but it is never enoch

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:07 PM
It's all strategy. There is ALWAYS war going on, just covertly, between modern superpowers, including between Russia and the US. But I think that a distinction should be made against strategically establishing bases in friendly countries, bases which are aimed at limiting Russia's military options in the event of an all out war, and invading a country outright. So Putin would not be justified in invading the Ukraine, no matter what else has gone on. It is not as if the US invaded places like Ukraine to establish their military presence in the area. Plus, these types of war "games" of strategy are played by Russia as well. So both sides are the bad guys, but Putin will be the bigger bad guy if he invades the Ukraine. Oh, and remember what happened in Georgia?

We could talk about the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but even in those instances we are not dealing with expansionist policies or anything. At least the US is actually attempting to help in such instances. Putin invading the Ukraine would strictly be a matter of A.) keeping a firm grip on the Black Sea, which is of vital military importance to them, as it is their only warm-water naval base. B.) controlling the politics of Ukraine, ensuring Russia maintains some form, if not all-out control of the country, and C.) to gain control over the natural resources of the country.

In fact, if you look at where Russia has massed its forces on the Ukranian-Russian border, you will notice that they have aligned directly opposite of the gas-rich regions of the Ukraine. THAT will be one of two major areas Russia will focus on controlling at the outset of an invasion. I guess my point is that it is obvious to me that Putin would never be justified in invading the Ukraine.

His excuses are ridiculous as well. I particularly love the one about protecting the pro-Russian citizenry of certain regions. To give you an idea of how absurd that is, let me ask you this....would Mexico be justified in invading parts of California to "protect" the large Mexican population of the area? No way. And when you cut out all the BS, that is essentially the same thing that is occurring in Russia. The region of invasion into California would have once been controlled by Mexico. There is obviously a large Mexican population who views themselves as Mexicans, and who views their sovereign nation as Mexico, as evidenced by the constant view of Mexican flags.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by Willtell

Finally a balanced and realistic perspective. If N.A.T.O's intension's were above board, they would have allowed Russia to have participated as a partner, with the so called missile defence shield.But it has Always been the intended target. Up until a few months ago, the Obama administration called Russia a friend and partner ( with fingers crossed behind it's back). There is no other explanation for their exclusion. If it was intended as a buffer with the Middle East as claimed, surely Israel or somewhere else in the Middle East would have been more appropriate? Russia has been intensionally surrounded and has Always been the target.
I don't blame Putin's stance, this is not simply about the Ukraine. America has been playing under handed Proxy wars, with Russia's trade partners and assets.
Sadly I don't Believe that, this will be able to be called a Cold War for much longer. It is far from it! So to America and allies, I say this. There is a old saying, be careful what you wish for..... you just might get it! There are now Winners
Star and Flag OP and thanks for sharing a fair and realistic perspective.

edit on 15-3-2014 by 13th Zodiac because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:52 PM
NATO can not make a nation join. In fact NATO expansion was never a sure thing but, the fact that the former Warsaw Pact states lobbied so hard for it made it happen. NATOs expansion has come from nations that have all been on the recieving end of Russia occupation and domination. That those nations are rushed to meet NATOs standards so that they could joing is no suprise. That Macedonia, Montenegro, Georgia and Bosnia have all been making major push to get in is also no supprise. Thats Russia short sighted actions will lead to Ukraine, Georia and some of the others getting fast tracked in is expected. As is Sweden and possibly Finland now likely looking to join out fear of Russia. It is Russia's own actions have lead and will lead to continued NATO expansion. It is not just in Europe Russia own actions have hurt it. Once ally of the Arab League Russia support for Syria and Iran have made then enemies instead. In Central and South America is it the same because of Russian support for Cuba and Venezuala. It is Russia poor geo-politcal choices that has left it isolated. Russia was a potential member of NATO for a time but, it wanted some sort of special status in the alliance instead of equal membership which is what all members share. Icelands vote counts for just as much as the US vote in NATO. Russia did not like that idea and the idea never really moved on from their. And so Russia is where it is isolated, disliked and vulnerable. Russia made its own bed.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 04:56 PM

13th Zodiac
reply to post by Willtell

I don't blame Putin's stance, this is not simply about the Ukraine. America has been playing under handed Proxy wars, with Russia's trade partners and assets.

edit on 15-3-2014 by 13th Zodiac because: (no reason given)

Exactly as it is. USA does not play fair. In most situations they do the right thing, but to force the Russians into an ever decreasing circle is not fair.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:06 PM
As in the case of most ambitious empires the rebellion from within was not what stopped the power hungry from their quest for world domination.

They are too well guarded from within.

Rather, it was forces allied against them from without.

They are just waiting for the most current Imperialists to spread themselves thin enough.

History rhymes.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by MrSpad

Of course if we were being surrounded by countries that were making military packs with Russia we wouldn’t be worried, right?

If Russia was going around making military alliances with Panama, Canada, Mexico, and central and South America we would just say good luck and not worry about our security interest, right?
Sure we would and the moon is made of green cheese.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:09 PM
Invasion of GrenadaText

Operation Urgent Fury was a 1983 United States-led invasion of Grenada, a Caribbean island nation with a population of about 91,000 located 100 miles (160 km) north of Venezuela, that resulted in a U.S. victory within a matter of weeks. Triggered by a bloody military coup which had ousted a four-year revolutionary government, the invasion resulted in a restoration of constitutional government. Media outside the U.S. covered the invasion in a negative outlook despite the OAS request for intervention (on the request of the U.S. government), Soviet and Cuban presence on the island and the presence of American medical students at the True Blue Medical Facility.

United States invasion of Panama

Though this wasn't for east west politics

The United States Invasion of Panama, code-named Operation Just Cause, was the invasion of Panama by the United States in December 1989. It occurred during the administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and ten years after the Torrijos–Carter Treaties were ratified to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama by 1 January 2000. During the invasion, de facto Panamanian leader, general, and dictator Manuel Noriega was deposed, president-elect Guillermo Endara sworn into office, and the Panamanian Defense Force dissolved.


A year after the invasion of Iraq, it's now clear we were led into war under false pretenses. Contrary to the Bush administration's claims, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and Saddam was not involved in 9/11 or tied to al-Qaida. We have learned instead that the whole thing was a setup: The Bush administration was determined to attack Iraq from the day it took office, according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. Accomplices in this deception were Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, which produced a string of "defectors" with "inside" information on Iraqi WMD programs. The information turned out to be unreliable and even fabricated. The Saddam/al-Qaida connection, in contrast, was more a case of verbal sleight of hand. Administration officials constantly juxtaposed the words terrorism, Saddam, 9/11 and al-Qaida as if they were one and the same.

According to estimates the Iraq war has led to over i million casualties

I could go on and on and on and on about other wars of the American Empire and all the deaths of civilians and millions of casualties in all these wars but we don't have enough room.

It's not about Russia being good it's about the US being as bad as Russia in the final analyses, and if we look at who has done the most wars in the modern era and who is leading the world to destruction the US is leading the way to that goal, and will probably be the one who starts WWIII.
edit on 15-3-2014 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:28 PM
The EU and US are desperate for some ongoing crisis to take eyes off the fact our economies are teetering on insolvency. I doubt they are stupid enough to start a real war with Russia. That would leave China a free hand and the satisfaction of watching her biggest competitors drain each other's blood.

So what us really going on? A big charade of brinksmanship. Another "wardrobe malfunction" to avoid the other bad news lurking in the background. I will be truly stupefied should this come to blows and if indeed it does, wonder if there was not a prior agreement between the West and Russia to draw out China and combine our resources against them.

I think Russia views China as a far greater threat than anything the West can muster.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:38 PM
I can't help but laugh at the ignorant preponderance of some individuals. You all realize that Russia isn't some innocent victim that some of you make them out to be. Civil rights in Russia are about as bad as they can be. If you're gay, you're a second class citizen. If you're not white, you're a second class citizen. It is one of the most intolerant governed places on Earth.

Now, lets look at NATO countries...They are the most stable countries in the world with some of the best civil rights around. What is NATO? It's a defense pact between countries to aid one another in case of attack. NATO countries do NOT fight one another. The more countries in NATO, the less likelihood of an attack. However, if there are other countries whom would like to expand their sphere of influence by going the route of 19th century colonialism, they obviously will not like NATO and view it as a geopolitical enemy to its plans.

Russia is a country with 80+ provinces that are largely self governed. Many of these provinces do not take orders from Moscow. Meaning Moscow trusts that these governments will remain loyal to Moscow. the concern in Moscow is that eventually, these governments will fall out of favor with Moscow and seek independence. In actuality, there isn't much holding Russia together (the largest country by landmass in the world). In all reality, Russia is just too big to be a single country. It is likely that what happened after the collapse of the USSR will happen again in Russia going into the future. This is actually a major concern in Russia.

Russia is truly a country for the top 1%. Per capita speaking, Moscow has the most billionaires of any city in the world. These are the true rulers in Russia today. They don't give a damn about the people of Russia. They only care about being rich and powerful...and continuing to extend their reign by being even richer and more powerful. Russia is the closest thing today to a Mafiaso style ruling that there is in this world. You want to know where the real fascists are? Look toward Moscow.
edit on 15-3-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:52 PM
Intelligent people understand that perspective is everything. This forum is about “WWIII" and I hope how to prevent it. I don’t think we are dealing with what country is the best or who is the richest or what alliance is the better. The point is that the so called wonderful western NATO alliance is seemingly always the one in modern times getting the world in wars all over the globe.

And If I remember correctly it was Russia that not only was probably the reason the German empire was defeated in WWII but they had millions of casualties to their citizens not the US.

We're dealing with the fragile situation where powerful groups ganging up on one particular group can cause WWIII.

Were dealing with what President Eisenhower warned against…that is the military industrial complex that is a self perpetuating war machine that doesn’t foster peace in the world but its opposite…war.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:55 PM
Well this is kinda like when you get some siblings together, and one points his finger out at the other...not quite touching him. That one kid is gonna yell, "Mommy, he's almost touching me, make him stop." Even though the other kid was never going to do anything...

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 06:55 PM
reply to post by Willtell

I think I'm starting to lean towards Putin on this..

The Ukrainians almost have Russia surrounded...

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:06 PM
well, as long as ukraine doesn't try to invade russia in winter...
eta: zbignew bryzynski has been trying to conquer russia ever since he was carters national security advisor
its why he invented the taliban
edit on Satpm3b20143America/Chicago36 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by Willtell

I have been saying this all along. It's obvious. Might not be obvious to the average citizen in the EU or US but it's written all over the figurative wall in big bold letters for all to see. If I were Putin I would have done everything I could to prevent NATO from further encroaching upon the Russian borders. Putin has been fairly transparent about his intentions. Not entirely of course. But enough that everyone can see why he is doing what he is doing.

Let us also not forget all of the Western interference in the last Russian Elections as well. There is legitimate opposition in Russia. But they were mostly backed & funded by NGOs (Non-governmental organization). Hence one of the biggest reasons why Putin ousted and investigated all of the Western and Proxy based NGOs. NGOs are a hot bed for the CIA and other Western Intelligence activities either directly or covertly to act against foreign nations or by intelligence assets through proxy against foreign nations perceived as threats. It is standard operating procedure for the CIA and other intelligence agencies when they want to create effective regime change that serves there own government's interests.
edit on 3-15-2014 by Flint2011 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in