It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Russian diplomat: Moscow may strike back at the West by changing its stance on Iran.

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This is getting serious now.




MOSCOW - A senior Russian diplomat says Moscow may change its stance in the Iranian nuclear talks amid tensions with the West. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted Wednesday as saying by the Interfax news agency that Russia didn't want to use the Iranian nuclear talks to "raise stakes," but may have to do so in response to the actions by the United States and the European Union.


Well, you got to give them credit for their guts. They see weakness.




The statement is the most serious threat of retaliation by Moscow after the U.S. and the EU announced sanctions against Russia over the Ukrainian crisis.


I was hoping they would leave Nukes out of this.

Game Changer or just more Russian threats?

This is kind of scary.

LeaderPost.com




posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Considering that Ukraine just played the nuclear card Russia may wish to balance it out.

KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. USAToday

While no one wants a new arms race it looks like the players aren't stepping back from it either. No good can come of this that I can see.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Damn I sure am glad I live in Canada, although I live just a few kms away from the border, Im going to take Iron Maiden's advice and run for the hills! haha



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

whyamIhere
This is getting serious now.




MOSCOW - A senior Russian diplomat says Moscow may change its stance in the Iranian nuclear talks amid tensions with the West. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted Wednesday as saying by the Interfax news agency that Russia didn't want to use the Iranian nuclear talks to "raise stakes," but may have to do so in response to the actions by the United States and the European Union.


Well, you got to give them credit for their guts. They see weakness.




The statement is the most serious threat of retaliation by Moscow after the U.S. and the EU announced sanctions against Russia over the Ukrainian crisis.


I was hoping they would leave Nukes out of this.

Game Changer or just more Russian threats?

This is kind of scary.

LeaderPost.com





The article doesn't say anything about Iran getting nukes. It's talks about Iran's nuclear program which they are allowed to have under the NPT.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


C'mon Buster...

That's an implied threat.

Not just to us but also Israel.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Putin has his eyes on the ball. Economic sanctions will not distract Russia from reabsorbing Crimea and possibly Eastern Ukraine. Obama is not opposing Putin on an ethical basis, rather legal technicalities after the fact, to appear as a condemnation. Crimea was brokered by the Obama Administration in early 2012, prior to Obama's re-election and the easement of Iranian sanctions.

The question yet to be asked and/or answered is, what did or will Obama get in return?

Obama and Putin have a working relationship, do not be fooled by Obama's clicking of his pen, Biden's Eastern Front Tour in Poland, or Putin's antagonist tone and advancement into Pro-Russian regions. Ukraine is not EU or NATO, therefore it is free game.

The worst move on the board would be for Putin to snatch up Estonia, but maybe that is being negotiated or already has been as well.

Obama prefers two in the bush over one in the hand, and his foreign policy reflects that. Everything will pay off later, yada yada yada. We shall see.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Bassago
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Considering that Ukraine just played the nuclear card Russia may wish to balance it out.

KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine may have to arm itself with nuclear weapons if the United States and other world powers refuse to enforce a security pact that obligates them to reverse the Moscow-backed takeover of Crimea, a member of the Ukraine parliament told USA TODAY. USAToday

While no one wants a new arms race it looks like the players aren't stepping back from it either. No good can come of this that I can see.


I feel safer with Iran having nukes (I mean after all NKorea has them and they have not attacked us yet), than Svoboda nutcases having them (even after they thretened to use them too), AND backed by a country that HAS used them TWICE (America).



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


All jokes aside, I do not blame Ukraine for saying that. They need protection and If their allies want to turn their backs to them then they have every right in the world to have nuclear bombs.
If they do build them and use them then all the blame for that goes on the shoulders of the countries that signed that treaty to protect Ukraine.

For they were the ones who broke the treaty first by not helping right off the bat.

I have heard alot of people talk about how treaties dont mean anything, that they are just paper. But the Constitution of which contains your rights is just a paper as well.

How can we change the world if people all have that mentality?

There is no point in having governments if the papers they sign mean nothing.

What ever happened to being honest?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by snypwsd
 


I hoped we could have this fight without threatening Nukes.

I guess that was too much to wish for.

As for treaty's...I wish they were respected. It just seems they are not.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
You could see this one coming from a mile away. It's not like those in the US, and NATO, didn't realize this would be the first temper tantrum thrown about in our face.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   

whyamIhere

I hoped we could have this fight without threatening Nukes.



Thats the issue, you should not want any kind of fight.
Also, a threat? To israel?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Let's look at this with open eyes... and more importantly.. FACTS..

Which country on Earth HAS used nukes in anger... America
Which country on Earth HAS used nukes more than once in anger... America

How many nukes has Russia, Iran or North Korea used in anger? ... None.

Which country has nukes but claims to not have them and threatens global armageddon via a Samson option... Israel



edit on 19-3-2014 by bubab because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The human race should not have the right to own nuclear weapons as they are like little children playing with chemicals in the kitchen. Sooner or later there comes a OOPS.


If they do try to fire a nuclear weapon i sure as hell hope some alien race steps in to spank the ones responsible!



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Yusomad

whyamIhere

I hoped we could have this fight without threatening Nukes.



Thats the issue, you should not want any kind of fight.
Also, a threat? To israel?


I don't want a fight.

The threat to Israel is if the Russians change their stance on Iranian Nukes.

It could allow Iran to provoke Israel.

I am not taking sides....precisely because it's not America's fight.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Annunak1
The human race should not have the right to own nuclear weapons as they are like little children playing with chemicals in the kitchen. Sooner or later there comes a OOPS.


If they do try to fire a nuclear weapon i sure as hell hope some alien race steps in to spank the ones responsible!


That's the most accurate and intelligent thing I have heard since this mess started.

Nukes have no place in a peaceful world.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

whyamIhere

Yusomad

whyamIhere

I hoped we could have this fight without threatening Nukes.



Thats the issue, you should not want any kind of fight.
Also, a threat? To israel?


I don't want a fight.

The threat to Israel is if the Russians change their stance on Iranian Nukes.

It could allow Iran to provoke Israel.

I am not taking sides....precisely because it's not America's fight.




How many countries has Iran attacked?

How many countries has Israel attacked?

Fill me in with facts please.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

whyamIhere
reply to post by buster2010
 


C'mon Buster...

That's an implied threat.

Not just to us but also Israel.


Israel has nothing to do with this and what threat? Iran is no threat to America if they had a nuke how would they get it here throw it? Also what happens between Iran and Israel is none of Americas business. No where in the article does it say anything about them getting nukes. If anything they are implying that they will drop out of the negotiations with Iran.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Way ta go Barry, poke the BEAR, really smart!



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bubab
 


Nobody hands are clean.

Go somewhere else to America bash....



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Buster...

Unlike us, Israel is not going to stand by and let Iran get Nukes.

You know that. So that is why I think this could be dangerous.

Nobody thinks Iran is going to attack the US...At least not conventionally.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join