Nato's Eastern Europe build-up plans alarm Russia

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The process of voting sure that's grand. But when you have a bunch of troops with guns nudging you where to sign your vote. It kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? You want a clear vote how bout you clear out your invading force and let the people decide.

MrStyx
reply to post by demus

 

No they shouldn't. Half those neighbors are broke with no armies to speak of. Russia has BRIC with a superior economy. Show the rest of the map with China's, India's, and Brazils influence. Latin America, and Africa they look much different as well. BRIC has the next powerhouse economy and the people power to match. So whats Russia scared of?

you made good point, Russia is not afraid of real fight through economy, other countries you mentioned as well.

so do you think there may be some other reason?

maybe the "one and only superpower, invincible USA" still having most powerful military deployed around the world, surrounding Russia and China from every corner except the North Pole (I wouldn't be surprised if they make base there as well...:saint

reply to post by Xcathdra


All I can say is 'thank god for Putin'. Without him and his timely intervention there would have been civil war in the Ukraine. Fomented, aided and abetted of course by the USA and its allies. We have watched the propaganda machine in action over the past few weeks and the hypocrisy is there for all to see. The real danger to peace in the world is the USA and its lapdogs, like the UK. These idiots swan around the globe as if somehow they are the keepers of the worlds morality and defenders of democracy. The reality is the exact opposite. We know what drives these psycho's.

MrStyx
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

The process of voting sure that's grand. But when you have a bunch of troops with guns nudging you where to sign your vote. It kinda defeats the purpose doesn't it? You want a clear vote how bout you clear out your invading force and let the people decide.

SHOW ME one single video of people with guns intimidating voters in Crimea. That's BS, and you know it. They were there to insure the voting was not disrupted in any way by your fricken Nazi thugs. Pff... The NERVE of some people.

reply to post by demus


Yes i did and you provided me the famous you tube videos for your source of information, because everyone knows when you need to put an exclamation point on your research you can choose a you tube video posted by and made by anyone. That's the key. They could title that anything.

My position is as it always has been. I know my country is an S.O.B. But i know yours is too. Nobody's hands are clean. Europeans have the highest body count out there by far. From the crusades, to the annihilation of native populaces, slavery, to the which hunts, to the various revolutions and World Wars. Its a dirty, bloody, muddied history. The game rarely changes. The powerful make the rules, the rest are destined to follow.

Russia lied period. They invaded an autonomous region of Ukraine under the guise of protecting Russian citizenry. You need only look at their stances on Lybia and Syria, then apply them to their own moves in Crimea. Its a total contradiction. There are actual civil wars going on in those countries. Russia said stay out let them work it out. But not when it concerns their interests. Doesn't matter Crimea was Russian 50 60 years ago. Something belonged to someone else all over the world. The days of "discovery" and "claiming" are long gone. Society should have evolved beyond that and we had. We have gone from land grabbing to puppet governments. Russia took a step back when their own puppet government failed. You don't get to take steps back like that. Nobody wants to see that type of activity

Believe me I get it. The US has been real shady over the years. Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, etc. Everyone likes a counter balance and I do too. Just don't lie about it don't paint it so you can swallow it. Russia is corrupt, China is corrupt, the USA is corrupt. At least we had the "guise" of freedom. I say had because soon the internet will be similar to China's. Our government is going the way of Russia, where money talks. In Russia and China the oppression of the individual is much more firm. Ask yourselves would you want a government like Russia's or a government like China's? Or a government like the U.S. I'll tell you now if you like ATS Russia and China are the last places on that list. Doesn't mean the US is a moral haven or infallible it just means its better at the moment.

reply to post by IamTheManWithThePlan


I totally agree with you.
ATS has been taken over by Them!
you may as well sell tyres now.

reply to post by MrStyx


I am also quite surprised that Russia would have different position on Libya for example and Ukraine which is their neighboring country, was hosting their military bases and Black Sea Fleet and also is home to millions of Russians.

Really, it surprise me a lot.

reply to post by MrSpad


I would give you 100 stars if I could, as a resident from a Baltics nation, you seem to be one of the few posters who understands the situation.


To be honest, so far I have been extremely disappointed in ATS generally, when it comes to the Ukrainan crisis. There is so much hate towards US that the real "bad guys" get away, simply because US is somehow involved in the situation. US might be corrupt, but that does not mean Russia is not. And to be honest, Russia is far more corrupt.

Generally Post-Soviet nations have wanted to join NATO themselves, it is not the opposite. There was too much history with Russia, too much negative history - centuries of oppression, the invasions. There was no need for US to even be involved in the Soviet Union collapse, nations themselves wanted out. In Baltics - the Baltic Chain, in Estonia the Singing Revolution, these were organised by people, who wanted freedom from the Soviet. Of course, these are things Russian history books do not even mention.

Same goes for media. When it comes to whether to trust Western or Russian media, considering personal experience, I would never have trust for Russian media... In 2007, when there was the Bronze Night riots in Tallinn, Estonia, I was living next-door to the whole situation. Western media was reporting what actually happened, Russian media was simply lying about the situation to make the Russian protesters angrier, to fury the crowds up... Since then, I do not believe a word Russian media reports.

There was a genocide of 7.5 million Ukrainians in the 1930s, do you seriously believe Ukrainians want to stay very close to Russia? Also it has to be considered, that the life-standards in Europe are significantly higher than in any post-Soviet nation or Russia, it depends on nation, but generally they are quite poor nations and I can see the reasons why people would prefer EU any time to Russia. The main reason of the high Russian population there lies only in them being shipped in during the russianisation process. Many of them so far do not speak the local language and rely on Russian media alone. Imagine a situation, where suddenly millions of russians started going to Alaska, would you say as soon as there are more Russians than Americans, they should make a vote and go under Russian rule? Although, I am 99% sure that the voting was not rigged...

Currently Eastern-European nations are requesting NATO themselves to bring more of the troops there. Anybody from nations under previous Soviet Union knows that the occupation of Crimea was not the right thing and considering the remarks made about gaining "historical" areas back, there is a threat. Better be safe than sorry.

MrStyx
reply to post by demus

 

The US has been real shady over the years. Iraq, Afghanistan, South America, etc.

Russia is corrupt, China is corrupt, the USA is corrupt.

In Russia and China the oppression of the individual is much more firm. Ask yourselves would you want a government like Russia's or a government like China's? Or a government like the U.S.
Doesn't mean the US is a moral haven or infallible it just means its better at the moment.

I agree with this, and I think most of the posters on ATS would agree.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


No I don't know it, and neither do you. Your saying Russia didn't invade? The same Russia that said that it wasn't their troops their in the first place. The same troops it then later said it was performing drills with, yet isn't massing on the border.

I call the vote BS, you say the opposite. Use your wits do I need to have a gun directly at your head while you vote to intimidate you? Try using diplomacy first. They came in guns first. They could have offered that referendum up without bringing in the Calvary. Their were no cries from Crimea only Russia. They saw an advantage and took it. Those Nazi thugs weren't doing squat to ethnic Russians. Not to the extent of a Lybia or a Syria. You know the same ones Russians said let them decide internally.

You have the nerve here calling yourself a true American, yet fail to see the same hypocrisy America itself participates in. Like Russia doesn't have a propaganda machine. Like they didn't see an opportunity for a land grab.

reply to post by demus


So were all those troops and helicopters just there on holiday then? Because as far as i'm lead to believe there certainly not there by unanimous invitation.

Oh thats right 97% of the Ukraine backed Russia in the Crimea vote if you believe the propaganda. Which nobody with half a mind is inclined to do so but apparently thats the democratic process in action.

MrStyx
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

No I don't know it, and neither do you. Your saying Russia didn't invade? The same Russia that said that it wasn't their troops their in the first place. The same troops it then later said it was performing drills with, yet isn't massing on the border.

I call the vote BS, you say the opposite. Use your wits do I need to have a gun directly at your head while you vote to intimidate you? Try using diplomacy first. They came in guns first. They could have offered that referendum up without bringing in the Calvary. Their were no cries from Crimea only Russia. They saw an advantage and took it. Those Nazi thugs weren't doing squat to ethnic Russians. Not to the extent of a Lybia or a Syria. You know the same ones Russians said let them decide internally.

You have the nerve here calling yourself a true American, yet fail to see the same hypocrisy America itself participates in. Like Russia doesn't have a propaganda machine. Like they didn't see an opportunity for a land grab.

edit on 3-4-2014 by MrStyx because: (no reason given)

if Russia didn't did what they did; they would have lose their bases in Crimea, sooner or later and you know that.

the real question to ask is who started "revolution in Ukraine"?

did they tried to push Russia into the corner and got pushed back while getting check mate from the master Putin?

for USA/West this battle is lost; it was lost from the moment Putin decided to show some balls; to be honest I'm not sure he had any other choice.

andy06shake
reply to post by demus

 

So were all those troops and helicopters just there on holiday then? Because as far as i'm lead to believe there certainly not there by unanimous invitation.

Oh thats right 97% of the Ukraine backed Russia in the Crimea vote if you believe the propaganda. Which nobody with half a mind is inclined to do so but apparently thats the democratic process in action.

edit on 3-4-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

demus

if Russia didn't did what they did; they would have lose their bases in Crimea, sooner or later and you know that.

the real question to ask is who started "revolution in Ukraine"?

did they tried to push Russia into the corner and got pushed back while getting check mate from the master Putin?

for USA/West this battle is lost; it was lost from the moment Putin decided to show some balls; to be honest I'm not sure he had any other choice.

I agree, that would most likely have been the case, this is the new style of War. Don't use troops, move the populace against its own government. Which only goes to show one of two things people really are sheep in the fact they can be herded in any one direction. Or NATO was a better deal for Ukraine and its people.

You cant just start unrest. Its has to be there already. If it were so easy why is America still the way it is. Why hasn't Russia or China stirred its own revolts inside the American people. We are more armed as citizens than other countries. Maybe we just haven't reached that level of desperation. Maybe, although its bad, its a little better than we think. The trend is going downward, however, and we will have some cold hard days ahead. No one will have sympathy, nor will the U.S. deserve it. All empires fall in due time

I don't trust it will last for long

reply to post by MrStyx


I agree, wherever USA/CIA supported/started unrest they did it on some foundations.

basically, people are calm and content as long as they have their basic needs.

if the economical situation is deteriorating tensions start to build up: religion, ethnicity, race, social class...

still, it is evil thing to do, not to say other countries wouldn't/aren't doing the same.

midicon
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

All I can say is 'thank god for Putin'. Without him and his timely intervention there would have been civil war in the Ukraine. Fomented, aided and abetted of course by the USA and its allies. We have watched the propaganda machine in action over the past few weeks and the hypocrisy is there for all to see. The real danger to peace in the world is the USA and its lapdogs, like the UK. These idiots swan around the globe as if somehow they are the keepers of the worlds morality and defenders of democracy. The reality is the exact opposite. We know what drives these psycho's.

This is that typical shill comment I was talking about. He stopped a civil war. Where and when? Because Russia said so. Libya has one of those. Syria does too. Russia had a different stance on those. Ukraine did not and was not heading for one. You speak of hypocrisy on one side and ignore another, based on who is committing the crime. That seems like the very definition of a hypocrite.

On another note why are you relieved, by all means how do you feel about Syria and Lybia. Would you really care if there was a civil war there. If so, do you care about the other civil wars? Or is this just a stick it to the west moment. Which is fine we deserve it but don't justify it. Its just as wrong as the West's methods. I do however applaud Russia on the minimal loss of life during the invasion. That was extremely well played.

TrueAmerican

MrSpad
Only at ATS would that be considered a good solid vote with nothing fishy at all lol.

A good solid vote is one that uses PAPER ballots and glass ballot boxes that all can see through. Like the way it was done in Crimea. Not electronic voting machines that can be hacked, like it is done here.

But of course only at ATS would we realize that. Which is why I don't understand wtf YOU are doing here. Oh yeah, well maybe I do.

So just to be clear if you say, lived in Texas and one day Mexican trroops showed up in the streets to protect the ethnic mexicans from whitey. They then say we are going to have a vote you can vote to be a part of Mexico or you can vote to be a semi automous Texas sort of but we are still not leaving. You can not vote to stay in the USA that is not an option. You can not campaign against the join Mexico option. You do not have time to debate or disuss your options. Just to make you feel safe while you vote we have Mexican troops at the polling stations. And you may get smacked around if you say anything negative about this vote. And we are going make sure everybody can see how you voted as you put you ballet in the box. Now that is your idea of fair vote? I do not buy you think that for one second.

reply to post by Britguy

They pulled the same stunt in the build up to the Iraq war, claiming Iraq was massing troops and tanks on the Saudi border, and used it as an excuse to attack. To this day not a single satellite image, which is what they based their info on, has surfaced proving the story, but a reporter at the time who bought images from a commercial satellite operator clearly showed that it was BS and there were no troops and tanks massing along the border.

I can't help but note we recall that war very differently. I recall seeing the overheads shown to the public across CNN as it was happening. There was also the Battle of Khafji, which definitely were real Iraqis across into a Saudi Arabian border town.

Personally, I believe Saddam turned to Saudi with an initial feeling of "Hmmm.. I wonder...Could I really get away with it??", which quickly turned to an "ooops!! I've been set up hard this time!". The offensive and mobile lines of the Iraq military, on the Saudi border, very quickly shifted to defensive trenching, anti-tank lines and mine fields to keep what they had and not be stomped back out of Kuwait....which of course, is what eventually happened.

The presence of the Iraqi military on the Saudi border was real enough tho. To look at it another way, Saddam would have been a tactical buffoon NOT to reinforce that side of his new front in Kuwait. It was logical, if nothing else.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Britguy

 

They pulled the same stunt in the build up to the Iraq war, claiming Iraq was massing troops and tanks on the Saudi border, and used it as an excuse to attack. To this day not a single satellite image, which is what they based their info on, has surfaced proving the story, but a reporter at the time who bought images from a commercial satellite operator clearly showed that it was BS and there were no troops and tanks massing along the border.

I can't help but note we recall that war very differently. I recall seeing the overheads shown to the public across CNN as it was happening. There was also the Battle of Khafji, which definitely were real Iraqis across into a Saudi Arabian border town.

CNN?
well, now we're talking.
if it was CNN that did the report I'm sure nobody could claim contrary.
case closed.

MrStyx
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

This is that typical shill comment I was talking about. He stopped a civil war. Where and when? Because Russia said so. Libya has one of those. Syria does too. Russia had a different stance on those. Ukraine did not and was not heading for one. You speak of hypocrisy on one side and ignore another, based on who is committing the crime. That seems like the very definition of a hypocrite.

On another note why are you relieved, by all means how do you feel about Syria and Lybia. Would you really care if there was a civil war there. If so, do you care about the other civil wars? Or is this just a stick it to the west moment. Which is fine we deserve it but don't justify it. Its just as wrong as the West's methods. I do however applaud Russia on the minimal loss of life during the invasion. That was extremely well played.

Who are you calling a shill?

I don't know if Russia claimed to have averted a civil war. My comment was based on my own opinion. It seems as though that's where it was heading if the unrest in Kiev reached Crimea. And if you had half a brain you would see why Russia stepped in when it did. Russia didn't create this situation but showed itself to be far more astute when push came to shove. Now of course they are being demonised by those slippery EU and US politicians who had a major role in creating the unrest in the first place.

Perhaps I do want to stick it to the west, we deserve it. In truth how I would love it if somehow someone could sanction the USA.

And do I care about Lybia or Syria? Far more than any of those politicians...or even more perhaps than you. I care about ordinary people like myself...I don't care much for countries.