Russia wants answers on NATO troop movement in Eastern Europe

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


You're hilarious. I guess you missed the part of history the rest of us all witnessed where russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum. But whatever. I can see their reasons, and I can even see how they were provoked.

Unlike you, I can't see how they have the balls to be making demands of NATO after the stunt they just pulled.


Yes I did miss the part where "Russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum", unless you are referring to soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet that were already stationed there for decades




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Vovin

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


You're hilarious. I guess you missed the part of history the rest of us all witnessed where russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum. But whatever. I can see their reasons, and I can even see how they were provoked.

Unlike you, I can't see how they have the balls to be making demands of NATO after the stunt they just pulled.


Yes I did miss the part where "Russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum", unless you are referring to soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet that were already stationed there for decades


The soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet? So you think the small security forces that Russia had (Ukraine had primary base securty) is what you see in the streets of Ukraine? Are you kidding me. Are suggesting the Russian have had a secret occupation force hidden among its ships for years? The force that have occupied Ukraine are mostly special forces. Because of the nature of the occupation the Russian want their most disoplined and trusted troops on the job. Nobody, not even the Russian have claimed those troops were already there. That would just be to much of a out right lie.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

MrSpad

Vovin

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


You're hilarious. I guess you missed the part of history the rest of us all witnessed where russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum. But whatever. I can see their reasons, and I can even see how they were provoked.

Unlike you, I can't see how they have the balls to be making demands of NATO after the stunt they just pulled.


Yes I did miss the part where "Russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum", unless you are referring to soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet that were already stationed there for decades


The soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet? So you think the small security forces that Russia had (Ukraine had primary base securty) is what you see in the streets of Ukraine? Are you kidding me. Are suggesting the Russian have had a secret occupation force hidden among its ships for years? The force that have occupied Ukraine are mostly special forces. Because of the nature of the occupation the Russian want their most disoplined and trusted troops on the job. Nobody, not even the Russian have claimed those troops were already there. That would just be to much of a out right lie.


If Russia did not secure Crimea immediately there would not have been any chance for a fair vote on any referendum or anything else. Do you think Putin is stupid? He knows whats going on. He is not a puppet like our pres. The U.S./nato used covert means to destabilize and essentially capture Ukraine Just like they have done and are planning to do to every nation that refuses to be enslaved by debt/the petro dollar. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."
edit on 4-4-2014 by begoodbees because:




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
I'd like to address that whole "Occupying it for 50 years now". Who exactly are the occupied nations? You realize they are all willing signatories? or is that Russian territory in your view?




As is shown, NATO has expanded well into east Europe since the end of the USSR. NATO was supposed to be a collective-defense pact to counter the eastern bloc. But the eastern bloc dissolved and NATO absorbed a few of its members in furthering the containment strategy of Russia.

Truth is that NATO changed from being a collective-defense treaty, turning into an western economic-military alliance.

To understand the situation in Ukraine from the geopolitical viewpoint is to understand that this is a clash between economic empires. The "revolution" in Ukraine and the Ukrainian people are ultimately inconsequential and merely serve as tools to impede the actions of one empire against another.

Russia was trying to implement a free trade agreement spanning from Pacific Russia (Vladivostok) to Atlantic Europe (Lisbon). The USA and Canada were pushing for a transatlantic free trade treaty with the EU.

And then Ukraine happened. And now NATO is trying to absorb Ukraine and Georgia (though NATO admits the deadline for this year is up to do this). Georgia is also a pivot that can be turned against Russian economy and security, thus it is crucial for containing Russia in the Caucasus region.

Syria is also a Russian ally, it's only true ally in the Middle East. The USA has been pushing the insurgency there to topple the Assad regime to achieve two objectives: to push formal Russian presence out of the region, and to break apart the Iranian-Syrian alliance. Russia, Syria and Iran are all barriers to American hegemony in that region. These objectives are also the same sought by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, but the agenda is different.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

yorkshirelad
reply to post by Vovin
 

Everything you state including the tone is identical to the rhetoric coming out of Russia. Sorry, but you have absolutely no credibility whilst you sound like a Russian ambassador.


Actually, I am Canadian. I am very interested in international diplomacy and policy. I am formally trained in geopolitical strategy and I have met several ambassadors and relatives of revolutionary icons from countries that the west demonizes. My geographical research happens to bring me to work with regular people from countries such as Russia, so I am able to actually hold a conversation, person to person, with these people.

Sorry that I don't come off as somebody who gets my facts from CNN- it's because I don't.

I'm sure that senator McCarthy is rolling in his grave knowing that people can choose their own beliefs in this day and age without being labelled whatever "enemy of the day" it happens to be.
edit on 4-4-2014 by Vovin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

MrSpad

Vovin

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


You're hilarious. I guess you missed the part of history the rest of us all witnessed where russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum. But whatever. I can see their reasons, and I can even see how they were provoked.

Unlike you, I can't see how they have the balls to be making demands of NATO after the stunt they just pulled.


Yes I did miss the part where "Russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum", unless you are referring to soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet that were already stationed there for decades


The soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet? So you think the small security forces that Russia had (Ukraine had primary base securty) is what you see in the streets of Ukraine? Are you kidding me. Are suggesting the Russian have had a secret occupation force hidden among its ships for years? The force that have occupied Ukraine are mostly special forces. Because of the nature of the occupation the Russian want their most disoplined and trusted troops on the job. Nobody, not even the Russian have claimed those troops were already there. That would just be to much of a out right lie.


I don't know what you're ranting about.

Russia had around 16,000 soldiers stationed in Crimea as part of the Black Sea Fleet. Their agreement stipulated that they could have up to 25,000.

Russia probably did send a contingent force to bolster the troop strength inside the base for security reasons, just like why NATO has been bolstering its bases in the region.

But this doesn't mean that the Russian soldiers took over Crimea.

Were there spetsnaz operators in Crimea? Yes. I've seen pictures of them securing strategic targets, such as Ukrainian S-300 systems. Could you imagine what would have happened if a radical Ukrainian nationalist ordered these SAM installations to start shooting down aircraft in Crimea?

In having said that, the Crimean Self-Defense Force that was established with Crimean independence was not the Russian military. They were ethnic Ukrainians and Russians who both fled from the fascist junta and wanted independence. They were composed of residents in Crimea.

Sure, they probably had Russian military advisors, but the force itself was independent. And do you know how an independent military can be established immediately? It's because of this thing called conscription. It means that every able man and woman in the region has had military training and discipline. They are trained to configure into a fighting force when needed.

If you can provide definitive proof that these were Russian military occupational forces then please show it. Just because they are using Russian equipment, speaking Russian, and probably from Russia, doesn't mean the are Russian Forces. If we set this precedent based on these factors then you should be willing to accept who is really invading Syria right now, because a lot of the insurgency comes from western countries using western weapons.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Still waiting for anyone trying to prove that the Current unelected officials arent fascists so far i had no takers, dont even think on CNN as a source or opposition sources, I want to see actually sources of information.


Actually they were elected. So yeah there's that.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

PsykoOps

Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Still waiting for anyone trying to prove that the Current unelected officials arent fascists so far i had no takers, dont even think on CNN as a source or opposition sources, I want to see actually sources of information.


Actually they were elected. So yeah there's that.


Elected by who?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Vovin
Elected by who?


By the people. Who else?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 

Kindly inform us all how NATO ruined a war torn country over run with fundamental Jihadists who want to exist in the 6th century?
Don't think they changed much but at least maybe now a few will have a chance.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Vovin

MrSpad

Vovin

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


You're hilarious. I guess you missed the part of history the rest of us all witnessed where russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum. But whatever. I can see their reasons, and I can even see how they were provoked.

Unlike you, I can't see how they have the balls to be making demands of NATO after the stunt they just pulled.


Yes I did miss the part where "Russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum", unless you are referring to soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet that were already stationed there for decades


The soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet? So you think the small security forces that Russia had (Ukraine had primary base securty) is what you see in the streets of Ukraine? Are you kidding me. Are suggesting the Russian have had a secret occupation force hidden among its ships for years? The force that have occupied Ukraine are mostly special forces. Because of the nature of the occupation the Russian want their most disoplined and trusted troops on the job. Nobody, not even the Russian have claimed those troops were already there. That would just be to much of a out right lie.


I don't know what you're ranting about.

Russia had around 16,000 soldiers stationed in Crimea as part of the Black Sea Fleet. Their agreement stipulated that they could have up to 25,000.

Russia probably did send a contingent force to bolster the troop strength inside the base for security reasons, just like why NATO has been bolstering its bases in the region.

But this doesn't mean that the Russian soldiers took over Crimea.

Were there spetsnaz operators in Crimea? Yes. I've seen pictures of them securing strategic targets, such as Ukrainian S-300 systems. Could you imagine what would have happened if a radical Ukrainian nationalist ordered these SAM installations to start shooting down aircraft in Crimea?

In having said that, the Crimean Self-Defense Force that was established with Crimean independence was not the Russian military. They were ethnic Ukrainians and Russians who both fled from the fascist junta and wanted independence. They were composed of residents in Crimea.

Sure, they probably had Russian military advisors, but the force itself was independent. And do you know how an independent military can be established immediately? It's because of this thing called conscription. It means that every able man and woman in the region has had military training and discipline. They are trained to configure into a fighting force when needed.

If you can provide definitive proof that these were Russian military occupational forces then please show it. Just because they are using Russian equipment, speaking Russian, and probably from Russia, doesn't mean the are Russian Forces. If we set this precedent based on these factors then you should be willing to accept who is really invading Syria right now, because a lot of the insurgency comes from western countries using western weapons.


Wow. just wow. Re read what you posted and really think Aboot it. The troops with no markings were russian according to you,not ukranian. The key words NOT UKRANIAN should have given you the clue here eh? Definitive proof of russian intervention hmm. OK take a look at the Ukraines military listings of weapons...There are some items there that were not in Ukranian arsenals correct?

Also its AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW/Geneva conventions to have UNMARKED TROOPS. Unmarked troops are deemed able to b e killed summary execution style according to it as SPIES AN DILLEGAL COMBATANTS. ALso they unmarked troops would had been crying out loud they were from Ukraine/crimea IF they were from the same nation. I do nto recall any of them flying the colors of their homelands on their uniforms. WHY? because they were not from there.

I know ya do not liek the US military or western governments alot but the whole situation stinks of Cover up. Any troops afraid to show their nations colors should be drummed out of the military.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
ENOUGH!!!

Address the topic and do not discuss each other. Do not bicker back and forth. Do not bait and troll.





Failure to cooperate with these simple requests to maintain a civil discussion - will result in post bans.

DO NOT reply to this in thread caution.
edit on 4/4/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Russia probably is entitled to an explanation of some sort from NATO...


Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program with NATO in the early 1990s. The two sides agreed that no excessive military presence was allowed on the territory of Eastern European countries.

On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow expected NATO to explain how the bloc's recent military build-up in Eastern Europe corresponded with existing bilateral agreements.


Whether they get an explanation is another thing, especially as none of these agreements & treaties mean anything to either side anymore, at least that seems to be the case if we look at recent strategics!!!


Now, from the same Xinhua article, Russia is contemplating a plan to "deny NATO transit in Afghanistan"!!!
Xinhua Source


MOSCOW, April 4 (Xinhua) -- Moscow has a right to deny NATO transit to and from Afghanistan in response to the alliance's decision to suspend cooperation with Russia, a senior Russian legislator said Friday.

"If our cooperation comes to a halt, we'll have the right to suspend (NATO's) transit, and the alliance will have to find other routes," Viktor Ozerov, head of the Defense and Security Committee of the Federation Council, or upper house of parliament, told Interfax news agency.



Can NATO afford/trust other routes out of Afghanistan???...

We'll have to wait for developments to speculate further though!!!

What's certain... East & West have used a lot of rhetoric, they seem to be following through with action though...

This, without wanting to sound like a war-monger, is very interesting to watch unfold & develop...
But also, without wanting to sound like a fear-monger, probably a death certificate for a lot of people!!!


Peace everybody!



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Vovin
 


To hell with Putin wanting answers from NATO. The whole world watched as he took crimea BEFORE the referendum. Geopolitics leading up to the situation were obvious, and Russia made their move. It's NATO's turn now. This is what happens when you chose a military contingency instead of a diplomatic one. You aren't going to get the co-operation and answers you would have been due.


You mean like staging a coup in a foreign country to depose an elected government?
Or did you conveniently forget?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Vovin
As is shown, NATO has expanded well into east Europe since the end of the USSR. NATO was supposed to be a collective-defense pact to counter the eastern bloc. But the eastern bloc dissolved and NATO absorbed a few of its members in furthering the containment strategy of Russia.


A couple of points to balance the slightly incorrect

1. NATO may have been created at the start of the Cold War, but it has always been a political and military alliance to protect the security of its members.
2. NATO has expanded because the ex vassals of Russia (the Soviets) came out of the Cold War with a deep distrust and fear of their old overlords. They rushed into the EU and NATO in preference to staying with the old bully. The expansion is because NATO offers collective security from hostility.
3. Whatever happens now, the Russian aggression in Crimea will have pushed Ukraine into NATO, for fear of being at the mercy of Russia. In addition, Russia will not be trusted into the future. They have demonstrated that they are outside trust. If Russia was a nice, pleasant neighbour NATO would be smaller.

You speak of NATO being a bad thing. It is good for its members because they can be protected from Russia. Think that through!

Regards



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   

yuppa

Vovin

MrSpad

Vovin

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


You're hilarious. I guess you missed the part of history the rest of us all witnessed where russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum. But whatever. I can see their reasons, and I can even see how they were provoked.

Unlike you, I can't see how they have the balls to be making demands of NATO after the stunt they just pulled.


Yes I did miss the part where "Russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum", unless you are referring to soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet that were already stationed there for decades


The soldiers of the Black Sea Fleet? So you think the small security forces that Russia had (Ukraine had primary base securty) is what you see in the streets of Ukraine? Are you kidding me. Are suggesting the Russian have had a secret occupation force hidden among its ships for years? The force that have occupied Ukraine are mostly special forces. Because of the nature of the occupation the Russian want their most disoplined and trusted troops on the job. Nobody, not even the Russian have claimed those troops were already there. That would just be to much of a out right lie.


I don't know what you're ranting about.

Russia had around 16,000 soldiers stationed in Crimea as part of the Black Sea Fleet. Their agreement stipulated that they could have up to 25,000.

Russia probably did send a contingent force to bolster the troop strength inside the base for security reasons, just like why NATO has been bolstering its bases in the region.

But this doesn't mean that the Russian soldiers took over Crimea.

Were there spetsnaz operators in Crimea? Yes. I've seen pictures of them securing strategic targets, such as Ukrainian S-300 systems. Could you imagine what would have happened if a radical Ukrainian nationalist ordered these SAM installations to start shooting down aircraft in Crimea?

In having said that, the Crimean Self-Defense Force that was established with Crimean independence was not the Russian military. They were ethnic Ukrainians and Russians who both fled from the fascist junta and wanted independence. They were composed of residents in Crimea.

Sure, they probably had Russian military advisors, but the force itself was independent. And do you know how an independent military can be established immediately? It's because of this thing called conscription. It means that every able man and woman in the region has had military training and discipline. They are trained to configure into a fighting force when needed.

If you can provide definitive proof that these were Russian military occupational forces then please show it. Just because they are using Russian equipment, speaking Russian, and probably from Russia, doesn't mean the are Russian Forces. If we set this precedent based on these factors then you should be willing to accept who is really invading Syria right now, because a lot of the insurgency comes from western countries using western weapons.


Wow. just wow. Re read what you posted and really think Aboot it. The troops with no markings were russian according to you,not ukranian. The key words NOT UKRANIAN should have given you the clue here eh? Definitive proof of russian intervention hmm. OK take a look at the Ukraines military listings of weapons...There are some items there that were not in Ukranian arsenals correct?

Also its AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW/Geneva conventions to have UNMARKED TROOPS. Unmarked troops are deemed able to b e killed summary execution style according to it as SPIES AN DILLEGAL COMBATANTS. ALso they unmarked troops would had been crying out loud they were from Ukraine/crimea IF they were from the same nation. I do nto recall any of them flying the colors of their homelands on their uniforms. WHY? because they were not from there.

I know ya do not liek the US military or western governments alot but the whole situation stinks of Cover up. Any troops afraid to show their nations colors should be drummed out of the military.


So the fact that these self-defense forces started off as local paramilitary groups, and then incorporated into a brand new independent nation, isn't explanatory enough as to why they did not start off with insignia? Was the new Crimean defence commander supposed to just walk down the street to the local insignia factory and buy a few thousand pins and badges for a security force that was still in the process of forming itself?

Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers defected to Crimean authority. Russians gave them equipment from their base. Russians even sent back trainloads of Ukrainian MBTs the other day, because Russian equipment is better suited.

All your "evidence" is circumstantial and speculative. You say the CSDF wasn't using standard issue Ukrainian gear- well, considering they weren't Ukraine military, why is that relevant?

And you can cry all you want about unmarked troops violating conventions, but it doesn't prove that the CSDF were Russian forces from the start.

Let me ask you this: if Americans invaded Canada and claimed to be Canadians, don't you think the local population that are talking to these soldiers on the street could figure out the difference immediately? In Eastern Europe, cultures are extremely territorial. The people in Crimea would know the difference between a Crimean and a Russian in uniform. Do you think they are so stupid?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

paraphi
You speak of NATO being a bad thing. It is good for its members because they can be protected from Russia. Think that through!

Regards


If you think NATO is good then you've never heard of Operation Gladio.

Gladio was a stay-behind anti-leftist network established by American security agencies after WWII. Under Gladio, far-right extremists (ie, fascists) have had full legal protection and funding and political sanctioning to conduct all kinds of subversion and terrorism against any leftist movements in most European countries. NATO sanctioned everything from car bombings to back room shootings to protect pro-US governments in Europe- especially if they were fascist (like Franco's Spain) since they were the most hardened against anti-capitalist social movements.

And these Gladio ops never stopped. And these ops sometimes had direct ties to operations elsewhere in the world, ie "murder unlimited" in Guatemala and Nicaragua.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   

paraphi

2. NATO has expanded because the ex vassals of Russia (the Soviets) came out of the Cold War with a deep distrust and fear of their old overlords. They rushed into the EU and NATO in preference to staying with the old bully. The expansion is because NATO offers collective security from hostility.
3. Whatever happens now, the Russian aggression in Crimea will have pushed Ukraine into NATO, for fear of being at the mercy of Russia. In addition, Russia will not be trusted into the future. They have demonstrated that they are outside trust. If Russia was a nice, pleasant neighbour NATO would be smaller.

You speak of NATO being a bad thing. It is good for its members because they can be protected from Russia. Think that through!

Regards


You really hit the nail on the head with number 2. People seem to forget that these Eastern Bloc countries suffered under Russian control for almost 50 years. During that time they developed intense hatred and distrust of the Russians that carried past the collapse of the iron curtain. Especially old Soviet Republics.

These countries wanted to be part of NATO and the EU, they have practically begged for entry. So they have every right to be part of NATO and the EU. They weren't forced.

Denying these countries the right to have NATO security is like denying a battered woman the right to not only move out of an abusive relationship, but pursue a new one.

And you are correct on #3 too. Russia's posturing is playing right into NATO's hands. They have no one to blame but themselves.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

paraphi

Vovin
As is shown, NATO has expanded well into east Europe since the end of the USSR. NATO was supposed to be a collective-defense pact to counter the eastern bloc. But the eastern bloc dissolved and NATO absorbed a few of its members in furthering the containment strategy of Russia.


A couple of points to balance the slightly incorrect

1. NATO may have been created at the start of the Cold War, but it has always been a political and military alliance to protect the security of its members.
2. NATO has expanded because the ex vassals of Russia (the Soviets) came out of the Cold War with a deep distrust and fear of their old overlords. They rushed into the EU and NATO in preference to staying with the old bully. The expansion is because NATO offers collective security from hostility.
3. Whatever happens now, the Russian aggression in Crimea will have pushed Ukraine into NATO, for fear of being at the mercy of Russia. In addition, Russia will not be trusted into the future. They have demonstrated that they are outside trust. If Russia was a nice, pleasant neighbour NATO would be smaller.

You speak of NATO being a bad thing. It is good for its members because they can be protected from Russia. Think that through!

Regards



None of NATO involvements to this day have been based on protection of the security of its members. Simply because none of the members have ever been attacked. All involvements were brute aggression against those who are on the way of western interest, cleverly wrapped in ' protection of human rights, prevention of genocide, rough governments, etc' package. Facts.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   


NATO has expanded because the ex vassals of Russia (the Soviets) came out of the Cold War with a deep distrust and fear of their old overlords. They rushed into the EU and NATO in preference to staying with the old bully. The expansion is because NATO offers collective security from hostility.
reply to post by cosmonova
 


Expansionist agenda was a loser minded communist trait. In 1991 Russia ditched communism and showed no signs that mindset ever since until its near abroad was messed around with. NATO kept on expanding based on its own paranoia and distrust.

Best scenario would be NATO exists with buffer states in between (with security guarantees) and Russia manages its own affairs.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join