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

In Ukraine, the US is dragging us towards war with Russia

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:15 PM

I hope the Russians love their children too.

Things are now spiralling out of control.

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 05:48 PM

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
Perhaps if you wasn't reading from RT and other anti west anti Ukraine MSM [...]

Yet again - nothing but wild conjectures.
You don't know me, you clearly don't know what media I read, and you didn't read my post.
Fact is, there is no reliable independent up-to-date info on the backing of the Ukrainian population.

You also failed to answer my question, and yet again act as if you could somehow offend me by attacking Russia, although I told you repeatedly now that I am not "pro-Russia".

If anything, I'm pro-Ukrainian people. Let them decide their own fate.
Not Russia, not the US, not the EU, not the unelected interim Government, not the right-wing-radicals, and definitely not the trilateral commission, or the IMF-thugs, because none of them represent the interests of the Ukrainian people.

TL;DR: All those who resent the Ukrainian people their right of liberty, freedom and self-determination are simply enemies of the Ukrainian people.

Are you?

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:32 PM

originally posted by: 13th Zodiac

originally posted by: MrSpad
So the US who has said over and over it would not go to war for Ukraine has secrely created this entire scenerio to go to war with Russia? Is this the same US who so far has launched some minor santions and suggested talking the issue out? And I guess we have to assume that the US made Russia take Crimea, threaten Moldova and fly bombers at the UK, Sweden, US etc. This very well could be one of the dumbest theories ever put forth on ATS.

Yes, that would be the same double handed, two faced, back stabbing bastards. War is Peace, Peace is War.Never Heard of the Heigalien Dilect? Rigel14 was was more a hardcore West supporter than you, and with some maturity has reached his own conclusions.It not hard to come to the same conclusions once you get red dawn out of your system.Gulliable much?

Well said.....If I could star your comment twice, I would!

Always the same talking heads, spouting the official line.....Don't you guys ever get bored and go off script?

Or do you just lack imagination?
edit on 16-5-2014 by squarehead666 because: clarity

posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:55 PM
Try as they may, drag all they possibly can.... There will be no war between the USA and Russia.

There will be more pressing and important things to deal with than a regional crisis in the Ukraine.

A common threat can make enemies allies in the end...


posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:35 PM
This article does little more than reverse the mistakes of western media outlets. It creates a binary world in which either Russia or the US is the villain and the opposite territory the "good guy". This presumption is fundamentally flawed, but becomes noticeably more problematic when examining the build up to the situation in Ukraine. It's certainly plausible that the United States would take action to disrupt a pro-Russian government. But the idea that Russia is purely reactionary removes all agency (and thus, responsibility) from a powerful geopolitical force. Is it likely that Russia manipulated the vote for Yanukovych? Perhaps not. But it is certainly possible.

Now if we examine the risk/reward for both the United States and Russia:

Russia has a considerable amount to gain. They also have more influence in the region. All other things being equal, Russia has many points for being the instigator of any action-- covert or otherwise. The greatest amount of evidence of this can be gleaned from this being a part of a pattern that's gone on for a couple of decades now: off/russias-latest-land-grab

Conversely, the United States has a more powerful apparatus for covert action, if only because of funding. The US is also likely to come out on top in conventional warfare. However, it should be noted that any direct action would likely cease after a very short period of time, and the US is almost definitely not willing to risk the economic fallout and/or the escalation to nuclear weapons. As stated in the OP, the United States does have strategic reasons for forging an alliance with Ukrainian officials-- expanding the NATO missile defense program into territory so near a powerful geopolitical foe would be worthwhile.

Given the above suppositions are valid, I would say Occam's razor leads us to Russia being the instigator of what they likely anticipated was to be a short lived conflict. NATO, and by extension the United States, has considerably less to gain and notably more to lose. Yet, paradoxically, their capabilities are being undersold if we assume they are actively initiating war. The coup in Iran took months to plan and execute 60 years ago. To suggest NATO intelligence apparatuses would wait four years to attempt the same coup in Ukraine without supporting facts makes little sense. Similarly, the US and UK would have been able to readily cite Russia's violation of The Budapest Memorandums as their reason for escalating into full scale war. It would certainly provide more justification than prior wars waged by the US.

I would be very interested in seeing a logical examination of the alternate theory, preferable with more evidence and less disparaging of one nation in favor of victimizing the other.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:29 AM

originally posted by: Jalbrook
Now if we examine the risk/reward for both the United States and Russia

I agree that neither Russia, nor the US are the "good guy" regarding Ukraine, but you have to add alot more to the picture to see what really is at stake for both blocks in this crisis.

To make sense of this, you have to add the US-petro-dollar scheme.

Starting with the Bretton Woods system in 1945, which established the USD as the global reserve currency, the "Triffin-Dilemma" that showed a fundamental constructional flaw in the system, the "Nixon-Shock", that ended the fixed exchange rates (gold-standard) of Bretton Woods (when France for the first time asked for their gold back) and finally the birth of the petro-dollar in 1972/73.

Since that day (15th of august 1971) the USD is backed by nothing but the demand for it to buy oil, and ever since that day, every single country that threatened the petrodollar - and thus the US-led-economical-hegemony - was attacked.

Despite the colourful variety of pretexts, all the recent wars in the ME were really only about this context, and now Russia under Putin (along side the other BRICS-nations) are openly contesting the petro-dollar.

Ukraine is just a piece of the puzzle.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 04:40 AM
a reply to: MrSpad
Well put. Star for you. I can't always agree with everything that the U.S. does, but in this case I'm just not seeing how the U.S. is to blame for this problem.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:03 AM
a reply to: rigel4

The US is always dragging someone along with themselves at war. See history for proof.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:51 AM
The comment on the article on there just proves how closed minded the majority of the people are.

Most optimistic people of the world realize the US is the bright shining light on democracy hill, and - we, of course - have the interests of all the freedom loving people of the world foremost in mind.

Yup like how you brought the beautiful freedom and democracy to Iraq and Libya oh and afghanistan remember that? victory? if America did have a victory in afghanistan why are all American allies want to withdraw then? oh thats right maybe because things arent going as planned.

For those War Mongers do read this line.

since 1945, the US has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democratically elected; grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries; bombed the civilian populations of 30 countries; used chemical and biological weapons; and attempted to assassinate foreign leaders.

Freedom and Democracy do you still believe that?

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:51 AM
a reply to: rjbaggins

Crimea Is and was always Russian.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:53 AM
a reply to: ColCurious
Apparently TritonTaranis doesn't mind reading CNN, FOX or AJ Qatar regime news state media outlets for his news daily.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:02 AM

originally posted by: rjbaggins
a reply to: MrSpad
Well put. Star for you. I can't always agree with everything that the U.S. does, but in this case I'm just not seeing how the U.S. is to blame for this problem.

Yeah nothing at all to do with it

edit on 17-5-2014 by sosobad because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:19 AM
a reply to: ColCurious

Ukraine has about .12% of oil reserves in the world. They have no notable ties with other, more major oil exporting nations. If they were to embrace an alternative to the petrodollar system, it would have little effect beyond their own nation. Russia (and almost every other country) stick with the petrodollar for a reason: the US is still the most stable economic entity in the world that has a lot of currency to go around (the Eurozone being made up of 17 separate nations creates instability, otherwise it would be a serious contender). Russia's only possible goal in attacking the petrodollar system would be to accelerate the conversion of the world to one of multiple free floating reserve currency system. This seems to fit in the "possible, but improbable" category for motivations. I fully agree that the petrodollar system is a fairly major cause of the United States' aggression in the Middle East, but it has too little to gain by reaching outside of the small sphere of influence in the OPEC nations.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:35 AM

originally posted by: sosobad

Yeah nothing at all to do with it

I liked how the USA tax payers picked up this bill without even be asked

Well something seems odd because to me it looks like Russia today has been silenced about the Ukraine so was it a case of the west warning them that they face the same future as PressTV and will get a ban or has Putin told them to be quite.

Whats the deal with the white UN chopper in the Ukraine or did someone send them in without even asking UN members to vote on it ?

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:43 AM

originally posted by: rjbaggins
a reply to: MrSpad
Well put. Star for you. I can't always agree with everything that the U.S. does, but in this case I'm just not seeing how the U.S. is to blame for this problem.

Well $5bn being spend to create trouble in the Ukraine and then all the hot air from Kerry should had woke you up so maybe you just need to open your eyes to "see how the U.S. is to blame for this problem" with its act of war by trying to sanction Russia.

The USA bankers puppets has the USA in this up to its neck and they did this without asking the public if they agreed to any of this and just sent them the bill

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: Jalbrook

You are correct, Ukraine is not directly about oil, but you have to look at it from a broader perspective.

Ukraine's particular geostrategical significance for Russia is due to the Crimean port city of Sevastopol, as a buffer state to NATO, and as a natural gas pipeline-corridor.

For the US this is about cutting Russia from the Black Sea, weakening their ties (economic and political) to european nations, furthering NATO's eastward enlargement, and genereally setting the stage for the coming "great divide" between the west and the rising of BRICS. Oh, and about shale-gas (Exxon mobile, Chevron, Burisma Holdings)

As for the US being the "most stable economic entitiy"... take the petro-dollar out of the picture and look what is left. Look at their "hard values" - like what they've done to their industrial base, or their workforce. Look at their huge indebtedness.

Then look at the BRICS-nations... they are not there yet, but definitely a rising force to to be reckoned with.
Read up on Putin's commodities exchange in St. Petersburg, or Russia's gas deal with China - the US-led-economic-hegemony is - for the first time since WWII - seriously threatened.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:23 PM
a reply to: 13th Zodiac
I would concur with you here,and can confirm that the Russian airforce regularly send across a Tupolev Bear or 2 to probe UK airspace,it makes for good readiness alert practice for RAF Typhoons.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:41 PM
My reply to what the OP posted

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:58 PM
a reply to: ColCurious

How would antagonizing Russia and cutting off access to trade routes in the Black Sea be beneficial for the US? NATO as a whole would suffer by the increased price of oil when Russia either refuses to trade with member states or passes on the increased price of transport to them. The US could try to remedy either situation in a number of ways, but, ultimately, not creating such a problem in the first place is best in the short and long term.

The US's economic stability comes from its nature as a free floating currency coupled with its strong central bank and expansive banking system. As a plus, it has strong ties to other economic powerhouses like Germany and Japan, allowing it to manipulate markets to manufacture stability in times of crisis (the Plaza Accord).

I tend to consider the BRICS "alliance" as a non-entity. I admit that this may turn out to be a grave error in the future, but for now there is just too little substance to the acronym to consider it a major influence in geopolitical affairs. If these nations formalize an alliance in the next couple of decades, then there could be consequences for the US to consider, but as of right now they have little in common beyond their extraordinary economic growth. Growth that has slowed considerably over the past couple of years and looks to be continuing its decline. Also consider how misaligned the nations are: China and India are in direct competition with each other in many areas, the least of which being various border disputes; Russia and Brazil benefit from higher oil prices given oil is a major export for them, but India's service economy would be crippled if the price of oil grew too high; South Africa isn't diametrically opposed to the other nations, but it has considerably less economic might compared to them also.

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 03:00 PM
It has never been a matter of blaming only Russia or only EU/USA.

Of course both sides are to blame for the corruption of the grass roots Euromaidan movement as well as the continued escalation of this crisis. But that is just a tactical view.

What is more important, yet most difficult to ascertain are the strategic motivations behind such actions.

I would suggest that the core economic interests at play -- that is those of private investment consortiums -- transcend national interests, and definitely humanitarian or ideological concerns.

(And so I see all the claims and counterclaims of 'fascism' by one side or the other as largely irrelevant.)

Of course US imperialism has a long and sordid history, but I would question those who say this is ignored by the mainstream. It is definitely something well acknowledged here in the Arab world. Do not forget that President Obama largely came to power in the because of overwhelming negative feelings against his predecessor that arose because of Afghanistan and Iraq. And although he has increased USA's use of covert actions (including drone strikes), his methods are much less direct and influential than Bush's.

The problem with Putin is that he is escalating a situation in a manner that harkens back to the very worst of the Cold War era, when USA and Soviet leaders both pushed things to the brink of annihilation. He is changing the 'rules of the game' in a retrograde way, also engaging in a type of authoritarianism and propagandistic agitation which is highly rooted in ideas of ethnic/national supremacy (aka 'fascism').

I am sorry but I just do not see the same level of investment in this crisis by the US leadership as I do by Russia... but not necessarily because USA is more benevolent!

Ukraine just seems a secondary issue to Obama at most. This $5 billion people keep posting about happened over 23 years is relatively small compared to the amounts USA has given other governments (for instance Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan). Maybe because Obama's particular corporatist sponsors simply do not have as much invested in Ukraine as do Putin's?

It is good to question things, but better to do so continuously by gathering details and putting them into context; not just with a broad swath argument like this article makes.

No matter how much propaganda Russia puts onto social media, any rational person can see the what is happening. It is Russia who is visibly spending a disproportionate amount of resources filling Ukraine with fear baiting propaganda, mercenaries, and other provocateurs. The Ukrainian government is a disorganized mess and up until this point losing the battle.

Either I am right in my assessment... or the USA is executing their plans with 1000% better clandestine technique. And who here really believes the USA are that skillful?

edit on 17-5-2014 by ALoveSupreme because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in