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.
However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn
However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.
They did roll in, remember?
Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.
originally posted by: DJW001
That is the opposite of what Putin wants. Putin hates Europe. He blames it for the collapse of the Soviet Union, which he intends to rebuild as a new Russian Empire.
originally posted by: FootBig
originally posted by: DJW001
That is the opposite of what Putin wants. Putin hates Europe. He blames it for the collapse of the Soviet Union, which he intends to rebuild as a new Russian Empire.
yeah thanks for your opinion, your opinion is very valuable on ATS
yeah, Putin wants Europe destroyed, and yet he gets most of gas and oil money from Europe
Yeah Putin wants this, Putin wants that.
Thank you so much for informing the rest of us what Putin had for breakfast and what he wants.
Thank you so much for informing the rest of us what Putin had for breakfast and what he wants.
Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself....
[Edit for brevity. --DJW001
Above all else Russia was, is and will, of course, be a major European power. Achieved through much suffering by European culture, the ideals of freedom, human rights, justice and democracy have for many centuries been our society's determining values.
For three centuries, we – together with the other European nations – passed hand in hand through reforms of Enlightenment, the difficulties of emerging parliamentarism, municipal and judiciary branches, and the establishment of similar legal systems. Step by step, we moved together toward recognizing and extending human rights, toward universal and equal suffrage, toward understanding the need to look after the weak and the impoverished, toward women's emancipation, and other social gains.
I repeat we did this together, sometimes behind and sometimes ahead of European standards.
In his first major speech since returning to the presidency, Vladimir V. Putin on Wednesday called on Russians “not to lose ourselves as a nation,” urging them to look for guidance in Russia’s historic and traditional values — and not in Western political models — as it charts its post-Soviet development.
originally posted by: demus
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn
However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.
They did roll in, remember?
Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.
amazing action, wouldn't you agree?
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: demus
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn
However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.
They did roll in, remember?
Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.
amazing action, wouldn't you agree?
So was Hitler's annexation of Austria, and you see what that led to.
originally posted by: demus
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: demus
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn
However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.
They did roll in, remember?
Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.
amazing action, wouldn't you agree?
So was Hitler's annexation of Austria, and you see what that led to.
it's never wrong to compare Putin with Hitler
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: demus
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: demus
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bjarneorn
However, my take on Russia is this. If they had "real" interrest in the crimean area, they would simply "role" in.
They did roll in, remember?
Just because the blitzkrieg was bloodless does not mean it was not a military action. The chaos in the East is designed to keep the newly formed government in Kyiv busy wasting money and effort on military actions rather than developing the economic infrastructure. This is precisely the sort of strategy that Russia accuses the United States of following elsewhere in the world.
amazing action, wouldn't you agree?
So was Hitler's annexation of Austria, and you see what that led to.
it's never wrong to compare Putin with Hitler
If the shoe fits....
I agree, Putin is guilty. He didn't risk WWIII and didn't ordered the green men to help eastern-ukrainians who voted against the "f*ck the EU" Victoria appointed CIA-junta.
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: maghun
I agree, Putin is guilty. He didn't risk WWIII and didn't ordered the green men to help eastern-ukrainians who voted against the "f*ck the EU" Victoria appointed CIA-junta.
And again you fail to understand that the new president of Ukraine was a democratically elected president that was not backed by the US, and the parliament is left over from Yanukovich so how you get the CIA appointed government is just laughable.
So those very well armed and very well trained men that took over public buildings in the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine were just locals that found their weapons and military gear at the local army surplus store?
originally posted by: MrSpad
Russia actions in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are some examples of how Russia deals with its form states. Armenia and Azerbaijan are another example. When Azerbaijan began driffiting West Russia made large scale weapons sales to Armenia, when Armenia began shifting West Russia sold arms and sign agreements with Azerbaijan. Russia sells weapons to both and tells weaker Armenia that Russia troops have to stay to protect them from Azerbaijan who is then sold Russian weapons.