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.

 

CFR: Ukraine Crisis, It's the Wests Fault

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

Good catch,
see that now... it's taking me to long to correct anything.




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



As I stated before - your thread and its content has been posted time and again and debunked time and again.


As I said, Uh huh. I see nothing to validate what you say. Show me where it's been posted before. Show me where it has been debunked.

I know (from your postings) that you are "pro-west." I don't really care, I am pro-humanity. What I do care about are facts which you seem sadly short of. If the CFR site and statements aren't enough for you then I don't know what to say. Maybe "You're a credit to your government propaganda" will suffice.



edit on 253am4646am122014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

Enlarging NATO, Expanding Confusion

There was never an agreement that prevented NATO from expanding east -


In essentially settling for a gentleman’s agreement, Mr. Gorbachev missed some important pitfalls and then failed to do anything about them. First, Mr. Kohl spoke for West Germany, not for the United States or for NATO as a whole. Second, the Soviet leader got nothing about the trans-Atlantic alliance in writing. Third, Mr. Gorbachev did not criticize Mr. Kohl publicly when he and Mr. Bush later agreed to offer only a special military status to the former East Germany instead of a pledge that NATO wouldn’t expand. Finally, he did not catch subtle signals that, by early 1990, speculative discussion in the West about NATO’s future involved the inclusion of Eastern Europe as well. Mr. Gorbachev later complained to Mr. Kohl that he felt he had fallen into a trap.

edit on 21-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




If Russia was so much better than the west then the nations the USSR occupied for 50 years would never have run to the west when the USSR fell.


Putin himself has said that Russia would on same standing with the US today, if in the last 100 years it was not busy with wars and revolutions of all sorts. In many a ways, Russia is still recouping from the ill effects of wars and more seriously the "decay of communism". Ex: Rampant corruption after 1991 was a direct result of communist society and its thinking.




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


In essentially settling for a gentleman’s agreement

And I rest my case. The US/EU/IMF?NATO cannot be trusted on their word. Lies are part of who they are. Lies and imperialism.

As I said Russia should have brought more lawyers as taking (any western) someone at their word obviously is worthless. Reminds me of Bill Clinton's "What the meaning of "is" is."

Give me a freakin' break.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




There was never an agreement that prevented NATO from expanding east


When it comes to Major Powers, it is not the agreements that matter.

ACTIONS ARE ULTIMATELY THE DECIDING FACTOR.............on what follows next !!

Because agreements can be easily broken and walked away from ex: ABM treaty that US walked away from.




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

There is nothing to rest because your case is without fact.

Germany, not the US nor NATO, made certain promises to Gorbachev.

Try again -

In essentially settling for a gentleman’s agreement, Mr. Gorbachev missed some important pitfalls and then failed to do anything about them.




First, Mr. Kohl spoke for West Germany, not for the United States or for NATO as a whole. Second, the Soviet leader got nothing about the trans-Atlantic alliance in writing.




Third, Mr. Gorbachev did not criticize Mr. Kohl publicly when he and Mr. Bush later agreed to offer only a special military status to the former East Germany instead of a pledge that NATO wouldn’t expand.




Finally, he did not catch subtle signals that, by early 1990, speculative discussion in the West about NATO’s future involved the inclusion of Eastern Europe as well. Mr. Gorbachev later complained to Mr. Kohl that he felt he had fallen into a trap.


Also - Russia invaded Ukraine, which not only pushed Ukraine towards the EU and west, it pushed non aligned nations towards NATO.
edit on 21-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



Germany, not the US nor NATO, made certain promises to Gorbachev.


OK so Germany which had 360,000 Soviet troops stationed in East Germany and agreed that NATO would not expand along with affirmations of Mr Kohl and Mr Baker that NATO would not expand east.

Mr. Kohl chose to echo Mr. Baker, not Mr. Bush. The chancellor assured Mr. Gorbachev, as Mr. Baker had done, that “naturally NATO could not expand its territory” into East Germany. The documents available do not record Mr. Kohl using the presidential phrase — “special military status” — that the National Security Council had rushed over to him. Mr. Kohl’s foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, visiting the Kremlin as well, assured his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, that “for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.”

Yeah well we know how much their word is worth don't we? Absolutely nothing.

Edit to add:


Also - Russia invaded Ukraine, which not only pushed Ukraine towards the EU and west, it pushed non aligned nations towards NATO.

No the west spent $5 billion on preparations to overthrow the democratically elect president of Ukraine to put their puppets in place. This was of course to advance NATO's designs and plunder natural resources. If you doubt this ask the US State Department and Victoria Nuland. I'm sure she'll set you straight.
edit on 280am5353am122014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 12:48 AM
link   
The article from OP had one excellent point:

Russia played along ONLY verbally and meekly when NATO expanding in 1999, 2004, 2009. However, Putin had made it clear that NATO should not move to Russia's "near abroad".

When NATO "indirectly" tried its luck, Russia reacted with force in both the instances.

Trust me, Russia WILL go to the ultimate of fighting a war in order to keep NATO out of its front and backyard.

Russia and US will survive given their size, distance etc.

However, European members of NATO will be hurt beyond repair.............Go figure !!




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago
No the west spent $5 billion on preparations to overthrow the democratically elect president of Ukraine to put their puppets in place. This was of course to advance NATO's designs and plunder natural resources. If you doubt this ask the US State Department and Victoria Nuland. I'm sure she'll set you straight.


Yet another lie pushed with absolutely nothing to support the claim. This comment has been made in just about every Ukraine thread there is and its as untrue now as it was when it was posted in other threads.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO so once again, you claim of resource plundering is BS and unsupported by any facts. Accusations that were made time and again in other Ukraine threads.

As I stated before, your thread is a regurgitation of issues already discredited in other Ukraine threads made by the same pro stalin supporters.


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: victor7

The failure in your logic resides with the thought that "Its" Russia near abroad. Ukraine is not a part of Russia and is a sovereign nation with it s own "near abroad". If Ukraine wants to join BRICS, they can. If they want to join the EU, they can. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, they can.

Why?

Because Ukraine is a sovereign nation and can determine their own affairs.

Secondly, by constantly invoking the near abroad you expose Putin as a fraud. If Putin is so up on groups being able to self determine and decide who they want to deal with and not, then there is nothing supporting the near abroad argument.

The only thing Russia has control over is their internal affairs. They do not get to dictate to countries that share a border with them.

By continuing that mentality, again, it pushes nations towards the EU and NATO.

ETA - Russia going postal because they don't get their way is the reason nations are moving to the west. I don't understand why you guys don't see that.


edit on 21-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

So 1,000 years later Russia still controls what other free countries can and can't do?



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You have made your point clear..............but in the real world it DOES NOT work out like that...........and that is why we have all sorts of GEOPOLITICAL tensions and mishaps.




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bassago

So 1,000 years later Russia still controls what other free countries can and can't do?


The USA can, why not Russia also?



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Hah! Yet again, a bunch of nonsense from same old members trying to sell a fairy tale like this one!

As we said many times before, civil war in Ukraine was started by the west so they could overthrow the pro-Russian president. Just a totally blind person can't see that. I think that at that point, sovereignty of Ukraine has been compromised by the west! Some might call that indirect invasion!

Then we have Russia interfering in attempt to protect their own citizens from raging neo-nazi Ukrainian army and to take advantage of the situation and finally get Crimea! Then, we have a voting in some Eastern Ukraine regions to become independent regions and/or to join Russia! People have spoken! That's called democracy! Or do you just accept the western democracy in which western armies first bomb a country, killing so many innocent people and choosing their own people to rule that country then?

I literally laughed when i read what you said next. Russian actions are pushing other countries to EU! Hah! Yeah right! I mean, does anyone here actually believes it? Do other countries have any other option when the EU( read US ) control almost the whole world? When they have so much financial control?! Do you think those "neutral" countries just decided hey let's sanction Russia, might be fun? I mean, are you serious? Do you think there wasn't any directive from EU ( read US again )? Do you think those countries never got a call saying sanction Russia or you will not enter EU and you will not get any financial help? Come on man! Montenegro sanction Russia! Gee, i wonder why's that.

I have come to a conclusion that debating this subject with same old members is practically impossible, and I know i've said I wont be entering this discussion again, but I just couldn't help it!

edit on 437k2014Thursdayam014 by Nikola014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Their was a clear agenda that the west (mainly the US?) which did the FIRST ACTION; to replace the government, with los of propaganda telling the people how bad/corrupt Viktor Yanukovych was. Maybe Putin shouldn't done anything as a RESPONSE but it's in their backyard and Crimea is just important for Russia and they just made sure they kept control over that part (without firing 1 bullet!).
Now look at the West what hey have done in recent years, all the mess you see right now (ISIS and so on) are a direct result from the chaos brought there from the US/NATO where they even financed and armed terrorists to fight Assad! and remembering Bush words; if you support or harbor terrorirst you are the ENEMY!
It just can't be more messed up and the war started with a lie and a cause of endless human suffering. But hey they went there for the people right?


It's not about the people! You believe the US went in Iraq and Afghanistan because they cared about the people there? Its about control(l)ing/power where the military industrial complex can run on full steam with this war with no end in sight.

So with Ukraine you had again this control/power game where the people again suffer with these geo political power games.

So using Bush logic he was basicly saying your government is your enemy!
edit on 21-8-2014 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   
The anti-Putin crowd have all screamed from the beginning that Russia wanted to re-establish the former Soviet Union but a simple look at what had happened in Georgia tells a different story . I am thinking that when Washington's plan to take over Ukraine fell apart with the Crimea rejoining Russia the plan changed to destroying Ukraine and let Russia pick up the pieces . With the CFR telling the truth of the matter , leaves one to wonder what their plan B might be .Washington never did have a plan B but then I am sure those minions are not privy to the back rooms in the CFR . The times they are a changing . One has to even reconsider this whole ISIS deal in the ME on a daily basis . ..peace



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

I wouldn't be surprised to find out those pulling the strings of ISIS are those pulling the strings of the CFR, in which case 'Democracy' is just a playing card,a mask, a diversion, a most definite false sense of security and self-righteousness. Almost sounds like radicalism?

Crazy times we are living in. Crazy crazy times.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Haha Awesome, before I even opened the thread I knew which posters I would find.

Bassago as always, nice thread thank you.

Any who, if you look at the timeline of the events in Ukraine you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out who/what/why sh*t happened the way it did.

Remember, the first protests where peaceful, no violence what so ever, the people got their demands, Viktor Yanukovych was gonna resign. 3 weeks of silence and all hell broke loose.
edit on stAmerica/Chicago821uk2014 by MessageforAll because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Nikola014

Yeah, there are a few which posts you can skip and don`t miss a thing, try it, it`s relieving.


Anyone interested in some background reading about the Ukrainian situation I can recommend this article, a bit lengthy, but a good summarize :

Ukraine: A Perspective from Europe

www.peakprosperity.com...




top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join