Battle For Strategic Mariupol Begins, NATO Vows To Do "Whatever It Takes"

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Looks like the push for Mariupol by the pro-Russian separatists is on and NATO is saying they will do whatever it takes to aid the new Ukraine government and military against the incursion. In my dictionary "whatever it takes" in this regard means that NATO is saying they will directly stand against the pro-Russian groups and even take an active hand in fighting them. That's "whatever it takes" really means. If that happens we may be seeing the beginning of the first real battle between the east vs the west.
    "Buckle your seat belt Dorothy cause Kansas is going bye-bye."


The Battle For Strategic Mariupol Begins As NATO Vows To Do "Whatever It Takes"


Shelling is reported to have started on the eastern outskirts of Mariupol, Ukraine, according to local reporters on social media. This crucial city, due to its standing as the last major city standing in the way of a land connection to Crimea (from Russia) across the Southern border. Furthermore, Mariupol's strategic importance as a port and major industrial city is crucial to Kiev who are reinforcing the city after losing Novoazovsk last week, with the Ukrainian army on full alert. NATO has been actively sabre-rattling this morning, pulling a full Draghi by threatening to do "whatever it takes" to defend ourselves and our allies, and offering training and support for Ukraine (as they report over 3,000 Russian troops in Ukraine.)

Shelling on the outskirts of Mariupol #Ukraine
— Simon Ostrovsky (@SimonOstrovsky) September 4, 2014


"Artillery and tank fire audible on eastern edge of Mariupol. Ukrainians say 4 armored columns advancing towards Shirokina. Hint of panic:" France 24 journalist Robert Parsons says in Twitter post

NATO has some comments too...
“We have left no doubt that we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves,” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen says.

I wasn't aware that Ukraine was a member of NATO. Go figure. There's more at the link as well as some maps.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago
I am not sure what they are saying behind the scenes,but-
The news in the UK is reporting that NATO will support Ukraine,but not militarily-Rasmussen saying "we will do anything to defend ourselves"may have been a warning to Putin if he decides to hit any NATO members,because Ukraine are not a NATO member.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Maybe so. I guess those NATO forces involved in the training exercise in west Ukraine better stay out of shelling range or things might kick off.

Wonder if this may have had anything to do with the new advance:

Ukraine’s leader sent financial markets into turbulence as he backtracked on talk of an end to five months of violence in his nation’s east.

Poroshenko Flummoxes Investors With About-Face on Truce

Whatever the talks have been I doubt that anything is going to stop Putin from encouraging the push to take the land corridor all the way to Crimea. Especially before Ukraine gets a chance to join NATO.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
This proves US/EU tries to keep Russia`s army busy :




Rasmussen: We will adopt a substantial package for Georgia, a package that will bring Georgia closer to NATO, including a defense-capacity initiative, establishing a training center in Georgia, occasionally also exercises in Georgia”


Georgia needs to be the next place in which Russia gets drawn.

Ultimate goal will be attack on Syria/Iran as named by General Wesley Clark, "Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years"

Russia`s army needs to busy for that to succeed.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

That Rasmussen tool and Poroshenko both need to shut their constant blathering. Between the two of them and their never ending rhetoric and hysteria it's a wonder the entire country isn't burning. Maybe Putin should take Kiev in two weeks just to shut at least one of them up.

Just to clarify, I have no dog in this fight and could care less if two armies want to have at each other. My concern is only for the civilians caught in the middle.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

It wouldn`t take Russia two weeks to get Kiev, couple of days at most (Barroso BS).

It`s sickening indeed, but remember they are only tools...it`s frustrating what those sociopaths will do to keep world hegemony, they will probably stop at nothing.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Looks like this was just added to the article.


*UKRAINE TO CALL TRUCE TOMORROW IF TALKS TAKE PLACE: POROSHENKO

Poroshenko must have realized backing out of the last ceasefire might have been a mistake. Perhaps a fatal one when the dust settles.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   




I wasn't aware that Ukraine was a member of NATO.


Yatsenyuk is a member................ Of something like NATO or one of their pawns



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Except for the sad suffering by the people caught in the middle of this , I find it quite funny .The west would like to have their cake and eat it too but Putin is the one with the knife that will do the carving .Pornshenko is done . Any new leader considering the Ukraine people will need to consider Russia a friend and if possible ,Europe as a customer for some of their trade .Ukraine probably wont become part of NATO ,because they wont want to be a battle field .Ukraine will probably become a group of Federal states with their own autonomy ,much like the Crimea was before the shtf .



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
You can read wiki about Ukraine–NATO relations :




Neighbouring Russia is strongly opposed to any eastward expansion of NATO. On February 12, 2008 (then) Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins NATO and accepts the deployment of a US missile defence shield. Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has stated more than once his country would not allow foreign military bases on its territory; as of December 2009 NATO is not planning to deploy military bases in Ukraine.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin allegedly declared at a NATO-Russia summit in 2008 that if Ukraine joined NATO his country could contend to annex the Ukrainian East and Crimea.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

He's just one of the pro EU politicians and he's a real peach from what it says on Wiki about him. Though I do agree with his stance on fixing the shadow economy in Ukraine. Not much else though, he didn't even want to allow Russian as a second Ukrainian language and god help anyone who might be gay.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

Well, you can blame this conflict on Putin ... he's the chicken, who flinches. Sooner or later, he'll lose his Russia ... unless the Russians get of their dumb butt, and start to fight for their existence.

It's one way or the other ... either they wanna exist, or not ... this is the defining point.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: Bassago

Well, you can blame this conflict on Putin ... he's the chicken, who flinches.


So you may say,we'll agree to disagree on the original fault of this mess. And he doesn't appear to be flinching to me.



It's one way or the other ... either they wanna exist, or not ... this is the defining point.


Are you suggesting that the west use the ultimate retaliation against Russia, nuclear annihilation? If so I doubt any of us will survive, east or west.

edit on 748am3131am112014 by Bassago because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

I don't think "whatever it takes" applies to Ukraine situation. It only applies to NATO members. Even Pentagon yesterday said that US is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine.

Btw, I see on the map there is no land link directly from Mariupol to Crimea. Much more territory needs to be captured before establishing a lank link. Then why is every one mentioning lank link via Mariupol all the time.

There is a direct land link possible via 14-16 km sea bridge from Russian territory to Crimea. But in war time the bridge can be taken out so having a proper land link makes sense.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Budapest Agreement in 1994 as many are aware was signed by US, Russia, England, Germany and later seperately France and China to guarantee Ukraines borders and security in return for removing their former sovier nuclear arsenal which was 3rd largest in the world at the time.


If those signatories do not back up their agreement, then either return the nukes to Ukraine, or every other international agreement those memebrs states also signed is too, null and void.

UN and NATO alliance dont mean anything either.....neither does the Nuclear Non Prolifieration Treaty.

You see, if you can null and void one international agreement, you null and void all of them.

Correct, No one wants a war with Russia, but that is the reason NATO was formed in the first place. To counter the Russian threat.

Ukraine isnt 100% in NATO, but does that mean nations cannot get involved to support them?

I commend Australian Prime Minister, Abbott, for stepping up to the plate and providing non military aid to Ukraines government.....not even a NATO member, from the other side of the world, but doing what is right in the current circumstances and making NATO look very small in the same process.

I still cannot beleive how ineffective both NATO and the UN are.....its disgusting.

Edit: Just to add, Ukraine has always been known as the "Breadbasket of Europe"....theres a reason for that. The rich fertile plains of Ukraine are fantastic agricultural land. Therefore, its fine for Europe to import Ukrainian agriculture to feed its own people but not good enough for Europe to protect?
edit on 4/9/14 by Melbourne_Militia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Melbourne_Militia




If those signatories do not back up their agreement, then either return the nukes to Ukraine, or every other international agreement those memebrs states also signed is too, null and void.


Sorry pal, kindly remove the word "guarantee" from the agreement. In the event of a crisis, NATO will come into consultations with Ukraine and choose various measures (including military help) to overcome the crisis.

However, NATO is under no obligation i.e. has given no guarantee to intervene in military terms. NATO members have chosen to intervene in economic terms via sanctions etc.

Secondly, be careful what you wish for. War with Russia is something you might not appreciate...........once it starts.




To counter the Russian threat.


However, in Ukraine's case, Russia is countering to NATO threat. Why do you people ignore, deny, overlook the real facts on ground. Will help you save lots of efforts and economics in the process.

Analyst: West 80 Percent Responsible for Ukraine Сrisis

en.ria.ru...

edit on 4-9-2014 by victor7 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-9-2014 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Melbourne_Militia

You also have to take in the equation the promises made to Russia of NATO not expanding towards Russia. Russia`s thread of annexing Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is a direct result of that expansion. The west was warned about what would happen if they tried to make Ukraine a puppet-state of the West.

Russia doesn`t trust the West, because they think they follow The Grand Chessboard (confirmed by one of Putin`s main advisers).



“Ukraine, Azerbaijan, South Korea, Turkey and Iran play the role of critically important geopolitical pivots,” he wrote in The Grand Chessboard, a book viewed by many as a blueprint for US world domination.

Brzezinski wrote that Eurasia is “the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played,” and that “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America.”

Understanding Brzezinski’s long-term view of Ukraine makes it easier to comprehend why the US has given $5 billion to Ukraine since 1991, and why today it is hyper-concerned about having Ukraine remain in its sphere of influence.

It may also help explain why in the past year the US and many of its media outlets have feverishly demonized Vladimir Putin.


www.globalresearch.ca...

www.amazon.com...

Russia wants a buffer state between them and NATO and not to be surrounded at all sides, hence Georgia and Ukraine wars.

And there is also the longstanding American wish about the ballistic missile defense system, which Russia also don`t want to be in the Ukraine and Georgia. European countries were at first against it, but the Baltic States, Poland and Romania now already have changed their minds :



Washington maintains that U.S. antimissile systems planned for fielding in Europe do not have the technical capability to threaten Russian nuclear missiles. At the same time, some NATO countries have explicitly linked the missile shield to the goal of deterring Russia.


www.nti.org...

So there`s more to the eye than Russia just being imperialistic as some claim it to be.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Bassago

Huh.. so now social media is accepted as a reliable source of information?

Ukraine is not a member of NATO. As a few others pointed out he is referring to Russian aggression against NATO members.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Melbourne_Militia

You also have to take in the equation the promises made to Russia of NATO not expanding towards Russia. Russia`s thread of annexing Crimea and Eastern Ukraine is a direct result of that expansion.


This never happened and the fact you keep repeating still does not make it true.

iIf you spent the time to research you would see Germany, Helemt Kohl, made guarantees to Gorbachev about NATO. Germany does not speak for the entire alliance and did not consult NATO when he made the promise.

Gorbachev commented about this issue to George Bush (Senior).

NATO, nor the US or any other NATO nation aside from GErmany ever made a promise not to expand NATO east.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

S
Since its creation in 1949, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
has developed a tradition of making
decisions by consensus. This requirement for
general agreement among all members on
positions or actions taken in the name of
NATO has survived serious internal rifts and
four rounds of enlargement.

So now Germany pomise it NATO is bound to do it since any move near Russia is against the promise ?





new topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join