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.

 

Proof : Russia didn`t want to face the decision of having to intervene

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Ukraine's Choreographed Civil War, As Revealed By Wikileaks




Think the deadly events in a civil-war ridden Ukraine are proceeding unscripted, and without US supervision and/or direction? Think again. Below is an excerpt from a formerly confidential memo, leaked by Wikileaks, and authored by former US ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The punchline: the memo is dated February 1, 2008.


www.zerohedge.com...

That clearly puts the nail in the coffin of the Western Media rhetoric about who`s behind the whole Ukrainian mess.

Another discussion point solved !




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
What a shock...I didn't see that coming at all.

I mean...the Russians man!


+8 more 
posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
There was never any doubt, only ignorance. It doesn't matter how much proof there is that show the west deliberately started a coup in Ukraine and engaged in a campaign to smear Russia and Putin. There will be those that have made up their mind and refuse to hear anything that disagrees with them. America=good Russia=bad is nothing more than blind religion.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Let's look at the entire series of cables, shall we?


1. (C) Summary. Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions. End summary.


https://__._/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

Emphasis mine. Ukraine was seeking NATO membership as early as 2008, but was refused by NATO. I hope this clarifies NATO's role a bit.


Lavrov stressed that maintaining Russia's "sphere of influence" in the neighborhood was anachronistic, and acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe had "legitimate interests" in the region. But, he argued, while countries were free to make their own decisions about their security and which political-military structures to join, they needed to keep in mind the impact on their neighbors.


In other words, the Russian Foreign Minister acknowledges that a "Russian sphere of influence" is an anachronism, and that the United States and Europe have legitimate interests in Eastern Europe.

https://__._/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html


Russia's opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived strategic concerns about the impact on Russia's interests in the region. It is also politically popular to paint the U.S. and NATO as Russia's adversaries and to use NATO's outreach to Ukraine and Georgia as a means of generating support from Russian nationalists.


https://__._/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

I think that is pretty straightforward, don't you? NATO understood that taking on Ukraine would be destabilizing, which is why they never set up a path to membership.

Edit to add: replace the dashed with w i k i l e a k s . o r g


edit on 9-9-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I wonder how long they thought this info would stay hidden or is it still sort of hidden if the truth is not on the main story on the mainstream, since thats what quite surely most of the ppl reads their truths. Also i wonder hows Russia thinks about these news? Will they just forgive or will they respond some way? Could it be enough to provoke even war? I doubt they find it amusing in the long run.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: romilo
I wonder how long they thought this info would stay hidden or is it still sort of hidden if the truth is not on the main story on the mainstream, since thats what quite surely most of the ppl reads their truths. Also i wonder hows Russia thinks about these news? Will they just forgive or will they respond some way? Could it be enough to provoke even war? I doubt they find it amusing in the long run.


The info is not hidden; in fact, the cables clearly exonerate NATO, if you bother to read them.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




The info is not hidden; in fact, the cables clearly exonerate NATO, if you bother to read them.


Reading seems to be a lost art as of late.

Reading is the easy part, but understanding it is where some have the problem.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Yeah so did you bother to read the entire thing? It talks about how Russia portrays the US and NATO as an enemy to stir up Russian nationals in Georgia and Ukraine. It talks about how Russia acceoted that those states have the right to and would likely join NATO and that it would re-evaluate its ties to them. And its say Russia would likely cause trouble for these states. It also shows almots a complete lack of intrest in NATO having them join.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
There was never any doubt, only ignorance. It doesn't matter how much proof there is that show the west deliberately started a coup in Ukraine and engaged in a campaign to smear Russia and Putin. There will be those that have made up their mind and refuse to hear anything that disagrees with them. America=good Russia=bad is nothing more than blind religion.


You`re right.

Even when it now shows Russia had no interest to create what happened you still will see media and members blame it on Russia...it`s actual their base on which they have created the whole fallacy, so I don`t think they will drop it.

I was not surprised to see posts of certain members to try to steer away from it and to try to confuse members by pointing towards other stuff from the cables.

Same happened with the leaked Victory Nuland tape, because it couldn`t be denied, all the Focus went on the "Faq the EU" part instead about what had been said around it, which was the important stuff.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
There was never any doubt, only ignorance. It doesn't matter how much proof there is that show the west deliberately started a coup in Ukraine and engaged in a campaign to smear Russia and Putin. There will be those that have made up their mind and refuse to hear anything that disagrees with them. America=good Russia=bad is nothing more than blind religion.
They are treading too heavily upon the Tigers tail...Putin will not blink.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien



Even when it now shows Russia had no interest to create what happened you still will see media and members blame it on Russia...it`s actual their base on which they have created the whole fallacy, so I don`t think they will drop it.


In case you haven't noticed, you shot yourself in the foot with your own smoking gun. Where, exactly, do these cables show that NATO was planning a coup in Ukraine. On the contrary, they prove that Ukraine was interested in joining NATO as early as 2008, but NATO denied the request because it understood that, despite Sergei Lavrov's affirmation that a Russian sphere of influence was anachronistic, Russia would react negatively to anything it considered to threaten its influence.


I was not surprised to see posts of certain members to try to steer away from it and to try to confuse members by pointing towards other stuff from the cables.


Steer away from what? Unlike zerohedge, I quoted the cable in full. As usual, Russian apologists have to take things out of context to create "evidence."


Same happened with the leaked Victory Nuland tape, because it couldn`t be denied, all the Focus went on the "Faq the EU" part instead about what had been said around it, which was the important stuff.


Yes, once you strip the video of the title "Victoria Nuland admits spending five billion dollars to destabilize Ukraine," and listen to what she actually says, she is talking about this:

www.usaid.gov...

Look at all those children in the clinic being brainwashed into becoming violent ultra-nationalist thugs.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Nice try...

It was US ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns informing the Joint Chiefs of Staff about Russia not wanting to take that decision what was the important part...you`re just trying to steer away from that.

And it was about this Victory Nuland tape I was writing :




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

My bad.... but aren't you the one who is deflecting now? Where in any of these cables is there any evidence that NATO did anything but reject Ukraine for membership?



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

My bad.... but aren't you the one who is deflecting now? Where in any of these cables is there any evidence that NATO did anything but reject Ukraine for membership?


I have given you my answer earlier about NATO nor EU making any difference, see here :

EU Post



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

My bad.... but aren't you the one who is deflecting now? Where in any of these cables is there any evidence that NATO did anything but reject Ukraine for membership?


I have given you my answer earlier about NATO nor EU making any difference, see here :

EU Post


In other words, you are belatedly acknowledging that there is nothing in the cable quoted by zerohedge to support the allegation that NATO deliberately created the situation in Ukraine. Thank you for playing.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

My bad.... but aren't you the one who is deflecting now? Where in any of these cables is there any evidence that NATO did anything but reject Ukraine for membership?


I have given you my answer earlier about NATO nor EU making any difference, see here :

EU Post


In other words, you are belatedly acknowledging that there is nothing in the cable quoted by zerohedge to support the allegation that NATO deliberately created the situation in Ukraine. Thank you for playing.


Where does it say the NATO was responsible, it goes about the West is responsible for it, the thing which had been said along by some of us.

I have never played with you, I have enough nice friends.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I see Joe Bidens son getting on the next flight out. lol
All I know is we the people are going to have to have a meeting about this little problem we have in our government.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Correct me if I am wrong, but Ukraine was seeking NATO membership up till 2010 elections. NATO was also working on special provisions for Ukraine without going down standard MAP route.

If I wanted to get Ukraine into NATO without a big upfront response from Russia, I would do it on the down low, much like it seems NATO was trying to do up till Ukraine stopped seeking membership in 2010.

The word 'anachronism' is very deliberately chosen here I think as a double entendre. He could be referring to the idea that SoI's are 'outdated' or he could be referring simply to history, but the essence of the Foreign Minister's words seem to say 'we both have interests in the area, and Russia's SoI in the area is a thing of the past (or possibly a thing of the future)'

From Wikipedia - "On December 3, 2008 NATO decided it will work out an Annual National Programme of providing assistance to Ukraine to implement reforms required to accede the alliance without referring to MAP.[4] Foreign Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Ohryzko interpreted this as a de facto obtaining of the NATO Membership Action Plan.[44] On February 18, 2009 the Ukrainian Parliament approved by 239 votes (only 226 votes were required for their approval) the creation of a NATO information and documentation center in Ukraine and the appointment of NATO communications officers in Ukraine."

This is essentially a behind the scenes NATO-isation.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

What does a blog using information dating back to 2008 have to do with whats currently going on?

for the moment we will ignore the source as we have had issues with it in the past.

Secondly it ignores the fact Ukraine turned down NATO membership in 2010. Even recently they had no desire to join, up until Russia invaded them.

Is this what we get to expect from you guys now? Blog posts using inaccurate info and spin on your part to try and portray it as something its not?

All this hows is how out of touch and paranoid Putin is. Russia does not control the countries in question and should get used to the fact they cant dictate to them anymore. The only reason Russia feels surrounded is because of how they treat their neighbors. Maybe if russia had not occupied them for so long there would have been no need for those nations to ask the west for assistance and protection.
edit on 10-9-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
You kinda downplaying it to "blog information"
Poor Assange wouldn't be hiding in London if it all was fake



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join