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.

 

NATO - Russia relations: NATO Facts verse Russian Falsehoods

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: Xcathdra

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

This as a WW3 thread? nope!


Nato is useless. There's NO WAR - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!


. . . now time for you to ask to move this thread out of WW3.


please remain on topic or dont bother posting in an effort to derail the thread.




posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

There is nothing that prevents an individual nation or NATO member from taking a side with a 3rd party nation against another nation. You re confusing joining NATO with dealing with NATO.

nothing goes without saying.. If you have links to the contrary post them.


That is the point I think of NATO. However they have been doing a terrible job. There is too much money involved. Is your argument that western bankers are more morally sound than Russian Oligarchs? If so, can I point you toward the fact that Russia made ZERO and I mean ZERO aggresive moves? Oh wait.... you are going to try to tell me that professional Russian soldiers shot down a passenger plane? A plane? That's our bag baby. Lockerbie, 9/11 the list goes on. Russians are good at crashes.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

There is nothing that prevents an individual nation or NATO member from taking a side with a 3rd party nation against another nation. You re confusing joining NATO with dealing with NATO.

nothing goes without saying.. If you have links to the contrary post them.


Well it aint. Because NATO have People smak in the middle of Ukraine right now. Do you know that NATO aksed Norway to prepresent NATO in Kiev?

This was mentioned in the News here in Norway just a week ago. The US have had miltary diplomats and personell in Ukraine representing NATO.

Even Jesn Stoltenberg (Head of NATO) has spoken on the topic that NATO have to stand firm With the Ukrainan government against the Russian pro-russian support.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: nukedog

i was looking more at the allegations the Russians made in the op and NATO's response to them.

Individual NATO nations can run their own affairs as they see fit, and do. Nothing prevents a NATO nation from taking a stand against another nation when 3rd party nations are at risk, like Ukraine.

Individual NATO nations have their own funding and not vice-verse.

NATO wants an individual nation to spend 2% gdp on their military however there is nothing that punishes a NATO member from not doing it.

A nation does not have to be at peace to join NATO. If it were a requirement Greece and Turkey never would have been admitted.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: nukedog
a reply to: spy66

I forgot what was that recording taken of US embassy officials called? The "Lund Recording?"


Is this what you were looking for?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
Well it aint. Because NATO have People smak in the middle of Ukraine right now. Do you know that NATO aksed Norway to prepresent NATO in Kiev?


Link to this info please.




originally posted by: spy66
This was mentioned in the News here in Norway just a week ago. The US have had miltary diplomats and personell in Ukraine representing NATO.

Ukraine requested to join NATO. Why would NATO not speak to them?




originally posted by: spy66
Even Jesn Stoltenberg (Head of NATO) has spoken on the topic that NATO have to stand firm With the Ukrainan government against the Russian pro-russian support.

and with the number of times Russia has violated airspace of EU / NATO members makes one wonder why Russia is targeting NATO with its war in Ukraine.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Your link is invalid and if its the neuland recording you can save it it as it has nothing to do with the OP.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




and with the number of times Russia has violated airspace of EU / NATO members makes one wonder why Russia is targeting NATO with its war in Ukraine.


How are the Russians violating airspace while in INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE?


god, this thread is so far off from being in the right section.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
How's that Sweden "Russian Sub Hunt" working out?


. . . Have they found anything yet?


Just more manufactured Nato PR stunts. Like I've been saying, there's NO WAR!



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: SurrenderingAmerica
a reply to: Xcathdra




and with the number of times Russia has violated airspace of EU / NATO members makes one wonder why Russia is targeting NATO with its war in Ukraine.


How are the Russians violating airspace while in INTERNATIONAL AIRSPACE?


god, this thread is so far off from being in the right section.


When Russian aircraft enter a nations airspace without permission its a violation. Maybe if you spent more time understanding whats going on before derailing the thread?



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

Or propaganda from you since Sweden is not a member of NATO.

What does this have to do with the claims the Russians made in the OP? Are you that incapable of following simple requests?
edit on 2-11-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
For those that are not comprehending....

The claims in the OP are claims by Russia about NATO. NATO has responded to those claims and supported their position with facts.

Can anyone counter those claims?



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
The general consensus, at least from what I have been able to ascertain, is that Russia is the "good guy," while the US and its allies are beating up on Russia. That is not how I see it at all. There are certain things that Russia has a right to be upset over, but the fact that they basically staged a coup against the Ukrainian government in Crimea makes them guilty of being the aggressors. There was absolutely no justification for this act by Russia, considering it was sovereign Ukrainian territory. If there is a large Russian population in the region, what does that matter? Does it somehow give Russia the right to dictate Ukrainian policies? It does not, and it most definitely does not justify military action and the overthrow of the regional government. What if all of the Mexicans living in Texas all stood up and said they wanted Mexico to come into the state and oust the state's government, so it could become a part of Mexico again? It would not be supported by those of you who support Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

It is no different in that it is one country violating the sovereignty of another. The truth is that Russia has always felt hemmed in by western military forces considering the US and its allies have surrounded Russia with missiles, and an important portion of Russia's national defense strategy centers around the naval base in Crimea. It is so important that they violated Ukrainian sovereignty over it. This was the only reason, no matter what they claim, or what the west says. From day one I stated that Russia's aggression would stop with Crimea, and that they would not attempt to seize control of Ukraine itself since that was not where their interests lay. My posting history will confirm how adamant I have been on this point. While so many people thought WWIII was about to break out, and that Russia was going to go crazy, I did not waver. I am not saying this to brag, rather I am saying this to emphasize that my confidence on the issue stems from understanding Russia's true intentions.

Why did they not just continue with the lease of the area? This is one question that has bugged me since all of this started, and the only real answer I can come up with is that they wanted it outright, mainly because it would allow them a bit more secrecy in the entire area. At least more secrecy than they would have if the area were still not completely theirs. This secrecy is so important in the event of a future conflict, but especially a conflict with Ukraine. Russia likely knows that one of the first moves of a major conflict between themselves and a country like the US would be for the US to take action in Crimea. By controlling the area outright Russia is also not limited by the same terms that they were under the lease from the Ukrainian government. That is my theory anyway. Approaching the problem from the way I've presented it above, I think Russia is guilty of violating Ukrainian sovereignty by launching a militarily aggressive act, and that even if other countries are guilty of wrongdoing, this does not mean Russia's acts are justified.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is it another "Nato claimed" or "Nato says" type of accusation?

. . . we've seen how those have turned out.


Xcathdra, just stop. We get what you're trying to do. But there's gonna be NO WAR!



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Xcathdra: Dude... seriously.... what NATO essentially did is exasperate a succession into a full blown civil war. They took no ones side. The best thing they could have done is let Russia handle the repatriation. I understand that half the country wanted to be part of the EU. That's fine. Let's talk about it. Don't support the violent rebels. That's almost as bad as the US supporting "moderates." There is an agenda here the way I see it.

Spy66... I actually think that sounds scripted now. It's been a while since I heard about it but it was a big deal.

SurrenderingAmerica: Russia has been turning off transponders while flying over monitored air space. It's all over this board. I'm not sure if that constitutes "sovereign" airspace or not but it definitely poses a risk to traffic control.



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Link to this info please.


One link. There are more, but this will do.
www.klassekampen.no...

During the NATO summit in Wales last week it became clear that Norway together with six allies to create a new reaction force. The Government will also send officers to the military exercises in Ukraine during the current month - See more that:







Ukraine requested to join NATO. Why would NATO not speak to them?


Have You read and understood the resolutions you posted?



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Well X you tell me that placing anti missile batteries in adjacent countries,is NOT encroaching on both Russias security....
and her nuke strike capabilities...how does that work....
just askin as I know Rusia is the bad guy in this scenario.....but Nato has sometimes been provocative.....don't you think...
Russia has degenerated into a political and economic mess since the commies broke up.....
Little better than a Mafia controlled government.....



posted on Nov, 2 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: nukedog


I understand what you're saying in regards to the transponders. I've read about that as well (not on ATS though).


Allow me to counter that w/ Nato COMPLETELY disabling most of EU w/ their last drills.

. . . would that also constitute as a BIGGER threat to "sovereign" airspace? In addition, does that also not pose a HUGE risk to traffic control?


I actually made a thread about this very same thing.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join