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.

 

Ukranian army invades Donetsk ... Putin too busy with his own image in Forbes

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: yuppa

oh ok, NATO is allowed to expand east because it wasnt written down, ok i got that part.

can you explain what exactly Russia gains from a destabilized Ukraine?


No agreement ever existed that prevented NATO from expanding East.

As for what Russia gets -
The Crimea and its naval bases and access to warm water ports that empty into the Med.
Access to the energy resources that are a part of Ukraine in the sea of Asimov.
The industrial sections of south and east Ukraine.
the resources contained in the south and east of Ukraine.
a Russia border that puts distance between putins dreamed up enemies and Moscow.


See my link below for the BS Russian propaganda on NATO expansion.

Not that agreements mean anything to Russia, who signed one that not only recognizes Ukraine's as a sovereign nation which included Crimea, but also signed one not to invade Ukraine, which Russia also broke.
edit on 10-11-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


AS to NATO expansion if you review all of their paperwork you will not find a specific promise of non expansion to russia. If you want to get technical that promise was also made to the USSR not new russia after the fall.

I think we both know the promises was made without splitting hairs over a name change and it was reiterated when plans were being made to bring the wall down.

None of these type of agreements are ever worth anything if you look back at history but lets make no mistake about who did the dirty.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the USA have plans to install a missile shield in Poland and it should had been completed about three years ago ? Well its still not done as far as I know so why do you think that is ?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

...and all thanks to the good old USA !

I bet the Ukrainians are really happy with their American allies, and yet you still wonder why there`s so much anti-Americanism in this world.

Do you actual think most Ukrainians are too stupid to know what has happened ?
edit on 10 11 2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

oh so NATO can expand east because there was no agreement and russia shouldn't worry because there is no way that NATO would ever threaten russia. gotcha. what business does NATO have expanding anywhere?

as for crimea they dont have any naval bases, russia has naval bases in crimea and had agreements with ukraine to hold up to 25000 troops and some armor and whatnot untill 2042. before the western backed coup russia and ukraine had no problems with relations. there was no reason for crimea to declare themselves a part of russia until the coup. there was no killing. there was no need for fighting.

rofl. so russia wanted ukraines gas although ukraine only produces about 20 bcm and consumes about 50 a year. was russia gonna kill everyone in ukraine so they could have the 20 bcm to themselves? i had no idea that russia needed more gas even though they have more natural gas than any country and likely has the most undiscovered natural gas deposits of anywhere in the world.

weird how you still believe that russia is trying to conquer Ukraine when Ukraine is about to be a part of the EU in i think 2016 and then inevitably a part of NATO assuming they can get their # together.
edit on 10-11-2014 by AVoiceOfReason because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2014 by AVoiceOfReason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


As for what Russia gets -


Lets change that to "what Russia had" and then continue



The Crimea and its naval bases and access to warm water ports that empty into the Med.
Access to the energy resources that are a part of Ukraine in the sea of Asimov.
The industrial sections of south and east Ukraine.
the resources contained in the south and east of Ukraine.
a Russia border that puts distance between putins dreamed up enemies and Moscow.


Russia at the point of a gun is being asked to give that up and they have given half of the Ukraine away already but it seem to me that the USA is pushing it too far and should only blame itself when the dog snaps back.

Are you sure the people of the USA want to play chicken with a nuclear power like Russia because you must all be very brave or very stupid for letting your government do this or at the very least they should give you a vote or do they know best.

if Putin only had the ways of the USSR to offer and is as evil as you say then how come the people in the Crimea voted to stay with Russia and how come the people in the east of the Ukraine are risking life and limb to stay in with Russia.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard
a reply to: Xcathdra


As for what Russia gets -


Lets change that to "what Russia had" and then continue



thats a very good point. people seem to forget that ukraine might as well have been a part of russia before this all happened. so triggering a conflict in ukraine makes absolutely no sense.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

I think what all this shows despite public appearances over the years is that the west and Russia still don't trust each other but what really upset Russia was when they tried to put a so called defence shield in Poland and Russian asked who are they trying to defend against because these missiles were in the wrong place to defend against anyone except Russia.

Russia even offered to develop the system as a joint project but got no reply.

The UN also conned Russia about the no fly zone in Libya becoming a full scale invasion and look how well that's turned out so by the time it came to Syria the Russians were getting tired of playing word games and said no more.

Having a buffer zone between east and west seems like its needed more than ever but I think this has been brought about by the USA poking its nose into the affairs of Europe because Germany and Russia were getting too friendly and the trade between them was costing the USA.

NATO is not under the control of Europe, we just pay the bills and today it is looking for a roll before it becomes unneeded and gets stripped of its finance.

If the USA pushes it too far then I only hope Russia goes after the lions den and does not fight us in Europe just like the USA wants because they see Europe as their playground and yes I think China might well be part of the plan.
edit on 10-11-2014 by VirusGuard because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

yeah i had heard that a missile defense system on Russia borders was a pretty big deal to them. but i think its less of the west not trusting russia as much as the west simply wants total control over everything. i thought that Ukraine was a power play at russia because of russia stepping in and pretty much cock blocking them when they tried to invade syria. but georgia was before that and it was basically the same thing thats happening in Ukraine. i think a war with Russia has always been in the cards.

as for Europe ive heard that they are kind of collapsing Europe and stabbing at Russia to keep the dollar propped up. but id have to do more research on that and get the specifics. but it makes sense that to stay on top everyone else has to be bellow you, and Europe actually had a pretty strong economy. and it wouldn't be hard to manipulate EU leaders to shoot themselves in the foot while telling them russia was out to get them.

as for a war... well i dont know. i dont think russia wants to fight the US or the EU. i think there is a reason the cold war stayed cold. russia always seems to wait until they are attacked until they start attacking but they dont leave themselves vulnerable for an attack. this war is going to be fought mostly in the markets and through military posturing. or at least i hope. with these kinds of tension building a war seems almost inevitable but im sure thats what everyone thought during cold war 1.0.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard




Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the USA have plans to install a missile shield in Poland and it should had been completed about three years ago ? Well its still not done as far as I know so why do you think that is ?


US is a clever country. Instead of deploying BMD in a static positions on ground, it has transferred the systems on mobile ships. Hence these ships can be parked in Baltic states or Crimea's Black Sea or Pacific and thus provide 10x the utility of the static BMDs.

What has Russia developed to kill off these Aegis ships with ease. It is said that a swarm of 24 Yakhont missiles might kill these off but if 24 Y's are not been able to be fired or out of range then Aegis ship keeps its work going.

The main threat to Russian state is internal culture of corruption, carelessness and cruelty of elite power holders towards general people and too much reliance on energy sector for economic revenues.

NATO only attacks those who are weak and outnumbered. Seeing all the mismanagement, NATO upped the ante in Ukraine. Georgia happened in 2008 as a test. Russia came out fine in military terms but internally it got even worse.

Now Brezenski, the vowed enemy of Russia, is promoting a Pacific Partnership with China. This in order to isolate Russia and have it stand all alone. However, Chinese are the most clever of all. They know if Russia is bashed to the ground then they will be next on the list of "Complete Global Domination".

Countries like China and India should seek normal economic ties with the west but military and political sense they need to be allied and alert with Russia at all times.
edit on 10-11-2014 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard

Lets change that to "what Russia had" and then continue


I am pretty sure you are confusing "had" with occupation. Russia never "had" Ukraine, or Eastern European and Baltic nations. Russia did in fact "occupy" those nations.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn

PTB are playing a dangerous game and when it is all said and done TPTB will be the only winners.........Think about that for a little while.......Let it sink in.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard
Who needs men when you have money and the USA certainly spent a lot of that in the Ukraine, all $5bn worth to remove an elected leader even if he was a Russian puppet.


I take it you have proof of this?
I suppose all those hundreds of thousands of protesters were all paid by the NSA, right?
Completely irrational nonsense, of course. You and I both know this was a people's movement to oust a corrupt leader. The people demanded distance from Russia and saw a better future with Europe, he denied them that right, without a vote, and then ran away when the people demanded he resign.


originally posted by: VirusGuard
I won't go on to dispel your other allegations but I will say that both the Russians and Germans today seemed quite good friends whilst celebrating the fall of the berlin wall, something that must be burning at the hearts of people in the USA who want to divide Europe up and to fight a war over here in our back garden.


You won't dispel my other points because you can't. You know the facts as well as I do, you just actively choose to deny them because you imagine Russia to be some kind of "bastion of freedom" against the "evil West".
And you know nothing of what people think about the fall of the Berlin Wall, in fact all evidence suggests that those who witnessed it celebrated along with Germany.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? I mean other than your irrational anti-Americanism?


originally posted by: VirusGuard
Russia has just signed a second gas deal with China so has no trouble selling its gas if the Germans want to take the side of the USA with more sanctions on Russia.


Russia can sign all the deals it likes with China, it still needs to sell Gas to Europe because such a large amount of their politicians cash comes from the Oil and Gas industries. Whether you want to accept it or not, the oligarchs in power in Russia are predominantly invested in fossil fuels, and they hold much of the influence over the Kremlin. They need European customers for their exports more than Europe needs Russia to supply it.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
1. no outside help was needed does not mean it wasnt used. it also doesn't change the fact that the west installed their own people into Ukraine once yanukovich was out.


You cannot offer any evidence of this at all.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you believe the USA somehow "orchestrated" hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to demand their corrupt leader leave, you need to offer something more than "I suspect".
The people installed their own INTERIM leader, and then held elections to install a new government.

Welcome to democracy.


originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
2. cool fact? i feel like you people are under the impression that people who dont agree with your view point must think that Ukrainians president was a good guy and his overthrow was uncalled for. which is never the case.


No, just stating another fact that plenty here want to attempt to ignore. The man was living in extreme luxury at the cost of the people paying his wages. He was a corrupt politician, it's a fact.


originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
3. Russia had troops in Crimea and was able to have troops there until 2042. there was no need to invade since they were already there. and please show us where in international law its illegal for an autonomous republic to call for its independence or become part of another country.


The agreement with Ukraine required that all present Russian military conform to certain laws, which they did not do. The moment Russian military stepped out of their bases and SURROUNDED UKRAINIAN BASES they were in breach of their agreement and they were an invading force.

You seem to think that the mere presence of a GUEST is an excuse to invade and attack the people. You are clearly wrong in every way.

Russia had bases there, but Crimea was under the SOVEREIGN CONTROL or Ukraine, NOT RUSSIA.

Under international law, certain criteria have to be met in order for a democratic process to take place. This requires international observers and CERTAINLY NO ARMED MEN POINTING GUNS AT CITIZENS.

The mere fact that you think the theft of Crimea was acceptable in any way shows just how irrational the pro-Russian propagandists are. This was a criminal act, an invasion of a sovereign country, illegal under all international laws. You cannot move your military into a country and call an election, this is criminal and you know it.


originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
4. link it then. from what ive seen the investigators say there is evidence of cannon fire in the plane and russia has satellite imagery of a Ukrainian plane fairly close to mh17. talk about ignoring evidence. ive seen pictures of a buk missle launcher and even a clip from a video game to prove that it was the rebels. oh and dont forget social media, because that is such a reliable source of evidence. so what about the spanish air traffic controller that sent out a tweet about how the Ukrainians had taken over the control tower he was working in?


Russian soldier in Ukraine stating working on a BUK

Multiple witnesses and images of Russian BUK entering and leaving Ukraine

Evidence of Russian aggression in Ukraine, and from Russian soil

But, regardless of the wealth of evidence out there actually showing what is happening, you'll still claim that it's all "western propaganda", right? Can't face the truth, so just pretend everything you don't like is a lie.


originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
5. in what way? ive been dying to see some proof of foul play in the crimean referendum.


Men with Guns, in Russian uniforms, openly stating they are Russian, with Russian weapons, Russian vehicles, surrounding Ukrainian military points, closing off Ukrainian roads, with multiple reports of Russian military and Ukrainian Rebels beating people...

You know that was not a valid referendum. For a start, if you actually read what the people were asked in that "referendum" you would know they were not given a choice at all. Of course, again, you won't look into that because you you're just another anti-American who would back North Korea if it meant an opportunity to b*tch about the "evil West".


originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
6. mm thats weird because the observers that you claim aren't there are claiming the elections in east Ukraine as democratic and legal.


So now you're just flat out lying? Not even trying anymore?

There were NO international observers monitoring the referendum in Crimea, not one, none, zero, and the idea that you can claim there were, and that they called it fair and democratic, is not only laughable it's transparently pathetic.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
what business does NATO have expanding anywhere?


Are you serious?!

You just lost any and all credibility you potentially had with that one statement.

Russia has consistently shown itself to be a threat to its neighbours, this is a fact. Members of NATO have a RIGHT to protect themselves against a large force on their doorstep, especially one that acts aggressively toward other nations.

NATO has every right to install any military defenses it likes in its participant countries, just as Russia has the right to install a base in southern Russia directed at Europe. This is what military tactics and planning are all about.

But of course, you probably think that Russia doing anything like this is "reasonable" while NATO doing the same is "aggression"... right?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

ok.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join