Russia threatens to use 'nuclear force' over Crimea and the Baltic states

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Oh I completely understand it ,but we have been responding to a potential invasive Russia and THEY WENT AND DID it as we suspected they would.

Well, what about the argument that we sought to change the regime in Ukraine to move the country towards Nato? Is that interference not a threat to Russia?

originally posted by: ICycle2
Also a lot of these independent countries have many ethnically Russians who want to be part of Russia again.

They can move to Russia then right? If White South Africans wanted to be part of England again is it cool for England to steal part of the country? Or is it only acceptable when Russia does it?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Oh I completely understand it ,but we have been responding to a potential invasive Russia and THEY WENT AND DID it as we suspected they would.

Well, what about the argument that we sought to change the regime in Ukraine to move the country towards Nato? Is that interference not a threat to Russia?

That argument holds no water because the PEOPLE wanted to move towards NATO.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I haven't seen any evidence the US or NATO has fired harmed or kidnapped anyone.
The standard US pattern of screwing with countries hasn't been seen AKA SF goes in.
The west may have played money games but we haven't had boots killing the locals, where Russia HAS.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Oh I completely understand it ,but we have been responding to a potential invasive Russia and THEY WENT AND DID it as we suspected they would.

Well, what about the argument that we sought to change the regime in Ukraine to move the country towards Nato? Is that interference not a threat to Russia?

That argument holds no water because the PEOPLE wanted to move towards NATO.

Then why was the US funding the opposition prior to the change? Why were we involved? Do you really think that it was just an organic uprising? I'm open to it having been so but not completely convinced yet.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I haven't seen any evidence the US or NATO has fired harmed or kidnapped anyone.
The standard US pattern of screwing with countries hasn't been seen AKA SF goes in.
The west may have played money games but we haven't had boots killing the locals, where Russia HAS.

A fair point. But then, it seems that regime change occurred rather quickly. Perhaps no more action was necessary because the objective was completed: installing a NATO-friendly and anti-Russian government?

All speculation on my part as I'm not claiming to have proof. But these rumors have been swirling for a while now.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I look to the populace and their words not their leaders,as our media is comprimised so deeply.
I don't hear them damning the west just asking for help against Russia or requestiing to be left alone.
What is telling here is Russia NOT informing it's troop's relatives HOW they died and claiming it was an accident.
Why would they do that if the Ukreain wanted them there?
Why is Russia accused of using criminals instead of fromt line units IN THE OPEN to "help" their downtrodden populace?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I look to the populace and their words not their leaders,as our media is comprimised so deeply.
I don't hear them damning the west just asking for help against Russia or requestiing to be left alone.
What is telling here is Russia NOT informing it's troop's relatives HOW they died and claiming it was an accident.
Why would they do that if the Ukreain wanted them there?
Why is Russia accused of using criminals instead of fromt line units IN THE OPEN to "help" their downtrodden populace?

Our media is compromised. Where are you getting your non-biased info from?

As to the Russian troops, that could be simply because those operations are special ops? Right?

The fact that Russia has or does not have troops involved doesn't in any way however negate the concept that the West is manipulating things at all.

Just as, the presence of US troops in Afghanistan or some other country doesn't mean that the US is automatically wrong or not on a given policy.

I am bringing things back around to an original point that I made. People are talking about Russian troops in the Ukraine, as if this is a deal breaker. But wait a minute.. Most Westerners, especially in the Uk or US, seem to believe that we can put troops in or attack any country we want, UN or international law be darned!

So it goes both ways. To impugn Russia for all of these actions is to automatically impugn our own governments for similar actions around the world. Do you see the point I am making here?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Then why was the US funding the opposition prior to the change?

Well the same question can be asked for why Russia was funding the then President to back out of deals he promised his people would happen?

Do you really think that it was just an organic uprising?

You can only lie and steal from the people for so long before they rise up against you.

Here's an interesting look into what Yanukovich was involved in which was a big reason for them wanting him gone...

yanukovychleaks.org...

Hard to hide your doings when your assistant throws your dirty laundry in the lake instead of the shredder.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

What is telling here is Russia NOT informing it's troop's relatives HOW they died and claiming it was an accident.

Here just to add something to that...

Seems even the men fighting from the Russian military are tired of the lies...

Russian Soldiers Have Given Up Pretending They Are Not Fighting in Ukraine

news.vice.com...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The fact that Russia has or does not have troops involved doesn't in any way however negate the concept that the West is manipulating things at all.

And having Russia say this doesn't prove they are, but when you lie about your own military troops dying in a country your not supposedly involved in makes that word a bit less credible.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The fact that Russia has or does not have troops involved doesn't in any way however negate the concept that the West is manipulating things at all.

And having Russia say this doesn't prove they are, but when you lie about your own military troops dying in a country your not supposedly involved in makes that word a bit less credible.

That doesn't count though, as many special operations, especially black ops, carry the "If you are captured or killed we will deny all responsibility." The US has all kinds of black ops and secret things it is doing that it denies. So is Western "word less credible?"

Once again, when you point a finger, four are pointing back. The tone with which people talk about Russia would imply that they are somehow doing something abnormal that the West does not, hence allowing for some kind of action on the part of the West. We will not have peace until all of this stops.

I for one am against all might makes right and violations of sovereignty and international law. However, I will not get on the side of pro-westerners until they can sit like me and call it out every case it happens and when our side does it. Otherwise it is just hypocrisy and using "international law" as a tool of power and not justice.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Yes but what you describe IS NOT a defined government then is it?
In order for such an America to forment such things you would have to say the CIA and Obama have orchistrated this.
The CIA has LOST 80% of it's HUMINT under Clinton when he signed that law forbidding them from using criminals as contacts.
And one look at Obama's forein polices should make CLEAR he isn'yt up to such elaborate mechanizations in fact it should verify the existance of another world power we are understanding.
As the police say if the want to catch the crook FOLLOW the money.
Who in Europe HAS EVER stuck their necks out conspiratorily, LIKE the US in the wstern world?
france? Germany? ENGLAND?
None fit that mold.
SOMEONE wants this who has the ability to CAUSE it,there's your culprit.
WHO gave hitler his money to come to power?
Financiers,above the laws with complete immunity and obvious deniability.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That doesn't count though, as many special operations, especially black ops, carry the "If you are captured or killed we will deny all responsibility.

It does count because what Russia is doing in Ukraine is not just special ops, it is a regular military operation.

The US has all kinds of black ops and secret things it is doing that it denies. So is Western "word less credible?"

And has the west threatened it's neighbors with nuclear action such as the Russian have?

Well if the West has been denying their involvement militarily in Ukraine while sending heavy weapons and troops to fight then it would be...but we aren't so I guess that question really doesn't apply here.

And this thread is about how Russia threatens the use of nukes on their neighbors, and it is the West that is bad...how does that work again?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That doesn't count though, as many special operations, especially black ops, carry the "If you are captured or killed we will deny all responsibility.

It does count because what Russia is doing in Ukraine is not just special ops, it is a regular military operation.

The US has all kinds of black ops and secret things it is doing that it denies. So is Western "word less credible?"

And has the west threatened it's neighbors with nuclear action such as the Russian have?

Well if the West has been denying their involvement militarily in Ukraine while sending heavy weapons and troops to fight then it would be...but we aren't so I guess that question really doesn't apply here.

And this thread is about how Russia threatens the use of nukes on their neighbors, and it is the West that is bad...how does that work again?

I don't excuse aggression and imperialism from any country, including Russia. But the US has a 100 year history of invasions, coups, special ops, regime changes, etc. More than Russia. Again, the only rational viewpoint is that the powers that be, including Russia and the US, will and area playing real politick, and only make shows of caring about democracy, international law, and human rights. It's one big chess game. Until you acknowledge this simple fact, which is demonstrable, you aren't ready to actually look for real solutions.

The Russians, just like many, are forced to play real politick precisely because the other powers are too. To pretend they are doing so in a vacuum is incredibly naive.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That claim holds no water. Ukraine had applied to NATO back in 2008. Their membership was denied. If everything going on in Ukraine now was just a ploy to strengthen Ukraine-NATO bonds why didn't they just accept their application years ago?

BUT here is a little statement for you all:

medium.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra
"Russia" is a swath of Earth incapable of making threats.

These alleged threats supposedly came from a nebulous group of "Russian generals" discussing how the Russian establishment may respond to further provocations by NATO via their US marionettes. ... according to an alleged American present at the meetings who claimed to have taken "notes" that a reporter supposedly read.

These "threats" did not originate from "Russia", or Putin... rather, from an "American".

This is little more than rank hearsay based on alleged 'notes' taken by a so called "American" who claims to have been there.

If this person was in fact there, and these notes exist, do they accurately reflect what these "generals" said?..... did the reporter read them correctly?..or contact "Russia" to verify the accuracy?

No way to know if it's legit or BS...

They added that “the same conditions that existed in Ukraine and caused Russia to take action there” existed in the three Baltic states, which like Ukraine have significant numbers of people who regard themselves as ethnically Russian.

Crimea was Russian all along and in recent events Moscow took back what is theirs. Russia has every right to use any weapon in hand to keep Crimea as Russian. PERIOD!!

Regarding Baltics, that is a scary situation. They are in NATO and only 10-15% of the populations, at most, are ethnically Russian. Moscow would be wrong to take matters into the language of force. While NATO has every right to place as many soldiers and weapons in Baltics but that can also be taken as a very aggressive move threatening Moscow given short distances. That can surely invite Russian "out in open" aggression and EVIL events to follow from there on. NATO should stay away from aggravating a peaceful situation into a war of nonsense.

And I would add, that the conditions of Ukraine do not exist in the Baltics i.e. there is no serious ill-treatment of Russian peoples in those countries. Russia taking forceful action in Baltic states on false charges of ill treatment would be a wrong move in many a sense.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That claim holds no water. Ukraine had applied to NATO back in 2008. Their membership was denied. If everything going on in Ukraine now was just a ploy to strengthen Ukraine-NATO bonds why didn't they just accept their application years ago?

Actually no their membership was not denied in 2008. In 2010 Yanukovych and the government opted not to join NATO = Ukraine declined to pursue membership.