Russia says will retaliate if U.S. weapons stationed on its borders

originally posted by: defcon25
a reply to: DJW001

Wether it's 50 years old or 100 is not important so long as it is relative.
Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say you live in NK...the point I'm trying to make is that the US is not as squaky clean on Free-Speech as it claims to be.

The United States probably has the best record of any nation of all time for free speech. If nothing else. With the exception of libel cases, there has been virtually no legal action taken against people speaking their mind.

a reply to: DJW001
I'm not going to scour the internet for examples of free-speech hypocrisy but I will say this.
I would disagree that the US has the best record of any nation when it comes to free-speech(maybe one of the best) but I'm not trying to say its as bad as Iran either.
Personally I think Free-Speech in America is being attacked at the moment which is not a good sign.

I'm talking mainly about political things like banning anonymous comments online etc.
I have even seen it on this site whereby comments are removed for breach of T&C but surely the T&C of this site are even an attack on Free-Speech.

originally posted by: defcon25
a reply to: DJW001
I'm not going to scour the internet for examples of free-speech hypocrisy but I will say this.
I would disagree that the US has the best record of any nation when it comes to free-speech(maybe one of the best) but I'm not trying to say its as bad as Iran either.
Personally I think Free-Speech in America is being attacked at the moment which is not a good sign.

I'm talking mainly about political things like banning anonymous comments online etc.
I have even seen it on this site whereby comments are removed for breach of T&C but surely the T&C of this site are even an attack on Free-Speech.

It ranks number two behind New Zealand. So now back to the thread seen the latest Russia is threatening sweden because of the support there for joining NATO.

"Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of the military kind and re-orientate our troops and missiles."

I can't believe how stupid he can be Sweden wants to join NATO because of the military threat Russia imposes. So what does Putin do he threatens rhem with military force. Is it me or has he just totally lost it??

PS as far as this site has nothing to do with the US the site owners set up policies to protect their business. It's entirely up to them what they will allow and not allow.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: defcon25
a reply to: DJW001
I'm not going to scour the internet for examples of free-speech hypocrisy but I will say this.
I would disagree that the US has the best record of any nation when it comes to free-speech(maybe one of the best) but I'm not trying to say its as bad as Iran either.
Personally I think Free-Speech in America is being attacked at the moment which is not a good sign.

I'm talking mainly about political things like banning anonymous comments online etc.
I have even seen it on this site whereby comments are removed for breach of T&C but surely the T&C of this site are even an attack on Free-Speech.

It ranks number two behind New Zealand. So now back to the thread seen the latest Russia is threatening sweden because of the support there for joining NATO.

"Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of the military kind and re-orientate our troops and missiles."

I can't believe how stupid he can be Sweden wants to join NATO because of the military threat Russia imposes. So what does Putin do he threatens rhem with military force. Is it me or has he just totally lost it??

He has made threats about Macedonia, Montenegro, Georgia and Bosnia joining as well. Not to mention Ukraine. Threats over missile defense, threats over prepo equipment, threats over nations trying to join NATO and threats over neutral states are being driven to join NATO. Always the threats with Russia, I suppose they have nothing else to offer but, after awhile Russia sounds more and more like North Korea. Making threats to get attention.

a reply to: dragonridr

That sounds interesting....I hpoe your wrong,am going to have a look around for info but if you could provide a link that would be quicker.
I said to someone years ago that this was a very dangerous situation and it is still ongoing today.

a reply to: DJW001

The US has actually been coming in around #40 on Reporters Without Borders' Freedom of Press Index. I believe one of the Scandinavian countries is #1.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I actually thought the US was ranked lower.
Quite reassuring to see that it's number two,maybe I just worry too much.

a reply to: dragonridr

I found a link : www.ibtimes.com...

Found this article on RT rt.com...

"Putin: Unilateral US withdrawal from ABM treaty pushing Russia toward new arms race"

When you think about the current crisis,this is primarily one of the reasons this is happening.
When the US withdrew from this treaty they basically threw out the MAD policy that has practically assured there would be no WW3 between Russia and the States.
IF NATO were to surround Russia and also impliment an ABM shield in Europe(that could be used against Russia) this will be seen as a Direct Threat to Russias National Security.
Is it only me that can see this?
This will lead to a new Arms Race will it not?

a reply to: defcon25

The United State withdrew from the treaty over a decade ago, and there has been no exchange of nuclear weapons fire so far. Neither has it prevented Russia from invading Georgia or annexing Crimea. Withdrawing from the treaty was a classic Bush-Cheney mistake. It did nothing to enhance America's security whilst providing a pretext to its enemies.

a reply to: DJW001

But because their hasn't been a Nuclear war doesn't change the fact that it has had a detrimental effect on the policy of MAD.
It is just going to increase Russia and possibly even China's fears that the US intends to wipe them both out.
But like I showed earlier via the links I posted,the two are of Strategic Military importance to Russia.
Russia is going to try to prevent NATO from surrounding it in the same way the US would not accept Russian Military in Americas backyard because that would then be a Direct Threat to US National Security.
Add the ABM shield in Europe and what Detterance do China and Russia have against US Agression?
Who are Americas enemies?
Are China and Russia seen as enemies of America?

a reply to: dragonridr

That is true but the US has invaded around 50 countries since the second world war.
So you cannot really say that there is no comparison in modern society.
Seems kinda hypocritical to me.

www.ibtimes.com.au...

The Us has also bombed quite a few countries into oblivion since ww2

www.globalresearch.ca...

a reply to: defcon25

Everyone brings up the missile shield, but two kind of important things that get ignored. Obama canceled it in 2013, and two, it wasn't capable of stopping an ICBM from Russia. From the Middle East, MAYBE. From Russia, no chance.

a reply to: defcon25

But because their hasn't been a Nuclear war doesn't change the fact that it has had a detrimental effect on the policy of MAD.

The policy of Mutual Assured Destruction is based upon the assumption that the actors are rational. There is some reason to doubt this is currently the case.

It is just going to increase Russia and possibly even China's fears that the US intends to wipe them both out.

Russia's fears are congenital; it doesn't matter what other countries actually do, Russia has always had a strain of exceptionalism that made its leaders assume that it was standing alone against the world. China, on the other hand, seems to be flexing its muscles and paying no heed to America's threats.

But like I showed earlier via the links I posted,the two are of Strategic Military importance to Russia.
Russia is going to try to prevent NATO from surrounding it in the same way the US would not accept Russian Military in Americas backyard because that would then be a Direct Threat to US National Security.

But Russia claims that it is already surrounded by NATO. It is not up to Russia to decide its neighbors' politics.

Add the ABM shield in Europe and what Detterance do China and Russia have against US Agression?

Even if the ABM shield were 99% effective, which it would not be, Russia could still inflict terminal damage to an attacker.

Who are Americas enemies?
Are China and Russia seen as enemies of America?

They are by their supporters here on ATS. There is a strain of triumphalism here that the BRICs will crush the Evil Amurikan Empire.

a reply to: DJW001

When you say it is based on the fact that both actors are rational i would hope that to be the case but regardless,if putin where to go insane and launch at the US the reply would also be the full destruction of Russia.
Maybe you doubt his sanity but I don't.
The US fears are congenital too are they not?
There has always existed a fear of the big bad Ruskies...at first they were afraid they wanted to take over the world with communism.
American Leaders feel that they are standing alone in the world aswell spreading Democracy and Freedom around the world wether they like it or not regardless of the consequences.
I agree it is not upto Russia to interfere with it's neighbours politics just as it is not upto America to interfere in Iraq,Afghanistan or Libyas politics.
Yes I fully agree also that even if the ABM shield were as effective it would make no difference but Russia or China can't be guaranteed of this.
But I'm afraid it happens.

originally posted by: defcon25
a reply to: mojom

Fully agree mate,mankind never seems to learn from the past and history just repeats over and over.
It is as if we are on the road to ww3 and there is absolutely nothing the average joe can do to stop it and the morons in power don't seem to give a damn.
If Russia,the USA or China get involved in any kind of conflict with each other we all know the most likely outcome will be a Nuclear War.
You would think these states would be at the table all the time trying to negotiate and compromise and improve relations with each other aswell as trying to decommission weapons and stop other states going after nukes etc.
Dangerous times.

Tracing this back, Putin initiated the aggression. He's been acting provocatively since Crimea, flying armed fighter jets and bombers into western Europe to test intercept response times. He's egging for a real war because this nationalizes platitudes of patriotism which utlimately serve as a beacon of unity for his group of elites.

In a sense, much of the reforms that Putin put in place to increase wealth in the labor market has been lost through sanctions. As the economy becomes more unstable, there will have to be political equalibrium to keep him popular and in power.

If western leaders were at all wise, they would unanamously lift sanctions and offer a stalmate treaty (allowing Crimea to remain under Russian control) to releive the pressure and create the illusion that Putin has won. If these steps are not taken now, the momentum will certainly escalate into a ground war resulting global conflicts elsewhere. Even in a limited form, such a conflict would most certainly impinge upon the fragile world economic condition.

It would be a disaster for US policy in the Middle East and its war on terrorism, because further Russian agression in Europe would divert US resources from those areas of concern, resulting in advancements for Al-Qaed and ISIS. We have to be concerned that any threat or consequencial invasion of petroleum nations in the Middle East by anti-western insurgents, would lead to spiked oil prices and a global depression of massive proportion, brining western economies to a halt.

I don't have to tell you what comes next when millions of people are hungry and without electricity and water.

a reply to: Gianfar

If western leaders were at all wise, they would unanamously lift sanctions and offer a stalmate treaty (allowing Crimea to remain under Russian control) to releive the pressure and create the illusion that Putin has won

They would, but Putin is going to have to remove his troops and military hardware from the East and the sanctions get lifted.

The only problem is Putin has ridden the lie that he has no troops in Ukraine that he can't pull them out or he faces backlash form the people he has been lying to...the Russian people.

And Putin's ego is too big for him to do that, as all he cares about is staying the president as long as he can...he loves the money train he has created for himself, and can't bear to leave .

a reply to: Gianfar

If western leaders were at all wise, they would unanamously lift sanctions and offer a stalmate treaty (allowing Crimea to remain under Russian control) to releive the pressure and create the illusion that Putin has won. If these steps are not taken now, the momentum will certainly escalate into a ground war resulting global conflicts elsewhere. Even in a limited form, such a conflict would most certainly impinge upon the fragile world economic condition.

But western leaders doing the opposite. Now they started seizing Russian state property in France and Belgium.
www.bbc.com...

I don't have strong opinion about Khodorkovsky case, but for russians ( mostly) he is seen like Bernie Madoff. Now imagine that Madoff was released and won in Russo-China court. After this american assets starting to be confiscated in Russia.
I see in near future things will escalate more. Russia unlikely will seize foreign properties, but if pushed hard they may do it. 50 bln$ is quite a large sum, it may lead to military confrontation. Don't forget that France already canceled Mistrals and Russia still hasn't received money back. I know that western media will make noise how aggressive is Putin, little they know that Putin is actually a dove compared to who may come next. Interesting to note that even the most pro-western Russian politicians like Khodorkovsky and Navalny said that Crimean crisis is hard to solve, it will take years if not decades.
This means that in the whole Russian political spectrum there is no one who says Crimea can be given back tomorrow. Assuming that Navalny or Khodorkovsky will somehow became president of Russian Federation, which is impossible without Maidan in Moscow, but even they are not ready to give Crimea back without long preparations for another referendum etc. In short, if not directly appointed Mr. Baiden or Ms. Nuland as an occupational governor Russia is not going to give Crimea back without fight.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: Gianfar

If western leaders were at all wise, they would unanamously lift sanctions and offer a stalmate treaty (allowing Crimea to remain under Russian control) to releive the pressure and create the illusion that Putin has won. If these steps are not taken now, the momentum will certainly escalate into a ground war resulting global conflicts elsewhere. Even in a limited form, such a conflict would most certainly impinge upon the fragile world economic condition.

But western leaders doing the opposite. Now they started seizing Russian state property in France and Belgium.
www.bbc.com...


I don't have strong opinion about Khodorkovsky case, but for russians ( mostly) he is seen like Bernie Madoff. Now imagine that Madoff was released and won in Russo-China court. After this american assets starting to be confiscated in Russia.
I see in near future things will escalate more. Russia unlikely will seize foreign properties, but if pushed hard they may do it. 50 bln$ is quite a large sum, it may lead to military confrontation. Don't forget that France already canceled Mistrals and Russia still hasn't received money back. I know that western media will make noise how aggressive is Putin, little they know that Putin is actually a dove compared to who may come next. Interesting to note that even the most pro-western Russian politicians like Khodorkovsky and Navalny said that Crimean crisis is hard to solve, it will take years if not decades.
This means that in the whole Russian political spectrum there is no one who says Crimea can be given back tomorrow. Assuming that Navalny or Khodorkovsky will somehow became president of Russian Federation, which is impossible without Maidan in Moscow, but even they are not ready to give Crimea back without long preparations for another referendum etc. In short, if not directly appointed Mr. Baiden or Ms. Nuland as an occupational governor Russia is not going to give Crimea back without fight.

Agreed. Crimea will remain as it is, a Russian symbol. The west should "concede" its bidding on Crimea and look toward the long term results of escalation and conflict. A resolution to deescalate the situation would come in the offering of concessions on both sides. The west would recognize Russia's claim on Crimea if Russia withdraws from Ukrainian territory. Sanctions would be eased over time as the conditions were met and NATO would exert its right to expand capability of military bases in the nations bordering Russia.

Both Putin and Europe would benefit from such an arrangement politically and economically by defusing the threat.

a reply to: Gianfar

The west would recognize Russia's claim on Crimea if Russia withdraws from Ukrainian territory. Sanctions would be eased over time as the conditions were met and NATO would exert its right to expand capability of military bases in the nations bordering Russia.

What kind of deal is that and who in the right mind in Kremlin would accept that. NATO tried Russia in Georgia and the reaction from Kremlin was and decisive. West tried its hand again in Ukraine and the reaction was on similar lines except for official invasion.

Strategy of NATO is to keep Russia involved in tense situations and impose sanctions in order to weaken it economically. Once Ruskies are in the third world military force bracket then go for the kill. Putin made a late but decisive move to finally look towards China and Asia as economic partners and loose alliance members. No more begging Europe or West to stand in the same photo shoot like Gorby and Yeltsin used to.

Russia's main and tougher challenges are internal. West and NATO are trying to capitalize on those. Once internal challenges of Russia are firmly and productively dealt with, both West and NATO will be grinning like discount seekers.