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.

 

Russia Examines 1991 Recognition of Baltic Independence

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapriti
The problem with NATO is that very few expect the USA, the UK, France, etc. will be there for them should the Russians try to seize territory or invade.


Really? I don't think anyone thinks that - if anything, it is the Uk and the US leading the new RRF. Not to mention, the UK has sacrificed itself twice before honouring defence agreements with much smaller, weaker European countries - so much so, we bankrupted ourselves and lost an Empire.




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I've tried to find alternate sources for that, but it seems the only sites carrying the story are all Russian, which makes me think we might need to take that with a pinch of salt..


It was on CNN ticker this afternoon, barely mentioned but was flashed briefly a few times. Certainly got me interested as to why they would want to do this unless they're gearing up to try and legally justify an invasion.


I was talking about the other posters claims about Poroshenko, not Russia examining the Baltic independence, in case you hadn't noticed, I am the OP for this thread so I probably would have heard about it, as I posted it



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: stumason

My source is from Canada while your BBC source is from Russia .

A source at the prosecutor's office, quoted by Russia's Interfax news agency, said the investigation into the Baltic states' independence followed a request from two parliamentary deputies.


Are you saying that only sources of information from outside Russia are truthful or reliable ?


Actually, Yes... Russian media is tightly controlled and only says what the Kremlin wants it to say.
edit on 30/6/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Anyone who recalls Chamberlain and the Franco-British sell-out of Czechoslovakia has extremely limited faith in NATO. And my colleagues in the Baltics don't think NATO will lift a pinky should the Russians engage in a lightning invasion. The stories we in the Anglo-sphere tell ourselves about our heroes, our nobility, and the sacrifice of our people for the sake of others ... these are regarded as masturbatory fantasies by many who lived under the Warsaw Pact.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Kapriti

Fears of a Russian "lightning invasion" is exactly why the new RRF has been created, why the US has pre-positioned heavy armour and why they have conducted three times as many exercises this year than they did last year.

And even in the UK, Chamberlain is regarded as weak. That's not to say there weren't extenuating circumstances though - in 1936, the UK was not ready for a War and there were memories of the barbaric fighting less than 20 years prior from the First World War. Chamberlain et al sought to avoid that, but ultimately, the UK declared War on Germany because of their invasion of Poland and we stood alone against the Nazi's for 18 months.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

This is the pretext for the coming European War. Russia will use the same reasoning to claim back Poland and East Germany. It's a straight replay or remake of the 1930's with Putin filling the role of Hitler. Russia will gain the Baltic States peaceful via referendums that agitators will have arranged in places like Estonia.

Between 2020-25 the real war will start with Russian tanks entering Poland.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: xpert11

In typing out my response I had to just delete and retype it because I just realized if the US saw Russia as a threat they would only attack them financially. And the US is currently doing that, and very well. I don't think a modern day "cold war" could last more than 5 years max though. Too much tied together globally, and it only takes a year of financial war to do some serious damage to a country.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Economically Russia either goes to war or faces a meltdown. Russia eyes Germany manufacturing base . Also they want access to the Labour pool a country like the Ukraine has offered the EU. Russia's next moves will to wrap up the war in the Ukraine and make moves into central Asia. This occurs between now and 2020.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: xpert11

Russia's military just isn't up to that par though, even 5 years from now it won't be. 4-5 more years of sanctions and western isolation and Russia will be a heaping mess firing off nukes just because, well at the rate Putin is trudging along at least. Any major military pushes outside Ukraine will definitely be met by the west with equal force. Even a major push into Ukraine may cause it.

I don't think Russia in any time soon will be a cause of anything globally, I'm more worried about China in that aspect.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I can actually agree with your assessment in the current climate of Neville Chamberlain politics . But sadly if an attack occurs article 5 will be honored and once again American boys will spill their blood in Europe's defense .



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Russia cannot mount the meaningful first-strike it would need to gain the upper hand in the European theatre, or elsewhere.

This means their own military limitations as well as surveillance by their adversaries.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Kapriti

the invasion of one NATO state, much less three, automatically triggers certain treaty obligations.

The US would have no choice. Were, god forbid, Putin do something like order the invasion of the Baltic states, Obama would not dare do nothing. He'd be done.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
I can actually agree with your assessment in the current climate of Neville Chamberlain politics . But sadly if an attack occurs article 5 will be honored and once again American boys will spill their blood in Europe's defense .


If Russia attacked Europe beyond the Baltic states American troops in Europe would be the primary target.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: EA006

originally posted by: Greathouse
I can actually agree with your assessment in the current climate of Neville Chamberlain politics . But sadly if an attack occurs article 5 will be honored and once again American boys will spill their blood in Europe's defense .


If Russia attacked Europe beyond the Baltic states American troops in Europe would be the primary target.



My advice to them would be very careful what you ask for .



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: EA006

originally posted by: Greathouse
I can actually agree with your assessment in the current climate of Neville Chamberlain politics . But sadly if an attack occurs article 5 will be honored and once again American boys will spill their blood in Europe's defense .


If Russia attacked Europe beyond the Baltic states American troops in Europe would be the primary target.

If, and a BIG IF, Russia could actually muscle through the Baltics, US (as well as Euro) troops will already be engaging them. The only real threat Russia poses anymore is nuclear. They still have the biggest, baddest, and most. Otherwise their military is in no shape for real combat outside of weak Baltic states, it's foolish to think otherwise.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
If it gets antsy enough the U.S. will do what they did in Desert Shield . Send in a quick battalion or regiment as a tripwire and dare Russia to cross it. Hell they're probably there now anyway .
edit on 1-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
I can actually agree with your assessment in the current climate of Neville Chamberlain politics . But sadly if an attack occurs article 5 will be honored and once again American boys will spill their blood in Europe's defense .


I think like in recent history at the onset of a European War the USA will try and fail to sit things out. Ultimately a number of factors will drag the USA back into Europe. In short handing over control of Atlantic and Western Europe is very undesirable from a moral and geopolitical stand points.

There is a slim chance the next US president could adopt a policy of supplying the Ukraine army with the equipment they would need to defeat the Russian invasion. Time is fast running out to avert the coming European War. Once the Ukraine and the Baltic States are in Russian hands the final endgame isn't far away.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
The US would have no choice. Were, god forbid, Putin do something like order the invasion of the Baltic states, Obama would not dare do nothing. He'd be done.


Russian agitators are or will be at work in places like Estonia before Obama leaves the White House. All Obama is doing is passing the problem of a expansionist Russia to the next president. My feeling is that Hillary knows full well what track Europe is on in the next ten years. My prediction is that President Hillary retires as a "statesman" in 2020 leaving her successor to one hell of a mess.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kapriti
a reply to: stumason

Anyone who recalls Chamberlain and the Franco-British sell-out of Czechoslovakia has extremely limited faith in NATO. And my colleagues in the Baltics don't think NATO will lift a pinky should the Russians engage in a lightning invasion. The stories we in the Anglo-sphere tell ourselves about our heroes, our nobility, and the sacrifice of our people for the sake of others ... these are regarded as masturbatory fantasies by many who lived under the Warsaw Pact.


If the Baltic's were attacked some of the very first forces engaging them would be NATO's Baltic air police force (currently made of Norway, Belgium, UK, Italy. And on the ground in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are small US infantry forces that are going to remain as trip wire so Russia knows US involvement is %100 on. The Russians are no shape for a lighting invasion of anybody. The new NATO reaction force is making sure of that. And when has the US ever backed down from a fight. The only thing that has kept Russia out of the Baltic is fear of NATO. Anyone with the silly idea the US would not go to war for any ally clearly has no clue about the US and is in for one big surprise. The US is not putting pre pro equipment in the region to let it sit their in a war.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: xpert11

I think that the US and NATO Tactics have changed from World War II or even the Cold War . We will defend if Russia advances in to the Baltics. But NATO will attack from one point of the cop us to a completely different point on it . where I don't know ? A couple guesses would be through the Ukraine into Crimea or through Poland east then north to their rear .

I really don't think anybody is paying enough attention to what is going on in Poland presently .



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join