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.

 

How a crisis in Estonia could lead to World War III

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Imagine how the US would respond if Russians did that on the US border with Mexico. Who would be the aggressor in such a case?


The one who invades another country against the will of its own people, overthrows its government and sets up a puppet dictatorship.

You know, like USSR did to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and East Germany.

And the USSR set up enormous heavy weapons on the border with West Germany for decades.

It's Estonians who don't like Russia and fear them for the obvious reasons. Russia could easily decide to be very nice and play "good neighbor".
Give Estonians and Ukranians good reasons to WANT to be friendly with Russia instead of snarling at them.

USA isn't putting tanks and missiles on its border with Canada.


edit on 2-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Everyone laughed at Romney's assertion that Russia was a threat in 2011.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Everyone laughed at Romney's assertion that Russia was a threat in 2011.


That's because until the invasion of Ukraine Russia and even putin was well liked in the US. This whole anti Russia thing was created by put in to excuse his taking of crimea. He needed Crimea for gazprom so he and his croanies could make money at the expense of russians.

He has to cut pensions people are going without being paid. But for him its a win because his body owns gazprom and it means he can funnel him millions



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: intrptr

Guantanimo was legally rented from the Cubans actually. Part of the deal is when its closed they get to keep the buildings and infrastructure to run it if they choose to.

Legal definition for US: Anything it wants to do.

Snippets…


The United States pays Cuba $4,085 a month in rent for the controversial Guantanamo naval base…

…had refused to cash the checks to protest the "illegal" U.S. occupation of the land which he said was now used for "dirty work".

Castro's refusal to cash the checks to protest the "illegal" occupation has been long known. In a television interview years ago, he showed the checks stuffed into a desk drawer in his office.

Reuters



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

USSR is gone dude. They left all those countries…

But now that NATO occupies them, thats okay?

How can you complain about the evil Soviets occupying most of Eastern Europe and completely omit NATO does the exact same thing today?

Now tell me how much more evil the Soviets Were… than US.

Military occupation is just that.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: intrptr

I can't comment on inferior minds who fail to learn history myself but THOSE were on a COSTNER movie so NOT really all that hidden.

I liked him better in Dances With Wolves.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Cabin

The graphic is extremely biased in its wording, rather than being objective, so I would not trust that one little bit.

The issue with Estonia is an interesting one, because I believe it would all depend on whether Russia could insert enough agitators into the country to mount an effective revolt. I don't believe that the Russian speaking population there would rise up in any significant number to try to encourage Russian involvement.

These people choose to live there, if they wanted to live in Russia they would move to Russia.

Just as we saw in Ukraine, Russia would need to send in hundreds of active agitators to push for any kind of revolt within the country, and they would probably need thousands in fact, as there is no Russian military already within the country (as was the case in Crimea).

The only way Russia could try to destabilize Estonia would be through the deployment of units as they did in Ukraine, and I believe as it's a Nato country this is probably being monitored extremely closely already. The moment Russia starts to send agitators into the country to begin "protests" by supposedly "Russian citizens in Estonia" there would be a response.

That leads me to think that Russia, if it wanted to take Estonia, would have to invade very clearly and obviously This of course would mean an instant response from Nato and a thorough a** whipping for Putin and whoever is dumb enough to follow orders into that invasion.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mbkennel

USSR is gone dude. They left all those countries…

But now that NATO occupies them, thats okay?


Would you please stop lying, or at least try to make your bs less obvious?
These countries have not been "occupied" by Nato, they are VOLUNTARY MEMBERS OF NATO.
They requested to join Nato, and Nato accepted them for cooperation and defense.

Even a child can tell the difference between a allied cooperation and an occupation. I'm assuming you're not a child.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013


These countries have not been "occupied" by Nato, they are VOLUNTARY MEMBERS OF NATO.

Military occupation is military occupation. You paint the lie (that is isn't) any color you want to.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Funny thing about your "occuptation" rhetoric.

Any country can leave NATO any time they desire. France did it in the 60's.

Weird, I thought countries under military occupation weren't allowed to politely withdraw from said "Occupation".



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: intrptr

Funny thing about your "occuptation" rhetoric.

Any country can leave NATO any time they desire. France did it in the 60's.

Weird, I thought countries under military occupation weren't allowed to politely withdraw from said "Occupation".


But you'll be the first to gripe about 'Pro Russian' rebels and Russian troops in East Ukraine…

…double standard much?

If Russian troops were in Japan because your government invited them, oh wait, they can't because US bases already occupy, have occupied there since WWII.

Aren't there ongoing protests about expansion of one US base there in Okinawa as we speak?

Now remind me that "Japan" welcomes US troops and air bases.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Actually Japan has requested they move and they are doing so as asked.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: intrptr

Actually Japan has requested they move and they are doing so as asked.


A) I don't believe anything the US government says anymore.

B) see A)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mbkennel

USSR is gone dude. They left all those countries…

But now that NATO occupies them, thats okay?

How can you complain about the evil Soviets occupying most of Eastern Europe and completely omit NATO does the exact same thing today?


Are you really that dense?

After WW2 The USSR overthrew or squashed all democratic governments in Eastern Europe and installed Communist dictatorships who imprisoned and shot anybody who disagreed. Events in 1956 and 1968 proved that USSR would quash any dissent about anything with force.



Now tell me how much more evil the Soviets Were… than US.


They sure were.

Ask the Poles in 1991. Why did everybody in the former Warsaw Pact all RUN to join Europe as fast as Europe would let them as soon as the USSR couldn't maintain control through fear and oppression? They experienced USSR up close.



Military occupation is just that.


And people know very much the difference between miltary occupation and imposed dicatorship and an alliance. Also ask Parisians in 1945. German vs US & UK tanks going down the boulevard. Which is occupation and which is liberation?
Even surrendering Nazis knew which side was a better deal.

Is Stalin no different from Eisenhower?



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

TOO touchy feely for me.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

A sinful waste of their troops as well.
I think they MIGHT get another coup after that.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I'm sorry ..YOU were saying?
www.manilalivewire.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Wrong. The USSR in global physical form may be gone, but it is still alive and well in the "heart" of the former USSR, Russia. How many former high ranking USSR members are currently part of the Russian secret services and government? Quite a few. Russia's military tactics are still that of the USSR. Their mindset is still that of the USSR. Their propaganda techniques are still that of the USSR. Their global ambitions are still that of the USSR. Their political ideology in recent years has been extremely similar to that of the USSR during their darkest days.

The majority of Europe are members of NATO. They have joined NATO out of their own free will. They have joined NATO for security. They have the power to request or deny NATO troop movements on their own soil. The USSR on the other hand, raped and murdered their way across Europe stealing any land they may have gained along the way, which is known historical fact. This by definition is an occupying force.

Who's more evil, the US or the USSR? Does once even have to think of the answer to this question? How many millions of people did Stalin starve to death in Ukraine? How many of his own advisers and countrymen did he have murdered? How many political opposition members? How many of their family members? The USSR and Russia's atrocities are very well remembered and fresh in the minds of many Europeans, and the the Baltic populations in particular.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Why would Russia need to deploy tanks on the Mexican border with the Us when Russia and the US share a border?


edit on 4-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


And people know very much the difference between military occupation and imposed dictatorship and an alliance.

Well, each empire has its own terminology…

The Soviets called it a "Pact". the US, EU (NATO) call it an "Alliance". Or excuse me, an "Organization".

What difference does it make if tanks from some other country are parked in the yard?







 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join