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 Threatens Sweden With Military 'Consequences' If It Joins NATO Alliance, Report Says

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: victor7

If Putin didn't act like an overly aggressive 5 year old asshat throwing a tempter tantrum these nations would not be looking at NATO.


Putin is Russia's worst enemy.


Sandwich board Rubbish. Big bad Putin is making you cry again is he? Oh the end is nigh..the end is nigh!

And you reckon Putin is like an overly aggressive 5 year old spitting his pacifier out at every opportunity again..do you?!

Putin is one of the best things to have happened to Russia in a very long time. It's fortunate your wacky, aggressive tin-foil hat opinions on both Putin and Russia mean absolutely zero to either of them, despite your relentless attempts at negative opinion shaping against them.

Your thinking on Russia seems to be about 65 years out of date. Your spiteful ranting would have gone down a treat during the 1950's though. If time travel is ever perfected during your lifetime, you could dig out your sandwich board, parade up and down the streets with your little star spangled banner flaglet and you'd be laughing.


What Putin is saying is perfectly reasonable, to a reasonable person without ulterior motives to arbitrarily condemn anything and everything they could grasp at, that is.

Sweden would no longer be neutral as far as Russia goes, if they became part of NATO. Neutral, or strategically unimportant countries would not be targeted as they would not be considered a threat, unless that country was occupied by an enemy country or allied themselves to one.

Putin is stating the bloody obvious, so if he's guilty of anything here, it's that.

If you had a fluffy bunny on your doorstep, you wouldn't necessarily consider it a potential threat...if that same fluffy bunny had an IED strapped to it's body, you'd be keeping a very close eye on it and aim your weapon at it for defence...Sweden is the fluffy bunny in case you didn't work it out xcathedra




posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX


Neutral, or strategically unimportant countries would not be targeted as they would not be considered a threat, unless that country was occupied by an enemy country or allied themselves to one.


To a paranoiac. no-one is neutral. You are either for them or against them. Neutrality never prevented Russia from invading Finland, several times. Russia will even invade its allies if it does not like political developments there. (Czechoslovakia, Hungary.) Ukraine was actually in a trade treaty organization with Russia before Russian troops appeared in Crimean streets. Why did civil war erupt? Because Ukraine dared move from favoring Russia, to treating both Russia and the EU equally, ie; it moved towards neutrality.

To Putin, a neutral country is not a threat, it is vulnerable.


(post by LostAndFound2 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: LostAndFound2

Yup - NATO is a defensive alliance.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
NATO is a defensive alliance only.


How can you write something like this and expect to be taken seriously

Where is your credibility.

Why should you be considered anything more than a rah rah USA chanter



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: LostAndFound2

originally posted by: Xcathdra
NATO is a defensive alliance only.


How can you write something like this and expect to be taken seriously

Where is your credibility.

Why should you be considered anything more than a rah rah USA chanter


Now you're spamming the same copypasta in the same thread! Do you ever actually think before you post?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




or strategically unimportant countries


Did you skim and cherry pick?...you did didn't you.

edit on 21-7-2015 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: DJW001




or strategically unimportant countries


Did you skim and cherry pick?...you did didn't you.


Nope, I just cut to the chase. Russia's traditional strategy of defense in depth requires more and more land surrounding the heartland; this invariably leads to imperialism. You are aware that until 1914 Russia proudly styled itself an "empire?" Neutral countries are potential enemies and tend to be absorbed.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Tell that Muammar Gaddafi



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MysterX


. Why did civil war erupt? Because Ukraine dared move from favoring Russia, to treating both Russia and the EU equally, ie; it moved towards neutrality.

To Putin, a neutral country is not a threat, it is vulnerable.


Civil war broke out after Ukraine turned down EU proposal, unless you were not following the cookies on Maidan. Ukraine turned neutral ? Then Nulland and McCain were really just giving free cookies.
edit on 0amx00000019 by Laxus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Laxus
a reply to: Xcathdra

Tell that Muammar Gaddafi


Haha, I knew some numtpy would bring up Libya. That was authorised by the UNSC and wasn't a "NATO" operation. It was started under the UNSC resolution by the UK, France and the US along with other allied nations - some of which are not NATO members.

NATO only took over the enforcement of the UN authorised no fly zone after the initial bombardment, with separate national operations running alongside it to degrade the Libyan military.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Laxus

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MysterX


. Why did civil war erupt? Because Ukraine dared move from favoring Russia, to treating both Russia and the EU equally, ie; it moved towards neutrality.

To Putin, a neutral country is not a threat, it is vulnerable.


Civil war broke out after Ukraine turned down EU proposal, unless you were not following the cookies on Maidan. Ukraine turned neutral ? Then Nulland and McCain were really just giving free cookies.


Actually, Ukraine, under an earlier administration, made EU membership the main goal of its foreign policy. The EU turned them down. Ukraine's principle trading partner remained Russia. It was only after the EU proposed strengthening their economic ties that civil war broke out. When Yanukovytch reneged on the trade deal, citizens, tired of his corruption began to protest. After weeks of peaceful protests, mysterious snipers and vandals began to appear, turning the protests violent and giving Yanukovytch a pretext for firing on his own citizens. Since there were no documented cases of Anti-Russian violence to justify Russian involvement, a massacre in Odessa was arranged. Do pay attention to what is really going on.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Ohh Please, enlighten me... Before you i will just say, i speak Russian, i have followed the whole thing on both Russian and Ukrainian channes and still do daily, i have lived in Odessa in the past and have relatives there and been to Ukraine in general and I have friends who have families in both eastern and western. Most of you people who try to act smart on this forum after reading a few bbc news , puts me off so much with the luck on knowledge and insight into the whole thing that i lose interest in even engaging into any debate.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Ohh Please, enlighten me... Before you i will just say, i speak Russian, i have followed the whole thing on both Russian and Ukrainian channes and still do daily, i have lived in Odessa in the past and have relatives there and been to Ukraine in general and I have friends who have families in both eastern and western. Most of you people who try to act smart on this forum after reading a few bbc news , puts me off so much with the luck on knowledge and insight into the whole thing that i lose interest in even engaging into any debate.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Laxus

I have about 5 words of Russian, have never been to any of the countries that made up the fUSSR, but have studied Russian and soviet history and culture as an interested amateur since I was 12 years old....which was 1971.

So what?

Do you have an actual point to make?

Was there something in DJW's post that you meant to make an actual comment on??



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Russia Threatens Sweden With Military 'Consequences' If It Joins NATO Alliance, Report Says


Is anyone surprised by these words?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Laxus




Civil war broke out after Ukraine turned down EU proposal,


So exactly why did they turn it down?

Could this be part of it...


Glazyev, speaking on the sidelines of the discussion, said the exact opposite was true: "Ukrainian authorities make a huge mistake if they think that the Russian reaction will become neutral in a few years from now. This will not happen."

Instead, he said, signing the agreement would make the default of Ukraine inevitable and Moscow would not offer any helping hand. "Russia is the main creditor of Ukraine. Only with customs union with Russia can Ukraine balance its trade," he said. Russia has already slapped import restrictions on certain Ukrainian products and Glazyev did not rule out further sanctions if the agreement was signed.

The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void.

"We don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people," said Glazyev. "But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.


www.theguardian.com...



unless you were not following the cookies on Maidan. Ukraine turned neutral ? Then Nulland and McCain were really just giving free cookies.


No they never turned neutral they signed a trade deal with Russia...that's far from becoming neutral.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LostAndFound2




How can you write something like this and expect to be taken seriously



Are you saying they aren't?

Please provide your proof it isn't?



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Xcathdra




Russia Threatens Sweden With Military 'Consequences' If It Joins NATO Alliance, Report Says


Is anyone surprised by these words?


I'm not.. Its further confirmation that everything Putin is complaining about is a direct result of his own actions.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join