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 Inadvertently Posts Its Casualties In Ukraine: 2,000 Deaths, 3,200 Disabled

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
This is posted in Forbes.

It should be taken with a grain of salt. Forbes is a HUGE corporate mouthpiece and thrives in wall street mentality anyway.

Posting anything bad about Russia would be in benefit to the US fiat and her wall street owners anyway.




posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy




It should be taken with a grain of salt.


So are you saying the fact about Russian troops being killed in Ukraine is a big lie because it was reported in Forbes?

I guess the other stories from soldiers families and their own admission of being in Ukraine is false also?



Posting anything bad about Russia would be in benefit to the US fiat and her wall street owners anyway.


And what about posting what really happened and is happening what benefit does that give the US and it's wall street owners?

Because Russian troops are dying in Ukraine and Russia is lying to their own people about it.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy




It should be taken with a grain of salt.


So are you saying the fact about Russian troops being killed in Ukraine is a big lie because it was reported in Forbes?

I guess the other stories from soldiers families and their own admission of being in Ukraine is false also?



Posting anything bad about Russia would be in benefit to the US fiat and her wall street owners anyway.


And what about posting what really happened and is happening what benefit does that give the US and it's wall street owners?

Because Russian troops are dying in Ukraine and Russia is lying to their own people about it.


I repeat myself once more.

Anything posted in Forbes should be taken with their extremely toxic perspective in mind and looked at through a reverse filter of the lens they see everything through.

Sometimes you might need groups like Forbes to even get coverage of certain things.

But you can also be sure that Forbes' audience and owners cannot wait to devalue anything that isn't subject to the US fiat or her IMF, or WTO prostitutes. Because if your assumption is that Forbes is somehow on the side of good and not just the wingman of the US oligarchs, think again. They would never cover the true reason that Libya, Syria and Yemen are in turmoil let alone the massively larger human casualties in these regions.

And I'm not belittling the disgusting tragedy in Ukraine either.
edit on 2015 by BlubberyConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Care to provide anything that backs this claim?


Watch this 8 minutes of Victoria Nuland
www.youtube.com...

I think that independently from your perspective on the subject, you should understand why I made such a claim



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut




Watch this 8 minutes of Victoria Nuland


I have many times...what is it that you think it shows?



I think that independently from your perspective on the subject, you should understand why I made such a claim


And I asked if you could back that claim, so can you?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy

I repeat myself once more.



Repeating doesn't make it true.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

No, they don't - that is illegal under international law. Certainly countries can be concerned about the happenings in their neighbors - but they do NOT get the right to interfere just because they share a land border - no more than the US has the right to support separatists in Mexico or Canada.


Or supporting rebels in Syria?


Iraq and Turkey and Saudia Arabia al support rebels in Syria too - it is an international effort.

Ukraine is solely Russia's fault.

But if that is the way yo feel, presumably you are against them supporting the rebels in Transnistria, or Nagoro Karabash



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Iraq and Turkey and Saudia Arabia al support rebels in Syria too - it is an international effort.

Ukraine is solely Russia's fault.

But if that is the way yo feel, presumably you are against them supporting the rebels in Transnistria, or Nagoro Karabash


It is a criminal effort by rogue countries for a very specific interest. And it's generally like this in most of the cases in history too. So you are saying that the double standard doesn't exists because others did aswell. So if Russia supported Hezbollah or the Houti is ok because there is more than a country doing it?
The so called international laws should be the same for everyone.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Mastronaut
And I asked if you could back that claim, so can you?


Thought it was obvious. I said "bribed by the IMF", ie "we give you 5b now (and maybe 18b later) as long as you put our people in place of Yanukovich, and forget ruskies debts". I don't think I need to link you the intercepted calls, do I?

If you meant "can you prove with documents that ukraine was bribed" I don't even know if the IMF can be sued, so I think no, it's a claim I take the ownership of, not a provable fact (at least now).
edit on 5 9 2015 by Mastronaut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

Actual evidence is more than you saying so.

Where is the $5 billion now"?? for example - who said it? Who paid it?

For example we have ample evidence of the Kremlin paying Yanukovich $3 billion "now" and $12 billion "to come" in 2013 - ther is evidence all over the place...but stranglely little or nothing to support your contention.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Iraq and Turkey and Saudia Arabia al support rebels in Syria too - it is an international effort.

Ukraine is solely Russia's fault.

But if that is the way yo feel, presumably you are against them supporting the rebels in Transnistria, or Nagoro Karabash


It is a criminal effort by rogue countries for a very specific interest. And it's generally like this in most of the cases in history too. So you are saying that the double standard doesn't exists because others did aswell. So if Russia supported Hezbollah or the Houti is ok because there is more than a country doing it?


No - I am saying that a double standard DOES exist because you are only applying your own standard to "the west", and conveniently ignoring what Russia does that is just as bad.


edit on 5-9-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
No - I am saying that a double standard DOES exist because you are only applying your own standard to "the west", and conveniently ignoring what Russia does that is just as bad.


No I am notm I am saying they are BOTH equally wrong, but in the end only one side is getting the piss of the sanctions.



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

Actual evidence is more than you saying so.

Where is the $5 billion now"?? for example - who said it? Who paid it?

For example we have ample evidence of the Kremlin paying Yanukovich $3 billion "now" and $12 billion "to come" in 2013 - ther is evidence all over the place...but stranglely little or nothing to support your contention.


Well, you are basically linking EXACTLY the reason why the "west" had an interests in throwing it up.
In the end that treaty failed and guess which one went on?
April 2014
December 2013

But you can go and check for yourself the imf site.

And guess who's behind the IMF or what nations have a say in its policies?



posted on Sep, 5 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut


And guess who's behind the IMF or what nations have a say in its policies?



The United States.... Russia.....

IMF



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut




Thought it was obvious. I said "bribed by the IMF", ie "we give you 5b now (and maybe 18b later) as long as you put our people in place of Yanukovich, and forget ruskies debts". I don't think I need to link you the intercepted calls, do I?


You do know that the 5 billion dollars was done over a decade long before Yanukovych was in power?

And guess what the people that the US backed didn't win the election...the one that was voted in by the people of Ukraine won...the US had nothing to do with him winning.

And yet they still have Russian debt...guess that wasn't the real reason for the money.

Please post those calls as they have been discussed many times, so what do you think they prove?

Also you do understand the IMF isn't just a US bank, and that 188 other countries are part of it, so quit thinking the US has final say as to what the IMF does.



If you meant "can you prove with documents that ukraine was bribed" I don't even know if the IMF can be sued, so I think no, it's a claim I take the ownership of, not a provable fact (at least now).


Pretty sure I was clear about what I said...

You made the claims that the IMF bribed Ukraine...now prove it since you think it happened?

So you just make claims and can't provide anything to back the claim...so what your saying is you just threw that out there hoping someone wouldn't ask for proof...guess that strategy didn't work did it?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut




And guess who's behind the IMF or what nations have a say in its policies?


The 188 countries that make it up.


The Board of Governors is the highest decision-making body of the IMF. It consists of one governor and one alternate governor for each member country. The governor is appointed by the member country and is usually the minister of finance or the head of the central bank.



Decisions are made by a majority of votes cast, unless otherwise specified in the Articles of Agreement.


www.imf.org...



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut




No I am notm I am saying they are BOTH equally wrong, but in the end only one side is getting the piss of the sanctions.


The reason Russia is feeling the sanctions is because their president will not pull his troops out of Ukraine, which when done the sanctions will be removed.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mastronaut

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
No - I am saying that a double standard DOES exist because you are only applying your own standard to "the west", and conveniently ignoring what Russia does that is just as bad.


No I am notm I am saying they are BOTH equally wrong, but in the end only one side is getting the piss of the sanctions.


Probably because only 1 side is invading Ukraine.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You guys seem to think the IMF is an equal voting system. It isn't.
The western block has far more votes than the rest of the world. Just the US plus his closest allies (commonwealth nations, Japan etc) is around 30% without even counting the wealthy arab nations. The disproportion is not even comparable and there is a note at the end of the page


Voting power varies on certain matters pertaining to the General Department with use of the Fund's resources in that Department.


what does this mean is unclear.

Maybe we can reverse the situation (since it's more or less the reality) ie that the IMF controls the west and uses your troops and politicians to go impose their rules. But the IMF is a group of interests made of banks and corporations, not an entity by itself.

You might remember this, it gives a good reason to put pressure on Russia.


So you just make claims and can't provide anything to back the claim...so what your saying is you just threw that out there hoping someone wouldn't ask for proof...guess that strategy didn't work did it?


Ok so you said Russia was in NATO and that Russia already paid Yanukovich 17b$ and I have to deal with your need for sources when I didn't make an "official fact" and stated it is my opinion given what happened in this whole affair? So consequences are just a lucky strike? Poroshenko is a genuine Ukraine nationalist that wants to free his people and not an oligarch?


You do know that the 5 billion dollars was done over a decade long before Yanukovych was in power?


So you will not have problems providing a source for this hyper-long therm deal.
I'd say Paul Craigh Roberts explained it rather well.


In an eight minute, 46 second speech at the National Press Club sponsored by the US-Ukraine Foundation, Chevron, and Ukraine-in-Washington Lobby Group, Nuland boasted that Washington has spent $5 billion to foment agitation to bring Ukraine into the EU. Once captured by the EU, Ukraine will be “helped” by the West acting through the IMF. Nuland, of course, presented the IMF as Ukraine’s rescuer, not as the iron hand of the West that will squeeze all life out of Ukraine’s struggling economy.

Nuland’s audience consisted of all the people who will be enriched by the looting and by connections to a Washington-appointed Ukrainian government.


If you guys are ok using your troops as mercenaries for a few choosen you should not use any flag representing your country, because you are doing your people a big disservice. And condemning or having opinions that differs from mine is perfectly fine, but stop making them facts.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Mastronaut

Before trotting out Dr. Paul Craig Roberts you may want to research what his views are and how he reached those conclusions. Just check Alex Jones site for more info.

Here is what she actually said -



Feel free to point out where she stated what Dr. Roberts claimed in the part you quoted. I am going to guess, based on how you presented the info, that at no point did you bother to actually watch what she had stated and instead just opted to take his word for it because it fit your narrative?


Secondly what does any of this have to do with the Russian military death toll?
edit on 7-9-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join