Putin Threatens the West With NATO Ultimatum

I grew up in the former Eastern Block, but left when emigrated west when I was 8 with my family. This was a few years before the collapse of the USSR. I was taught my whole life to hate the Russians.

I remember the food lines, the food rations, the empty food shelves. I remember hearing stories of people disappearing because of their political leanings. My cousin was shot with a rubber bullet protesting.

Then weird things started happening in the west, democracy is no longer the same it used to be. I read and comment here sometimes and it's always the same usual suspects spewing the West/NATO cannot do anything wrong rhetoric. Always accusing everyone of being a propagandist on behalf of the Kremlin if you don't agree with what they say. It's tiresome, just because you can provide links to support your point of view does not make it so. What makes your point of view valid or right?

I have done my research and I'm afraid the west and its proxies are not saints. No need to go into detail, just do some reading regarding the west's intervention all over the world.

Sorry no amount of your PROPAGANDA makes it true. I have stopped hating the Russians and have an open mind. I'm not pro west or pro Russia, I just like to call bullsh*t when I see it from any side. You usual suspects are so one sided its transparent.

a reply to: MysterX

Well said. Agree 100 percent with your statement. Refreshing to see someone else who does not follow blindly the Western Hemogonization of the world.

a reply to: Britguy

Nail meet hammer ...Should be the end of that nonsense but sadly it wont .There might be a pay check involved and to be fair some kids that need food ....

a reply to: Xcathdra

The image of putin from the source you provided at the wreath ceremony is quite striking- the way the swords seem to pierce the soldier... or am I still half-asleep? There are red reflections in the sword that give it the appearance of being bloody, and the red part of the soldier's uniform looks like a wound from the sword moving in an upward stroke...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Well I suppose a US dominated hegemonic world would be better? Look how well that worked for Russia in the 90s. While never formalized in law there was a commitment made to Gorbachev by Bush that NATO would not expand any further than the inclusion of the former East Germany. Since that time NATO an America have encirled Russia to the best of their ability. It seems it is the West, not Russia, that can't be trusted. As I've said before in other posts; a unipolar world is NOT a good thing. At least there was some geopolitical balance when the USSR was still around. That is also the reason that America fears a rising China, they threaten global hegemony.

How would you feel if Canada and Mexico were in a Russian lead alliance and building up their respective militaries on American borders? BTW as it stands NATO has little chance of defending Eastern Europe in a conventional way were there to be a Russian incursion. Germany's military readiness, at least as reported by the press, is underwhelming at best. That's just one example. An example I use because Germany tends to historically hold one of the borders between Western and Eastern Europe.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MysterX

The MIL-IND-COM always looks for reasons to exaggerate ANY threat, however tenuous...Russia has lkong been a good source of scaring money from Congress and probably always will be.

And Putin is playing the same game from the other side. His presence in Syria is as much about demonstrating the hardware Russia has to sell than supporting one of his few client states.

No, I think Russia is in Syria because of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline and NATO in the Baltic Sea because of the Nord Stream pipeline.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MysterX

The MIL-IND-COM always looks for reasons to exaggerate ANY threat, however tenuous...Russia has lkong been a good source of scaring money from Congress and probably always will be.

And Putin is playing the same game from the other side. His presence in Syria is as much about demonstrating the hardware Russia has to sell than supporting one of his few client states.

What are you saying then...that the US cares about the lives of the people being blown to smitherines, displaced and dislocated, but the Russians don't?

Come on, that's a crock. If the US (and GB) hadn't stuck it's beak into Syria, the war would have been over years ago, millions would still be in their homes instead of washing up lifeless on mediterranean beaches and packing into port shanty towns with their hands out, and the Russians wouldn't have had to 'display their toys' to the world at all.

It doesn't wash mate.

a reply to: Ove38

That pipeline is a proposal and if you look into it more you will see there are alternative routes that bypass Syria. Why not present all the information instead of selectively choosing only that which supports your narrative while ignoring that which doesn't?

a reply to: kieran1

So you support Russia needing to return the Kuril islands to Japan and Kaliningrad to Germany then? Since you invoked the bs Crimea argument then you apparently support Chechnya / Dagestan who want self determination and Russia withdrawing their military forces from both regions? Siberia is also wanting autonomy and Russia out.

Reading your posts and your position / arguments you seem to support those qualities reference Crimea so naturally you should then support the above.

Yes?

If not why the double standard?

originally posted by: MysterX
Never have i come across such obviously biased, agenda-driven drivel posted by anyone else on ATS,

Maybe you should avoid looking in a mirror then. Also be careful throwing your rocks as you will break one of your glass walls.

Anything on topic or are we going to just insult each other, which seems to be your thing.

Ironic..

a reply to: MysterX

Except, had you read the op, you would see they are quoting Russian officials. If by rubbish your referring to the insane russian comments then we agree. If you are trying to say the op is rubbish then please explain how quoting Russian officials is rubbish?

originally posted by: kieran1
The Soviet Union was attacked by the Nazis and the country was ravaged and pillaged by them. Cities in Russia were destroyed and millions of innocents were wiped out.

Only after the USSR allied with the Nazi's, assisted in the invasion of Poland and invading / occupying the Baltic nations.

originally posted by: kieran1
There is a reason the Soviet took all of Eastern Europe and East Berlin and stayed there for 45 years.

That would be because they violated the Yalta agreement.

originally posted by: kieran1
The Soviet Union collapsed because its was left in ruins after the Nazi invasion and the economic pressure to keep the cold war going lend to its demise. The ideology was sound.

It collapsed because communism cannot work. You need to read the book animal farm if you have not.

Under communism everyone is equal... but some are more equal than others.

The USSR could have ended the cold war at any point and chose not to. Thats not the fault of anyone but the USSR government.

originally posted by: kieran1
China is communist and by the year 2020-25 likely will be the richest country on Earth. Communism can work with a bit of tweaking around the edges.

In case you didnt know Chinese communism and soviet communism are not the same thing and the fact the 2 were enemies for a long time should clue you in.

originally posted by: kieran1
America still has military bases in Japan and Germany in 2016. The Russians have know bases in Germany, or most of East Europe today.

Russia does have a base and military units in Germany. They are stationed in Königsberg. The reason they have no other bases in E. Europe would be because the last time they did they occupied the countries for 50+ years.

Russia does have bases in -
Armenia
Belarus
occupied Georgia (S. Osettia / Abkhazia)
occupied Ukraine (Crimea)
occupied E. Ukraine (Donetsk / Luhansk)
occupied Moldova (Transnistria)
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Syria
Tajikistan
Vietnam (as of 2013)
This list does not include Russian military access to foreign bases, like Cuba and several S. American countries.

originally posted by: kieran1
The Russians have every right to dislike Fascists and Nazis. The problem is not Russia its America supporting a government thats openly racist and anti- Russian.

Before or after they were allied with them?

The only thing racist is how Russia uses it as an excuse to paint other countries who do not trust Russia for very good reason. It must be galling to hate the US while knowing countries would prefer America over Russia.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Ove38

That pipeline is a proposal and if you look into it more you will see there are alternative routes that bypass Syria. Why not present all the information instead of selectively choosing only that which supports your narrative while ignoring that which doesn't?

No alternative

Both the Baltic See, Ukraine and Syria conflict is about gas pipelines to Europe


Opening the gas valve together

a reply to: HickoryStick

Sure but the issue comes in when the russian side of the equation refuses to acknowledge Russia is no saint. If you read threads you will find a lot of people dont agree with what some western countries do, like the US. I am one of those people who cant stand Obama and want him gone.

The other issue is the complete lack of knowledge about what NATO is and its charter. People use terms like nato proxy etc which demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge. If they cant be bothered to learn the basics one has to question their position.

What exactly are the NATO self defense plans he opposes?

originally posted by: s3cz0ne
While never formalized in law there was a commitment made to Gorbachev by Bush that NATO would not expand any further than the inclusion of the former East Germany. Since that time NATO an America have encirled Russia to the best of their ability. It seems it is the West, not Russia, that can't be trusted. As I've said before in other posts; a unipolar world is NOT a good thing. At least there was some geopolitical balance when the USSR was still around. That is also the reason that America fears a rising China, they threaten global hegemony.

Wrong - Source for info below

Thee agreement was NATO would not expand forces into E. Germany and Gorbachev talked about this when Putin lied about NATO expansion. This is what NATO agreed to -

The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:

1- Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.

2- There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.

3- Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.

This is what Gorbachev stated when asked why NATO was allowed to expand -

The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.

Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March, there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. Since March, NATO has increased the presence of its military forces in the Baltic region and Central Europe.

originally posted by: s3cz0ne
How would you feel if Canada and Mexico were in a Russian lead alliance and building up their respective militaries on American borders? BTW as it stands NATO has little chance of defending Eastern Europe in a conventional way were there to be a Russian incursion. Germany's military readiness, at least as reported by the press, is underwhelming at best. That's just one example. An example I use because Germany tends to historically hold one of the borders between Western and Eastern Europe.

Good god dont you guys ever look at a globe? The US and Russia share a border so we have Russian military forces present in the manner you describe. Secondly Russia has forces, as did the USSR, stationed in Cuba and Venezuela.

Highlighting NATO's military issues does not support your position. It shows there were no issues with Russia and that was reflected in the decrease of military budgets, withdraw of US forces from Europe and the downsizing of EU / NATO member militaries. All that changed when Russia invaded Ukraine and started threatening its neighbors.

Everything Putin is bitching about is a direct cause of Putin's own actions.

originally posted by: superman2012
What exactly are the NATO self defense plans he opposes?

I think Putin opposes NATO countries being able to defend themselves.

a reply to: Ove38

Nordstream 2 is on hold.

Syria is not the only path of the pipeline.

a reply to: Ove38

Wrong again. The alternative is through Iraq into Turkey, bypassing Syria. Secondly there is no pipeline at all. Its something they looked at, just like Russia did with nordstream 2, the pipeline to turkey, the pipeline to greece , etc.