It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Ballistic missle defense goes online in Romina. Ww3 approaching

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 12:58 AM
a reply to: Orionhunter88
a reply to: Xcalibur254

** I am not speaking for Xcalibur254 so he might have a different view.**

Here is the answer -

The Rada members were elected in December and the election results were recognized by Russia (before maiden protests started the following year). Those members, including the bulk of Yanukovych's own party, started proceedings to impeach, which occurred. Yanukovych fled before the Rada was able to hold the second vote that would remove him from power. When Yanukovych fled he abandoned the presidency and under Ukraine constitution the Rada had 90 days to set up elections to elect a new president.

Impeachment in Ukraine is the same in some western countries, including the US. Impeachment procedures have 2 steps. Step 1 is to lay out the charges followed by a vote to either impeach (indict) or not. The vote to impeach was successful (simple majority). If impeachment occurs then we move to step 2, where another vote is help, requiring something like 65%/75% in order to remove the President. Yanukovych fled after the first vote occurred.

Ukraine Constitutional procedures were followed, and the government that started the removal process was the same government that was elected the previous year and whose vote results were accepted by Russia.

The "coup" bs was a Russian talking point to try to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine and illegal occupation of Crimea. Then Russia tried to argue that ethnic Russians in Crimea were being persecuted and murdered and thats why they went into Crimea. The UN requested, several times, for Russia to provide evidence to support the persecution claims, which, to this today, Russia never provided.

The little green men were in fact Russian forces, although Russia kept lying by denying they were russian military (Putin acknowledges Russian military serviceman were in Crimea ).

Now because some people try to argue this point. The agreement between Ukraine-Russia for Russian forces stationed in Crimea are very specific. It details the numbers of troops and types of equipment they can have there. Russian soldiers were prohibited from venturing into the countryside / prohibited from carrying their weapons except on base. ANY change in forces or equipment, per the agreement, required Russia to notify Ukraine, present the proposed changes, at which point Ukraine would decide to either accept or refuse the change.

The "green men" were not lawfully present and were not a part of the Russian forces already present in Crimea.

So question for you -
What do you call it when Russian sends its armed forces into another country without permission and seizes land? Why is that important? Because those Russian forces seized and occupied Crimea BEFORE any (sham) elections occurred.

= Russia invaded Ukraine (act of war) and illegally occupies the Crimea and partially the 2 E. Ukraine provinces.

* - No coup occurred as explained above / valid government action by Ukraine.
* - Yanukovych was impeached.
* - Yanukovych fled before the 2nd vote occurred to remove him from power.
* - Ukraine's constitution was used for elections to occur within 90 days for President.
* - Russia recognized the election results of Ukraine for President.
* - Russia has since recognized the election results of the Rada (congress).
* - The new elections of the Rada saw extremist parties lose their seats (Russia actually has more nationalist/socialist/extremist in their Duma right now than Ukraine).
* - Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances by invading Ukraine and seizing Crimea.
* - The US/UK had every legal right for an armed intervention to restore Ukraine's territorial sovereignty as laid out in the Budapest agreement.

Then we have this -
Putin Vows to Recognize Ukraine Presidential Vote

Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to recognize the outcome of Sunday's presidential election in Ukraine, while voicing hope that Ukraine's new president will end military operations against separatists in the east.

Putin spoke Friday in St. Petersburg, as pro-Russian separatist forces in eastern Ukraine ambushed a Ukrainian militia group near the Russian border, killing at least two Ukrainian volunteers and wounding nine others. Thirteen government troops were killed by separatists in the same area Thursday, raising fears of fresh violence in the runup to Sunday's vote.

Other Sources
* - Putin: Russia Will Accept Ukrainian Election Outcome

To answer you question directly -
Because Russia recognized the elections of the Rada, and because that rada used the Ukraine constitution to lawfully impeach Yanukovych, because Yanukovych fled the Constitution was used for dealing with that vacancy and because Russia recognized the results of those presidential elections, Russia is saying no coup occurred.

Try as they did to make that coup argument stick even they realized it would not fly given the facts.

There was a coup / invasion / occupation in Crimea though. When it was seized the elected officials in Crimea were removed by Russian forces and people were arbitrarily placed in charge, violating Crimea's and the Ukraine constitution. Those elected officials, when the sham referendum occurred, who didnt support Russia, were prevented from voting on the "change in status of Crimea referendum" (setting up the vote which occurred weeks later and which led to the sham elections).
edit on 21-6-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 03:11 AM

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Jordan River

to be fair, it is called a defense system, so unless Russia plans on attacking/invading Romania, I'm not sure what the problem is.

let me get this straight. For so long as the US and its vassal states continue to break long standing agreements on the location of nuclear weapons in Europe, antagonise, taunt, provoke and threaten the security of Russia, that does not constitute aggression nor is it any form of attack?

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 04:46 AM
a reply to: Azureblue

Nope because what you are listing as aggression is in fact not aggression.

What treaties / agreements were broke?

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:09 AM
I love threads like this, so much info to digest.

Ballistic missile shield eh? Righto mate...

You ever seen an intercontinental ballistic missile, upon re-entry? No, didn't think so.

Do you know why you've never seen the above mentioned act?

ICBM's are a friggin con, period. Nukes? What nukes? Ha, ha!

Where is the shielding on the rocket to provide insulation for the 'nuclear' warhead, upon re-entry?

Man oh man, c'mon folks, catch up will ya. Laurel Canyon, California, USA. MOUNTAIN LOOKOUT, Air Force Base, primary function was to film all military related movies, inductions, and training aides. Included in this were good ole Walt, Stanley Kubrick, and others. Walt and Stan were instrumental in creating ON FILM what they believed would be the result of an atomic explosion, cloud shape, diameter, height of mushroom, colour and fade of effects over time.

ICBM's are not nuclear capable, never have been, never will be. Nagasaki wasn't nuked, neither was Hiroshima. It was all blanket napalm bombing that burnt the two cities to the ground.

So, that means that 'ballistic missile shield' must be bogus, yeah?

End of story.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:19 AM
a reply to: leastofthese

The people who suffered from / died from radiation poisoning would disagree with your claims.

There are videos showing ICBM re-entry during missile tests.

Re-entry warhead

The shield is designed to intercept at launch and does not wait for re-entry.
edit on 21-6-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

(post by leastofthese removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:35 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

I understand what an impeachment is.. I also understand what a coup de tat is... And that was not an answer to my question but a nice deflection from the original question...
I asked ...

so would you please share where you got the information that Russa said that it was not a coup in Ukraine?

I did not ask if they thought the earlier election was legal.. yet your ANSWER is that since the Ukrainian Parliment was elected legally, that negates the fact that there were protesters who took control of a state building, there was violence in the streets where people died, and the leader of the country had to flee for his life.. And since he did flee, that it was therefore legal for them to seize control....

Yet with a search, we find ...

At the time the parliament voted to remove Yanukovych, it had also recently voted to revert from the 1996 constitution to the 2004 constitution, but Yanukovych had not yet signed the act into law. This may leave some question about which constitution was in effect at the time of Yanukovych’s removal, but in this case it doesn’t matter. The two constitutions prescribe identical impeachment procedures. Article 108 gives the ways in which a president can be removed from power. Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine. The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of: 1) resignation; 2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons; 3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment; 4) his/her death.[7] Yanukovych didn’t resign, he wasn’t ill, and he didn’t die. That leaves only impeachment. Here’s the article giving the procedure for impeachment.

He can only be removed for “treason or other crime.” The reason given by parliament for removing him was that he was “constitutionally unable to carry out his duties.”[6] To the best of my knowledge, being constitutionally unable to carry out your duties as president is not listed anywhere in the Ukrainian penal code as a crime. It’s not really clear what the phrase means, except perhaps that the drafters of the removal act were in a hurry and hadn’t given much thought to their legal justifications.

Removal unconstitutional
So there is a question as to whether it was as legal as you presume it to be.. And I asked for a link to where you find that Russia said the overthrow of the president was legit.. Again, I did not ask if they thought the prior elections were legit...
and then you go on to discuss Crimea and say that since the Russians did not give the UN evidence that The ethnic Russians would be persecuted, it would not happen.. but at the same time, there was a civil war going on and they were kiling ethnic Russians in Donbass... So again, things are not as simple as people think... Where are the protests in Crimea about this outrage?
But it all goes back to on statement..

* - The US/UK had every legal right for an armed intervention to restore Ukraine's territorial sovereignty as laid out in the Budapest agreement.

That is why there is no discussion with some people.. you assume that the US has the right to police the world.. That because something happens in Europe, we have to be involved and in an armed conflict no less.. .. And it is interesting that you hold other people to agreements when most nations know that the only time the US holds up their end of an agreement, is when it is in their best interest.. when you start with double standards, there will never be an accord.. Then we are to ignore the violence that was in the streets that lead up to events where a leader was deposed.... And you link to "Voice of America" to prove you point.. No bias there.. how about voice of the people who actually live there... I know all your taking points, but i actually read about these conflicts from boths side of the issue.. But could you link to a source that says that Russia says it was not a coup please? I do not need you to try and explain why you believe it was not a coup because of what you read...

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:43 AM

originally posted by: leastofthese
a reply to: Xcathdra

Name one person who suffered radiation burns from either Nagasaki or Hiroshima, just one.

You offer a video as proof of ICBM's and their re-entry abilities, really?

Go away, moron.

How incredibly rude of you.

Looking at your nonsense about there being no such thngs as nukes, I would suggest you look at yourself before being obnoxious to others.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:08 AM
a reply to: leastofthese

If you had even the slightest knowledge of modern nuclear warhead designs, you would probably be aware of the fact that it has been an open secret since the latter part of the seventies that most Warheads in use by the various nuclear powers make use of a heavy layer of Uranium as reentry shielding thus negating the need for any extra re-entry shielding. And of course your nonsensical claims about nuclear weapons being fake seem to ignore the fact that the kind of damage seen at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not even remotely possible from the use of large scale amounts of napalm, and even if such a strike was possible with napalm, it would not be possible to drop that large an amount of napalm from a single plane. And of course there is the fact that just like most of the other retarded conspiracy theories tossed about on this site and others, your whole chain of logic falls apart when one remembers that it would be necessary for the literally thousands upon thousands of people involved in the production and design of nuclear weapons and their attendant infrastructure in multiple countries to all be "in on it" in order for such lie to even have a change of not being exposed. I will give you props for originality tho, I can honestly say that your contention is the dumbest conspiracy theory I've heard bandied about on the internet since Loose Change.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:14 PM
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What's fascinating is the same bureaucratic desires and lies played in the USSR as it did later with the US:

There was constant covert struggle in the Politburo that ruled the state. In the late 1970s, the Defense Ministry and the KGB entered into an agreement and come up with a non-existent threat of sudden nuclear attack by the United States.
– Why?
– To scare other Politburo members, most of which consisted of a 80-year-old marazmatics. The threat, even not existing, of sudden missile attack reinforced the importance and significance of the Defense Ministry and the KGB. Representatives of law enforcement agencies have begun to receive more money from the budget, awards, stars, stripes. The Soviet intelligence officers were required to provide information on the preparation of a missile attack by the United States. If you reported that there was no threat, you were immediately withdrown back to the Soviet Union as insufficiently trained staff.
As a result, in the Soviet Union there were two parallel realities: one fictional, which developed in the mind of management on the basis of those reports, which were made in response to the fake job, the other - the real life in the country and abroad.

Same thing happened with U.S., Dick "I
Andropov" Cheney, and Iraq. The threat of mass WMD attack from Saddam was preposterous, but Cheney manipulated the system to have all sorts of people go along with the baloney.
edit on 21-6-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:55 PM
a reply to: Orionhunter88

You asked, I answered. Ignoring the facts because they dont support your position is your problem and not mine.

You are now deflecting regarding the Budapest document, which I specifically mentioned in response to options the US / UK had.

Please educate yourself on the topic if you are going to ask questions. I say this because you do not understand the answers and I dont know if thats by choice on your part or not.

There was no coup in Ukraine except for Crimea and Russian actions. So my guess is you do not understand what a coup is. If an elected official is removed by impeachment, as the constitution lays out, its not a coup.

Secondly please tell me which version of the constitution the guy used in his post. The agreement Yanukovych signed before he fled rolled back the Constitution to a point before Yanukovych had it changed.

The coup angle was pushed by Putin and was based on his delusions and not reality. That was proven when he recognized the new government.
edit on 21-6-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 05:35 AM
a reply to: Xcathdra

The coup angle was pushed by Putin and was based on his delusions and not reality. That was proven when he recognized the new government.

But i was told that he said it wasn't a coup.. So which is it.. I asked an answer to that question.. twice.. I already know what you think.. I did not ask for a psychological evalulation of the Russian President... I asked for a link, a quote, or something to back up a claim that i could find no reference to... And I doubt you are qualified to give that evaluation anyway.. The world media called it a coup.. You said it wasn't.. Even some of the Ukrainian people disagreed with you.. Yet, you want to rewrite history and you figure if you yell it loud enough, people will lsten to you.. You claim, i ignored facts, when i actually said there were two sides to a story.. that would be adding information, not ignoring it.. And you ask me which Constitution the guy used in the piece.. If you would have read the piece or did a google search, it told you which one and why it mattered..... that would be that research thing that one person has made the claim that they have done.. So you have missed information that was right in front of you , how can anyone believe that you did not miss other information out there that might have skewed your view of events to fit a narrative that the US and UK are the world saviors and Russia is the evil empire? just wondering... You have an opinion.. Good job, we all do.. But you say the Ukrainian vote was legit, but the Crimean vote was not.. Yet the civil war was in Ukraine.. So some people disagreed with that vote.. you see what you want to see... Getting upset and calling people delusional, telling people to educate themselves with your flavor of propaganda, and adding more conjecture when i asked for a link is not proof of anything.. But saying that the UK and US could go to war over an little island nowhere near their territory is the imperialist mentality that will cause WWIII, and proof you have an agenda.. And just because Russia did not want to go to war over Ukraine does not mean they did not think it was a coup... Your proof is lacking.. A link to them saying it was not a coup please.. third time i asked...

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:59 PM

originally posted by: Antonio1
a reply to: leastofthese

If you had even the slightest knowledge of modern nuclear warhead designs, you would probably be aware of the fact that it has been an open secret since the latter part of the seventies that most Warheads in use by the various nuclear powers make use of a heavy layer of Uranium as reentry shielding thus negating the need for any extra re-entry shielding.

That doesn't make sense technically. It's true that weapons have an outer '3rd stage' of uranium to capture neutrons from the fusion reaction, and is responsible for a major fraction of the yield (and the huge amount of fallout).

But it doesn't make sense to form the outer part of the re-entry vehicle. They are large and conical and the outer material is supposed to be heat-shielding and ablative. You don't want part of your well designed warhead coming off in difficult-to-predict ways.

And the worst thing about uranium? It's very heavy. It's a rocket payload: you want to minimize mass as much as you can.

posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:57 PM
I don't think WW3 is approaching, as all NATO invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq would get obliterated within a few minutes from its start. Additionally all US aircraft carriers would be sunk within 2-3 hours.

What can happen though is hasty decisions based on the belief that NATO can actually save its retarded army of bandits (ISIS and other terrorists) in Syria and other parts of the ME by invading or bombing syria. That will be NATO's last mistake!

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:26 PM
a reply to: Flanker86


posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:48 AM
McCain wants nukes 75times the power of Hiroshima ??

Really? Maybe the pentagon could get some of these:

Chinese PGS ready ? Who knows ...

posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 01:55 PM
a reply to: Flanker86

and yet McCain has no control over the military. I love how you guys single him out and think he has authority.

new topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in