Nato Pushing for WWIII

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I understand the Americans are going trough some tough times in understanding what the word law and legal mean, but I guarantee you, starting a civil war and overthrowing legally elected President and government, is 100% ILLEGAL.

Based of course on the assumption nobody can overthrow a government on their own? And it is not like Ukraine does not have a history of things like this. I guess just this time it was a plot, last time it was legit?

a reply to: MrSpad

Again i have no doubt this is true, but the Ukranians ere being played here, like most Russian type folk they are fairly gullible, superstitious to a fault, and will beleive whatever they are told.
(rings a bell perhaps?)
I fear the worst, unless peeps get informed in time.In any case it is not our business to interfere at this point, no?
ETA

Based of course on the assumption nobody can overthrow a government on their own? And it is not like Ukraine does not have a history of things like this.

Well the CIA and the Clintons did a pretty good job, why waste the talent?

a reply to: playswithmachines

We forget that Poland invaded the Steppes in 18 whatever, slaughtered lots of russians, you think they forgot about that? Hitler wanted Poland because of the Skoda machine works, the only factories big enough to build his new war machines (hey i worked on one) and not forgetting that the USA sponsored what is today (as far as i know) still the biggest factory on earth, near Minsk if i'm not mistaken.And the Skoda machines are still the biggest in Europe even today.
So the only peeps we can really blame for this problem is....us, we financed it, we worked for it, we supported it, even without knowing it....oops!

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: ForteanOrgBUT, lets see what really happened.

In fact: let's see your version of what really happened. Events tend to be colourized by the political and ethical glasses one wears.

The west decides they no longer like Yanuckovich who was a legal president of the Ukraine at the time, and decides to support a civil coup, so they could destabilize Ukraine, and have a reason to interfere and put their own puppet government in place. They also wanted to get even more military presence next to Russia.

Duh - I believe the Russians have tens of thousands of troop near the EU border, so what's so strange about the NATO wanting to counterbalance that?

About Yanuckovich: I don't believe "the West" ever liked him much. However, note that during almost his ENTIRE political career in Ukrain he and his cabinets supported membership of the EU. The EU was hesitant to embrace Ukraine because it has a large Russian minority whom are mostly loyal to Moscow and as a consequende it has no stable democracy. But greed.. er .. business perspectives prevailed and a treaty was negotiated.

So: the EU did not invade anything, they negotiated and spindoctored. They were succesful.
Russia also negotiated and spindoctored - but they lost. Then they DID invade Crimea. That's agression.

While NATO alone completely destroyed Middle East, and for some reason built anti rocket systems in Romania and Poland.

That's quite simple and the name of the system is a tell-tale: anti-rocket systems. Systems that will bring down Russian rockets might they incidentally be fired. No agression here.

No matter what you say, NATO is the bad guy here.

They aren't. Russia does not really like the growing influence of the EU, and does whatever it can to stop it. If they don't succeed, they simply invade a country.

To be honest, I believe that if you'd ask the population of Crimea and that of Southern- and Eastern Ukraine, they probably WOULD rather be part of the Russian Federation.

I wonder if, instead of being a PROBLEM, Ukraine actually could be the solution for the problem, e.g. by dividing Ukrain into Western- and Eastern Ukraine, a bit similar to West- and East-Germany. Then negotiate free trade and free exchange of people between the two states and preferably free trade and free exchange of people between Russia and Eastern Ukraine too.

Seem to be a natural and logical way to recognise and reconciliate the "differences".


BTW: Russia actively helped destroy parts of the Middle-East too, e.g. bombarding cities in Syria.

I haven't really got a clue wtf is going on.

I get the impression that certain elements within Europe and the USA are trying to manufacture some sort of new Cold War.
Of course there's probably similar groups / people in Russia working towards the same end.
Who knows, they may even be working together towards some common goal?

Who benefits from a return to Cold War politics?
Major corporations, arms manufacturers etc - all those who prop up the politicians and the system they so expertly exploit and manipulate.
Certainly not the ordinary 'man in the street'.

Personally I see no reason at all why there should be any real level of enmity between NATO and Russia.

Russia has done same things in the past. Remember how they controlled the rest of USSR ? They did it with tanks and puppet governments, just like NATO/USA/UK do it today.
Russia would love to do same # Nato does, but they can't. Putins tactics is to oppose NATO and the West on every issue, that's the only thing he can do.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: notmyrealname

20.2.2014: Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.

Yeah, sure, the NATO is the agressor..

your missing the armed coup that overthrew the president of ukraine.
the pro russian one, popular with ukrainians, elected again after 'free elections' that, nato refused to acknowledge allowing the pro nato dude to keep office.

originally posted by: stinkelbaumyour missing the armed coup that overthrew the president of ukraine.

You clearly are suffering from the Mandela effect

Yanukovich cowardly (but perhaps wisely) fled to Russia, but not after having tried to smother the voice of the people using good old Sovjet tactics: police shooting at peaceful demonstrations, "convincing" the voters to vote "right" (you may want to google "Berkut"), issueing laws that forbade free speech, the works. He claims to be shot at with automatic weapons, but it is far more likely he made this up to cover up the real reason for his escape: that he was no longer in control over the angry crowd, that demanded to be part of the EU.

I fully appreciate that not ALL Ukrainians want to be part of the EU, but alas you can't be in and out of it at the same time. If that could only be, we might then have solved the current British crisis too

the pro russian one, popular with ukrainians, elected again after 'free elections' that, nato refused to acknowledge allowing the pro nato dude to keep office.

Yanukovich was actually quite "pro-EU". But then he ditched the agreement with the EU, and replaced it by some arrangement with Russia. The people did not really like that, protested. Yanu had the police shoot at them. They raged, blood was shed. All because of mr Y. Not a pretty sight..

Yes, Russia, the US and the EU are actually working together. They are fighting our subterranean masters, aka "aliens". And you need weapons to fight them. And weapons must be bought. Hence you create a scenario to be allowed to buy them. I thought everybody knew this ...

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: playswithmachines

in any case not really worthy of EU membership.

When you have someone trying to keep that from happening because he thinks he is the only country they should deal with, so with that happening of course they won't be joining anytime soon...unless they can remove the problem of Putin backing the separatists they never will get in.

That country still has too many problems at the moment.

Yes that's what i meant, i was trying to sum it up in a neutral tone
Turkey, same deal, they want to join the EU (and this may surprise you) but i have some respect for the Turks, they are hared workers, terribly proud, don't take sht from anybody and they could be great partners, but they have a human rights issue and a dictator in charge so that will have to change before we can go further.
If NATO has to have any use at all, let them take out all the crazy IS dudes first, and then arrest everyone in the white house, 10 Downing Street, and all those other MF puppeteers who are organising this charade...

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Nah, to fight aliens you need a strong will & sense of self..........

a reply to: stinkelbaum

There was no armed coupe...there was one in Crimea though. You didn't have armed soldiers go to the capital and force the president out...he left to escape the impeachement he was facing for corruption.

In fact here you go all about his reason for running away from impeachement...

yanukovychleaks.org...

It helps to know the facts.

When Yanukovych lied to the people and decided he was staying with Russia against the will of the people that was the straw that broke the camels back...again facts come in handy.

You do see the big problem here...pro russian president...Ukraine has done their best to get away from Russia so why do they want a president who only looks after his own self worth while pushing the country right back to where they were before 1991?

Amazing how that seems to be forgotten.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: notmyrealname

20.2.2014: Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.

Yeah, sure, the NATO is the agressor..

Military action is an extension of political action. Is it too much to ask you too actually look into all of the political/financial provocations so you can understand the response before you actually spout off?

If you see a video of someone punching a smaller person, you immediately think the bigger person is doing something wrong however, if you see what led up to the fight along with the fight the whole situation takes on different meaning.

Point is...selectively choosing parts of the story to release, is exactly what MSM does and it is disgusting when they do it.

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: notmyrealname

Having (snipped) or Trump in the White House is like pouring gasoline over open flames... WW3 may very well happen in the next POTUS term

War is profitable when you are a bank or an arms dealer; I don't see the candidates as either so we must look at propensity to enter into a war vs. reviving and repairing the war devastated economy....

Which candidate is more likely to do this?

Like many here you seem to take part of the story as all of it. I disagree with your premise that Russia acted with the intent of starting this matter due to Ukraine making a decision, based largely on the lack of financial means to maintain such a system, as if your premise was the case, Russia would have acted immediately and not after repeated problems with the West (NATO) making stable matters in Ukraine, unstable.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: nwtrucker

The Germans can, therefore, be expected to cover all the bases, especially with the U.K. now leaning away from the EU and others likely to follow suit. Politically, the EU and NATO is in dire straights. (Not militarily). A slick move by the Germans and, IMO, zero to do with any WWIII.

The germans are in hock up to their necks to the world bank, as is most of the EU, England does have a strong economy and could probably make it alone. France owes trillions to China,Italy wants out but they are broke also. interesting times to be sure.
On the military front, don't get me wrong our soldiers are the best there is, but they have no ammo, spare parts etc and are vastly outnumbered by Ivan

Neither does Ivan. Numerically, Europe is more than a match for Russia. Russia still has to contend with it's huge area. China in the East and it's adding up 'littler' issues. Georgia and the like. EU's air force is more than a match, as is her tanks and combined surface fleet. Sufficiently nuked up to give pause to Putin, as well.

Putin is crafty. Not suicidal..

The only real advantage with 'Ivan', at this stage is leadership. Putin. The EU/NATO has none.

Nope. No WWIII. Not enough of an edge for Putin to try it. Not with the U.S. being an unknown variable. Militarily, things are still too well balanced......for now....

Trust me, the US military is anything but balanced right now; massive leadership purges, lack of funding to areas in desperate need and very low morale lead to huge degradation of our military might.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: notmyrealname

The NATO exercise was a response to Russia invading Crimea...which was a pretty flagrant breach of international law.

You wouldn't expect less, would you?

Plus, you omit to mention how aggressive Russia has been in recent times.

I disagree that NATO is "pushing for war"; I think NATO is acting pretty much how one might expect in response to Russian aggression.

I can only say this so many times as the same invalid arguments help being parroted so I insert a response to another person that said the same basic thing:

Military action is an extension of political action. Is it too much to ask you too actually look into all of the political/financial provocations so you can understand the response before you actually spout off?

If you see a video of someone punching a smaller person, you immediately think the bigger person is doing something wrong however, if you see what led up to the fight along with the fight the whole situation takes on different meaning.

Point is...selectively choosing parts of the story to release, is exactly what MSM does and it is disgusting when they do it.

originally posted by: MrSpad
You do not throw your most important fleet into chaos if your expecting a war anytime soon.

Not unless you know that you will not win a traditional shooting war and will have to rely upon truly horrific means to attempt to defend you country; that doesn't need the Baltic fleet to initiate.

While we are at it, I guess we didn't need those 200+ senior military officers that were purged over the last few years because that only applies to Russia, right?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Nikola014

Yanukovych was legally elected but he was also legally impeached. Also, if NATO wanted Ukraine so they could border Russia (which they already did) why didn't they accept their membership request? Same goes for Georgia. Funny how both those countries got invaded after requesting NATO membership.

funny how the membership request as encouraged by NATO first, huh?!

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I think a US citizen should be the last person in the world to talk about supporting separatists.

I know double standard policy is highly accepted among you people, but I will call it out every time.

That is officially ancient history, so I can't say that is a valid argument. If we held the same litmus to every country's past, boundaries would be a true rat's nest and create more problems than it solved.