Putin Issues Desperate Warning of WWIII

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Am I. Huh. Thanks for that.

Did I say they were a threat? Russia is not a threat because the Russians, not to mention the rest of Europe--and by extension the United States, etc... have far too much to lose in a war.

If I did say they were a threat, I was being just a tad bit sarcastic. Apparently we need sarcasm tags, or something.

Feel better now?

Well someone is saying they are a threat.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives with Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, left, and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, right, at the NATO summit in Warsaw. Trudeau confirmed Canada will contribute troops as the Western alliance expands its presence in eastern Europe to counter fears of Russian expansion. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Canadian-led battle group will deploy to Latvia, part of NATO move to deter Russia

This kid Trudeau comes in like he is going to get us back to being Canada again, and within a few months he chasing the largest boogyman Canada has ever tried to antagonize..

You cant make this snip up. We have military build up on the boarders of a Country that is screaming "STOP THIS, YOU ARE GOING TO STAR A WAR" and nobody with any responsibility are setting off the alarm bells?

The footnote after every report I hear in my media is that this is over a referendum in Crimea and something that happened in Georgia 8 years ago.

We have let much worse slide.

This is out of control.

originally posted by: gmacev

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: seagullHe's warning us about the games NATO is playing.

Why are you gathering troops on borders with Russia? Why?

Are you afraid Russia will invade you? If so, then you must be a illogical person; because, as very well educated and informed members of ATS had already stated, Russia cannot match with NATO.

Here's your answer:

Plus invasion of Georgia and Ukraine and yet you're amazed that eastern European NATO members get their DEFENSE beefed up?.. Everything NATO is doing is a direct response to Russias aggresive actions, NOT the other way around, if you can't see that with the facts in your face, maybe your not so big on logic yourself.

Russian aggression in Georgia? Big loud mouth label to use. Would you please remind me what exactly happened in Georgia?

As far as I remember, the georgian army shot and killed a bunch of russian peace keepers and systematically "cleaned up" a few towns in South Ossetia by slaughtering everything they see. Russia invaded you say? Thank god that Russians saved these poor people.

And as for Ukraine - don't even get me started. Grow some brains and research who and for what purpose did what in Ukraine, instead of repeating like a parrot what the box tells you.


It's because of zombified, ignorant people like you that the s%×m in power gets away with pulling the world into a disharmonic, agressive s%=t hole.

originally posted by: InsideEurope
a reply to: gmacev

That is so not true man. You believe this because your news tells you this?

No, I believe it because I see this coming from RUSSIAN TV channels that are on the our cable package

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: awareness10



After a first strike the amount of debris in the atmosphere will close down just about everything. Social destruction as people turn on each other will do the rest.

Yeah.. it isn't much different that that right now in big cities anyways. Something quick and humane would be ideal though, don't you think.

originally posted by: gmacev

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: seagullHe's warning us about the games NATO is playing.

Why are you gathering troops on borders with Russia? Why?

Are you afraid Russia will invade you? If so, then you must be a illogical person; because, as very well educated and informed members of ATS had already stated, Russia cannot match with NATO.

Here's your answer:

Plus invasion of Georgia and Ukraine and yet you're amazed that eastern European NATO members get their DEFENSE beefed up?.. Everything NATO is doing is a direct response to Russias aggresive actions, NOT the other way around, if you can't see that with the facts in your face, maybe your not so big on logic yourself.

it is true that if Russia strikes NATO will fail. But it is not true about the numbers. Are they only the numbers of the drills may be. Russian army is about 250,000 or so, and that's it. If you consider only the Baltics, Russia would have majority, but the Russian army is not bigger than the combined NATO armies. And that is dangerous. Because every major conflict bigger than Georgia will turn into tactical nuclear war in days if not in hours. That's why US Obama admin wisely withdrew ships from Persian gulf and ordered planes in Syria to stay 20 miles away from Russian planes when Russia started the campaign there. Now it is regulated with bilateral agreement to avoid crossfire.

Should a direct Russia-NATO conflict starts, it is unavoidable the use of nuclear Iskanders, Kalibr, and the US Tomahawks. All military and politicians know that. Moreover, the tactical nukes are not accounted by the strategic arms reduction treaties. It is public secret Russia has quite many of them that USA scrapped as "obsolete". A nuclear war is not winnable for the West. Therefore I see the attempts of certain Western countries to prevent it. Hopefully Sarajevo 1914 won't be repeated in 2016.

About Georgia war, everyone knows who started it first, and it was published in official EU report. Saakashvili ordered the Georgian army to attack Tshinvally's residential buildings, hours after the Georgian peacekeepers started shooting at the Russian peacekeepers that both were there with UNSC mandate. Russia not only didn't invade Georgia, but also didn't turn down the government of Sakashvili, although Lavrov demanded it as condition for ceasefire. Later Geogrian people voted it out. We were lucky with Georgia, with Russian tactical nukes Tochka deployed on the ground and US nuclear ships in the Black Sea. Putin gave a rare CNN interview and then sent Russian biggest ships in the Caribbean. Luckily, Cuba-2 ended peacefully, again. We'd better not count a 3rd time on the Luck of the Cuban crisis, that Robert McNamara spoke of in a recent interview published on youtube.

America should get its own # together before , getting the nose in everyone else's # !

I bet some in the forces come back and think ,WE LEFT THAT # TO COME BACK TO THIS # ?

Oh, i see, new form of war - hybrid warfare is active on ATS pages. There is some directed propaganda. I mean, all these people who justified russia as like a peace keeping state. Somehow that kind of posts (Nikola014 and more) got a lot of stars... i think because most of american ATSers like that kind of posts where someone criticize USA.

Someone said, NATO is increasing forces and Putin defending - NO - Putin starts big army reform about 2008. and increasing a lot of forces since then, mostly attack powered and carries out many times more excersises then NATO, including excersises how to do dessants and even nuclear attacks (Stockholm event 2013. march).

So, there is that article 5. but no real forces on ground to defend Baltics and Poland, if russis start campaign to break through Suwalki passage. And now, when NATO pre places ONLY 4x1000 manpower (4 batallion) to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, some folks (putinists) saying this is declaration of war. 4 batallion is way too few to defend this area, but only one reason - real US, british and other NATO troops inside area, so when russis really wanna attack, now this is little bit more than only Article 5. (possible empty words). Thats named deterrence NOT offence.

John Titor - "The attack on Europe is in response to a unified European army that masses and moves East from Germany. Also, please be aware that from my viewpoint, Russia attacked my enemy who was in the U.S. cities. Yes, the U.S. did counter attack."

a reply to: Phage

I had to chime in,

Certain areas would require an actual ground strike due to the terrain, or if the target is hardened.

Other than that, you are right.

a reply to: XendorFazem

There are 2 parts to this. The first is that the messenger is Alex Jones. Some will automatically reject what he says, others will wonder what his financial angle is, and others will accept him as a legitimate voice on the internet. This first part is actually not important, and I recommend setting aside such concerns.

The second part has to do with what Vladimir Putin has been saying on this subject that has not been reported in Western Anglo-sphere news outlets. Over the last three years I have marvelled that major statements by Russian governmental officials have gone completely unreported by the BBC and CBC. The news operations in the USA have been even worse in not commenting on anything that Putin or Lavrov says. There are similar issues in the German press and the Francophone media. The unreported words of Vladimir Putin are the most important part of the video, and our attention needs to focus on what Putin is saying. It is strange and shocking to me that giving a voice to Vladimir Putin may be the most important anti-war activity in which one may engage in the English-speaking West.

With regard to the march toward World War Three: Had David Cameron remained PM in the UK war would be more likely. With Theresa May's ascendancy to Prime Minister I think the countdown to WWIII slowed down. But there is one major engine still going full tilt toward world war and that is the Obama government and Hillary Clinton's campaign for U.S. President. If Clinton is elected the next President, WWIII is a certainty. Romney was part of the same movement toward war that Clinton is. Recall it was Romney who was first to name Russia the most serious enemy of the USA when nothing of the sort was the case. Romney/Ryan was simply the other side of the coin from Obama and now Clinton. When we read of Paul Ryan opposing Donald Trump, we need to recall that Ryan is actually on the same side as Clinton.

a reply to: Kapriti

The problem is not western media, it is all media.

Every government wants to control what its own media is telling its populace while condoning the very same thing in other governments.

If anything i would say the western media is given a bit more leash so they can bash the talking heads supposedly in charge.
Then when they are hated you just have a election and give people some new talking heads to hate.

Try finding anything negative about putin on russia today.

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: XendorFazem

did someone post Gorbachev's latest warning of cold war turning into hot war?

CNN won't warn us 3 days or 3 hours in advance, it will go blank the moment the nuclear war starts. That may be valid for Moscow Tv as well, but who cares in the West how bad the Russians will suffer? Who cares of anything else than saving his own life in such situation?

how bad the russians will suffer? dont underestimate them. the military folks there have a saying ' 'we will send you (entire west) to your god molloch in 15 minutes'. they can deliver, make no mistake, i have worked with them

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: XendorFazem

did someone post Gorbachev's latest warning of cold war turning into hot war?

CNN won't warn us 3 days or 3 hours in advance, it will go blank the moment the nuclear war starts. That may be valid for Moscow Tv as well, but who cares in the West how bad the Russians will suffer? Who cares of anything else than saving his own life in such situation?

how bad the russians will suffer? dont underestimate them. the military folks there have a saying ' 'we will send you (entire west) to your god molloch in 15 minutes'. they can deliver, make no mistake, i have worked with them

a reply to: XendorFazem


Any World War will not happen. It is all about hidden destabilisation of another country. There is no need to kill and gun people down as retaliation with bombs would deem that land unusable. That, is counterproductive.

War is being fought in the market and war is being fought over the establishment of future lives with information.

Whoever controls the information, controls the people and controls its future. Just as the Bible did and still, we are feeling its power in society.

Thats the ticking timebomb

In WW2 there were 61 countries fighting,

Today, there are only 11 countries not at war.

just sayin!!!!!

Russia has no need for this war. The west needs Russia to be the bad guy so they can beef up NATO for the upcoming war.

Russia the aggressor? People automatically cite a Ukrainian and Georgian affairs. Georgia: was wiping out all Russian peacekeeping forces. Ukrain : let's not forget the US backed coup before driving the president out of Ukrain. Let's not forget that Crimea was actually Russian prior to the USSR which was given to Ukrain.

From what I read into history, US president had promised Russia that NATO will NOT move an inch towards Russian border if they help the unification of Germany. I think it was Reagan who made this promise? But we're breaking this now. We are surrounding Russia and calling them the aggressors.

Let's not forget Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. As you can recall, NATO was the aggressors. You may be able to justify Afghanistan. But you can't justify Iraq, Libya and Syria. That's aggression.

a reply to: Equinox99

Let's not forget Afghanistan,

Okay let's not forget...

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was aNATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, established by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001 by Resolution 1386, as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.[2][3] Its main purpose was to train the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and assist Afghanistan in rebuilding key government institutions, but was also engaged in the 2001–present war with the Taliban insurgency.

en.wikipedia.org...

Iraq

The March 2003 campaign against Iraq was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not. NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the campaign or to conduct it.

www.nato.int...

The NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) was established in 2004 at the request of the Iraqi Interim Government under the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1546. The aim of NTM-I was to assist in the development of Iraqi security forces training structures and institutions so that Iraq could build an effective and sustainable capability that addressed the needs of the nation.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Alliance demonstrated its commitment to helping Iraq create effective armed forces and, ultimately, provide for its own security by establishing the NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) in 2004. It was withdrawn from Iraq on 31 December 2011 when the mandate of the mission expired and agreement could not be reached on the legal status of NATO troops operating in the country.

www.nato.int...

SO now if NATO were the aggressors why did they leave when they couldn't reach an agreement...not exactly what aggressors do now is it?

And don't forget NATO was in Iraq thanks to the UN security council...the same one Russia is on and even voted for NATO to be in Iraq.

Libya

On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, ostensibly to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wow there's that pesky UN Security Council again voting to use NATO in Libya...where Russia and China abstained from voting, but neither were against it.

Syria.

NATO has nothing to do with Syria as a whole, but independent countries that are part of the WHole of NATO can act on their own without the whole of NATO being involved...so I don't see where you were going with this one?

That's aggression.

No had they done any of those countries other than Syria( because they aren't involved there) without having UN resolutions putting them there...then that would be aggression, but since they had the UN Security Council vote to be in those countries...that isn't aggression.

a reply to: XendorFazem

A lot of replies to this post seem to think that a nuclear war is survivable somehow. Thats because you are visualizing some kind of Hollywood special effects war, where there are survivors and its mad max. There may be a few places in the world where that will occur. But if it escalates to a large exchange, most population centers will be completely destroyed. In the case of a war between the US and Russia, both sides still posess enough of an arsenal to blanket population centers to the degree that almost everyone will die. A lot of targets will be hit more than once. Infrastructure will be COMPLETELY destroyed. Most nuclear plants and factories will be severely damaged so any survivors will be dealing with a couple hundred Fukushima's, as well as massive toxins in the air and water from all the fires, chemical spills, and fallout. Unless you live very far out somewhere in a very isolated place, your short life, if you are unlucky enough to live, will resemble Hell on earth. Personally I would rather be vaporized in the initial exchange than survive it. Its not going to be pretty.

the good military commander, and the good politician, should know how to think were they in the shoes of their adversary. The film "Tora, tora" showed clearly that quality of the American generals and SOME of the politicians in the period immediately before Pear Harbor attack. They knew how to think and feel as if they were Japanese. it is not lack of patriotism as the propaganda would say, it is just the opposite- to serve to maximum your nation, to understand the potential enemy, and to try to avoid the worst. Similarly,t he top Japanese admiral Yamamoto used to think in terms of what the Americans would think and expect. He was against Pearl Harbor attack, however he obeyed orders. After the attack, learning Japanese declaration of war to the US was delivered half an hour after the attack due to some mistake, he said that would bring additional resolve in the just nation of America. Obviously, the film was made in the decades after WW2 with the goal to mend ties between American and Japanese society.

Today, the best US politicians and military should think of what the Russians would think and do. They should ask the simple questions, how long would the Russians bear the post-Cold War situation. Where is the limit of that, and what would be their reaction when that limit is crossed.

Robert McNamara on the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2003 film