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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

BBC: Nato sends a message to Russia

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

The simple fact is that this is not a Cold War Mark II - far from it. Russia with its declining economy is nothing like the Soviet Union, which aspired to establish a different world order to that pursued by the capitalist West.

Russia is in many ways a weak country. Its leadership has a strong sense of encirclement - a view that the West is only eager to do it down - and, rightly or wrongly, this is driving Mr Putin's more assertive approach.
SOURCE


The article linked above is the most chilling piece I've read yet concerning the current tensions with Russia. The fact it was published by the BBC doesn't help.

The article should put to rest a lot of the counter-arguments in recent WW3 threads. That is not good news. The situation is clearly worse than we're being told.
edit on 27-10-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 27 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

We have 2 super powers pointing thousands of nukes at each other, playing who's dick is bigger. There is nothing "Weak" about either of them and to think otherwise is moronic. Tensions have been high forever between these two nations, and now they are throwing insults at each other on a daily basis and moving troops into defensive positions. And now we have things like the BBC trying to egg them on with insults of being weak.


Oh but I'm sure everything's fine, nothing to see here folks. What cold war?
edit on 27-10-2016 by Tjoran because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tjoran
And now we have things like the BBC trying to egg them on with insults of being weak.


The article linked to in the original post was written by Jonathan Marcus. He is a "Diplomatic correspondent" for the BBC. I researched his biography before I posted the article, but I found out very little about him. He seems to be speaking for NATO directly because he used the phrase "here at the Nato headquarters in Brussels."

The BBC got a true expert to write an article on this matter to describe the situation as accurately as possible, and people criticize it?

All I see in the article is a clear explanation of where we are and what's going on. It probably represents the official stance of NATO. It's apparently written by someone with personal knowledge of what's going on.

How did you get the idea that the BBC is "trying to egg them on" or making insults or anything like that?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Indeed it's not like the Cold War Mark II .... The big difference is the U.S. thinks it can mop up after full-scale nuclear war. Russia's Satan 2 is not deterrence, MAD is a thing of the past.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Putin invaded Georgia, Ukraine and occupies a part of Moldova.
He bragged about being able to take 5 NATO capitals in a short amount of time.

As I have said many times the current situation is a direct result of Putin's actions / rhetoric. He is bitching about the very thing he caused.

The encirclement lie from Putin is BS.

Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia's land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members.

Russia shares land borders with 14 countries (Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea). Only five of them are NATO members.

Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat.

With respect to the permanent stationing of U.S. and other Allied forces on the territory of other Allies in Europe, NATO has full abided by the commitments made in the NATO-Russia Founding Act. There has been no permanent stationing of additional combat forces on the territory of other allies; and total force levels have, in fact, been substantially reduced since the end of the Cold War

NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an attempt at encirclement.


Can anyone explain how to encircle Russia using facts and geography and not Kremlin talking points?
edit on 28-10-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Heh... every time this comes up, I instantly think about the image of the location of US bases in Europe and the middle east.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
He seems to be speaking for NATO directly because he used the phrase "here at the Nato headquarters in Brussels."


He's a correspondent so he's report from rather than for.

I think this is reasonable assessment of the situation at the moment.

The rise of Russia nationalism and the control of the media within Russia directly correlates with the increasing authoritarian mode of government and the antagonism and belligerence against the developed world. Russia is becoming a failed state economically and an international pariah with its actions in Syria, regardless of the efforts of the Russian propaganda machine like RT.com to paint a different picture.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The US destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. So what exactly is your point?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tjoran
a reply to: Profusion

We have 2 super powers pointing thousands of nukes at each other, playing who's dick is bigger. There is nothing "Weak" about either of them and to think otherwise is moronic. Tensions have been high forever between these two nations, and now they are throwing insults at each other on a daily basis and moving troops into defensive positions. And now we have things like the BBC trying to egg them on with insults of being weak.


Oh but I'm sure everything's fine, nothing to see here folks. What cold war?


HOLY HANNAH!!! this has to be the first post I've read in a couple days that is not ignorant to what is going on around us. Good to see another voice of reason on here. I couldn't agree with your post more. Wish I could give you 2 stars. Spot on, and I couldn't have said it any better myself. Thank you.........



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Wow, I've been arguing my point all night on here, and frankly I'm out of energy at the moment to respond to your post properly, but what I can say is. You're wrong about this being completely Putins fault. You need to go back and hit those books, and do some more research....



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Xcathdra

The US destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. So what exactly is your point?


Don't waste your time, he has no point. He's trolling the thread with a weak argument, that's all. Just tell him, he's wrong.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: gunshooter

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Xcathdra

The US destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria. So what exactly is your point?


Don't waste your time, he has no point. He's trolling the thread with a weak argument, that's all. Just tell him, he's wrong.


Not trolling... Pointing out facts some people ignore because it doesn't support their agenda.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I've obviously been here a little while and follow all the recent threads, but these ww3 ones have really been bothering me. Like I said in the Satan 2 thread I fear for my family and if I do survive I feel its sadly gonna be every man for himself. I've already started preparing thanks to alot of threads and good people here.







I would suggest anyone who isn't prepared to take some classes and purchase a firearm if possible. I never thought growing up I would have to be worried about having defend my family but it seems that's what its coming to.

For the uk/bbc=USA to send such a message along with everything else going on it does not look good my friends. I really hope we can work it out peacefully with Russia, but I don't see that happening.
edit on 10/28/2016 by 772STi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: Tjoran
And now we have things like the BBC trying to egg them on with insults of being weak.


The article linked to in the original post was written by Jonathan Marcus. He is a "Diplomatic correspondent" for the BBC. I researched his biography before I posted the article, but I found out very little about him. He seems to be speaking for NATO directly because he used the phrase "here at the Nato headquarters in Brussels."

The BBC got a true expert to write an article on this matter to describe the situation as accurately as possible, and people criticize it?

All I see in the article is a clear explanation of where we are and what's going on. It probably represents the official stance of NATO. It's apparently written by someone with personal knowledge of what's going on.

How did you get the idea that the BBC is "trying to egg them on" or making insults or anything like that?


When he says 'here at the NATO headquarters in Brussels', it's because he is filmed talking from the NATO headquarters in Brussels. If a reporter says 'here at the White House in Washington' does that make them president?

Aside from that, I totally agree with your post, it is a concise and interesting article, but many don't like the BBC because it doesn't pander to their personal narrative.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   

edit on 28-10-2016 by ZIPMATT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Russia is weak, America is strong.
The war would be over in a matter of minutes because we Americans are SO bad-ass.

Russia kills their enemies and takes their land.
We set up district area councils and build soccer fields.

Russian RoE - You want water comrade? better bring back some ears!
American RoE - Do not load your weapon unless you have three eye witnesses willing to provide evidence that you were directly engaged by the enemy. Do not fire your weapon unless said witnesses are willing to testify that threat was actively hostile and an immediate and present danger to yourself or to other allied forces.

Yea, it'll be over in days alright.

Hope you all like vodka.




top topics



 
10

log in

join