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.

 

Putin urges Russian nuclear weapons boost

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


The Versailles Treaty was nothing more, and on this we agree, France and Great Britain attempting to punish Germany, not just for WWI, but for the previous half-century and more of conflict. Thus setting the stage for WW2...

The US came in late, and actually should have stayed out, and probably would have save for this. The rest, as they say, was history. To call it stupid on Germany's part would be an understatement.

Which led to US staying the second time around after Germany's defeat. We have been there ever since, hardly curious considering the Warsaw Pact disbanded and went home decades ago...

History indeed.

Stay tuned. Part three is unfolding before our eyes.

How is it this time we found ourselves behaving as the Nazis?




posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: gmacev

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yorkshirelad


And the only foreign armies to occupy European countries were Soviet and it was deeply resented.

"Were"? NATO forces occupy these countries, now. Shake off the Cold War propaganda and open your eyes.

People resent being occupied, everywhere.

You keep using that word, occupied. I don't think it means, what you think it means. Eastern europeans love NATO, that's why time after time, after time they elect pro-NATO politicians to govern them, while there are anti-NATO and pro-Russian parties to choose from. You can't understand what it's like to be truly occupied for hundreds of years, that's why you don't understand why would people voluntarily want to be part of NATO.

Empires always say that s***. They luuuv us. The hell. One sided view then says but they hated the other side during their occupation.

Really, really one sided to then also say, but its okay now to occupy those same countries with even more sophisticated military pointed down Russia's throat, after Russia left...

The real aggressors are the ones advancing through neutral countries up to the border of a country who has peacefully retreated, back behind theirs.
edit on 23-12-2016 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Further:


The US came in late, and actually should have stayed out, and probably would have save for this. The rest, as they say, was history. To call it stupid on Germany's part would be an understatement.


The Zimmerman telegram was the final straw, (or false flag, whichever) but public sentiment was more swayed by the sinking of the Lusitania. Theres also some discussion as to whether this event wasn't a set up as well.

Whats with the 'intrptr hide' BB code?
edit on 23-12-2016 by intrptr because: additional, bb code



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


Aren’t Trump and Putin suppose to be friends

Something doesn’t add up folks

My conspiracy bones are starting to smell a great big rat.

And the Rat is?

The western main stream propaganda machine. Sour grapes, they lost the presidency, the senate, house and the war for information. Not to mention the covert war in Syria.

They'll never let up on Trump, sour grapes, scapegoating, the blame game. They gave Obama a free pass, Trumps not even in office and he's the communist enemy already.

See behind the veil...



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: gmacev

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yorkshirelad


And the only foreign armies to occupy European countries were Soviet and it was deeply resented.

"Were"? NATO forces occupy these countries, now. Shake off the Cold War propaganda and open your eyes.

People resent being occupied, everywhere.

You keep using that word, occupied. I don't think it means, what you think it means. Eastern europeans love NATO, that's why time after time, after time they elect pro-NATO politicians to govern them, while there are anti-NATO and pro-Russian parties to choose from. You can't understand what it's like to be truly occupied for hundreds of years, that's why you don't understand why would people voluntarily want to be part of NATO.

Empires always say that s***. They luuuv us. The hell. One sided view then says but they hated the other side during their occupation.

Really, really one sided to then also say, but its okay now to occupy those same countries with even more sophisticated military pointed down Russia's throat, after Russia left...

The real aggressors are the ones advancing through neutral countries up to the border of a country who has peacefully retreated, back behind theirs.

I'm not an empire. Im a citizen of a country in Eastern Europe. It's me and people like me saying that. NATO didn't even want to create defense plans for the Baltics and move troops there, even though for a long time we were asking, hell even begging them to do that. Only when Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO started waking up. Neutral countries are the ones initiating their defensive measures and Russia can only blame itself for it.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Has anybody considered that this might all be to do with the incoming European 'Army'

a reply to: KnightFire



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: gmacev

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: gmacev

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yorkshirelad


And the only foreign armies to occupy European countries were Soviet and it was deeply resented.

"Were"? NATO forces occupy these countries, now. Shake off the Cold War propaganda and open your eyes.

People resent being occupied, everywhere.

You keep using that word, occupied. I don't think it means, what you think it means. Eastern europeans love NATO, that's why time after time, after time they elect pro-NATO politicians to govern them, while there are anti-NATO and pro-Russian parties to choose from. You can't understand what it's like to be truly occupied for hundreds of years, that's why you don't understand why would people voluntarily want to be part of NATO.

Empires always say that s***. They luuuv us. The hell. One sided view then says but they hated the other side during their occupation.

Really, really one sided to then also say, but its okay now to occupy those same countries with even more sophisticated military pointed down Russia's throat, after Russia left...

The real aggressors are the ones advancing through neutral countries up to the border of a country who has peacefully retreated, back behind theirs.

I'm not an empire. Im a citizen of a country in Eastern Europe. It's me and people like me saying that. NATO didn't even want to create defense plans for the Baltics and move troops there, even though for a long time we were asking, hell even begging them to do that. Only when Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO started waking up. Neutral countries are the ones initiating their defensive measures and Russia can only blame itself for it.

Russia is responding defensively to NATO spreading into Eastern Europe, not the other way round.


edit on 24-12-2016 by intrptr because: redaction



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Russia is responding defensively to NATO spreading into Eastern Europe, not the other way round.

Uhm... No.




posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: gmacev

LOL, there was no 'crisis in Crimea' until the west meddled in Ukraine. The Russians moved to protect their black sea fleet based at Sevastopol, which has been there for centuries.

Another brain washed mind freed from the 'official narrative'.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: gmacev
"Crisis in Crimea"?
Haha!!
Since when is a State voting to succeed from a nation a "crisis"?
You might want to get your facts straight.
Crimean State referendum
The people of Crimea VOTED to leave Ukraine and RE-join Russia. The Russians helped facilitate that after the vote. I think this TRIGGERED NATO once they realized some people would prefer Russia over NATO. Kinda like how 1/2 of America is triggered by the fact people preferred a loud mouth billionaire New Yorker over the rape enabling murderous treasonous career politician...



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: gmacev
"Crisis in Crimea"?
Haha!!
Since when is a State voting to succeed from a nation a "crisis"?
You might want to get your facts straight.
Crimean State referendum
The people of Crimea VOTED to leave Ukraine and RE-join Russia. The Russians helped facilitate that after the vote.

Helped by invading Crimea and brainwashing people that the nazis are coming?.. LOL. The Russians didn't have the right to go past their military base and run the place like it's their own. Oh and the nazis never took over the government and Putin himself recognizes the democratically elect government of Ukraine.


originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: gmacev

LOL, there was no 'crisis in Crimea' until the west meddled in Ukraine.

So there was a crisis or not? Get your narrative straight, you guys. If the West has overthrown Ukraine's government, then why did ukrainians democratically elect a pro-western and anti-russian government later on?..
Oh and you completely ignored the numbers that prove NATO is not provoking Russia, and that NATO is the one responding to aggresive Russia.
edit on 2016-12-24 by gmacev because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: gmacev


So there was a crisis or not?

For Ukraine, yah. Ukraine was all about blocking Russias access to Crimea and the 6th fleet, which controls the Black Sea. Denying Russians control of the Black sea would stop their access to the Mediterranean thru the turkish straits and the Baltic states.

Look at a map.

And read this...

wiki



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: gmacev

LOL, there was no 'crisis in Crimea' until the west meddled in Ukraine. The Russians moved to protect their black sea fleet based at Sevastopol, which has been there for centuries.

Another brain washed mind freed from the 'official narrative'.


Not even remotely close to the truth. Secondly the reasons you listed arent the ones putin listed. Please explain to us which one of you are wrong - you or Putin?



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

again not even close. Turkey has more control over the black sea than any nation on the black sea.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: gmacev

LOL, there was no 'crisis in Crimea' until the west meddled in Ukraine. The Russians moved to protect their black sea fleet based at Sevastopol, which has been there for centuries.

Another brain washed mind freed from the 'official narrative'.


Not even remotely close to the truth.


Show the timeline that disproves both points...



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

again not even close. Turkey has more control over the black sea than any nation on the black sea.

You mean NATO (Turkey is NATO) has control of the Black Sea?

You wish...
edit on 24-12-2016 by intrptr because: clarity



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join