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.

 

Can someone please inform me why Trump being friends with Putin would be a bad thing?

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

This is something that I have being thinking of....and even said out loud to few people in the past.

The only thing I can think of is they create a enemy over there, to distract the masses, also so they can lay blame on bad old commies....

Create a common enemy, create a false sense of unity and security 🚨....."hey look out there's a monster over there, I will protect you if you put me in charge of your civil liberties"




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
I see it all over the web, " TRUMP HAS TIES WITH PUTIN, AMERICA WILL BURN "

Seriously?

Why is it a bad thing to be friends with a leader of another powerful country, not to mention a country with a huge amount of nukes?


The KGB defector Anatoliy Golisyn said in his 1995 book “Perestroika Deception”:


All warfare is based on deception. Therefore, when capable, feign incapacity; when active, inactivity. When near, make it appear that you are far away; when far away, that you are near. Offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him… Keep him under strain and wear him down. When he is united, divide him. Attack where he is unprepared; sally out when he does not expect you. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme skill… if ignorant of both your enemy and yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril’. SUN TZU, ‘The Art of War’,

...

All dialectics work by creating and controlling conflicts(thesis-antithesis-synthesis) through MSM(Main Stream Media) and politicians. Gradually the globalists push society in their own direction without people understanding how and why it happened.

In “Perestroika deception” Golitsyn states:

Thesis: Stalinism [or Stalinist Communism].

Antithesis: Rejection of Stalinist Communism.

Synthesis: Converging, merging and marriage of Communist (socialist) substance (content) with democratic format, or ‘democratism’ [ = ‘convergence’].

This use of ‘democratic’ form is deceptive: it is the essence of the strategic manoeuvre which is intended to secure the final world victory of Communism. “ Here, in addition to Hegelian dialectics, the Communist strategists took Sun Tzu’s advice. Sun Tzu wrote: ‘I base my plans for victory on form, but this is not understood by the common man….”


Now watch this:


Anatoliy Golitsyn is more relevant now than he has ever been. I'd like to add a little bit about his book "Perestroika Deception" by sharing this review:

In 1984, former KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn published a remarkable book, New Lies for Old, alleging that in the near future the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, working in collaboration with sister parties worldwide, would feign its own demise for three main purposes: 1) deceiving Western governments as to communism’s long-range goal of overthrowing the “bourgeois” states, 2) attracting Western capital to revitalize the Soviet Union’s ailing command economy, and 3) removing any justification for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization anti-Soviet military posture.

Five years later, the ruling communist party in Poland invited “non”-communists into the government and, in 1990, the ruling communist party in East Germany “capitulated” by uniting with West Germany. The demise of the Soviet Bloc had supposedly begun.

His predictions vindicated, in March 1989, Golitsyn submitted a memorandum to the US Central Intelligence Agency, further outlining the Soviet deception strategy in concert with the leaders of Red China. This and other memos were published in his second book, The Perestroika Deception. An excerpt, with links to supporting documentation, follows:

PREDICTIONS ON THE EXECUTION OF THE STRATEGY’S FINAL PHASE

Expanded Role of the Communist Party


During “perestroika,” the political role of the Communist Party in communist countries will increase, not decrease. The Party will continue to exercise overall supervision and control over the mixed economy through Party members among the managers and technocrats. The Party, operating “underground” and “working by other means,” will provide political guidance to the Congress of Peoples’ Deputies and other “reformed” and successor parliaments and to the new “political parties” and “grassroots democratic associations” through Party cells and individual Party members in the leaderships of these organizations. Guidance to Party members will be given through confidential briefings. Freed from day-to-day supervision over the economy, the Party will devote itself to guiding and implementing “perestroika” in the USSR and Eastern Europe and to implementing the strategy in the West. The Soviet Party apparatus will become a true general staff of world revolution to be carried out through the strategy of “perestroika.”

Stronger, Maturer Ideology

Despite the apparent renunciation of ideological orthodoxy, Communist ideology will grow stronger and more mature. As “perestroika” proceeds, ideology in the Communist countries will be reasserted. Each success for “perestroika” will reinforce the belief of Party members and young Communists in the correctness of their ideology and their cause. Communists will continue to analyze international relations and the situation in the capitalist countries in terms of class analysis. Their “humanism” will continue to see love and hate in class terms. Capitalists, home-grown and foreign, will be hated, never loved; and they will invariably be deceived and take for a ride.

The Party will continue with ideological education and training to prevent contamination by foreign ideologies. Attempts to reform and replace capitalism in the West will be accelerated, not through ideological propaganda, but through the strategy of “perestroika,” leading to “convergence.”

An Improved, Reorganized KGB

One can expect that the KGB will be converted into a new organization with a Western-style name. The reorganization will be presented as a reduction of the role of the service in Soviet society. But, because the KGB’s crucial role in promoting “perestroika” internally and abroad, the reorganization should not be seen as a downgrading. Just as Dzerzhinskiy’s hated Cheka was converted into the more powerful GPU, so will the successor organization to the KGB be more powerful than its predecessor.

The new service will work with kid gloves and more sophisticated methods. Internally, its resources will be devoted to the creation of controlled political plurality (“democratism”). It will create a pseudo-social democratic party and Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Muslim national parties: it will even set up Stalinist and anti-Semitic groups, to give a convincing impression of plurality. Naturally, the service will be behind these groups and parties—controlling and managing them in the interests of the strategy and its objectives. The service will use its intelligence and security assets, particularly its agents of influence in the newly created national fronts, political groups and parties, to carry out the strategy of “restructuring” attitudes and polices in the West.

The New Model Soviet Regime

The Soviets will proceed with “perestroika” on the following lines:

1) A mixed socialist-market economy comparable to the Swedish economy will be established with one crucial difference. Soviet “capitalists” will in fact be secret Party members and Party political tools. Their influence will be used in the interests of the strategy abroad. This is what Soviet maturity means.

2) The Party will create controlled plurality a semblance of social democracy in the USSR. It will not be difficult to do. Even the Stalinist regime in Poland had nominally “non-Communist” “independent” parties. In fact, they were puppet parties.
edit on 16-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 09:02 PM
link   
3) As a mature body, the Soviet parliament will play an active role in the execution of the strategy abroad.

4) The new parliament will be closer to the Swedish model—again, with one difference. It will use its contacts with Western colleagues to influence them towards cooperation and “restructuring” in the West.

5) The Soviet Empire will not crumble as a result of nationalist unrest. The Party will create a stronger federation which will be in full control of foreign policy, defence and security but which will provide autonomy to the national Republics to run their own local affairs.

6) As the Party proceeds with successful “perestroika” in the USSR, both Russians and non-Russians will be increasingly inclined to accept it and take part in the process. In the final analysis, their attitude will depend on Western support for Soviet “perestroika” and the improvement in their way of life.

7) Successful Soviet “perestroika” will result in a Soviet regime of pseudo-social democracy with a human face.

8 ) At this juncture, the Party and the successor to the KGB will do their utmost to exploit the image of their new model, their prestige and the contacts and influence of the new parliament, the national fronts, the political groups and parties and the Soviet capitalists, to carry out the intended strategy of “restructuring” in the West.

“Restructuring” in Eastern Europe and China

A consistent effort will be made to expand and deepen “restructuring” in Eastern Europe and China. The new models will be like Soviet “perestroika” in essence but will reflect the specific national and historical features of each country.

For instance, in Poland the model will include Communist power-sharing with Solidarity and the Catholic hierarchy. In Czechoslovakia, the model will include the experience of 1968; in Hungary the rehabilitation of the revolt of 1956; in East Germany, the desire for reunion with West Germany; and in China, it will reflect the Asian character of socialism, the desire for reunion with Taiwan (One China Policy) and the present close relations with the United States. Polish and East German “restructuring” should be particularly closely watched because of their relevance to the “restructuring” of Western Europe.

“Restructuring” in Western Europe

“Perestroika” in the USSR and Eastern Europe will be accompanied by a determined Soviet political and diplomatic offensive to introduce “restructuring” in Western Europe. Gorbachev and East European leaders will try to develop the present détente into close economic, military, political, cultural and scientific cooperation to create “one Europe” without NATO and the Warsaw Pact. A particular effort will be made to develop close relations and cooperation with East European social democrats and the Labour Party in Britain—exploiting the new Soviet pseudo-social democratic, mixed economy image. Attracted by this image and convinced of its authenticity, the social democrats may well respond to this courting.

East Germany will play a crucial role in the “restructuring” of Western Europe and of West Germany in particular. The appointment of Valentin Falin, a leading Soviet expert on Germany, as head of the Central Committee’s Department of International Relations, indicates that the Soviets are preparing and counting on an East Germany initiative. Such an initiative will probably be supported by a Polish demarche such as revival of Rapacki plan for a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. This time, one can expect the Soviets to remove the Berlin Wall. There is no doubt that their strategists realize that they will be unable to proceed with the strategy of “restructuring” in Europe without removal of the Berlin Wall—just as they were unable to proceed without a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. Through removal of the Berlin Wall, the Soviets may be able to strike a new, Rapallo-style deal with the West Germans, particularly with a Social Democratic government, entailing their departure from NATO and acceptance of neutrality.

Given that Soviet “perestroika” incorporates by design many Euro-Communist positions (criticism of Soviet repressive practices, condemnation of the intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968, broadening Soviet democracy), Euro-Communist parties will join and support the movement for “restructuring” in Europe which will give them new opportunities for revitalizing themselves. They will attempt to establish unity of action with social democrats to bring about “restructuring” in their own countries. Dubcek’s re-emergence from obscurity and his recent visit to Italy at the invitation of the Italian Communist Party supports the notion that the Euro-Communists will seek to exploit Soviet and East European “perestroika” to regain political influence in their own countries. Support for Soviet and East European “perestroika” by the Italian and French governments renders the socialist parties of these countries vulnerable to approaches from the Communists.

“Restructuring” in the Third World

An active Soviet and East European offensive to carry out “restructuring” in the Third World can be expected. The present Soviet readiness to contemplate and even encourage the settlement of armed conflicts by their proxies does not mean the abandonment of their objective of Communist penetration of the region concerned. It represents no more than change of tactics. The strategy of “restructuring” broadens Soviet opportunities for gaining influence through the achievement of political solutions. The reformed regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe will engage with the West European social democratic parties and the Socialist International in introducing and carrying out “restructuring” in the Third World and particularly in Latin America. Exploiting the debt problem and the example of Soviet “perestroika,” they will seek unity of action with labour, religious, student, human rights and ecological movements. The impact of Soviet “perestroika” on these countries may be expected to grow. The Mexican press is already drawing parallels between Soviet “perestroika” and political change in Mexico described as “Salinastroika.” The former Mexican communist leader made the same comparison. Fuentes, the left-wing Mexican novelist, wrote recently that Salinas must become a Mexican Gorbachev if he wishes to change the state of affairs in Mexico. Another example is the recent offer of the Salvadorean guerrilla leaders to disarm themselves if the Salvadorean army is restructured.

These examples indicate the beginning of a trend towards “restructuring” in Latin America. The trend will accelerate if the United States begins to help it without taking into account the Soviet strategic design that lies behind it.

...

And all of this was described in 1995 by a KGB defector.

Putin is not a friend to the west.


edit on 16-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

I could could sit here and write the same same thing about western countries. At the end of the day, you have to see whats happening in the world today.

It is the west who has illegally invaded contries

It is the west who has given rise to the terrorism we see today.

It is the west whi has army bases all over the world. You just have to look at the bases surrounding china today.

The west is the threat in this world today.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

I could could sit here and write the same same thing about western countries. At the end of the day, you have to see whats happening in the world today.

It is the west who has illegally invaded contries

It is the west who has given rise to the terrorism we see today.

It is the west whi has army bases all over the world. You just have to look at the bases surrounding china today.

The west is the threat in this world today.



So you wish the downfall of your own country?

The difference is I suppose you're not a Major in the KGB who defected from an oppressive regime and you never actually leaked intelligence based on knowledge from having worked in the role as a tactician with details that years later were proven to be accurate. But please by all means attempt to forecast real world events about what the United States is planning to accomplish, based on nothing more than you infallible super-intuition, about how the West is planning to subjugate the world.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, Iraq is a democracy now - unlike Russia annexing Crimea. That would certainly be more interesting than you sharing with us your platitudes about the "corrupt" free world versus the demonstrably sickening acts of communism and the host of authoritarian style regimes scattered across the planet.

The funny thing is you probably imagine yourself to be a British patriot. You're nothing of the sort. You're the new liberals, thinking spreading peace love and pacifism, will stop other countries from aggressing against the values that allow you to have the freedom to write the nonsense you're writing. Grow a pair, the real world isn't sunshine and flowers, where everyone stands around singing kumbaya. There are forces that have been on the move for decades to assault our way of life, which are well documented, and you're utterly blind to them.

Want to call yourself a British patriot? Then try acting like one.

Signed,
An Actual Conservative

edit on 17-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Amen. Especially since we are friends with China. China's human rights abuses far exceed Russia's imo. And they continue to this day. Yet where is the outrage? Oh that's right there's none because people believe rhetoric instead of sense
Great point OP I concur. It's best to keep enemies close. I don't see why we alienate ourselves. It's dumb.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

I could could sit here and write the same same thing about western countries. At the end of the day, you have to see whats happening in the world today.

It is the west who has illegally invaded contries

It is the west who has given rise to the terrorism we see today.

It is the west whi has army bases all over the world. You just have to look at the bases surrounding china today.

The west is the threat in this world today.



So you wish the downfall of your own country?

The difference is I suppose you're not a Major in the KGB who defected from an oppressive regime and you never actually leaked intelligence based on knowledge from having worked in the role as a tactician with details that years later were proven to be accurate. But please by all means attempt to forecast real world events about what the United States is planning to accomplish, based on nothing more than you infallible super-intuition, about how the West is planning to subjugate the world.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, Iraq is a democracy now - unlike Russia annexing Crimea. That would certainly be more interesting than you sharing with us your platitudes about the "corrupt" free world versus the demonstrably sickening acts of communism and the host of authoritarian style regimes scattered across the planet.

The funny thing is you probably imagine yourself to be a British patriot. You're nothing of the sort. You're the new liberals, thinking spreading peace love and pacifism, will stop other countries from aggressing against the values that allow you to have the freedom to write the nonsense you're writing. Grow a pair, the real world isn't sunshine and flowers, where everyone stands around singing kumbaya. There are forces that have been on the move for decades to assault our way of life, which are well documented, and you're utterly blind to them.

Want to call yourself a British patriot? Then try acting like one.

Signed,
An Actual Conservative


For a start, why dont you read my other posts before you say i am a british patriot. I am against patriotism for your country, and always have been.

Iraq is a democracy now. Oh thats ok then. Even though the country is worse off now with bombs almost going off on a dailt basis. But its ok because they are a democracy now! Seriously!

And Libya was completly an illegal war thst killed thousands and saw thousands fleeing the country.

I am not saying russia is sqeaky clean. No country is, but i also see whats happening now and the rise of terrorism we see today is due to the west.

I know the world is not a great, but does that mean we have to except that? Why should we except it. If everyone did, then nothing would change.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

If you have no patriotism for your country and your countrymen, even absent the current political regime, your country has no duty to you.


I know the world is not a great, but does that mean we have to [accept] that? Why should we [accept] it. If everyone did, then nothing would change.


Assuming you mean "accept" rather than "except," here is where you are stumbling. Compare what you just wrote in the quote above to this that you wrote:


Iraq is a democracy now. Oh thats ok then.


Change is only affected through prolonged economic, political (ideological, scientific, religious), or military force. That's it. Those are the options on the table and rarely do they ever come out looking pretty.

The political rifts seen in Western democratic societies is the best system the world has ever seen because no one dies as power transitions from one administration to the next (usually anyhow).

The terrible truth is the political-ideological-scientific-religious motive does not counter military force and will never work against authoritarian regimes unless the ruler fears the populace has the capacity to overthrow the military. Reduced to its essence geopolitics is a game of rock, paper, shotgun.

For all of US President George W. Bush Jr.'s faults his administration did try to set in motion a change in the Middle East to elevate the Middle Eastern people out of the politically oppressive stone ages. It was less a "false flag" and more of a misdirection. The methods were deceitful, the people of the United States were flatly lied to, but Bush and his cabinet had noble aspirations to make things better going into the future, even if in the short term it meant chaos, heartache, calamity, and destruction.

One evidence of this geniality is that the oil wells are still largely owned by the Iraqi people. The United States of America did not have to hand over these assets to the Iraqis, yet we did.

This is where Donald Trump differs to his conservative predecessor. Donald Trump has repeatedly said, "We should have kept the oil."

Does giving ownership of the oilfields to Iraqis make the death and horrors wrought on the Iraqis, Americans, and British soldiers alike, okay?

No, certainly not. But no one person gets to have the final say for everyone on whether it was the right decision at least yet because each person has had a different experience and a different view of whether the ends justified the means. Only history can decide the former.

Keep in mind there are Iraqis who watched Saddam and his sons literally rape and torture their loved ones to death and then raze all they possessed to the ground. These Iraqi men and women may regret what their country has become after the fall of Ba'athist Iraq, but who still nonetheless are happy to be rid of the sickening filth of the Hussein family.

Other Iraqis have had a horrible traumatic experience with the invading forces and lost everything to what they see as the Western genocide of their way of life. I don't fault them for their anger. However, they don't know the hearts of the Western men and women who were there and what their motives were. Not all were pure, but most had the hope of doing some good in the world.

People who shape history are often destroyers. The future has to make something out of the destruction and hope the destruction wasn't for nothing.

That's the sad truth. For all the vilification of Bush Jr. his notes and memoranda paint a hopeful picture that the freshly tilled ground could give life to something greener, but that will only come with time and nurture.

The Ghandi's of the world, the Martin Luther King Jr.'s, the Nelson Mandela's of the world, they are rare and to be treasured because nonviolence almost never works to effect change for the benefit of the many over the greed of the few at the stage of world power.


I am not saying russia is sqeaky clean. No country is, but i also see whats happening now and the rise of terrorism we see today is due to the west.


So why is Putin's Russia any different you ask?

I urge you to reread what I wrote above and realize there is a strategy at work to deceive the West to ensnare and lull people into a belief that Russia follows the same ethos as other European style countries.

They do not. The Russian Federation is a kleptocracy with Putin at the top.

You may have heard of Gazprom, yes?

Putin set up and arrested Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos which became Gazprom. Putin then used his position as President to seize the company and declare it a government property.



Unsurprisingly the beneficiary is none other than *drum roll*, guess who? Putin and his inner circle.

Do you see the difference now between the West and Putin's Russia? The West gave away its oil rights and the land to the people. Russia takes it.

edit on 22-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join