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 puts troops on alert... What does the US have to gain?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

oblvion


It will only backfire if the west go in to.

IF we just let Russia and Ukraine fight it out themselves and we just watch then I dont see a issue.


Ever heard of Chechnya? How about Georgia? How about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Lets speak plainly here, Russia has one of the worst track records in the world as far as their abusive military occupations.

Theirs make our look like tea parties.

Im not saying they are good or justified.


But im not sure how you plan on stopping them that wont result in millions of dead American and Europeans.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

oblvion



This is what it seems he is saying....I hope not though, because that is no bueno.


What im saying is I dont know how the west will stop them without triggering a very nasty and very bloody war.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

crazyewok
If Putin goes in. Yeah its bad.


Why?

You go into so many details about how bad and why if the West goes in. *Which by the way, I agree the West should stay out* but why not elaborate on why if Russia goes in it would be bad? I mean Putin is readying his troops and all.



Russia wont back down cause the west tell them to. Short of the USA giving the Alaska back and the UK giveing them Gibralter Russia wont part with Sevastopol.



The US legally purchased Alaska. The Ukraine does not belong to Russia.


If the west trys to block Russia or even threaten to harm Russia hold on Sevastopol I garentee there will be trouble.


There is a fairly modern precedent.

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Cuba turned full on Communist. Yet the American *Now infamous* Naval base remained.

Could happen.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Bangorak
Brilliant times for armdealers.
What's the biggest US exportproduct again?
right ...


Well how else will the US get a return on the $5 billion that Nuland recently confirmed they've 'invested' in Ukraine democracy.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

crazyewok
reply to post by oblvion
 


reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Well you guys are welcome to go over and fight Crimea war 2.0

Il stay right here at home


While you dead in some radioactive ditch Il make sure you girfreinds are well taken care of


Nukes will not ever come into play man, MAD is still in play.

What is better for Putin, taking back Ukraine, or losing everything,including his and all other Russians lives?

Putin is not some fool, the man is a brilliant tactician, and has the balls to bluff big time when he thinks it will work.

This is what I am seeing here, Putin knows he cant win a fight with the west, he also cant seem weak to the west, or his own political rivals at home will eat him alive.

Putin is the venerable badger. He has his place because all others are too concerned about the consequences of angering him.

As soon as the wolf thinks the badger weak, it will be supper. The badger must always appear strong and ready.

Bravado is one of the best ways to not have to fight.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   

khimbar

Bangorak
Brilliant times for armdealers.
What's the biggest US exportproduct again?
right ...


Well how else will the US get a return on the $5 billion that Nuland recently confirmed they've 'invested' in Ukraine democracy.

the same way they are getting the hundreds of billions back from the Irak invasion?
edit on 27-2-2014 by Bangorak because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Rodinus
 



Mr Kerry, what the hell have you got to do poking your nose into affairs that do not concern you... In my opinion (AS A EUROPEAN so much closer to home)... you should stop "gobbing off" so to speak and spend those $1 billion on your own people who need that money right now... PLUS... WHERE does that money come from?

Fellow ATSers, what do you think that the US has to gain out of this upcoming "probable" (I HOPE) diplomatic and not military conflict?

And to be fairplay about this question... What do you think Russia has to gain too?

Here we go again... another cold war??

Probably asking too many questions here but thought that you people might like to share your thoughts...


Perhaps I am naive, and don't remember too much about the "former" Cold War between US and Russia, but as long as the ultimate threats of the nuclear sort are not carried out, wasn't it actually a form of stabilization?

Again, I am no expert on these matters, but if history repeats itself concerning "Cold Wars," then doesn't that focus the once super-powers (now turned clowns) on themselves and a less bloody scenario for the world at large? If my distant memory serves me correctly, then weren't fewer lives lost during the Cold War than following?

If the 2 countries want to have a behind the scenes type war of threats, propaganda, and espionage, then let them have at it! isn't that better than the involvement of these countries in guerrilla type warfare with terrorist groups and countries? In too many places at the same point in time?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

SLAYER69


Why?

It bad in that Russia shouldnt be occupying another nations territory.


SLAYER69
The US legally purchased Alaska. The Ukraine does not belong to Russia.

I wasnt refering to the legality of Alaska ownership (which the USA has) but the value. My point was Russia wont part sevastopol anymore than USA will part with Alaska or Guam.



SLAYER69
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Cuba turned full on Communist. Yet the American *Now infamous* Naval base remained.

Could happen.


HOPEFULLY that is what will happen. Ukraine will be smart enough to just let Russia keep there bases in the Crimea. They do that and the problem will hopefully go.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

oblvion


Nukes will not ever come into play man, MAD is still in play.



Again im still thinking of battle field tactical nukes.

If they are strictly used on the battlefield and and not targeted at citys outside the war zone there no reason strategic nukes will fly. It a risk as ecalation is a possibility.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

crazyewok

I wasnt refering to the legality of Alaska ownership (which the USA has) but the value. My point was Russia wont part sevastopol anymore than USA will part with Alaska or Guam.


Those actually belong to the US. sevastopol is LEASED and not their property.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

crazyewok

oblvion


It will only backfire if the west go in to.

IF we just let Russia and Ukraine fight it out themselves and we just watch then I dont see a issue.


Ever heard of Chechnya? How about Georgia? How about the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Lets speak plainly here, Russia has one of the worst track records in the world as far as their abusive military occupations.

Theirs make our look like tea parties.


Im not saying they are good or justified.


But im not sure how you plan on stopping them that wont result in millions of dead American and Europeans.

It is easy, we dont let the Russians occupy Ukraine. We sent forces if they send forces. MAD is still in play, nukes will not be involved, Russia cannot win a fight against the west.

They cant even beat the EU without US help.

Hell honestly at this point( I am ashamed as an American to say these words BTW) the cheese eating surrender monkey french have a more modern military that is more capable of ground warfare than Russia.

Their new main battle tank is supossed to be better than the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank that has dominated every class of Russian tank in every battle they have met in( which is many BTW). 73 easting in Iraq......this was the most pathetic show of force for tank warfare in the history of tank warfare.

The Russian tanks got got by our armored personnel carriers, then out tanks showed up and ended it.

We even wiped out the Tawakalna units we encountered. This was Iraq's version of special forces, with our regular soldiers.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

SLAYER69

Those actually belong to the US. sevastopol is LEASED and not their property.



This is getting frustrating!

Im not talkling about it legality of ownsership here!

Im talking about Russia willingless to let sevastopol go!

Their property or not they will not let sevastopol go unless they are offerd something of huge value in return. Guam and alaska was just to illustrate the huge price the west would have to pay before russia even thinks about parting with there most important Naval base in the south.


Yes Alaska and Guam are owned by the USA legaly. Im not debating that. My point was legal ownsership or not Russia will not part with Sevastopol.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


You are right about one thing. No matter what occurs Russia will not part with Sevastopol.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I have no doubt it's important to Russia and yes, they may choose to fight for it, but your comparison as to why lacks parity.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

SLAYER69
, but your comparison as to why lacks parity.



It was just to show how high a price the west would have to pay for them to give it up peacefully. Not as direct comparsion in political or legal term.

It my way of saying the price would be too high for us to pay.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

crazyewok

oblvion


Nukes will not ever come into play man, MAD is still in play.



Again im still thinking of battle field tactical nukes.

If they are strictly used on the battlefield and and not targeted at citys outside the war zone there no reason strategic nukes will fly. It a risk as ecalation is a possibility.


Americas doctrine on the use of nukes is as follows- If you use chemical weapons against our population or troops we WILL nuke you. If you use nukes against our populations or troops we WILL nuke you.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

watchesfromwall
Again, I am no expert on these matters, but if history repeats itself concerning "Cold Wars," then doesn't that focus the once super-powers (now turned clowns) on themselves and a less bloody scenario for the world at large? If my distant memory serves me correctly, then weren't fewer lives lost during the Cold War than following?


No

Korea
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Angola
Nicaragua
Some Eastern European Warsaw pact countries uprising against the Soviet overlords...

Just to name a few.



edit on 27-2-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

oblvion

crazyewok

SLAYER69
Then we have people declaring, promoting, advocating and cheering that Russia should "take back" the Ukraine *Which doesn't belong to them anymore than Iraq/Afghanistan belonged to the US*

Wheres the logic and justification in that?




Im not cheering Russia on.

Ukraine dosnt belong to them.

But I rather the USA and EU keep out and as far away as possible.

Interfering could backfire in epic way.


Wait are you advocating appeasement? This has proven disastrous in 9 out of 10 cases. It simply reinforces the bad behavior.


What happens between the Ukraine and Russia is none of America business. We have already lost far too many people and lost way too much money fighting other peoples wars. America should only go to war when another nation attacks America because no other nation on earth is worth an American life or American dollar.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Fair enough

I'm not advocating the West to attack, interfere or engage Russia over it either. But many seem all to eager to gloss over the fact the Russia would be invading, attacking and killing Ukrainians to maintain that base. So, here we have Putin readying his troops but people saying the US/West will be bad if they get involved, Meanwhile hardly a word is said about why it's bad for Russia to invade?




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   

oblvion

Americas doctrine on the use of nukes is as follows- If you use chemical weapons against our population or troops we WILL nuke you. If you use nukes against our populations or troops we WILL nuke you.


Over simplified. If Russia just used tactical nukes on troops only america would likely respond with tac nukes (Which the USA has plenty off for the same reason) on russian troops.

Woulkd be stupid to expand that to civilian targets and go for a world ending full nuclear war
edit on 27-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join