Russia wants answers on NATO troop movement in Eastern Europe

cavtrooper7
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

Kindly inform us all how NATO ruined a war torn country over run with fundamental Jihadists who want to exist in the 6th century?
Don't think they changed much but at least maybe now a few will have a chance.

your knowledge about foreign countries is broad and overwhelming, you truly sound like a real cosmopolitan and man of many books and travels.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

You're hilarious. I guess you missed the part of history the rest of us all witnessed where russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum. But whatever. I can see their reasons, and I can even see how they were provoked. Unlike you, I can't see how they have the balls to be making demands of NATO after the stunt they just pulled. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

*snip*

Unlike you, I can't see how they (NATO) have the balls to be claiming anything when we have seen the results of Iraq & Afganistan.

victor7
Best scenario would be NATO exists with buffer states in between (with security guarantees) and Russia manages its own affairs.

Why should sovereign nations who have the ability to choose their future want to become "buffers". That's the politics of yesteryear.

Why can't nations choose - like many already have - to be aligned and incorporated into the club of wealthy liberal democracies, rather than the autocratic club run by Russia containing misfit nations like Belarus and Kyrgyzstan. Russia itself is highly corrupt. For example, how can an ex KGB agent called Putin enter politics on a modest salary and now be worth - by some estimates - $70bn?

If I was looking out for my country, I would go West, as many have. I would resist being a "buffer" and manipulated by both parties.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


some countries have joined NATO without anybody asking their citizens, it was for the government to decide.
I agree with 70% of what you've said but just wanted this to be known as well.

reply to post by paraphi


Read the post again, the buffer nations have 'security guarantees' from NATO so they will not be preyed upon by the fascistic, nationalist tendencies of Russian political circles. Better to keep two nuclear armed powers are a distance than have German Wall type face to face daily stare downs. Much better for world peace.


Russia is below C grade in economic and military standing. It's better prospects are in non-adventurism in international geopolictics.

One thing I am really afraid of is Neo-Bolshevism trends in Russia. These neo-Commies have new agenda of EurAsianism i.e. Lisbon to Vladivostok, under one entity type leadership. Seems before Commies had global agenda and now neo breeds have cut down to Europe only.

This is a dangerous and potentially harmful prospect for European and world peace. Give these commies a good 3 meals and they are ready to 'baaarf' their impractical agenda all over again. Oil prices have given them some financial cushion and they are ready to create trouble all over again.

That is why NATO is so much more important to exist today than in 1990s when these neo-commies were more busy trying to find food and decent shelter with heat and electricity. However, direct stare downs and parking missiles on each other's throats is increasing chances of hot confrontation which can have devastating consequences.

victor7
Read the post again, the buffer nations have 'security guarantees' from NATO so they will not be preyed upon by the fascistic, nationalist tendencies of Russian political circles.

I think that Ukraine took the Budapest Memorandum as a security guarantee. It was casually ignored by Russia.

Countries don't want to be a buffer with pointless guarantees. They want to be members with zero ambiguity.

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Crimea was an exceptional matter and that's why NATO let it pass. Ukraine proper will be different matter and it will become 'guerrilla warfare' hell for Russia, sponsored by NATO arms supplies and economic sanctions. I do not think NATO will get involved in military sense for a non alliance member.

Budapest Agreement was 'security guarantee' upon mutual consultation. NATO is NOT obliged to defend Uks if it chooses not to.

Being a buffer nations helps in avoiding destruction if the hot mode take effect. Although nukes variable cancels that out for the whole world practically. For the security guarantee these buffer nations can pay NATO like $50M a year or so depending on their size etc. This way, they are guaranteed protection from Russia and NATO does not have to deal with extra budgets and headaches of different countries and cultures to assimilate and fine tune into the operations.

The closer NATO comes to Russia.........more the chances of Russians using NUKES right away in case of hostilities. Russian army is not made for multiple front involvement and is barely ready for a single front to begin with. The moment NATO creates problems from say Georgia, the next moment we are talking a 100 kilo ton nuke going off on the "threatening" force concentration........then what happens...........chain reactions follow.

In some NATO circles there is also a thinking that get close on the borders and then create problems in the vicinity across the border. That is why Russia does not want Ukraine as a out in open hostile entity. That would create too much hostility in Russia's south. For such scenarios, Russia will have to act to neutralize the source of problems i.e. attack that country from where the problems are arising. This means, NATO on Russian borders is only ONE step away from direct confrontation and two steps away from 'teeth gushing, blood spitting' NUCLEAR WAR.

I feel more comfortable NOT living in a world where two most heavily armed powers are staring down and throwing even 'paper balls' at each other. One thing two thing and next thing is NUKES going off at relish.

Like I mentioned before.....these three power blocks need to be seperated and be self contained.

Capitalist Cleptocrats i.e. NEOCONs of the West. These are financed by DEBT i.e government credit cards
Claiphiate Fanatics i.e. Whole world becomes Islamic.....type of ancient philosophies. Financed by oil
Commie Neo Bolsheviks i.e. anti Freedom types with really heavy dose of socialism. Finance by energy revenues

I think the best model is Canadian capitalism where there is free healthcare for everyone and beyond that everyone works to make a living without any fear of governments or other prominent bodies. NSA type organizations need to be abolished in this set also.

paraphi

victor7
Read the post again, the buffer nations have 'security guarantees' from NATO so they will not be preyed upon by the fascistic, nationalist tendencies of Russian political circles.

I think that Ukraine took the Budapest Memorandum as a security guarantee. It was casually ignored by Russia.

Countries don't want to be a buffer with pointless guarantees. They want to be members with zero ambiguity.

Regards

as well as casually ignored by other signatories.

reply to post by victor7


The so-called "Neo-Bolshevik" movement is a nationalist fascist movement, not communist. And it doesn't seem to be that popular beyond maybe some of the youth crowds.

victor7
I think the best model is Canadian capitalism where there is free healthcare for everyone and beyond that everyone works to make a living without any fear of governments or other prominent bodies. NSA type organizations need to be abolished in this set also.

No offense but if this is your view of Canada then you don't really know much about my country at all. We have a far less democratic government than the US with anti-scientific dispensationalist fanatics running the show. Same people turned us into a virtual colony of the US and our leaders put the interests of international corporations and other nations ahead of our own. Government is always involved in our lives, and while it used to be useful, American fearmongering propaganda began to pollute the minds of Canadians, effectively turning rights into privileges under the nanny state.

Russia has the best state model for resource-rich powers, but cultural factors, which obviously exist in every nation, reduces efficiency of this model.

AP, April 3 2014 - Ukraine: Yanukovych Ordered Snipers To Shoot

Here's a very interesting AP article making the rounds in the international media. It was even in my local news paper.

Here are some relevant excerpts:

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine's interim authorities on Thursday accused fugitive President Viktor Yanukovych of ordering snipers to open fire on protesters and getting help from Russian security agents to battle his own people, but they provided no evidence directly linking him to the bloodbath in Kiev that left more than 100 people dead.

...

The identity of the snipers believed to be responsible for most of the deaths is the subject of bitter disagreement.

Opponents of Ukraine's new leadership deny that only police were to blame, contending some snipers were organized by opposition leaders trying to whip up outrage.

The new health minister, Oleh Musiy, who previously served as the protesters' top medic, has said he treated both protesters and riot police with similar types of sniper wounds.

On Thursday, officials skirted a question on whether snipers also shot at police. Avakov said establishing who was responsible for the deaths of law enforcement officers would be part of the broad investigation that is still ongoing.

...

Also Thursday, Ukraine sent 16 senior officers to Bulgaria to join a NATO military exercise in a demonstration of cooperation between the alliance and the crisis-torn former Soviet republic. The computer-simulation drills involved over 700 troops from 13 NATO members and partner nations and were being held just a few hundred miles from Crimea.

U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, who commands all NATO forces in Europe, said Russia has 40,000 troops along the border with neighboring Ukraine and that they are capable of attacking by land and air on 12 hours' notice.

...

Putin says the troops are there for military exercises. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters Thursday that the Russian troops will be returning to "their permanent quarters as soon as other participants of the exercise have completed their tasks."

Lavrov added that Russia did not violate any international law by sending additional troops to its own border.

Two things to note:

First, unless there's some new Russian wargames going on, they had already picked up and left weeks ago. So why is the media collaborating NATO's claims with old news?

Second, the new Ukrainian interior minister is the same guy Right Sector wants to lynch for supposedly killing their commander. Looks like he is trying to save his own ass by accusing Russian agents of being the snipers. Even this journalist admits there's no evidence on that.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


According to the Russian and NATO agreement 1972?? "i think it was this date". NATO should not even be allowed to have military bases in East Germany. And have no rights to exapnd any further:: "Ukraine".

reply to post by spy66


Would you care to provide a source for this, because there is nothing about Eastern Germany, much less anything else what you said, in this statement

EDIT: I see you changed the date - originally you said 1997.

reply to post by spy66


The 1972 agreement is null and void - it was signed 20 years prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and East Germany no longer exists.

reply to post by Vovin


Basically a free market based and socially non-oppressive system with free healthcare is the preferred model. Naming or pointing country examples will always bring out faults due to individual variables.

DeadSeraph
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

You're hilarious. I guess you missed the part of history the rest of us all witnessed where russia rolled in en masse BEFORE the referendum. But whatever. I can see their reasons, and I can even see how they were provoked.

Unlike you, I can't see how they have the balls to be making demands of NATO after the stunt they just pulled.

What about the part of history that points squarely at the USA as a provocateur of the violent protests? Seriously, we have been lied to from the beginning, the proof stares you in the face but you ignore it.

The proof is how the MSM operates and the pattern.
1. Ukraine had protests prior to the February violence.
2. The MSM didn't start covering Ukraine until the violence kicked off
3. MSM gives Ukraine LOTS of air time to drum up the war banner
4. 2-2.5 months prior to the protests turning violent John McCain visited the Svoboda Party in Ukraine

You will see the exact same process with regard to Syria.
1. Syria had uprising and conflict prior to MSM ever really bothering to touch it
2. MSM covers Syria non-stop after supposed Sarin gas attack
3. MSM continues to report US gov't plot line that the Assad Regime was behind the attacks (we know differently)
4. 4 months prior to the Sept gas outrage John McCain visited the General of the Free Syrian Army (rebels)

You see, it's a pattern. The only two reasons the MSM over hypes a story:
1. Distraction (re: Malaysian flight MH370, Zimmerman, etc)
2. Help the US government make a case for war (re: Syria, Ukraine, etc.)

Pay attention to the pattern and you will start seeing we are being lied to. Russia/Putin aren't any better, but I really get tired of hearing this anti-Russian/Putin crap when we haven't even fixed the real problems in our own country (assuming most are USA).

reply to post by WCmutant


You see, your argument may have merit if it wasn;t for the fact your chatting total bollocks.

I don;t know where you're from, but here in the UK we've had pretty regular updates on the Ukraine situation since last autumn, long, long before the protests turned violent.

Now, what I think really happened is that you didn't pay much attention to the "MSM" until the protests turned violent and made front page news, but that doesn't they weren't being covered.

BBC article
Another
Oh look, another - In fact, the BBC has many, many pages so feel free to look around.
CNN
More CNN
New York Times

I think you get my point - it was being covered, you just didn't care to notice.

Oh, as an added point, it is worth noting that a few weeks prior to the Ukraine rejecting the EU deal which triggered the protests, Russia had put an embargo on ALL Ukrainian products, causing them an immediate loss of billions to their economy. It is no wonder people are saying Russia "strong armed" the Ukraine into blocking the deal, because they held an economic gun to the head of the country.

And you have the cheek to suggest this is "western provocations" rather then Russia behaving like a dick.

victor7
reply to post by Vovin

 

Basically a free market based and socially non-oppressive system with free healthcare is the preferred model. Naming or pointing country examples will always bring out faults due to individual variables.

There is no such thing as a free market without social oppression. Capitalism is a process of differentiating social classes based on who owns capital, and those who accumulate capital work with the government to enforce class disparity. Capital monopolies cannot exist without a population of subsistence workers to both man the production lines and accumulate debt.

Canada has broken down a lot of social democratic barriers that hindered the "free market" because that's what capitalism needs to survive. Our public healthcare has already been signed away by Harper, who has passed law to substantially decrease federal transfer payments to the provinces within the next decade, most of which finances public healthcare. Again, this was predicted because Harper is obsessed with the free market and because this is a function of capitalism.

This is a map of pro-Russian uprisings that have been gaining momentum. As of today, citizens in these regions are clashing with police and fascist gangs on the streets, even forming their own self-defence riot groups. They reject the junta in Kiev, and in some places, like Donetsk, have taken over regional administrative buildings, putting up Russian flags.

I would just post what the media is writing themselves but I can't seem to copy it

Vovin
This is a map of pro-Russian uprisings that have been gaining momentum. As of today, citizens in these regions are clashing with police and fascist gangs on the streets, even forming their own self-defence riot groups.

Fascist gangs! Is every Ukrainian who fears Russia and their meddling and bullying a fascist? You need to tone down your language because it's a bit like repeating some nationalist Russian one-track-website, so loved by those who peddle rubbish.

If I were to read anything into this, I would see Russia continuing to stir up trouble in Ukraine in an effort to perpetuate and worsen dysfunction. Just think, that the worse it gets the more moist Putin will become as he considers another land-grab to "protect" Russian-speakers.

Regards