U.S. Is Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry in Eastern Europe

a reply to: Whereismypassword

It's amazing my friend that the usual posts that you replied too in thread that has stars from similar minded members is allowed to be posted considering its nothing but a lie

Care to point out the lies?

Did Russia not send troops to Crimea with the intent on annexation...because Putin already admitted to this, so no lie there.

Considering the recent poll on this site and mirrored by other polls on other sites,the clear danger to the world is America with its actions but look at WW3 section and you would think otherwise with the usual garbage stories that go against reality and reasoning

If a conspiracy theory site members didn't say that then I would be worried...but they didn't and I am not.

Garbage stories you say...just like the one that says Putin is a victim and he didn't invade Ukraine...yep they are.

The OP is correct and America wants to stop Europe trading with Russia,Even POTUS let the cat out of the bag saying America could supply Europe with gas

In case you forgot EUrope is one of if not the biggest trade partner with RUssia, so I seriously doubt the US can stop trade with Russia nor does it want to, but feel free to share your knowledge on why you think it is true.

And supplying Europe with natural gas is because Russia has said any times it will cut the European supply because of events in Ukraine. Also do you have a choice where you get gas for your car, or do you have to only buy it from one supplier...why is it Europe has to only have one choice?

originally posted by: ressiv
hmmm i'll Always consider an good neighbour better than an far "friend" :-)
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Russia's neighbors would love a good neighbor too. Instead they have Russia, who has invaded two countries, and said he wants others back under Russian control.

Are you saying you would be pleased with Russian forces invading the Netherlands tomorrow? You support that?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Putin said he had special force units in Crimea and the annexation was planned well beforehand.

Seems to be something that those who think Russia is the victim here forget.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Britguy

Russia has NOT invaded any states. The examples you give are patently false.

LAst time I checked Crimea was in Ukraine and was invaded by foreign troops...you know Russian Spetsnaz, aka. little green men, or is Putin lying when he said he sent them there to do one specific thing annex Crimea for Russia?

If you'd actually report the truth, instead of the twisted reality, you might recall that Crimea hosted the Russian Black Sea fleet, as well as several thousand (40,000ish I seem to remember) military personnel and aircraft. They were already there and didn't "invade" after the US led and instigated coup in Kiev.

As for the mythical invasion of Ukraine, again, it didn't / hasn't happened except in the rather warped minds of those on here that keep repeating it.

Anytime a country sends armed troops to another country with the intention of taking over part of that country it is an invasion.

Again, twisted reality! Russia did NOT send in an invasion force, they were already there. They didn't "take over" Crimea either, as the majority there voted to rejoin Russia rather than be ruled over by the US installed puppets in Kiev.

in·va·sion (ĭn-vā′zhən)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2. The entry into bodily tissue and subsequent proliferation of an injurious entity, such as a pathogen or tumor.
3. An intrusion or encroachment:

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Interestingly enough 1 and 3 apply to Ukraine, but feel free to provide the source for your definition of invasion.

Once again, twisted reality that ignores the presence of those Russian forces, under treaty, well before the US instigated coup in Kiev.

a reply to: Britguy

Yah right. Putin has zero desire for expansion. He's completely altruistic in his actions.

Talk about warped minds?

Perhaps one might compare how Europe faired under the U.S. military presence. Zero incursions by any nation, far less military investment in Europe due to that U.S. presence and, as a result, much improved economic success and the formation of the EU.

As soon as the U.S. draws down it's military presence, the age old European crap festers up yet again. In this case incremental expansion/influence by Russia AND fighting with deaths.

Did this occur with American presence or Russian?

Simple really one cuts through the smoke....

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ressiv
hmmm i'll Always consider an good neighbour better than an far "friend" :-)
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Russia's neighbors would love a good neighbor too. Instead they have Russia, who has invaded two countries, and said he wants others back under Russian control.

Are you saying you would be pleased with Russian forces invading the Netherlands tomorrow? You support that?

See, this is where it gets really silly, where all reason and kogic is suspended and replaced by scary sounding quotes and assumptions. Russia hasn't invaded, nor is planning to invade, anyone.
They learned the cost of that in Afghanistan and are not going to fall into that trap again. All this crap about Putin gearing up to invade Europe is nothing more than the wet dreams of adolescent minded military brass and failing politicians looking for glory and acting tough. It has no basis in reality.
Russia was doing just fine trading with European states and relations were on the up all the time. Unfortunately, the idiots in Washington and their banker handlers didn't like that. Most of the European leadership too, having been compromised long ago jumped onboard with the madness, no matter the cost to their own economies in lost trade, and the lives of the people ruined by the loss of that trade.

The ones moving military around everywhere and building bases in Russia backyard are in the US and it's controlled NATO proxy force. A simple look at maps of military bases and movements of forces shows just who the aggressor is, in an ongoing effort to ring Russia with military forces. It's been going on for a long time as the bankers covet what Russia has, and they don't care how many people have to die to get it.

As usual though, it's all Russia's doing when it comes to the reporting by the controlled press and the bought and paid for politicians. Thing is, a lie is still a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Britguy

Yah right. Putin has zero desire for expansion. He's completely altruistic in his actions.

Talk about warped minds?

Perhaps one might compare how Europe faired under the U.S. military presence. Zero incursions by any nation, far less military investment in Europe due to that U.S. presence and, as a result, much improved economic success and the formation of the EU.

As soon as the U.S. draws down it's military presence, the age old European crap festers up yet again. In this case incremental expansion/influence by Russia AND fighting with deaths.

Did this occur with American presence or Russian?

Simple really one cuts through the smoke....

I'd call that US military presence more of an occupation. given the numbers. As for the drawdown of US forces..... where did that happen?

American presence and influence in Europe is the problem, same as it is in Asia too. Wherever they play, death will follow, it's what they do! It's a violent country run by mobsters and greed is the order of the day.

originally posted by: Britguy
If you'd actually report the truth, instead of the twisted reality, you might recall that Crimea hosted the Russian Black Sea fleet, as well as several thousand (40,000ish I seem to remember) military personnel and aircraft. They were already there and didn't "invade" after the US led and instigated coup in Kiev.

So if the US lets Russia have troops in New Hampshire, and they then send their troops to NY and annex it, that's not an invasion?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Britguy
If you'd actually report the truth, instead of the twisted reality, you might recall that Crimea hosted the Russian Black Sea fleet, as well as several thousand (40,000ish I seem to remember) military personnel and aircraft. They were already there and didn't "invade" after the US led and instigated coup in Kiev.

So if the US lets Russia have troops in New Hampshire, and they then send their troops to NY and annex it, that's not an invasion?

What an idiotic analogy!
Once again, the Russian troops / forces were already stationed in Crimea. They didn't leave there to annex or invade anywhere else. The majority of the people then voted to rejoin Russia in an election. Simple, no invasion necessary.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Russia had forces allowed in Crimea and Crimea held an election rightly so after seeing the worrying violence against the eastern population instigated by the thugs in charge of Ukraine.

And yet we have this...

But the film also surprised in a number of ways. Structured around excerpts from a long interview with Putin in the immediate aftermath of Crime’s annexation, it contained remarkable detail about how the operation was carried out after Putin and his security chiefs saw that they could exploit revolutionary turmoil in Ukraine by regaining control of territory that in their view had never ceased to be Russia’s.

www.newsweek.com...

It had nothing to do with the protests in Ukraine...just another Putin lie that he had to tell the truth on when it was reported and he was confronted with the evidence of his lies.

Those forces made sure the maniacs in charge of the Ukraine navy and army would not be able to issue orders to them and start bloodshed in Crimea,and potentially saved many lives

They weren't issuing orders to harm anyone anywhere even when the Russian troops started taking over Ukrainian government buildings and when the separatists started their violence the Ukraine military stepped in to do their jobs...protect Ukraine from outside military forces in their country. AS Russia has already been shown by the separatists that they indeed are getting help and training from Russian active soldiers.

Ukraine has not been invaded by Russia,and Russia knows it's a baited trap

Hard to keep that lie going after Putin has already admitted to sending troops to Crimea (which is part of Ukraine) for the sole reason of annexation.

www.bbc.com...

Even Putin admits to the invasion of Ukraine with Crimea...it is an invasion by the true definition of invasion, which I posted in an earlier reply. But feel free to refute the true definition of invasion if you can?

That poll shows you are the minority and the rest using logic can bypass the disinformation and smears and see who the the real instigators are

So a poll on a conspiracy theory website is where you are getting your facts...Amazing.

originally posted by: Britguy
What an idiotic analogy!
Once again, the Russian troops / forces were already stationed in Crimea. They didn't leave there to annex or invade anywhere else. The majority of the people then voted to rejoin Russia in an election. Simple, no invasion necessary.

No fool. The troops were CONFINED to their base. They could not just go wherever they wanted and do whatever they wanted. Once they broke the terms of the arrangement that allowed them to be there it became an invasion.

a reply to: Britguy

Once again, twisted reality that ignores the presence of those Russian forces, under treaty, well before the US instigated coup in Kiev.

And under that treaty they are allowed certain things...and use of their military anywhere outside that base is very limited, even for training.

Under various agreements between Russia and Ukraine, Russia is allowed to keep up to 25,000 troops on the Crimean Peninsula. Those troops are allowed outside of their bases for operations considered normal to maintaining the facilities. But there are limitations on deployments -- even for training operations.

Under any interpretation, surrounding Ukrainian military bases in the Crimea is seen as an overt offensive activity, regardless of whether shots are fired, and appears to violate the terms of their basing agreements.

www.rferl.org...

Talk about twisted reality. As for the US backed coup...How about this you provide something that doesn't blame the usual suspects that have been shown to be false more than once on ATS and you might have something.

So care to refute the fact that Russia invaded a sovereign country, because you just saying it didn't happen surely doesn't refute the facts it happened.

a reply to: Daedal

... for 5,000 troopers. That ain't muchos. But its a sign atleast.

But, it would be a much better sign, if they deployed, say, tanks, artillery, mortars, air-defense, at-missiles for 50,000 troops.

That would be a better, more visible sign, for saying "weep".

a reply to: Britguy

Once again, the Russian troops / forces were already stationed in Crimea. They didn't leave there to annex or invade anywhere else.

And their agreement with Ukraine doesn't allow them to move troops around Crimea...

ericposner.com...

And you just contradicted yourself saying the troops didn't leave to annex anyone...yet the Russian president said himself Russian troops were used to annex Crimea...so if they didn't come from the Crimean base they had to be shipped in from somewhere.

The majority of the people then voted to rejoin Russia in an election. Simple, no invasion necessary.

Even the Russian government proved this to be false which has been shown many times before.

The Mejlis Deputy Chairman Akhtem Chiygoz stated that the actual turnout could not have exceeded 30–40 percent.[17] In an interview on 22 January 2015 Igor Strelkov admitted that his militia group coerced Crimean deputies to vote in favor of secession from Ukraine.[18]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So you think good relationships and trade will continue with Russia if Europe allows american missiles and hardware to be stationed on its land, bearing in mind those missiles and weaponry are there to threaten Russia? I very much doubt it and also what will be the effect on continued and new trade etc? You can't have good relations with threats being put in to place - but the USA knows that doesn't it?

Russia has never threatened to enter a European country, it claims to be protecting Russian citizens living in ex-Iron Curtain countries which were agreed to buffer the USSR after WW2 by the allies - which included Russia and the USA.

Something the op forgot to mention eastern Europe is requesting these forces on their country. They are scared of their neighbor and requesting help.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I am clearly talking about the USA trying to interfere with the relationship between Russia and Europe by putting military hardware onto European soil in order to be used to fight Russians with. You forget the UK is under pressure to accept American missiles on our soil aimed at Russia for the Americans. So I suspect you can clearly see that these actions will adversely influence trade and relations with Russia - something many Europeans think is a bad thing because we want a peaceful European block which - whether America feels isolated because of this or not, Russia is our neighbour and considerably closer than the USA is to Europe physically. Fallout from any skirmishes would affect European countries and unless all-out war is declared which Russia has not done, we would prefer to step aside.

If American wants to fight Russia - please go ahead from american soil not elsewhere - you are not protecting anyone because there is no threat. Also frankly, you cannot believe what you read in the british press simply because its merely now a medium for propaganda by its owners whose allegiance is obviously not to britain.

The point you make about the Crimea in a later response to Britguy bears out the problem between Ukraine and Russia in that the Crimea has a huge Russian population who want to retain their relationship with Russia - which they democratically voted to do. Do we allow democracy to be denied when it doesn't suit American politics?

I stick to my point that America is interfering with the intention of creating mischief which will effect trade and relationships in Europe. We only have to look at North Africa and Iraq to see how much benefit is gained to those countries and the rest of the world by American foreign policy of interfering in other countries in the name of democracy (along with the UK I would add in all honesty).

Funny how its always country's with either oil or pipelines that attract this type of interference - presumably because they can afford to pay for the rebuilding of their shattered infrastructures to companies run by certain industrialists and bankers who direct american policy. I would add absolutely no disrespect aimed at the American people - you are in the same boat as us in the UK.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Daedal

I wish the USA would butt out of this stupid and inflammatory action. Its because America doesn't want a good relationship between Europe and Russia and neither does israel.

Or maybe it's because Russia keeps invading people.

Georgia applies to be a part of NATO. NATO says no. Russia invades.

Ukraine applies to be part of NATO. NATO says no. Russia invades.

Putin wants the former Soviet Slave States back under his thumb.

I entirely agree. What I postulate is even worse is that the US has apparently intentionally violated agreements previously made with Russia about the expansion of NATO. So, for example, I'd read that when the USSR came apart they made an agreement to withdraw from the eastern bloc countries if the US and NATO agreed that NATO wouldn't expand eastward of East Germany.

Then, years later, NATO takes in Poland. I don't believe its unreasonable for Russia to want to maintain a buffer between Russia and NATO. And Ukraine? Ukraine, or "Kiev" was traded to Russia in the 1700's by Poland. Putin is historically correct when he asserts Ukraine is a "modern" fiction. Western Ukraine is Polish and Eastern Ukraine is Russian.

Like you, I'm really tired of US bumbling about in Eastern European foreign affairs. Its a dangerous area, made more so for the US because the US government doesn't have any history with the area whatsoever.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Russia had forces allowed in Crimea and Crimea held an election rightly so after seeing the worrying violence against the eastern population instigated by the thugs in charge of Ukraine.

So if the American troops stationed on Okinawa marched into the streets, tore down the Japanese flag and had a rigged election to make the island the 51st United State, you would have no trouble with that?

a reply to: Daedal
Daedel. This is launched on a ICBM,and as like their "carrier killer" they both travel hypersonic after re entering the atmosphere. Matter of fact ALL WARHEADS DO. SO ooh china has a WARHEAD that can GLIDE. Just easier to intercept even if its that fast seeing as how AEGIS has intercepted similiar targets traveling similiar speeds. ALso if its traveling so fast doing extreme manuvering will tear them to shreds at that speed. Same thing happens to hypersonic torpedoes.