Intel Agent Reveals How NATO Planned to Tear Russia Apart

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

My last post on this subject...and honestly...tell me...do you really think that NATO has never considered it...or wouldnt want to split Russia ?

People confuse Russia with the Soviet Union and its satellites. There were very specific plans to eject countries like Czechoslovakia and Hungary from the Soviet Union's orbit. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was certainly something that NATO welcomed, although it's not clear how much influence they had beyond mere propaganda.

a reply to: DJW001

Here snipe, snipe, snipe, snipe. (the snipe hunting call)


Are you insisting that NATO hadn't an inherent agenda to destabilize the USSR?

You're seriously going to grandstand that such a 'how sweet would it be' post-scenario wasn't drawn all up by the likes of the freaking CIA?!?

Ya, bitter Cold War enemies for generations, but nope no secret dreams of splitting her into little pieces to never return to imperial rivalry. What a narrative that would be, if not for the fact that the moment she started again showing confidence to press for her local interests while also having the balls to imperil "our" imperial ambitions all around her native continent have we seen this total Neo-McCarthyism melodrama infest all Western propaganda discourse as is they're trying to take over the world (which is "our job" damnit!!).

Now, since you've clawed through the permafrost to expose those dormant worms for us all herein, do you have some sort of evidence that destabilization would have absolutely ceased regarding Russia post-USSR (in general)?

But here we go, you know what lets just give you carte blanche on this: YOU NAILED IT YO! Thing is, even IF totally true as you've framed it, how is that any different or any worse than the corporate propaganda schemes that have been wielded at them the past couple years?

After witnessing you the past year make a playground out of logic regarding the symbiotic "like this" nature of the Two Party's + Military Industrial Complex + MSM + Federal Government + CIA + DOD and their ever present pervasive ubiquitous stranglehold over every aspect of "media" our entire lives, it sure is a treat to see you take the Russian Press to the monkeybars for merely being 'state controlled' instead of Corporatocracy stooge. It's like vulture slandering a parrot for being bird (that old pot meet kettle metaphor).

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Wow, that response was impressive.

It looks like the last gasps of Russia being the bad guy are being felt. I wonder what the next story creation will be?

Fun times.

originally posted by: Nikola014
Since we're not allowed to discuss anonymous sources, let's talk about the subject.

I really would not be surprised if NATO had plans to destroy Russian Federation, it's a normal thing to have against your enemy. I'm sure Russia has war plans against NATO as well.

Maybe this story could help explain why did NATO help create the civil war in Ukraine. Maybe it was just a starting point, a step to create some kind of domino effect, which would destabilise Russia. Luckily or not, depending on your perspective, Russia reacted immediately and put a stop on that plan.

I STILL find it amazing that you see NATO as the source of the Ukrainian issue. The Ukrainians hate Russia with a passion, always have. They were under the Soviet boot long enough and have/had zero desire to fall back under Russian influence. One only has to look at Poland for an example of that. No nation in history that I'm aware of ever willingly rejoined an Empire once free of it.

If NATO did act, I would surmise, it would be in response to Russian subversion within the Ukraine in the first place. I see zero land grab by NATO. Can you say similarly of Russia?

Yes, I'm aware of Soros yet no one seems to articulate exactly what his intentions are. Possibly stirring the doo-doo between the two camps?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Are you insisting that Russia hasn't been attempting, and yes, succeeding in destabilizing the west since the 1930s?

They're so damn good at it that you guys seem to have bought it. That's even in face of the fact the 'west' isn't worth a plugged nickel, trust-wise, as well!

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think you answered your own question.

NATO used the hate some of the people living in Ukraine have towards Russia, to illegally impeach a legally elected president of Ukraine. Then, we all know what happened next. A complete chaos. And it was all thanks to NATO because they wanted to get rid of a president they disliked. It's a common habit NATO members have. And it's worked amazingly every single time...

Second, when you have a civil war, things always get ugly. Russians living in Ukraine felt their lives were at risk by the fascists running Ukraine, and they decided they will protect themselves from the. There was a referendum in Crimea, and the people had decided to join Russia. That's the most democratic thing in the world. Of course, the West suddenly has a problem with that, but, when something similar happens that goes along with their plans and interests, there's nothing wrong with it, and they say that we should all respect the will of the people.

I never mentioned Soros. I'm just saying there are war games going on in the world, which we know very little about

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Are you insisting that NATO hadn't an inherent agenda to destabilize the USSR?

Here is what I said:

There were very specific plans to eject countries like Czechoslovakia and Hungary from the Soviet Union's orbit. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was certainly something that NATO welcomed, although it's not clear how much influence they had beyond mere propaganda.

The Soviet Union covered 22,402,200 km2. Invasion and occupation was impossible. The only weapons that could possibly be used were economic and political. The dissolution of the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War would have been a disaster. Breakaway republics would go to war. Nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of fanatics and criminals.

You're seriously going to grandstand that such a 'how sweet would it be' scenario wasn't drawn all up by the likes of the freaking CIA?!?

Would you want to deal with the chaos that would follow such an event? The Cold War was a chess game where the objective was to maintain the balance of power. In chess, one controls the center while seeking advantage.

Ya, bitter Cold War enemies for generations, but nope no secret dreams of splitting her into little pieces to never return to imperial rivalry. What a narrative that would be, if not for the fact that the moment she started again showing confidence to press for her local interests while also having the balls to imperil "our" imperial ambitions all around her native continent have we seen this total Neo-McCarthyism melodrama infest all Western propaganda discourse as is they're trying to take over the world (which is "our job" damnit!!).

Relax; the United States is withdrawing from the world stage. Between Obama's half-hearted response to aggression and Trump's surrender of economic leadership you won't have the USA to kick around much longer. Russia is taking full advantage of the failure in American leadership. Rather than attack the messenger, you should be applauding the message: Russia is re-assuming the mantel of the Soviet Union. Russia is going to overthrow the decadent global liberal democratic order and replace it with one that... let's say, one that rewards boldness, cunning, and strength.

Now, since you've clawed through the permafrost to expose those dormant worms for us all herein, do you have some sort of evidence that destabilization would have absolutely ceased regarding Russia post-USSR (in general)?

The question is: does Russia actually have any evidence that the United States is trying to dismember it back to the Middle Ages? I assume you trust that the Russian state media would never say it has "secret evidence" unless that evidence actually exists?

But here we go, you know what lets just give you carte blanche on this: YOU NAILED IT YO! Thing is, even IF totally true as you've framed it, how is that ant different or any worse than the corporate propaganda schemes that have been wielded at them the past couple years?

Both the independent "western" media and the semi-independent Russian media acknowledge the same journalistic standards. Because they are subject to external pressure, they both fall back on these standards to serve the interests of the public. In other words, western journalists make it clear that they are repeating what a corporate spokesman said, so that we can judge the credibility of the source ourselves. (The unfortunate trend of television stations airing corporate advertising as "news" in order to fill airtime is reprehensible, and the FCC needs to take action by requiring a "this spot produced and provided by..." warning.)

The more legitimate Russian media, including RIA Novosti and Kommersant still seem to believe that they are serving Russia, not the Kremlin, which is why they try to maintain as much journalistic integrity as they can; the credibility of all Russia on the world stage is at stake. Likewise, the American media serve America, not the White House. This is why the White House is so antagonized, and they seem to be wishing out loud for the same powers the Kremlin has.

After witnessing you the past year make a playground out of logic regarding the symbiotic "like this" nature of the Two Party's + Military Industrial Complex + MSM + Federal Government + CIA + DOD and their every present pervasive ubiquitous stranglehold over every aspect of "media" our entire lives, it sure is a treat to see you take the Russian Press to the monkeybars for merely being state 'controlled' and not Corporatocracy controlled.

...and you lost me there. Would you prefer the Russian press to be controlled by the oligarchs? It is, you know.

a reply to: Nikola014

Russians living in Ukraine felt their lives were at risk by the fascists running Ukraine, and they decided they will protect themselves from the.

Russian speaking Ukrainians felt their lives were at risk because Russian propaganda portrayed the legally elected government in Kyiv as Nazis. Russian agents provocateurs did the rest.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You are probably correct. I think there were a few US officials that were said to have participated in the destabilization. So it wasn't just the UN.

a reply to: DJW001

They're not Ukrainians. They are Russians, living and working in Ukraine.

How can a group of people, who got the power to run a country by force, be legal? Face it, Yanukovych was legally elected president, who was overthrown illegally.

And that's the whole truth. Plus, I never mentioned the word fascism. I just said that Russians in Ukraine felt their lives were at risks; guess what, turns out they were right

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: nwtrucker

You are probably correct. I think there were a few US officials that were said to have participated in the destabilization. So it wasn't just the UN.

The UN supposedly had nothing to do with it, remember? It was all the US and NATO. The least you could do is try to remember false Russian propaganda accurately.

a reply to: Nikola014

They're not Ukrainians. They are Russians, living and working in Ukraine.

Anyone born in Ukraine and living there after independence is a Ukrainian, no matter what language they speak. If they consider themselves Russian, they have the option of moving back to the Motherland.

How can a group of people, who got the power to run a country by force, be legal? Face it, Yanukovych was legally elected president, who was overthrown illegally.

The parliament was elected legally just ad Yanukovych was. Yanokovych defected to Russia, the parliament stayed put. It was Yanukovych who was acting illegally.

And that's the whole truth. Plus, I never mentioned the word fascism. I just said that Russians in Ukraine felt their lives were at risks; guess what, turns out they were right

No, the Russian propaganda was not right. And you did say this:

Russians living in Ukraine felt their lives were at risk by the fascists running Ukraine,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: DJW001

I dont think the point of Game Theory was just to have an endless gentlemens proverbial smack talk fest of perpetual oneupsmanship, that is just riding the merry go round together for shia'ites and giggles... was that what trillions of dollars were spent and millions of people died for?

So now you're equating the objectives of the CIA as being global stability. Its just too bad I can cite millions of people that have died, another 'half' of that continent by design imploded, specifically for the CIA to maintain its self-justification as 'what it became' by the time the Cold War ended.

Keeping ourselves honest with ourselves is now enemy, to paraphrase the jaw you be jabbin there, good times.

The US Press and the rest have all been the playthings of the Oligarch's for generations. To see you do a trapeze act of grandstanding everyday that its any different is something breathtaking like Cirque du Soleil, although bloody dripping with lackluster.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: nwtrucker

I think you answered your own question.

NATO used the hate some of the people living in Ukraine have towards Russia, to illegally impeach a legally elected president of Ukraine. Then, we all know what happened next. A complete chaos. And it was all thanks to NATO because they wanted to get rid of a president they disliked. It's a common habit NATO members have. And it's worked amazingly every single time...

Second, when you have a civil war, things always get ugly. Russians living in Ukraine felt their lives were at risk by the fascists running Ukraine, and they decided they will protect themselves from the. There was a referendum in Crimea, and the people had decided to join Russia. That's the most democratic thing in the world. Of course, the West suddenly has a problem with that, but, when something similar happens that goes along with their plans and interests, there's nothing wrong with it, and they say that we should all respect the will of the people.

I never mentioned Soros. I'm just saying there are war games going on in the world, which we know very little about

OK. There was NO referendum in Crimea. Even WikiLeaks doesn't claim that and they are certainly no friend of the U.S. They actually state that the vote was done virtually at gun point in their assembly. Again, that flies in the teeth of any nation returning to an empire. Whereas a warm water port and the sheer speed Russia re-armed the region speaks for itself.

You claim NATO gets rid of leaders they dislike, "it's a common habit NATO member have". Russia is far and away past masters all around the world in that talent. Better, by far, than even the U.S..

Yes, the poor Russian ex-pats in the Ukraine. Russia used the same argument in Georgia. When Russia does it, it's a humane service. If NATO or the U.S. does it, it's 'imperialism '.

The result? It's NATO and the Ukraine that has suffered. Russia expands it's empire via puppet-states. If the Russian ex-pats in the Ukraine actually believe they're getting a bad deal, and not actually getting compensation for this affair, then they can go back to Russia.

It's perfectly reasonable that Ukrainians to no longer desire having 'occupiers' in their nation.

Truth be told, I'm one half Ukrainian and one half 'white' Russian about three gens back and have zero affinity for either nation.

The ex-satellite nations of the Soviet Union pose no threat to NATO or the rest of the world. Whereas realigned ex-satellite nations are perceived to be a threat to Mother Russia.

You know it. The world knows it. Yet you take this stance?

They ARE the masters at this game. You are the proof of it.

a reply to: DJW001

Completely agree with your observations regarding RIA and Sputnik. It's a well thought out thread and you deserve more stars and flags for this. Sadly, many ATSers are only able to honour the effort when they agree with all the conclusions...

Again, federalism, not dismemberment. Note, also, the emphasis on economic opportunity. This is not a blueprint for conquest, it is an analysis of the shortcomings of the Russian Federation's top heavy centralized political system.

This is the only part I happen to disagree with, it kinda legitimizes the Russian sellout and we don't need to do that if we want to understand why this specific "intel agent" leaks should be taken with truckloads of salt only.
Anyway. Here's a few hints on how neoliberalism collides with Russias sovereignty.

Despite these overt hostile moves against Russia, Russian neoliberals still believe that the economic policies that Washington urges on Russia are in Russia’s interest, not intended to gain control of its economy. Hooking Russia’s fate to Western hegemony under these conditions would doom Russian sovereignty.

Will Russia Reject Neoliberalism?

One of the key events that precipitated the demonstrations in Ukraine that eventually led to the ouster of President Yanukovych was his cancellation of an association agreement with the EU which carries with it an arrangement for loan funds from the IMF. An alternative arrangement was negotiated directly with Putin and Russia. The IMF agreement carried with it the market reform/austerity measures that are typical of IMF bailouts. In the case of Ukraine subsidized energy prices were one of the targets. In discussions about the complexities of the Ukrainian crisis on Daily Kos and elsewhere there is on strain of opinion that sees Russia as offering some sort of alternative to the harsh neoliberal policies of the IMF and the EU. This diary is an attempt to explore that notion by examining some of the present trends in economic and social policy in the Russian Federation.

Russia, The IMF And Neoliberalism

That's the conflict in the Ukraine in a nutshell, which is why I think a more critical approach with regards to "free market schemes" would have led to a more fertile discussion in this thread.

Or, to put it more bluntly, state-propaganda or not: he has some valid points with regards to geopolitics. And what kind of a failed experiment this PNAC Bollocks really is, should be clear instantly after looking into the Middle East in it's second decade of a Total War with Terror.
Yes, I sense some hyperbole in this "leak" as well. But given the scope of madness provided by neoliberal and neoconservative think-tankers, I'm having a hard time to completely disregard his claims.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I dont think the point of Game Theory was just to have an endless gentlemens proverbial smack talk fest of perpetual oneupsmanship, that is just ridding the merry go round together for shia'ites and giggles was that trillions of dollars and millions of people died for?

You clearly do not understand Game Theory. The ultimate goal of both the Soviet Union and the United States and its allies was survival. They operated under the shadow of Mutually Assured Destruction. Both the US and USSR were globalist; each envisioned an order where the whole world subscribed to a single economic system. Given the existential danger of direct military confrontation, the two superpowers engaged in proxy wars. The goal of these wars was never the ultimate destruction of the other superpower, but rather to prevent the rival socioeconomic system from expanding in to new territory.

The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own economic inefficiencies and bureaucratic inertia. When the dust settled, former KGB agents implemented a plan they had been dreaming of for a while: a country that combines the economic efficiency of capitalism with the unity of political control found in states like China, Iran, Singapore, and elsewhere. In case you have not noticed, this is now the globalist model for the Post-American Century.

For the time being, the United States remains a liberal democracy, which means the press can still serve the people instead of the state. It will be interesting to see how you might welcome the changes that many fear are on the horizon.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you for your considered response. I agree that there are legitimate criticisms of the neo-liberal global order. Loans often come with conditions that lead to domestic political instability. This instability is not the intent, however. Transitional economies have growing pains, as the United States is beginning to realize as we see the specter of "austerity" raising its head here.

a reply to: nwtrucker

OK. There was NO referendum in Crimea. Even WikiLeaks doesn't claim that and they are certainly no friend of the U.S. They actually state that the vote was done virtually at gun point in their assembly. Again, that flies in the teeth of any nation returning to an empire. Whereas a warm water port and the sheer speed Russia re-armed the region speaks for itself.

And let's not forget that Russia's own Human Rights Council disputes the official numbers. They stated that only 30% of the peninsula voted and of those only 50% at most voted in favor of the referendum. Of course the Kremlin scrubbed this report from the internet shortly after its publication.

a reply to: DJW001

I quite believe that there may have been some that would have wanted to do so, not every NATO member though hate's the Russian's but a lot of them DO, newer members long after these alleged event's in particular do - especially those that were former members of the Warsaw Pact.

In much of Europe you have to remember they still have the old folk hatred of the marauding Cossack tribe's that would often invade, loot, pillage and rape.

But there is a historic example and precedent of something similar, back after the first world war when the Ottoman Empire was forced to concede it's territory or fight on alone without Germany the European powers divided that territory between themselves THEN after the Second world war when those same FORMER powers whom had been saved by the US had to give up most or all of there empires including those formerly Ottoman controlled land's and territory's as part of an agreement with the US whom wanted the world to be free for free trade so that there own merchant's could compete on equal term's with them those area's were the further divided by the retreating old powers whom feared a resurgence of the Ottoman empire.

So they feared a resurgence of the Soviet Union and wanted to do something similar, I can understand but do not agree with it, a divided world is a troublesome world and they were probably acting out of several motivations, greed, resources, territory, exploitation, fear and even long held bias and racial bigotry against the Russian's which many nation's do feel because of those Cossack raid's, it could also have been so that peace and war could be engineered to order as and when they needed them.

Certainly they need to be investigated if this was an actual attempt but if it was just an opinion or something that was said, well that is bad enough but you can not censure a person for speaking there mind how else would you debate with them and changed there mind.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: DJW001

I quite believe that there may have been some that would have wanted to do so, not every NATO member though hate's the Russian's but a lot of them DO, newer members long after these alleged event's in particular do - especially those that were former members of the Warsaw Pact.

In much of Europe you have to remember they still have the old folk hatred of the marauding Cossack tribe's that would often invade, loot, pillage and rape.

But there is a historic example and precedent of something similar, back after the first world war when the Ottoman Empire was forced to concede it's territory or fight on alone without Germany the European powers divided that territory between themselves THEN after the Second world war when those same FORMER powers whom had been saved by the US had to give up most or all of there empires including those formerly Ottoman controlled land's and territory's as part of an agreement with the US whom wanted the world to be free for free trade so that there own merchant's could compete on equal term's with them those area's were the further divided by the retreating old powers whom feared a resurgence of the Ottoman empire.



So they feared a resurgence of the Soviet Union and wanted to do something similar, I can understand but do not agree with it, a divided world is a troublesome world and they were probably acting out of several motivations, greed, resources, territory, exploitation, fear and even long held bias and racial bigotry against the Russian's which many nation's do feel because of those Cossack raid's, it could also have been so that peace and war could be engineered to order as and when they needed them.

Certainly they need to be investigated if this was an actual attempt but if it was just an opinion or something that was said, well that is bad enough but you can not censure a person for speaking there mind how else would you debate with them and changed there mind.

It was my understanding that the break-up of the Ottoman Empire was what the Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and England, with Russian consultation, in 1916 addressed. No U.S. direct involvement that I'm aware of.