Russia Under Attack

Then go ahead and die for your country....join the military and become a martyr for mother Russia. Thing is comrade....most people do not think as you do, and nuclear war would kill many of them.

 

The Kremlin really needs to hire better English speakers, half of your message made no sense whatsoever. As for the part I quoted here, the key words are "in battle". Starting a nuclear war would result in the death of every man, woman, and child in your country. Not just those "in battle".

 

And in your country? Count on "lightning strike"? Check out the new US military doctrine. Section on preventive nuclear first strike. And who is the aggressor? Russia only protected. Therefore, the project has been created "Perimeter"

 

Therefore, we must take into account the interests of Russia. For example not to expand NATO. Not make coups in Ukraine and so on. In general - do not behave like a bull in a china shop.
Do not speak for weak-minded - "we are an exceptional nation." Was such "exceptional nation." In Germany. From 1933 to 1945. The finale is known.

 

Russian interests are the cause of NATO defensive posturing. Unless Putin backs off his aggression neighboring nations would be stupid not to prepare for his actions.

 

Russia is attacking ...

I don't see how someone could sustain that Russia is under attack.

Russia is invading Ukraine and Georgia. Or are we going to discuss about the eventuality that Ukraine and Georgia could invade Russia?

 

Duh..... no conclusive evidence was presented by Georgia or its Western supporters that Russia was invading the country before the Georgian attack, according to the New York Times. Instead, "the accounts suggest that Georgia's inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on 7 August with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm".

But since "Russia invades Georgia" was on all the main pages of all the corporate media of the world for several days, thats how the people's opinion is made, and nobody noticed the opposite while its been told only at the page 55 down in the bottom of the page of the newspaper-))

 

But Russia hasn't committed any aggressions...except in Washington's propaganda machine, where black is made white, and white black. As for the US, well let's start with Clinton's illegal bombing of Belgrade for seventy eight days, and the killing of thousands...

 

I guess you haven't read the latest. Nato's Gen. Breedlove lies and the Germans are not amused. There is no sign of a Russian invasion...at least not according to German intelligence.

 

One would think that IF this was all a result of Washington propaganda, it would not be constantly reported on throughout the world on a daily basis by virtually every nation outside Russia. We night also note the lack of Russian personnel and equipment instead of noting an increase in them. Crimea might also still be a part of Ukraine vs. a part of Russia.

 

Really, that "NATO defensive posturing" BS just can't be allowed to stand uncontested. It's simply twisting the reality and I have to question your motives in doing this?

These are the facts.

At the end of the cold war, Russia and NATO began cooperating. This led in 1994 to Russia joining NATO's Partnership for Peace Programme (PPP). Russia cooperated with the US and NATO in the fight on terrorism, assisted with NATO anti-narcotics programme in Afghanistan and provided non-military freight transport to NATO's ISAF in Afghanistan. But it was always suspicious of the US plans to push the Alliance further and further eastwards. Since the end of the cold war, successive Russian premiers have called on NATO and the US to halt that expansion programme as they argued it could only been seen as threatening and destablizing (I've posted links on this in other threads - so no point in doing this again here).

Back in 2008, while the NATO-Russia relationship was still warm, the Russians warned against the US and NATO seeking to bring Georgia and the Ukraine fully into the western camp, with the former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev saying: "no country would be happy about a military bloc to which it did not belong approaching its borders." (HERE)

This, and other Russians warning were taken on board by the Germans and French who opposed George W. Bush's push to include both nations in NATO during the 2008 NATO Bucharest summit.

By 2010 Russia ruled out that it would imminently join NATO despite various requests for them to do so - but said it might at a later date (see HERE).

The problem was, according to Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's envoy to NATO, Georgia and Ukraine:

Despite Russia's repeated statements that it would not stand by if NATO continued to press ahead with enlargement for Georgia and Ukraine - clearly a very, very sensitive issue recognized by experts on the subject - and equally clearly understood by Germany and France, in 2011 NATO spokesman James Appathurai said:

Source

In the NATO summit of 2012 Russia argued that the US and NATO ant-ballistic missile shield that was planned to become active in Europe threatened its security. The US responded that the shield was to defend Europe against Iranian missiles. But as I have demonstrated in another thread, you only have to look at the proposed placement sites of the missile shield to see the lie in the US's argument. NATO, meanwhile, said that Russia's attendance at the 2012 Chicago summit was dependent on their "accession to a system of European missile defence", a threat that is so bald and untenable in thew circumstances as to be almost laughable (HERE) - but which was, in fact, deadly serious.

The only conclusion the Russians could take away from this is that the US and NATO fully intended to surround them with countries in the Alliance (and every NATO member country must, as a matter of requirement, allow US troops on their soil) and stand idly by as the US neutered their only remaining grand power military option.

No nation would allow that. America in particular would not even begin to tolerate it.

And so, here we are now. An overthrown and deposed democratically elected Ukrainian government that had been in power for 4 years following the 2010 election, which had in 2013 ultimately decided to turn its back on European integration and NATO membership in favour of closer ties with Russia.

And understandable European anxieties about this coup d'etat was met with the pragmatic comment of US State Department Assistant Secretary, Victoria Nuland: "F*ck the EU".

From the foregoing ti is evident who was pushing the agenda of eastward expansion of NATO and what their actual purpose was.

The aggressor party is the United States.

The war in Ukraine is their war.

I have no expectation that the wilfully blind members on this forum will take any note of the foregoing - I doubt most will not even bother to read the linked articles evidencing my statements. But this post is for the other members here who are more reflective, more honest and objective in their tastes. Any one of them can do his or her own research to establish the reality - if they have a couple of hours spare time and know their way round a search engine.

 

NATO is an alliance of counties that one must apply to join and carries responsibilities and requirements difficult for many to meet (See Ukraine). The "Encroachment" noted by Russia is simply the natural result of neighbors deciding they would like protection for their borders and nation. If Russia were to refrain from imposing a threat to these nations they would likely find NATO unacceptable and unneeded. Putin is creating the problems he is afraid of.

Quick question...Did NATO nations invade Russia?

 

I also wish to address the oft-repeated propaganda that is regularly repeated on this forum, that Putin is lying when he says that the Soviet Union was promised that NATO would not spread eastwards. That is exactly what they were promised by the then US Secretary of State, James Baker. In the 9th February 1990 meeting between Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev, Baker said:

In exchange Baker wanted Gorbachev and the Russians to agree that East Germany would reunite with West Germany and enter NATO with a special status, which was something the Russians were very concerned about. My sense is that a number of members here weren't even born at that momentous time, but the prospect of Germany reuniting caused immense debate at the time - not least here in the UK.

The following is from Ray McGovern a former CIA officer for 30 years, writing about rebuilding trust between Obama and Putin in January 2015:

Source but originally published in Robert Parry's Consortium News.

 

Now convoys "Abrams" ezdiyut in Europe. But you continue to talk about "the bloody Putin. You yourself are not funny?
Incidentally ordinary Europeans protest. For example, in the Czech Republic officially banned citizens to throw tomatoes and eggs at the US military convoy. For violating the ban threatened with punishment of up to three years in prison. Here is a "democracy."

 

None of that is in dispute as far as I'm concerned.

No, because that would have resulted in an all out hot war with Russia and NATO. If I may so the question clearly reveals your ignorance and lack of understanding of how things really work in the world.

But, as you well know --- the US fomented a coup instead. I suspect the reasoning is that if they can't have Ukraine, they'll at least see it destroyed, and use the resulting propaganda opportunity to their advantage.

 

Maybe you can tell how NATO countries (including Italy) bombed Libya for example? Or Yugoslavia. And after that we will discuss international law.

 

Obviously there is no further point in this discussion, as you are not going to go off script and seem quite indoctrinated. I will admit however, that the powers that be are doing pretty good at preventing outside influence and data from bleeding through the wall.

 

2 unnamed German officials out of thousands made that claim on a Russian blog post. Congratulations. That somehow equates into your mind that all of Germany is on Russia's side.

 

Those aren't Abrams. That's not a protest. Those aren't even US military personnel. And even if it was, so what?

 

For me there is no problem. In Russia, for example, there are many ways to destroy the United States without using nuclear weapons in general. At what - destroy in a trice. But some Americans why they think that they are "exceptional nation." And behave aggressively. (This is laughable.) I showed for your opponent that not all people, even in Europe supports the Americans.

 

What did any of that stupid ass (*)(*)(*)(*) have to do with either your first post or my reply to it?

 

You do know that he isn't really russian and he's just toying with you....
He's one of the regular comedian around here. Probably the old TheJudge, remember him? Or moon or some other inventing another web personae to derail and troll.

 

I wasn't aware of that. Although I do firmly believe he has multiple accounts.

 

Tecoyah, I'm quite happy for you to retreat. It was going to happen sooner or later based simply on the weight of argument you present - which is poor through to so being contrived. You have rarely, if ever (that I have seen anyway) evidenced any assertions you make. I think you're probably too lazy to do that. And besides that, once facts are brought into any debate, rhetoric has nowhere to go.

And if you want to pretend and save face - and massage your ego - by withdrawing saying it's because I'm indoctrinated - instead of you - and that I adhere to a script - instead of you (it's called blind prejudice), then let's open another thread and discuss Jung's psychological theory of projection -- and duke it out there, okay?

If you start the thread you have my word here and now that I'll join in right away.

Otherwise, at least have the manners to withdraw with grace.