Posted on 02/07/2015 7:26:04 AM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
Yesterday message from some of the foreign colleagues after meeting Merkel, Hollande and Putin. We can not disclose all the details, Today we received some messages from foreign colleagues after the meeting, Merkel, Hollande and Putin. We can't reveal all the details, but in short: Putin blackmails Europe that is willing to inflict on the Ukraine nuclear missile strikes.
The ultimatum was presented three days ago, which is why European leaders broke down and went to Moscow. What they have agreed is not known. Press stated vague claims that they "agreed to finalize the Minsk Agreement," but at the same time Merkel and Hollande returned quite shocked.
Along with this the final stage of negotiations on Ukraine will be over the phone on Sunday. It is obvious that Merkel wants to shift the responsibility onto the US and and dissociate itself from decision making, taking a passive stance.
For his lack of determination, Obama is referred to as a "paper tiger" you can state the fact that Putin now has finally led to a split in peace of the world. It should be noted that the United States strongly is enough and "the Hawks" lobby , so to speak about complete capitulation of the West before Putin's ultimatums is too early yet.
Nevertheless, the passivity of Europe may soon backfire. We remind that in the second half of December 2014 the German media began to report information about deployment of Russian tactical missile systems (PTRC) "Iskander" in the Kaliningrad region.
In response, the Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that the missile complexes "Iskander" will be placed where the Russian leadership sees fit. Furthermore # Shoigu made it clear that Russia does not want peace and is preparing for war , "In 2015, we will complete a program to deploy troops on the Franz Josef Land, Novaya Zemlya, which conducts research on Wrangel Island. Thus, the entire zone will be closed (Iskander - Ed). "
As for Ukraine, it is not for nothing that Putin called Crimea a "sacred place." There also were abandoned after the occupation (PTRC) "# Iskander" and from there in case of the implementation of the ultimatum would be dealt sustained rocket attacks.
Perhaps, the main target will be the Dnepropetrovsk or Kiev Ukrainian forces . Crimea is also a good base for control of the Mediterranean, we also think that for neighboring Turkey does not seem secure or safe.
Soon it becomes clear for world leaders that came, but the decision for them is not easy: to make concessions does not only enhance the opponent and makes it more cocky, backtrack has nowhere to ... He allows himself to blackmail the world threat of another world war and it needs to stop before it is too late. Sanctions, though effective, are very slow way to crush the dictator, that is becoming increasingly aggressive and unpredictable to ...
I apologize for the double translation of the 1st lines.
bump
“Peace in our time”
will be WW3 of course
You are probably correct. And, obamma has diminished our military!
A fairly stupid screed, that seems credible to people who have never studied Russia from a military perspective.
To anyone who has seriously studied Russia from a military perpective, this drivel immoliates itself in the title and composts itself to dirt thereafter.
Russia’s move here has nothing to do with any personal decision or perpective on the part of Vladimir Putin. It is lockstep adherence to a military doctrine that was firmly entrenched before Putin’s parents were born.
Personalities are irrelevant to what Russia is doing and will continue to do. Vladimir Putin is not so powerful that he could do anything else and not be removed.
Might this panic arise from the threat of a gold-backed Ruble? Despite the devastating effect of sanctions on its currency, Russia has not sold one ounce of its gold, and continues (along with China) to be the largest buyer. We killed Muammar Gaddafi and bombed Libya back to the Stone Age within a year of Gaddafi's stated intent to mint a gold Dinar and to require gold payment for North African oil. Might this explain why Putin felt the need to remind the West that they are declaring economic war on a nuclear superpower? Something has the West in a panic, and it is not the threat of any Russian military invasion. Ukraine is a pawn of the West in a much bigger game.
Not cripple, but stop Putin aggression into Europe. Check-out: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3255131/posts
There is no Russian aggression into Europe. The only advances have been NATO’s addition of twelve new member states, right up to the border of Russia. Russia’s annexation of Crimea - which has been Russia’s for centuries and contains Russia’s one and only warm water port/naval base - was a predictable defensive reaction to the Maidan coup which overthrew Moscow’s elected ally. Russia’s consolidation of its most strategic port and naval base hardly qualifies as aggression, but the West’s bungling attempt to seize it most certainly does.
Crimea is Ukrainian
Putin aggressive stance:
1. U.K. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31049952
2. Sweden http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/world/europe/sweden-russia-planes-near-collision/
3. U.S. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/13/world/europe/russia-bombers-plan/
Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said Wednesday that “we have to maintain (Russia’s) military presence in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific, as well as the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico” — including sending bombers “as part of the drills.”
How many nations did Western Europe invade? Zero.
Nations desired to join NATO. Wow, imagine that. They had a choice and they made it.
Who was intent on invading Russia? Please let us know. If you don’t, contact your bestie Vladimir. Perhaps he can give you a list.
Defensive move? Taking Crimea by force? That in your mind qualifies as defensive?
That was an act of aggression. That is not a defensive move.
Maidan coup? LMAO, none of you idiots understand a parliamentary form of government. What a hoot.
Our memories are conveniently selective and short. Since 1823, the Monroe Doctrine has guided American foreign policy by declaring our entire hemisphere a “no go” zone for foreign military occupations. I don’t think any of us would hesitate for a moment to invade Mexico or Canada if those neighboring nations “chose” to militarily align themselves with China or Russia. In fact, history is filled with our invasions of numerous neighbors when we thought our strategic interests were threatened. We are now playing on Russia’s border, and failed to seize Russia’s only warm water port and to choke off its access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. What are we doing in that part of the world, anyway?
Please name one nation “WE” conquered and kept as our sovereign territory. As for Russia, it’s still doing this today. Crimea is but it’s latest example, this time due to recidivism.
It had actually joined the civilized world in the 90s to allow break-aways to develop or return to their own sovereignty. Now it seems intent on taking them back.
So please, enlighten us as to who needs to be suspect of whom here?
Is there any doubt in your mind that Russia would hesitate to invade the U. S. if it had an opening? Do you think Russia would then allow the U. S. to reform a government here and live i a sovereign state?
You just tossed a bunch of noise on the forum, but in real world terms, it was nonsense.
NATO is not going to invade Russia. Neither is Poland, the Ukraine, and a number of other nations.
Russia’s main problem today is that it has a paranoid psychotic on it’s hands. He is fast becoming a global threat and problem.
This guy is taking the one route certain to involve his nation in a global war. Other than that, Russia had no worry whatsoever.
And you know damn well this is true.
They certainly had trouble seeing what Putin is and is capable of.
I even worried about Bush when he said he looked into Putin’s eyes and liked what he saw.
And now here we sit, with a petulant fool at the helm. All Obama knows how to do is meddle....fools rush in....
Obama was pissed off when Putin out maneuvered him about the Syrian Tomahawk strike... Obama gets crazy when he is thwarted. IMO that’s why he started meddling in Ukraine. Now look where we are.
Certainly. How do you think we got California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Colorado? The short answer is that we bought those territories for $18,500,000 in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but the full answer is that we invaded Mexico in a two year war, militarily occupied the capital of Mexico City, and dictated the treaty's terms to the vanquished Mexican government.
Fifty years later, in a war declared against Spain to end its colonial influence, we captured and annexed Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Samoa, Guam, and Wake Island. Today, all but the Philippines remain sovereign US territory.
Is there any doubt in your mind that Russia would hesitate to invade the U. S. if it had an opening? Do you think Russia would then allow the U. S. to reform a government here and live i a sovereign state?
Invade the U.S. with what? With the exception of its huge nuclear arsenal, Russia's military power is a mere shadow of the old Soviet Union's military machine. In conventional terms, Russia is a major regional power and is not economically or militarily capable of projecting overwhelming conventional force on a global scale.
NATO is not going to invade Russia. Neither is Poland, the Ukraine, and a number of other nations. Russia’s main problem today is that it has a paranoid psychotic on it’s hands. He is fast becoming a global threat and problem. This guy is taking the one route certain to involve his nation in a global war. Other than that, Russia had no worry whatsoever. And you know damn well this is true.
No sane leader believes that a hostile alliance that has outlived its defensive charter poses no threat, especially when that hostile alliance aggressively expands to your own border and has recently engaged in offensive military operations elsewhere. Perhaps NATO's motives are pure as snow, but what fool bets his survival on mere perception of a hostile alliance's motives?
Suppose my gang signs a binding pact with your surrounding neighbors that we will all attack you if any one of us comes to blows with you. To prove that were are serious, we regularly assemble along your property line with all of our weapons and armored vehicles and with our aircraft buzzing overhead, and practice how we would "defend" each other against you. But since we insist that we have no hostile intent toward you or your surrounded property, you must believe us. Never you mind that our defensive alliance attacked Serbia in 1999, or that our alliance's command structure is presently on expedition in Afghanistan. We assure you that we are not threatening you in any way, so you must believe us.
Russia's alarm is anything but psychotic. It is rational.
Russia's going to nuke the hapless Ukraine? They can't succeed with conventional military action against Ukraine? Really. If so, Russia ought to pack it in, they ain't got no military power. The whole point here is a hidden invasion to take east Ukraine. Drag it out, drag it out, until decisions on the ground make going back impossible.
I'm not sure where nukes fit in that equation. Please explain.
The Middle East Media Research Institut is an AWESOME SITE:
http://www.memri.org/middle-east-media-research-institute.html
INFORMNAPALM is a volunteer initiative to inform both Ukrainian citizens and the foreign public about the crises in Ukraine. Roam Burko is Editor
Yes, hidden wide-open invasion. Russia is trying to circumvent responsibility: sending in ‘little green men’ [Russia military without insignia into Crimea & Eastern Ukraine. also, military tanks, trucks with I.D. painted over etc. Everyone is hopeful teh nukes was just a threat.
Certainly. How do you think we got California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Colorado? The short answer is that we bought those territories for $18,500,000 in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but the full answer is that we invaded Mexico in a two year war, militarily occupied the capital of Mexico City, and dictated the treaty's terms to the vanquished Mexican government.
Well there you have it, the La Raza, MALDEF, MEChLA, history of the Western United States.Funny how you didn't mention the fact that the territory that later became Mexico, was itself occupied by Spain. Did Spain have a right to that land? No. Did an entity known as Mexico ever occupy and own the lands you addressed? Ah no.
The nation of Mexico didn't even exist unil 1823. Did it occupy and administer the lands North of where our souther border is today? No. When it tried, it got it's ass handed to it. It wasn't as if these were tradional lands owned by Mexico. The army of the region rebelled against Spain and having previaled formed a new government, a soverign nation in 1823. That is when the entity Mexico came into being. Other territories that had been occupied buy Spain did essentially the same thing when they rebelled against the new entity Mexico. Texans sure didn't buy into the idea that all of a sudden Mexico was going to rule them. Arizona, New Mexico, and California felt the same way. Does that somehow make them evil for rebelling against Mexico, when Mexico itself rebelled to cast off it's colonial master?
Fifty years later, in a war declared against Spain to end its colonial influence, we captured and annexed Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Samoa, Guam, and Wake Island. Today, all but the Philippines remain sovereign US territory.
I haven't studied the history of these islands. I suspect there was more to this than your short synopsis. Whatever the real story is, it took place by your account almost 150 years ago. Since that time the United States has participated in a number of wars. At then end of them the United States did not hold and occupy the land. The land generally reverted to it's former government. Japan, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Afghanistan..., to mention just a few.
Let's look at Germany. The United States didn't claim German land. Russia did. Do you see a difference? Russia also claimed the land of a number of nations after World War II. It administered those nations with an iron fist, hense the term "The Iron Curtain."
Is there any doubt in your mind that Russia would hesitate to invade the U. S. if it had an opening? Do you think Russia would then allow the U. S. to reform a government here and live i a sovereign state?
Invade the U.S. with what? With the exception of its huge nuclear arsenal, Russia's military power is a mere shadow of the old Soviet Union's military machine. In conventional terms, Russia is a major regional power and is not economically or militarily capable of projecting overwhelming conventional force on a global scale.
There was talk this last week about Russia possibly getting the Guantanamo base in Cuba. If you think Russia couldn't cause serious havok with that base, you're not firing on all cylinders.
Byond that it still has it bomber force. It still has it's nukes. Vladimir Putin has made costic remarks about nuclear weapons and his use of them. If that doesn't rank him right up there with the top nutters of all time, I don't know what would.
NATO is not going to invade Russia. Neither is Poland, the Ukraine, and a number of other nations. Russia’s main problem today is that it has a paranoid psychotic on it’s hands. He is fast becoming a global threat and problem. This guy is taking the one route certain to involve his nation in a global war. Other than that, Russia had no worry whatsoever. And you know damn well this is true.
No sane leader believes that a hostile alliance that has outlived its defensive charter poses no threat, especially when that hostile alliance aggressively expands to your own border and has recently engaged in offensive military operations elsewhere. Perhaps NATO's motives are pure as snow, but what fool bets his survival on mere perception of a hostile alliance's motives?
Hostile alliance? Please name one hostile thing this alliance has done against Russia. Name on incident on Russia's border where NATO was an aggressor. You wax rhapsodic about there being no need for NATO, and completely miss the fact that Russia has invaded one of it's neighbor nations, has annexed land, and appears to be considering taking more. No need for NATO? Wow. Really?
Suppose my gang signs a binding pact with your surrounding neighbors that we will all attack you if any one of us comes to blows with you. To prove that were are serious, we regularly assemble along your property line with all of our weapons and armored vehicles and with our aircraft buzzing overhead, and practice how we would "defend" each other against you. But since we insist that we have no hostile intent toward you or your surrounded property, you must believe us. Never you mind that our defensive alliance attacked Serbia in 1999, or that our alliance's command structure is presently on expedition in Afghanistan. We assure you that we are not threatening you in any way, so you must believe us.
Nations have war games all the time. Russia has them. Are we supposed to attack Russia because it has them? Should we annex part of Russia because of it? Should we send in proxy troops and occupy part of it's soverign territory, then claim it was because of some war games? You're arguments are silly.
Russia's alarm is anything but psychotic. It is rational.
It's as irrational as your comments here.
Whose nuclear armed bombers are infringing on other nation's air space these days? NATO?We fought a Cold War with the U. S. S. R., and as a people were almost universally against that entity. Now Putin signals he may in fact be headed back into a cold war with an Iron Curtain all to boot, and some of you folks can't wait to carry water for him, and explain how the West is the Evil Empire. That is a Conservative stance? Wow...
FAIL!
Iskanders are also able to carry conventional warheads.
http://missilethreat.com/missiles/iskander-ss-26/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.