Topic: Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again? - page 33. (Read 58230 times)
It's not about russia, it's about dumb migration policy which slowly kills european nations. I would prefer to see any hostile society in europe, rather than another sharia state.
Hostile society in Europe? Are you kidding? Did you forget that Third Reich and Napoleon's empire were not sharia law states. Lol, they were not even islamic...
It's not about russia, it's about dumb migration policy which slowly kills european nations. I would prefer to see any hostile society in europe, rather than another sharia state.
Hostile society in Europe? Are you kidding? Did you forget that Third Reich and Napoleon's empire were not sharia law states. Lol, they were not even islamic...
It's not about russia, it's about dumb migration policy which slowly kills european nations. I would prefer to see any hostile society in europe, rather than another sharia state.
BTW, don't forget about Front National and Marine Le Pen. Breaking of this deal will only increase their popularity... They can say Obama bye-bye without any problem, after coming to power.
I don't think they will ever come to power (or rather be allowed to), but even if they do, they will most certainly change their current rhetoric, lol. Today we can see many former diplomats, ex-presidents and that sort of people who now say that Russia is right in its actions and that sort of things, but why their actions and words were quite different back then when they were in power (or rather the power)?
France has always been a little tetchy about being told what to do (remember Charles de Gaulle calling for an international return to the gold standard in 1965 and exchanging their dollars for gold). So my guess is France won't give in and will sell those Mistral warships to Russia...
Actually, Russia is not so dependent on these warships. New minister of defence would prefer to get money instead of them and use it for own military industry. So any sanctions here would be welcomed as an excuse to break unnecessary deal.BTW, don't forget about Front National and Marine Le Pen. Breaking of this deal will only increase their popularity... They can say Obama bye-bye without any problem, after coming to power.
An interesting turn. NATO/US is jumping out of its skin just to alienate Europe from Russia:
US lawmakers urge France to sell Mistral warships to NATO, not Russia
http://rt.com/news/162412-france-warships-sale-russia/
Hypocrisy, especially since US/NATO was the one doing all the wagging, sorry "moving"...
US lawmakers urge France to sell Mistral warships to NATO, not Russia
http://rt.com/news/162412-france-warships-sale-russia/
Quote
Amid growing Western pressure being put on Russia, US congressmen are calling on France to reconsider the sale of its two Mistral helicopter carrier ships to Russia and instead allow NATO to buy or lease them.
"The purchase would send a strong signal to [Russian] President (Vladimir) Putin that the NATO allies will not tolerate or in any way enable his reckless moves," Reuters quoted a letter sent to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as saying.
"The purchase would send a strong signal to [Russian] President (Vladimir) Putin that the NATO allies will not tolerate or in any way enable his reckless moves," Reuters quoted a letter sent to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as saying.
Hypocrisy, especially since US/NATO was the one doing all the wagging, sorry "moving"...
France has always been a little tetchy about being told what to do (remember Charles de Gaulle calling for an international return to the gold standard in 1965 and exchanging their dollars for gold). So my guess is France won't give in and will sell those Mistral warships to Russia...
An interesting turn. NATO/US is jumping out of its skin just to alienate Europe from Russia:
US lawmakers urge France to sell Mistral warships to NATO, not Russia
http://rt.com/news/162412-france-warships-sale-russia/
Hypocrisy, especially since US/NATO was the one doing all the wagging, sorry "moving"...
US lawmakers urge France to sell Mistral warships to NATO, not Russia
http://rt.com/news/162412-france-warships-sale-russia/
Quote
Amid growing Western pressure being put on Russia, US congressmen are calling on France to reconsider the sale of its two Mistral helicopter carrier ships to Russia and instead allow NATO to buy or lease them.
"The purchase would send a strong signal to [Russian] President (Vladimir) Putin that the NATO allies will not tolerate or in any way enable his reckless moves," Reuters quoted a letter sent to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as saying.
"The purchase would send a strong signal to [Russian] President (Vladimir) Putin that the NATO allies will not tolerate or in any way enable his reckless moves," Reuters quoted a letter sent to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen as saying.
Hypocrisy, especially since US/NATO was the one doing all the wagging, sorry "moving"...
The Saudis can't be qualified as puppets of the Americans.
I dislike very much Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a democrat compared with those guys, but they have autonomy against the USA: they keep an horrible political system, resisted pressure on the issue of women rights, they didn't allow the americans to use their territory to invade Irak in 2003; they support armed groups (think on Syria) that the americans wouldn't support; several times they kept oil production rates against the interest and will of the americans, etc.
I dislike very much Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a democrat compared with those guys, but they have autonomy against the USA: they keep an horrible political system, resisted pressure on the issue of women rights, they didn't allow the americans to use their territory to invade Irak in 2003; they support armed groups (think on Syria) that the americans wouldn't support; several times they kept oil production rates against the interest and will of the americans, etc.
I won't say nothing about Qatar or the Saudi Arabia, they are crazy enough for that, but I wouldn't call them "west".
If you can include the American government in the so called West, then definitely Qatar and Saudi also can be grouped there. Both these nations are ruled as proxy states by the Americans, using puppet rulers.
Why spoil a good story with facts or evidences? It's much more easy to write some tails, copied from some blog.
I won't say nothing about Qatar or the Saudi Arabia, they are crazy enough for that, but I wouldn't call them "west".
I won't say nothing about Qatar or the Saudi Arabia, they are crazy enough for that, but I wouldn't call them "west".
Putin only accused the west of "informational, financial, and political" support, without presenting any evidence or explaining who was the "west". That is not evidence of NATO giving arms to the rebels.
There is no real evidence of NATO supplying the rebels with guns , just like there is no evidence right now about Russia supporting the rebels in Ukraine.
But both happened.
Putin only accused the west of "informational, financial, and political" support, without presenting any evidence or explaining who was the "west". That is not evidence of NATO giving arms to the rebels.
The West obviously includes the puppet regime of King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia, which sent hundreds of mercenaries as well as hundreds of millions of USD in financial support to the Chechen rebels.
NATO is planning to expand their program called "Nuke Sharing". As part of nuclear sharing, the participating countries carry out consultations and take common decisions on nuclear weapons policy, maintain technical equipment required for the use of nuclear weapons (including warplanes capable of delivering them), and store nuclear weapons on their territory. They are planning to give nukes to Poland and probably Ukraine.
Putin only accused the west of "informational, financial, and political" support, without presenting any evidence or explaining who was the "west". That is not evidence of NATO giving arms to the rebels.
Then there are multiple instances of NATO-issue weapons that were captured from "the rebels". I wrote it earlier, I know some Chechen families who fled their homes because they were threatened by "the rebels". As I see it, the Chechen wars were fought between at least 3 different sides, with a handful of oligarchs profiteering on it.
The link between CIA / NATO and the rebel groups is more or less well established. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia provided the Mujahadeen (fighters)
while Turkey provided the logistics.
http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/ukraine-caspian.htm
There is also the question of who supplied "the rebels" with weapons, money and intel. Many threads were leading to Berezovskij, who frequented the area both before and during the wars, unmolested by "the rebels". Then there are multiple instances of NATO-issue weapons that were captured from "the rebels". I wrote it earlier, I know some Chechen families who fled their homes because they were threatened by "the rebels". As I see it, the Chechen wars were fought between at least 3 different sides, with a handful of oligarchs profiteering on it.
And the Russian conscripts, who barely knew how to hold a gun, were sent there as cannon fodder against well-trained and equipped "rebels".
And the Russian conscripts, who barely knew how to hold a gun, were sent there as cannon fodder against well-trained and equipped "rebels".
Yes, but the second one was ordered by Putin, as Prime-Minister, when Yelstin was already in clear decadence, in terms of powers and physically. Putin was the strong man and heir of Yeltsin.
But I agree that with the crisis, the Yelstin army suffered from lack of investment and Putin only had that army in the first years.
Anyway, even after, the repression of the guerrilla war until 2009 was far from good. At best, we can say Putin's army hasn't yet show how good it is. And past perform doesn't promise much.
But I agree that with the crisis, the Yelstin army suffered from lack of investment and Putin only had that army in the first years.
Anyway, even after, the repression of the guerrilla war until 2009 was far from good. At best, we can say Putin's army hasn't yet show how good it is. And past perform doesn't promise much.
Of course they received external support (but I would like to see evidence of military support from the governments of KSA and USA), how could a small region like Chechnya win over Russia. But the point is that they won. And Putin's army didn't do much better 3 years later: more than 1 year to conquer them in conventional war. The major operations only ended in 2009 and according to some sources, Russia lost more than 10,000 men (even if after 2000 it was basically a guerrilla war).
The first battle ended in stalemate, with Russian forces controlling the Northern plains, while the rebels regaining the control of the central mountains, including Grozny. The second battle was won by Russia, with some 40,000 rebels either killed or captured. Both the first and the second battles were fought when Boris Yeltsin was the president.
Of course they received external support (but I would like to see evidence of military support from the governments of KSA and USA), how could a small region like Chechnya win over Russia. But the point is that they won. And Putin's army didn't do much better 3 years later: more than 1 year to conquer them in conventional war. The major operations only ended in 2009 and according to some sources, Russia lost more than 10,000 men (even if after 2000 it was basically a guerrilla war).
Jump to: