Topic: Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again? - page 5. (Read 58230 times)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=129191


Well, and USA is all hugs and cuddles. 

Also, notice how double-speak is used here. Russian military sits within Russian borders, yet it "undermining regional security directly and through proxy forces".
At the same time USA kills people in Donbass through proxies and occupied all of the Baltics, so that statement is what USA sees in itself and wants to project onto others, even in the face of any facts supporting their claims.

Let's not forget that Norway is also a committed member of NATO. It is a home to a GLOBUS II surveillance radar deployed at Vardo in northern Norway near the Russian border. This system was allegedly deployed to monitor objects in space such as satellites and space debris, but in 2000 the globular enclosure protecting a radar antenna was torn off during a storm, and who would think, the radar-dish had been pointing directly towards Russia!

It will be wiped out among the first, Norwegians should understand this

Just like most of the other countries in the Western Europe (such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom), Norway is a loyal vassal state of the United States. Tor André Johnsen was probably warned at the behest of the Americans. Norway doesn't have the sovereignity to take such decisions by itself.

Norway: definitely a free and democratic state.

The aforementioned MP is now prohibited from leaving the country without "supervision from colleagues" for his initiative to promote Russian/norwegian friendship and cooperation:

In Russian: http://ria.ru/world/20150628/1098813273.html
In Swedish: http://www.svd.se/pst-det-ar-fran-sakerhetspolisen

Several MPs (especially from Northern Norway) voiced their support for him and for strengthening of good neighbourly relations with Russia.

the US certainly has no plans to invade Russia, the two countries have been working 'together' for years even during the cold war , niether could pull the trigger, the result would have been just as harmful to both nations and the leaders and others knew this all along,   

If anyone doubted the question in the topic, the following article gives a definitive "yes" answer to it:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/23/politics/us-armor-tanks-europe-russia-ash-carter/

In short, it can be summarised as "Russia fails to attack us, so we'll send our tanks to Russian border and see how the Russians respond to THAT."

Of course, there is a lot of Russia bad that, Putin bad this usual dribble. And the usual misrepresentation of Putin's statements. All in the name of the next American pet project - WWIII.


So, in Russia or Ukraine? Make up your mind. Russia is not a part of the Ukrainian civil war...


Stated where, exactly? Some references, please. All I remember is him and Medvedev saying that Russia intends to move forward with the times and that USSR lies firmly in the past.


Of course, not. USA could have just attacked and say, "oops, we forgot Russia had nuclear weapons"


One brigade here. Another there. Some colour revolutions, where we don't like them doing business with Russia (Macedonia/Armenia)... Nothing to worry about. Move along.

The Russian air-defence system is currently the best in the world. So the options for the United States will be to invade Russia, either through land, or through the sea. And the latter option doesn't look feasible, as the Americans don't have that many warships to conduct such a gigantic operation. So the only viable option left is an invasion through land, probably from the West. Anyone remember Operation Barbarossa?

This aint happening. If it is, it would be a suicide mission on both sides.

A global war is not a thing that can be thought of as something you can either afford or not. If you can't afford it, you first become a cannon fodder for those who can and then most likely cease to be. In other words, if you don't want to care for your army, you will care for a foreign one...

That, simply put, sums it up

A pretty good summary. Chinese may come to help if it starts to look grim for them. But from prior experience, Chinese are not good fighters, so the brunt of defence will be again on Russians.

I really hope it will not come to this, though. I am seeing some signals that European politicians are starting to wake up and notice that USA paints big bulls-eyes on the European countries. But it all comes down to US, if some crazy politician there decides that - just like with WWII, when USA's economy got a significant boos - so will now the benefits of a war will outweigh the risks, that the war will again boos USA's economy and write off those huge debts...

Russia probably has one of the most hardest defensive system and attacking them would require double of the strength U.S has, which would require U.S to partner with other strong allies. Considering power and support of both sides, its a gamble and it won't end good.

I was skeptical until just a few moments ago when the S.G announced more troop movements. I think the west is bored, there is nothing major going on, nothing exploitable. Capitalisms' death knell rang and now they want to stave off its collapse by mixing things around and diverting attention.

It doesn't matter at this point how many lives would be lost, and what the consequences of war between nuclear armed nations. Just think on it, for all it's military power, Russia is just one country and nomatter what we tell ourselves about the Chinese and other nations that don't follow America's lead, there is no guarantee that they will join Russia to defend a free world.

Our nations have been devastated by the continued transfer of value to the U.S and we can barely feed our populations let alone fight a global war, most will likely stay out of it, not just to save their skins, but they simply can't afford it.

The only way would be for Russia to begin a massive arms and technology sharing exercise with like-minded nations and try to subsidise arms production by these nations. This will result in less stable, far more dangerous world, but ultimately noone would be crazy enough to start a war.

Think on it, if smaller independent nations suddenly could conjure up a serious war theater, would we have so much aggression by the larger powers? If Venezuela could nuke the U.S mainland at the press of a button, or Poland hit Russia would the giants still be so noisy?

Imagine Mozambique with aircraft carriers and destroyers in large enough numbers to deploy on a global scale  noone would dare start a war if they knew anyone and everyone could respond in kind or overreact.

yes, Russia must sell nukes to everyone, let's see them start a war under those conditions.

I guess you mistyped it as Russia, it is supposed to be Syria, Iran such that... lol... I am I dreaming or some other. It is not a cake walk to go upfront and invade Russia and easily eat a cake with top up delicious cream. Watch this link about the surprises from Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Z_2qxXG3s

Nuclear countries cannot be invaded so easily. Unlike how people claim that it is impossible, I disagree. Its just really hard and a gamble. The loss of resources and the affect it has on mankind is scary. Ww3 happens when Russia and US go head to head, thats when you run for cover

Adding this item here.

Norwegian newspaper VG published an article, telling how a Norwegian politicians and an MP from FrP party Tor André Johnsen got several warnings from PST (Norwegian KGB) for "too close contact with the Russian embassy representatives", meeting them at social occasions at restaurants and such. However, he refuses to be intimidated (or as PST put it, they don't think they managed to reach through to him):

Original source in Norwegian http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/frp/pst-advarte-frp-er-paa-stortinget-for-naer-omgang-med-russlands-ambassade/a/23466955/
In Russian: http://www.newsru.com/world/23jun2015/norge.html

Three things come to mind:
1. When the likes of Navalnyj, K.Sobchak and Nemcov spent time in the US embassy in Moscow, at various "democracy-building" course and received dollars to implement those "teachings" on social unrest, that was quite OK by the Western double standards... When a Norwegian politician openly conducts meetings with some of the Russian diplomats to keep the lines of dialogue open, that is somehow a bad thing.
2. The politicians in Norway are under the hood, under total surveillance.
3. A few years ago, Russia settled a territorial dispute with Norway, which existed since 1920s. Though that was not a popular move among the Russian population, forfeiting some of the land to Norway, Russian government saw it as a good move in building friendly neighbourly relations. This is completely forgotten now in Norway...

The German newspaper Spiegel revealed that NATO military planes often fly with their transponders turned off. Interestingly, this is exactly what NATO accused Russia of doing.
http://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/2038959

Earlier Stoltenberg vowed that all NATO planes crowding the skies of the Baltic states fly with the transponders turned on:
http://www.vz.ru/news/2015/3/20/735625.html

As there are hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers stationed in Kaliningrad, I don't think that any more are needed in Belarus. The Belarussian armed forces are better than their counterparts in Poland and Lithuania, and they have the capability to defend their country. In case more Russian troops are needed, they can be simply shipped in from Kaliningrad.

Yes, you don't need. But the said doesn't make what you said previously (about Russian troops in Belarus) less of an exaggeration. There are more than enough troops in Kaliningrad region to scare off any potential war-monger...