Topic: When USA invasion to Russia starts? (Read 2754 times)
the real question is when the alliens are going to invade russia and america , i heard from a source of mine in nasa that they recieved a strange signal , this signal was a written message written on it "death to america and russia" . I dont know i am really scared ... :/
I've been told by many legitimate sources that west (Especially USA) is planning to attack russia 
When it's going to happen and how?? 
I want to know usa doctrine
USA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!
When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrineUSA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!
I don't think they plan on invading Russia, the USA planned on weakening Russia as they consider them as a threat and want to rule the world.
A nice deterrent:
Russian Military Unveils Revolutionary Electronic Warfare System
http://sputniknews.com/military/20150304/1019042643.html
...then from...
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1844.htm
...with the result that
French Submarine 'Sinks' Entire US Aircraft Carrier Group During Wargames
http://sputniknews.com/news/20150306/1019130173.html
Russian Military Unveils Revolutionary Electronic Warfare System
http://sputniknews.com/military/20150304/1019042643.html
Quote
Russia's new Richag-AV radar and sonar jamming system can be mounted on helicopters, ships and other military equipment to jam potential adversaries' weapons systems from distances of several hundred kilometers away; it has been hailed by developers as having no analogue anywhere in the world.
At a presentation for journalists in Kazan on Wednesday, Russian radio-electronics firm Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET) announced that it is handing over the first batch of a new helicopter-mounted electronic warfare system known as the 'Richag-AV' to the armed forces.
At a presentation for journalists in Kazan on Wednesday, Russian radio-electronics firm Radio-Electronic Technologies Concern (KRET) announced that it is handing over the first batch of a new helicopter-mounted electronic warfare system known as the 'Richag-AV' to the armed forces.
...then from...
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1844.htm
Quote
What appeared to be most concerning to Secretary Nuland, however, MoFA experts in this report say, was Moscow allowing the French navy earlier last month to equip their nuclear attack submarine Saphir with one of Russia’s revolutionary electronic warfare systems weapons, and which allowed this submarine to sink an entire US navy carrier group, including the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, in war games conducted off the coast of Florida.
...with the result that
French Submarine 'Sinks' Entire US Aircraft Carrier Group During Wargames
http://sputniknews.com/news/20150306/1019130173.html
Haven't been posting here much recently.. I forgot how many kooks are on this forum 
Yeah, we're not invading Russia any time soon.. they have nuclear weapons, you know. Plus you haven't seen developed countries invading each other since WW2.
Yeah, we're not invading Russia any time soon.. they have nuclear weapons, you know. Plus you haven't seen developed countries invading each other since WW2.
Your right, developed countries don't invade each other anymore. No they just create proxy wars, economic sanctions and media propaganda wars.
And soon regular wars also
Haven't been posting here much recently.. I forgot how many kooks are on this forum
Yeah, we're not invading Russia any time soon.. they have nuclear weapons, you know. Plus you haven't seen developed countries invading each other since WW2.
Yeah, we're not invading Russia any time soon.. they have nuclear weapons, you know. Plus you haven't seen developed countries invading each other since WW2.
Your right, developed countries don't invade each other anymore. No they just create proxy wars, economic sanctions and media propaganda wars.
Haven't been posting here much recently.. I forgot how many kooks are on this forum
Yeah, we're not invading Russia any time soon.. they have nuclear weapons, you know. Plus you haven't seen developed countries invading each other since WW2.
Yeah, we're not invading Russia any time soon.. they have nuclear weapons, you know. Plus you haven't seen developed countries invading each other since WW2.
But USA is 3rd world country
Roads are broken, power plants and grid are oldPeople lack education and all the money is in the hands of few
Irrational countries like that are unstable and unpredictable!
Haven't been posting here much recently.. I forgot how many kooks are on this forum
Yeah, we're not invading Russia any time soon.. they have nuclear weapons, you know. Plus you haven't seen developed countries invading each other since WW2.
Yeah, we're not invading Russia any time soon.. they have nuclear weapons, you know. Plus you haven't seen developed countries invading each other since WW2.
But how USA is going to do it? Russia is too big and impossible to invade
They must use some european nato forces or land from asian coast?
They must use some european nato forces or land from asian coast?
NATO forces are a joke. If the Americans are serious about invading Russia, then they will wage proxy-warfare through Russian rebel groups, such as the Caucasus Emirate. The NATO will supply arms and ammunition to these groups, but they will never provide manpower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Emirate
According to my sources, it was the Russians who tried to invade the US in 1985, but Chuck Norris kicked their asses:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089348/reference
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089348/reference
But how USA is going to do it? Russia is too big and impossible to invade
They must use some european nato forces or land from asian coast?
They must use some european nato forces or land from asian coast?
Same as Africa, but that didn't stop Hitler...
I hope you know the US invasion won't happen. Maybe China with their demography would be interested in some new land
I hope no one is going for an invasion where ever they plan, as it will all end up somehow with victums.
However, I don't think that's realistic unfortunately. I don't see the USA attack Russia soon either.
But how USA is going to do it? Russia is too big and impossible to invade
They must use some european nato forces or land from asian coast?
They must use some european nato forces or land from asian coast?
Same as Africa, but that didn't stop Hitler...
I hope you know the US invasion won't happen. Maybe China with their demography would be interested in some new land
But how USA is going to do it? Russia is too big and impossible to invade
They must use some european nato forces or land from asian coast?
They must use some european nato forces or land from asian coast?
An MP from LDPR, those attention-seeking clowns - that says it all.
As with any populist politicians, they seldom bother to figure out what they are talking about before starting smiting.By the way, it cuts both ways. Save Donbass humanitarian aid initiative accepts Bitcoin donations: http://spasidonbass.ru/make-donations/
1Bg55YPr6Hf3VqGT6rfYAgrHuyZqh3Q8ux
I've been told by many legitimate sources that west (Especially USA) is planning to attack russia When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrine
USA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!
When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrineUSA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!
Several years for sure. They making russia evil again. So they can start another war for bankers.
3: Fair point, and I don't disagree. But most of the "debate" I've seen hasn't attempted to find common ground. It's based in very hyperbolic language. "The US is instigated the uprising," or "The US is fighting a proxy war against Russia." These concepts are so simplistic they are automatically wrong, but the entire rest of the debate is built on top of "facts" like this. I know there are similar overly-simplistic theses on my side of the aisle upon which arguments are constructed in the same faulty manner. To the extent anyone is attempting to find objective truth, I applaud and encourage those efforts. But starting with the premise "everything you say is wrong" is so closed-minded, that nothing said after that can hope to make any impact whatsoever. And these are the quality of the statements I see most often on topic threads about Ukraine. I'm interested in objective truth, as much as it can possibly be known, and objective truth in this instance involves understanding the nuance and history that is so often ignored for the haste of making a quick judgement on who is the "bad guy."
Yes it's often too easy to fall back to oversimplifications, and myself am guilty of it in some of my posts. However, even such simplifications should not be one-liner statements. They should be backed by facts and arguments, which I try to do. One example. US constantly accuses Russia of supplying the young republics with weapons. Tanks are often mentioned, but not a single tangible proof was yet given. I would be naïve to think that Russia didn't issue some help, but it is most probably limited to intel and advisors. Russia also accuses of US with supplying the punisher battalions, and recent trophies from Debalcevo show that these accusations were not unfounded...
As for history - that should be the first stop for anyone trying to understand any conflict, not just Ukraine.
If you are interested, the following report is a very good summary of the historical background:
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/free-earth-shift-report-2-the-falsified-history-of-ukraine-and-its-lessons/
If you don't want to read it in full, scroll down to the sections, titled "What are the Roots of the Radical Russophobia in Ukraine?", "THE REAL HISTORY OF UKRAINE" and "Earlier history of Ukraine".
Two more history overviews, written by another Ukrainian:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Ukraine-The-US-Vote-at-the-by-George-Eliason-Denial_Genocide_Genocide_Holocaust-141126-844.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ukraine–Why-Bandera-Have-by-George-Eliason-Communism_Extreme_Hitler_Ideology-140801-8.html
Found recommendations for the following book on the history of Ukraine. It seems the book is written in the objective manner:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Ukraine.html?id=l5uiWHgRphQC&redir_esc=y
So much fail in one statement. First, you'll discover that there are quite a lot of people here interested in a multi-polar view on events. Second, you are obviously NOT watching Russian TV. If you did, you'd know that USA gets a rather small share of air time, on par with Finland or Italy.
I watch Russian TV ( 1Channel, not RussianTV on USA network) and you are lying. USA is constantly in the news and is shown as aggressor and the cause of everything that is wrong in the world and Russia.
And it's not just TV, visit any Russian new site and see for yourself.
Here is current http://www.gazeta.ru/ 10 "news of the day":
...
3 oil related, 2 Ukraine related, one Denmark, one Russia and THREE that has to do with USA, out of which TWO has nothing to do with internal affairs ( a school/weapon and train crush in California)...
Actually, you are supporting my claim.
Two of those article about USA is just normal reporting....
That kind of news would be retorted the same way if the shooting happened in Finland or the train crash happened in India.
Your claim was that Finland or Italy gets as much reporting as USA, and that is just 100% lie easily disprovable by visiting any Russian new site. That's not normal reporting,
There were 10 times more people who died in the avalanche in Afghanistan that happened the same day, and it got almost no coverage from any of those news sites you quoted comparing to train crush in USA.
Quote
Other sources which I prefer: ... ria.ru are more balanced
Ok let's look at ria.ru set to Moscow location:
01:09 MBД oблacти: двoe пoдpocтoкoв в Дoнeцкoй oблacти пoдopвaлиcь нa минe
01:03 Moлния: Глaвe MBД дoлoжeнo oб yбийcтвe Heмцoвa, yжe ввeдeн плaн "Пepexвaт"
00:56 Гocкoмиccия ПMP ypeзaлa мapтoвcкиe зapплaты и пeнcии нa 30%
00:45 Яшин: Бopиc Heмцoв yбит в цeнтpe Mocквы
00:38 Биpжи CШA зaкpылиcь в минyce нa дaнныx пo BBП cтpaны
00:36 Чacть cepoй вeтки мeтpo Mocквы зaкpывaeтcя нa дeнь нa peмoнт
00:19 КибepБepкyт: CШA xoтят дoвepить пocтaвки opyжия Киeвy чacтным фиpмaм
00:15 Typция и EК пoдпиcaли coглaшeниe o пpoгpaммe пo зaнятocти
23:55 Oбaмa: зaбoлeвaeмocть Эбoлoй coкpaтилacь в Либepии в 20 paз
If I click on the "all news" will I see that Germany's stock market closed down on worry of Greece support burden ? Nah, that's not the news, the "USA is going down because of GDP" is the news.
Just for fun: of the first 100 news 16 have ONLY to do with USA ( so not USA and some other country...) while all other countries even MENTIONED in the article i.e. "Spain in Ukraine" or Turkey signs gas agreement total to 12.
They all must've had the slow news day I guess... only it was not as evidenced by going to bbc or AP or AlJazera.
Once again: Russia's media is absolutely concentrating on USA and posting every news possible to show what a horrible bad country it is, fairly or not.
As for speaking about USA as an aggressor. It is well-founded, though Russia was very moderate at expression its displeasure. Until very recently Putin was still referring to USA and NATO as "partners"...
Also, turnabout is a fair play, so let's look at the following simple thought experiment: Imagine that Russia facilitates a violent coup d'etat in Mexico, then basically appoints a new government there and instigates a military operation on the Mexican/US border. Then Russia talks about supplying the Mexicans with weapons, while de facto doing it, and hampers any attempt at peace. In addition is spreads slander about Omaba in particular and USA in general and hits Microsoft, as well as some prominent political and cultural figures, like Madonna, with sanctions. Question: How would USA behave in such a scenario?
Also, turnabout is a fair play, so let's look at the following simple thought experiment: Imagine that Russia facilitates a violent coup d'etat in Mexico, then basically appoints a new government there and instigates a military operation on the Mexican/US border. Then Russia talks about supplying the Mexicans with weapons, while de facto doing it, and hampers any attempt at peace. In addition is spreads slander about Omaba in particular and USA in general and hits Microsoft, as well as some prominent political and cultural figures, like Madonna, with sanctions. Question: How would USA behave in such a scenario?
You don't even have to raise a hypothetical. Look at how the US reacted to the Cuban Missile Crisis (1: I know the Russian refer to it differently). Or how the US responded to the Zimmerman Telegram with Germany in WWI. That will tell you how the US responds to threats to it. As an American, I agree, the US historically is an aggressor. 2: But that doesn't render your depiction of the events accurate in Ukraine.
Each side arguing for their subjective version of the truth of what is going on in Ukraine just seems so pointlessly futile. Neither side is going to convince the other that they're not buying into propaganda, so what's the point in citing news sources that the other side will just dismiss outright as lies? As much as you know that the US is orchestrating this whole thing, the West knows with the same confidence that Russia is instigating the rebellion. As much as the West knows that Russian media is full of garbage, I'm sure you know with the same level of confidence the western media reports are wrong. 3: Each side believes their knowledge is unassailable. You can't counter that level of dogma.
1: It's called the Caribbean Crisis in Russia. Little known fact: the Soviet Union's placement of nukes on Cuba was a response to USA's placement of nukes in Turkey. This is glossed over, but it shows the whole crisis from a different light. And, yes, USA removed their nukes from Turkey when USSR agreed to pull theirs from Cuba.
2: I wasn't aiming for an accurate depiction, but for a somewhat comparable analogy. The situation in Ukraine is much more complex, and has 100 years of history, starting with break-up of Russia in 1917 and creation of Ukraine by Lenin, building up to what we have today.
3: That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try. The more both sides try to unmask each other, the more cross-referencing data we get, which with time will help to build a truthful picture. As they say in Russia, all that is hidden will become apparent. There also come people, who, despite differences, are prepared to hear each other out and to try to rebuild bridges. Back during the Cuban Crisis, John A. Scali and Alexander Feklisov were such people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Secret_negotiations)
On your first point, I'm well aware. I studied US Cold War foreign policy in college. From the US perspective, having the Jupiter missiles in Turkey was a great success, because it gave them a bargaining chip to trade with the Soviets over the Cuba missiles. And the Jupiter missiles were largely breaking down (it's unlikely they could even have been launched, or if they could, would have been ineffective) and they were also redundant anyway, so taking them out of Turkey was no great loss to the US's overall strategy. Of course, the US still spun the withdrawal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba as an unmitigated victory, and didn't announce anything about the Jupiter missiles. Both sides still sought to control the perception of the crisis for political reasons.
2: I agree, asking the media to understand the nuance of a complex situation is futile. Asking them to report on it is impossible.
3: Fair point, and I don't disagree. But most of the "debate" I've seen hasn't attempted to find common ground. It's based in very hyperbolic language. "The US is instigated the uprising," or "The US is fighting a proxy war against Russia." These concepts are so simplistic they are automatically wrong, but the entire rest of the debate is built on top of "facts" like this. I know there are similar overly-simplistic theses on my side of the aisle upon which arguments are constructed in the same faulty manner. To the extent anyone is attempting to find objective truth, I applaud and encourage those efforts. But starting with the premise "everything you say is wrong" is so closed-minded, that nothing said after that can hope to make any impact whatsoever. And these are the quality of the statements I see most often on topic threads about Ukraine. I'm interested in objective truth, as much as it can possibly be known, and objective truth in this instance involves understanding the nuance and history that is so often ignored for the haste of making a quick judgement on who is the "bad guy."
As for speaking about USA as an aggressor. It is well-founded, though Russia was very moderate at expression its displeasure. Until very recently Putin was still referring to USA and NATO as "partners"...
Also, turnabout is a fair play, so let's look at the following simple thought experiment: Imagine that Russia facilitates a violent coup d'etat in Mexico, then basically appoints a new government there and instigates a military operation on the Mexican/US border. Then Russia talks about supplying the Mexicans with weapons, while de facto doing it, and hampers any attempt at peace. In addition is spreads slander about Omaba in particular and USA in general and hits Microsoft, as well as some prominent political and cultural figures, like Madonna, with sanctions. Question: How would USA behave in such a scenario?
Also, turnabout is a fair play, so let's look at the following simple thought experiment: Imagine that Russia facilitates a violent coup d'etat in Mexico, then basically appoints a new government there and instigates a military operation on the Mexican/US border. Then Russia talks about supplying the Mexicans with weapons, while de facto doing it, and hampers any attempt at peace. In addition is spreads slander about Omaba in particular and USA in general and hits Microsoft, as well as some prominent political and cultural figures, like Madonna, with sanctions. Question: How would USA behave in such a scenario?
You don't even have to raise a hypothetical. Look at how the US reacted to the Cuban Missile Crisis (1: I know the Russian refer to it differently). Or how the US responded to the Zimmerman Telegram with Germany in WWI. That will tell you how the US responds to threats to it. As an American, I agree, the US historically is an aggressor. 2: But that doesn't render your depiction of the events accurate in Ukraine.
Each side arguing for their subjective version of the truth of what is going on in Ukraine just seems so pointlessly futile. Neither side is going to convince the other that they're not buying into propaganda, so what's the point in citing news sources that the other side will just dismiss outright as lies? As much as you know that the US is orchestrating this whole thing, the West knows with the same confidence that Russia is instigating the rebellion. As much as the West knows that Russian media is full of garbage, I'm sure you know with the same level of confidence the western media reports are wrong. 3: Each side believes their knowledge is unassailable. You can't counter that level of dogma.
1: It's called the Caribbean Crisis in Russia. Little known fact: the Soviet Union's placement of nukes on Cuba was a response to USA's placement of nukes in Turkey. This is glossed over, but it shows the whole crisis from a different light. And, yes, USA removed their nukes from Turkey when USSR agreed to pull theirs from Cuba.
2: I wasn't aiming for an accurate depiction, but for a somewhat comparable analogy. The situation in Ukraine is much more complex, and has 100 years of history, starting with break-up of Russia in 1917 and creation of Ukraine by Lenin, building up to what we have today.
3: That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try. The more both sides try to unmask each other, the more cross-referencing data we get, which with time will help to build a truthful picture. As they say in Russia, all that is hidden will become apparent. There also come people, who, despite differences, are prepared to hear each other out and to try to rebuild bridges. Back during the Cuban Crisis, John A. Scali and Alexander Feklisov were such people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Secret_negotiations)
Jump to: