Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Putin will retaliate against NATO missiles


seeder

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin warns he'll retaliate against NATO missiles

 (CNN).   Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia will retaliate against the placement of U.S. missiles in nearby countries such as Romania, according to Russia's state-run news agency TASS.

The United States launched a ground-based missile defense system earlier this month in Romania. The system is meant to defend Europe against rogue states like Iran and not intended to target Moscow's missiles, Washington has said.

Putin issued his threat during a news conference Friday after meeting with Greek Prime Minister Aleksis Tsipras in Athens.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/28/europe/putin-threatens-romania/index.html

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missiles are defensive only with no warheads according to NATO. Let's see what he does soon.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Putin parlance I think ANY weapon that can stop he and his country from exercising their "rights" is an offensive weapon.  Putin was/is a known street fighter.  He even got dumped from a prestigious spy training program in the KGB because of his undisciplined approach to interacting with street thugs.  Instead of being trained and groomed for 3 years so he could go to the West, he got his arm broken in a fight with several thugs that he thought he could handle alone.  He wound up going to Dresden, in East Germany.  Bottom line, he's a scrapper and doesn't easily back down.  For the next 8 months or so he has a coward to deal with in the American president and I think he plans to take full advantage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's starting to sound more and more like North Korea.  /rollseyesatRussia

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

He's starting to sound more and more like North Korea.  /rollseyesatRussia

what would our reaction be if Russia started to install missile systems in neighbouring countries. Im sure we'd warn of retaliation. The way Russia views the missile shield is, Russia loses the ability to retaliate - Russia would be at the mercy of others - they could be attacked but loses the ability to strike back because of the shield. now we can pretend its for rogue nations such as Iran, but we all know the true purpose is Russia. The Defence shield is another stupid idea rubbing up Russia the wrong way. 

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

what would our reaction be if Russia started to install missile systems in neighbouring countries. Im sure we'd warn of retaliation. The way Russia views the missile shield is, Russia loses the ability to retaliate - Russia would be at the mercy of others - they could be attacked but loses the ability to strike back because of the shield. now we can pretend its for rogue nations such as Iran, but we all know the true purpose is Russia. The Defence shield is another stupid idea rubbing up Russia the wrong way. 

Here's the difference.  We do it in the name of defense, he would do it as an aggressive move against us.  There is no reason for Russia to "retaliate" against anything at this time.  We aren't the aggressors, they are, a defense shield only makes sense at this time.  If Russia is angry about it, they should reevaluate themselves and their actions.  It's really that simple.

Imagine burglars getting angry for someone placing a home-security monitoring system or some such thing.  This is similar to Putin's latest tantrum.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

what would our reaction be if Russia started to install missile systems in neighbouring countries. Im sure we'd warn of retaliation. The way Russia views the missile shield is, Russia loses the ability to retaliate - Russia would be at the mercy of others - they could be attacked but loses the ability to strike back because of the shield. now we can pretend its for rogue nations such as Iran, but we all know the true purpose is Russia. The Defence shield is another stupid idea rubbing up Russia the wrong way. 

We did warn of retaliation once under something of the same conditions , Cuba once placed russian missiles near our borders and we lost our damn minds. 

I agree this is an offensive move rather than defensive and im honestly scared of the US pushing Russia too far. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

Here's the difference.  We do it in the name of defense, he would do it as an aggressive move against us.  There is no reason for Russia to "retaliate" against anything at this time.  We aren't the aggressors, they are, a defense shield only makes sense at this time.  If Russia is angry about it, they should reevaluate themselves and their actions.  It's really that simple.

Imagine burglars getting angry for someone placing a home-security monitoring system or some such thing.  This is similar to Putin's latest tantrum.

Farmer77 has stole my thunder, this shield is offensive. The problem arises it allows a foreign force to attack Russia and takes away Russian ability to retaliate. So your asking Russia to have faith in that the foreign force wont attack them and in the meantime Russia is just to allow that foreign force to make the shield stronger by adding more installations. Its all part of the plan to encircle Russia and contain the them. and they know it. It was and still remains the USA defence shield, shielding the USA but hopeless for us in Europe. akin to the 4 minute warning.

If the roles were reversed. and Russia built a defence shield that meant we had to solely rely on the good will of the Russians, because if they attacked the shield prevents us from retaliating would we just sit on our hands? do nothing and have good faith in Russia. the Shield is taking away the deterrence aspect for a sovereign country.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

1,400 US soldiers & 400 vehicles head to Baltics for Saber Strike drills

 US forces have been seen on the “Dragoon Ride II” tactical march across central and Eastern Europe in massive military drills, which this year are in the Baltic States. Over 1,400 soldiers and 400 vehicles displayed their “dynamic presence.”

US servicemen have started Dragoon Ride II, a “2,200-kilometer tactical road march from the town of Vilseck, Germany to Estonia,” before annual drills, the US army official website said.

https://www.rt.com/news/344697-nato-drills-kicks-europe/

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The United Kingdom will offer to deploy 1,000 troops backed by tanks and artillery in the Baltic republics as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) military buildup on the Russian border, The Times said.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – The deployment would make up one of four 4,000-strong NATO battalions, two of which are planned to be manned by the US armed forces and one by German troops.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160529/1040434960/uk-nato-baltics.html#ixzz4A5M7wnim

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical Yanks at it again, they seem to think they own the world. If you mess with Putin you'll get your ar-se spanked. "Hope so."

Edited by Brooksey
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brooksey said:

Typical Yanks at it again, they seem to think they own the world. If you mess with Putin you'll get your ar-se spanked. "Hope so."

 

Another Stupid Post.jpg

574b7a145d0a2_AnotherStupidPost.jpg.9830

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

So your asking Russia to have faith in that the foreign force wont attack them and in the meantime Russia is just to allow that foreign force to make the shield stronger by adding more installations.

NO, I'm asking Russia to play nice with the rest of the world and stop threatening it's neighbors, and invading it's neighbors and not give the rest of the world a reason to be on the defense against them.

Edited by Thorvir Hrothgaard
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how stationing soldiers in a sovereign contry is any of Russias concern, as long as they are there with the consent of the host country. 

Why are Russia concerned about NATO troops in the Baltic countries anyway. Its not like they have previously attacked a neighboring country. They would never do that, would they ? *

They have previously threatened my country with a nuclear attack if we upgraded our new frigates with anti ballistic missile capabilities. What a nice neighbor.*  http://www.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-russia-idUSKBN0MI0ML20150322

 

*) Warning: This post contains more than your daily recommended dose of sarcasm.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

We did warn of retaliation once under something of the same conditions , Cuba once placed russian missiles near our borders and we lost our damn minds. 

I agree this is an offensive move rather than defensive and im honestly scared of the US pushing Russia too far. 

I see what you're saying here Farmer but one point - we DIDN'T lose our minds.  THAT is the biggest difference today.  Whether you liked his politics or not, JFK was a man with a spine.  The leaders in Russia knew he would do what he said.  Today tough boy Putin could not possibly care what our president says.  He reviles the weakness emanating off the "man".  Those defensive weapons can only be construed as offensive if they were so sophisticated and numerous that they could actually shut down a massive first strike response by Russia.  Does anyone really think that such a small installation meets that criteria?  No, I don't blame Putin for doing most of what he has done in the last few years.  I don't agree with it but I can understand that a strong leader will take advantage of a weak one.  THAT is human nature and it's what makes a weak US president a real danger to the world.  8 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

 

Another Stupid Post.jpg

Did you ever imagine you'd hear a Brit speak such drivel about us and FOR Russia?  The world has truly turned down a path to the surreal.  I mean, yes, we have our problems today but damn!  I wonder if all those out there - not just the UK but all our ostensible allies - have any clue what their futures would look like economically and socially if they had to pick up the REAL costs of keeping evil at bay in the world?  I expect to hear anger from our cousins over the pond and I don't care.  I'm an anglophile and always have been but it's time the world put up or shut up.  France, Italy, Germany, Britain and even our cousins Down Under to a point have ridden a gravy train off OUR defense spending and now they want to excoriate us for HOW MUCH we spend?  The glorious EU has been making rumblings about a combined, coherent force structure to help substantially with the load and I say the sooner the better!  Putin and his ambitions are in their backyard and it's time they sounded off like they had a pair.  Sheesh...I'll retire to Bedlam.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, South Alabam said:

Missiles are defensive only with no warheads according to NATO. Let's see what he does soon.

Well he's already threatened the west in a indirect manner, especially with this... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34797252

 

I think the problem IMO is a case of Russia not accepting that it isn't the power it once was. It lost the cold war and America won. The winners usually dictate and the losers compromise. Still Russia is a powerful nation and deserving of respect and dialog. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have our Nuclear deterrent to deter Russia, So why do we need the shield? only So we can lob missiles at them and prevent them lobbing them back at us. I ask again. which country would do nothing in response to that? - were making mistakes once more. all this shield will lead to is an arms race. Russia will make faster missiles, deploy more subs, or worse they might try and deploy missiles in South America. But If Russia was to do the latter, would we expect the US to do nothing? Yes, because where asking Russia to do nothing as we ever increasing expanding into the East. gobbling up ex-soviet Union states, sharing borders with Russia. - where is our buffer zone between East (Russia)  and West? (NATO) guess what happens if you have no buffer zone. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

NO, I'm asking Russia to play nice with the rest of the world and stop threatening it's neighbors, and invading it's neighbors and not give the rest of the world a reason to be on the defense against them.

 

 I disagree with your assessment --- 

Russia has legitimate business around it's borders and when America (with Europe in tow) starts playing provocative warmongering games in those areas Russia has no choice but to get involved - 

America has recently declared Russia to be it's number one enemy - which in itself is aggressive - and there isn't even the excuse of communism any more - but presumably the US  Arms Industry needs an '''enemy'' like Russia to make a lot of sales and money ---

When it comes to threatening and invading other countries, like it or not, America doesn't have a very good track record -- and it's military actions in the MIddle East  has caused serious damage to the region and with the knock on effect,  the wider world - 

 

.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Farmer77 has stole my thunder, this shield is offensive. The problem arises it allows a foreign force to attack Russia and takes away Russian ability to retaliate. So your asking Russia to have faith in that the foreign force wont attack them and in the meantime Russia is just to allow that foreign force to make the shield stronger by adding more installations. Its all part of the plan to encircle Russia and contain the them. and they know it. It was and still remains the USA defence shield, shielding the USA but hopeless for us in Europe. akin to the 4 minute warning.

If the roles were reversed. and Russia built a defence shield that meant we had to solely rely on the good will of the Russians, because if they attacked the shield prevents us from retaliating would we just sit on our hands? do nothing and have good faith in Russia. the Shield is taking away the deterrence aspect for a sovereign country.

 

well put Steve - why is the bleedin' obvious so hard to see for some people ---

 

I know that internal propaganda teaches American citizens that they are the good guys and the Russians the bad guys --- same with us here in Britain -

but really ----- a bit of level headed analysis never did anyone any harm (except the propaganda pedlars ) ^_^

 

.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, and then said:

Did you ever imagine you'd hear a Brit speak such drivel about us and FOR Russia?  The world has truly turned down a path to the surreal.  I mean, yes, we have our problems today but damn!  I wonder if all those out there - not just the UK but all our ostensible allies - have any clue what their futures would look like economically and socially if they had to pick up the REAL costs of keeping evil at bay in the world?  I expect to hear anger from our cousins over the pond and I don't care.  I'm an anglophile and always have been but it's time the world put up or shut up.  France, Italy, Germany, Britain and even our cousins Down Under to a point have ridden a gravy train off OUR defense spending and now they want to excoriate us for HOW MUCH we spend?  The glorious EU has been making rumblings about a combined, coherent force structure to help substantially with the load and I say the sooner the better!  Putin and his ambitions are in their backyard and it's time they sounded off like they had a pair.  Sheesh...I'll retire to Bedlam.

Yes you're right. America has shouldered the burden of defending the west and in particular Europe all these years. And let's be honest, Russia would reinstate the Soviet Union if it could. Putin is very ambitious. But then again it's that very ambition that has created cooperation with the U.S. In Syria. Russia won't retreat into its borders. I don't think anyone should expect them too either. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bee said:

 

well put Steve - why is the bleedin' obvious so hard to see for some people ---

 

I know that internal propaganda teaches American citizens that they are the good guys and the Russians the bad guys --- same with us here in Britain -

but really ----- a bit of level headed analysis never did anyone any harm (except the propaganda pedlars ) ^_^

 

.

I think its hard to see for some people because Russia annexing Crimea (Ukraine) and South Ossetia/Georgia etc... is held up as validation. see look we was right Russia cannot be trusted. But what people seem to forget or possibly don't know these incursions are in response to external forces. doesn't always have to be hard power, most of it is soft power and goes unnoticed. Ukraine is the perfect example, for well over a decade the EU courted Ukraine with Soft power, and when they lost out to Russia they the EU had no Army, so had to rely on soft power alone. Democratically elected government & President overthrown, by the Dark forces of the EU/West the same president who only a day earlier was the West's best friend. all the experts in the world Knew Russia would never allow Crimea to fall into Western hands. yet We continued with a policy of expansionism and when Russia came out fighting we was shocked. I think the Governments knew, they just took a gamble and the gamble backfired. So the picture has to be painted its Russia's fault for having its own geopolitical interests. - First off the EU should have offered Russia the same EU association agreement as they offered Ukraine and there should have been no mention of future EU membership or hint of membership of NATO to Ukraine: 

You only have to look at the EU, its gobbling up all these failed corrupt countries, whos economies are on the floor - you have to ask what have all these countries got that the EU NEEDS. take Ukraine, in 2010 its economy was bailed out by the IMF to the tune of $15 Billion. and its economy was on the ropes in 2000, Russia had been selling them cheap gas for years, The EU see Ukraine as a Prize, a Prize that's costing us dearly. and nearly spilled over into full on confrontation with a global power. 

The West should have stuck to its original cold war promises. no expansion to the East, keep the bufferzone. instead look what's happened. one only has to look at a Map, When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 we should have left the Baltics states of Estonia, Lithuania, Lithuania, -  Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania has bufferzones. offer trade deals and associations but not full membership of NATO or the EU, but look what happened today nearly all are part of the EU & NATO, Somehow we've got ourselves involved with countries with high percentages of ethnic Russians which raises its own diplomatic problems, and that's before we consider countries such as Estonia who doesn't even have an Air force to speak of and is relying on NATO fighters to police its Airspace. and we've still got all the problems of the EU's Eastern Partnership to come. Problems of our own making.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bee said:

 

Russia has legitimate business around it's borders and when America (with Europe in tow) starts playing provocative warmongering games in those areas Russia has no choice but to get involved - 

So annexing Crimea ,starting a war in Eastern Ukraine and invading Georgia is "legitimate business around it's borders" ? Really ?

The US and Europe wouldn't have to "play provocative warmongering" in the first place if Russia just minded its own business. Do you remember what happened the last time we let a bullying country get away with it for too long ?

Relations with Russia was quite good before Putin started his agressive power play. Russia is in a situation that is entirely of its own making. 

Its all nice for people that live in countries far away from the potential trouble spots, but some of us live in countries that would almost certainly be heavily involved if Russia tries something stupid.

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

I think its hard to see for some people because Russia annexing Crimea (Ukraine) and South Ossetia/Georgia etc... is held up as validation. see look we was right Russia cannot be trusted. But what people seem to forget or possibly don't know these incursions are in response to external forces. doesn't always have to be hard power, most of it is soft power and goes unnoticed. Ukraine is the perfect example, for well over a decade the EU courted Ukraine with Soft power, and when they lost out to Russia they the EU had no Army, so had to rely on soft power alone. Democratically elected government & President overthrown, by the Dark forces of the EU/West the same president who only a day earlier was the West's best friend. all the experts in the world Knew Russia would never allow Crimea to fall into Western hands. yet We continued with a policy of expansionism and when Russia came out fighting we was shocked. I think the Governments knew, they just took a gamble and the gamble backfired. So the picture has to be painted its Russia's fault for having its own geopolitical interests. - First off the EU should have offered Russia the same EU association agreement as they offered Ukraine and there should have been no mention of future EU membership or hint of membership of NATO to Ukraine: 

You only have to look at the EU, its gobbling up all these failed corrupt countries, whos economies are on the floor - you have to ask what have all these countries got that the EU NEEDS. take Ukraine, in 2010 its economy was bailed out by the IMF to the tune of $15 Billion. and its economy was on the ropes in 2000, Russia had been selling them cheap gas for years, The EU see Ukraine as a Prize, a Prize that's costing us dearly. and nearly spilled over into full on confrontation with a global power. 

The West should have stuck to its original cold war promises. no expansion to the East, keep the bufferzone. instead look what's happened. one only has to look at a Map, When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990 we should have left the Baltics states of Estonia, Lithuania, Lithuania, -  Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania has bufferzones. offer trade deals and associations but not full membership of NATO or the EU, but look what happened today nearly all are part of the EU & NATO, Somehow we've got ourselves involved with countries with high percentages of ethnic Russians which raises its own diplomatic problems, and that's before we consider countries such as Estonia who doesn't even have an Air force to speak of and is relying on NATO fighters to police its Airspace. and we've still got all the problems of the EU's Eastern Partnership to come. Problems of our own making.

 

Yes lets all blame the EU for what Russia does. Makes sense..................apparently. :wacko:

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.