Russia commits act of war.

[+Hammerclaw]

Ron Paul isn't Canadian. By the way, it's not "bashing" if it's true.

What is truth?

[stevewinn]

I was saying just the other day why dont NATO members send troops and armour to any of the Baltic countries. well i missed yesterdays announcement by the UK defence secretary that -

UK 'battle group' to take part in exercises in Poland

Typhoon jets have already taken part in exercises in the region

The UK is to send a "full battle group" of 1,350 military personnel for exercises in Poland, amid rising tension with Russia over Ukraine.

They will take part in Nato manoeuvres in October to support allies in Eastern Europe, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said during a trip to Warsaw.

It is the UK's largest such commitment to the region since 2008. Mr Fallon said Britain was playing a "central role" in responding to Russian actions in Ukraine.

Some 350 armoured and other vehicles will be involved in the October exercises, known as Black Eagle.

The UK has already sent RAF Typhoon jets to support Nato in the region following Russia's annexation of Crimea and British personnel have taken part in small-scale Army exercises. The Black Eagle exercises will take place in addition to an already announced Nato exercise in Poland, Sabre Junction, in which UK troops will take part in August.

'Sustained support'

Mr Fallon said the October exercises would "demonstrate our commitment to the collective security of our allies in Eastern Europe... [and show] our sustained and substantial support to Nato's eastern border.

"We have a strong opportunity at the Nato summit [in September] to discuss how we will continue our response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and its destabilisation of eastern Ukraine. "The UK is playing a central role and we are not ruling out further enhancements." Britain has previously warned the west may have to "fundamentally change" its approach to Russia after the downing of a Malaysia Airlines plane over eastern Ukraine earlier this month.

The announcement of British involvement in the exercises in Poland comes ahead of the Nato summit in Wales in September, when international leaders will discuss how to respond to future threats.

"

These exercises are becoming quite serious.

We are not just sending a few men

”

Prof Michael Clarke Royal United Services Institute

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28530283

See this is the problem we have by allowing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into NATO we increase the probability of making NATO irrelevant, if we are seen not to act in defence of a NATO member no matter how small. and like in both WWI and WWII we could find ourselves going to war over a small country.

[Deleted]

Well hopefully you people don`t get the war you are yearning for.

[stevewinn]

Well hopefully you people don`t get the war you are yearning for.

send the Welsh Guards.

[+Hammerclaw]

I was saying just the other day why dont NATO members send troops and armour to any of the Baltic countries. well i missed yesterdays announcement by the UK defence secretary that -

UK 'battle group' to take part in exercises in Poland

Typhoon jets have already taken part in exercises in the region

The UK is to send a "full battle group" of 1,350 military personnel for exercises in Poland, amid rising tension with Russia over Ukraine.

They will take part in Nato manoeuvres in October to support allies in Eastern Europe, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said during a trip to Warsaw.

It is the UK's largest such commitment to the region since 2008. Mr Fallon said Britain was playing a "central role" in responding to Russian actions in Ukraine.

Some 350 armoured and other vehicles will be involved in the October exercises, known as Black Eagle.

The UK has already sent RAF Typhoon jets to support Nato in the region following Russia's annexation of Crimea and British personnel have taken part in small-scale Army exercises. The Black Eagle exercises will take place in addition to an already announced Nato exercise in Poland, Sabre Junction, in which UK troops will take part in August.

'Sustained support'

Mr Fallon said the October exercises would "demonstrate our commitment to the collective security of our allies in Eastern Europe... [and show] our sustained and substantial support to Nato's eastern border.

"We have a strong opportunity at the Nato summit [in September] to discuss how we will continue our response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and its destabilisation of eastern Ukraine. "The UK is playing a central role and we are not ruling out further enhancements." Britain has previously warned the west may have to "fundamentally change" its approach to Russia after the downing of a Malaysia Airlines plane over eastern Ukraine earlier this month.

The announcement of British involvement in the exercises in Poland comes ahead of the Nato summit in Wales in September, when international leaders will discuss how to respond to future threats.

"

These exercises are becoming quite serious.

We are not just sending a few men

”

Prof Michael Clarke Royal United Services Institute

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28530283

See this is the problem we have by allowing Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into NATO we increase the probability of making NATO irrelevant, if we are seen not to act in defence of a NATO member no matter how small. and like in both WWI and WWII we could find ourselves going to war over a small country.

Ready to chuck the smallest member off the back of the sled, already, are we?

[+Hammerclaw]

send the Welsh Guards.

http://youtu.be/3jXFebAjVco?list=PL6F11C54066A8E3BD Edited July 29, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[stevewinn]

Ready to chuck the smallest member off the back of the sled, already, are we?

My point was we shouldn't even have certain members on the sled. would you like the world to descend into war over Estonia for example? Its a good job Ukraine didn't achieve NATO membership otherwise we'd all now be at war with Russia. how good would that be. a catastrophe.

[Deleted]

http://rt.com/usa/176492-obama-accuses-russia-nuclear-treaty/

United States of Hypocracy speaks yet again.

[Helen of Annoy]

Oh, look, baby troll. *pinches rosy troll cheek* Shouldn’t you be sleeping under your bridge at this hour?

Anyway, I think the word you were unsuccessfully trying to spell is hypocrisy.

(Quoting Oxford dictionary: hypocrisy – noun - the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable belief than is the case.)

Now, hellwyr, baby, listen carefully, Russian rich started fleeing out of Russia. They are looking for sanctuaries for their families and their wealth in the West, preferably there where they can obtain citizenship.

There’s your chance. Switch places and passports with a rich Russian. You both would get exactly what you want, plus I wouldn’t have to feel sorry for you after reading your cries for help.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Helen of Annoy

[Helen of Annoy]

My point was we shouldn't even have certain members on the sled. would you like the world to descend into war over Estonia for example? Its a good job Ukraine didn't achieve NATO membership otherwise we'd all now be at war with Russia. how good would that be. a catastrophe.

Not really a post that deserves a comment, but I can't get it out of my head. So...

Well, it’s a great strategy you’ve got there. The more people you disgust, the more people will avoid you and one by one, your isolationist dream will come true.

[No Censorship]

What is truth?

Philosophers have been asking that question for millennia. Seriously, the truth is that our leaders helped topple Ukraine's legitimate, but admittedly corrupt, leaders in order to install new leaders who would be more beneficial to their economic and geopolitical aims and goals. We should have stayed out of their business (no pun intended). Smedley Butler, a true American hero, would have laughed at the establishment's propaganda. Don't get me wrong; there are no saints in this situation. All sides could stand in a circle and point fingers at each other for this reason or that reason. It's just that we're being sold a bill of goods....again! Some of us won't be fooled....again.

[+Hammerclaw]

Philosophers have been asking that question for millennia. Seriously, the truth is that our leaders helped topple Ukraine's legitimate, but admittedly corrupt, leaders in order to install new leaders who would be more beneficial to their economic and geopolitical aims and goals. We should have stayed out of their business (no pun intended). Smedley Butler, a true American hero, would have laughed at the establishment's propaganda. Don't get me wrong; there are no saints in this situation. All sides could stand in a circle and point fingers at each other for this reason or that reason. It's just that we're being sold a bill of goods....again! Some of us won't be fooled....again.

Of course we will. Edited July 30, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[+Hammerclaw]

http://rt.com/usa/17...nuclear-treaty/

United States of Hypocracy speaks yet again.

Are you sure you're Welsh?

[No Censorship]

Well hopefully you people don`t get the war you are yearning for.

Who is "you people"? I'm an American, and my forebears were major players in our war for independence. They played key roles at Cowpens and Kings Mountain. We've served in the military through the generations. More than half of my male relatives are/were in the armed services. My great grandpa won honors for his service in World War I, my grandpa and his brothers fought in World War II, the next generation were in the Vietnamese conflict, and the next generation were in the Iraq Wars. I sometimes regret that I didn't join the Marines with my best friend around that time. I didn't want to disrupt my studies.

I love my country and my people, and I respect our military for the members' sacrifices and service. We couldn't have freedom without them. I believe in a strong defense. Our veterans should go to the front of the line for help when they make the transition to civilian life (another thread). I see them as valuable patriots, and that's why they should be placed in harm's way *just* when that's the *only* course to take. We shouldn't attack or invade a country unless they attack or invade us. Our interventionist policies have led to unacceptable death, destruction, injuries, misery. War, like violence, should be a very last resort and used only when it's absolutely necessary.

[No Censorship]

Of course we will.

If we get honest information instead of massaged intelligence, and if we hear real journalism instead of state propaganda, we won't. Informed people are less likely to dance to war drums.

[+Hammerclaw]

If we get honest information instead of massaged intelligence, and if we hear real journalism instead of state propaganda, we won't. Informed people are less likely to dance to war drums.

I find your innocence....charming. Forget the Greek question. Truth is, more often than not, what people want it to be, and there's always enough "facts" that can be cited to support whatever that is. Sometimes the wisest of us are often the most foolish. Edited July 30, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[stevewinn]

Not really a post that deserves a comment, but I can't get it out of my head. So...

Well, it’s a great strategy you’ve got there. The more people you disgust, the more people will avoid you and one by one, your isolationist dream will come true.

My point is the credibility of NATO is at stake here. when you allow minnows to join you run the risk of testing that credibility and you need to ask the question are we really fully prepared to adhere to Article 5 If Russia was to attack one of those minnows. are we really prepared to go to war with a country with tactical nukes. because if we don't then there is a bigger issue - where would that leave NATO? should the giants risk house and home for a minnow. whose got no cultural ties, who we've got no national interest in? I'll put my cards on the table i dont want the United Kingdom entering into a full scale war with a great power and a power with tactical nukes for Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. Croatia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, or Romania. not when these countries do not take seriously their own defence. Its collective defence not, lets join Nato and huddle under the protective umbrella of others display token gestures in the hope the members who take defence serious come running to their rescue.

NATO took advantage of the collapse of the soviet union, they expanded, and we've seen former soviet satellite states join NATO and been prevented from falling back towards the Russian federation, great achievement if that was really NATO policy. but the real test comes when one of these states are threatened or attacked. the credibility of NATO, the credibility of collective defence will i feel turnout not to be that credible.

[Border Collie]

Well hopefully you people don`t get the war you are yearning for.

This is a very silly and ignorant post.

[Helen of Annoy]

My point is the credibility of NATO is at stake here. when you allow minnows to join you run the risk of testing that credibility and you need to ask the question are we really fully prepared to adhere to Article 5 If Russia was to attack one of those minnows. are we really prepared to go to war with a country with tactical nukes. because if we don't then there is a bigger issue - where would that leave NATO? should the giants risk house and home for a minnow. whose got no cultural ties, who we've got no national interest in? I'll put my cards on the table i dont want the United Kingdom entering into a full scale war with a great power and a power with tactical nukes for Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. Croatia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, or Romania. not when these countries do not take seriously their own defence. Its collective defence not, lets join Nato and huddle under the protective umbrella of others display token gestures in the hope the members who take defence serious come running to their rescue.

NATO took advantage of the collapse of the soviet union, they expanded, and we've seen former soviet satellite states join NATO and been prevented from falling back towards the Russian federation, great achievement if that was really NATO policy. but the real test comes when one of these states are threatened or attacked. the credibility of NATO, the credibility of collective defence will i feel turnout not to be that credible.

So the NATO, according to you, should be UK and US, looking the other way while Russia is fornicating across Europe.

But why would US make any alliances with that hypothetic UK as you want it, isolationist and out of EU?

Not only US wouldn’t need such UK, but you’d also directly oppose US interests by renewing your under-the-table alliance with Russia. That alliance made two world wars far messier than they could’ve been and prevented WWII from ending with defeat of both enemies of humanity (Nazis and soviets).

US, sole nuclear power in the end of WWII, capable of making Stalin order Red Army back to Russia, instead of doing just that, literally gave half of Europe as a present to USSR. Thus missing the chance to make the world actually a better place. On UK request, so that two giants, two empires, UK and Russia (now under USSR moniker), can live happily ever after.

But it’s water under the bridge. More blood than water and the bridge was burnt, but still, something long gone. Apart from history buffs, who should care?

Everyone.

Because you personally must be free to speak your mind, but if people don’t know history, they might be tricked into believing there’s nothing treacherous and self-destructive in your desire to give half of Europe as present to Putin.

Your loyalty is amazing, but the empires whose agreements you’re still trying to honour are dead, decomposed.

Europe, on the other hand, is young again. Thanks to all the lively, small fish that wiggled out of soviet net alive.

Smarter than you will use our experience and ability to overcome fear.

The fear our grandmothers (grandfathers were scarce) taught us not to ignore, but overcome.

You simply can’t imagine the intensity of that continuous fear in which every man lived in USSR, Warsaw pact members and also in proxies such as former Yugoslavia. (Though ex-Yu had sweet-sour relations with USSR, the system and methods were the same.) The foreign enemies, the class enemies, inner enemies, unredeemable and enemies to re-educate, organised and dispersed enemies, enemies of the people... there were more kinds of enemies in socialism than there were kinds of pussies in Dusk 'Till Dawn. And each common person was at least one kind of enemy.

Fat comrades who decided who’s enemy taught their children differently, they taught them to change terminology but not methods. To change the flag but not the mafia clan they belong to.

Are they psychopathic enough to order the launch of a nuke or two if the People pulls the carpet from under their feet? Probably. Will their orders be followed? Probably not.

"Probably" is not good enough, so the sanctions are setting slowly, slower than victims of aggression can bear. Ukraine is paying the huge portion of price for all of us, just like my tiny country paid our modest share of the same price 20 years ago.

Thank you for reassuring me it was worth it.

[+and-then]

My point is the credibility of NATO is at stake here. when you allow minnows to join you run the risk of testing that credibility and you need to ask the question are we really fully prepared to adhere to Article 5 If Russia was to attack one of those minnows. are we really prepared to go to war with a country with tactical nukes. because if we don't then there is a bigger issue - where would that leave NATO? should the giants risk house and home for a minnow. whose got no cultural ties, who we've got no national interest in? I'll put my cards on the table i dont want the United Kingdom entering into a full scale war with a great power and a power with tactical nukes for Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. Croatia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, or Romania. not when these countries do not take seriously their own defence. Its collective defence not, lets join Nato and huddle under the protective umbrella of others display token gestures in the hope the members who take defence serious come running to their rescue.

NATO took advantage of the collapse of the soviet union, they expanded, and we've seen former soviet satellite states join NATO and been prevented from falling back towards the Russian federation, great achievement if that was really NATO policy. but the real test comes when one of these states are threatened or attacked. the credibility of NATO, the credibility of collective defence will i feel turnout not to be that credible.

The 6 months it took NATO to push Gaddafi from power gave NATO a very serious black eye and I think Putin's behavior today may be related to that little dust up.

[Guest]

There is compelling evidence that the shooting down of that plane was just a false flag by Kiev to justify a stronger intervention by NATO. This is in the face of the Kiev army been defeated by the rebels.

Nothing makes sense about Russia doing it - absolutely nothing.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

They did it because they could. They same reason they shot down the one in the 80s.

[keithisco]

There is compelling evidence that the shooting down of that plane was just a false flag by Kiev to justify a stronger intervention by NATO. This is in the face of the Kiev army been defeated by the rebels.

Nothing makes sense about Russia doing it - absolutely nothing.

Br Cornelius

No there isn't ANY compelling evidence that it was orchestrated by Ukraine!! To make that claim you need to back it up with trustworthy sources.... but you don't have any do you? You also speak unforgiveable lies about the Army in Kiev, is Kiev under the control of Terrorists? No, it is not. Have the terrorists suffered another defeat in Eastern Ukraine? Yes they have.

In case your "rose tinted spectacles" have misinformed you yet again... NO-ONE is saying Russia downed the plane, they just gave the terrorists the MEANS to down the plane.

Take off your "Rose Tinted spectacles" , and realise that Russia wants to instil fear in its former Soviet Socialist Republics, such that they will forever live under the yoke of Russian Domination, and influence. They wanted independence from Russia, they have a right to expect it.... but not in your eyes, because none of it actually affects you on a personal level. <_<

[Helen of Annoy]

There is compelling evidence that the shooting down of that plane was just a false flag by Kiev to justify a stronger intervention by NATO. This is in the face of the Kiev army been defeated by the rebels.

Nothing makes sense about Russia doing it - absolutely nothing.

Br Cornelius

Would you like to buy Lenin's mausoleum? I'm selling it, for very reasonable price...

[stevewinn]

So the NATO, according to you, should be UK and US, looking the other way while Russia is fornicating across Europe.

But why would US make any alliances with that hypothetic UK as you want it, isolationist and out of EU?

Not only US wouldn’t need such UK, but you’d also directly oppose US interests by renewing your under-the-table alliance with Russia. That alliance made two world wars far messier than they could’ve been and prevented WWII from ending with defeat of both enemies of humanity (Nazis and soviets).

US, sole nuclear power in the end of WWII, capable of making Stalin order Red Army back to Russia, instead of doing just that, literally gave half of Europe as a present to USSR. Thus missing the chance to make the world actually a better place. On UK request, so that two giants, two empires, UK and Russia (now under USSR moniker), can live happily ever after.

But it’s water under the bridge. More blood than water and the bridge was burnt, but still, something long gone. Apart from history buffs, who should care?

Everyone.

Because you personally must be free to speak your mind, but if people don’t know history, they might be tricked into believing there’s nothing treacherous and self-destructive in your desire to give half of Europe as present to Putin.

Your loyalty is amazing, but the empires whose agreements you’re still trying to honour are dead, decomposed.

Europe, on the other hand, is young again. Thanks to all the lively, small fish that wiggled out of soviet net alive.

Smarter than you will use our experience and ability to overcome fear.

The fear our grandmothers (grandfathers were scarce) taught us not to ignore, but overcome.

You simply can’t imagine the intensity of that continuous fear in which every man lived in USSR, Warsaw pact members and also in proxies such as former Yugoslavia. (Though ex-Yu had sweet-sour relations with USSR, the system and methods were the same.) The foreign enemies, the class enemies, inner enemies, unredeemable and enemies to re-educate, organised and dispersed enemies, enemies of the people... there were more kinds of enemies in socialism than there were kinds of pussies in Dusk 'Till Dawn. And each common person was at least one kind of enemy.

Fat comrades who decided who’s enemy taught their children differently, they taught them to change terminology but not methods. To change the flag but not the mafia clan they belong to.

Are they psychopathic enough to order the launch of a nuke or two if the People pulls the carpet from under their feet? Probably. Will their orders be followed? Probably not.

"Probably" is not good enough, so the sanctions are setting slowly, slower than victims of aggression can bear. Ukraine is paying the huge portion of price for all of us, just like my tiny country paid our modest share of the same price 20 years ago.

Thank you for reassuring me it was worth it.

Your missing my point completely. the danger for NATO is NATO's credibility and that's much more important than Ukraine. - It's worth reminding ourselves Ukraine is not part of NATO. So its completely fine for NATO to increase defence in neighbouring NATO countries as a reassurance. As for stopping Russia who said? that should be done by NATO? It's not NATO's responsibility it should be left to the UN. but increasingly NATO is suffering from identity crisis and mission creep at some point NATO's resolve will be tested and this is the part im worried about because i cannot see the major powers going to full out war for one of the minnow countries who shouldn't have been allowed to join NATO in the first place - by allowing them to join - at that moment the credibility of NATO was put on the line, and this is when the hard questions are asked, are we truly prepared to potentially lose everything for the defence of Latvia? We entered two world wars for national interests. i fail to see the national interest at present.

I think were all agreed or are we? that last thing we want is a war with Russia? The way things are going with sanctions which are ever increasing and continually then at some point they'll bite and surely a red line will be crossed for Russia, Russia will either start flexing her muscle in different regions around the world or even worse see the tougher sanctions as an act of War and at that point all bets are off. Lets not push Russia past the point of no return. I think that point is way off in the distance but the more we increase our presence near the Russian border the more chance of a genuine mistake could happen which flips the whole thing into something of nightmares.

when was the last NATO-Russian stand off Kosovo? Syria maybe?