Russia Warns US, Supplying Arms To Ukraine "Will Have Dramatic Consequences"

a reply to: DJW001

than to react with knee jerk emotionalism to buzz words.

I'm sure that Obama is a puppet, I don't know what is real agenda behind him yet. I can't say it is communism or fascism or anything else that was before, it is not. They are imprinting docile behavior to the new generation of America.
Elevating fake Obama was a test how far they can go. I'm afraid there is no limit.

a reply to: kitzik

So which is it? Is Obama the greatest deceiver or merely a puppet? It certainly can't be both.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

It certainly can't be both.

He is puppet first of course. But if you compare him to other deceivers in the history, he may come first.

You often asking question "Who is Putin" ? Putin is not a puppet , but sure he is deceiver.
If he is a puppet too, he may be even greater deceiver than Obama and I'm wrong.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: kitzik

So which is it? Is Obama the greatest deceiver or merely a puppet? It certainly can't be both.

Obama is a "no war" President. He has done US a lot good by bringing boys home from 2 very hostile battlezones. This when people like McCain and Romney were saying that US will be in Iraq or Afghanistan for 100 years if needed. Forget about the billions blown up every month, count the soldiers killed and maimed for life...........count the trauma on families and thus society on the whole.

This all YOU right wing leaners would not understand or refuse to...........because Obama is not a whitey or a republican.

So bottomline is until US interests are DIRECTLY hurt, Obama will not go to war with MOST POWERFUL nuclear nation on EARTH. He will choose the sanctions and small scale weapons at the most.

Btw, Russia might have 10% more nukes than the US, but US is 50% smaller land size than Russia. So go figure the nuclear impact on each nation delivering 1500 missiles across the atlantic.

Idiot people on this forum are advocating war with Russia as if it is a ball game over the long weekend............something which will be over and then everybody comes home and goes to work the next day.

originally posted by: victor7

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: kitzik

So which is it? Is Obama the greatest deceiver or merely a puppet? It certainly can't be both.

Obama is a "no war" President. He has done US a lot good by bringing boys home from 2 very hostile battlezones. This when people like McCain and Romney were saying that US will be in Iraq or Afghanistan for 100 years if needed. Forget about the billions blown up every month, count the soldiers killed and maimed for life...........count the trauma on families and thus society on the whole.

This all YOU right wing leaners would not understand or refuse to...........because Obama is not a whitey or a republican.

So bottomline is until US interests are DIRECTLY hurt, Obama will not go to war with MOST POWERFUL nuclear nation on EARTH. He will choose the sanctions and small scale weapons at the most.

Btw, Russia might have 10% more nukes than the US, but US is 50% smaller land size than Russia. So go figure the nuclear impact on each nation delivering 1500 missiles across the atlantic.

Idiot people on this forum are advocating war with Russia as if it is a ball game over the long weekend............something which will be over and then everybody comes home and goes to work the next day.

One: Dude, I lean left. I call myself an independent, but I certainly lean toward the left. It never ceases to amazing me though, the labels that are slapped on me because I think a certain way.

Two: I am in no way advocating war with Russia. That's bad news for both sides.

Three: Don't know exactly why you always like to bring up that Russia is willing to go nuclear at the drop of a hat.

a reply to: victor7

Don't worry Victor7, the only war being fought here is economic, and Russia - with an economy the size of Italy and no diversification, cannot hope to win against the EU. Putin and his corrupt billionaire cadre know this. Hence, we'll have an outbreak of peace.

Oh, I am sure the separatists will fight on and Russia will covertly support them, but their violent cause is not sustainable.

Ukraine will move towards the liberal west and away from autocracy. Putin will have got his prize - Crimea - but the cost to Russia will be extraordinary because sanctions will persist and trust has been lost.

I am a positive person, but even Putin must see the writing on the wall. The fact that Minsk V2 has happened and Russia has recognised the pre-eminence of Ukrainian law, is a telling concession.

Regards

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Russia will have to go nuclear very quickly against the US, as when its military cannot even provide some decent body armor to the soldiers then one can imagine how much hollow they are in other areas.

Russian military is still 15 years behind i.e. in 20th Century on the whole. One or two elite brigades might have parity with the west but that's about it.

Only chance they have against the US is in the event they can keep USAF at a distance. Then home ground and vicinity with higher numbers of old equipment might help them prolong the battles.

Btw, left leaning or right..........i don't care............its what is written is that matters. How come you are blaming Russia for Ukraine crisis when NATO expansion is the main reason what Russia is doing in Donbass covertly. In that case, your views are not only Right but Right Wing Fascist. NATO expansion eastward is nothing but a fascist agenda hidden in NWO layers.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Russia will have to go nuclear very quickly against the US, as when its military cannot even provide some decent body armor to the soldiers then one can imagine how much hollow they are in other areas.

Russian military is still 15 years behind i.e. in 20th Century on the whole. One or two elite brigades might have parity with the west but that's about it.

Only chance they have against the US is in the event they can keep USAF at a distance. Then home ground and vicinity with higher numbers of old equipment might help them prolong the battles.

Btw, left leaning or right..........i don't care............its what is written is that matters. How come you are blaming Russia for Ukraine crisis when NATO expansion is the main reason what Russia is doing in Donbass covertly. In that case, your views are not only Right but Right Wing Fascist. NATO expansion eastward is nothing but a fascist agenda hidden in NWO layers.

Russia and the West/NATO/EU are equally at fault for the situation in Ukraine. I think I said it before in another thread, but it's worth saying here. There are no innocent parties. If that makes me a "Right-Wing Fascist" in your head, I'll wear that label proudly.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Odd I didn't see the west sending troops in to Georgia or Crimea or eastern Ukraine. Didn't see the west send in right wing fascists to lead a rebellion not to mention supply them with weapons that got thousands of civilians killed. Only one persons fault and that's Putin when he saw his economic union falling apart he decided to use force.

This left the west only one option oppose blatant colonialism. Though granted there response has been inadequate and this on itself has caused lives.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: naftaland

This comment above is Wise. In all of this Putin rhetoric, what has been overlooked is that the Ukrainian people have been pushed too hard. More weapons means an expanded Draft to intolerably include the women. Compromising the basic needs of the Ukrainian civilian population for the glories of this war and posturing to Putin invites a Second Revolution.

To an extent however we would not be at this point had one side not started this mess. We also would not be at this point had one side not supplies arms, support and personnel.

originally posted by: naftaland
The West and Kiev demand Eastern Ukraine be brought back under Kiev's control. The reality is that the majority of Ukrainian people have a very different opinion on if they should be injured or killed, or to do the same to a rebel or Russian, to gain control of a place where they do not live or visit, for the glory of Kiev. The longer this war goes on, the more likely the existing Ukrainian government will be overthrown. In such an event, a UN Peacekeeping force would be required. Better send them in now rather than later.

While at the same time Putin is demanding the east / south and Crimea be brought back under soviet control.


Peacekeepers might work provided a country with the ability and training of their soldiers to face both sides can be found not to mention acceptable to both sides.

However the issue still remains the rebels never signed onto this agreement so their compliance with it remains to be seen.

Putin, or The West, can demand whatever they want. They can supply arms in there, or not. They can take territory they cannot hold. What has not been taken is the pulse of the Ukrainian people. It is their country. They occupy it permanently. As all of these powerful people and organizations want this and that, and the people's will has been ignored. The Peacekeepers, whomever they are, if they are respected by the Ukrainian people, can work. To solve the problems in Ukraine, Putin, Obama, the politicians in Kiev, mainstream media are Ignorable. There is too much attention paid to these few, and it is silly to care what they want. The power is with the Ukrainian population, not with these politicians. If everyone wants to keep pushing the Ukrainian people, we are going to find out who is Boss in Ukraine.

a reply to: naftaland

What has not been taken is the pulse of the Ukrainian people.

The people of Ukraine expressed themselves on the Maidan; that is why there has been such an intense propaganda offensive to de-legitimize the protests and vilify the elected government.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I'm starting to begin to understand that there is almost no way to peaceably resolve the Ukraine conflict. Putin refuses to withdraw his troops and arm from Ukraine territory, and the West is refusing to let Putin have his way in Ukraine.

I hope cooler heads prevail during the conference, but it seems apparent these talks are merely a formality, so the west can say "We tried", and justify arming Ukraine.

Not that I don't agree with arming Ukraine, but I think Russia will respond violently.

Yeah! maybe now Russia will arm Alabama if it decides to seceded from the union, as a proportional payback to what the US is doing in Russia's sphere. Seems fitting to me, and by arming Ukraine, the US is leaving the door wide open for Russia to reciprocate if and when some US state breaks away from the madness that is DC.

originally posted by: stirling

originally posted by: crazyewok
Honestly why is the US pocking its grubby noses in Ukraine?

Why cant the US just piss of and leave Ukraine to war on its own. The last thing a civil war needs anyway is MORE GUNS!.

Why does the US always feel the need to make things worse?


Anyway there are bigger threats the west is facing at the moments threats unlike Ukraine that are are actually threatening direct national security. Ie ISIS. concentrate on them FFS.

The threat from the Invasion of Ukraine is the biggest threat the free world faces right now Wok....ISIS ? ..meh

How so? How is it a "threat" to anyone other than Ukrainian politicians, who might get fired in the deal?

AND - what part of the modern world are you thinking is "free"? How is "the free world" under any sort of threat if it doesn't even exist?

originally posted by: nenothtu
as a proportional payback to what the US is doing in Russia's sphere.

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and falls within its own sphere and no side has the right to demand Ukraine to go to one side or the other. neither side can tell Ukraine who its trading partners will be.

As for the constant use of the term "sphere" I think those people should learn the historical significance of that term with regards to Russia and Nazi Germany. I don't want to hear bitching from people who dismiss the Nazi comparison when they use terms that are directly lifted from the alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Wiki - Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, named after the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and the German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, officially the Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,[a] and also known as the Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact or Nazi–Soviet Pact, was a non-aggression pact signed in Moscow in the late hours of 23 August 1939.

The pact's publicly stated intentions were a guarantee of non-belligerence by each party towards the other and a commitment that neither party would ally itself to or aid an enemy of the other party. In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into German and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries.

The World; Learning to Fear Putin's Gaze - By STEVEN ERLANGER Published: February 25, 2001

BUCHAREST, Romania— CENTRAL and Eastern Europeans think they have a deeper understanding of Russia and the Russians than anyone else, and given their wretched history since World War II, they should. Now they are deeply concerned about Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, who seems not just to be talking the talk of renewed empire, but walking the walk despite his country's manifold weaknesses.

Mr. Putin has been emphasizing the defense of Russian national interests after the years of kowtowing to the West under Boris N. Yeltsin. While Mr. Yeltsin often seemed indifferent to events in the new countries of the former Soviet Union -- known in Moscow as ''the near abroad'' -- Mr. Putin insists they are part of Russia's ''sphere of influence'' and remain vital strategically.

That assertion is enough to upset those who used to live under Moscow's yoke, but now Mr. Putin's actions in countries like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan are having consequences for future East-West relations, even as they create more pressure for a new round of NATO enlargement. Already, there are increasing desires in Romania and the Baltic nations to get under NATO's umbrella as fast as they can.

Yet another supporting fact as to why former Soviet Republics ran towards NATO. Even in 2001 Putin still felt the need to control former Russian ssr's as if the USSR never collapsed.


His actions in Ukraine stem from Putins mindset that dates back to 2001 and earlier. Former SSR's have every right to run away for Putin / Russia.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and falls within its own sphere and no side has the right to demand Ukraine to go to one side or the other. neither side can tell Ukraine who its trading partners will be.

So were Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. These were sovereign nations also. Directly in Iraq's case US meddled via invasion that bypassed the UN vote. In Syria it has been getting weapons to rebels via poodles like Saudi, UAE, Qatar etc.

So end point is, posters will ask for the proof and support documents to the above facts. So will be the case of accusing Russia of supporting the rebels in Donbass. There is no exact or direct proof that Russia is sending its soldiers or providing weapons.

The most important point is that of the COST. Until the COST of meddling into other country's affairs is very low, the US foreign policy will keep on poking its nose everywhere. Hence, Russia needs to take some actions where by the COST incurred to US for sneaking into Ukraine is so devastating that morons in the DC and Pentagon get "anxiety shivers" even at thinking undertaking such endevours against Russia at least.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and falls within its own sphere

Of course it is and does. Keep on believing that. I suppose the US only has to promote such pretty fictions when it suits their purpose. otherwise, the "US" would still be divided into the "USA" and the "CSA" - those were both "sovereign nations", too - until one decided the other ought not to be.

Like I said, maybe next time around Russia can provide weapons for the next "sovereign nation" to break away from US turf. It would only be fair.

and no side has the right to demand Ukraine to go to one side or the other. neither side can tell Ukraine who its trading partners will be.

I guess that remains to be seen. You talk as if it has already been thrashed out. If it had been, we'd likely not be having this discussion.

As for the constant use of the term "sphere" I think those people should learn the historical significance of that term with regards to Russia and Nazi Germany. I don't want to hear bitching from people who dismiss the Nazi comparison when they use terms that are directly lifted from the alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany.

I can't imagine why that should matter to me, or why I would bitch about it. It seems to have been quite often bantered about during the Cold War by both sides. maybe they needed a history lesson too - or maybe they didn't care about the history of it, either.

Yet another supporting fact as to why former Soviet Republics ran towards NATO. Even in 2001 Putin still felt the need to control former Russian ssr's as if the USSR never collapsed.

His actions in Ukraine stem from Putins mindset that dates back to 2001 and earlier. Former SSR's have every right to run away for Putin / Russia.

Yippee! Good thing they kept NATO around after it had outlived it's usefulness! Now we can have a whole NEW Cold War! Who doesn't love a nice Cold War?

Does that mean states still have "every right to run away" from the current US Fed, too? Fair IS fair!

a reply to: nenothtu

I'm going to assume history is not your strong Suit get it off a blog?? Any way not that it matters your just detailing the thread. Russia will be gone long before a state tries to leave. Russia is on the edge of yet another revolution. Getting old at this point. Now the oP was discussing warnings about arming Ukraine. At this point there isn't a draw back Russia cant do anything to stop it. They can't attack Nato they would loose. Only option would be just like Afghanistan keep sending Russians to die for a pointless cause. OK they can arm Syria oh wait they already are. We'll they can arm ISIS. We'll no bigger threat to them than the US. We're pretty much down to Putin will write the US a nasty letter. There is nothing Putin can do that harms the US besides Nuclear.

And even a Nuclear war Russia losses there is no winner. So we're right back if Ukraine is armed no damage done to anyone besides Russian army.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: victor7

Don't worry Victor7, the only war being fought here is economic, and Russia - with an economy the size of Italy and no diversification, cannot hope to win against the EU. Putin and his corrupt billionaire cadre know this. Hence, we'll have an outbreak of peace.

Russia couldn't hope to win against the West in the Cold War but unfortunately they persisted for decades.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: nenothtu

I'm going to assume history is not your strong Suit get it off a blog??

I can't help what you assume. Assume whatever you like, but know that an argument based upon assumptions is pretty weak.

Any way not that it matters your just detailing the thread. Russia will be gone long before a state tries to leave. Russia is on the edge of yet another revolution. Getting old at this point. Now the oP was discussing warnings about arming Ukraine.

Indeed, and that IS what I addressed. Those warnings have little to no substantive difference from the warnings a US president would issue to Russia if Russia started arming Montana or Texas in a bid to go it's own way.

At this point there isn't a draw back Russia cant do anything to stop it. They can't attack Nato they would loose.

Oh, well! I guess that makes it "right" if we can whup their asses to have our way with 'em! What WAS I thinking?

Only option would be just like Afghanistan keep sending Russians to die for a pointless cause.

"Pointless" is in the eye of the beholder, I reckon. Just because one loses does not make it "pointless" - there would have been no fight to begin with had there been no point. I may not have agreed with or liked their point in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean they didn't have one. The fact that they HAD one, especially one I didn't agree with or like, was why I went to counter them back then. If they hadn't had a point, they wouldn't have been fighting, and if they weren't fighting, we wouldn't have been countering - there would have been nothing to counter.

OK they can arm Syria oh wait they already are. We'll they can arm ISIS.

WTF does either Syria or ISIS have to do with it? Ain't neither one in OUR back yard. I wouldn't look for Putin to arm ISIS anyhow - that's more of a American sort of shortcoming, and Russia has their own troubles with Jihadists,anyhow. We armed 'em in Syria, got bent out of shape when they took those weapons and carved out a chunk of Iraq, and so decided the best thing to do was arm them some more via the Iraqis and the other little troglodytes trying to "liberate" Syria. Brilliant strategy there!

We'll no bigger threat to them than the US. We're pretty much down to Putin will write the US a nasty letter. There is nothing Putin can do that harms the US besides Nuclear.

yeah. keep on thinking that. One of the axioms of war is to never underestimate your enemy... or make assumptions about him, either. I hope you're not at a very high level in the Pentagon.

And even a Nuclear war Russia losses there is no winner. So we're right back if Ukraine is armed no damage done to anyone besides Russian army.

You should run with that, then. I'll just get a bag of chips and watch. This ought to be entertaining. I didn't have many more years to lose if I get nailed in the crossfire you induce any how.