“US to stage a civil war in Ukraine! (11/20/13) - BEFORE maidan [VIDEO]

''Nice'' article on why this issue can become the worst dream:
www.forbes.com...
Why Putin's Russia Is The Biggest Threat To America In 2015

Like the stock market crashes that periodically wipe out so many fortunes, military crises are hard to predict. Washington’s track record as a seer of future threats is remarkably poor. From the bombing of Pearl Harbor in the 1940s to North Korea’s invasion of the South in the 1950s to the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s to the collapse of South Vietnam in the 1970s to the breakup of the Soviet empire in the 1980s to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in the 1990s to the 9-11 attacks and rise of ISIS in the new millennium, America’s policy elite never seems to see looming danger until it is too late.

So don’t be surprised if the economic sanctions Washington has led the West in imposing on Russia look like a bad idea a year from now. At the moment, a combination of sanctions and plummeting oil prices seems to be dealing the government of President Vladimir Putin a heavy blow — just retribution, many say, for its invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea last year. But as Alan Cullison observed in the Wall Street Journal this week, sanctions sometimes provoke precisely the opposite response from what policymakers hope. In Russia’s case, that could mean a threat to America’s survival. Let’s briefly consider how Russia’s current circumstances could lead to dangers that dwarf the challenges posed by ISIS and cyber attacks.

A paranoid political culture. Russia’s moves on Ukraine look to many Westerners like a straightforward case of aggression. That is not the way they look to Vladimir Putin’s inner circle of advisors in Moscow, nor to most Russians. That inner circle is drawn mainly from the Russian security services — Putin himself spent 16 years in the KGB — and to them the revolution in Ukraine was a U.S.-backed coup aimed at weakening Russia. Putin describes the Crimea as a birthplace of Russian culture, and his government has repeatedly warned against the expansion of Western economic and political influence into a region historically regarded as Moscow’s sphere of influence. Putin relies heavily on the Kremlin bureaucracy to provide him with intelligence (he avoids the Internet), so his briefings tend to reinforce the view that Moscow was forced to intervene in Ukraine by Western subversion aimed at undermining his rule.

A nuclear arsenal on hair trigger. Between the two of them, Russia and America control over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. However, Moscow is far more dependent on its nuclear arsenal for security, because it cannot afford to keep up with U.S. investments in new warfighting technology. So Russian military doctrine states that it might be necessary to use nuclear weapons to combat conventional attacks from the West. Many Russians think that attacks on their country are a real possibility, and that their nuclear deterrent — which consists mainly of silo-based missiles in known locations — might have to be launched quickly to escape a preemptive strike. Moscow staged a major nuclear exercise during last year’s Ukraine crisis in which it assumed missiles would have to be launched fast on warning of a Western attack. A senior Russian officer has stated that 96% of the strategic rocket force can be launched within minutes.

The unspoken wisdom in Washington today is that if nobody gives voice to such fears, then they don’t need to be addressed. That’s how a peaceful world stumbled into the First World War a century ago — by not acknowledging the worst-case potential of a crisis in Eastern Europe — and the blindness of leaders back then explains most of what went wrong later in the 20th Century. If we want to avoid the risk of reliving that multi-generation lesson, then U.S. policymakers need to do something more than simply wait for Putin to crack. That day will never come. In the near term, Washington needs to work harder to defuse tensions, including taking a more serious look at the history that led to Moscow’s move on Crimea. Over the longer term, Washington needs to get beyond its dangerous aversion to building real defenses against long-range nuclear weapons, because it is just a matter of time before some dictator calls America’s bluff.

More on that link, too much for copy&past but Putin may be a bit crazy/paranoid but western leaders not less if they don't even can see this potentially grave danger with how they deal with Russia. For them it's nothing more then putting an autograph on a paper and feeling important, they can't even say no or think otherwise it seems or look for other solutions.
So far these ''solutions'' makes the world far more dangerous and already you see a world getting divided in 2 or 3 parts.

But our opinions are 1; not important, 2; we can't do anything about it and 3; if this come true; you pray this is bad dream before going most likely in a permanent sleep (death).

Of course Putin would not warn that he may do this, element of surprise is the best change for winning.

a reply to: Plugin

nothing is going to happen unless america decides to pull the metaphoric switch. the cold war stayed cold for a reason. Russia all throughout history has only attacked in retaliation to attack.

this was is one of proxy's and economy. realistically what we do have to worry about is these two nations (US and Russia) meddling in other countries affairs to take stabs at each other. syria, ukraine, georgia, afghanistan, vietnam, so on and so forth. the Russia US cold war has been going on for decades. both countries have already shown their willingness to do just that.

its my belief that it all started because of paranoia. the sins of our fathers if you will. and ever growing tensions have not helped to quell these paranoia's. but for a hot war to ignite between Russia and the US is going to take alot more than what we have already witnessed in the last few decades.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

and yet their battalions are still out there shelling civilians. so if the government is supporting the military ultra nationalists(and lets be frank they are neo nazis) then what does that make the government? and what does that make the government supporting that government. People don't call the united states terrorists for nothing, the US has a long history of funding and training counter insurgency and even death squads and then later they turn around and call them terrorists as they do their terrorists things with their US bought equipment.

its not a mystery why they got kicked out of parliament. they were used to fuel an agenda and once things settled they were discarded. if you pay attention the ultra nationalists have made quite a few mistakes and have greatly tarnished the Ukrainian stance in this whole mess they become a liability once their purpose is fulfilled.

As for Russia this a subjective opinion one must make on their own. from where i sit Russia had to protect its interests. they did no instigate this.

As for the separatists i believe their right to self determination that is in question more than anything. they took matters into their own hands and no matter what anyone says the popular opinion in east Ukraine is basically what Nuland said "# the EU". If they do not wish to stay a part of Ukraine it is well within their rights to declare themselves as a sovereign republic. I know the UN and their laws don't agree but i pretty much put lives and freedom over made up laws(that change on a whim, seemingly on how the "lawmakers" are feeling that day) any day.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

If they do not wish to stay a part of Ukraine it is well within their rights to declare themselves as a sovereign republic.

This is what I was thinking too.

Something like this happens alot in the US society: a couple gets married after short dating, then one of the spouses gets a much better job 15-20 hours away like east cost to west etc...............one of the spouse does not want to leave despite better pay and perks...........the couple decide to separate and eventually divorce.

If Donbass population does not want to follow the EU line and maintain links and terms with Russia, then Ukraine (a very fragile country to begin with) should peacefully split and parts go their own ways. End of the story and all the sufferings of the people.

a reply to: victor7

sadly its not so simple. for them to do it legaly the vote has to basically go though all of Ukraine. and anyone clever enough to figure it out knows that that vote would never favor the majority of the people wanting to secede, that or it would simply be stalled for so long that everyone would have forgot about it. the Donetsk republic had their own vote but it was deemed illegal and they were attacked.

plus we can deduce from the original video posted that there was supposed to be a civil war no matter what. this muddys the waters and brings up more questions than it answers but ill leave it at that.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

I also blame Kremlin for being greedy and it seems it wants to leave the crisis as a frozen conflict so that Ukraine as it is cannot join the EU or NATO. End result is common people from both the sides are hurting and suffering.

Russia should make a strong push in support to NAF and capture all the provinces on the map of NovoRossiya. Then call it cease fire and recognize Novorossiya as an independent state.

If leftover Ukraine still wants to fight then Russia should make a devastating punch in the western direction. This punch lasting 3-5 days totally destroys a certain force concentration like several group of brigades etc. That will let Kiev know what is the cost of being a hard nosed nazi idiot. After such hammering most probably Kiev Junta will either give up or its army will topple the Junta and bring peace to the people.

There is a strong chance that NATO will start to arm Kiev with weapons to fight further on even when all the Novorossiyan provinces are freed from Kiev's grip...............this in order to create another Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine. In that scenario, Russia should totally force itself in and capture 90% of Ukraine. Then line up its citizens and after checking the files etc. send a good number to the left over 10% part which should by now be the reinvented Galician Republic of the Nazi scum that took birth from the sewage.


Alexander Dugin on Twitter today:
“Ukraine needs to be cleansed of idiots. A genocide of cretins suggests itself. Cretins who are virulent, closed for the voice of Logos, deadly and … in addition to this, extremely stupid. I don’t believe that these are Ukrainians. Ukrainians are a fine Slavic people. [But] these are some race of bastards that emerged from the sewage.”

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

An economical war by the west to try to crush their economy..

So when they recover again in many years and starting building up their nation (again) they gonna wait again until the west see them as dangerous?
''Nothing gonna happen'', well that convinced me.

a reply to: victor7

Russia will not win a war that action would spark with the west.

a reply to: Plugin

Russia is doing just fine running its economy into the ground without any outside help.

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

Perhaps this might set the context.

Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative who was Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Bush regime, declared:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

Is Wolfowitz, when referring to “hostile power” referring to any power independent of Washington’s control?

Ref; paul craig roberts

a reply to: learnatic

So that's the evidence.. A statement from over 8 years ago by another administration?

You guys are getting desperate I see.

how about you try something from this administration.. Or do all of the statements by Obama ruling out the use of force make for bad propaganda on your side?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Hmm, interesting you say that, considering you guys had used Putin's statement that was made almost 20 years ago and called it relevant...Luckily for everyone, I carefully read whatever is being written here so i can point out at irony?/hypocrisy? from you guys.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: learnatic

So that's the evidence.. A statement from over 8 years ago by another administration?

You guys are getting desperate I see.

how about you try something from this administration.. Or do all of the statements by Obama ruling out the use of force make for bad propaganda on your side?

For what its worth I am not from the US mate so I have no idea who 'the other side is your referring to. However, for what its worth, from what I know of each side of US politics, I reckon they are both on the same side of the fence but just which fence that is, I'm not sure. Either way, both of them are the two wings of the same bird-of-prey.

a reply to: Plugin

what? implying that eventually "the Russians are coming"? i dont get what your saying.

a reply to: victor7

NATO has already armed them. But from what ive heard NAF is making an offensive. politics always tends to throw a wrech into gears keeping problems on ice for long periods of time, but idanno, that's the nature of politics i guess.

Duplicates this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can't repeat a lie too many times, I guess....

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica

This getting mass attention because it speaks the true but hey of course there will be some in here protecting the agenda and attacking this video.

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
a reply to: Plugin

what? implying that eventually "the Russians are coming"? i dont get what your saying.

Some of the ATS members with a strong Pro EU, American stance have being claiming that for two years now.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: learnatic

So that's the evidence.. A statement from over 8 years ago by another administration?

You guys are getting desperate I see.

how about you try something from this administration.. Or do all of the statements by Obama ruling out the use of force make for bad propaganda on your side?

You guys are getting desperate I see.

The fact that this video is getting attacked with insults shows whose getting desperate around here.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

what would the US have to gain from a destabilized Ukraine?

Getting back for Syria. Whats happening in Ukraine is related to Syria.

At least until Yanukovych became Putin's lapdog

You forget to mention that Ukraine at least was better under Yanukovych then what Ukrainians have now in power nothing but the same pro westren stooges whom took power in 2010.