Moscow demands removal of U.S. nuclear missiles

a reply to: paraphi

Clearly, you are running with the theory that if you keep repeating this like a stuck record, it will become true. Give Ukrainians the credit for rejecting autocracy and corruption in a Russian sphere. People are capable of rising up without being motivated by Uncle Sam.

That's the strategy that I've seen you guys using it. And so far it's working pretty good for you guys! The only difference between what you guys are saying and myself is that i speak from my mind. I have no other agendas.
I do wonder why do i still engage into discussion about this subject, but i cannot help myself.

Last time I looked, the Europeans and the US were not cutting off slices out of Russia.

True, but you guys cut off "slice" of my country or does that not count? It's okay when you guys take away someone else's parts of a country, but when Russia does it, it's not okay?!

Damn...those double standards are becoming more and more obvious.

The Russians are just generating an excuse to put Nukes in Crimea. They start complaining about US nukes in Europe being 'so close'...play this up for a little while and then announce they are going to put nukes in Crimea. It was discussed a little in this thread not too long ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Personally I believe Russia ALREADY has nukes in Crimea. They have formed a brigade to handle Nukes in Crimea. Iskander platforms, trucks, have been photographed in Crimea, Nuke carrying bombers have been stationed in Crimea. Other thread has some sources I believe. They are easy to find anyway.

When there is a lot of smoke you can generally assume there is a fire. That's a lot of nuclear smoke in Crimea already. Nukes being there is getting more and more likely by the day.

a reply to: MentorsRiddle

However, I think I know a certain official who would love to bow down to Putin and use a pen and phone to remove the nukes just to satisfy an insane leader....

a reply to: Nikola014

The UN/EU/NATO did not "slice off" parts of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia broke up on it's own after a political crisis in the 1980's, and what was left of Yugoslavia finally broke up completely into the two states of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006. No one nation "carved off" pieces of Yugoslavia.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Nikola014

The UN/EU/NATO did not "slice off" parts of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia broke up on it's own after a political crisis in the 1980's, and what was left of Yugoslavia finally broke up completely into the two states of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006. No one nation "carved off" pieces of Yugoslavia.

That's such a laugh of a complaint! Like the West really cares about the area...before or after bombing it to Hell.

I feel sorry for the people there that suffered terribly...but have no illusions...there was no big international power play involved.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I am talking about Kosovo ( 2008 ). But of course, you've got no idea what I'm talking about here. I mean how could you when you base your opinion on what's the media reporting.

I will say it again. Not one civil war was not influenced on by the secret services.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

The bright lights in the sky won't be lighting.

Oh Russia you are so silly now. Becoming more and more like North Korea begging for attention from your betters. I guess the Russians forgot that 85% of our tactical nukes were pulled out of Europe by Bush Sr in the early 90s. They have been reduces another 5% since then by Clinton and Bush Jr. and that Obama offered to reduce them further in an arms agreement in 2013 because the shelf life on them was running out, the Russians blew him off. So instead of having them removed he has them upgraded to last another 20 years. Granted their are barely a couple hundred left. These are of course tactical weapons that would be used against invading troop formations. Which kind of makes Russia look bad. H

Hey you know those things you would use to turn an invastion force to slag, we demand you get rid of them at the same time we are also have been making threats against your allies. We have been perfectly fine with them for 20 years but now we are not. It is getting to a point that they are going end up getting the same global eye roll North Korea gets when it is saying crazy stuff. On the plus side the West just watches while Russia becomes its own worst enemy.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I am talking about Kosovo ( 2008 ). But of course, you've got no idea what I'm talking about here. I mean how could you when you base your opinion on what's the media reporting.

I will say it again. Not one civil war was not influenced on by the secret services.

Your location previously said "Serbia".
Now it says "Yugoslavia".

Forgive me for not knowing you meant "Kosovo".

So, can't the US just declare that they are all there for strategic purpose and then just leave them where they are?

What is a non-strategic weapon anyhow? Does that simply mean defensive weapon only where as strategic ones would be used for provoking and first strike kind of attacks?

Is Putin saying, take down your nuclear defensive while I sit here with my fingers over my big red button?

I would love to say he is crazy but we must try to understand his brand of crazy, what is his real end-game, what is he after?

a reply to: evc1shop

Tactical nukes are somewhat smaller in yield and are used to eliminate enemy formations. Strategic weapons are the big one's which flatten whole cities.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: evc1shop

Tactical nukes are somewhat smaller in yield and are used to eliminate enemy formations. Strategic weapons are the big one's which flatten whole cities.

Well, that sets me straight on the definitions. I was thinking in terms of purpose not design.

Thanks! Now to figure out what he is up to.

originally posted by: peck420
Cuba. Hypocrites.

Exactly. If it were us, and The Russians were putting nuclear
missiles in Mexico, I think our reaction would be quite similar.

In addition, Russia was against these nuclear missiles, slowly
creeping closer and closer to Russia, from the beginning.

I think Putin knows that NATO would just love to get nuclear
weapons into Ukraine which would be right on the border of
The Russian Federation; NATO I'm sure, had this strategy in
mind and make it part of the NATO deference system.

NATO (and The U.S.) IMO, were stupid if they thought Putin
was just going to allow this to happen, he's not stupid, and
also IMO, not crazy.

In fact, I think even a child can see that the west's destabilization
and literally overthrow of a duly elected president and replaced
by a NATO puppet government in Ukraine (thank you very much George
Soros, who has no problem admitting that's what he did and using NAZI
skinhead youths to do it; actually brags about how he overthrew Ukraine)
was indeed, to create an opportunity (knowing Ukraine would need
financial assistance from the west) to make them a member of NATO
and a part of the NATO missile defense system.

One of the stupidest things I read recently when Putin warned Denmark
that if they join this missile defense system, obviously they would be
a target.

They're response was "What, their for defense only"

How stupid is that, any nuclear weapon can be used for offensive
purposes as well, which is why the Russians have nukes pointed at
us, because we have nukes pointed at them, NATO missiles are
pointed at Russia, and Russia has nukes pointed at all NATO
countries that a part of the missile defense system.

All Putin was telling Denmark is that if they join the missile defense,
Russia will dedicate some of it's nuclear arsenal towards Denmark.

BTW, Russia has more nuclear weapons, bar far, than the U.S. or
any nation in the world, probably all put together.

We're back in the cold war, and I think they called it back then,
The Balance of powers.

I don't think Putin wants a war with anyone, but he's not going to
allow western nuclear missiles being deployed right next to their
boarder.

For the west to think they would allow it, they're the idiots and
the crazy ones.

It isn't Putin that's been aggressive, it's the west, and he's only
reacting to the west's growing and growing aggression against
Russia and other nations all over the world.

Just My Opinion

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Nikola014
That's the strategy that I've seen you guys using it. And so far it's working pretty good for you guys! The only difference between what you guys are saying and myself is that i speak from my mind.

Sorry, but what's this "you guys" reference. If you cannot face a up to the fact that I disagree with your proposition that the US forces a coup, when in fact the Ukrainians rejected Russian autocracy and corruption of their own volition, then that's your affair. Feel free to prove me wrong.

The fact remains that Russia is the belligerent in this affair.

If you want to raise Yugoslavia then go and make a thread about it and we'll all talk about the war crimes of your compatriots.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Nikola014

To be Frank, I think NATO controls NATO. Like all countries, the US has a say in what happens, but NATO ultimately governs itself.

Yes, NATO controls NATO, that's where the problem lies, where military freaks are running the show.
NATO should be controled by civilian agency, with more educated people, to ensure that they don't break Internation laws ever again.

Russia is becoming the new North Korea by threatening to nuke everybody like Kim does. Russia is becoming a joke.

These are the nuclear countries signed up to the Non-proliferation treaty People's Republic of China, France, Russian Federation, the UK, and the United States. There are many none nuclear countries who have also signed up, probably including most other European countries.
The nuclear countries who are not signed up, Pakistan, India and Israel. You could also say North Korea, although technically they are still signed up....all according to who you talk to, except according to North Korea themselves that is.
So if there is anyone in the signed up the nuclear group to feel safe with, who do you reckon?
Is there anyone in the not signed up nuclear group to feel safe with? Who do you reckon?

However, a few caveats to the above. In the signed up group, the US is the only one to have used nuclear weapons in war.
In the not signed up group, (because that group can't sign up, is my understanding) India and Pakistan have multi border disputes, including one with China, a signee. Pakistan has (allegedly) given Libya nuclear material?? and Israel does the Area 51 thing, their weapons don't exist, while and Egypt is not happy about that.
Apart from that there is probably a lot more of the brown stuff under the radar than above it, so a spat among nuclear signees to the non-proliferation pact/protocol is just a walk in the park, no matter what the headlines or the diplomats say.

a reply to: zilebeliveunknown

NATO is run by Civilians. It's called the NATO Council and is made up of diplomats sent by each member nation. There is also the NATO Parliamentary Assembly underneath that. They are the ones who run NATO, not the Supreme Commanders or Military Council.

a reply to: zilebeliveunknown

Nato isn't the one who launched a covert invasion of Ukraine, Russia did that on its own.

originally posted by: zilebeliveunknown

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Nikola014

To be Frank, I think NATO controls NATO. Like all countries, the US has a say in what happens, but NATO ultimately governs itself.

Yes, NATO controls NATO, that's where the problem lies, where military freaks are running the show.
NATO should be controled by civilian agency, with more educated people, to ensure that they don't break Internation laws ever again.

It's not too late to edit or delete your comment.

The military has very educated people serving in it