Over at the NATO butthurt forum (the one and only) they are think it is all BS. Russians couldn't possibly shoot down any Ukrainian drones.
In the real world, I am quite sure there are many Banderite loyalists operating in Russia pleasing Uncle Sam. They are a real threat compared to some drones. I actually know one of these liberast Banderite degenerates personally but he has moved to Canada.
Yeah. They also ignored the Russians shooting down Georgian drones till evidence piled up. They also didnt believe the Iran downing a stealth drone either till it was proven as well. The idiots at that site are more and more believing their own bs, it became ridiculous. Hence why I dont go there anymore.
NATO Military Activity Near Russia Is Response to Moscow's Actions
A spokesperson for the Chairman of NATO's Military Committee stated that NATO explains its increased military activity near Russian borders as counteractions to Moscow's alleged participation in Ukrainian crisis.
BRUSSELS, December 11 (Sputnik) — NATO sees its increased military activity near Russia's borders as a response to Moscow's alleged part in Ukrainian crisis, Captain (N) Dan B. Termansen, spokesperson for the Chairman of NATO's Military Committee told RIA Novosti.
"These [NATO's increased military activity near Russian borders] are part of our assurance measures in reaction to Russia's violation of international law and not respecting the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine," Termansen stated Wednesday. "And they are a reaction to the low level of transparency of the Russian intentions as words do not seem to match deeds on the Russian side."
According to Termansen, NATO will respect and support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as Russia has "illegally and illegitimately annexed Crimea" and has destabilized the situation in Ukraine "in violation of international law."
He has also said that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg "has repeatedly called on Russia to reverse its illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea," stating that there is no way NATO could ever recognize Crimea as a part of Russia.
Relations between Russia and NATO have deteriorated, following the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis. The alliance has repeatedly accused Moscow of interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs, sending troops to Ukraine, and has claimed that Russia planned to invade the country. Russia has repeatedly denied these allegations.
Following the reunification of Crimea with Russia in March, NATO boosted its military presence close to Russian borders, specifically in Poland and the former Soviet Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Russia has repeatedly expressed concern over NATO's increased military presence in neighboring states.
In April, NATO ended all logistical cooperation with Russia, maintaining only contact at ambassadorial and higher levels. http://sputniknews.com/politics/20141211/1015719937.html
Let them. The funny thing is, it is 18 aircrafts near Russia and a hundred M1 tanks. All of these would be flattened in the first few hours of fighting as the bases would be bombed to kingdom come. It is all a showpiece. Simply, Russia needs to respond by placing more troops along its borders and openly state that do to Americas growing imperialism and the fact that they are trying to destabilize the area, they need to place troops at these borders for further protection. All at the same time, light up these areas with its radar to watch every movement (NATO will know). Already you can hear complaints in Latvia and the like about this. They will be even more pissed off if their land ends up as a battlefield.
Funny they call annexation of Crimea illegal. It actually isn't under UN mandate. As well, there was a referendum held while in Kosovo there was not. So it is even far more legit. Gotta say, more countries need to be vocal against NATO. China already is. They recognize Crimea. So does India apparently.
I think that moving troops to the border to counter these rinky dink deployments is counterproductive. It just feeds into the NATO propaganda narrative. The best solution is soft sanctions regime on the Blatic chihuahuas. They need much tighter border control and more restrictions of cross border traffic. They should not have access to the Russian market and to Russia in general. Let them travel to Poland or the rest of their superior EU. Leave those backward Russians alone.
Im still surprised A LOT , hows there is a peace plan in Ukraine. even if it is a fragile one. It seems Europe have a tremendous pressure in kiev to stop the war and not listen USA. It will be easier for example for an American CIA Thug, to pay a $ hundred of dollars to a bandera minion to fire an Toscha missile in Crimea.. just to provoke Russia into a war. you could notice that for example with France holland surprise visit to Russia about Ukraine after the white house declared a cold war.and the visit of European diplomats to Russia to ease tensions.
Is clear that that not all Pro Kiev forces follows orders from Poroshenko and some others groups have their own leadership that they are more loyal. Observing how Americans politicians are asking kiev for action is very interesting to say the least. It seems some coherence remains in Poroshenko after all .. perhaps he will try to demand a NATO membership before any military campaign against Russia so that they are defended by NATO in case of a war. But what Pori shenko will see is that NATO will not fight Russia for them.. he suspect that.. and thats the reason probably there is more or less a peace deal.
What is clear for me however.. 100%. Is that if Ukraine choose to solve its difference with Russia diplomatically..it will be a major failure for the US coup organizers.. because they will not be able to use Ukraine to sabotage Russian economy. and it will be the other way.. Ukraine will depend more than ever of Russia help to keep them alive. So this crisis in ukraine have a probability to push for a major peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine and they return to a trade pact between EU and Russia..exactly what Poroshenko originally wanted. lol But nothing yet is set in stone.. any small event could trigger the war to start again.
kvs wrote:I think that moving troops to the border to counter these rinky dink deployments is counterproductive. It just feeds into the NATO propaganda narrative. The best solution is soft sanctions regime on the Blatic chihuahuas. They need much tighter border control and more restrictions of cross border traffic. They should not have access to the Russian market and to Russia in general. Let them travel to Poland or the rest of their superior EU. Leave those backward Russians alone.
But if they dont, Russian citizens may feel more threatened and left in the dark by their government if they dont. So having pocket groups who would be able to make a mess of these equipment real fast near the border may help. But yes, I agree, telling these monkeys to f off may be Russias best case. I know latvia and the like have companies in Russia so it may not be wise, unless the Russian companies step up and force purchase these plants (latvia makes fridges in Russia as example). But already with food sanctions in place, many baltic nations economies have been hit pretty hard. If total ban, they would be hit even harder.
Funny, the people they hate, they are more dependant on. Ukraine is bankrupt for example and needs Russian gas and coal.
Pentagon Threatens Russia With Nuclear Missile Deployment in Europe
The US may redeploy nuclear cruise missiles to Europe in response to Russia’s alleged violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a leading Pentagon official said on Wednesday. Such unprecedented aggressive rhetoric could make the Treaty the latest casualty of the New Cold War.
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Brian P. McKeon made his threats during a joint hearing in Congress, marking what may be the most forceful rhetoric to ever emanate from the Obama Administration thus far.
“We don’t have ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe now obviously because they’re prohibited by the treaty,” McKeon said. “But that would obviously be one option to explore.”
He went on to add that Pentagon's options include deploying new defenses against cruise missiles; exploring whether to deploy American ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe, a step that would also be counter to the treaty; and building up other military capabilities.
It comes almost a week after House Resolution 758, the harsh Cold War-era legislation that passed the lower house of Congress last week, which urged the President “to hold the Russian Federation accountable for violations of its obligations” of the INF Treaty.
All in all, the American government’s latest push against Russia is part of the larger anti-Russian ‘containment’ measures being implemented in this New Cold War, where Washington seeks to simultaneously pressure Moscow across the diplomatic, economic, and military fronts, all of which are in play with this issue.
US: 1, Russia: 0
Looking more in-depth at the treaty, it’s easy to see why it’s always been to America’s advantage. It eliminated all ballistic land-based and cruise missiles with a range of between 500-5,000 kilometers and entered into force in 1988. It handicapped the Soviet missile deterrent more so than it did for the US due to the geographic considerations of fighting a theoretical war in Europe (the Soviets had more INFs and had a greater strategic use for them there than the US). However, it is understood that this concession was needed to herald an end to the decades-long Cold War.
Afterwards, the concern over INFs didn’t dissipate, as new threats began to emerge in a post-Cold War Europe. NATO’s expansion eastward created unexpected challenges for the Russians, since although their hands were tied due to the INF Treaty’s limitations, no other European country (especially the new NATO members) was constrained by such legalities.
The prospect always remained that these fears would become a horrible reality one day, and it certainly affected the thinking of Russia’s political and military decision makers. They assessed that Russia had prematurely surrendered a strategic capability, one that has now placed it on the defensive and opened new advantages for non-signatory states. Still, Russia remained compliant with the Treaty.
The Next Decade-Long Crisis
Now there’s talk of the US pulling out of the INF Treaty due to suspected Russian violations, or even of Russia doing so in advance out of protest and for strategic benefit, either of which would create another layer of crisis between the two Great Powers. Back in 2001, the US set the precedent when it unilaterally announced its intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to build the global missile defense shield project.
This elicited a strong reaction from Russia, which has since then accused it of actually being aimed against its own nuclear missiles, which would upset the delicate balance between the two nuclear states and increase the odds of a successful US nuclear first strike in the future. For over a decade, this single (albeit critically important) issue has dominated the bilateral relationship, and it’s expected that the nullification of the INF by either side would have the same effect.
A Post-INF World
More than likely, the US is trying to impel Russia into entering another arms race, just like in the previous Cold War, but this isn’t likely to succeed. Moscow has repeatedly said that it won’t fall for this costly trick and that the lessons of the past have properly been learned for the present.
Manager of Stop NATO International Network Rick Rozoff told Sputnik News that the US is trying to test Russia's reserve — but that this "ultimately may be a catastrophic and even apocalyptic gambit on the part of the United States."
But aggressive rhetoric aside, there is an irony to this move. Because to punish Russia and force it to return to observing the Treaty’s conditions…the US will have to violate them themselves. Pot, kettle – you remember the saying. http://us.sputniknews.com/us/20141211/1013310166.html
Pentagon Threatens Russia With Nuclear Missile Deployment in Europe
The US may redeploy nuclear cruise missiles to Europe in response to Russia’s alleged violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a leading Pentagon official said on Wednesday. Such unprecedented aggressive rhetoric could make the Treaty the latest casualty of the New Cold War.
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Brian P. McKeon made his threats during a joint hearing in Congress, marking what may be the most forceful rhetoric to ever emanate from the Obama Administration thus far.
“We don’t have ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe now obviously because they’re prohibited by the treaty,” McKeon said. “But that would obviously be one option to explore.”
He went on to add that Pentagon's options include deploying new defenses against cruise missiles; exploring whether to deploy American ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe, a step that would also be counter to the treaty; and building up other military capabilities.
It comes almost a week after House Resolution 758, the harsh Cold War-era legislation that passed the lower house of Congress last week, which urged the President “to hold the Russian Federation accountable for violations of its obligations” of the INF Treaty.
All in all, the American government’s latest push against Russia is part of the larger anti-Russian ‘containment’ measures being implemented in this New Cold War, where Washington seeks to simultaneously pressure Moscow across the diplomatic, economic, and military fronts, all of which are in play with this issue.
US: 1, Russia: 0
Looking more in-depth at the treaty, it’s easy to see why it’s always been to America’s advantage. It eliminated all ballistic land-based and cruise missiles with a range of between 500-5,000 kilometers and entered into force in 1988. It handicapped the Soviet missile deterrent more so than it did for the US due to the geographic considerations of fighting a theoretical war in Europe (the Soviets had more INFs and had a greater strategic use for them there than the US). However, it is understood that this concession was needed to herald an end to the decades-long Cold War.
Afterwards, the concern over INFs didn’t dissipate, as new threats began to emerge in a post-Cold War Europe. NATO’s expansion eastward created unexpected challenges for the Russians, since although their hands were tied due to the INF Treaty’s limitations, no other European country (especially the new NATO members) was constrained by such legalities.
The prospect always remained that these fears would become a horrible reality one day, and it certainly affected the thinking of Russia’s political and military decision makers. They assessed that Russia had prematurely surrendered a strategic capability, one that has now placed it on the defensive and opened new advantages for non-signatory states. Still, Russia remained compliant with the Treaty.
The Next Decade-Long Crisis
Now there’s talk of the US pulling out of the INF Treaty due to suspected Russian violations, or even of Russia doing so in advance out of protest and for strategic benefit, either of which would create another layer of crisis between the two Great Powers. Back in 2001, the US set the precedent when it unilaterally announced its intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to build the global missile defense shield project.
This elicited a strong reaction from Russia, which has since then accused it of actually being aimed against its own nuclear missiles, which would upset the delicate balance between the two nuclear states and increase the odds of a successful US nuclear first strike in the future. For over a decade, this single (albeit critically important) issue has dominated the bilateral relationship, and it’s expected that the nullification of the INF by either side would have the same effect.
A Post-INF World
More than likely, the US is trying to impel Russia into entering another arms race, just like in the previous Cold War, but this isn’t likely to succeed. Moscow has repeatedly said that it won’t fall for this costly trick and that the lessons of the past have properly been learned for the present.
Manager of Stop NATO International Network Rick Rozoff told Sputnik News that the US is trying to test Russia's reserve — but that this "ultimately may be a catastrophic and even apocalyptic gambit on the part of the United States."
But aggressive rhetoric aside, there is an irony to this move. Because to punish Russia and force it to return to observing the Treaty’s conditions…the US will have to violate them themselves. Pot, kettle – you remember the saying. http://us.sputniknews.com/us/20141211/1013310166.html
Actually seeing how Russia has S-300V4 and S-400 in significant numbers, combined with the fact that Russia is a large territory nation (and a historical land power) that's surrounded by nuclear powers who are not bound by the INF treaty, with the fact that the U.S. Navy grew, and the Soviet/Russian navy receded, likewise with their respective air forces, it's high time to leave the INF treaty. NATO also has Britain and France which are nuclear powers, and they're not bound by the INF treaty...so with all things considered Russia has no choice to leave the INF treaty, I can't wait to see the Iskander-M's with 1500, 2500, 3500, 4500 km range...a real geostrategic game changer that could thoroughly devastate the European meat shield, deep in NATO territory.
Actually seeing how Russia has S-300V4 and S-400 in significant numbers, combined with the fact that Russia is a large territory nation (and a historical land power) that's surrounded by nuclear powers who are not bound by the INF treaty, with the fact that the U.S. Navy grew, and the Soviet/Russian navy receded, likewise with their respective air forces, it's high time to leave the INF treaty. NATO also has Britain and France which are nuclear powers, and they're not bound by the INF treaty...so with all things considered Russia has no choice to leave the INF treaty, I can't wait to see the Iskander-M's with 1500, 2500, 3500, 4500 km range...a real geostrategic game changer that could thoroughly devastate the European meat shield, deep in NATO territory.
Clearly Washington is in a hurry to restart the arms race and the cold war. I think Russia should take full advantage of these chauvinist idiots and start building more nuclear missiles. This will render the ballistic defense shield totally useless. It only ever had a chance if arms reduction made the number of launchers manageable.
I know this is about the INF but let's have the whole arms control regime unravel. NATO should experience some costs for its warmongering. If you recall, people were shitting bricks during the 70s and 80s about Soviet nuclear weapons. Time to bring the good old times back.
Actually seeing how Russia has S-300V4 and S-400 in significant numbers, combined with the fact that Russia is a large territory nation (and a historical land power) that's surrounded by nuclear powers who are not bound by the INF treaty, with the fact that the U.S. Navy grew, and the Soviet/Russian navy receded, likewise with their respective air forces, it's high time to leave the INF treaty. NATO also has Britain and France which are nuclear powers, and they're not bound by the INF treaty...so with all things considered Russia has no choice to leave the INF treaty, I can't wait to see the Iskander-M's with 1500, 2500, 3500, 4500 km range...a real geostrategic game changer that could thoroughly devastate the European meat shield, deep in NATO territory.
Clearly Washington is in a hurry to restart the arms race and the cold war. I think Russia should take full advantage of these chauvinist idiots and start building more nuclear missiles. This will render the ballistic defense shield totally useless. It only ever had a chance if arms reduction made the number of launchers manageable.
I know this is about the INF but let's have the whole arms control regime unravel. NATO should experience some costs for its warmongering. If you recall, people were shitting bricks during the 70s and 80s about Soviet nuclear weapons. Time to bring the good old times back.
If we look on the bright side, atleast the forum will have lots of cool new weapons to talk about.
magnumcromagnon wrote: devastate the European meat shield, deep in NATO territory.
You are correct. But NATO muscles are across the ocean. What You see is just fat. Russia on other hand can't afford such punches. Russia should give US a cold shower not cold war as if arms race will start Russia will be caught in same shit again as late Soviet Union.
It's so fucking funny to read Lithuanian press(meh, it's all yellow) these days. Putin did that, Putins plan failed, West outsmarted Russia and then totally negative articles about how Russia is outsmarting west and how much west is weak to do any harm to Russia. People are getting sick of Putinmania, but it's being pushed like by CRON bot on media:D Word Russia or Putin is so overused that it gives allergic reaction to most people and they just skip the article or switch the channel.
Where the hell this scared Lithuanian Medved guy came from? I had no knowledge of such figure before. He must be very experienced. I don't hate my country and I love it with all my heart, but at the same time everything our foreign policy stands for is so disgusting that state separated from the country and there it leaves me wondering as I am person who gave an out for a country and the state to protect it. I simply see state working for interest in for other state, not our country. Only good thing that Russia largely ignores it when they could sanction Lithuania harder.
Seems like some turf wars are breaking out in the Ukraine. Several disturbances just over the past week.
'Mini-maidan' in Vinnitsa: http://news.liga.net/articles/politics/4360563-vinnitsa_pochemu_vspykhnuli_protesty_v_votchine_prezidenta.htm
Radicals call for a new Euromaidan, over Poroshenko signing a 'treacherous' agreement with Russia at a time when a 'second front' has just been opened against it (really, these people are morons beyond words...): https://globalinfowars.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/ukraine-radicals-call-for-new-euromaidan/
Mayor of Zaporozhie tells Kiev to mind their own business, gets stormed by Lyashko and his gang as a result: http://zn.ua/UKRAINE/v-zaporozhe-lyashko-s-aktivistami-vorvalis-v-gorsovet-161393_.html
I may be speaking too soon, but it's looking like Porko is losing control over his regions; the regional governers/oligarchs and the radical ultra-nationalists are both giving him trouble and respecting his authority less and less. If he doesn't find a way of reasserting his authority (presumably with military force), The Ukraine may eventually devolve into diminished central state and various fiefdoms/oligarchs/battallions/radical parties holding real power over their respective regions. Funnily enough - we may end up with Ukrainian federalization after-all, just in a violent and anarchistic way.
Russia and BRICS should ban all metallurgical products to US and most NATO countries lets see how long their economies and armies can stand without new spare parts.
Even more important then Oil are metals and only a few countries have high quality and high quantity of various metals that they are exporting it, no US/EU country has any metals in quality and quantity to cover all their needs.
flamming_python wrote:Seems like some turf wars are breaking out in the Ukraine. Several disturbances just over the past week.
'Mini-maidan' in Vinnitsa: http://news.liga.net/articles/politics/4360563-vinnitsa_pochemu_vspykhnuli_protesty_v_votchine_prezidenta.htm
Radicals call for a new Euromaidan, over Poroshenko signing a 'treacherous' agreement with Russia at a time when a 'second front' has just been opened against it (really, these people are morons beyond words...): https://globalinfowars.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/ukraine-radicals-call-for-new-euromaidan/
Mayor of Zaporozhie tells Kiev to mind their own business, gets stormed by Lyashko and his gang as a result: http://zn.ua/UKRAINE/v-zaporozhe-lyashko-s-aktivistami-vorvalis-v-gorsovet-161393_.html
I may be speaking too soon, but it's looking like Porko is losing control over his regions; the regional governers/oligarchs and the radical ultra-nationalists are both giving him trouble and respecting his authority less and less. If he doesn't find a way of reasserting his authority (presumably with military force), The Ukraine may eventually devolve into diminished central state and various fiefdoms/oligarchs/battallions/radical parties holding real power over their respective regions. Funnily enough - we may end up with Ukrainian federalization after-all, just in a violent and anarchistic way.
Any new coup.. in kiev.. will be the end of Ukraine forever.. The nation will disband.. marks my words.. People will really get tired of the maidans.. and Ukraine will split.. Kharkiv will be the first .. If a coup happens , the army will also disband. It will not be however unthinkable for me to think that The white House could backstab Poroshenko if he choose to stop the war against Russia and try to solve things peacefully.
The way things stand now..on short/middle term , i consider the US financed coup in kiev a major victory in removing Yakunovych and creating a conflict with EU and Russia. On long term. 2-5 years. i see it as a major failure. I do not see how can Ukraine recover its economy without the help of Russia. Reason for the failure is that Ukraine was not ready to split from Russia..Now the US state department have created a shameful situation were american and European tax money is used to finance Ukraine debts to Russia.. Europe cannot indefinitely pay the bills of Ukraine.. and if the nation economy does not improve while being , ruled by PRO EU leaders.. Civilians who supported the EU union will feel betrayed and will have no choice to choose leaders that are more friendly and open to Russia.
When i think on US gov strategy in Ukraine.. this is how i see it.. scratching head. Looks like a real mess.. just like what they are doing in Syria.. IF it looks like a failed revolution is because it is.. So i dont see any major strategy long term for US and NATO in ukraine with Poroshenko in power other than a few sanctions here and there. He is pro European and pro nato but not a complete idiot.. and he knows that he will be left alone if he start a war with Russia.. Exactly in the same way that the Georgian president was left alone when he attacked Russian troops in abkhazia. And if Poroshenko is removed.. in a coup.. it will be impossible for Ukraine not to default its economy ,impossible to keep the country united. Now it is more clear why US wanted Russia to invade Ukraine.. They planned an economic war on the ruble and they hoped to see Russian army with tanks in Ukraine in the middle of a war while they supply with weapons Ukraine.
All said , i can see US plans failing miserably in Ukraine..Is possibly the worse revolution ever in history.. One that they byte the hands that feeds them..and that end with less territory and depending far more on Russia help after the revolution.
The Donbass accounted for 20% of Ukraine's economy. According to Yatsenkyuk. So it is probably more. Recall all the yammering about how the Donbass was a drag on Ukraine's economy.
This puts the claims of a 5-6% decline in Ukraine's GDP in 2014 into perspective: these numbers are total nonsense. The GDP of Ukraine will go down 20+X percent where X is likely to be around 10% and is the decline in the parts of Ukraine under the control of the Kiev regime.
magnumcromagnon wrote:The hatred for Russia is getting to disturbing levels, now graves in Australia of deceased ethnic Russians are being vandalized:
The Sydney Morning Herald added this little agitprop gem to their report:
"The vandalism came a day before Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko arrived on a two-day tour of Australia, in which he was set to attend a memorial service for victims of flight MH17, shot down by Russia-backed separatists in Ukraine."
In other words, its all Russia's fault..... the propaganda in our elite-owned, corporate-controlled media lie-machine is simply outrageous...
Move your arsenal! US tanks, APCs, Humvees roll through Latvia (VIDEO, PHOTOS)
A freight train carrying a whole column of American armored vehicles has been caught on camera in Latvia. Dalbe Railway Station, where the train was reportedly spotted several days ago, is less than 300km from the Russian border.
The train was carrying at least 38 vehicles and several semitrailers, including eight Bradley Fighting Vehicles, nine M113 Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs), four petrol tankers, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTTs), High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), an M88 Hercules Armory recovery vehicle, a couple of trucks, some tactical engineering and medical vehicles, at least four containers and a pair of railcars with ammunition.
READ MORE: Surge in US armored vehicles next to Russian borders
READ MORE: US tanks arrive in Baltics, Poland requests greater US military presence
Latvian authorities have confirmed to Delfi news portal that the train spotted on December 7 was loaded with the vehicles of the 1st Cavalry Division of the US and the train was heading to Lithuania.
American armored vehicles have been sent to the Baltic States and Poland for military drills and are set to remain for the constant training of local troops and rotation of US forces.
U.S. soldiers deployed in Latvia sit in an Abrams tank during a drill at Adazi military base October 14, 2014. (Reuters/Ints Kalnins)
U.S. soldiers deployed in Latvia sit in an Abrams tank during a drill at Adazi military base October 14, 2014. (Reuters/Ints Kalnins)
READ MORE: NATO asks US for more troops in Baltic states, Poland to counter ‘Russia threat’
More fighting vehicles will be pre-positioned at US military bases in Germany. Deployment of additional hardware to Baltic States and Poland goes on within the framework of the US ‘Operation Atlantic Resolve’ effort, established to reassure American allies in Eastern Europe anxious about a “resurgent Russia.”
U.S. soldiers deployed in Latvia perform during a drill at Adazi military base October 14, 2014. (Reuters/Ints Kalnins)
U.S. soldiers deployed in Latvia perform during a drill at Adazi military base October 14, 2014. (Reuters/Ints Kalnins) Where to watch Schedule
Latvian authorities have confirmed to Delfi news portal that the train spotted on December 7 was loaded with the vehicles of the 1st Cavalry Division of the US and the train was heading to Lithuania.
American armored vehicles have been sent to the Baltic States and Poland for military drills and are set to remain for the constant training of local troops and rotation of US forces.
More fighting vehicles will be pre-positioned at US military bases in Germany. Deployment of additional hardware to Baltic States and Poland goes on within the framework of the US ‘Operation Atlantic Resolve’ effort, established to reassure American allies in Eastern Europe anxious about a “resurgent Russia.”
U.S. soldiers deployed in Latvia perform during a drill at Adazi military base October 14, 2014. (Reuters/Ints Kalnins) http://rt.com/news/213747-latvia-us-armored-vehicles/
38 If US would be really committed they would send 10x more or finance baltics military. Yes they will better send money and equipment to Ukrainian battalions as military danger against NATO is unlikely . It's easy to score some cheap PR points when there is no real danger.
magnumcromagnon wrote:The hatred for Russia is getting to disturbing levels, now graves in Australia of deceased ethnic Russians are being vandalized:
The Sydney Morning Herald added this little agitprop gem to their report:
"The vandalism came a day before Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko arrived on a two-day tour of Australia, in which he was set to attend a memorial service for victims of flight MH17, shot down by Russia-backed separatists in Ukraine."
In other words, its all Russia's fault..... the propaganda in our elite-owned, corporate-controlled media lie-machine is simply outrageous...
LOL, it's like blaming the dead Russians for destroying their own grave headstones. I wonder if Rupert Murdoch owns that hideous black propaganda outfit?
magnumcromagnon wrote:The hatred for Russia is getting to disturbing levels, now graves in Australia of deceased ethnic Russians are being vandalized:
The Sydney Morning Herald added this little agitprop gem to their report:
"The vandalism came a day before Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko arrived on a two-day tour of Australia, in which he was set to attend a memorial service for victims of flight MH17, shot down by Russia-backed separatists in Ukraine."
In other words, its all Russia's fault..... the propaganda in our elite-owned, corporate-controlled media lie-machine is simply outrageous...
LOL, it's like blaming the dead Russians for destroying their own grave headstones. I wonder if Rupert Murdoch owns that hideous black propaganda outfit?
When country A have a bad relationship with country B, the B-phobia emerges.
For example in WWII, Japanese community in the U.S. were severely mistreated, tortured, and were discriminated. Despite the fact that most of these Japaneses were innocent.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
sepheronx
scratching head. Looks like a real mess.. just like what they are doing in Syria.. 
IF it looks like a failed revolution is because it is..
