The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on Monday began its largest military exercise in more than a decade, deploying over 36,000 troops from more than 30 countries to the central Mediterranean in a massive show of force that analysts say revives Cold War posturing towards Russia.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The US arms/planes/drones (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Texas Instruments) manufacturers and their dealers care not where the money comes from nor who the customers may be...as long as that revenue stream continues. Yet on the other hand, the U S protests loudest while finger-pointing at other nations that might be sending arms to the same nation customers (Russia, e.g.). Exceptionalism at it ugliest.
" The fact remains that the majority of people especially in the west have absolutely no idea what is going on-and likely never will."
I agree, but I blame the propaganda, lies and brainwashing by the corporate MSM of so many otherwise good people.
" The enemy is fear, we think it is hate; but, it is fear." Gandhi
True, but that is nothing new and is being used by the fascist, Amerikan Empire but has been used clear back to the Roman Empire and probably earlier.
Oderint Dum Mutant.
Let them hate; provided they fear.
Israel is also in the Drone business- Actually, Israel is purported to be the largest drone exporter....
NATO ponces around the place flexing muscles because of the Russian military build-up. The Russians are probably poncing around doing muscle-flexing military build-ups because of NATO's expansion eastward. Twice invaded; thrice shy. NATO is run by idiots. The threats common to Russia and the west are China and mediaevalist Muslim nut-jobs.
From the UK it looks increasingly likely that NATO exercises, as well as the refugee crisis in Europe, and the Ukraine crisis, are part of an anti-Russian plot. Russia is the real target in this. Read Z. Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, and more revealing still, an issue of Foreign Affairs in 1998 (if available in your library), in which he outlined a scheme for the eventual dismemberment of Russia (by splitting off the Asiatic half from the Urals). Outrageous? Absurd? Just think of the natural resources in Siberia, and what might have happened if Germany and Russia had a healthy relationship! - That was going to be prevented by maintaining the NATO boundary no matter what, and it helps to make Putin as paranoid as possible and made to fill his role as bogeyman. Whatever, the Ukraine crisis is very much the creation of NATO's expansionist aims, and the EU's quest to widen markets and make available more cheap labor. The U.S. fleet moved quickly into the Black Sea as soon as 'their man' took over following the coup, and Putin saw it coming - so moved on the Crimea before 'our side' could. He had more right to it than we, anyway, relatively speaking. Likewise, Syria - and never mind it was the most multicultural society in the region (compared to many of the allies we look after there) before this crisis blew up - Assad's real sin was and is that he's the last man standing in the Middle East to have close relations with Russia... like Libya (and just look what NATO did to them! The country is now a shambles). 'Total spectrum' of power is the goal. Hold on to your seats.
Putin saw the Crimea as the door that could be locked easily preventing Russian access to the Black Sea. Strategically Russia has always seen the Crimea as militarily essential followed closely by economic necessity (the mighty Volga) given that Russia's northern ports are inhibited by the seasons.
Except you somehow left out mentioning the Russian treatment of the Crimean Cossacks. In any case I never said they were Ukrainian, I delineated the strategic position of the Crimea and why Putin took it. To say the region's demographics played a significant role in that decision is laughable. The Crimea controls access to the Volga.
It was the same situation that confronted Jefferson about New Orleans which controls access to the Mississippi.
Putin + the Crimea = the Volga.
Wow! So you got an F in Russian history? Is that what you are explaining? Russia took the Ukraine before it took the Crimea. Peter the Great quashed the Cossack State but that was then... as to the Mississippi...
Um 1803 is 200 years ago in case you forgot. Jefferson wanted to buy the port of New Orleans and Nappy offered him the whole of French Louisiana instead. Jefferson was surprised by the windfall. New Orleans was very much American although I gather you are thinking only of the English colonies.
The Crimea only became Russian after long being part of the Ottoman Empire around roughly 200 or so years ago. Actually only a decade or two before we got New Orleans. Both events are in the same time frame of around 200+ years ago btw.
The first cowboys were french and spanish which is very American (except in New England...lol). Most 'cowboy' words are spanish but some derive from the french. In any case the situations are very similar. Access to the Gulf of Mexico and access to the Black Sea. The Mississippi was absolutely vital to internal commerce as is the Volga.
I don't get you about the Crimea? Putin is not a fool and the real issue is and always will be strategic and economic about the Crimea. Facts are facts.
As far as the Ukraine (Russian longer than was the Crimea) and claims of ethnicity, what a crock. Since when does ethnicity matter unless it serves some geopolitical purpose. With the Ukraine it provides an excuse to nibble but also to rattle sabers. The only essential prize for Russia is the Crimea, will be the Crimea and always be the Crimea.
Try to be less emotional and rude. Children resort to calling names. Where am I wrong? I said that both events were in the same time frame and separated by only a couple of decades i.e. 1783 and 1803... so where am I wrong. The port city of New Orleans was the gateway to the interior and access to the Ohio and so forth. It was a thriving port city not some little hamlet. In other words American commercial and cultural influence etc through the French and the English (transport/expulsion of the Acadians etc.).
Russian got the Crimea about the same time as we did New Orleans. At the time Crimean pirates were an impediment to trade and who were so effective (they had fleets) that they impeded Russian commerce which continued using the Don. The Volga canal had yet to be built.
Peter the Great pressed southwards (Poland eastwards) against the nascent Cossack State and by crushing it (with the aid of bribing one group of Cossacks against the others) absorbed the southern regions - the Ukraine.
The Crimean Khanate was a tartar entity under the suzerainty of the Ottomans and it was from them that Russia annexed the crimea. It was after that that Russians settled in Crimea. Russian rule over Crimea extended for less than 200 years and ended in the 1950's. There was no appreciable Russian population in the Crimea until after annexation and increased after Russia deported the Crimean Tartars and Cossacks to Siberia. You can call names in that special emotional style favored by some but your history is still wrong. America had already developed significant commerce along the Ohio-Mississippi before Independence through the French and British and rapidly increased it by leaps and bounds after independence.
Read a book before you call names and embarrass yourself. Neoconservative huh? You are absurd and not well informed but then facts aren't as important to you than are emotional outbursts I gather. I don't hate Russia... I don't excuse them either.
I certainly don't get emotional about stuff that happened two centuries ago. But be my guest.
As far as calling names... there your command of the facts held up the mirror that you spoke into.
Give me a break! So now after talking like a loud mouth fool, calling people insulting names for no reason other than they disagreed with your grasp of history, that now because you read a wiki article after the fact that you want to pretend to be an intellectual and discuss history like a reasonable person.
You are funny and despite your quickie-wiki you've still got the history wrong. I suggest reading the autobiography of Peter the Great.
The USA didn't annex Louisiana, it purchased it from France. Gee sorry but the comparison was not the acquisition but the fact that both New Orleans and the Crimea are lock key tactical necessities as each control ingress and egress to a major inland watershed vital to a nation's commerce and defense.
You could compare the annexation/conquest of the Southwest with the conquest/acquisition of the Ukraine perhaps but that would still be a stretch but not with the annexation of the Crimea.
The Crimean Khanate lasted quite a long time under Ottoman rule and existed before Ottoman rule as it so happened.
Your wiki-quickie obviously didn't include Peter's relations with the Cossacks of which there were rival groups one of whom continued their long standing opposition to the extension of Tsarist rule over the free Cossack lands and despite promises to affirm that freedom, it was betrayed. One group sided with the Swedes but in the end the Cossacks that sided with the Tsar never achieved their promised state either and eventually escaped total destruction (Peter wasn't wishy washy about annihilation) only by becoming the Tsar's henchmen and doing his (their) dirty work against the Poles and later conducting pogroms etc.
I can't believe how someone can be so crude as to call others such names and then pretend like they aren't that kind of person simply because they read a short encyclopedia summation/article and realized that they were actually pretty stupid, rude and as ever... using that special emotionalism that passes for intelligence among those who would like to pretend that they are better educated than they are. So call me names but spare me your intellectual pretenses. You don't know nearly as much as you think and are obviously quite used to faking it. Your emotionalism cannot substitute for knowledge and it only embarrasses you further. Calling names may intimidate the uniformed but accomplish little else with those who already know the historical facts.
No need to thank me for correcting your history errors, in fact there is no need for you to comment to me at all ever again. After all there is no point in talking to an_____ ! As you called me.
By the way, Putin has had a lot of sins under his belt and while there is little doubt the former head of the KGB is a nationalist, there is also little doubt that he is autocratic and dictatorial. Maybe you feel he was fairly elected ...lol.
Ever the intellectual. Bye . People who can't discuss get angry at those who can. Funny how that works huh? Simple facts indeed. Too simple. BTW... um what facts? You think that people who are critical of Putin are nazis? Geeze your ...'facts' ... (ahem) are simple indeed.
You keep going on about the Ukraine. I am finished talking about the Crimea. lol. (annexed by Russia last year).