Baltics on war footing as NATO tries to deter Russia

[leetk1ng]

This. Very well put.

NATO is the threat here. NATO disregarded agreements, NATO started shit in former USSR countries, including Ukraine and then blame Russia for trying to fix mess that NATO started.

NATO = North Atlantic Terrorist Organization.

Signed,
angry estonian

No you're not estonian. You're a russian who might live in Estonia but supports Putin and his politics. We have many of these guys like you in Estonia.
I'm not USA fanboy or anything but I do have a grudge against some russians who like to take a shit on their neighbors and laugh at them because "oh look, i'm intimidating and live in a big masculine country right next to you". And any help to prevent this is welcome. Doesn't care who that is.

Signed,
true estonian

[Shalcker]

1. Because of seems to endorse, even defend, it's hooligans starting riots for no reason what so ever.

What? Three people were already sentenced for that from one to two years in French court, and French got them there with Russian help...

3. How is this even remotely relevant? I know it was bullshit that Ukraine won that, but the song itself brings up a serious issue in Crimea about the Crimean Tartars, who are treated like shit by the ethnic Russians. If you don't know how or why, then you need to really look into it and see for yourself.

How about we just go with modern rendition of "The Sacred War" (wiki) for next Eurovision then if historical songs are ok?

Lyrics are quite close in content to Jamala's song. It's about how Russians were treated as shit by ethnic Germans. Same period too.

[Deleted]

This latest post is emblematic of the level of the discussion.

[Dentelan]

Russia has shown its still as aggressive as always by attacking Ukraine, which is good enough to justify a defensive pact.


Not that the U.S is any better, but good thing no other NATO country is forced to take part in any operations outside defending NATO countries.

- - - Updated - - -


Russia has shown its willing to attack other countries in the recent years, meanwhile NATO is only a defensive pact. It seems you're a tad confused.
Those countries have every rigth to distrust Russia because of the history of those countries.

Why NATO/US can bomb/invade any country they want (Iraq,Yugoslavia,Lybia,ooh Lybia, Obama just said it was an mistake and thats it), even sometimes without the mandate of UN, and not being agressive as you say, and Russia returned Crimea without a single shot is something worst than Nazi Germany according to western media?
How does these two opposite fact live together in one head? Just like 1984 for real. West should stop acting like it have monopoly on the truth-

[Crispin]

You fearing that Russia would attack Baltics or Poland and thus justifying NATO build-up there is on the same level of stupidity.

As I posted earlier in this thread

I dont see any reason to how and why Russia would start a war with NATO atm, but better safe than sorry I guess.

I don't fear a Russian attack.

- - - Updated - - -

If people here don't understand the problem with an alliance (not one country, but a bunch) who was created just to counter you, stationing troops and equipment right on your borders, then there is nothing more to talk about.

Promise?

- - - Updated - - -

And if you fear that Russia would attack Europe?

See same post.

[Shalcker]

As I posted earlier in this thread

I dont see any reason to how and why Russia would start a war with NATO atm, but better safe than sorry I guess.
I don't fear a Russian attack.

Well, what we're doing can also be considered "better safe then sorry".

[Crispin]

Why NATO/US can bomb/invade any country they want (Iraq,Yugoslavia,Lybia,ooh Lybia, Obama just said it was an mistake and thats it), even sometimes without the mandate of UN, and not being agressive as you say, and Russia returned Crimea without a single shot is something worst than Nazi Germany according to western media?
How does these two opposite fact live together in one head? Just like 1984 for real. West should stop acting like it have monopoly on the truth-

NATO did not invade Iraq, that was a seperate coalition, Kosovo was in the middle of a genocide, if you think that you were protecting Russians in Crimea when you took it, then you should have no problem understanding why NATO got involved in Yugoslavia, it's not like NATO was sitting in Greece hoping for war to break out in Yugoslavia so they could start bombing someone.

Libya was a shitcase from the start, I've got no idea how it should have been handled nor do I think what was done was the correct thing, but that's obvious when you look at current Libya, but odd enough it did have a UN mandate, altho they went beyond the mandate.

I doubt any western media have come out and said that Russia taking Crimea was worse than Nazi Germany, if so they live in another reality (But I'm guessing you're just exaggerating here )

- - - Updated - - -

Well, what we're doing can also be considered "better safe then sorry".

Better invade Crimea than sorry? better support a civil war in Ukraine than sorry? Yeah doesnt really work that way mate, especially when you think that NATO will attack Russia.

[Shalcker]

Libya was a shitcase from the start, I've got no idea how it should have been handled nor do I think what was done was the correct thing, but that's obvious when you look at current Libya, but odd enough it did have a UN mandate, altho they went beyond the mandate.

It's one of the problems Russia has going along with "Western consensus". "We go along with what West wants once rather then veto and affected relatively prosperous country turns into shithole".

Also one of huge reasons why Putin replaced Medvedev (who belonged to "go along with West fully" faction) and why Medvedev ratings dived.

Better invade Crimea than sorry? better support a civil war in Ukraine than sorry? Yeah doesnt really work that way mate, especially when you think that NATO will attack Russia.

"Better get Crimea and stir conflict in East Ukraine then let Americans build their bases there", yes, definitely "better safe then sorry" as far as Russia is concerned.

[Crispin]

It's one of the problems Russia has going along with "Western consensus". "We go along with what West wants once rather then veto and affected relatively prosperous country turns into shithole".

Also one of huge reasons why Putin replaced Medvedev (who belonged to "go along with West fully" faction) and why Medvedev ratings dived.

"Better get Crimea and stir conflict in East Ukraine then let Americans build their bases there", yes, definitely "better safe then sorry" as far as Russia is concerned.

Were there any bases in the pipeline? talk about far fetched.

And hindsight is 20/20, I'm guessing Russia were more inclined to not veto on Libya, because it was mainly driven by France and GB, which obviously werent a "quality stamp"

[Shalcker]

Were there any bases in the pipeline? talk about far fetched.

As far as i remember there were various reports about some American company being contracted to do work on former school in Crimea transforming into something that looked like troop barracks for 2015.

Again, "better safe then sorry". If it's technically Ukrainian territory and Ukrainians want US bases there and not extend lease after 2017 (and there were all indications that new people in power were deluded enough to try) Russia couldn't stop them legally anyway, so why not go all the way right there? There would be no better point with their military confused by where their loyalties should lie due to violent coup. Their first "replacement" for commander of Ukrainian Fleet even openly defected to Russia.

[Crispin]

As far as i remember there were various reports about some American company being contracted to do work on former school in Crimea transforming into something that looked like troop barracks for 2015.

Again, "better safe then sorry". If it's technically Ukrainian territory and Ukrainians want US bases there and not extend lease after 2017 (and there were all indications that new people in power were deluded enough to try) Russia couldn't stop them legally anyway, so why not go all the way right there? There would be no better point with their military confused by where their loyalties should lie due to violent coup.

An American company was contracted to work on a school and it looked like troop barracks? My local school looks like a fucking bunker, but I can guarantee you it isnt.

So when Russians arent getting their lease exteneded, they invade instead? And you still havent provided anything about US bases there, other than "school looks like barracks", wtf?

It's obvious that you're using the current NATO buildup and exersises, as some kind of "that's why we did it" excuse, completely ignoring that NATO in Europe did not look at Russia with the same eyes before you invaded Crimea, so stop using the "NATO will invade us!" excuse, it's pretty fucking lame tbh, I have no doubt that the US would rather focus on Asia, instead of cold war V.2

[burek]

Kosovo was in the middle of a genocide

what genocide? nato was the agressor there that helped the muslim terrorists ethnically cleanse kosovo from all serbs

[Skroe]

An American company was contracted to work on a school and it looked like troop barracks? My local school looks like a fucking bunker, but I can guarantee you it isnt.

So when Russians arent getting their lease exteneded, they invade instead? And you still havent provided anything about US bases there, other than "school looks like barracks", wtf?

It's obvious that you're using the current NATO buildup and exersises, as some kind of "that's why we did it" excuse, completely ignoring that NATO in Europe did not look at Russia with the same eyes before you invaded Crimea, so stop using the "NATO will invade us!" excuse, it's pretty fucking lame tbh, I have no doubt that the US would rather focus on Asia, instead of cold war V.2

The US is STILL focusing on Asia, despite Cold War II. Asia is getting most of our advanced hardware. Most F-22s are there. Most F-35s are going there first. The Zumwalts are going to be based there. The Seawolf subs have been there for years. The Ford class is headed there. SM-3 IIA, a joint US-Japanese program, is meant for there and not Europe. The SM-3 site in Hawaii is probably going to be made operational and Japan is probably going to ask one be built in their territory. So on and so forth. You'll note how many "anti-ship" and "long range" weapons the US has rolled out since 2012. That's not an accident. That's policy. And it's to destroy the largely coastal based Chinese Military and their nascent Navy from great range, not Russia, which would be largely a land and air war after the opening phase.

That's not to say Europe is an afterthought by any stretch of the imagination. But the Russian military build up is largely hype and current systems will make short work of what passes for the most advanced Russian systems. Not to mention the fact that Europe, in the Typhoon, in various missiles, with their Subs, possesses formidible weapons of their own.

And if shit hit the fan we got a ton of stuff pre-positioned anyway.

Cold War II is interesting, but the Main Story of the first half 21st century is America and it's Western Pacific Allies walling in China. And things are going very, very well on that front.

[Dentelan]

NATO did not invade Iraq, that was a seperate coalition, Kosovo was in the middle of a genocide, if you think that you were protecting Russians in Crimea when you took it, then you should have no problem understanding why NATO got involved in Yugoslavia, it's not like NATO was sitting in Greece hoping for war to break out in Yugoslavia so they could start bombing someone.

Libya was a shitcase from the start, I've got no idea how it should have been handled nor do I think what was done was the correct thing, but that's obvious when you look at current Libya, but odd enough it did have a UN mandate, altho they went beyond the mandate.

I doubt any western media have come out and said that Russia taking Crimea was worse than Nazi Germany, if so they live in another reality (But I'm guessing you're just exaggerating here )

- - - Updated - - -


Better invade Crimea than sorry? better support a civil war in Ukraine than sorry? Yeah doesnt really work that way mate, especially when you think that NATO will attack Russia.

Who said that there was a genocide in Kosovo? There was a civil war and people were killing each other. Serbs were killed in the same way as the Albanians and others, so West had no right to stand on one side or another, or assign the guilty.
It was an internal conflict in the country, and by intervening in it west destroyed whole country.

Enough hypocrisy. We all know that NATO is America and its vassals, it was US that invaded Iraq. Cuz who cares about vassals.
Gaddafi was a tyrant , yes, but before the West helped to overthrow his government in the country at least there was an order. The standard of living in Libya were highest in Africa. Such countries should be guided by an iron fist. Now there is a pure hell and chaos. The absolute black hole of the region.

Seriously, you think you have the right tell us something about the Crimea?Your actions are much worst.

And in general, why so much criticism with Crimea? We're just learning. West showed in Kosovo how it is possible to do, and we are doing that way. Before creating a precedent better to think about how it could be used against your interests by others, but if the precedent has already been created, there is no need to cry. Be consistent.

[Crispin]

what genocide? nato was the agressor there that helped the muslim terrorists ethnically cleanse kosovo from all serbs

So NATO was the aggressor that stepped in, after Serbian soldiers had slaughtered women and children?

[Nyoken]

I feel sorry for anyone going up against those T90s

[Crispin]

Enough hypocrisy. We all know that NATO is America and its vassals, it was US that invaded Iraq. Cuz who cares about vassals.
Gaddafi was a tyrant , yes, but before the West helped to overthrow his government in the country at least there was an order. The standard of living in Libya were highest in Africa. Such countries should be guided by an iron fist. Now there is a pure hell and chaos. The absolute black hole of the region.

Seriously, you think you have the right tell us something about the Crimea?Your actions are much worst.

It's funny how threads about the current situation between NATO and Russia, sparked by what happened/happens in Ukraine, always ends up with Russians going whatsboutism on Kosovo, Libya, Iraq, blacks and whatnot.

You ofcourse fail to realise that countries like France and Germany (who you seem to think are American vassals) did not want anything to do with Iraq.

I'm inclined to agree on Libya, yet it would be pretty cold as fuck by the international community, to watch the guy go all out on the civilians.

[Skroe]

Enough hypocrisy. We all know that NATO is America and its vassals, it was US that invaded Iraq. Cuz who cares about vassals.
Gaddafi was a tyrant , yes, but before the West helped to overthrow his government in the country at least there was an order. The standard of living in Libya were highest in Africa. Such countries should be guided by an iron fist. Now there is a pure hell and chaos. The absolute black hole of the region.

Seriously, you think you have the right tell us something about the Crimea?Your actions are much worst.

NATO is not our vassals. They're our partners.

That's the difference between Russian and Western mindset. Russia thinks smaller countries are buffers. The US things it's NATO allies are partners.

Or let me put it another way. Even if Russia did not exist. if it just vanished in a puff of smoke, NATO would still exist. Because the idea of the world's Western countries, it's richest most prosperous nations, the nucleus of the free world being united under one banner, under one roof, int he name of collective defense is a fundamentally good idea. That is why one day NATO should expand to include Japan, Australia, South Korea and perhaps Israel (after a final settlement on the Palestinian issue of course).

It is a good, optimistic, positive idea. NATO as the nucleus, an embryonic version of an Global Alliance of Democracies.

Russians have never seen it like that and that's their prerogative. They see NATO for the US as Russia saw the Warsaw Pact - a network of states to ward off the great power rival. It's not that. It won't ever be that. NATO only works by unanimous consent and the US DOES lose arguments there all the time. It is first among equals, but still just an equal.

The free peoples of the world should stand united against tyranny and illiberalism. That is why NATO will always endure. Because Germany, the US, the UK, France, Norway, Spain, Italy, Canada and many others have so much in common, even bloodlines (keeping in mind the largest populations of the various Diaspora are largely in the United States), that us being united in common defense is an idea that justifies itself regardless of who the enemy du jour is.

Russia better damn well get used to it. NATO is never going away.

- - - Updated - - -

I feel sorry for anyone going up against those T90s

T-whatevers have always ever been moving targets for Western Tanks.

Little reason to thing the T-90 would be any different. It's not like Russia's mostly conscript army on 1 year contracts has much experience or training anyway. In the US Army, training lasts about a year to start with.

Conscript armies do poorly against professional armies every time. Russia just can't afford a fully professional military. It's been "yeah we're doing it in 5 years" for the past 15.

[Crispin]

Who said that there was a genocide in Kosovo? There was a civil war and people were killing each other. Serbs were killed in the same way as the Albanians and others, so West had no right to stand on one side or another, or assign the guilty.
It was an internal conflict in the country, and by intervening in it west destroyed whole country.

Enough hypocrisy.

And in general, why so much criticism with Crimea? We're just learning. West showed in Kosovo how it is possible to do, and we are doing that way. Before creating a precedent better to think about how it could be used against your interests by others, but if the precedent has already been created, there is no need to cry. Be consistent.

So you are pretty much saying, that you ruined Ukraine? How many people were killed in Crimea before Russia invaded?

[burek]

So NATO was the aggressor that stepped in, after Serbian soldiers had slaughtered women and children?

no, they were slaughtering muslim terrorists and it all actually started by muslim terrorists slaughtering serbian women and children, trying to perform an ethnic cleansing. and nato helped them achieve that