via RT
Over 140 pieces of NATO military hardware took part in the parade, including four US armored personnel carriers M1126 Stryker flying stars-and-stripes. Another foreign nation, the Netherlands, provided four Swedish-made Stridsfordon 90 tracked combat vehicles (designated CV9035NL Mk III by the Dutch).Read it all here.
Estonia also showed off its own howitzers, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, armored vehicles and other hardware. Over 1,400 troops also marched the streets of Narva.
I've been looking for news of this event on US Army websites to get the context of this.
Reassuring allies while provoking your enemy is a weird cost/benefit equation. What has me scratching my head is that it appears the US is once again being pulled back into Europe after doing our best to get our "allies" to pay for their own defense.
With ISIS, a resurgent Russia and a need to get eye on and focused on the Pacific...something has got to give....its past time for the EU/NATO to get its members to pick up a bigger part of the defense bill, or pay us for doing it.
For the last year Russian Federation Armed Forces had more maneuvers and weapons "parades" then trough last decade combine, some of them almost on the border of Baltic States. Not to mention constant game of nerves in the air... so this small in comparison to typical Russian "parade" is nothing. Balts are happy for sure, this type of action always is good for morale. Russians... Kremlin create an "we are surrounded" and "fascist, fascist everywhere" hysteria like in "good old" Soviet times, so they really don't care if this parade was or was not.
ReplyDeleteBtw: Santa is early for Polish Spec Ops, today Stephen D. Mull (I like this guy a lot, he is probably the best ambassador of US in Poland ever, great man with great sense of humor, very friendly) will take part in transfer of 45 M-ATV in according to Excess Defense Articles program.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the stunts they`ve been pulling, inviting our friends to participate in our parade is a non-event.
ReplyDeleteWasn't aware the Stryker was a real threat vs. a real enemy. Target, yes.
ReplyDeleteOn other hand... if we believe the "Kommiersant" then Paris and Berlin did not agree to support Ukrainian request to send Peacekeepers to war zone. Moscow, Berlin and Paris agree that OSCE observers are more then enough for the task.
ReplyDeleteI will wait for official information from ONZ or EU, but for now... well I need to digest this a little and hope that this is not true.
There is simply nobody avaivable to wear blue helmets !
ReplyDeleteThere was not even UN meeting for that request, Berlin and Paris & Moscow just said NO before thing even start. I'm not surprise that Moscow don't want the Peacekeepers there... but Berlin & Paris? They like amateurs try to end this conflict but they are doing everything they can to... prolong it.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that every Russian column witin 50km of the Ukrainan border was declared as going into Ukraine , title should say 140 Nato Vehicles enter Ukraine.
ReplyDelete...enter Russia.
ReplyDeleteThis is why Russia reacted to the Kiev junta, so as not to see such a display of US expansionism in Crimea and Donbas.
ReplyDeleteIn recent years the US had about 300 troops in the whole of the eastern part of Europe. At the same time they withdrew hundreds of thousands of troops from Europe.
ReplyDeleteCalling that 'threatening behavior' is nothing less then silly.
The only reason there is a slight increase now is .. you guessed it: Russia;s behavior.
You got cause and effect mixed up..
Nobody called it threatening behavior. It's the unfriendly image, which is why they did it.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if Russia or China did that on the US border the hawks would be going nuts over it.
It seems to me provoking Russia is not a part of the equation anymore, they do whatever they want regardless of our stance. In fact, to quote a German historian: 'if you want peace you have to be willing to talk war.'
ReplyDeleteIt is rather insulting for you to put quotes around "allies" and to suggest the defense of Europe 'has to give'. Wile I also believe Europe has been negligent in the area of defense, the one thing many have done with there measly budget is help the US/ NATO abroad. BOTH is needed to contain Russia or any other aggressor in this region, Europe taking responsibility AND the US showing renewed interest in the region.
Both the rather pacifistic/penny pinching attitude of Europe and the clearly shifting focus by the US are what open the door for Russia to act aggressive.
'Display of expansionism'= aggressive behavior. Just different words for the same concept.
ReplyDeleteBesides this isn't your second sentence rather ..weird... Russia IS doing similar and much, much more on NATO"S and even US borders. Exercises, fleet maneuvers and lets not forget bombers with their tracking transponders of endangering air traffic.
You seem intelligent and interested, so you should know this! Which makes me wonder what is coloring your judgement? Do you love Russia, hate the US, or its policies?
Just curious, not trying to paint you in a corner. I am fully aware we all have preconceived notions.
insulting because i put "allies" in quotations? geez. are you really that tender? i won't say fuck Europe but i will say Europe needs to step the fuck up and spend more than 1.2 percent (average) on its own defense and that Europeans need to stop saying USA wold police especially when they won't take care of their own backyard. Poland wants to spend more on defense and guess what? the EU won't let them.
ReplyDeleteTender? Nice one.. but we both know what you meant.
ReplyDeleteBut then, apart from that I do agree with you that Europe should step up.. and also, it is hypocrite for Europe to rely on the US AND complain about it the same time.
As far as Poland wanting to spend more, they can and the EU wont stop them, but they would have to save elsewhere to still adhere to European budget rules they agreed to.
That is THEIR choice.
The one upside to all of this is that it might wake Europe up.. but then again, it might not, the budgethawks are still firmly in charge.
The US is saying in effect: Screw Minsk, the hell with a peaceful resolution which is what Germany and France want, let's get a war on. And by the way, the Pentagon needs more money for flag-waving in Estonia.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile because of foolish displays like this the Marine Corps doesn't have enough mechanics to maintain their MV-22 in North Carolina so they have to contract civilians to do it because " worldwide deployments.....requirements has depleted the MAG’s level of government maintenance personnel qualifications" in a proposal here. (Okay it's a stretch but I wanted to get it in.)
I am going to lean on the side of "likely will not" for the "wake up" aspect of the equation. Any eighth-grade or secondary school history student can see that what happened in the late 1930's is happening again, yet nations like Germany and France continue to push the whole "peace, cease-fire" narrative. Then again, US leadership is sadly doing the same so we are all in that boat.
ReplyDeleteCease-fires suck and only draw conflicts out longer while increasing casualties, damage, and cost - look at how this latest Ukraine cease-fire folded out. It was great for the rebels, horrible for the Ukraine, and Germany, France, and the US are STILL pushing it, talking as if it was effective. Unbelievable.
Ukraine has more incommon with war in Balcans than with 1930
ReplyDeletehttps://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/russia_wants_war_look_how_closely_they_put_country_to_our_military_bases.jpg
ReplyDeleteTrue, but I was speaking more towards the global and regional geopolitical situation, rather than the ethnic-cultural situation.
ReplyDeleteWith the war in Ukraine, you have a restless world power, or former world power depending on how you see it, that wants to reassert itself militarily and politically via violent conflict and aggression. You also have skittish European powers that are not ready for any kind of war, who wish to achieve peace through any means, even if that peace is false in nature and will only lead to further aggression and conflict later.
Provoking Russia has been the equation all along. The goal was a proxy war between Ukraine and Russia. Instead we have a civil war in Ukraine because the Russians aren't middle eastern morons.
ReplyDeleteNext we'll have US troops standing on the border and peeing across onto Russian land or something. This whole effort to provoke Putin into an outright war is getting ridiculous. I think, for our idiots in charge, a world leader that actually looks after their own country's best long-term interests is almost incomprehensible to them in this day and age.
"After doing our best to get our "allies" to pay for their own defense." The
ReplyDeleteproblem is we can’t Solomon even If we wanted to, and sooner rather than later
your country is going to be in the same position since your president seems
happy to follow our welfare road.
European budget establish rules that we need to follow and you know the
only socially acceptable position to save money is on defense, it’s a diluted
cost, no one see's it until it’s too late. As an example, when the austerity
measures started in my country, the first thing that was scrapped was our aircraft
carrier, followed by the “delay” of our 4 new shinny S80 subs, also troop
levels were dropped to a minimum. But when the government tried to make some
cuts in healthcare, which it did, but only after massive protests and union strikes.
You can't cut on welfare and entitlements without a revolution.
The other problem is that even if we increase our spending to cold war
levels, we are still auxiliary forces, the only thing that saved us from singing
the Kalinka during the cold war was the brunt force of the US armed forces. So
you are going to pay for our defense in the foreseeable future in any case.
And regarding Poland, well Dracae answered you perfectly, they can spend
all they want on defense as long as they follow the rules. If they don’t they
can quote V.Nuland and go their merry way.
I have of course seen that map before and its clever. I have no problem understanding how Russians need very little manipulation to feel threatened.
ReplyDeleteBut this map does not change one bit about the FACT that NATO reduced its presence in Europe massively, even as some ex-Warchau-Pact nations chose to join.
The reality is rather clear: NATO was no MILITARY threat to Russia, what it was is a threat to Russia's national pride.
Totally understandable, but no excuse for being a bully.
There was one more threat to Russia though, several of these former Russian colonies.. I mean allies , like Poland, are slowly turning in to prosperous democratic nations showing Russian citizens that its actually possible to be well off AND free.
The same thing happening to Ukraine could have easily have inspired the people in Russia.
You forget the other Superpower that started it all by first subverting Ukriane to a tune of 5bilion US and then bloodily overthrowing a regime in an orchestrated coup. Now that things escalated to war same players want to play for higher stakes instead of throwing their pupets under the bus and stop messing with ukraine.
ReplyDeleteOk turn this around why do Poles or Balts feel threatend and why should Europe get involved in Ukraine ,EU did enough damage leading up to the Coup. Best is to leave Ukraine be ,which would result in another Coup in 6-12 months time and stop to war all together. Krimea is lost how ever you turn it.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of drugs are you on???
ReplyDeleteAmerica/ NATO, wile facing a huge economical crisis, wile having its military totally overextended, wile obsessing over Asia, with a population totally sick of war and a president that is the opposite of Hawkish to the extend of being a lame duck, goes out of its way to renew animosity with a Nation that is supplying Europe energy and is one of the biggest growth markets for western goods..
Yeh, now I 'say it out loud' it certainly makes sense...
Oo and answer me this: when did NATO offer Ukraine membership? Ehm never.. indeed.. never.
When did the EU decide they wanted to invite more members, like the Ukraine? OO also never?
What did the west actually offer the Ukraine, since they asked for it?
A cooperation treaty very similar to one they already have with Russia.
OOPPSSS I did not know they did that... Sorry for not understanding why Russia had to deal with Ukraine... the horror.. I will have to apologize personally to every Russian I meet...
Why Poles or Balts feel threatens by Russia... first, both groups of nations know Russia first hand, not from TV or books but first hand, when they smell trouble they smell trouble... they already know how Russian trouble "smell". Second, just check last 100 years of history and you will find an answer why Balts and Poles are afraid Russian imperialism and nationalism on war foot.
ReplyDeleteYou need to be more precise with propaganda... or US lead the "coup" or EU lead the "coup"... because of course, it is impossible that Ukrainians did that for themselves... they lived before that in country of milk & honey, right... not reason to be piss off about government of that time right... they were, such nice and good.
Your claim holds exactly the same for Russians , who don't even need to look 100Y back just look at the wake of chaos and destruction US & EU interventions in last decade or so led too . To be precise eager estern Nato partners were an occuping force in 2 countries so 1 more than Russia in past 20 years.
ReplyDeleteThey probably live in country of milk and honey now and have no reason to be pissed of a at the new elites?Further war will probably reel ukraine back decade in deveopment and both US or EU are not willing to doll out much cash.
Oh, I'm on on a really good drug called 'cold hard reality'. Because I see the big picture.
ReplyDeleteAmerica/NATO are desperate for central Asian oil & gas (that bad economy thing), but Russia controls most of the pipelines to the West, and is making deals with China to secure most of the routes to the east. That will never do.
So... Iraq (pipeline route), Georgia '08 (pipeline route), Syria (pipeline route), Afghanistan (pipeline route), and all the pressure on Iran (controls all local pipeline routs near to it). US/NATO have taken out Iran's potential allies one by one (Libya, Sudan) until Russia cock-blocked us at Syria. So we cooked up a plan for a proxy war using Ukraine to distract them, which Russia judo-chopped into a civil war instead. So we dropped (and continue to drop) money and arms on Syrian rebels, which have since become ISIS.
That we're so sloppy in execution and actually securing those few pipeline routes that we have won is due to our government(s) being fragmented into factions with different interests in each area. One of which is the Israeli lobby, who want pipeline routes and more fresh water resources for their country.
On the other hand, you have Obama's money-men who don't give a rat's ass about Israel, but would love to start a war with Russia because they're still stuck in a cold-war mentality.
The game is energy, and the prize is economic survival. Which China will probably win because we're too busy making sure that Putin has nowhere else to turn for support.
Please enlighten me what EU interventions did create chaos and destruction?
ReplyDeleteAnd why always, ALWAYS the same excuse for actions of Russia... look, look what US did/is doing. This is some kind of inferiority complex? Why always the same excuse? It's like killing is good because someone else did kill...
And where those "eastern NATO" members have any occupation forces?
Again you did not answer the question, Ukrainians did live in wonderland before that and only the "evil conspiracy of US" and use of magical spells did turn the poor Ukrainians against good ruler. We don't know how that would work for them don't we? Because some aggressive neighbor decide to kill them because they stop to like his rule over them.
the US doesn't need the energy. so what is your theory now?
ReplyDeletePlease grow up .Libya was more or less Anglo French affair others pitched in only as things didn't quite go as fast as planed in the end much of Nato got involved . And where is Libya now ? .
ReplyDeleteWho sent troops on a so called ATO? Ukraine had /has a choice of not leading war in the east. But how long do you think once attention switches from the east to Kiev would goverment still stand. 'Our man' in Ukraine and other possies are no less corroupt, http://www.globalresearch.ca/president-petro-poroshenko-our-ukraine-insider-for-the-u-s-state-department/5386891
I should grow up? You still did not answer my questions... why you doge them?
ReplyDeleteLibya? EU forces did not operate in Libya... I don't know why you speak about that. Again, where EU interventions did create chaos and destruction, don't dodge it, answer the question.
Ukraine sent as you so called ATO to restore order in regions that were targeted by armed bandits and terrorist groups created and sponsored by Russia... you don't remember that how long time take Ukrainians to organize response against ARMED GROUPS that attack government buildings and size the places. Tell me... the ATO operation was in action BEFORE or AFTER bandit actions in both oblasts?
Don't combine, just answer a questions like grown man.
With all due respect, you are being extremely disingenuous. Sure, we may have supported the protestors who wanted a transition to a transparent, democratic government (we are the USA, that's what we do, or at least, that's what we should do...get used to it), but we DID NOT escalate this conflict. The majority of the violence that occurred during the protests was from government forces against the protestors, that is until the Parliament failed to concede to the protestors' constitutional requests.
ReplyDeleteThe real escalation occurred when Russia invaded Crimea and started this whole 'rebel' madness. That's their deal. The fact of the matter is that the revolution that ousted Yanukovych gave Putin a convenient excuse to do something he has been wanting to do for a while, start taking back former satellite states.
The fact that the European powers are inept and incapable of seeing ahead of their blatant fear is only convincing Putin that he was and is right about their resolve and that he could have probably done tis shit sooner.
Except that we do. Frakking isn't sustainable, and is really just another financial bubble waiting to pop. So what happens when it does and the wells become to expensive to re-frak every 6-12 months?
ReplyDeleteEven if you think we have enough oil sources in the US, the availability of central Asian crude will still contribute to the determination of the overall world price.
bullshit. the US has only recently placed its oil on the international market. thats another fiction of the global market place that hasn't brought us any advantages only pain. if we were to keep our resources at home then global price would mean nothing. additionally frakking isn't the only thing going on. we have more natural gas than anyone else. we also have huge areas of our offshore that we aren't using. additionally large parts of our national parks are cut off.
ReplyDeleteface it cowboy. its part of the game but the US doesn't need to play it if we had leadership with some balls.
Then you don't understand how the oil market works, or how we can't abandon it, because the petro-dollar is VITAL to our ability to keep printing/borrowing money without repercussions. If the world switched to settling oil payments in Rubles or Yaun, or whatever Iran uses, then you'd see inflation in the US that would make Weimar Germany look like a walk in the park. We HAVE to make sure that China and every other country that's forced to use the dollar for oil payments holds onto their dollar reserves. Which is why (from a US perspective) Russia can't be allowed a monopoly on central Asian oil transit. Because then they could institute an alternative payment system that cuts our economic throat.
ReplyDeleteWe have to play the game because of decades of balls-less leadership that has left us little choice. We're just getting worse and worse at it as time goes on.
This I support. Kinetics has some "momentum" here. The way Ukraine was ignoring its own national defense and deterrence, Russian activity was bound to happen. With or without any alleged external EU/US meddling which plenty of people here have suggested. The fact of the matter remains that Ukraine was a ripe fruit up for grabs. A sub-par army, a sub-par civil-military intelligence apparatus, plenty of angry people, a bankrupt country, internal political turmoil of the highest order, public anarchy etc. Who in their right minds would not grab such an opportunity knowing full well the Future Potential of such a conquest?
ReplyDeleteas usual you're changing the parameters of the debate. you said that we couldn't because we needed middle eastern oil. i proved you wrong on that and now you switch to a debate over the dollar as a fiat currency. ok i'll play.
ReplyDeletewhy do we need to have oil priced in dollars to remain the "world" dollar? we don't. little noticed was the fact that our federal reserve loaned the EU central bank money. additionally China is as much a prisoner of us as we are of it considering how many of our dollars they hold. plus the minute the Chinese let the Yuan rise to a realistic level is the minute their own economy takes a nose dive. who would that leave to replace us? the EU? being a fiat currency is more than just about economic power it includes military power too.
no. we don't need those bastards to use dollars. THEY NEED TO USE DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY NEED US MORE THAN WE NEED THEM.
get off your high horse. there is no equivalency here.
-Wrong drug, its not 'cold hard reality' but rather 'soft conspiracy-porn'
ReplyDelete-Wrong president, we are talking ineffectual Obama , not 'damn the consequences' Bush.
- Wrong decade, it is not the neocon world changers who are in power, but 'liberals' and budget hawks.
-Wrong continent, these pipelines will never reach the US, it is Europe that needs the energy from Russia.. and was actually getting it without needing a war.
Maybe change your name to Sandwrong?
He is dodging the question! Deflecting towards things that have no bearing on it.
ReplyDeleteThe pertinent question is how the EU destabilized the Ukraine, because actions by the EU and US are what is constantly used to justify Russia's invasions.
Lets look at what the EU did towards Ukraine.
They offered a treaty, one similar to so many with other nations including Russia. A treaty the Ukrainian president back then wanted, because those who voted for him wanted it. Democracy in action. A treaty that only at the last moment got scrapped because of blatant threats and blackmail by Putin. Talk about destabilizing a government..
This treaty is a normal diplomatic affair, like so many others, which only becomes contentious when it makes Ukrainians big eastern brother feel inadequate.
I understand Russia feels this way, there is a whole history leading up to this making Russia's annoyance logical when looking at it from their perspective. However, annoyance is not a valid reason to send troops... and never will be.
We can make this a lot simpler by changing it to a schoolyard brawl.
Big Yuri has a friend, Peter. Peter basically does whatever Yuri wants, because it has always been that way, until Peter grows up a bit and makes other friends, Harold and John. He can still play with Yuri, when he wants to, but he wants to less so then before and does not always do what Yuri tells him to, so Yuri gets angry and beats Peter up.
Justified? Lets ask the headmaster..
Now, if Harold and or John would step in and stop Yuri, leading to a fight between those 3, who would be to blame ?
Again, lets ask the headmaster.
Shit, Solomon killed it.
ReplyDeleteNo, I showed why we need Middle Eastern oil. Because like it or not, oil prices have nothing to do with how close to the pump the oil is extracted. Everyone's production affects the price globally, and we can't abandon that global system and turtle up without cutting our own throat. Because the payments for that system are made in dollars which we can't allow to be dumped on us instead of banked for oil settlements.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't we allow that? Because we don't know how to keep our house in order and stop accruing more and more debt for less and less value in return. If we had no debt to speak of, this wouldn't be an issue.
Would China be hurt by dumping their dollars? Sure they would. But not as badly as us, and if they're the first to dump, they'll come out of it much better than the last poor sap nation that gives up on the petrodollar.
Maybe you still don't get it, so I'll say it even more simply. We keep running the printing presses to pay for useless crap like the F-35 and counter-productive social services. But that doesn't cause Zimbabwe-like inflation here because other nations have a compelling reason (oil payment settlements) to hold on to the dollars they get. We print away, they suck up most of the excess.
Take away that reason to hold dollars, and most of those countries would dump them on us, giving us Zimbabwe-like inflation and completely wrecking what's left of our economy. Which is why we tend to go after nations (Russia, Libya, Iran) that attempt to set up oil payment settlement systems that don't require dollars. It doesn't matter what the alternative payment is (gold, silver, yauns, whatever), the only thing that matters is that it's not dollars being traded and banked away. That's literally the only issue.
Yes, it would be wonderful if we could just say "fuck off" to the world and look after ourselves without 100 years of shitty financial promises to worry about. But we do. We're a part of the larger world, and the markets are all global now, like it or not. So we play the game of propping up the dollar. Which means gaining control over as much of the world's remaining reserves as possible from Russia, China, Iran, or anyone else that gets in our way.
It's a shitty, amoral game. But we have to either play it, or roll over and die.
Only if you willfully ignore the global picture.
ReplyDeleteSo tell me, how many nations has Russia invaded since the fall of the Soviet Union? Georgia? check. Urkraine? Depends on your definition.
ReplyDeleteNow think about the answer to that question for the US and/or NATO.
Who spends more than the rest of the world combined on arms every year? Who has 10 supercarriers (and at least as many amphibious assault ships) to globally project power with, versus the 0-3 such ships that every other nation has? Who has more than 100 bases in other countries all over the world to stage aircraft and troops at?
The disparity in strength here is so wide it's laughable. If Russia actually gets into a real fight with us, the nukes will fly first, because they know they can't win a conventional war that's not right on their borders. China is the one we should be obsessing about, because they ARE planning to win a conventional war with us.
Which ignores the color coups that the US and Russian secret services have been fighting over for over 20 years now. No Ukrainian president in that time has been anything more than a pawn for either side. ANY deal about anything at all has to be analyzed against that reality.
ReplyDeleteAnd the US/NATO puts missiles in Poland, sends warships into the black sea, and other such provocations. So what's your point? That two powers are pea-cocking each other, hoping the other will back down? That's business as usual in a cold war.
ReplyDeleteRussia is not my country, will never be, and I have no illusions about Putin being a nice guy, but they display more of a concern for their own nation/people's interests than we do. Probably because they already had their big economic collapse decades ago, and gained a little wisdom from it.
Whereas we're still in full retard mode. Ignoring the needs of our own people, and our own national interests, while claiming to know what's best for everyone else.
- What is my point?
ReplyDeleteWell, my point was a reaction to Don Bacon suggesting Russia did not do such things and if they did 'the Hawks' would go nuts.
( Quote: if Russia or China did that on the US border the hawks would be going nuts over it.)
I pointed out that there is no 'if' about it, it is already happening, and has been long before this parade, making Don's statements rather ridiculous, specially when he says Russia;s involvement in the Ukraine is to prevent such parades.
( Quote : This is why Russia reacted to the Kiev junta, so as not to see such a display of US expansionism in Crimea and Donbas.)
Frankly I should not even react to it, since it is so far out there that no one with half a brain can take it serious, but that is my failing.. I can't help myself.
Then to your rather interesting statement that Russia , as opposed to the USA has more concern for their own citizens.
I will leave your commentary about your own political leadership in that for what it is, but the suggestion that Putin has his own citizens well-being at heart is rather lacking in insight.
These citizens had a much higher standard of living before Moscow started its expressionistic agenda. He sacrificed this and a healthy (trade) relationship with Europe, for other reasons. Maybe pride, maybe a hunkering for former glory, but much more likely Putins own power base. Putin indeed 'gained some wisdom' from the past, he was there when the East German population rose up. He sees how several former vassal-nations are blossoming. A few years ago Russians were heading in the same direction, they had a taste of freedom and prosperity combined with the beginnings of democracy and they liked it. I believe Putins greatest fear was a popular uprising on the red square demanding all the things they see others can have. Like so many leaders before him he decided the best solution for an internal problem was to start a war. No better way to pacify your population then to appeal to nationalism and to blame a few scapegoats, in this case The West and gay people.
The gulags are being filled again, political prisoners being taken and freedoms being destroyed, opponents murdered. Russia's citizens highest point of well-being in centuries has passed and will for the foreseeable future not return.
Now tell me... how your post is related to the topic of this discussion? We speak about why Balts and Poles smell trouble from Russia actions and you write about how many US has carriers? You derail topic in to discussion about different things... you know what we really don't give a single fuck about China because China is NOT a problem to Balts or Poles... Russia is a problem. When China will partition Russia and we start to have border with them... then, we will think about China.
ReplyDeleteI beg your pardon... what missiles and where? 0_o
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid... they move on the another level, Boris Niemcow was killed today. "Unknown" killers, shoot him dead near the Red Square. One of the main oppositionist and solid critic of president Putin, many people said that he will kill Niemcow for that...
ReplyDeleteCan I say 'Thank you mister Putin, for proving my point', without sounding callous or a conspiracy freak?
ReplyDeleteEventhough it is rather obvious who the no1 suspect is we do not KNOW who killed Niemcow / Nemtsov and we likely will never know for sure.
What is the most "funny"... it is a place with bazillion cameras and secret service agents, but nobody saw anything... like they were ordered to NOT see.
ReplyDelete