Is the West gearing up to invade Russia once again?

[bryant.coleman]

Some people here obviously seem to consider these documents as fakes...

I have already said that the Iranian financial support to the Hizbollah and other Shiite groups is a well known fact. But to say that Iran is para-dropping its elite troops to the conflicts around the world is ridiculous. 

[1714770868]

1714770868

[1714770868]

1714770868

[1714770868]

1714770868

[deisik]

Some people here obviously seem to consider these documents as fakes...

I have already said that the Iranian financial support to the Hizbollah and other Shiite groups is a well known fact. But to say that Iran is para-dropping its elite troops to the conflicts around the world is ridiculous. 

First, Hezbollah in Lebanon was founded, trained and armed by Iran. Second, you admitted that financial support of non-governmental organizations by the USA in Russia is an example of interference by the former into the internal affairs of the latter. How does all this confirm that "they [Iran] never interfere in the politics of other nations"?

[Trading]

Well, both sides in the Islamic internal war between chia and sunni countries hasn't stopped interfering in others political matters. They deserve each others. No one is better than the other.

Far from me to defend Iran (I dislike both in equal terms, well, maybe some more the glorious Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, since Iran has elections), but wasn't the glorious KSA that were asking the US to bomb Iran because of their nuclear arms program, as leaked in a document published by wikileaks?

[Nemo1024]

To bring this back on topic, I am copying the link to that RT video:

The Truthseeker: US plans 'first strike' on Russia (E40)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvKucpTckjA

My comment to it is:

Plausible? Yes. Probable? Not likely. Unless of course, there are some over-confident hawks and strategists at NATO who think that Napoleon and Hitler were just unlucky, and this time, yes, this time a blitzkrieg against Russia will surely work.

An I just noticed the following morsel:

NATO to consider more troops in Poland

NATO defense ministers will meet in Brussels this week to discuss temporarily reinforcing their military presence in Poland, Reuters reports. It hasn’t been decided whether the 28-member Alliance will actually reinforce its Multinational Corps Northeast in Szczecin, a spokesman for the German Defense Ministry said. In April, Poland's defense minister asked for more NATO troops, explaining this by the threat the country feels from neighboring Russia.
http://rt.com/news/line/2014-06-01/

[bryant.coleman]

The Truthseeker: US plans 'first strike' on Russia (E40)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvKucpTckjA

The US first strike on Russia is a definite possibility in case Hillary Clinton is selected as POTUS in 2016. She is one of the most rabidly anti-Russian politicians currently within the Democratic Party. And in the past she has proven to be even more bloodthirsty when compared to the GOP hawks. Putin better prepare himself for this. I don't want a repetition of 1939.

[bryant.coleman]

1) The Democrats have been consistently less aggressive than the republicans.

Most of the times. But not always. I'd say that Hillary Clinton is more bloodthirsty than Bush and Romney combined.

The all "invasion of Russia" theory is absurd. It was Russia that invaded a neighbour peaceful country. And did an annexation by force based on a controversial referendum (even if I accept that the majority of the population wanted to join Russia) against a signed agreement.

The aggressor here was the United States, which spent $ 5 billion to overthrow a democratically elected government and replaced it with a junta which is full of neo-Nazi extremists. Yes, Ukraine was a peaceful country. Until the Americans began messing with it.

[Trading]

I know Hillary has assumed more aggressive positions on Afghanistan, Libya or Syria than even Obama, but you really see her invading Russia? Come on...

So, the US interfered in Ukraine political situation, therefore Russia can invade it and annex a part of its territory...

Can't one distance himself from his State interests when one is commenting on a forum? I saw Russians protesting against the movement against Crimea. I doubt that all Russians have a clean conscience on that.

[Canis Lupus]

Conspiracy theories.. No truth in them whatsoever.

[Nemo1024]

So, the US interfered in Ukraine political situation, therefore Russia can invade it and annex a part of its territory...

I would put it like that: Russia used to opportunity to return lands stolen from it in 1954. Saving local population from genocide comes as a definitive bonus.

[Nemo1024]

Since Crimea was stolen by a Russian, Khrushchev, that was the supreme leader of the Russians and other soviet peoples, and confirmed by Yeltsin, in 1994, when he promised to respect Ukrainian borders, Russia can't stop there.

So many errors in one sentence.
Khrushev was Ukrainian.
He was a "supreme leader" of Soviet Union.
He unconstitutionally transferred land from Russian Soviet Socialist Federative Republic (a separate entity) to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (another separate entity).
What Yeltsin did or did not do does not matter. It was never ratified.

But, wait!, Byelorussia was also stolen at the same time from Russia. And even the European Union says that its President is a dictator. He surely is responsible of genocide too. At least, that is as true as Ukraine being responsible of genocide on Crimea. You have to annex Byelorussia too!

Um are you trolling me or what? I said that Russia averted genocide in Crimea - something you confirm by pointing out the ongoing genocide in Novorossia.
You have a logical flaw above, basically saying that since the sky is blue, then it means that apples must be sour.

As for territories, yes, Russia was chopped up badly by Lenin and co.
And you know, Lukashenko actually came with a suggestion of Belarus becoming a federative subject of Russian Federation. It didn't get any headway, though.

Damn, but Poland! Poland was stolen from Russia too, by another Russian, Lenin, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, of 1918, that implicitly gave its territory to Germany and Austria-Hungary to decide as they please. And there can be no doubt that Poland is responsible also for genocide against the Russians. That has to be as much true as Ukraine being responsible of genocide on Crimea.

Lenin: half-German, half-udmurt. Hell bent on destroying Russian Empire and the royal house in particular for personal reasons. In several letters proclaimed his hatred for all thing Russia. Much evidence point towards him being a German agent, as his personal motives coincided with German aspirations.
Besides, Poland is a special case, touching Ukraine and Belarus as well. For Russian-Polish relations you need to take into account at least 600 years of history.

Should I go on with Alaska? Stolen by Czar Alexander II for 7.2 million dollars in 1867!

Alaska was sold, not stolen. A Czar was within his right to do so, so that land transfer was fully legitimate.

[Nemo1024]

Khrushchev, Ukrainian?, he was born in Kalinovka, in Russia. He was the strong man in Ukraine, but not an Ukrainian. His parents were clearly of Russian origin. I see you know a lot of your own history.

I stand corrected there. Though he did have a Ukrainian wife.

Of course he was supreme leader of Soviet Union, and as such, also supreme leader of the Russians, able to speak in their name.

No. Wrong. The Cabinet of Ministers of RSFSR was its supreme leadership. It's like saying that van Rompuy is a supreme leader of Lithuanians, just because Lithuania is in EU.

The allegation of genocide in Crimea, or risk of genocide, is so out of reality that you are just helping make the Russian cause look even weaker. You think you are being patriotic by writing those things? You just lose credibility and, by the same act, help the enemies of Russia.

So all those explosives, weapons and ammunitions stopped at the Ukrainian/Crimean border prior to referendum were just toys?

So, I guess you think Russia should annex the rest of Ukraine and Byelorussia. Poland must be next, since I bet you are intimately convinced that they are planing genocide against their Russian minority (about 13,000)...

No I don't and I never said it. However, if Belarus or Ukraine (or is the case may be Novorossia) decide that they want to join Russia by the means of a referendum with a strong majority, then by all means...

Belorus is de facto integrated with Russia. Lukashenko was present in the command center during the latest drills, the economies of the countries are tightly intertwined, people move freely between them. Lukashenko never threatens either Russian minority or Belorussians (if you manage to distinguish between them), and Belorus is one of the few, if not only, country that managed to avoid the oligarchy problem and the destruction of its economy and industry. I think benevolent dictatorship has something for itself...

And please, leave Poland alone.

You are deliberately talking of different things. My mentioning of potential genocide in Crimea was a by-sentence to a much larger picture, and you've blown it out of all proportions.

Well, I'm resting my case here. Write alone if you want.

Thank you. That was very generous and open-minded of you.

[Balthazar]

Khrushchev, Ukrainian?, he was born in Kalinovka, in Russia. He was the strong man in Ukraine, but not an Ukrainian. His parents were clearly of Russian origin.

I stand corrected there. Though he did have a Ukrainian wife.

His nationality doesn't matter, but he was a leader of ukrainian communist party.

In addition, an Ukrainian ethnicity is historically a southern subtype of Russian ethnicity, people of Kuban. Therefore, Ukrainians or Belarusians can call themselves Russians, but not vice versa. So there is no sense of trying to determine an exact difference between "russian" and "ukrainian", leave this problem to Nazi.

Of course he was supreme leader of Soviet Union, and as such, also supreme leader of the Russians, able to speak in their name.

It seems that you have absolutely no idea how the federative state works. There is no such thing as "supreme leader", each subject has own government and constitution. If you want to adjust member state borders, then you have to get an authorization from its government. Even if you have a top position in the federal government.

Khruschev have used a blackmailing to get an authorization from the Crimean ASSR government. It's just like if Obama would decide to merge Texas with Oklahoma, and force Texas's government to give an authorization through using a compromising info about taxes evasion. This situation would be almost identical to what was made by Khrushchev.

P.S. Besides that, Ukrainian SSR, Belorussian SSR and RSFSR were separate subjects of international law, they even had own representatives in the UN.

[LostDutchman]

Are you still going to adhere to your position?

About Iran giving Syria financial support, I'll agree. But I am not going to agree with you that the revolutionary guards were sent to Syria.

If your attack is unexpected (or well prepared), then your losses may be miniscule compared to that of the defenders

I was talking about the Nazis attacking the USSR in 1939. Although Stalin was not expecting it, most of his military commanders were of the opposite opinion.

Dude, you better bone up on your history.

Germany invaded Russia in June of 1941.

"Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa"), beginning 22 June 1941, was the code name for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II."

[Trading]

Well, I'm resting my case here. Write alone if you want.

Thank you. That was very generous and open-minded of you.

You were more gallant than I was expecting. But I stand on my point, you lose credibility by those patriotic wild posts, with no evidence or even justification, and end up hurting Russian cause. I have no side here, I have defended Russia in several posts.

[LostDutchman]

No one is going to invade Russia.

Get over it.

[bryant.coleman]

Dude, you better bone up on your history.

Germany invaded Russia in June of 1941.

"Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa"), beginning 22 June 1941, was the code name for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II."

Oh that was a typo. Got confused between the Polish invasion and the Russian invasion. Yes. It was in 1941.

But what I posted is true. Stalin firmly believed that the Nazis are not going to attack him. He even ignored warnings from his commanders. And in the end, it cost the USSR a lot, in terms of human lives.

[LostDutchman]

Dude, you better bone up on your history.

Germany invaded Russia in June of 1941.

"Operation Barbarossa (German: Fall Barbarossa, literally "Case Barbarossa"), beginning 22 June 1941, was the code name for Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union during World War II."

Oh that was a typo. Got confused between the Polish invasion and the Russian invasion. Yes. It was in 1941.

But what I posted is true. Stalin firmly believed that the Nazis are not going to attack him. He even ignored warnings from his commanders. And in the end, it cost the USSR a lot, in terms of human lives.

Well, yeah but Stalin was also an alcoholic pshychotic nutcase and hid in his dacha for a week fearing the military would take him out and have him shot.

Too bad they didn't.

[bryant.coleman]

It seems some of our fellow russian forum members want to convert Russia from aggressor to victim or potential victim.

OK.. I will give you a list of the nations invaded (or democratically elected governments toppled) by the United States, since the end of the WW2.

1949 Greece
1952 Cuba
1953 Iran
1953 British Guyana
1954 Guatemala
1955 South Vietnam
1957 Haiti
1958 Laos
1960 South Korea
1960 Laos
1960 Ecuador.
1963 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnam
1963 Honduras
1963 Guatemala
1963 Ecuador.
1964 Brazil
1964 Bolivia
1965 Zaire.
1966 Ghana
1967 Greece
1970 Cambodia
1970 Bolivia
1972 El Salvador
1973 Chile
1979 South Korea (Pro-USA government wanted)
1980 Liberia
1982 Chad
1983 Grenada
1987 Fiji
1989 Panama
2001 Afghanistan
2002 Venezuela
2003 Iraq
2004 Haiti
2009 Honduras
2011 Libya
2011 Tunisia
2013 Egypt
2014 Ukraine

Now give me the corresponding list for Russia, and we can decide on who is the aggressor.

[Nemo1024]

But I only need to quote one where Russia was the aggressor to be able to call her that. And I meant the situation in Crimea.

According to international law, UN charter more specifically, that wasn't an aggression. Crimea seceded from Ukraine. Crimea, as an independent state proclaimed its wish to join Russian Federation. Russian Federation responded positively to the request. No shots were fired, no invasion was needed. All the minuscule military nudge that was needed came from within: you should remember that for example Sevastopol's residents are for a large part either families of Russian servicemen or descendant thereof. Most, if not all, were with a resented Ukrainian citizenship, that they were more than happy to shed at the first possibility.

Now a few corrections to your previous posts: Soviet Union was not a federation. Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which was a member of Soviet Union, on the other hand was.

Khrushov's agenda for giving Crimea to Ukraine stretches far beyond nationalities. It was a political favour-seeking move. He needed support to be come General Secretary, and Ukrainian Communist Party was by far the most influential. He also needed a few leaders in Ukraine to forget that he was Stalin's right-hand man during repressions, while he at the time was dismantling the cult of Stalin.

Again to bring EU analogy in: think van Rompuy giving Strasbourg to Germany as a favour-seeking gesture. The whole deal bypasses the French government and is sealed over an informal dinner with a few EU commissioners.

OK, probably a bad analogy. I need to find a piece of land the ownership of which has not been disputed for a few hundred of years. So, instead think that van Rompuy gives Skåne (which is a county in the Southern part of Sweden) to Denmark, together with all the Swedes living there and against their will. The whole deal bypasses the Swedish government and is sealed over an informal dinner with a few EU commissioners. And then, after 60 years Sweden takes the territory back, after people living there ask it to. One of the grounds would be that the Swedes are denied their mother tongue, and instead are forced to speak Danish (which is equally close to Swedish as Ukrainian to Russian).

The whole transfer of Crimea was done hastily, in the spirit of transfer it now, we'll find an official reason for it later. Local population was against it. The leader of the Communist party of Crimea voiced his protests on behalf of the people living there, and was promptly removed from his post.

The sentiment of "Crimea is not Ukrainian" was there right from 1954, and nothing changed it. It only got stronger, with more resentment from the population after 1993. Have you been to Crimea? I was. I lived there multiple times, both during Soviet Union existence, and after. Kiev did nothing to endear itself to Crimeans. On the contrary, on several occasions force was used to teach Crimeans how to love Ukraine. Believe me, it could go two ways - either peacefully through a referendum, or after a prolonged war. And the pressure lid was close to bursting. If such a was started, and it would have been sparked if NATO tried to establish a base in Sevastopol, then you'd have a situation worse than the one in Novorossia.

[bryant.coleman]

But I only need to quote one where Russia was the aggressor to be able to call her that. And I meant the situation in Crimea.

The people in Crimea rose up against the Kiev junta, after the use of the Russian language was banned by the latter. Russian forces arrived in Crimea only after the people voted overwhelmingly to join the Russian Federation.