When USA invasion to Russia starts?

[(oYo)]

The USA hasn't declared war in decades. (Since Vietnam I believe.) Yet, they are at war with everyone (including their own citizens) covertly. While the USA is constantly planning covert missions against Russia, I won't be surprised when Putin has had enough of it and (with China backing him) he overtly declares war on the true global terrorists and invades the USA. 

[GreekBitcoin]

Russia is a threat and must be eliminated!



Its funny how you say that there is no way there is going to be a major war. Last time i checked WW1 for example nobody thought that it was going to be a major war. Home by Christmas they were saying. Noone even attacked a major power
It is also admirable how you bet that obvious warmongling, corrupt and totally incomeptent politicians will never do such a thing. After all, did they ever did so in history?

Amassing armies in borders and making trade difficult always help bring down the tensions. Am i right?

Oh, and there is never a small or justified war.  Ask the dead or their relatives. Maybe ask the survivors too. I will give you a hint, its not like in the movies. But what do you expect from a international culture of glorifying wars.


 

[Ingatqhvq]

I've been told by many legitimate sources that west (Especially USA) is planning to attack russia  When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrine
USA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!

Why US gonna to attack russia?
US can't get nothing.
The two biggest nuclear weapon country's war is nothing good for any one.

[Snail2]

Its funny how you say that there is no way there is going to be a major war. Last time i checked WW1 for example nobody thought that it was going to be a major war. Home by Christmas they were saying. Noone even attacked a major power

A US attack on Russia would be a quickie one really. We'd be all home by Easter .

[kitarohotono]

How USA is going to destabilize russia?

[Gronthaing]

Its funny how you say that there is no way there is going to be a major war. Last time i checked WW1 for example nobody thought that it was going to be a major war. Home by Christmas they were saying. Noone even attacked a major power

A US attack on Russia would be a quickie one really. We'd be all home by Easter .

No you wouldn't. Not if nuclear weapons are involved. Not much of a home to return to.

Its funny how you say that there is no way there is going to be a major war. Last time i checked WW1 for example nobody thought that it was going to be a major war. Home by Christmas they were saying. Noone even attacked a major power

Back then the worst you could do was to take warship and shell the coast line of a country or send a cloud of mustard gas towards their troops. There were no nuclear weapons spy satellites and military drones.
Both Russians and Americans should realize the real threat is in the Middle East and these people are not playing by the rules. If they had nuclear weapons they would be already launching them in our direction.

The middle east has been under control of the west for over 100 years. If extremists get nuclear weapons they would use them. But until then they are doing what they were created to do.

[Snail2]

A US attack on Russia would be a quickie one really. We'd be all home by Easter .

No you wouldn't. Not if nuclear weapons are involved. Not much of a home to return to.

Back then the worst you could do was to take warship and shell the coast line of a country or send a cloud of mustard gas towards their troops. There were no nuclear weapons spy satellites and military drones.
Both Russians and Americans should realize the real threat is in the Middle East and these people are not playing by the rules. If they had nuclear weapons they would be already launching them in our direction.

The middle east has been under control of the west for over 100 years. If extremists get nuclear weapons they would use them. But until then they are doing what they were created to do.

I've tried to be sarcastic . What I wanted to point out: in such a scenario we wouldn't have the time to deploy to the frontlines but we'd be nuked while still at home.

[deluxeCITY]

I've been told by many legitimate sources that west (Especially USA) is planning to attack russia  When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrine
USA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!

Are your legitimate sources youtube? In a way you are right they have already started to attack russia with sanctions on the country but i do not believe they will attack russia by force unless forced to. USA does have HQ's all over the world and it does look like they are attempting to takeover most of the world but what happens when they get to China/Russia etc there will be big problems for the world if they try this as these countrys will not bow down to them and they are not weak like many others they have taken control of. Lets hope eveyone can just be friends 

[deluxeCITY]

I've been told by many legitimate sources that west (Especially USA) is planning to attack russia  When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrine
USA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!

Are your legitimate sources youtube? In a way you are right they have already started to attack russia with sanctions on the country but i do not believe they will attack russia by force unless forced to. USA does have HQ's all over the world and it does look like they are attempting to takeover most of the world but what happens when they get to China/Russia etc there will be big problems for the world if they try this as these countrys will not bow down to them and they are not weak like many others they have taken control of. Lets hope eveyone can just be friends 

Having a forward base in another country doesn't mean you want to take over. How would you plan to take a country that has for instance 500k troops, by having an airfield there, managed by 200 people?

Oh right i see what you mean silly me thinking they would take a country with as you say 200 people, i guess they only have 200 people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, South Korea , Kuwait, Bahrain, Japan, Germany, Italy, UK with many many other deployments around the globe that are bases all with thousands of troops stationed and that is just so 'if' the time comes they already have the foothold to deploy thousands more. It is a game of chess and the pieces are in place and have been for years.   

[Razick]

I've been told by many legitimate sources that west (Especially USA) is planning to attack russia   When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrine
USA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!

Quoted for the history books. In some future era, this will be used as an example of "Stupidest Things said in 2015."

That said, I wish we could give Putin a taste of his own medicine and maybe start a revolution in Russia. We could say "It's just the American separatists. We aren't involved. What a ridiculous charge."

Last I checked it was USA that started the "revolution", or more correctly a coup d'etat, in Ukraine. Btw, USA/Great Britain already tried with a revolution in Russia - once successfully in 1917, and the other time less so - Bolotnaja revolt in Moscow. And they are trying now with the economic warfare, which aim is to create a social unrest in Russia.

Did you mean to write: But Putin should probably give Obama a taste of his own medicine and maybe start a revolution in USA. Russians could say "It's just the Texan separatists. We aren't involved. What a ridiculous charge." 

What I am referring to is Putin's provisions of troops and heavy weapons to the separatists. I'm not sure what you are referring to as far as the US starting the current revolution goes...

[BitBlitz]

I've been told by many legitimate sources that west (Especially USA) is planning to attack russia  When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrine
USA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!

Now your "many legitimate sources" are going to cut you off, since you just relayed their inside information on Bitcointalk-- THE go to site for up-to-date, accurate, breaking news...

[Nemo1024]

So much fail in one statement. First, you'll discover that there are quite a lot of people here interested in a multi-polar view on events. Second, you are obviously NOT watching Russian TV. If you did, you'd know that USA gets a rather small share of air time, on par with Finland or Italy.

I watch Russian TV ( 1Channel, not RussianTV on USA network) and you are lying. USA is constantly in the news and is shown as aggressor and the cause of everything that is wrong in the world and Russia.

And it's not just TV, visit any Russian new site and see for yourself.
Here is current http://www.gazeta.ru/ 10 "news of the day":

05:40 Цeнa фьючepcoв нa нeфть в Лoндoнe yмeньшилacь дo $61,55
05:32 Кaмepы зaфикcиpoвaли кpyшeниe пoeздa в Кaлифopнии
05:20 Coвбeз OOH мoжeт пpoвecти вcтpeчy пo Укpaинe 27 фeвpaля
05:08 Цeнa фьючepcoв нa нeфть в Hью-Йopкe oпycтилacь дo $50,72
05:00 B CШA зaдepжaли пpoникшyю в шкoлy c opyжиeм жeнщинy
04:42 «Aль-Кaидa» плaниpoвaлa тepaкты в Poccии
04:28 Пcaки oбecпoкoeнa peшeниeм cyдa нe ocвoбoждaть Caвчeнкo
04:12 «Haфтoгaз» вoзьмeт в кpeдит y Китaя $3,6 млpд
04:00 Глaвa MИД Cepбии: пpeдвapитeльныe дoгoвopeннocти o пpoдлeнии миccии OБCE в Дoнбacce дocтигнyты
03:46 B Дaнии apecтoвaли дecять пoдoзpeвaeмыx в тopгoвлe людьми


3 oil related, 2 Ukraine related, one Denmark, one Russia and THREE that has to do with USA, out of which TWO has nothing to do with internal affairs ( a school/weapon and train crush in California)...

Actually, you are supporting my claim. Two of those article about USA is just normal reporting. That kind of news would be retorted the same way if the shooting happened in Finland or the train crash happened in India. As for Psaki - she's viewed in Russia more of a comic relief, like Zhirinovskij domestically.
I took a look at gaseta.ru - they seem to favour international news. Other sources which I prefer: aif.ru (a somewhat liberal newspaper), itar-tass.com, ria.ru are more balanced, as well as they give you the option of looking at sub-topics.

As for speaking about USA as an aggressor. It is well-founded, though Russia was very moderate at expression its displeasure. Until very recently Putin was still referring to USA and NATO as "partners"...

Also, turnabout is a fair play, so let's look at the following simple thought experiment: Imagine that Russia facilitates a violent coup d'etat in Mexico, then basically appoints a new government there and instigates a military operation on the Mexican/US border. Then Russia talks about supplying the Mexicans with weapons, while de facto doing it, and hampers any attempt at peace. In addition is spreads slander about Omaba in particular and USA in general and hits Microsoft, as well as some prominent political and cultural figures, like Madonna, with sanctions. Question: How would USA behave in such a scenario?

[jaysabi]

As for speaking about USA as an aggressor. It is well-founded, though Russia was very moderate at expression its displeasure. Until very recently Putin was still referring to USA and NATO as "partners"...

Also, turnabout is a fair play, so let's look at the following simple thought experiment: Imagine that Russia facilitates a violent coup d'etat in Mexico, then basically appoints a new government there and instigates a military operation on the Mexican/US border. Then Russia talks about supplying the Mexicans with weapons, while de facto doing it, and hampers any attempt at peace. In addition is spreads slander about Omaba in particular and USA in general and hits Microsoft, as well as some prominent political and cultural figures, like Madonna, with sanctions. Question: How would USA behave in such a scenario?

You don't even have to raise a hypothetical. Look at how the US reacted to the Cuban Missile Crisis (I know the Russian refer to it differently). Or how the US responded to the Zimmerman Telegram with Germany in WWI. That will tell you how the US responds to threats to it. As an American, I agree, the US historically is an aggressor. But that doesn't render your depiction of the events accurate in Ukraine.

Each side arguing for their subjective version of the truth of what is going on in Ukraine just seems so pointlessly futile. Neither side is going to convince the other that they're not buying into propaganda, so what's the point in citing news sources that the other side will just dismiss outright as lies? As much as you know that the US is orchestrating this whole thing, the West knows with the same confidence that Russia is instigating the rebellion. As much as the West knows that Russian media is full of garbage, I'm sure you know with the same level of confidence the western media reports are wrong. Each side believes their knowledge is unassailable. You can't counter that level of dogma.

[Nemo1024]

As for speaking about USA as an aggressor. It is well-founded, though Russia was very moderate at expression its displeasure. Until very recently Putin was still referring to USA and NATO as "partners"...

Also, turnabout is a fair play, so let's look at the following simple thought experiment: Imagine that Russia facilitates a violent coup d'etat in Mexico, then basically appoints a new government there and instigates a military operation on the Mexican/US border. Then Russia talks about supplying the Mexicans with weapons, while de facto doing it, and hampers any attempt at peace. In addition is spreads slander about Omaba in particular and USA in general and hits Microsoft, as well as some prominent political and cultural figures, like Madonna, with sanctions. Question: How would USA behave in such a scenario?

You don't even have to raise a hypothetical. Look at how the US reacted to the Cuban Missile Crisis (1: I know the Russian refer to it differently). Or how the US responded to the Zimmerman Telegram with Germany in WWI. That will tell you how the US responds to threats to it. As an American, I agree, the US historically is an aggressor. 2: But that doesn't render your depiction of the events accurate in Ukraine.

Each side arguing for their subjective version of the truth of what is going on in Ukraine just seems so pointlessly futile. Neither side is going to convince the other that they're not buying into propaganda, so what's the point in citing news sources that the other side will just dismiss outright as lies? As much as you know that the US is orchestrating this whole thing, the West knows with the same confidence that Russia is instigating the rebellion. As much as the West knows that Russian media is full of garbage, I'm sure you know with the same level of confidence the western media reports are wrong. 3: Each side believes their knowledge is unassailable. You can't counter that level of dogma.

1: It's called the Caribbean Crisis in Russia. Little known fact: the Soviet Union's placement of nukes on Cuba was a response to USA's placement of nukes in Turkey. This is glossed over, but it shows the whole crisis from a different light. And, yes, USA removed their nukes from Turkey when USSR agreed to pull theirs from Cuba.

2: I wasn't aiming for an accurate depiction, but for a somewhat comparable analogy. The situation in Ukraine is much more complex, and has 100 years of history, starting with break-up of Russia in 1917 and creation of Ukraine by Lenin, building up to what we have today.

3: That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try. The more both sides try to unmask each other, the more cross-referencing data we get, which with time will help to build a truthful picture. As they say in Russia, all that is hidden will become apparent. There also come people, who, despite differences, are prepared to hear each other out and to try to rebuild bridges. Back during the Cuban Crisis, John A. Scali and Alexander Feklisov were such people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Secret_negotiations)

[jaysabi]

As for speaking about USA as an aggressor. It is well-founded, though Russia was very moderate at expression its displeasure. Until very recently Putin was still referring to USA and NATO as "partners"...

Also, turnabout is a fair play, so let's look at the following simple thought experiment: Imagine that Russia facilitates a violent coup d'etat in Mexico, then basically appoints a new government there and instigates a military operation on the Mexican/US border. Then Russia talks about supplying the Mexicans with weapons, while de facto doing it, and hampers any attempt at peace. In addition is spreads slander about Omaba in particular and USA in general and hits Microsoft, as well as some prominent political and cultural figures, like Madonna, with sanctions. Question: How would USA behave in such a scenario?

You don't even have to raise a hypothetical. Look at how the US reacted to the Cuban Missile Crisis (1: I know the Russian refer to it differently). Or how the US responded to the Zimmerman Telegram with Germany in WWI. That will tell you how the US responds to threats to it. As an American, I agree, the US historically is an aggressor. 2: But that doesn't render your depiction of the events accurate in Ukraine.

Each side arguing for their subjective version of the truth of what is going on in Ukraine just seems so pointlessly futile. Neither side is going to convince the other that they're not buying into propaganda, so what's the point in citing news sources that the other side will just dismiss outright as lies? As much as you know that the US is orchestrating this whole thing, the West knows with the same confidence that Russia is instigating the rebellion. As much as the West knows that Russian media is full of garbage, I'm sure you know with the same level of confidence the western media reports are wrong. 3: Each side believes their knowledge is unassailable. You can't counter that level of dogma.

1: It's called the Caribbean Crisis in Russia. Little known fact: the Soviet Union's placement of nukes on Cuba was a response to USA's placement of nukes in Turkey. This is glossed over, but it shows the whole crisis from a different light. And, yes, USA removed their nukes from Turkey when USSR agreed to pull theirs from Cuba.

2: I wasn't aiming for an accurate depiction, but for a somewhat comparable analogy. The situation in Ukraine is much more complex, and has 100 years of history, starting with break-up of Russia in 1917 and creation of Ukraine by Lenin, building up to what we have today.

3: That doesn't mean that one shouldn't try. The more both sides try to unmask each other, the more cross-referencing data we get, which with time will help to build a truthful picture. As they say in Russia, all that is hidden will become apparent. There also come people, who, despite differences, are prepared to hear each other out and to try to rebuild bridges. Back during the Cuban Crisis, John A. Scali and Alexander Feklisov were such people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Secret_negotiations)

On your first point, I'm well aware. I studied US Cold War foreign policy in college. From the US perspective, having the Jupiter missiles in Turkey was a great success, because it gave them a bargaining chip to trade with the Soviets over the Cuba missiles. And the Jupiter missiles were largely breaking down (it's unlikely they could even have been launched, or if they could, would have been ineffective) and they were also redundant anyway, so taking them out of Turkey was no great loss to the US's overall strategy. Of course, the US still spun the withdrawal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba as an unmitigated victory, and didn't announce anything about the Jupiter missiles. Both sides still sought to control the perception of the crisis for political reasons.

2: I agree, asking the media to understand the nuance of a complex situation is futile. Asking them to report on it is impossible.

3: Fair point, and I don't disagree. But most of the "debate" I've seen hasn't attempted to find common ground. It's based in very hyperbolic language. "The US is instigated the uprising," or "The US is fighting a proxy war against Russia." These concepts are so simplistic they are automatically wrong, but the entire rest of the debate is built on top of "facts" like this. I know there are similar overly-simplistic theses on my side of the aisle upon which arguments are constructed in the same faulty manner. To the extent anyone is attempting to find objective truth, I applaud and encourage those efforts. But starting with the premise "everything you say is wrong" is so closed-minded, that nothing said after that can hope to make any impact whatsoever. And these are the quality of the statements I see most often on topic threads about Ukraine. I'm interested in objective truth, as much as it can possibly be known, and objective truth in this instance involves understanding the nuance and history that is so often ignored for the haste of making a quick judgement on who is the "bad guy."

[michaelf77]

So much fail in one statement. First, you'll discover that there are quite a lot of people here interested in a multi-polar view on events. Second, you are obviously NOT watching Russian TV. If you did, you'd know that USA gets a rather small share of air time, on par with Finland or Italy.

I watch Russian TV ( 1Channel, not RussianTV on USA network) and you are lying. USA is constantly in the news and is shown as aggressor and the cause of everything that is wrong in the world and Russia.

And it's not just TV, visit any Russian new site and see for yourself.
Here is current http://www.gazeta.ru/ 10 "news of the day":

...

3 oil related, 2 Ukraine related, one Denmark, one Russia and THREE that has to do with USA, out of which TWO has nothing to do with internal affairs ( a school/weapon and train crush in California)...

Actually, you are supporting my claim.   Two of those article about USA is just normal reporting.
...
That kind of news would be retorted the same way if the shooting happened in Finland or the train crash happened in India.

Your claim was that Finland or Italy gets as much reporting as USA, and that is just 100% lie easily  disprovable by visiting any Russian new site. That's not normal reporting,
There were 10 times more people who died in the avalanche in Afghanistan that happened the same day, and it got almost no coverage from any of those news sites you quoted comparing to train crush in USA.

Other sources which I prefer: ... ria.ru are more balanced

Ok let's look at ria.ru set to Moscow location:

01:09 MBД oблacти: двoe пoдpocтoкoв в Дoнeцкoй oблacти пoдopвaлиcь нa минe
01:03 Moлния: Глaвe MBД дoлoжeнo oб yбийcтвe Heмцoвa, yжe ввeдeн плaн "Пepexвaт"
00:56 Гocкoмиccия ПMP ypeзaлa мapтoвcкиe зapплaты и пeнcии нa 30%
00:45 Яшин: Бopиc Heмцoв yбит в цeнтpe Mocквы
00:38 Биpжи CШA зaкpылиcь в минyce нa дaнныx пo BBП cтpaны
00:36 Чacть cepoй вeтки мeтpo Mocквы зaкpывaeтcя нa дeнь нa peмoнт
00:19 КибepБepкyт: CШA xoтят дoвepить пocтaвки opyжия Киeвy чacтным фиpмaм
00:15 Typция и EК пoдпиcaли coглaшeниe o пpoгpaммe пo зaнятocти
23:55 Oбaмa: зaбoлeвaeмocть Эбoлoй coкpaтилacь в Либepии в 20 paз

If I click on the "all news" will I see that Germany's stock market closed down on worry of Greece support burden ? Nah, that's not the news, the "USA is going down because of GDP" is the news.

Just for fun: of the first 100 news 16 have ONLY to do with USA ( so not USA and some other country...) while all other countries even MENTIONED in the article i.e. "Spain in Ukraine" or Turkey signs gas agreement total to 12.

They all must've had the slow news day I guess... only it was not as evidenced by going to bbc or AP or AlJazera.

Once again: Russia's media is absolutely concentrating on USA and posting every news possible to show what a horrible bad country it is, fairly or not.

[Nemo1024]

3: Fair point, and I don't disagree. But most of the "debate" I've seen hasn't attempted to find common ground. It's based in very hyperbolic language. "The US is instigated the uprising," or "The US is fighting a proxy war against Russia." These concepts are so simplistic they are automatically wrong, but the entire rest of the debate is built on top of "facts" like this. I know there are similar overly-simplistic theses on my side of the aisle upon which arguments are constructed in the same faulty manner. To the extent anyone is attempting to find objective truth, I applaud and encourage those efforts. But starting with the premise "everything you say is wrong" is so closed-minded, that nothing said after that can hope to make any impact whatsoever. And these are the quality of the statements I see most often on topic threads about Ukraine. I'm interested in objective truth, as much as it can possibly be known, and objective truth in this instance involves understanding the nuance and history that is so often ignored for the haste of making a quick judgement on who is the "bad guy."

Yes it's often too easy to fall back to oversimplifications, and myself am guilty of it in some of my posts. However, even such simplifications should not be one-liner statements. They should be backed by facts and arguments, which I try to do. One example. US constantly accuses Russia of supplying the young republics with weapons. Tanks are often mentioned, but not a single tangible proof was yet given. I would be naïve to think that Russia didn't issue some help, but it is most probably limited to intel and advisors. Russia also accuses of US with supplying the punisher battalions, and recent trophies from Debalcevo show that these accusations were not unfounded...

As for history - that should be the first stop for anyone trying to understand any conflict, not just Ukraine.

If you are interested, the following report is a very good summary of the historical background:
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/free-earth-shift-report-2-the-falsified-history-of-ukraine-and-its-lessons/
If you don't want to read it in full, scroll down to the sections, titled "What are the Roots of the Radical Russophobia in Ukraine?", "THE REAL HISTORY OF UKRAINE" and "Earlier history of Ukraine".

Two more history overviews, written by another Ukrainian:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Ukraine-The-US-Vote-at-the-by-George-Eliason-Denial_Genocide_Genocide_Holocaust-141126-844.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ukraine–Why-Bandera-Have-by-George-Eliason-Communism_Extreme_Hitler_Ideology-140801-8.html

Found recommendations for the following book on the history of Ukraine. It seems the book is written in the objective manner:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Ukraine.html?id=l5uiWHgRphQC&redir_esc=y

[Balthazar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T65SwzHAbes

 

[goxed]

http://www.coindesk.com/russian-politician-us-bitcoin-finance-terrorism/

[cryptocoiner]

I've been told by many legitimate sources that west (Especially USA) is planning to attack russia  When it's going to happen and how?? I want to know usa doctrine
USA has many bases around the globe and is planning to take over everything!

Several years for sure. They making russia evil again. So they can start another war for bankers.