Russia Prepared To Fight War Over Ukraine, Senior Government Official Admits
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Mr. Hertz...you'll notice I deleted the first photo and now your last post. If you post another dead-body-ish type image, I'll use another tactic to get your attention. The members have shown in the past that they are not fond of corpses, see. Thanks in advance eh.
American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland’s Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to “Subvert Ukraine” | Global Research
“After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via “Europe”).
Victoria Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, leader of the younger generation of “neo-cons”. After serving as Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson, she is now undersecretary of state for Europe and Eurasia.” Diana Johnstone
I guess $5B doesn't buy what it used to,
They were dead Afghan children, perhaps the members should own up to exactly what they are cheering on when the promote the West invading other sovereign Nations.
“After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via “Europe”).
Victoria Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, leader of the younger generation of “neo-cons”. After serving as Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson, she is now undersecretary of state for Europe and Eurasia.” Diana Johnstone
I guess $5B doesn't buy what it used to,
They were dead Afghan children, perhaps the members should own up to exactly what they are cheering on when the promote the West invading other sovereign Nations.
Can't stand to look at their handi-work then they should stop supporting genocidal conquests.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
Is that a quote from Herman Goring?
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
Is that a quote from Herman Goring?
Missed the part where 5 Bill was spent to subvert the Ukraine. Money was spent to improve the Govt., good governance, judicial, human rights.
Yep that sure is subverting them people.
Why then do Russians citizens, including ethnic Russ ins in the Ukraine want nothing to do with the murderous, corrupt SOB that fled the country.
Now to the economy- Russia only some years ago needed oil at 20 US a barrel to balance their budget- Now it is at 103 PB.
What happens when gas from other sources are used to replace Russian exports to the EU.
Where will the Gangsters move to.
So why is it in such a mess then, Russia wasn't involved until the made a loan offer of $15B and cheaper NG. That seems to have pissed off the West that they start a civil war.
But a loan and cheaper NG is 'unfair tactics'??
How much of that $5B from the US ended up in the pockets of Politicians?
Russia sells it to other Nations at the normal rate which is 40% less than it will be in the Ukraine. Any loans made by the West is geared to have all that money only return to them at about 15% interest. The 'temporary Govt' shouldn't have the authorization to put the country deeper in debt but that is exactly what will happen.
Probably not back to the US where they came from.
I was thinking more of Foghorn but if 'bad boys' are your preference ......
The country has been raped by their own politicians. You know that as well as I.
Next they need a lot more than 15 billion- all that would do is increase Russian control- put of the economic failure by about 1 year, max.
Ethic Russian were under no threat- the threat is and still is the Ukraine joining the EU, which would undermine Putin. Makes him appear weak. And we know what happens then, now don't we.
Interesting points made.
How to understand Putin's Ukraine strategy – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs
How to understand Putin's Ukraine strategy – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs
There isn't much humor in me when dead children are part of the subject so I'll let you have the last laugh line.
Knock the Russian 'invasion' all you want, the people and the military there are flocking to their side and not one dead civilian in sight anyplace. How many died in the few months the US was covertly funneling money to the country and given to citizens to do acts that fall under the general Law called 'treason'? Can you find any headline that promoted that 'help' and if not was it 'hidden' and was for acts of war which is what it is when you bribe somebody. Organize a protest, shoot some unluky sob that happens to be there and blame it on the 'leader' and a riot follows. By caving in and leaving that stopped the killing and he isn't considering trying to return as a leader. Check his pockets for loot and send him back to his native land. Russia didn't install him, whatever govt was in power was going to get a different deal than what the west would offer. Russia paid back the Rothschild bank so they are already better off than we are, who caved in about the same times they had their bills settled. Look at the books since then
Is there a list of achievements that the US accomplished with that $5B and compare that to what was done with the $3B that Russia sent them and if the US was 'helping' why are they behind $1.5B in NG payments?
If that makes me a fuktard then I will be that gladly rather than having to spread lies for the good of the many (which is actually a very few as that is a lie (by them)also).
Why not include a few thoughts of your own on this article or should I assume you are in locked-step with the whole article? (something I would rather not do)
"First, Russian foreign policy – whether under Brezhnev, Yeltsin, Putin or anyone after him – is informed by three imperatives: Russia as a nuclear superpower, Russia as the world’s great power, and Russia as the central power in the post-Soviet geopolitical space. And a power that is political, economic, cultural, diplomatic and most certainly military."
Look at where Russia has been spending her money for the last decade compared to the other G* members and she is not at the top of the list as far as military goes. Nor does she have to as she has taken up defense as the best option when faced with war on a global scale. NATO has the policy that if she can't rule then the place is desolated so it is of use to nobody.
It is the US that puts a military policy forward (opening point in most cases) as 'incentive to let the West run the show'. Russia exports products, raw and finished. and that isn't welcomed by the West because they see that as their right and theirs alone.
'World's great power' means what exactly. She has a few trading partners and that consumes about all she can supply. The West has sanctions on all of them yet claims to 'be neutral' or even worse 'helpful' when they are anything but once a bit of time has passed it is easy to see the differences between their promises and what they have accomplished.
'Power that is political', elected (remove the 2 term limit for the times you get a decent leader) and what more does he have than that? He can't wage war on his own so it isn't absolute power. If the Military stays defensive through various leaders then the policy is stronger than any single government. If not for the West their military expenses would be less as they know that becoming a superpower is a goal that can never be achieved in any lasting fashion. A Nation that trades goods can go on as long as the goods hold out and that is only possible when the people that live there take charge of the rebuilding of forests and caretakers of the fields as the better they are doing the better the people there are doing in that they also have access to everything that others in the chain enjoy, like long vacations in far-away places. That isn't a concept the West and international businesses operate under. If their (biggest) shareholders can do things like that then it's good enough.
Cultural, other than the benefits of new snow tires in the winter are you suggesting we sell them the idea that global warming is a bad idea? Telling them winters will be longer isn't going to cause them to run into the streets screaming their heads off.
Knock the Russian 'invasion' all you want, the people and the military there are flocking to their side and not one dead civilian in sight anyplace. How many died in the few months the US was covertly funneling money to the country and given to citizens to do acts that fall under the general Law called 'treason'? Can you find any headline that promoted that 'help' and if not was it 'hidden' and was for acts of war which is what it is when you bribe somebody. Organize a protest, shoot some unluky sob that happens to be there and blame it on the 'leader' and a riot follows. By caving in and leaving that stopped the killing and he isn't considering trying to return as a leader. Check his pockets for loot and send him back to his native land. Russia didn't install him, whatever govt was in power was going to get a different deal than what the west would offer. Russia paid back the Rothschild bank so they are already better off than we are, who caved in about the same times they had their bills settled. Look at the books since then
Is there a list of achievements that the US accomplished with that $5B and compare that to what was done with the $3B that Russia sent them and if the US was 'helping' why are they behind $1.5B in NG payments?
If that makes me a fuktard then I will be that gladly rather than having to spread lies for the good of the many (which is actually a very few as that is a lie (by them)also).
Editor's note: Leon Aron is resident scholar and director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are his own.
Why not include a few thoughts of your own on this article or should I assume you are in locked-step with the whole article? (something I would rather not do)
"First, Russian foreign policy – whether under Brezhnev, Yeltsin, Putin or anyone after him – is informed by three imperatives: Russia as a nuclear superpower, Russia as the world’s great power, and Russia as the central power in the post-Soviet geopolitical space. And a power that is political, economic, cultural, diplomatic and most certainly military."
Look at where Russia has been spending her money for the last decade compared to the other G* members and she is not at the top of the list as far as military goes. Nor does she have to as she has taken up defense as the best option when faced with war on a global scale. NATO has the policy that if she can't rule then the place is desolated so it is of use to nobody.
It is the US that puts a military policy forward (opening point in most cases) as 'incentive to let the West run the show'. Russia exports products, raw and finished. and that isn't welcomed by the West because they see that as their right and theirs alone.
'World's great power' means what exactly. She has a few trading partners and that consumes about all she can supply. The West has sanctions on all of them yet claims to 'be neutral' or even worse 'helpful' when they are anything but once a bit of time has passed it is easy to see the differences between their promises and what they have accomplished.
'Power that is political', elected (remove the 2 term limit for the times you get a decent leader) and what more does he have than that? He can't wage war on his own so it isn't absolute power. If the Military stays defensive through various leaders then the policy is stronger than any single government. If not for the West their military expenses would be less as they know that becoming a superpower is a goal that can never be achieved in any lasting fashion. A Nation that trades goods can go on as long as the goods hold out and that is only possible when the people that live there take charge of the rebuilding of forests and caretakers of the fields as the better they are doing the better the people there are doing in that they also have access to everything that others in the chain enjoy, like long vacations in far-away places. That isn't a concept the West and international businesses operate under. If their (biggest) shareholders can do things like that then it's good enough.
Cultural, other than the benefits of new snow tires in the winter are you suggesting we sell them the idea that global warming is a bad idea? Telling them winters will be longer isn't going to cause them to run into the streets screaming their heads off.
Last edited: