In pictures: Russian military build-up near Ukraine

[EX500rider]

Source: BBC

Nato's decision to release over 20 satellite images and associated maps of the Russian military build-up on Ukraine's eastern frontier is a signal of the concern among the alliance's commanders that a Russian military option against Ukraine is very much on the table, the BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus reports.

The imagery issued by Nato's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (Shape) reportedly dates from late March and early April. It encompasses five locations in an arc around Ukraine's frontier. Imagery from a sixth site was provided by Airbus Defence and Space.

At a number of other locations the massed vehicles of mechanised infantry or motor rifle brigades can be seen - not just tanks and infantry combat vehicles but artillery and the large number of supply trucks needed to keep a mechanised force on the move.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26968312

---

Must be some kind of CIA fascist plot no doubt to make poor misunderstood democracy and apple pie loving Putin look bad...



They have before and after pictures also, showing little to no military units last year in those locations.

[The Wizard]

1. All this because he's pissed that

Kovalchuk couldn't bring him Olympic Gold in hockey.

[jakeXT]

2. The Russians claimed it's from last year

What is Russia saying about the photos?

A Russian military official told Russia Today that the photos were taken in August of last year during military drills -- a claim NATO called "categorically false" in a statement Friday.

"This is a force that's very capable at high readiness," British Army Brigadier Gary Deakin said at a briefing at NATO military headquarters in Mons, Belgium on Thursday. "And as we've illustrated through the imagery, it's close to routes and lines of communications and it has the resources to be able to move quickly into Ukraine if it was ordered to do so."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/11/world/europe/nato-satellite-images-russia/

No way to verify

[KoKo]

9. Yes...just saw this on "RT" ...old photos...just like we've seen the RW in the USA

Put out there to start something.

We shall see who is correct. Did NATO do a Colin Powell (sorry...had to say that..bad analogy) or is RT Correct and Time Stamped Photos will appear showing this is Propaganda that NATO thought their populations would accept.

Who Knows but, hopefully more investigation will ferret out the truth.

[jakeXT]

14. They provided some pictures from different dates and years

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/ukraine/2014/ukraine-140411-nato-aco01.htm

[KoKo]

15. I remember the DU "Old Days" when we'd work to Ferret out Disinfo....

This brings back memories. We ended up being Correct but as years went on ....we were not believed anymore even though out Evidence and Sleuthing abilities turned out to be Sound.

Anyway....Thanks for the Post. It's a matter of seuthing more...but this should be international given the growth of the media since we here on this little POD on DU and a few other Start Ups were all into this using our "searching" abilities and our love of Mystery and Solving...

[happyslug]

3. Except for the next to the last and third from the last, normal military bases.

Worse, it looks like typical military base, the tanks are all in a line to be counted to make sure no one has stolen one. If these were pictures of troops preparing to attack, they be in the field under cover and dispersed (You concentrate Armor only when you want it to attack, other then that a concentration of armor is to tempting a target for the other side's Air Force to attack.

Now the second from the last and the third from the last do not fit into the above pattern, but the details are so small, it appears units holding maneuvers. It is easy for most units to shift from maneuvers to war type action (the only difference is the type of ammunition you are using, in Maneuvers you use blanks, you can also do maneuvers with live ammunition, you just do not fire any, you keep such ammo ready in case you need it, i.e. the maneuvers switches to actual combat. This what happened in Omaha Beach on D-Day during WWII., The German units assigned to hold Omaha were holding maneuvers, when the allies showed up, the switch to using blanks was quick).

All these photos show are military units in base camps, with either large tents set up as in a permanent camp or barracks by the pieces of armor or artillery. If these units were preparing to attack they be in the field, in tents, but the tents would be disbursed, so to minimize any loss of personal in those tents in any air, artillery or missile attack.

Remember NO ONE HAS EVER DENIED THAT THE RUSSIAN HAD TROOPS IN THE AREA, the issue are those troops gearing for an invasion of the Ukraine, and these photos do NOT show that. These photos show how a peace time army lives, tanks all in a line, tents all in a line. Nice neat pattern, that makes finding a unit easy. In combat you want to be under COVER and CONCEALMENT. You want to be dispersed to minimize the affect of any adverse attacks. You concentrate your forces only when it is needed and where it is needed, other then that you keep them disbursed.

All these photos show is Russia has Military units in the area, something even Putin admits. These photos do NOT show any sign of Russia planning to attack any time soon.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Thanks for your critique.

So why not show the real proof?

[happyslug]

46. It is hard to determine if fuel tanks are full

Tanks eat oil, thus must be followed by fuel trucks. No Fuel Trucks, no movement to far from the local fuel depot. Remember tanks do NOT use Miles per gallon, but Gallons per mile, roughly 2 gallons to the mile.

During the attack on Iraq in 2003, the biggest problem was getting fuel to the M1 Tanks as their swept along the southern deserts of Iraq. We ended up using Planes to drop off huge oil packages to feed those tanks so they could continue to move (This is in addition to the semi-trailer trucks following the tanks, the semi-trailers had a problem going on the desert sand and thus the need to use plane to supply the fuel).

Russia is a net oil exporter, so no need to worry about getting oil, the issue is getting the oil to the tanks. Trains can be used for that purpose, pipelines can be used, as while as fuel trucks. Thus the key is FUEL and can the tanks not only get to the border but penetrate it without running out of fuel first.

Everything else is secondary, including food (which prior to the adoption of the internal combustion engine was the biggest restriction on the movement of any army).

As to showing the real thing, the problem is I suspect the photos do not show any movement of fuel into those areas around the Ukraine, other then what is normal. That is hard to show, Tanks lined up just looks so much more deadly then counting fuel trucks.

[KoKo]

10. Recommend!

[RiverNoord]

17. No, the formations depicted don't show immediate preparation

for combat against an active, well equipped, fortified foe. But Ukraine's military is not such a foe, with large numbers of defenders in heavy fortifications. And they certainly won't send forces across the border to attack Russian forces, recognizing the stupidity of any such effort.

BTW, the Kremlin did repeatedly deny that Russian troops were off-base, and repeatedly claimed that their obvious ground forces present in considerable numbers were 'Crimean self-defense forces.' So... your claim that 'NO ONE HAS EVER DENIED THAT THE RUSSIAN HAD TROOPS IN THE AREA' is, sadly, false.

I don't know why you are making claims like that, and I recognize that there are very substantial nuances evidenced by the Crimea situation. Still, Vladimir Putin sent soldiers into a potential combat environment (Crimea) without identifying insignia, then denied that the soldiers were Russian. That's pretty damn pathetic and despicable. So, in this particular situation I am not inclined to accept Russian explanations and excuses regarding the nature of troop buildups in the area.

There are really only two reasons for having a lot of troops massed on a border with another nation, which is comparatively very weak militarily. The first is threaten and scare the hell out of the folks on the other side, and the second is to prepare for an invasion.

[happyslug]

45. At the same time, Russia knows it is under satellite surveillance

Thus, if there is any move in the direction of the Ukraine, you cover up the movement of the troops and equipment. You do not line them up to be counted.

AS to my comments about "No one has ever denied that the Russians had Troops in the area" that was in regards to areas outside the Crimea. We were discussing movement into the Eastern Ukraine, not the Crimea. The Crimea is now Russian unless someone stronger is willing to send in troops (And that means someone with more troops then the Ukraine). Thus the Crimea is off the agenda for no one is moving troops into the Ukraine or the Black sea.

Thus unless we have solid evidence of a potential invasion force (i.e, railroad cars full of fuel, extra parts for the vehicles, those vehicles being used daily on exercises to make sure they work and ready for movement), we have no evidence of any potential invasion force.

Sorry, you need SUPPLIES to do an invasion, and these photos show none of that. Where are the tanker trucks waiting to follower the tanks into battle? Where are the maintenance vehicles? Where are the supply trucks? That is evidence of an invasion force, not Tanks are Artillery pieces sitting in Armories.

[dipsydoodle]

4. That's an updated link from Thursday

Was originally posted same time as Guardian link :

The Guardian, Thursday 10 April 2014 15.58 BST http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/10/satellite-images-russian-military-ukraine-border

[CFLDem]

5. Oh great

Iraq WMD all over again.

Yay....

[nyabingi]

7. Well, Putin definitely has the post-coup Kiev...

...government shaking in their little neo-Nazi boots, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to come to some kind of peaceful agreement with the protesters in east and southern Ukraine. Face it folks, the ethnic-Russian population of Ukraine does not want a group of unelected fascists telling them what to do. What's so hard for people to see that? Democrat and Republican alike have been pounded with relentless propaganda saying Putin is the aggressor, he's evil, the second coming of Hitler, but the facts are that this whole thing was instigated by western neo-cons who got what they wanted, but as history has shown us, they didn't think too much about the consequences.

Should Kiev send their "National Guard" forces and "security" forces (mercenaries) to Donetsk and other eastern cities to fight the pro-Russian protesters, I personally hope the Russians cross the border and kick their little Hitler-loving asses back to Kiev.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Well. That was entertaining.

Got any 9-11 stories to tell?

[nyabingi]

22. Oh, there's much I can say about that...

...so don't get me started. The people who plan outrageous events around the world count on people like you to silence the ones who don't accept the official government stories. Do you think the US government tells you the truth all the time? C'mon man.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. Tower 7! Tower 7! nt

[EX500rider]

27. Right, but Russia & RT ALWAYS tell the truth don't ya know....hahahahahha

[Adrahil]

34. Get with the program!

Putin and Russia are the epitomes of truth and the guardians of liberty! Just ask RT!

[nyabingi]

62. I guess you think MSNBC

is giving you good information, huh? What about FOX and CNN, the NYT and Washington Post?

Are they any more truthful than RT, the BBT or Al Jazeera?

[EX500rider]

64. I think they ALL beat RT, yes. n/t

[nyabingi]

69. That's a sad statement if

you can't see that the mainstream American media pushes an agenda as hard as RT does. I think RT pushes the leftist agenda equally as hard as FOX does the right - all the time and without apologies. All of them tend to omit the negatives of their respective sides to an extent and none of them actually gives equal time to opposing views.

[EX500rider]

72. "I think RT pushes the leftist agenda" LOL!!!

Right, Putins mouthpiece is SO liberal and left! OMG......the 50 Ruble Army stikes again!!

[nyabingi]

76. Compared to MSNBC, CNN, and FOX...

...RT is indeed to the left of all of them. Have you ever actually watched RT or are you assuming you know the channel's political slant based on your distaste for Putin?

[EX500rider]

77. That parts i have seen have seem more anti-American then anything. n/t

[RiverNoord]

19. Whew, you've really got a vivid imagination.

Whether you like it or not, Russia was indeed the aggressor in this conflict. Modern Russia signed a treaty fully accepting the borders of Ukraine as including Crimea. Then, during a period of civil unrest, Ukranian civil unrest, Russian troops were sent into the Crimea in order to annex it.

Whatever you think of the people who ousted the guy who actually asked Russia to invade his country (not exactly too bright, as even he has acknowledged), they were and are citizens of Ukraine. And, they did not seem to be drawing up pogrom plans, as your rhetoric would strongly imply. So... there are indeed some serious nuances involved in Russia invading Crimea in order to 'correct an abnormality,' as the Kremlin has stated.

However, Russia did invade a neighboring nation whose sovereignty it recognized and whose territorial integrity it had promised by treaty to respect. Until they invaded. Those are facts. Just like the fact the United States of America invaded the nation of Iraq on completely false pretenses. Your rhetoric, on the other hand, is pointless.

[nyabingi]

21. You're forgetting that

the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. Now I'm sure you'll believe, as western media propagandists would want you to, that the people of Crimea were forced into doing this at gunpoint, yet there was no evidence that they were coerced into their actions. In fact, there were fireworks, dancing and much Russian flag-waving in the streets after the referendum passed (again, something not shown on western media sources).

An "invasion" implies a foreign force moving into a country unwanted and without the approval of those being invaded (like what we did to Iraq and Afghanistan). The Russians were not going to give up their Black Sea access and their naval base, and they rightly guessed that for the US, EU and NATO, Crimea was the real prize strategically. Putin moved in Russian troops to prevent a move on Crimea from Kiev, and it worked. Obama and his buddies were outmaneuvered, simple as that.

Western neo-cons, including Obama's own Victoria Nuland, instigated this, encouraged it and provided money for it. You can try to pretend this isn't the case, but that's the way it happened.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. Yeah, never mind the thousands of Ukrainians who went to Maidan to protest legitimate corruption.

Let me guess....were they all paid off by the neo-cons as well?

[nyabingi]

59. There wouldn't be any need to

offer monetary assistance to all of them, just some of them. Victoria Nuland thought passing out cakes was a good idea and apparently she was right. She did, after all, get her handpicked man in the prime minister spot. Very efficient they are.

That said, I'm not about to heap praise upon Yanukovich - he was just as corrupt as they come, but he was the democratically-elected president who should have been removed through constitutional means instead of being chased out of town. Also, I'm sure the honest-to-goodness protesters who erroneously believed joining the EU would bring them happiness will soon regret that decision...

[EX500rider]

40. "Now I'm sure you'll believe, as western media propagandists would want you to"

As we are all sure you will believe as Kremlin media propaganda wants you too.

[nyabingi]

61. Are you least willing to acknowledge that our government

and compliant media has been engaged in propaganda as well? It goes both ways, EX500rider. I haven't personally seen any of the cable news networks or print media in the west present any information on the right-wingers infesting Kiev now and that's because they are engaged in hardcore propaganda. It's similar to the way they downplay the involvement of radical Islamic fighters (whom we are supporting) in Syria. Oh wait, Obama is using drones to kill al-Qa'ida in Yemen and Pakistan but supporting them with "light arms" in Syria.

Hahaha! Are we that stupid???

[NickB79]

42. The Confederacy voted to secede from the Union as well in the 1860's

And the Union was fully within it's right to wage war to recover the lost territories.

International law has never recognized the right of a province or state to secede from the parent nation without both parties agreeing to such a dissolution. It HAS recognized the right of the parent nation to label such a separatist movement as illegal and move in to retake the territory by force if necessary.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Russia had thousands of Russian troops inside Crimea at the time of the so-called elections (which large portions of the population boycotted to begin with). Ya know, to "ensure order" and all that

[nyabingi]

60. Well then, the coup-imposed Kiev government...

...should stop threatening and go ahead and send their military to the east of the country to straighten those separatists out, don't you think? In the end, whoever has the most accurate shooters are the ones who end up calling the shots, and unless they are ready to go to war with the Russians, I think the people in the east and south are going to do what they want.

Do you think it is fair to the south and eastern Ukrainians to have far-right, anti-Russian politicians from Svoboda and Right Sector put into power over them when people like Yatsenyuk would've never won a national election? It surprises me how easy it is for Americans to disregard democratic principles and the rule of law simply because the US government has convinced them outright coups are better...

[snooper2]

56. Truthy to Power, or Putin to the Rescue?

LOL...

Do people REALLY love this song that much

[Cheerful Charlie]

23. Russia might just let Ukraine have its little fascist state.

Because WWIII.

[uhnope]

28. What else do Putin's thugs want us to think? Pls give us more Kremlin propaganda

[nyabingi]

65. There is a lot to dislike about Putin...

...but the fact that you aren't willing to accept that our government had a role in destabilizing Ukraine means you have fallen for western propaganda as hard as you think I've fallen for the Kremlin variety.

Have you ever watched RT or any other news programming not generated by US corporate money? I check it all, including FOX news, because I want to see how many spins can be applied to the same event. It's really quite interesting, but you have to decide what makes the most sense on your own.

[uhnope]

66. don't pretend to be all objective now. you wrote "little neo-Nazi boots" for the gov't of Ukraine

which is total BS, total Kremlin/RT BS. Like what Glenn Beck would say if he could figure out a way to get money from Putin. So don't try to say you're just channel surfing. You spouted total Kremlin BS. Your 54 post count probably means you're a sock puppet for some of the other Putin Firsters who have been banned here for consistently posting RW Russian garbage

[Cha]

68. Where do these little putin thugs keep popping up from?.. they might as well

have mini putin avatars.



The Russian parliament has passed a new law that prohibits “gay propaganda”. This includes a ban on the rainbow. We think that the world looks much better with more rainbows, not less. If you agree, upload or share a Putin, and spread the love.

Putin's a schmuck

[jtuck004]

8. Huh. On this map, where he is surrounded by our previous efforts, he looks much smaller.

http://www.workers.org/articles/2014/03/18/nato-expansion-yugoslavia-ukraine/

Almost as if we pushed them into it by proselytizing next to their bases.

[KoKo]

12. Interesting Map...explains much...Thanks for Posting this!

[uhnope]

29. Putin is justifying NATO by his land grab in Ukraine

[AnalystInParadise]

30. Your map is a little outdated

Croatia and Albania are in NATO. And no one seriously wants Ukraine or Georgia in there other than a few hotheads. Now Russia attacking Ukraine? Yeah you would see some movement towards pulling them into the alliance if that occurs.

[Adrahil]

35. I can't imagine why former Soviet satellite states might...

... Want to join an alliance to protect themselves from future Russia. I imperial ambitions! It can only by Western aggression!

FFS....

[jtuck004]

36. Fear. n/t

[yurbud]

11. Wow, well we should invade them right now, or at least steal their pipeline business

[KoKo]

13. From what I've read for Plans/ Ukraine ....Its DRILL BABY DRILL!

or, it's FRACK BABY FRACK.

[Igel]

18. Yup.

It would explain why less than a week after the annexation of Ukraine it was announced that Naftgaz had inspected the shelf around Crimea and had already announced its intentions to exploit it--and started to discuss various claims that would make clear where its waters were and how to bollix up maritime territory that was all but on the beach at Odessa.

Oh. You didn't have in mind oligarchs in the friendly country of Russia, but in the oppressive, hostile countries of the West.

[dipsydoodle]

20. Pictures with date , location but no time stamp

have credibility issues.

[Adrahil]

47. Dipsy, weren't you the one....

claiming before Crimea that the "military exercises" had been previously planned?

It's one thing to be skeptical, but you seem to take Putin's side every time. Take a step back and take a look at the neo-Stalinist that you are indirectly supporting. He's an ex-KGB officer. Is this really the guy you want to take at his how-demonstrated-to-be-bullshit word?

[dipsydoodle]

49. The exercises to which you refer , pre-Crimea, had been previously planned

aside from which Russia has for some years carried out such exercises 6 times a year / roughly every two months.

I appreciate that subsequent "exercises" may not fall into that category.

[Adrahil]

50. Good, I'm happy to see you haven;t completely lost your sense of reality.

But I am STILL confused why you seem to support Putin at every turn. He is NOT a good guy. And restoration of the Soviet empire would NOT be a good thing. I encourage you to re-evaluate your seemingly reflexive support of his position on this issue.

[dipsydoodle]

53. "seem" being the operative word

My concern is for the overall well being of the people of Ukraine who are about to be mugged off by the west - their new owners.

Do you really believe they will come out the other side of loans foreseen to be $220 billion over a period of 10 years or so ?

[Adrahil]

55. As compared to what?

I'm not a fan of IMF thuggery, but I fail how being the imperial subjects of Moscow is in any way better. You can't simply ignore Russia's centuries-long imperial domination of Ukraine and dismiss it as you seem to do. It reminds me of the people decry the end of the Afrikaner government is South Africa because life got tougher for some in the townships.


Also, your post seems to confirm that you're inclined to support the Russian view of things, if just because you appear to support an outcome which puts Ukraine in Russia's sphere of control.

[amandabeech]

63. Dipsy wrote in a reply to my question of why he was so supportive

of the worst of Putin's actions that he didn't want his UK tax dollars spent on helping anyone or anything in Ukraine. It was just the money.

Whether that is his real reason or not, who knows?

[dipsydoodle]

75. I think the posts to which you refer are these ones

What happened to the discount that Ukraine received for allowing Russia http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=773154

That is either a joke or you've just conveyed a complete lack of understanding of the subject. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=773205

Here's your wiki link. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=773236

You never did explain the manner in which transit fees could be accounted for when the volume was indeterminate.

The only one of us who made reference to "tax dollars", an expression I'd hardly be likely to use was YOU. I did say "we don't want another Greece". That was from the point of view that I doubt anyone does least of all the population concerned.

[freshwest]

26. I got nothing. Just kicking this.

[daleo]

31. I recall fake pictures in the buildup to Gulf War One.

President George H. W. Bush quickly announced that the US would launch a "wholly defensive" mission to prevent Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia - Operation Desert Shield [PRES], and US troops moved into Saudi Arabia on August 7. There is no evidence that Iraq ever intended to invade Saudi Arabia, as even General Norman Schwarzkopf, the allied commander during the conflict, admitted. Iraq claimed all throughout that its only intent was to reclaim its "province" Kuwait. The Department of Defense claimed to have satellite photos of a large troop buildup in Kuwait along the Saudi border, but never made them public for security reasons. Other satellite photos purchased from Soviet satellite sources apparently showed no such buildup.

http://www.fact-index.com/g/gu/gulf_war.html

[EX500rider]

32. ???? What? They actually fought a battle INSIDE Saudi territory.. just lost I guess? LOL

"On 29 January, Iraqi forces attacked and occupied the lightly defended Saudi city of Khafji with tanks and infantry. The Battle of Khafji ended two days later when the Iraqis were driven back by the Saudi Arabian National Guard, supported by Qatari forces and U.S. Marines. The allied forces used extensive artillery fire."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Battle_of_Khafji

[daleo]

37. The controversial satellite photos were released during Deserve Shield

That was the six month build up, from August 1990 to late January 1991. An important part of this buildup was the propaganda campaign needed to generate support for the oncoming war. It was claimed that Iraqi troops were massing in huge numbers, and going to invade Saudi Arabia. The claim that Iraq was about to invade Saudi Arabia was the original justification for the U.S. troop buildup in Saudi Arabia. The satellite photos were a key piece of evidence to support that buildup to the U.S. People and to Congress. So were the later discredited babies and incubator claims.

Events after the U.S. troop buildup in Saudi Arabia, including the battle you mention unfolded long after the satellite photos had served their purpose, which was to generate support for the later war. No doubt, the Iraquis did move troops closer to the Saudi border, once the U.S. forces were in the picture. But that doesn't have anything to do with the disputed satellite photos.

[daleo]

38. Here is some further info on the discredited satellite photos in the run up to gulf war 1

The U.S. and the U.N. gave several public justifications for involvement in the conflict, the most prominent being the Iraqi violation of Kuwaiti territorial integrity. In addition, the U.S. moved to support its ally Saudi Arabia, whose importance in the region, and as a key supplier of oil, made it of considerable geopolitical importance. Shortly after the Iraqi invasion, U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney made the first of several visits to Saudi Arabia where King Fahd requested U.S. military assistance. During a speech in a special joint session of the U.S. Congress given on 11 September 1990, U.S. President George H. W. Bush summed up the reasons with the following remarks: "Within three days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression."[86]

The Pentagon stated that satellite photos showing a buildup of Iraqi forces along the border were this information's source, but this was later alleged to be false. A reporter for the St. Petersburg Times acquired two commercial Soviet satellite images made at the time in question, which showed nothing but empty desert.[87]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

[EX500rider]

39. OK....US sat photos all "doctored" but you trust Soviet ones.....lol

[daleo]

41. In this case the Soviet ones were made public by a mainstream American media source

The others were not corroborated as to authenticity when challenged.

Any side can manufacture evidence when it serves their purpose, so caution is always advisable. You seem to assume that U.S. And western sources are being truthful here, even though there is extensive evidence that they have manufactured false evidence in the past. That includes the second Iraq war, which was built entirely on a foundation of lies.

[EX500rider]

43. well between independent western news or the Soviet government mouthpiece of TASS I pick West

[daleo]

44. Choose sides if you like

Just remember a war with Russia could go nuclear and kill us all. Misjudging the situation in Iraq was bad, but nothing like a war with Russia bad.

[Adrahil]

48. Quite so. However....

... the nuclear threat can't be a blank check for Putin to just take whatever he wants. A nuclear exchange threatens Russia as much as it threatens the U.S.

[Octafish]

54. Right. Like the Kuwait ambassador's daughter who testified to Congress she was a nurse...

...at a Kuwaiti City hospital who saw the Iraqi soldiers take babies from their incubators and leave them on the cold, hard floor so they could steal the incubators for Baghdad.



"If I wanted to lie, or if we wanted to lie, if we wanted to exaggerate, I wouldn't use my daughter to do so. I could easily buy other people to do it." -- Kuwait Ambassador

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

BTW: I don't find anything funny when the US government twice lied America into war on Iraq. What's weird to me is how many people continue to believe their propaganda.

[EX500rider]

57. However that doesn't make ALL subsequent claims BS..

....especially when we have a different a different administration.
Or do you believe Obama told the CIA and NATO to make up some fake sat pics to get into a war with Russia? Not buying it, sorry.

[Nihil]

70. FWIW, I don't believe Obama told the CIA to do anything of the sort ...

... but there again, neither did George W Bush.

A more intelligent puppet is still a puppet and there are far more powerful people
than Obama playing this particular game.

[EX500rider]

71. Kinda doubt the CIA went rogue or Obama is anybodies "puppet" n/t

[Nihil]

74. I didn't say they went "rogue" ...

... I said that I don't believe either president would make a direct order to the CIA
to fake evidence in order to support actions against a foreign country:

>> FWIW, I don't believe Obama told the CIA to do anything of the sort ...
>> ... but there again, neither did George W Bush.

"Plausible deniability" is neither unknown nor new.


You (generically & personally) are free to hold your opinion that the figureheads of
various governments are not puppets but I find the selective application of that
opinion is interesting: people are happy to say that the deposed leader of Ukraine
was Putin's puppet, that GW Bush was Cheney's puppet but get all defensive when
their own hero is shown to be responding to "strings" (i.e., influences other than the
ones openly claimed). Naive, defensive or simply blinkered?

[ripcord]

33. In other news Putin's divorce was finalized and the community property issue was settled

His ex gets to keep the season tickets to the Bolshoi Ballet and he gets to keep Crimea.

[Enrique]

51. no, it's not the pure evil CIA vs. the pure good Putin

but it's not the opposite either.

[Octafish]

52. Reminds me of the time Bush 41 said Saddam was massed on the border to invade Saudi Arabia.

Poppy even supplied official NRO satellite photos to show he wasn't lying, with tanks and tents and everything ready to steal Exxon's oil. Of course, the old CIA hand and president was lying. When the intrepid reporter from St. Petersburg, Fla., Times asked for satellite photos taken the same day from European and Russian satellites, she found no tanks, just sand.

http://iraqwar.org/bush.htm

That's what this reminds me of, another war for the neocons and their owners on Wall Street.

[EX500rider]

58. Right, cause BUSH=OBAMA? NOT

[seveneyes]

67. I don't see any hidden baby incubators

Maybe they are smothered under the Yellow Cake.

[warrprayer]

73. on a website...

that originated as a place for people to share opinions without being shouted down with pro war propaganda, I am absolutely flabbergasted at what I am seeing here.