Russians take over Ukrainian military post, no shots fired: witnesses

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Yahho News / Reuters

SEVASTOPOL, Ukraine (Reuters) - Armed men thought to be Russians drove a truck into a Ukrainian missile defence post in the Crimea region on Friday and took control without a shot being fired, a Reuters reporter on the scene said.

Initial reports said the truck had smashed through the gates and that post in the city of Sevastopol was being stormed but the reporter could not see any signs of the gates being damaged.

A Ukrainian military official, Vladislav Seleznyov, said by telephone that the armed men took over the base without any shooting and that no one was hurt.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/russians-over-ukrainian-military-post-no-shots-fired-201515354.html

[Iliyah]

1. Russian military gunning for trouble to justify

their illegal presence in a sovereign country, and one political party (GOP) are itching for blood all the while praising the insecure Putin - egging him to start a war.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Possible these were pro-Russia Ukrainians.

However you want to label them, pro-Russian separatist Ukrainians, etc.

[2banon]

2. Just heard it on BBC..

conflicting reports, but ultimately the reuters reports is more credible. no one hurt, no shots fired, gate is not damaged. lots of tweets.

[2banon]

3. I think they're headed for a split..

And everyone will live with that, like it or not. for the sake of world peace.

Get NATO out of the region for pete sake!

[TwilightGardener]

5. NATO, now more important than ever. Way to go, Russia--you made it

relevant again.

[go west young man]

6. Who really benefits from a new cold war?

Not really Russia. They are benefiting from oil sales worldwide and especially to Europe. The only entities that truly benefit are military/industrial ones....mainly on this side of the Atlantic. And who does that hurt? It hurts the average American citizen who that 57% of the US budget won't benefit. It hurts social programs and food programs here. We are quite simply and literally shooting ourselves in the foot. Meanwhile Russia has performed two minor league "expansions" in it's Russian Federation history. We must be fucking stupid because we are still eating the shit sandwich our media feeds us even after Iraq.

[TwilightGardener]

7. RUSSIA STRONG!! USA/Europe WEAK!!!

Not really. When you have to take a region or country by force in order to get your way, you're losing--your influence is on the wane and you couldn't achieve your goals by more peaceful means. That's what we're watching play out in Ukraine.

[go west young man]

14. What influence are you talking about?

Russia has very little influence. Although their world wide gas sales are expanding. Weakness is acting strong when your not. As far as strength goes the US is the number one superpower with the most ICBMs and Russia is second, however they both have the ability to evaporate each other from the map. The US is also the number one arms supplier with Russia second. Cheering and exclamation points do little to refute the cold hard facts. A new cold war benefits no one on either continent.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Russia is acting out because it's losing influence over its neighbors, fears

revolution within its own borders, fears NATO limiting its power, and doesn't have much going for it beyond energy exports. It's pretty plain to see why Ukraine doesn't want to be governed or manipulated by Russia anymore--Putin just proved what a sucky neighbor Russia is.

[go west young man]

17. Revolution within it's own border?

What are you smoking? Maybe you should get on Facebook and befriend a random pool of Russians. Apparently someone forgot to tell them about the revolution. Instead they seem focused on the same stuff we focus on. Family, fun, vacations and friends.

You appear to be the typical cold war enthusiast who doesn't have a clue that the world changed. The mindset is equivalent to Southern tea baggers voting against their own self interest due to racism. Your strong desire to keep the old cold war going is actually going to hit you in the checkbook. Your hurting yourself by not educating yourself. If you could enlighten us with some links to "the revolution" it would be nice. And do remember it's a nation of 155 million so a protest of a few thousand communist party members who dislike United Russia doesn't count.

[jakeXT]

24. Some in Russia fear it and they know about the desire to split Russia into parts

They could easily send their army of activists to Russia to join local separatists and foment rebellion in the North Caucasus and other unstable regions in Russia. In addition, Russia's opposition movement will surely want to use the successful experience and technology of the Euromaidan protests and, with the help and financial support of the West, try to carry out their own revolution in Moscow. The goal: to remove President Vladimir Putin from power and install a puppet leadership that will sell Russia's strategic interests out to the West in the same way former President Boris Yeltsin did in the 1990s.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-there-will-be-war-in-ukraine/495740.html

The strategist of the United States of America, Zbigniew Brzezinski, phrased it this way: "A more open Russian confederation, consisting of a European Russia, a Siberian republic, and a republic in the Far East, would speed up its development. Each of these three constituents would also be more capable of developing its own creative potential, that has been suppressed for centuries by Moscow's leaden bureaucracy of " (4).

http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/nov1999/chechen.html

[go west young man]

29. I gotta say those are some entertaining links.

Ones an opinion piece from what appears to be a delusional person writing in the Moscow Times who thinks Ukraine will fall to civil war and that will spill into Russia and a united Ukranian/Chechnyan front will topple Putin. Absolutely bloody comical on its face.
And the second is some obscure history related to WW2 Chechnya and Dagestan implying that is where this revolution will come from.

Both are ridiculous theories considering Russia is over 80% or 111 million caucasian Russian with less than 20% ethnic groups. Combine that with the fact that the recent bombings in Volgograd were orchestrated by Dagestani's and it's easy to understand that that 111 million might unite against any ethnic uprising. And if they united guess who they would rally behind....you guessed it..Putin.


Check your demographics before you believe articles at face value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

[jakeXT]

30. more info

On the other is an essay of equal subtlety by Kremlin adviser Sergei Markov. He almost certainly did not write the headline that appears above his words in the Moscow Times, but it reflects the thrust of his words: “WHY THERE WILL BE WAR IN UKRAINE.”

Markov does not speak for Putin, and he has been known to stake out positions at the outer limits of hard-line posturing, but he’s a smart man who has a fine grasp of the Kremlin’s thinking and direction. (Though his views, as evidenced by a recent appearance on the Daily Show, do not always play well in the West2). It’s interesting that this sort of piece, at this sort of diplomatic moment, would appear in an English-language publication.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-06/war-yes-war-no-the-ukraine-standoff-as-diplomatic-mashup

[go west young man]

35. First the Bloomberg piece clearly states that he didn't say the headline.

Secondly the interview has been spun by Bloomberg. He is implying why Russia needs to find a better Ukrainian leadership partner than the hardliners that depose what he refers to as the legitimate government that was friendly to Russia.

He states 'Ukraine could easily become a radicalized, anti-Russian state, at which point Kiev will fabricate a pretext to justify taking subversive action against Moscow". He is offering possible negative outcomes. Where you get a Russian civil war from I don't know? It seems like you enjoy sensationalism based upon "potential scenarios" that may or may not reflect reality. Lastly he is one Russian leader with just one opinion.

Russia having a civil war is about as realistic as us having one. It isn't going to happen because the crazy factions in both the US and Russia are a minority.

[jakeXT]

37. Bloomberg speculates about the headline

Secondly the interview has been spun by Bloomberg.

This is no interview, it's an essay in the Moscow Times

In addition, Russia's opposition movement will surely want to use the successful experience and technology of the Euromaidan protests and, with the help and financial support of the West, try to carry out their own revolution in Moscow. The goal: to remove President Vladimir Putin from power and install a puppet leadership that will sell Russia's strategic interests out to the West in the same way former President Boris Yeltsin did in the 1990s.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/why-there-will-be-war-in-ukraine/495740.html

Russia having a civil war is about as realistic as us having one. It isn't going to happen because the crazy factions in both the US and Russia are a minority.

Revolution and civil war are not always the same thing. I was replying to revolution.

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around&quot is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

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

Gene Sharp: How to Start a Revolution
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmmakersonfilm/8841546/Gene-Sharp-How-to-Start-a-Revolution.html

The Russian leadership is afraid of all sorts of subversion and the US has the tried tools for it.
There is never guarantee for success, it's certainly no easy task. I imagine sanctions could have an effect, for example.

Russia’s decision to shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in Moscow, starting October 1st, was immediately followed by Washington’s “pledge to maneuver around the Kremlin,” according to a New York Times report.

Indeed, State Department Press Secretary Victoria Nuland assured: “We will continue to be vigilant in supporting democracy, human rights, civil society in Russia. We’ll just do it another way.” Other US officials named possible avenues for such maneuvering: The National Endowment for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and others.

Let’s take a closer look at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an umbrella organization that includes the two aforementioned institutes. It came to existence in quite a peculiar a way: US Code Title 22, ‘Foreign Relations and Intercourse,’ section 4411, ‘Findings,’ states, “The Congress finds that there has been established in the District of Columbia a private, nonprofit corporation known as the National Endowment for Democracy which is not an agency or establishment of the United States Government.”

How exactly did this happen, that Congress found this agency suddenly established?

The Reagan administration, after coming to power in 1981, was looking for a civilian cover for conducting subversive operations in the USSR after a vast plot involving the CIA funding of public organizations was uncovered by investigative journalists. As President of NED Carl Gershman stated in 1986, “We should not have to do this kind of work covertly. It would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA. We saw that in the ‘60s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.” (The New York Times, June 1, 1986.)

http://rt.com/politics/russia-endowment-democracy-ngo-393/

[go west young man]

40. Any "revolution" in Russia

would require a complete division of viewpoints. The fact is the Russian people overwhelmingly like Putin. I've been there 7 times, believe me all Russians are relatively distrustful of government but there is a saying in Russia "Eta Russia" which essentially means "it could always be worse". Overall they like Putin because his economic policies have turned Russia around. They're lives are much better than they used to be. Crime is cut in half. Unemployment is down. People are making money. And the one thing they coalesce around is pride in their country and the constant deluge of put downs from the West. They believe we are hypocrites that will kick Russia any chance we get. And having lived in both places I can't say their wrong for that. The US is stuck in some kind of time warp and refuses to realize things have moved on. They view us as the imperialist dangerous military threat to the world.

Here's some stats on Putins United Russia party vs the main opposition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Russia
United Russia received 50% of the vote last election. The 2nd most popular party was the Communist Party at almost 20%. So if the country was split in any way. It would be split for the worse and a less favorable scenario for the US and it's business interests. Overall the concept makes no sense for the US as far as business interests go (and we all know thats what really matters to the US).

So to sum it up. You won't get your revolution or civil war. You may get someone that you like better than Putin at the next election. You may not. And that's about it. All of the linked material you have above is based on the distortion of one ministers opinion by the press and not much else.

[Igel]

15. That would explain all the American interventions in Latin America.

It meant that during the 20th century, as we went from WWII through to the '60s all US power did was wane.

Especially in our own backyard, where we're justified having free rein and using force.

Or at least that's what some would have us believe. Armed intervention in Mexico, Cuba--perfectly justified. It would seem.

[TwilightGardener]

22. I think it's stupid that we haven't normalized relations with Cuba.

The EU is reaching out to them now. We should have done that a long time ago. But no, we probably shouldn't invade them...

[2banon]

26. You got that backwards. NATO is the problem

Surrounding Russia with NATO Missile Weapons Systems capability aimed at Moscow is at the heart of all of this.

[TwilightGardener]

28. So...you're saying it's NOT about neo-nazis taking over Ukraine? NOT ethnic cleansing

or persecution of ethnic Russians? Someone better tell Pooty-Poot! Of course it's about NATO/missile shield/EU, and possibly some other stuff (fracking). The rest of the world knows this, no one's buying the bullshit coming out of Moscow.

[2banon]

32. I never said it was any of those other issues..

The red baiting, chest thumping rhetoric is kind of running ahead of you.

My source on NATO is Wikipedia, Brzezinski's comments along with a university political science professor trotted out on Charlie Rose earlier this past week, forgetting his name right now.

Yeah, NATO encroachment is a serious issue and unless you're into WWIII (which sometimes it appears you are) or a return to Cold War status (which I don't really think is likely) I'd start getting used to the notion that Russia is staying in Crimea and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

I've been following this all week and my thoughts at this time has evolved from cold war fears to a realization that this drama is going to be over fairly quickly. At least in terms of the big question which has been looming all week.

Forget about sanctions cuz they're not going to work without biting us and the EU in the ass, and that's about the size of it and World Oligarchs in New York, London, Germany etc. etc. are not going to let that happen. And all the beating of war drums, and chest thumping just makes people look pretty damn ridiculous, imo.

[EX500rider]

44. "Surrounding Russia with NATO Missile Weapons Systems capability aimed at Moscow"

Good one..
ABM systems aren't aimed at anything but ICBM's in flight.
If any of those go up for real I hope they are all shot down.
Is Putin complaining that nuking Europe would be a little harder? 'Cause the system deployed would barely dent a full on Russian missile attack. And he is free to deploy some ABM if he wants.

[jakeXT]

46. It's about "first strike" capability

Challenges to the Cold War arms control paradigm have been crystallized by U.S. plans to deploy an NMD system. As Russia’s nuclear arsenal continues to shrink with age, a significant NMD could give the United States, for the first time in the nuclear age, a true “first-strike” capability—the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack destroying enough of Russia’s nuclear force to permit the NMD to intercept any residual retaliation. A nuclear first-strike capability would be the ultimate military advantage, giving the United States enough force to threaten the survival of any rival.

http://www.cfr.org/world/pledging-no-first-strike-step-toward-real-wmd-cooperation/p3916

[EX500rider]

47. 1st strike or not, the US has not deployed enough ABM to even blunt a full..

....scale retaliatory strike from surviving Russian subs and missile bases.

"In January 2014 Russia was estimated to have 489 strategic launchers with about 1700 nuclear warheads. The Strategic Rocket Forces are estimated to have 311 operational missile systems of six types that carry 1078 warheads. The strategic fleet includes 7 strategic missile submarines with SLBMs on board. The operationally deployed 112 SLBMs can carry 416 nuclear warheads. Strategic aviation bomber force consists of 66 bombers that have about 200 weapons assigned to them. In November 2013 the space-based tier of the early warning system included two operational satellites on highly elliptical orbits and one geostationary satellite."

http://russianforces.org/

Even 1 missile gets thru the US gets up to 10 nuclear warheads detonating on US soil.

Sorry, the Russian fears are BS. The US could launch her entire missile force and still not be assured of getting every Russian sub, bomber and missile/mirv'ed warhead.

You really think any US president is going to think it's a good idea to set off several thousand nukes above ground at the same time? And get nuked in return?

[jakeXT]

49. We are working on it, maybe someday ... someone will believe it's enough

Missile Defense Agency Director Discusses Threats, Capabilities

WASHINGTON, Mar. 4, 2014 – The Defense Department’s Missile Defense Agency continues to develop technology and work with its partners amid growing ballistic missile threats around the world, the agency’s director said here today.

Navy Vice Adm. James D. Syring discussed the Missile Defense Agency’s concerns and its interests in improving capability and capacity during Aviation Week’s Defense Technologies and Requirements Conference.

...

“The way I like to talk about this is that many parts of the system architecture are in place. It’s a matter of increasing the capability and the capacity of the systems that are part of the network of ballistic missile defense.”

Syring detailed the agency’s ballistic missile defense ship fleet, the Patriot system, ground-based interceptors, Standard Missile-3s, the Terminal High Altitude Aerial Defense System and Sea-based Terminal Defense. He said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s recent budget preview will support strengthening homeland defense.

This includes deploying an additional 14 interceptors at Fort Greeley, Alaska which will be fielded before the end of 2017.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121766

Maybe Putin got nervous during the Bush/Cheney presidency. If the Russians believe, that the US believes it could get away with it, will they act differently?

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2007/02/10/0138_type82912type82914type82917type84779_118123.shtml

Not Just A Last Resort?

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."

In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html

STRATCOM Cancels Controversial Preemption Strike Plan
http://blogs.fas.org/security/2008/07/globalstrike/

[EX500rider]

61. "This includes deploying an additional 14 interceptors at Fort Greeley, Alaska"

Well that will certainly not be over whelmed in a full scale Russian attack of several thousand MIRV warheads...

You have to target at least 2-3 ABM per warhead to get a high probability of successful intercept..plus terminal defense for the leakers...so in a counterforce attack of 1,000 warheads you would need 3-4,000 ABM to get most of the incoming. And that's assuming no degradation of the system due to EMP or loss of Command & Control etc.

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries.
If the Iranians can get a sat in orbit then they can lob a warhead about anywhere.

Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

Not surprising at all, the pentagon has plans for everything using every mix of weapons needed.
The Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) was the United States' general plan for nuclear war from 1961 to 2003, the SIOP was replaced by Operations Plan (OPLAN) 8044. Since December 2008, the US nuclear war plan has been OPLAN 8010, Strategic Deterrence and Global Strike

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us.

Yes, poor Pootie can't nuke Europe with out losing some missiles in flight...the horror!

[2banon]

48. I can't say with any certainty...

The specifics in this context are not clear to me at this point. But what is alarmingly clear is the fact that NATO has expanded to Russia's western borders. That in itself is highly provocative.. The matter to what extent and types of nuclear weapons systems are in place is an open question to me at this juncture. But whatever the specifics, it would be naive to expect Russia to sit back and disregard what is likely considered to be threatening to their own security.

A bit of regard to maintaining the doctrine of "balance of powers" would seem prudent in my estimation. But that doesn't seem to have been happening.

A number of scholars and former administration strategists have been sounding the alarms for some time on the matter, but I'm just hearing & reading about it this past week. Understanding what's at the heart of issue of concerns in order to understand the context of unfolding events seems pretty important to me.

[TwilightGardener]

4. LOL, is Russia admitting the invasion, finally?

Or are these still "local self defense forces", Vladimir?

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. What invasion? They've been there all along.

[TwilightGardener]

20. I think once they leave their Russian bases and take over Ukraine bases,

that's an invasion. I suppose if the US built up a bunch of troops in Guantanamo first, and then ordered them to go off-base and seize Cuban territory and ships, that wouldn't be an invasion?

[EX500rider]

23. No, they must take over the Ukrainian missile defense base to protect local Russians! lol n/t

[geek tragedy]

25. so if US troops on Okinawa started commandeering the local mayor's office, that

wouldn't count as an invasion in your book?

[go west young man]

31. The US did much better than that.

They commandeered the entire island and have never let it go. We won't see you get behind that peoples movement though, will we?

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/16/okinawas_revolt_decades_of_rape_environmental

[Purveyor]

8. When Putin wants something, he sure as hell doesn't fuck around now does he?

Imagine that. Not weeks of media hype and build up of a great 'shock and awe' campaign to invade and conquer.

Crimea is now Russian territory and it will be made official Mar. 16th.

Only question remaining is will everything east of the Dnipro also go with the Russians.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Try to contain your excitement over the invasion, comrade.

[Purveyor]

12. I'll let you know what 'excites me' and when if you want but this isn't it. eom

[TwilightGardener]

13. I dunno, you seem pretty jazzed. Which is a weird reaction to the armed invasion

of a weaker country by its stronger neighbor. It's something that should be condemned.

[Cha]

41. Exactly.. you called it, TG. nt

[jakeXT]

10. Until something goes wrong /nt

[Purveyor]

11. As so many on this forum are hoping for. Surprised that many here have

joined the 'war - party' hysteria.

McCain and Lindsey should be proud of us, indeed.

[geek tragedy]

18. That, and he wrestles bears! What a stud.

Putin elicits this kind of reaction from people at ei both extreme ends of the political spectrum.

[2banon]

33. there ya go again...

[Cha]

42. there you go again.

[joshcryer]

38. Putin's occupied territory will never be recognized.

[TeamPooka]

21. It it's that easy to invade this country no one can help them.

[soundsgreat]

34. Most likely propaganda of the new Ukrainian government

All Ukrainian military bases on the Crimea are surrounded by pro-Russian forces, i. e. under their control.

Russia has no interest in raising the stakes there. Definitely not before the referendum to keep the appearance of legitimacy.

This smells of propaganda of the semi-fascist Ukrainian government.

Meanwhile the investigation of who is responsible for the Maidan shootings is still pending. 80 people died there. No dead on Crimea.

[EX500rider]

36. "No dead on Crimea"

So then why are the Russians moving in "to protect"?

[arewenotdemo]

62. I expect that there most likely would be violence with fatalities

in Crimea, if Obama's boy Yatsenyuk didn't have to contend with Russia.

[EX500rider]

63. So Russia HAD to move in to protect them from possible future violence? lol n/t

[frwrfpos]

39. its funny watching the furious spin by the supporters of the CIA clowns in this thread

the US propaganda is coming on fast and thick. Too bad no one buys US bullshit anymore. The US has killed more than 100,000 Iraqis, droned wedding parties and funerals in Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and helped prop up violent dictators in countries around the world.

All of a sudden, Russia helps Russians in Ukraine, which by the way supports Russian help against these Neo Nazi's, and bam! Russia EEEEEVIL.. the US is just trying be helpful in setting up IMF loans which will impoverish Ukraine and make it a debtor state answerable to the IMF puppets.

[EX500rider]

45. Except it's all BS...there were no attacks on Russians in the Crimea..

...Putin made that up for some REAL Imperialistic shit.

"Russia helps Russians in Ukraine" hahahaha, yes that's what's going on.....lol Talk about spin, you must be dizzy!

[Cha]

43. It's fucking hilarious reading the Putin Puppets on here sticking up for the all the shit he's doing

[dipsydoodle]

51. The ones to whom you may refer do at least stick to the subject

that being Ukraine and Crimea without bringing in other completely unassociated issues concerning Russia.

Assuming they exist they also noticeably, not that you did, don't resort to childish names for the Presidents of other countries.

There are material differences between not supporting the current situation in Ukraine and supporting Russia.

[Cha]

60. Putin's an ASSHOLE.. too bad that offends your sensibilites toward the Russan dic.

[penultimate]

50. I changed my position. I now support Russia on this.

I hope they go for Poland next. Sadly I think the US/Europe/NATO warmongers would try to stop them though.

[TwilightGardener]

52. Is this a joke? You're advocating that Russia invades Poland?

And that it would be NATO that is the "warmonger" kicking off WW3?

[penultimate]

53. Well someone has to save the Polish people from Belarus (which also needs to be inva...liberated)

[TwilightGardener]

55. ...

[hrmjustin]

54. Is that a joke?

[penultimate]

56. Meeee joke?

I should probably stop posting this morning... I'm in one of "those" moods. I already riled everyone up on my facebook.

[hrmjustin]

57. You should never stop posting here my friend!

[Cha]

59. Keep it up.

[freshwest]

58. VIDEO: Russians take over Ukrainian military post, no shots fired:

Korean Robot Music Advance Propaganda = Assures Total Surrender Worldwide.