Towards a European war against Russia?

philosophical debates and companies.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Towards a European war against Russia?




by Obamot » 08/07/16, 21:47

As advertised here >> (and elsewhere, following the Russian intervention which saved Europe from DAE $ H >>>).

And after Christophe's thread: >>> Kiev, towards a civil war in Ukraine?

Alas the threat becomes clearer.

The United States, fortified by one of its rare docile allies during the Gulf Wars, seems to want to put that right and harden the tone.

After the former Yugoslavia and the war it is waging under cover in Syria, does it want to plunge Europe into war again?

I said without suspecting that things would go so quickly:

Obamot about BREXIT wrote:Some observations in passing on the NEW position of political England:

    [...]

    k) in the event of a military conflict between the EU and Russia, England could say that it would not be concerned and could not de facto be the target of Russian missiles (although it could send a few contingents, but according to the benefit / risk principle, I would see them doing this badly ...)

    [...]

Basically, I have the impression that we witnessed a pretty sleight of hand and everyone seems fooled [...]


Taking advantage of the summer break, things are unfortunately accelerating ... Terrifying prospects and this on the back of the civilian populations who they have no say in. What democracy in Europe?

Why is NATO being belligerent against Russia?
And this, while there is absolutely no threat hanging over us.

Warmongering NATO facing Russia.jpg

Artwork: TSR

FRANCE 24 with AFP, on 08/07/2016 wrote:NATO summit: the United States will deploy 1 soldiers in Poland

Barack Obama announced Friday before the opening of the NATO summit that 1 American soldiers will be deployed to Poland. He will accompany that of other NATO soldiers in the Baltic countries.

This is an announcement that does not risk improving relations between Washington and Moscow. President Barack Obama announced on Friday July 8 the deployment of 1 American soldiers to Poland as part of the strengthening of NATO's eastern flank against Russia.

These soldiers "will serve side by side with Polish soldiers", he declared after a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw, shortly before the opening of a NATO summit, specifying that they will take turns in rotation in this battalion. , just like those of the Alliance who will be based in the Baltic States.

It is one of the main announcements of the NATO summit, which takes place on Friday and Saturday, in response to questions raised by Russian ambitions since the Ukrainian crisis.

The Polish hosts at the summit, like their Baltic neighbors, are afraid of paying the price for Russian power after the Ukrainian precedent. NATO thus hopes to dissuade any Russian temptation to push its pawns further towards its former sphere of influence. With these battalions, "attack on ally will encounter forces from across the Alliance"noted Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

Of course, the four battalions would not weigh heavily against the Russian divisions if they crossed the border. But the large Western countries would be physically involved and therefore encouraged to fight back, in the very logic of NATO's collective security.

The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States will assume the command of these battalions and will provide a good part of the troops. Like other NATO countries, France will participate by providing the equivalent of a company (150 men).

"For France, Russia is not an adversary, is not a threat"

Russian President Vladimir Poutine, who takes a dim view of any NATO presence at the borders of his country, accuses the Alliance of wanting to drag Moscow into a "frantic" arms race.

"NATO soldiers are at our borders, NATO planes are flying at our borders, we are not the ones approaching the borders of NATO", his spokesperson Dmitry Peskov noted before the summit.

"NATO has no vocation whatsoever to influence the relations that Europe must have with Russia; and for France, Russia is not an adversary, is not a threat", however declared François Hollande, Friday, in front of the press, on his arrival at the NATO summit. For the French president, "Russia should be seen as "a partner".

The NATO secretary general also wanted to stress that "NATO remains open to dialogue with Russia ", also notes the special envoy of France 24, Gulliver Cragg. "There is perhaps a feeling that with this summit which is being held in Warsaw, NATO has gone too far in anti-Russian rhetoric. Some officials are therefore now trying to put some water in their wine."

The main announcements expected in Warsaw, including the launch of a NATO missile shield, are in any case likely to once again cringe in Moscow.

Russia is particularly concerned that this shield will undermine its nuclear deterrent. Like China, it has also strongly criticized the installation of an American anti-missile shield in South Korea, believing that it will "undermine the balance of the region ".
Source: http://www.france24.com/fr/20160708-pol ... ts-poutine

Note that the American decision is to be considered unilateral (at best bilateral) as long as it took place BEFORE the holding of this summit, and not after its conclusion after consultation.
And that this comes after a situation of relaxation between the Turkish President Erdogan and Putin.
Does Europe only have to follow the Yankee dictate go to war without reacting?

Seen by the Russians on Sputnik News (which also relates to Brexit):

On 20:04 p.m. 08.07.2016/XNUMX/XNUMX Sputnik News wrote:NATO as the main instrument of US control over Europe

If Brexit takes place and the United Kingdom effectively withdraws from the EU, American control over Europe will revert to NATO, said a former Yugoslav diplomat.
It is not certain that Brexit will finally take place, given the current attempts to organize a new referendum, which is obviously in the interest of the United States and NATO, supposed in an interview with Sputnik Vladislav Jovanovic, formerly Ambassador of Yugoslavia to Turkey.

«But if the United Kingdom withdraws all the same from the European Union, NATO will take over the role with which this bloc was entrusted when it was founded 50 years ago, namely to keep Germany in Europe and Soviet Union, now Russia, as far as possible from Europe and permanently ensuring the United States its status as the most powerful military force in the old world, "said the agency's interlocutor.»

And to add that in addition to its military function, "NATO should assume control over the level of American influence within the European Union".

«Previously, the Americans exercised their authority over Europe through NATO and the United Kingdom, but with the departure of the British, the Alliance will have to be strengthened ", the diplomat concluded.».
Source: https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201607081026515471-otan-brexit-instrument-controle-usa-europe/

I think the additional questions are:
- Are we threatened by Russia?
- Do we need a war in Europe?
- When?
1 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by sen-no-sen » 08/07/16, 22:28

Le americano-western block have been carrying out since 11/09 an accelerated attempt at economic and cultural monopolization under the aegis of the USA.
This it is true is far from new, the first phase having started after the Second World War, we are therefore in phase 2 if I may say ...
Russia is far from being the only nation to be placed on the spam list, Latin American countries are currently (especially Brazil) the victim of a rather underhanded cultural war, notably through religions (offensive evangelist against the Catholic Church, rise of post modern atheism etc ...).
Russia and more broadly BRICS(Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) is part of a multipolar logic which does not please Uncle Sam ... hence the need to overthrow the old bastions of non-aligned (Iraq, Libya, Syria) by force, directly, or indirectly through "springs" (sic!), Or attempting to overthrow governments through masked assassinations (Hugo Chavez?), cultural or economic war ...
France in all this? Well let's say that the General de Gaulle must turn around in his grave! :|
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by izentrop » 09/07/16, 09:35

Strengthening the eastern part of the Alliance, in the face of fears aroused by Russia, this is the objective that the 28 NATO countries gathered on Friday July 8 in Warsaw to reaffirm their cohesion. For the Polish hosts of the summit, as for their Baltic neighbors, worried about their security since the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the pro-Russian separatist offensive in Ukraine, the most awaited decision concerns the deployment of multinational battalions.
http://www.france24.com/fr/focus/20160708-varsovie-otan-compte-renforcer-defense-est-europe-face-russie-poutine

It's collegial, you have to contain the dissipated. Seeing a premise of war is anticipated. : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by Obamot » 09/07/16, 12:36

College? College? But the war waged by America has already started in Europe and at its gates and it is not just a hidden conflict ...

This is the paradigm of " anticipated war "(Preemptive war) which applies rather, with the aim of accelerating globalization manu militari.

see the premises evoked by Sen-no-Sen!

 ! Message by Obamot
> 1 million deaths from the Gulf War> 1 million deaths resulting from (so called) "Arab Spring", With the cohort of wounded and tragedies that goes with it, then simultaneously the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine: this is not what is called" being collegiate"- if we count those swallowed up in the Mediterranean sanctuary: the" boat-people "- all that is no laughing matter and no, it is not" collegiate ". If we add to this the Syrian conflict fomented by the C! A, it is rather a powerful machine of destabilization of all Europe, which we are not even grateful to Russia for having put an end to.
But here it is again with the sending of 4 American battalions to the gates of Russia: perseverare diabolicum


Despite all this Western warlike inclination: Russia will not let NEVER fall its only access to hot seas. After ... Collegially ...

"Of course ... you can jump on your chair like a kid, saying:
- Europe, Europe, Europe, but it comes to nothing and it means nothing ”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zufecNrhhLs
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by Remundo » 09/07/16, 13:01

ah ... NATO ...

the nerve anyway to go do military maneuvers just under the muzzle of the Russian Bear ... who is entitled to live in his den without seeing the guns in front of him ...
0 x
Image
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by izentrop » 09/07/16, 13:57

This question should be asked: who violates international rights and who is most belligerent in this matter?
Contain it is normal.
American hegemony has much lead in the wing today. Who is America's banker now?
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by Obamot » 09/07/16, 15:20

If you see that in terms of the “rule of law” over politics, that's fine. Therefore:

- It was the UN, which in 1945 gave Russia 3 votes (instead of one) in the Security Council and the right of veto (if I am not mistaken, but we are only talking about the right veto which is also used only rarely ....). And this through the votes of Belarus and Ukraine. Ukraine therefore had not been divided from Russia. It is a legal betrayal.

- The West therefore especially did not have to intervene in Ukraine to overthrow a democratically elected government.

- The most bellicose and that is very clear, it is the Washington Tel-Aviv axis which is involved from several angles to destabilize the non-aligned Arabs and try to bring down Russia by a sleight of hand which n did not work. That's why they do it again.
=> Europe, except for their business and hoping for its collapse (after several attempts, each more vicious than the next), the Americans have absolutely nothing to do with it, no more than Africa or the Asia, nor did they want the “well-being” of the Iraqi people after they brought down Saddam. Everything for them is based on the money and how to make the most of it at any cost, even with millions of deaths if necessary, this has been clearly demonstrated time and time again.
1 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by sen-no-sen » 09/07/16, 16:46

Obamot wrote: Everything for them is based on money and how to make the most of it at any cost, even with millions of deaths if necessary, this has been clearly demonstrated many times.


All monopolistic systems work in the same way, their expansions do not get in the feeling ...
The maintenance of such a structure constantly requires increased expansion to move the collapse back at the latest, outside we are currently living in a period of this kind, this one is obviously strictly deterministic.
From a meta-historical point of view, the SAT (antropo-technical super-organism), largely constituted with the Second World War (the first serving as a primer), now "needs" a new quantitative leap in the technologism, therefore it is now necessary that a new war (lukewarm?) is taking place, for that nothing better to put in competition USA and Russia, knowing that the two are the best makers of apocalypse which oneself.

The most bellicose and that is very clear, it is the Washington Tel-Aviv axis which is involved from several angles to destabilize the non-aligned Arabs and try to bring down Russia by a sleight of hand which does not did not work. That's why they do it again.


Israel plays the role of a 51st state in the Middle East, the common (messianic) project of an America enlightening the world and a greater Israel seems to be the ideological engine of this gigantic process of expansion ... the transatlantic treaty also.
The methods of preemptive wars launched by the Bush have turned out to be a human and economic disaster, the new trend, or rather the trend brought up to date is that of economic and cultural warfare, "silent weapon for quiet war",Who will be next?
France?
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by Obamot » 09/07/16, 18:25

There is something deeply unfair about the current “sharing” model. And this is the attitude of Europe, nothing else.

This is because at the same time that Russia had conceded 14 republics which became "independent states". And this by gain of peace to put an end to the cold war. Only Europe seems to have benefited from the economic fallout from this change in the chessboard. Offering cheap labor to the dinosaurs of Europe, and above all PEACE ... DON'T FORGET IT.

And as you say Sen-No-Sen, the western game would certainly push the plug as far as possible.
But in this direction taken on the military level, should we be blind not to understand that we are going into a wall?

And this is where Russia should take its responsibilities, but it was muzzled by the Western clan, when it had been confronted with the fait accompli of its threatened interests in Ukraine (with its majority of Russian speakers in the East , as well as its capital), and this by an illegal overthrow of a pro-Russian government (even if the situation was not clear in the country, it is at least the current result that the West has seen fit having to get involved by tipping the scales towards generalized confrontation: what a fatal responsibility with thousands of deaths). This prompted Russia to secretly support the Russian-speaking separatists on the part close to its border, rather than finding a political compromise in a game of barbichette (which takes place anyway, but on a terrain a thousand times riskier, we are therefore losers). Europe pushed by the transatlantic axis, should never have intervened, but immediately took the opportunity to establish a “Ukraine-Europe partnership” and to sign it as soon as possible. In terms of law, this is what is called having a child on the back: it's not very pretty-pretty ....

In short, we have a situation that was obtained with forceps, and a Russian reaction of the same barrel ...

How then could we hope, by bringing contingents of thousands of men and military equipment to the RUSSIAN border (while accusing Russia of the facts of which we are the cause), to obtain a "peaceful" settlement when we do not we only have bellicose aims in perspective (and that we are no match for a possible Russian response). And furthermore, with our pinocchi noses, we would like some appeasement when everything in this situation stinks of a trap, as with the DAE $ H case as scrambling the tracks of a widespread inflaming of the region?

Would Europe, which is not even politically mature - and in its current great fragility - want to join forces against a purely imaginary enemy born from the phantasmagoria of Pentagon strategists ...?!?!

There I admit that I have trouble.

I think Europeans should wake up. And to think that they are incredibly lucky to have a huge population pool available for the flow of their "labor force" - and this while under the current model (even if we do not like it and it there are reasons for this) is close to zero growth - so it would be much wiser for Europe (now cut off from England) to establish new partnerships: not AGAINST Russia, but WITH her, while respecting its specificity.

Develop peaceful relations of twinning and exchanges in all fields: science, training, culture (after all we have a common core much better anchored than with the Ricans) and of course economic, even political with Russia. We have every interest in it, much better than a bad day, getting missiles in the face! Because as long as the Russians have "to eat" at home. They will have no interest in coming to us! And there is certainly room and dignity for everyone.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Towards a war in Europe against Russia?




by izentrop » 09/07/16, 18:57

You have to stay consistent there.
We are talking about the meeting of 28 NATO countries of which Israel is not a part.
Four thousand American, Canadian and German British soldiers will be permanently deployed in Poland and the Baltic States. These battalions will also include 150 French, who will be deployed next year in Estonia with the British. About what reassure the former satellite countries of the USSR, now members of NATO, who have reiterated their concerns over Moscow's actions in Ukraine.
https://www.franceinter.fr/monde/les-pa ... -la-russie

Putin is not to be defended, you have to see what he did with Chechnya. He is a tyrant who muzzles and impoverishes his people to enrich himself and his oligarchs. http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20 ... rques.html
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Society and Philosophy"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 225 guests