'Russia's growing threat': After Ukraine, fears grow that Baltic states could be Vladimir Putin's n

OP
Mindful

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
42,131
Reaction score
15,672
Points
2,320
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
Quote:


As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
 

indiajo

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
471
Reaction score
66
Points
80
Location
Germany
Quote:


As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
A US ambassador. You name it.
To be very clear: Putin until now has not won territory by force. Not one square inch.
All people with an attention span longer than a wine fly are aware who started the whole shit.
Why are 3 US citizens members of the Kiev Junta? Why is the son of Biden member of the board of the biggest Ukrainian Energy company?
 
OP
Mindful

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
42,131
Reaction score
15,672
Points
2,320
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
Quote:


As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
A US ambassador. You name it.
To be very clear: Putin until now has not won territory by force. Not one square inch.
All people with an attention span longer than a wine fly are aware who started the whole shit.
Why are 3 US citizens members of the Kiev Junta? Why is the son of Biden member of the board of the biggest Ukrainian Energy company?
Didn't know that. Interesting.
 

hipeter924

Not a zombie yet
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
6,092
Reaction score
620
Points
200
Location
Nowhere you can follow
Putin has given Europe a slight reprieve, though the fighting could easily begin again by the end of the year or sometime next year. His next target is to weaken the Baltic states, either through encouraging unrest or supporting rebels to undermine them.
 

hipeter924

Not a zombie yet
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
6,092
Reaction score
620
Points
200
Location
Nowhere you can follow
Quote:


As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
A US ambassador. You name it.
To be very clear: Putin until now has not won territory by force. Not one square inch.
All people with an attention span longer than a wine fly are aware who started the whole shit.
Why are 3 US citizens members of the Kiev Junta? Why is the son of Biden member of the board of the biggest Ukrainian Energy company?
Putin didn't authorize it, but it I pretty clear he won Crimea back into Russian control. Just as he benefited from a political assassination recently, even if it was a rogue group of nationalists that supported Putin.

The main reason Putin supports the rebels in Ukraine, is to destabilize west Ukraine in an attempt to force it back into the Russian sphere of influence.

It won't work, though West Ukraine will have to cut its losses eventually and accept that several regions of East Ukraine are more trouble than they are worth. Meaning the autonomy granted would be equivalent to independence almost anyway.
 

Sonc

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
497
Reaction score
54
Points
80
Location
Putinostan
Quote:
As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
Americans really so stupid that they would believe it?
 

hipeter924

Not a zombie yet
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
6,092
Reaction score
620
Points
200
Location
Nowhere you can follow

Attachments

hipeter924

Not a zombie yet
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
6,092
Reaction score
620
Points
200
Location
Nowhere you can follow
Quote:
As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
Americans really so stupid that they would believe it?
You are stupid enough to believe it, since you are giving value to its contents by quoting it.
 

Sonc

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
497
Reaction score
54
Points
80
Location
Putinostan
John McCain: the Capture of Mariupol Will Open the Way to the Baltic States


If the US politicians say nonsense ... what can expect from an illiterate student like you?






 

hipeter924

Not a zombie yet
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
6,092
Reaction score
620
Points
200
Location
Nowhere you can follow
Obama is not McCain. Next time find a US politician that is actually in the White House, as opposed to one that never took the office. On the earlier note, since I didn't vote for Obama, you would be hard pressed to blame me for his foreign policy.

Though, it doesn't really matter, who is 'right' or 'wrong', as the game of geopolitics has never changed in Europe, only the factions have changed.

Lets say the Russian premise I true, then in that case Russia taking Crimea was a result of western attempts to take Ukraine into its sphere of influence. That is still a 'land grab' by both sides.

Since there is no link to that McCain piece, all I could say in his defense is that is he isn't really wrong in claiming that Russia wouldn't like a bit of the Baltic states. Geopolitically they used to be satellites of the Soviet Union, and they have enough of a Russian population for Russia to want them back.

I don't want a war over 'Ukraine' or even the Baltics, but that is happening regardless. Geopolitical games won't stop till one group of nations dominates the world, so yes Putin might want more - maybe even the Baltics if he could.
 

RandomVariable

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
5,103
Reaction score
360
Points
85
Quote:


As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
A US ambassador. You name it.
To be very clear: Putin until now has not won territory by force. Not one square inch.
All people with an attention span longer than a wine fly are aware who started the whole shit.
Why are 3 US citizens members of the Kiev Junta? Why is the son of Biden member of the board of the biggest Ukrainian Energy company?
Putin didn't authorize it, but it I pretty clear he won Crimea back into Russian control. Just as he benefited from a political assassination recently, even if it was a rogue group of nationalists that supported Putin.

The main reason Putin supports the rebels in Ukraine, is to destabilize west Ukraine in an attempt to force it back into the Russian sphere of influence.

It won't work, though West Ukraine will have to cut its losses eventually and accept that several regions of East Ukraine are more trouble than they are worth. Meaning the autonomy granted would be equivalent to independence almost anyway.
Someone might disagree with you. That person would be Putin.

BBC News - Putin reveals secrets of Russia s Crimea takeover plot
9 March 2015 Last updated at 10:58 ET
Vladimir Putin has admitted for the first time that the plan to annex Crimea was ordered weeks before the referendum on self-determination.

Crimea was formally absorbed into Russia on 18 March, to international condemnation, after unidentified gunmen took over the peninsula.

Mr Putin said on TV he had ordered work on "returning Crimea" to begin at an all-night meeting on 22 February.

The meeting was called after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted.

Speaking last year, Mr Putin had said only that he took his final decision about Crimea after secret, undated opinion polls showed 80% of Crimeans favoured joining Russia.

The findings of these polls were borne out by the outcome of the referendum on 16 March, he told Russian state TV last April.

On 27 February, unidentified armed men seized the local parliament and local government buildings in Crimea, raising the Russian flag.

Among them appeared to be regular soldiers without military insignia, who were dubbed the "little green men".

Mr Putin subsequently admitted deploying troops on the peninsula to "stand behind Crimea's self-defence forces".

...​
 

RandomVariable

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
5,103
Reaction score
360
Points
85
Didn't Kruschev transfer the Crimea to the Ukraine?
This might give some insight into that:

Why Did Russia Give Away Crimea Sixty Years Ago Wilson Center
Mark Kramer. 2014 or 2015?.
During the last several years of Khrushchev’s tenure in the UkrSSR, he had overseen the Soviet government’s side of a fierce civil war in the newly annexed western regions of Ukraine, especially Volynia and Galicia. The civil war was marked by high levels of casualties and gruesome atrocities on both sides. Despite Khrushchev’s later role in denouncing Stalinism and implementing reforms in the USSR, he had relied on ruthless, unstinting violence to establish and enforce Soviet control over western Ukraine. Occasional armed clashes were still occurring in the mid-1950s, but the war was over by the time Crimea was transferred in February 1954.

A somewhat similar approach was used in the three newly annexed Baltic republics, especially Latvia and Estonia, both of which had had very few Russian inhabitants prior to the 1940s. The Stalinist regime encouraged ethnic Russians to settle in those republics from the late 1940s on, and this policy continued under Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. Proportionally, the transfer of Russians to the Baltic republics was greater than in Ukraine, but in absolute numbers the transfer of Crimea brought into Ukraine much larger numbers of Russians and a region closely identified with Russia, bolstering Soviet control.

The transfer of Crimea to the UkrSSR also was politically useful for Khrushchev as he sought to firm up the support he needed in his ongoing power struggle with Soviet Prime Minister Georgii Malenkov, who had initially emerged as the preeminent leader in the USSR in 1953 after Joseph Stalin’s death. Having been at a disadvantage right after Stalin’s death, Khrushchev had steadily whittled away at Malenkov’s position and had gained a major edge with his elevation to the post of CPSU First Secretary in September 1953. Nevertheless, the post-Stalin power struggle was by no means over in early 1954, and Khrushchev was trying to line up as much support as he could on the CPSU Presidium for a bid to remove Malenkov from the prime minister’s spot (a feat he accomplished in January 1955).​
 

hipeter924

Not a zombie yet
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
6,092
Reaction score
620
Points
200
Location
Nowhere you can follow
Quote:


As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
A US ambassador. You name it.
To be very clear: Putin until now has not won territory by force. Not one square inch.
All people with an attention span longer than a wine fly are aware who started the whole shit.
Why are 3 US citizens members of the Kiev Junta? Why is the son of Biden member of the board of the biggest Ukrainian Energy company?
Putin didn't authorize it, but it I pretty clear he won Crimea back into Russian control. Just as he benefited from a political assassination recently, even if it was a rogue group of nationalists that supported Putin.

The main reason Putin supports the rebels in Ukraine, is to destabilize west Ukraine in an attempt to force it back into the Russian sphere of influence.

It won't work, though West Ukraine will have to cut its losses eventually and accept that several regions of East Ukraine are more trouble than they are worth. Meaning the autonomy granted would be equivalent to independence almost anyway.
Someone might disagree with you. That person would be Putin.

BBC News - Putin reveals secrets of Russia s Crimea takeover plot
9 March 2015 Last updated at 10:58 ET
Vladimir Putin has admitted for the first time that the plan to annex Crimea was ordered weeks before the referendum on self-determination.

Crimea was formally absorbed into Russia on 18 March, to international condemnation, after unidentified gunmen took over the peninsula.

Mr Putin said on TV he had ordered work on "returning Crimea" to begin at an all-night meeting on 22 February.

The meeting was called after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted.

Speaking last year, Mr Putin had said only that he took his final decision about Crimea after secret, undated opinion polls showed 80% of Crimeans favoured joining Russia.

The findings of these polls were borne out by the outcome of the referendum on 16 March, he told Russian state TV last April.

On 27 February, unidentified armed men seized the local parliament and local government buildings in Crimea, raising the Russian flag.

Among them appeared to be regular soldiers without military insignia, who were dubbed the "little green men".

Mr Putin subsequently admitted deploying troops on the peninsula to "stand behind Crimea's self-defence forces".

...​
He only admitted to deploying leading up to near elections, hardly an admission that he sent the rebels weapons and sent the 'Little Green Men' from the start.
 

RandomVariable

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2014
Messages
5,103
Reaction score
360
Points
85
Quote:


As the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, prepared to brief Barack Obama in Washington on Monday about the state of the negotiations, a former US ambassador to Ukraine predicted that Estonia and the other Baltic states – all members of Nato – could be Vladimir Putin’s next targets if he is allowed to hold on to territory won by force.
A US ambassador. You name it.
To be very clear: Putin until now has not won territory by force. Not one square inch.
All people with an attention span longer than a wine fly are aware who started the whole shit.
Why are 3 US citizens members of the Kiev Junta? Why is the son of Biden member of the board of the biggest Ukrainian Energy company?
Putin didn't authorize it, but it I pretty clear he won Crimea back into Russian control. Just as he benefited from a political assassination recently, even if it was a rogue group of nationalists that supported Putin.

The main reason Putin supports the rebels in Ukraine, is to destabilize west Ukraine in an attempt to force it back into the Russian sphere of influence.

It won't work, though West Ukraine will have to cut its losses eventually and accept that several regions of East Ukraine are more trouble than they are worth. Meaning the autonomy granted would be equivalent to independence almost anyway.
Someone might disagree with you. That person would be Putin.

BBC News - Putin reveals secrets of Russia s Crimea takeover plot
9 March 2015 Last updated at 10:58 ET
Vladimir Putin has admitted for the first time that the plan to annex Crimea was ordered weeks before the referendum on self-determination.

Crimea was formally absorbed into Russia on 18 March, to international condemnation, after unidentified gunmen took over the peninsula.

Mr Putin said on TV he had ordered work on "returning Crimea" to begin at an all-night meeting on 22 February.

The meeting was called after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted.

Speaking last year, Mr Putin had said only that he took his final decision about Crimea after secret, undated opinion polls showed 80% of Crimeans favoured joining Russia.

The findings of these polls were borne out by the outcome of the referendum on 16 March, he told Russian state TV last April.

On 27 February, unidentified armed men seized the local parliament and local government buildings in Crimea, raising the Russian flag.

Among them appeared to be regular soldiers without military insignia, who were dubbed the "little green men".

Mr Putin subsequently admitted deploying troops on the peninsula to "stand behind Crimea's self-defence forces".

...​
He only admitted to deploying leading up to near elections, hardly an admission that he sent the rebels weapons and sent the 'Little Green Men' from the start.
Watch this from minute 14 to minute 19 and let me know your opinion.

 

Glenn

evil russian
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Russia, Moscow
I don't want a war over 'Ukraine' or even the Baltics, but that is happening regardless. Geopolitical games won't stop till one group of nations dominates the world, so yes Putin might want more - maybe even the Baltics if he could.
If the situation has deteriorated it is possible to temporarily occupy these areas, but I think this will not happen, the Americans are cowards, and their satellites European gays simply scatter.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top