What's new

Russian fighter jet intercepts 2 US bombers over Baltic Sea (PHOTOS)

That would be You.

The token forces deployed by NATO in the Baltics and Eastern Europe are there
as sacrifices in case Russia starts some funny business.
You don't invade a country like Russia with a few battalions.
Your interpretation of that is really aggressive.
Listen to some logic man!
The Russian leader has a sense

I say, well said Mr Putin
@vostok @Nevsky @Piotr
Serbia = Bully
Iraq = Bully
Libya = Bully.
What goes around, comes around.

Both Iraq and Libya has been ruined by their own citizens.
Serbia has not.
So well done USA, thank you for the BS democracy which you brought for Libya.
No need to mention, USA's allies are all a bunch of monarchies in middle east and USA has significant problems with independent countries
Libya after USA's democracy
libya2_wide-4b71df84661c53904087a09d97a971fd679500ce-s900-c85.jpg


Say good by to the beautiful Libya which was symbol of civil progress within African continent. Welcome USA's chaos
 
Last edited:
Serbia = Bully
Iraq = Bully
Libya = Bully.
What goes around, comes around.

Both Iraq and Libya has been ruined by their own citizens.
Serbia has not.

Iraq was first propped up by the Usa against Iran, so they supported a bully in killing thousands, which makes them in turn in a bully as well. Then they proceeded to bomb Iraq into pieces, without helping them much restoring their country, which left the rest for ISIS. Same goes for Libya, it is one thing to dispose a dictator, but if you really care about democraty, aren't you supposed to help them?
Serbia has killed many innocent people, but Croatians have also persecuted quite few innocent people in return, but they got away with it.

Saudi Arabia=Bully, yet buddies with the Usa/NATO
UAE= Bully, yet buddies with the Usa/NATO
Poroshenko=Bully, yet buddies with the Usa/NATO

They seem to be quite selective in what they deem bullies and 'worthy' of their attention.

The point I am trying to make is that neither Russia or Usa/NATO are 'good guys' and only care about their own interests, yet Russia gets sh1t for it and the west gets away with it every time.
 
Iraq was first propped up by the Usa against Iran, so they supported a bully in killing thousands, which makes them in turn in a bully as well. Then they proceeded to bomb Iraq into pieces, without helping them much restoring their country, which left the rest for ISIS. Same goes for Libya, it is one thing to dispose a dictator, but if you really care about democraty, aren't you supposed to help them?
Serbia has killed many innocent people, but Croatians have also persecuted quite few innocent people in return, but they got away with it.

Saudi Arabia=Bully, yet buddies with the Usa/NATO
UAE= Bully, yet buddies with the Usa/NATO
Poroshenko=Bully, yet buddies with the Usa/NATO

They seem to be quite selective in what they deem bullies and 'worthy' of their attention.

The point I am trying to make is that neither Russia or Usa/NATO are 'good guys' and only care about their own interests, yet Russia gets sh1t for it and the west gets away with it every time.
Iran made their own bed by violating International Law on how to treat diplomats.
Iraq attacked Quwait, and was warned not to. UN decision to thow him out.
Iraq attacked airplane controlling the no-fly zone, tried to assassinate George H.W.Bush
and pretended he had WMDs. Not very smart.
Iraqi former Bath members decided to try to regain power by an insurgency.
Iraqi Shia decided to follow a secteristic agenda, pissing of the Iraqi Sunni.
That is their choice. A wiser policy would have allowed Iraq to be rebuilt.
Plenty of organisations that would contribute.
The insurgency policy of killing those that want to help, effectively puts an end on such efforts.
Again Iraqis to blame.

Libya: Ghadaffi started to kill his citizens en masse.
Serbia: Snipers killing civilians, Srebrenica.
Both cases, the public demanded that this was stopped.

Saudi Arabia: Considered a dictatorship, but does not kill its citizens en masse.
Yemen: Maybe if Jihadist had not been killing NGO members or journalist,
it would be higher on the agenda, but they are not very smart.

UAE: An invisible dot on an invisible dot.

Poroshenko is elected. I don't doubt corruption is florishing there.

When was the last time the US annexed any territory?
 
Iran made their own bed by violating International Law on how to treat diplomats.
So that excuses the many people being killed by Hussein with the support of the Usa, like Saddam Hussein wasn't treating many like sh1t? In the fifties Iran had a reasonable democratic nation, but the CIA and MI5 decided they wanted to overthrow them and instate a puppet dictatorship, which was oppressing the Iranians heavily, then they were thrown of by a Islamic revolution and suddenly the Usa had no reach to the oil. Oil and influence was the reason for the war against Iran, not the diplomats, that was just an excuse.

Iraq attacked Quwait, and was warned not to. UN decision to thow him out.
And I cannot justify that, so jumping to the defence of Kuwait was the right thing to do.

tried to assassinate George H.W.Bush
You mean 9/11? I hope you didn't. Osama Bin Laden was the brian after the attack, not Hussein. Bin Laden was captured in Pakistan and has been living with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, you know only a 1000 miles from Iraq...

pretended he had WMDs
What?!? Wasn't he denying that he had those? Didn't the Usa use this as an excuse to invade Iraq? Didn't Tony Blair admit that invading Iraq in 2003 was wrong?

Libya: Ghadaffi started to kill his citizens en masse.
No justification for that, but Bahrain also did kill a hunderd of their citizens in 2011, many were injured and tortured, barely any action was undertaken. Again the Usa/NATO is selective in its spreading of justice.

Serbia: Snipers killing civilians, Srebrenica.
And more than just that, so stopping them was good. As I said earlier, Croatia killad also a lot of people, yet nothing really happen. Again selective justice.

Saudi Arabia: Considered a dictatorship, but does not kill its citizens en masse.
No, they have been killing Americans instead. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis in the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden got a lot of support from Saudi Arabia. America is turning a blind eye for this. They may be not killing their citizens, but they are opressing the Shia minority there.

UAE: An invisible dot on an invisible dot.
Invisible? They are quite rich and are financing Jihadi groups, which have been killing many in Syria, so I wouldn't call them 'invisible'.

Poroshenko is elected. I don't doubt corruption is florishing there.
Because you are elected, doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want, he has been putting European money in his pocket instead of helping Ukraine, if he doesn't change, how long before people will get mad? Durterte has been killing many in his war on drugs, doesn't mean it is okay just because he's elected.

When was the last time the US annexed any territory?
A long time ago (Hawai). Annexing Crimea can be justified, the people are pro-Russia (the 'referendum' is not trustworthy, however as the turnout was low), but I remember once reading on Die Welle (possibly another German news source, Im no that sure) that in a secret investigation, 65% supported joining Russia, while the remaining 35% was divided between Ukraine, full independence or not knowing, I can't find the article anymore, so don't quote me on that. However according to multiple western sources, Many Crimeans support staying with Russia (Washington Post, Bloomberg, The Guardian,...).
Also, security was a great concern, as Russia would be completely encircled by NATO. Russia would not be confortable with Crimea hosting the 6th Usa fleet.
 
Last edited:
So that excuses the many people being killed by Hussein with the support of the Usa, like Saddam Hussein wasn't treating many like sh1t? In the fifties Iran had a reasonable democratic nation, but the CIA and MI5 decided they wanted to overthrow them and instate a puppet dictatorship, which was oppressing the Iranians heavily, then they were thrown of by a Islamic revolution and suddenly the Usa had no reach to the oil. Oil and influence was the reason for the war against Iran, not the diplomats, that was just an excuse.


And I cannot justify that, so jumping to the defence of Kuwait was the right thing to do.


You mean 9/11? I hope you didn't. Osama Bin Laden was the brian after the attack, not Hussein. Bin Laden was captured in Pakistan and has been living with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, you know only a 1000 miles from Iraq...


What?!? Wasn't he denying that he had those? Didn't the Usa use this as an excuse to invade Iraq? Didn't Tony Blair admit that invading Iraq in 2003 was wrong?

No justification for that, but Bahrain also did kill a hunderd of their citizens in 2011, many were injured and tortured, barely any action was undertaken. Again the Usa/NATO is selective in its spreading of justice.


And more than just that, so stopping them was good. As I said earlier, Croatia killad also a lot of people, yet nothing really happen. Again selective justice.


No, they have been killing Americans instead. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis in the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden got a lot of support from Saudi Arabia. America is turning a blind eye for this. They may be not killing their citizens, but they are opressing the Shia minority there.


Invisible? They are quite rich and are financing Jihadi groups, which have been killing many in Syria, so I wouldn't call them 'invisible'.


Because you are elected, doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want, he has been putting European money in his pocket instead of helping Ukraine, if he doesn't change, how long before people will get mad? Durterte has been killing many in his war on drugs, doesn't mean it is okay just because he's elected.


A long time ago (Hawai). Annexing Crimea can be justified, the people are pro-Russia (the 'referendum' is not trustworthy, however as the turnout was low), but I remember once reading on Die Welle (possibly another German news source, Im no that sure) that in a secret investigation, 65% supported joining Russia, while the remaining 35% was divided between Ukraine, full independence or not knowing, I can't find the article anymore, so don't quote me on that. However according to multiple western sources, Many Crimeans support staying with Russia (Washington Post, Bloomberg, The Guardian,...).
Also, security was a great concern, as Russia would be completely encircled by NATO. Russia would be confortable with Crimea hosting the 6th Usa fleet.

Both Mossadeq and Britain were to blame, neither the nationalization nor the coup were legal.
Saddam was obviously out for the oil. The reason he got the support was the illegal hostage situation.

Saddam tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush when he visited Saudi Arabia.

He denied, but his behaviour towards inspectors left a lot to be desired.
He acted like he was hiding the WMD, perhaps afraid that if Iran had believed
he did not have any, they would attack.

Bahrain was over pretty quickly, so I guess the public did not react.
NATO was reluctant to do anything at first in Libya, but realized soon
that public opinion demanded action.

Same in Serbia. Public Opinion demanded action against Serbia.
Even more reluctance from the European Governments, but
Madeline Albright forced her will.
As a European Jew, born before WW2, she knew when there was a need to draw a line.
Croats has been brought to the ICC as well.

While the 9/11 attack was performed by Saudis, it is yet to be proven
that it was the Saudi Government behind the attack.
The proven money trail from Saudis to Al-Qaeda is not enough.

In public opinion here, they are invisible.
That does not mean that You are wrong.
But governments are not pressured to act on them.

Neither Poroshenko or Duterte are behaving in such a way that Europe will intervene.
Europe should work with Ukraine to improve their government,
and introduce rules. This will reduce corruption long term.
Duterte is a basket case, and they need to sort out that problem internally.

The Crimea annexation put and end to the hope on Russia, and effectively
started Cold War II, where the Russians are suffering the most.
 
Saddam was obviously out for the oil. The reason he got the support was the illegal hostage situation.
I think it was also quite obvious that the west was out for the oil too, the illegal hostage situation was the perfect excuse (of course I am not defending Iran for that hostage).

Saddam tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush when he visited Saudi Arabia.

He denied, but his behaviour towards inspectors left a lot to be desired.
He acted like he was hiding the WMD
Further down in your post you said that the proven money trail was not enough, yet 'suspicious behavoir' seems to be enough. I find it that Usa/NATO are selective in their justice.

perhaps afraid that if Iran had believed
he did not have any, they would attack.
Who knows, could be possible.

Bahrain was over pretty quickly, so I guess the public did not react.
Still doesn't make it right.

NATO was reluctant to do anything at first in Libya, but realized soon
that public opinion demanded action.
No way defending Qadhafi. However, Assad has been killing his people too (just like the 'moderate' opposition, by the way), why isn't NATO going into Syria? He may be getting Russian support, but they would never risk a war. Why not dispose Kim Jong Un, he has been testing ballistic missles and actually threatening to nuke many and no one seems to be supporting him.

Neither Poroshenko or Duterte are behaving in such a way that Europe will intervene.
Europe should work with Ukraine to improve their government,
and introduce rules. This will reduce corruption long term.
I agree Europe should work with Ukraine to stop corruption, but I don't get the sense Poroshenko even takes his promises seriuosly, I don't see a good future with the guy. I was also not suggesting disposing him or something like that, but he needs to be put under pressure a lot more.

Duterte is a basket case, and they need to sort out that problem internally.
That's the problem, I don't think there's much (effective) opposition against him internally, so external pressure for at least protection for the innocent people is in its place here, I am not talking about invading him.

The Crimea annexation put and end to the hope on Russia, and effectively
Hope? I don't think there was ever 'hope', the west had the chance to draw Russia into their orbit in the 90's; they could have helped them like you suggested that the EU should help Ukraine (but it could be that Russia wanted to maintain their 'sovreignty' and therefore not be interested to fully get into the orbit of the west).

I get that the annexation is illegal (something Russia accepts), but they didn't do it because Russia had to fill the role of 'the bad guy', I think they had legitimate (security) concerns here. You had an Ukrainian president who took a neutral stance (not joining NATO or the SCO), suddenly protests and the new Ukrainian president proclaimed that: Ukraine must join EU (alarmbel here for Russia, however I don't think the Russians would do much beyond complaining here), That Ukraine must join NATO (would you feel safe when a military organisation that has an hostile history with you completly surround you?) and that the Russian army had to leave Crimea (obviously the Russian wouldn't accept that). Above that the majority of Crimea are Russians, so doing nothing here would make Russia look weak (abandoning their own kind stuff).

and effectively
started Cold War II, where the Russians are suffering the most.
I think saying that we are in cold war II is a stretch here, diplomatic tensions aren't quite as high as in the real Cold War. Sanctions are hurting Russia (they are hurting Belgium quite badly too), but the main reason Russian economy is doing poorly as of now is because the lack of diversity of their economy (only oil, gas, weapons, some technology and a bit food industry, the rest of their economy is somewhat insignifficant, so ramping up the modernisation of their economy could help) and the dropping oil prices.
 
That would be You.

The token forces deployed by NATO in the Baltics and Eastern Europe are there
as sacrifices in case Russia starts some funny business.
You don't invade a country like Russia with a few battalions.
Your interpretation of that is really aggressive.



Serbia = Bully
Iraq = Bully
Libya = Bully.
What goes around, comes around.

Both Iraq and Libya has been ruined by their own citizens.
Serbia has not.

Yes you are right " what goes around, comes around"

Wait for few months or may b few more years!!! You will witness what goes around in your country ( USA) !!!
 
I think it was also quite obvious that the west was out for the oil too, the illegal hostage situation was the perfect excuse (of course I am not defending Iran for that hostage).


Further down in your post you said that the proven money trail was not enough, yet 'suspicious behavoir' seems to be enough. I find it that Usa/NATO are selective in their justice.


Who knows, could be possible.


Still doesn't make it right.


No way defending Qadhafi. However, Assad has been killing his people too (just like the 'moderate' opposition, by the way), why isn't NATO going into Syria? He may be getting Russian support, but they would never risk a war. Why not dispose Kim Jong Un, he has been testing ballistic missles and actually threatening to nuke many and no one seems to be supporting him.


I agree Europe should work with Ukraine to stop corruption, but I don't get the sense Poroshenko even takes his promises seriuosly, I don't see a good future with the guy. I was also not suggesting disposing him or something like that, but he needs to be put under pressure a lot more.


That's the problem, I don't think there's much (effective) opposition against him internally, so external pressure for at least protection for the innocent people is in its place here, I am not talking about invading him.


Hope? I don't think there was ever 'hope', the west had the chance to draw Russia into their orbit in the 90's; they could have helped them like you suggested that the EU should help Ukraine (but it could be that Russia wanted to maintain their 'sovreignty' and therefore not be interested to fully get into the orbit of the west).

I get that the annexation is illegal (something Russia accepts), but they didn't do it because Russia had to fill the role of 'the bad guy', I think they had legitimate (security) concerns here. You had an Ukrainian president who took a neutral stance (not joining NATO or the SCO), suddenly protests and the new Ukrainian president proclaimed that: Ukraine must join EU (alarmbel here for Russia, however I don't think the Russians would do much beyond complaining here), That Ukraine must join NATO (would you feel safe when a military organisation that has an hostile history with you completly surround you?) and that the Russian army had to leave Crimea (obviously the Russian wouldn't accept that). Above that the majority of Crimea are Russians, so doing nothing here would make Russia look weak (abandoning their own kind stuff).


I think saying that we are in cold war II is a stretch here, diplomatic tensions aren't quite as high as in the real Cold War. Sanctions are hurting Russia (they are hurting Belgium quite badly too), but the main reason Russian economy is doing poorly as of now is because the lack of diversity of their economy (only oil, gas, weapons, some technology and a bit food industry, the rest of their economy is somewhat insignifficant, so ramping up the modernisation of their economy could help) and the dropping oil prices.

I do not see it as obvious that it was about oil. At least not about Iranian oil.
I have no doubt that selling weapons and getting payment in Iraqi oil was made
much easier by the hostage affair.

The Saudi money trail was trailed to individuals, and actions are against those individual.
Much different from a situation where the head of state makes the decision.
I do not buy thst they are similar.

The action in Libya was a result of a resolution in the UNSC.
Russia has vetoed any action against Assad, so put the blame on Russia.

Poroshenko knows his relations with EU is depending on improving the
situation in Ukraine. If things will not improve, someone else will be voted in.

While Duterte is a strange fellow, Europe has much more important problems.

I do not buy the idea that Russia is surrounded by a hostile organisation and thus in danger.
NATO, with the exception of the US has demobilized a lot of its military.
If NATO wanted to invade, it would have kept its armies,and invaded 15 years ago.
The US army is hardly trained for such a conflict either.
 
I do not see it as obvious that it was about oil. At least not about Iranian oil.
I have no doubt that selling weapons and getting payment in Iraqi oil was made
much easier by the hostage affair.
The reason for the fall of Iranian governement in the 50's was apparently largery for influence and oil, I don't think it is much different.

The Saudi money trail was trailed to individuals, and actions are against those individual.
Much different from a situation where the head of state makes the decision.
I do not buy thst they are similar.
I never really claimed that the whole of Saudi Arabia is responsible for 9/11, but the ones wo are, are quite influential individuals and that there's no opposition for their actions from the Saudi governement, is way too suspisious for me, this makes me believe that they are at least (secretly) sympathetic with their actions , Saudi Arabia is very well know for supporting Jihadism, resulting in the deaths of many people, yet no repercussion.

Poroshenko knows his relations with EU is depending on improving the
situation in Ukraine. If things will not improve, someone else will be voted in.
Yet, I haven't seen much happening. It is not in Europe's interest to abandon Poroshenko even when he does not comply with the wishes of the EU, because then Russia would regain influence In the Ukraine and Europe wants to prevent expansion of Russian influence. If the situations stay bad, I think the Ukrainian people will someone better in.

I do not buy the idea that Russia is surrounded by a hostile organisation and thus in danger.
NATO, with the exception of the US has demobilized a lot of its military.
If NATO wanted to invade, it would have kept its armies,and invaded 15 years ago.
I didn't say that NATO is a hostile organisation, I said that they had a hostile history with Russia, with that still freshly in mind, how would you react if you would be in Russian shoes? NATO is still a military organisation and seeing them expand, closer to your border (all the wile they promised not to), encircling you (not for invasion obviously) and Russia would lose acces to their Black Sea fleet.
I think Russia is justified for the actions in Crimea, NATO isn't going to invade, but can you be sure about that hypothetically speaking?
Soviet Union placed nukes on Cuba, the Us was very justified in its fear. Soviet Union probably would never have launched unprovoked, but could they be sure about that? Obviously not.

While Duterte is a strange fellow, Europe has much more important problems.
between 2000 and 8000 died in Durterte's war on drugs (sources are Al Jazeera, The Diplomat and The Guardian, there are more), he's much more than a strange fellow if you ask me. Europa has indeed more rampant problems, but the Usa has taken the role of policing democracy, freedom and human rights, yet nothing happens.

The US army is hardly trained for such a conflict either.
I think they probably are, but I can't back that claim up.
 
I do not see it as obvious that it was about oil. At least not about Iranian oil.
I have no doubt that selling weapons and getting payment in Iraqi oil was made
much easier by the hostage affair.

The Saudi money trail was trailed to individuals, and actions are against those individual.
Much different from a situation where the head of state makes the decision.
I do not buy thst they are similar.

The action in Libya was a result of a resolution in the UNSC.
Russia has vetoed any action against Assad, so put the blame on Russia.

Poroshenko knows his relations with EU is depending on improving the
situation in Ukraine. If things will not improve, someone else will be voted in.

While Duterte is a strange fellow, Europe has much more important problems.

I do not buy the idea that Russia is surrounded by a hostile organisation and thus in danger.
NATO, with the exception of the US has demobilized a lot of its military.
If NATO wanted to invade, it would have kept its armies,and invaded 15 years ago.
The US army is hardly trained for such a conflict either.
What a double standard you have sir, you have no logic:enjoy: I am fully agree to @Cell_DbZ
 
Happening frequently but more than usual, Americans are getting ruder day by day
Not at all, as usually there are no B52s and B1s in Europe. Anyway, these flew in international airspace, with notification and transponders on. Unlike some aircraft from some other air force that flies over the Baltic....

Tata....

Only stupid people claim US overseas bases are NATO overseas bases (no way non-US nato members get access to any and all US bases, that's just silly to suggest)
 
Not at all, as usually there are no B52s and B1s in Europe. Anyway, these flew in international airspace, with notification and transponders on. Unlike some aircraft from some other air force that flies over the Baltic....


Tata....

Both countries intercept each other whenever the one comes close to the others border, everything is normal here.


Only stupid people claim US overseas bases are NATO overseas bases (no way non-US nato members get access to any and all US bases, that's just silly to suggest)

Calm down, this was just a meme I found funny, so I wanted to share (I would think those emojis would make that clear).
No reason to call me stupid.
 
Baltics never trusted Russia to begin with even when it was "weak". They knew that once Russia has the capacity, they would continue with their imperialistic expansionist objectives. By the way, it was their decision to join the NATO. They applied. US didn't force them. It also depends on under which model do you like to live? Do you like to live under democracy and meritocracy or a corrupt dictatorship like Russia's?
EU and NATO should hurry to save Baltic states from Russian expansion.
aggressive.gif
Baltics urgently need much more money.
help.gif
Otherwise, after a couple of decades, may be there will be no one to save.
crazy.gif

%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F.png

Russian share of exports, From left to right: Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, .....
u_80a7e886bd64b6df44faae6af88d9bbb_800.jpg

RIGA, November 4, 2016 - Sputnik. The ports of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in the first nine months of this year handled 108.1 million tons of cargo, which is 4.2% less than in the same period of 2015.
https://ru.sputniknewslv.com/economy/20161104/3123860/tranzit-stran-baltii-skorashhaetsja.html
RIGA, Oct. 19, 2016 - Sputnik. Latvian ports may lose transit from Belarus, writes LETA. If the Russian railways make an "unprecedented discount" of 25% on transportation of Belarusian oil products to Russian ports, the tariffs for rail transportation in Russia may become more profitable for Belarusian companies.
https://ru.sputniknewslv.com/world/...het-ostavit-beztranzita-latvijskie-porty.html
RIGA, Dec 7, 2016 - Sputnik. In November of this year, by railways owned by "Latvijas dzelzcelsh", 7.6% more cargo was transported than in November 2015. At the same time, the turnover of goods for 11 months as a whole fell by 15.6%, the agency LETA reports.
https://ru.sputniknewslv.com/econom...vka-gruzov-po-zheleznym-dorogam-snizilas.html
The ports of the Baltic countries in 2016 received and sent 145.943 million tons of cargo, which is 2.8% or 4.169 million tons less than in 2015.
https://ru.sputniknewslv.com/Latvia...a-port-Baltija-gruzooborot-snizhenie-CSU.html
 

Back
Top Bottom