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

[Cell_DbZ]

There were no U.S. forces near Russian border especially among eastern European country since 1991. Practically pulled all missiles out too.

No, but they were planning to instal missle defence systems for a long while, those missle defences could definitely be converted to offensive weapons. Then NATO kept creeping closer to the Russian borders, while they have promised not to, how are the Russians supposed to interpret that?

You going to invade every independent country because they disagree with you on policies?

When did Russia ever invade a country just because they 'disagreed'? You know very well it is never as black-white as that e.i. Russia is always the bad guy and America is always the saint. Georgia started the war and were acting like pigs to those (mostly Russian) people, was Russia supposed to just sit there? How weak would they have looked? An annexation is always illegal, I know that, however here there are justifications for the annexation. Crimeans never indentified themselves as Ukrainians (they belonged to Russia not long ago), even then there were no problems, until Poroshenko decided to accept a hostile policy against Russia (they had to leave Crimea and Ukraine was to join NATO and EU). Crimeans largely cheered the Russian arrival, western sources confirm this. Also, Russia would never give up to their Black Sea fleet (which country would be stupid enough to give up an entire fleet?)

Here's an example of Poroshenko's hostility:
This is the proposed emblem of the Ukrainian military intelligence
Does it remind you of something? (hint: Nazi Germany)

When are you going to invade Poland and other countries? Within the next few years?

You know very well that would never happen, for obvious reasons.

 

[vostok]

There were no U.S. forces near Russian border especially among eastern European country since 1991. Practically pulled all missiles out too. You going to invade every independent country because they disagree with you on policies? I probably understand that, hence your next plans are to invade other former Russian states then. Guess their opinion means nothing for you as well.

When are you going to invade Poland and other countries? Within the next few years?

Are you serious? American condemns the invasion of foreign countries??? Or is it a joke? You the biggest invader in human history. Probably, even Genghis Khan envies you from the other world.
When will you withdraw troops from dozens of countries in the world?
In the Crimea, almost 100% of the population support reunification with Russia. And this is a fact. Does their opinion mean something? Does their free will to reunite with Russia mean something?
When will you return the land to the rightful owners - the Indians of America?

I imagined the scene. Luxurious country club. A huge room full of precious furniture and naked elite prostitutes 1000$ per hour. American generals in underpants are sitting in armchairs, between them there is an elegant coffee table of Louis the 14th. There are 5 pounds of pure Colombian cocaine on the table .
General 1: Guys, I have not bombed a single country for a whole month!
General 2: Are you kidding me? I can not live without bombing even 1 day!
General 1: I know, I know. I thought that after 2 weeks it will be easier, but it's not.
General 2 takes a bar-globe and twists it: We'll find you something. Yeah, here. Sayriya, Suirya, Seyria... Who creats these stupid names?
General 3: Maybe we'll ask for permission of the UN?
General 2: What a? HA-HA-HA!!! Good one!
General 1 turning on the good old 60's music on his iphone: LET'S ROCK, GUYS.

 

[victor07]

The one that took Crimea of Ukraine in attempt to take control of the Black Sea. Thats the response. Thats the aggressor.

The coup d'etat in Kiev sponsored by your government is an act of aggression. It was your instructors who led the rioters, the insurgent groups existed and trained for your money. That is, the aggressor in this case is your country.

When are you going to invade Poland and other countries? Within the next few years?

Better ask yourself, why do you need an anti-missile radar in Poland? Why did you set the Poles under attack, perhaps even nuclear?

There were no U.S. forces near Russian border especially among eastern European country since 1991

So on your opinion it is normal if you see for example Russian airborn and tank division in Mexico.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

In the Crimea, almost 100% of the population support reunification with Russia.

To be fair, voter turnout of that referendum was only like 23%, but the majority of Crimeans do support unification with Russia (about 65% according to western sources), while the rest wants full independence or remain with Ukraine

Better ask yourself, why do you need an anti-missile radar in Poland? Why did you set the Poles under attack, perhaps even nuclear?

Aren't the Poles asking for it themselves?

 

[vostok]

To be fair, voter turnout of that referendum was only like 23%, but the majority of Crimeans do support unification with Russia (about 65% according to western sources), while the rest wants full independence or remain with Ukraine

65% - is number of Pro-Russian for Nikolaev or Kherson. For Donbass it is 75-85%. For Crimea - more than 90%. I know what I am talking about.

 

[victor07]

To be fair, voter turnout of that referendum was only like 23%, but the majority of Crimeans do support unification with Russia (about 65% according to western sources), while the rest wants full independence or remain with Ukraine

Aren't the Poles asking for it themselves?

Polish government is not the same as Polish people. Who asked Polish people? This radar is the exclusive property of the US. Its military purpose is to control missile interceptors. The target of the attack are the Russian nuclear missile forces. Therefore, such a radar is a priority target.

 

[victor07]

65% - is number of Pro-Russian for Nikolaev or Kherson. For Donbass it is 75-85%. For Crimea - more than 90%. I know what I am talking about.

As for the Crimean referendum all correct information is available in Wikipedia
Voter turnout

Voting results were 96.77 % in favour of Russia.
Representatives of 23 countries, including Latvia, Belgium, Poland, USA, Mongolia, China, Serbia, Israel, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece followed the voting in Crimea. Among the observers are deputies of the parliaments of Western and Eastern Europe, as well as the European Parliament.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

No, but they were planning to instal missle defence systems for a long while, those missle defences could definitely be converted to offensive weapons. Then NATO kept creeping closer to the Russian borders, while they have promised not to, how are the Russians supposed to interpret that?


When did Russia ever invade a country just because they 'disagreed'? You know very well it is never as black-white as that e.i. Russia is always the bad guy and America is always the saint. Georgia started the war and were acting like pigs to those (mostly Russian) people, was Russia supposed to just sit there? How weak would they have looked? An annexation is always illegal, I know that, however here there are justifications for the annexation. Crimeans never indentified themselves as Ukrainians (they belonged to Russia not long ago), even then there were no problems, until Poroshenko decided to accept a hostile policy against Russia (they had to leave Crimea and Ukraine was to join NATO and EU). Crimeans largely cheered the Russian arrival, western sources confirm this. Also, Russia would never give up to their Black Sea fleet (which country would be stupid enough to give up an entire fleet?)

Here's an example of Poroshenko's hostility:
This is the proposed emblem of the Ukrainian military intelligence
Does it remind you of something? (hint: Nazi Germany)

You know very well that would never happen, for obvious reasons.

I know what it reminds me of:

The Owl is associated with Wisdom. The Nazis used the Eagle.
In this case the two headed Eagle is a symbol of Tsarist Russia, which predates Nazism.

As for the illegal annexation of Crimea.
Russia and Ukraine signed a lease contract in 2010 for Sevastopol, which would expire in 2042.
Thus there were no immediate threat to the base of the Black Sea fleet.

Ukraine is not a member of EU nor NATO.
Ukraine is seeking membership in EU, simply because doing so will be beneficiary to Ukraine.

As for the Crimean referendum all correct information is available in Wikipedia
Voter turnout

Voting results were 96.77 % in favour of Russia.
Representatives of 23 countries, including Latvia, Belgium, Poland, USA, Mongolia, China, Serbia, Israel, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece followed the voting in Crimea. Among the observers are deputies of the parliaments of Western and Eastern Europe, as well as the European Parliament.

Announcing an election to take place one week later is what dictators do.

Soviet/Russia has over time transferred a sizable number of Russians into Crimea,
and deported the Crimea Tatars.
That is what now is criminal according to the Geneva Convention.

The "result" of the election differs significantly from polling on this issue
done over time, so it is hard to believe that the elections were fair.

 

[ptldM3]

No, but they were planning to instal missle defence systems for a long while, those missle defences could definitely be converted to offensive weapons. Then NATO kept creeping closer to the Russian borders, while they have promised not to, how are the Russians supposed to interpret that?


When did Russia ever invade a country just because they 'disagreed'? You know very well it is never as black-white as that e.i. Russia is always the bad guy and America is always the saint. Georgia started the war and were acting like pigs to those (mostly Russian) people, was Russia supposed to just sit there? How weak would they have looked? An annexation is always illegal, I know that, however here there are justifications for the annexation. Crimeans never indentified themselves as Ukrainians (they belonged to Russia not long ago), even then there were no problems, until Poroshenko decided to accept a hostile policy against Russia (they had to leave Crimea and Ukraine was to join NATO and EU). Crimeans largely cheered the Russian arrival, western sources confirm this. Also, Russia would never give up to their Black Sea fleet (which country would be stupid enough to give up an entire fleet?)

Here's an example of Poroshenko's hostility:
This is the proposed emblem of the Ukrainian military intelligence
Does it remind you of something? (hint: Nazi Germany)

You know very well that would never happen, for obvious reasons.

lol Ukrainians using Latin letters on their proposed emblem. These people are confused.

Got to love westerners, they invade and carve up countries but then complain about others, the US has interfered in dozens of elections, very openly sometimes but are critical of Russia for supposed hacking. Last I recall US politicians were on the ground during Maiden having secret meeting with opposition and giving out billions to opposition and Russia is bad because they supposedly hacked Hillary Clintons unsecured server (she got away with breaking multiple laws and got away with it)


The latest round of Russian sanctions was because of "Russian aggression in Syria."

You can't make this shit up.

 

[victor07]

Yes, Russians and Syrians tend to quote this wretched Swede which noone in Sweden
has ever heard about before.
He has zero education on anything he is commenting about.
His comments on Syria is purely based on watching Youtube videos,
and his only statements are those that defend the official Russian position on any issue.
The only thing we want to know is how much is Russia paying for this.

Prices Russia is paying for other fake news is in this report:

Russia should be banned from the Olympics for a loong loong time.

https://documents.trendmicro.com/as...hine-how-propagandists-abuse-the-internet.pdf

It will be more useful for you to know how much your government pay for the fake news like this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ance-image-emerges-syrian-child-aleppo-rubble

Now we know the truth from the first hands.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/06/new-photos-of-omran-daqneesh-the-face-of-syrian-suffering
http://sana.sy/en/?p=107665

 

[Cell_DbZ]

I know what it reminds me of:

View attachment 403732

The Owl is associated with Wisdom. The Nazis used the Eagle.
In this case the two headed Eagle is a symbol of Tsarist Russia, which predates Nazism.

As for the illegal annexation of Crimea.
Russia and Ukraine signed a lease contract in 2010 for Sevastopol, which would expire in 2042.
Thus there were no immediate threat to the base of the Black Sea fleet.

Ukraine is not a member of EU nor NATO.
Ukraine is seeking membership in EU, simply because doing so will be beneficiary to Ukraine.



Announcing an election to take place one week later is what dictators do.

Soviet/Russia has over time transferred a sizable number of Russians into Crimea,
and deported the Crimea Tatars.
That is what now is criminal according to the Geneva Convention.

The "result" of the election differs significantly from polling on this issue
done over time, so it is hard to believe that the elections were fair.

Yes, the owl is indeed a sign of wisdom and a sign of tsarist Russia, but were they worse than Nazi germany? The Royal navy still uses the same insigna back in the colonial days and you're not going to tell me that Imperial Britain was that much better than Russia back in the day. The owl was always in Russian history. Can Ukraine say the same about the Nazi eagle? What excuse do they have to suddenly adapt the eagle, the only thing I can think of is just to piss off the Russians. Unlike the Nazi's, Russia wasn't aiming to exterminate the Jews and Slavic people. I don't think this is comparable at all.
The problem doesn't lie with usage of the eagle, it lies with the obvious similarity with the Nazi Insigna.

About Crimea, it is undeniable that the people (even a substatial amount of the Tatars) supported the annexation. Of course this does not excuse those historical crimes, but if we would hold everyone of today accountable for those crimes, what about the Usa, Uk, Sweden, Belgium...?

The threat is not immediate, but it sure was inevitable. Ukraine is aiming to join Nato and thats the problem for Russia, not EU.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It will be more useful for you to know how much your government pay for the fake news like this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ance-image-emerges-syrian-child-aleppo-rubble

Now we know the truth from the first hands.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/06/new-photos-of-omran-daqneesh-the-face-of-syrian-suffering
http://sana.sy/en/?p=107665

Sweden does not pay for articles to appear in the Guardian...

A Syrian citizen within Assads reach.
Does not need much convincing by Syrian Intelligence for him to produce a statement,
You will only know the truth, once he is not under threat.

Yes, the owl is indeed a sign of wisdom and a sign of tsarist Russia, but were they worse than Nazi germany? The Royal navy still uses the same insigna back in the colonial days and you're not going to tell me that Imperial Britain was that much better than Russia back in the day. The owl was always in Russian history. Can Ukraine say the same about the Nazi eagle? What excuse do they have to suddenly adapt the eagle, the only thing I can think of is just to piss off the Russians. Unlike the Nazi's, Russia wasn't aiming to exterminate the Jews and Slavic people. I don't think this is comparable at all.
The problem doesn't lie with usage of the eagle, it lies with the obvious similarity with the Nazi Insigna.

About Crimea, it is undeniable that the people (even a substatial amount of the Tatars) supported the annexation. Of course this does not excuse those historical crimes, but if we would hold everyone of today accountable for those crimes, what about the Usa, Uk, Sweden, Belgium...?

The threat is not immediate, but it sure was inevitable. Ukraine is aiming to join Nato and thats the problem for Russia, not EU.

You are completely messed up.
The picture You show of the Ukrainans, show the OWL.
This is not a sign of Tsarist Russia.

The picture I show of Putin, shows the double headed Eagle.
Neither are symbols of Nazism.

The fact that no time was given for debate, makes the election a sham.
Even if the Crimeans would be against it, the election would show a majority for it.
It was simply fraud.

 

[victor07]

I know what it reminds me of:

View attachment 403732

The Owl is associated with Wisdom. The Nazis used the Eagle.
In this case the two headed Eagle is a symbol of Tsarist Russia, which predates Nazism.

As for the illegal annexation of Crimea.
Russia and Ukraine signed a lease contract in 2010 for Sevastopol, which would expire in 2042.
Thus there were no immediate threat to the base of the Black Sea fleet.

Ukraine is not a member of EU nor NATO.
Ukraine is seeking membership in EU, simply because doing so will be beneficiary to Ukraine.



Announcing an election to take place one week later is what dictators do.

Soviet/Russia has over time transferred a sizable number of Russians into Crimea,
and deported the Crimea Tatars.
That is what now is criminal according to the Geneva Convention.

The "result" of the election differs significantly from polling on this issue
done over time, so it is hard to believe that the elections were fair.

This photo is more clear. Pay attention on small Ukrainian flag on the pocket.

Read this article about fascism in Ukraine.
https://steigan.no/2017/05/12/ukraina-mot-apen-fascisme/

Soviet government deported Crimean Tatars because they supported nazi occupants. Lately Soviet and Russian government recognized deportation as illegal, the Tatars returned to the Crimea. Similarly, for example, during the Second World War, US authorities deported the indigenous population of Alaska.

"Ukraine is seeking membership in EU, simply because doing so will be beneficiary to Ukraine"

Ukraine is in economic association with the EU for 2 or 3 years, and we are seeing a collapse. The Baltic countries have been in the EU for many years, and their economy is in a bad state.

 

[ptldM3]

This photo is more clear. Pay attention on small Ukrainian flag on the pocket.

Read this article about fascism in Ukraine.
https://steigan.no/2017/05/12/ukraina-mot-apen-fascisme/

Soviet government deported Crimean Tatars because they supported nazi occupants. Lately Soviet and Russian government recognized deportation as illegal, the Tatars returned to the Crimea. Similarly, for example, during the Second World War, US authorities deported the indigenous population of Alaska.

"Ukraine is seeking membership in EU, simply because doing so will be beneficiary to Ukraine"

Ukraine is in economic association with the EU for 2 or 3 years, and we are seeing a collapse. The Baltic countries have been in the EU for many years, and their economy is in a bad state.

This is normal amongst Ukrainian military units especially in the west.

The Azov battalion uses Nazi insignia and they are part of the interior ministry. Those goons always have Nazi paraphernalia and idolize Hitler. In fact people in western Ukraine celebrate Nazis.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

You are completely messed up.
The picture You show of the Ukrainans, show the OWL.
This is not a sign of Tsarist Russia.

Oops, I completly messed up here, I admit my grave error. I was using my cellphone to post these comments and I initially didn't see it (terrible excuse, I know) I also ignorantly assumed you were talking about the Russian isigna beign the owl and not the Ukrainian one. Still doesn't mean I am a messed person, however

That beign said, I never meant to say the hawk always is a Nazi sign (or the owl). It depends in what context you use either (or any) sign.

Even though an owl is used, I think this is an obvious and cynical attemp to really anger the Russians, first of the birds have a similair position (the bird standing above the sword/swastika). You honestly don't see the similarities? Second the Ukrainian insignia has a sword aimed at Russia. How is this not hostile?

other than this beign a hawk, I don't see similarities

The fact that no time was given for debate, makes the election a sham.
Even if the Crimeans would be against it, the election would show a majority for it.
It was simply fraud.

I know, I have never claimed that the referendum is legitimate, I think I said that earlier. Announcing a voting a week later is cynical to me too.
However, there was no real debate in the coup against Yanukovich either, it was forced by popular uprise, but the coup was recognized without much problems. There were popular uprises too in Crimea in response to the coup, the initial declaration of independence and the subsequent annexation were not recognized, I can't help but think this is a double standard.

Even if the Crimeans would be against it, the election would show a majority for it.
It was simply fraud.

Well apparently there were international observers and they didn't report any irregularities.

Representatives of 23 countries, including Latvia, Belgium, Poland, USA, Mongolia, China, Serbia, Israel, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece followed the voting in Crimea. Among the observers are deputies of the parliaments of Western and Eastern Europe, as well as the European Parliament.