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

[A.P. Richelieu]

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.

The Nazis got like, ... 2% of the vote...
The Baltics outgrew every other of the Eastern States in EU since they joined.
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/events/2015/20150616_vilnius/paper_baltic_states_en.pdf
While they had a major dip in 2009, they are in better position than 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


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.



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

You are aware that of the "International Observers", most, if not all were from
Pro Russian parties in the West.

https://www.occrp.org/en/laundromat/profiles/european-center-for-geopolitical-analysis

There were also people from FPÖ. An Austrian party with Nazi links.

Normal observers deemed this illegal, and did not participate.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

You are aware that of the "International Observers", most, if not all were from
Pro Russian parties in the West.

https://www.occrp.org/en/laundromat/profiles/european-center-for-geopolitical-analysis

There were also people from FPÖ. An Austrian party with Nazi links.

Normal observers deemed this illegal, and did not participate.

Allright fair enough.
The referendum is not legitimate, I agree, the support from Crimeans to join Russia is, I think I made that point often enough and you don't seem to disagree, so we can put this to rest.
- for good measure
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-annexation-of-crimea-to-russia-opinion-poll/5430781

I agree that an annexation is always illegal, but in this case, Russia had it's justifications and will keep standing with that.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Allright fair enough.
The referendum is not legitimate, I agree, the support from Crimeans to join Russia is, I think I made that point often enough and you don't seem to disagree, so we can put this to rest.
- for good measure
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-annexation-of-crimea-to-russia-opinion-poll/5430781

I agree that an annexation is always illegal, but in this case, Russia had it's justifications and will keep standing with that.

The polling has been 50-70% in favour of joining Russia.
Typically when You change a constitution, simple majority is not enough.
You typically want 2/3-3/4 Majority.

This is partly because such a decision affects people not of voting age, or not even born.

With the unrealistic result of the referendum, we will never know if this could be reached.

The world will not go to war for the sake of Ukraine, but I see no reason
to remove the sanctions vs Russia.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

The world will not go to war for the sake of Ukraine, but I see no reason
to remove the sanctions vs Russia.

Sanctions shouldn't be removed, but shouldn't be increased either, it hurt my country more than enough.

 

[Oldman1]

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.

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

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

Right. Thats like saying there were American instructors when the Soviet Union fell and there was attempted coup. Ask yourself this, if someone like Iran wanted to nuke the U.S., which direction would they fire at? If we wanted to protect ourselves from a nuclear attack from Russia, it wouldn't be on the west side of Russia.

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?

So you are going to take action based on hypothetical that they could have offensive weapons instead of defensive? The recent NATO actions was based on response to Russian aggression. Especially in response to Russia's interests in taking over Crimea just for access to the Black Sea. So I might as well as they could definitely be interested in taking over Poland and other countries again.

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?)

Yes you decided to invade Ukraine because they started shifting to EU especially. The moment that changed you fear you lost the base in Crimea as you mentioned. I already know this and stated that fact long time ago when it happened. If Russia was concerned about a coup, they would have come into Ukraine and suppress such motion instead of just taking over Crimea.

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.

Not sure how that emblem looks Nazi.

We might as well be Nazis.

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.

LOL! Says the one from a country that negotiated to takeover half of Poland with the most infamous person in the 20th century. We pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but Iraq need helped and put some troops there to fight ISIS. Pulled out forces especially the U.S. Navy out of the Philippines until Philippines need help dealing with China's expansion. If the people support the reunification with Russia why didn't you do that long time ago and why now in recent years? Did you really wanted to support the population or was it a base?

 

[Cell_DbZ]

So you are going to take action based on hypothetical that they could have offensive weapons instead of defensive?

'You'? I'm not even a Russian. Where did Russia take action prior to Georgia in response to the missle shield, they just moaned. By the way, wasn't NATO expanding way before Russia turned assertive, while they promised not to? How is Russia supposed to react in this? I understand the fear of the Baltics, but Russia only turned really assertive when they saw NATO approaching, nuetrality works (Sweden, Finland, Ukraine until suddenly the hostility from Poroshenko and all thing considered Georgia is doing ok) I have already elaborated on this in an earlier post

Especially in response to Russia's interests in taking over Crimea just for access to the Black Sea. So I might as well as they could definitely be interested in taking over Poland and other countries again.

'just access to the black sea', you expect them to just lose the entire Black Sea fleet, one of the few warm-water ports they have and allow them to be encircled by a military organisation with a hostile history, okay. Like the Usa never acts in self interest. (Vietnam, the whole Middle-East)

Crimeans are majorly Russians and pro Russia, Poland are Poles and anti-Russia, even if the Russians wanted to annex them, it would obviously never work (they know that first hand), Stalin was a complete piece of crap, who disregarded all human life, just like Hitler, later the Soviets normalised a little and granted the Poles more and more freedom (it took a long time, I know), the Russians of today were not the Russians of yesterday, you cannot hold the Russians accountable for what they did 70 years ago (you don't do that either with the Germans, do you?) and if we're going to speak on geo-strategic level, what will the Russians gain out of that?

Yes you decided to invade Ukraine because they started shifting to EU especially. The moment that changed you fear you lost the base in Crimea as you mentioned. I already know this and stated that fact long time ago when it happened.

Russia would have to choose bewteen either annexing Crimea (which was easy, because the pro-Russian stance) and the subsequent sanctions or either losing the Black Sea fleet, warm water port and abandoning those Russians on Crimea (which would look really, realy bad), I wonder what the Russians would realisticly choose?

Not sure how that emblem looks Nazi.

We might as well be Nazis.

I elaborated on that in earlier posts, take a closer look.

 

[Oldman1]

'You'? I'm not even a Russian. Where did Russia take action prior to Georgia in response to the missle shield, they just moaned. By the way, wasn't NATO expanding way before Russia turned assertive, while they promised not to? How is Russia supposed to react in this? I understand the fear of the Baltics, but Russia only turned really assertive when they saw NATO approaching, nuetrality works (Sweden, Finland, Ukraine until suddenly the hostility from Poroshenko and all thing considered Georgia is doing ok) I have already elaborated on this in an earlier post

What promise? There was nothing about violating a promise on enlargement of NATO. The only promise broken I've seen is Russia on Ukraine on respect on its territory.

'just access to the black sea', you expect them to just lose the entire Black Sea fleet, one of the few warm-water ports they have and allow them to be encircled by a military organisation with a hostile history, okay. Like the Usa never acts in self interest. (Vietnam, the whole Middle-East)

We left the Philippines, that don't mean we should go and hope to take half of the Philippines just for a naval base.

Crimeans are majorly Russians and pro Russia, Poland are Poles and anti-Russia, even if the Russians wanted to annex them, it would obviously never work (they know that first hand), Stalin was a complete piece of crap, who disregarded all human life, just like Hitler, later the Soviets normalised a little and granted the Poles more and more freedom (it took a long time, I know), the Russians of today were not the Russians of yesterday, you cannot hold the Russians accountable for what they did 70 years ago (you don't do that either with the Germans, do you?) and if we're going to speak on geo-strategic level, what will the Russians gain out of that?

Preventing eastern countries being used at possible invasion of Russia in Russian eyes. Dismantling possible offensive weapons. Using those countries as a shield against possible invasion.

Russia would have to choose bewteen either annexing Crimea (which was easy, because the pro-Russian stance) and the subsequent sanctions or either losing the Black Sea fleet, warm water port and abandoning those Russians on Crimea (which would look really, realy bad), I wonder what the Russians would realisticly choose?

We realistically chose to leave the Philippines. Maybe the Russians have a different view on keeping a naval base.

'

I elaborated on that in earlier posts, take a closer look.

How about you elaborate on our emblem. Take a closer look.

 

[vostok]

LOL! Says the one from a country that negotiated to takeover half of Poland with the most infamous person in the 20th century. We pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but Iraq need helped and put some troops there to fight ISIS. Pulled out forces especially the U.S. Navy out of the Philippines until Philippines need help dealing with China's expansion. If the people support the reunification with Russia why didn't you do that long time ago and why now in recent years? Did you really wanted to support the population or was it a base?

Actually, we just returned what Poland already had to give up after the illegal annexation. Line of Curzon - heard about it?
The Crimea is Russian land and populated by Russians. Comparison with the Philippines is absolutely inappropriate. You have to use your imagination if you want to understand.
Traitors have destroyed the United States (half of states become independent) and tens of millions of Americans are outside America.
California become independent in 1991. And in 2014 some Mexican Junta seized power in it (of course with the full support of the USSR, China, Eastern Germany and all progressive humanity). Mexicans enacts laws against the English language. People with torches and Nazi symbols walks on the streets of Californian cities and shout "Hang the Americans", "Death to the enemies", etc. And then, these Mexicans threaten to expell the American fleet from Naval Base San Diego. San Diego, you understand !? From American land populated by Americans who want to be part of the US, not Mexico !!!
I'm more than sure that it's difficult and very painful for you to imagine this. But this actually happened - not in the USA, but in the USSR.

 

[victor07]

Right. Thats like saying there were American instructors when the Soviet Union fell and there was attempted coup. Ask yourself this, if someone like Iran wanted to nuke the U.S., which direction would they fire at? If we wanted to protect ourselves from a nuclear attack from Russia, it wouldn't be on the west side of Russia.

The shortest distance from Iran to the US is 8630 km. What kind of missiles does Iran have with such a range? All the missiles that can be launched from Iran in the direction of the US, fly over Russia. Russia offered the US the creation of a joint anti-missile system for such a case, but you refused. In addition, to deploy interceptor missiles, you use universal launchers, which are also used for cruise missiles which may have nuclear heads. Thus, respect yourself, only a complete idiot can say that the entire system is not directed against Russia.
The fall of the USSR has economic and political reasons. These are a crisis in the economy and a crisis of power. There was neither crisis in economy nor crisis of power in Ukraine. You used the internal ethnic conflict existing there. Then the crisis of power was artificially created by the violence of pre-prepared insurgents and the shooting of crowds. And all this was supplemented by unprecedented political pressure from your side to legitimate Ukrainian power. Thus, respect yourself, do not say stupid things.

What promise? There was nothing about violating a promise on enlargement of NATO. The only promise broken I've seen is Russia on Ukraine on respect on its territory.

It's not for your country to talk about respect.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Exactly what threat to the Black Sea fleet?
Ukraine agreed to extend the lease to 2042 in an agreement made 2010.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

What promise? There was nothing about violating a promise on enlargement of NATO. The only promise broken I've seen is Russia on Ukraine on respect on its territory.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international...est-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
At the very least it seems to me that the then secretary of state (James Baker) did promise not to.

We left the Philippines, that don't mean we should go and hope to take half of the Philippines just for a naval base.

I explained that Crimea is a lot more than just a naval base for Russia:
- Only warm water port
- Russians living there (pro-Russia)
- Danger of encirclement by NATO
- Poroshenko beign hostile toward Russia (could theoretically always block access of the Black Sea if he would feel like)
But you seem to fail to understand at least the reasoning of the Russians, it's always that evil Russia is going to invade the whole of Europe.

Preventing eastern countries being used at possible invasion of Russia in Russian eyes.

Did they annex Georgia? Russians never really threatened to invade any of those countries. Why didn't they invade Poland, the Baltics, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Finland and Sweden?

We realistically chose to leave the Philippines. Maybe the Russians have a different view on keeping a naval base.

You really seem to fail to see that Crimea is a lot more then just a naval base.

How about you elaborate on our emblem. Take a closer look.

Other than beign a hawk, it means nothing, hawks were always a symbol. I've elaborated on that, but you're were not willing to reread this thread, so I will just quote myself.

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

Exactly what threat to the Black Sea fleet?
Ukraine agreed to extend the lease to 2042 in an agreement made 2010.

Explained that to you already, but Ill do so again once.
Poroshenko made it very clear the Russians had to leave, Ukraine would never extend the contract, Poroshenko could even cancel the lease. Even if Poroshenko did not cancel the lease, what after 2042? Losing the Black Sea fleat wasn't the only reason of the annexation, I explained that.

 

[Piotr]

Polish government is not the same as Polish people. Who asked Polish people?

Nobody asked Polish people. There was no referendum in Poland about joining NATO.

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.

Banderovites (Nazi collaborators) are a threat not only to Russia but to Poland as well. There were demonstration in front of Ukrainian Embassy in Warsaw against Banderovites:

Allright fair enough.
The referendum is not legitimate ...

In Kosovo there was no referendum at all, but “independence” of Kosovo was recognized by USA.

Polish Member of European Parlament Janusz Korwin-Mikke was in Crimea after reunification with Russia and he has always in favor of Crimea’s reunification with Russia.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

Janusz Korwin-Mikke

This guy?

 

[Piotr]

This guy?

He made it to protest against lack of democracy in European Parliament. He is not a Nazi like the Queen of England:

And what about Kosovo ? Do you have nothing to say about Kosovo. There was no referendum in Kosovo.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

And what about Kosovo ? Do you have nothing to say about Kosovo. There was no referendum in Kosovo.

Wasn't there an election in 2007, where Hashim Thaçi won the election? His main policy was the independence of Kosovo. So you could say that there was a form of a democratic prosess. But I understand there's a double standard going on, Crimea invited internation observers, they didn't deem it legal, while Kosovo did the same thing and there were no apparant problems here.

He made it to protest against lack of democracy in European Parliament.

I know, he's not a Nazi, I found that video hillarious, here is a video about him: