What's new

WikiLeaks reveals NATO attack plan against Russia!

Hashshāshīn

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
-2
One of the telegrams are signed by the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton. "The plan is secret," emphasized Clinton, to the astute U.S. diplomats at NATO.

The British newspaper The Guardian printed a telegram reproduced by the WikiLeaks site, this time a NATO plan for a massive attack on Russia. The plan for large-scale war against the Russians predicts the displacement of nine military divisions from the U.S., Britain, Germany and Poland.

According to the Guardian, the attack is predicted to include the ports of Germany and Poland to be used to receive the naval assault from the U.S. and Britain.

Members of the Russian government protested against the plan - as it is the same thing that has been revealed through the publication of telegrams between embassies and the U.S. government by WikiLeaks.

"We have to receive guarantees that such plans are going to be canceled and that NATO does not consider Russia an enemy country," affirmed the Russian envoy to NATO at the last meeting held in Lisbon.

One of the telegrams is signed by the very head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton, dated January 26, to the American diplomats at NATO. She emphasizes that the plan has to be kept in strict secrecy. "The United States believes strongly that this plan should not be discussed in public. They are classified as "the top secret level of NATO," the telegram says.

"Public discussion of contingency plans would undermine their military value," she adds, "allowing them to expose NATO's plans. This weakens all of our allies."


She also directs American diplomats to lie to the press, in case of leaks. She suggested evasive answers such as: "NATO does not discuss specific plans." Agents are instructed to say that "the plans of NATO, are not directed at any country."

The Russian representative, Dmitry Rogozin, specifically questioned this last passage of Hillary's telegram. "Who else would this military plan be directed toward? Against Sweden, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, against polar bears or against the Russian bear?" He was ironic. A member of the Foreign Ministry, who requested anonymity from the Guardian, was more direct saying, "this and other documents stunned and provoked many other questions."

Furthermore, the Guardian highlights his amazement that the Yankee diplomats' telegrams treat the subject with total levity because "there is not one mention or concern about the potentially catastrophic implications of such an armed clash between the two largest nuclear powers in the world."

The pretext for the attack plan is to defend the new Baltic members of NATO, which happen to surround Russia, namely Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The telegrams suggest "to expand the plan that already exists for the defense of Poland." It just so happens that the Russians did not develop any consolidation of specifically targeted missiles against ground and air from Poland or other countries, but built their own protection, contrary to what the U.S. did with the "missile shield" planned by the Bush administration.

In a telegram dated October 2009, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, says that both Hillary Clinton and President Obama expressed support for the development of the military plan against Russia.

Daalder suggests to not to make it clear that Russia is a potential target, by the adoption of a "generic plan" for moving troops to the Baltic countries while not mentioning against whom these troops would be directed - in case of leak - not to cause or provoke constraints with Moscow. Well as felt and suspected by Russian Representative Rogozin: "If we are going to hunt rabbit, why do you have weapons to kill bear?"

WikiLeaks reveals NATO attack plan against Russia - English pravda.ru
 
. .
NATO should attack china not Russia, Russia is a peaceful state and don't bully anyone or even don't grab other land like china. :no: :no:
 
.
NATO should attack china not Russia, Russia is a peaceful state and don't bully anyone or even don't grab other land like china. :no: :no:

Are you still talking about Tibet? In that case, we can go back in time to when the Soviets committed the atrocities to Eastern Europeans... Let's only talk about current statuses...
 
.
:rofl: The Yanks and their cohorts can't even sort out a rag tag circus like the Taliban in Afghanistan and they want to attack Russia? :woot: And they'd been trying to bump off that lone Trojan, OBL for the past 10 years in spite of all those high tech gizmos!!

The Yanks I think have finally lost it.
 
.
:rofl: The Yanks and their cohorts can't even sort out a rag tag circus like the Taliban in Afghanistan and they want to attack Russia? :woot: And they'd been trying to bump off that lone Trojan, OBL for the past 10 years in spite of all those high tech gizmos!!

The Yanks I think have finally lost it.

your sense of wining must be skewed to some magical theory. removing taliban rule, sitting in their country establishing a new govt, killing 100x taiban per american soldier , if not qualify as a military win - then you need to write your own novel on war.
 
. .
your sense of wining must be skewed to some magical theory. removing taliban rule, sitting in their country establishing a new govt, killing 100x taiban per american soldier , if not qualify as a military win - then you need to write your own novel on war.
Some parts are still administered by the Taliban.
Got any proof of that insane stat?
 
.
your sense of wining must be skewed to some magical theory. removing taliban rule, sitting in their country establishing a new govt, killing 100x taiban per american soldier , if not qualify as a military win - then you need to write your own novel on war.
Dude, you forgot something. The part about NATO hiding in their bases and not going out at night... :D

What is a military victory in your book ----- Killing a gazillion people, or achieving your objectives?

* Where is the democracy?
* Where is the security?
* Where is the vibrant economy?
* Where are the awesome infrastructure promises?
* Where is the promised peace and tranquility?
* Where are those trove of people who would support "right" over "wrong"?

Dude, unless I'm mistaken, you're missing grey matter.
 
.
Is the Russian teddy bear ready to face off his European mirror image?

Europeans creating another World War (#3).
 
. .
Ḥashshāshīn;3435381 said:
Some parts are still administered by the Taliban.
Got any proof of that insane stat?

even parts of your country are under someone else's rule. The role of the military is not occupy every dust bowl and cave. if that was the standard then 99.999% countries of any mass worth it - would fail at ruling their own domain.

Is this one of those thousands of attack plans that Russia and NATO have for each other?

yes. it's part and parcel of every military. drawing out war game plans.
 
.
Dude, you forgot something. The part about NATO hiding in their bases and not going out at night... :D

What is a military victory in your book ----- Killing a gazillion people, or achieving your objectives?

* Where is the democracy?
* Where is the security?
* Where is the vibrant economy?
* Where are the awesome infrastructure promises?
* Where is the promised peace and tranquility?
* Where are those trove of people who would support "right" over "wrong"?

Dude, unless I'm mistaken, you're missing grey matter.

Dude - if you had any grey matter then you would know that it's not the job of the military to build the nation. If you guys come and capture Delhi from India and rule even half of the country and most of the major outlets- then it is a military victory for you. If we take your standard- then Pakistan does not rule Pakistan because 1/3 of it is ruled by tribal rules Dude. Compared to hell hole Afghanistan was- they have an slow but growing economy and 10000000000% better infrastructure in their main cities. Instead of poppy seeds they have raw materials worth billions be extracted...Dude. There are more and more international companies coming to invest in Afghanistan Dude including India and China Dude...
 
.
Dude - if you had any grey matter then you would know that it's not the job of the military to build the nation. If you guys come and capture Delhi from India and rule even half of the country and all major outlets- then it is a military victory for you. If we take your standard- then Pakistan does not rule Pakistan because 1/3 of it is ruled by tribal rules Dude.

1/3 of it is ruled by tribals :lol: We dont need to take control of India, its already screwed up with poverty and terrorism :rofl:
 
.
1/3 of it is ruled by tribals :lol: We dont need to take control of India, its already screwed up with poverty and terrorism :rofl:

somebody was not told that 1/3 of his country is under a tribal ruled administration and not exactly a place where your military can walk, hence it is bombing it. My example of India was hypothetical one to give some clarity but we would not expect you to get that :no:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom