Putin Puts Troops on Full Alert in Western Russia Drills

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

by Alexei Anishchuk
4:59 AM EDT March 16, 2015

(Bloomberg) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered troops placed on full combat readiness in snap drills in western Russia, as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu warned the country was facing new threats to its security.

Some 38,000 troops, 41 warships, 15 submarines and 110 aircraft are involved in the exercises, Shoigu said on Monday, according to a Russian Defense Ministry statement. “New challenges and threats to military security demand a further increase in the military capabilities of the armed forces,” Shoigu said, the Interfax news service reported.

Russia is “deeply concerned about the increase in exercises of NATO countries close to our borders,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksey Meshkov said on Monday, according to Tass news service. It’s “particularly surprising that this takes place in the northeastern region of Europe, which is the most stable in security terms, not only on our continent but possibly in the world,” he said.

The exercises began a day after Putin disclosed in a Russian television documentary that he was ready to put nuclear forces on alert when he annexed Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula a year ago. Crimea held a disputed referendum on joining Russia on March 16, 2014, two days before Putin authorized the annexation, triggering the worst crisis in relations between Russia and the U.S., Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since the Cold War.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-16/putin-puts-troops-on-full-alert-in-snap-western-russia-drills

[chknltl]

1. KnR'd for exposure. Nt

[semanticwikiian]

2. thank you Victoria Nuland

http://commondreams.org/views/2015/03/15/guiding-obama-global-make-believe

"Despite the U.S. claims over the past year about unprovoked “Russian aggression,” Russian President Vladimir Putin was not the instigator of the conflict, but rather he was reacting to a violent “regime change” on his border and to Russian fears that NATO would seize the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea."

good article at link.

[Blue_Tires]

4. Victoria Nuland didn't fucking invade anybody...

But that hasn't been an obstacle for the Putin cheerleaders...

[elias49]

6. Nobody fucking said she did!

But that hasn't been an obstacle to your nationalism.

[Blue_Tires]

8. The poster above me just blamed Nuland for everything...

But I already know which side your ass is on, so we'll skip it...

[elias49]

9. Works for me Mr America!

[Adrahil]

57. You've slipped into self-parody....

just like Another_Poster.....

[elias49]

61. Keep on, on keeping on A

No reason for a sad on my behalf.

[Purveyor]

15. Now pass around those of 'cookies' already, will you?

[geek tragedy]

46. Oh the horror.

Do the "blame America for everything" people realize that sane people don't see that picture as anything sinister?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. There needs to be a new corollary of Godwin's Law set out.

Call it Nuland's Law.

[zeemike]

5. Yep, but the war mongers still want to blame it on him.

And we have seen a never ending session of demonizations to help Nuland complete her task.
We are supposed to hate Putin like Saddam and Assad and any other country they want to destabilize or conquer...it is just a matter of framing...and they know that many will fall for it yet again.

[Blue_Tires]

7. Funny you say that

Since Putin has been the one destabilizing and subsequently invading a country...

Please don't tell me you're in Assad's fan club too...

[zeemike]

11. No I am not a binary thinker.

Ether with us or against us...I think that is not only wrong but silly...something the right wing people would do.

But we have invaded at least 3 countries now in the last 2 decades...and now we call Puttin out for it?...at least they had a vote and voted to be with Russia instead of the neo fascist in the east...no one voted for us to invade their country.

[7962]

12. See post #10. Putin planned to take Crimea before the current Ukrainian govt even started

Just as he planned to take E Ukraine, even though MANY here on DU said he had no interest in doing so. He only took Crimea because it was "historically Russian".
Wonder what part of the world he's not interested in next?

[zeemike]

20. According to who?...You?

Or some reliable source like Kiev?
Sorry but I don't believe everything I see on the internet....why would he admit that?
But there is no question that the Crimea was historically Russian.
It is like we had given south Texas to Mexico in the 50s and Russia had moved troops down to our southern border and then we took it back...And Putin said it was an act of aggression.
What part of the world is the US interested in invading next?...oh right Iran, another one close to the border of Russia.

This is a silly and dangerous game being played, one that could endanger the whole world, and I don't buy the propaganda that makes it possible.

[7962]

21. I would be more reliable than Putin, but it was HIS OWN WORDS. Read the articles,

He also admits that Russian forces WERE in Ukraine the whole time, even though he denied it for months.
Why WOULDNT he admit it? He's proud of it. He doesnt fear any opposition, so he brags. Just like a common street thug except he's got nukes.

[zeemike]

24. Link so we can see for ourselves.

[7962]

30. Sure, how many you want? Its been all over the news for days.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-was-surprised-at-how-easily-russia-took-control-of-crimea/2015/03/15/94b7c82e-c9c1-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html
http://defence.pk/threads/putin-reveals-russia-secret-crimea-takeover-in-documentary.363528/

Also admitting he had Russian troops in the country from the start, which he denied for a year. Just to protect "civil defense" forces, you know

Certainly you can find some way to dismiss this if you want to, but there it is.

[zeemike]

35. Right the Washington Post...

And the BBC which I have read and put a cut from it to SL...
And yes I dismiss it because it makes no sense for him to say something like that...it is like Bush admitting he went into Iraq with premeditated intent...not going to happen.

But some people don't recognize propaganda when they see it...and repeat it as fact.

[Telcontar]

44. If you agree with a source, it's legitimate

If you don't, then its just a purveyor of propoganda.

Got it.

[zeemike]

47. It has nothing to do with my agreement.

What Putin said is a matter of record and you can see it all on RT...that link was posted.
But the propaganda has to do with the spin..to wit, "Putin planed all along to invade the Crimea and admitted it"...and that is not what he said.

Just as the media all picked up on "Al Gore said he invented the internet" when he did not say it, it is all in the framing. But that was minor, but this is about war mongering...a very dangerous thing to do.

[stevenleser]

23. Putin said so himself, to Russian state media. nt

[zeemike]

25. Link so we can see for ourselves.

Some people have said Al Gore said he invented the internet...are we to believe that too?

[stevenleser]

29. Here are two links to get you started.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/putin-admits-planning-annexation-crimea-weeks-before-referendum-1491155

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31796226

[zeemike]

34. International business times...Really?

And the BBC said this.

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.

Not exactly like a plot to invade the country as you frame it.
Like I said, it is another Al Gore said he invented the internet moment. And it is not even logical he would say it even if it were true.

[stevenleser]

36. Putin admits exactly what I said he did, on Russian television. But you pretend it doesnt say that.

[zeemike]

37. And Al Gore said he invented the internet.

And I pretend he did not say it just because he did not say it but I just can't read between the lines like others do.

[stevenleser]

38. And, here is RT saying the same thing...

http://rt.com/news/239197-putin-crimea-referendum-decision/

[zeemike]

39. Which shows him saying exactly what I posted from BBC.

Except they left out the line that he was not going to throw Russian speaking people under the nationalist bulldozer.

Seems to me that is not the same thing as invading a country, just because he wanted it...Would you want an American president to do that?

There is nothing wrong with what he said and it does not prove a damn thing...execpt that he did what he had to do to protect the interests of his country...which you paint as a crime when others do it but a righteous thing when we do it.
That is the definition of hypocrisy.

[7962]

42. Wow, you're really on his bandwagon. You dismiss ANY source & excuse his bragging.

You would've fit very well into the Bush administration!
Many countries in Africa have a lot of English speaking citizens, I guess we should invade all of them to "protect" them.

Still going to support him when he continues his expansion?

[zeemike]

52. I dismiss the characterization of his words as bragging.

And the false analogy that we have ever had interests in Africa...that would be England that colonized Africa not the US...that is why they speak English...and they DID invade Africa and colonized it and did use military force to protect their English speaking people...

Pardon me if I don't like the hypocricy and propaganda that passes as history lessons.

[7962]

62. And why do they speak Russian in several places? Same reason.

[Adrahil]

59. So, when is the last we time we annexed a neighbor's territory?

I think you'll have to go back a number of decades for that.

You be trollin'....

[zeemike]

67. You mean like Mexico?

We got most of the west from them....All of California, New Mexico, Texas and Arazona...not to forget 54.40 or fight.
And then there is Cuba and much of Latin America which we set up puppet governments who were anything but democratic.

You can ignore all of that history if you want and pretend we love democracy but the facts do not show it to be true...and I will not pretend that we are all virtues and Russia is not.
Our history is every bit as bloody as theres...and until we change ourselves we have no right to insist that the world is the problem...and clearly we have not changed at all, in fact have doubled down invading 2 countries in the last 20 years alone...none of which we had any interest in except the oil they had...those countries were not anywhere near our border and posed no threat to us at all...while we move troupes next to the Russian boarders and call them aggressors.

I am not buying that crap and if that is what trolling is to you then I am one.

[Adrahil]

68. 160 years ago. Not last year. n/t

[NuclearDem]

63. Congratulations, you just made an argument justifying aggression based on ethnonationalism.

Do I even need to point out how utterly fucking stupid that it?

[zeemike]

66. I made no such argument.

I made an argument against hypocricy...and how utterly fucking stupid it is.

[Adrahil]

69. If you can;t tell the difference....

between an event that happened 160 years ago, and one that happened last year, then you're a fool. Or a troll.

And btw, I do not try to justify the Mexican War and the conquest of native lands the way you justify your buddy Putin's actions.

[zeemike]

70. Well I find it insulting to be called a fool and a troll.

So this conversation is over.

[Adrahil]

71. Those comments were conditional.

If the shoe fits.....

[zeemike]

72. Conditional on my submitting to you.

That is emotional blackmail, and I don't submit to that either.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

49. In the 1990s, Russia recognized via treaty that Crimea was Ukrainian territory.

And it had agreed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty therein.

Russia violated that treaty in late February 2014 when it invaded the Crimean mainland.

All this "Crimea is historically Russian" bullshit is just that. Bullshit.

[zeemike]

50. There is nothing bullshit about history.

It was Russian for hundreds of years.
But it clearly was a coup because they deposed a duly elected government and installed one to take it's place, with neo fascist in many positions of power...that IS a coup...And that violated their own constitution which required an election to depose a leader.

It blows my mind to see our so called democratic government reject democracy in other countries in favor of coups...just as it did in Venezuela and other latin American countries who installed military dictatorships...and it says a lot about us.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. The modern day Russian Federation never had any claim to Crimea.

Crimea was under Soviet control for 80 years, and part of the Russian Empire for roughly 120 years before that. And before that, it was inhabited by the Tatars for centuries, so if anyone has any historical claim to that region, it would be them. But the Russian Federation that began in 1991 never had a claim to Crimea, and had previously recognized it as part of Ukraine.

I didn't mention anything about a coup. If you are talking about what happened in Kiev in February 2014, that clearly was not a coup. If you are talking about how Russian forces stormed the local Crimean parliament on February 27, 2014 and installed their own prime minister, then you might have something more of an argument.

[zeemike]

53. So now the definition of coup has changed?

[div class="excerpt"coup;
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government

Their constitution required a vote and so it WAS illegal and sudden.
But on the other hand the Crimea DID have a referendum and voted overwhelming to reject Kiev government and join Russia...so you just reversed it's meaning.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

54. The definition has not changed. You've changed the facts to fit the definition.

Considering that a) the government itself didn't disband--the Rada remained intact and the constitution was not suspended, and b) Yanukovych voluntarily left power absent any violence to him or imminent threat of violence. He took three days to pack up his belongings. And not just necessities, either--he packed up literally truckloads of oil paintings and valuable antiques. After Yanukovych helicoptered out of Kiev in his own personal fleet of choppers, the Rada voted to remove him for dereliction of duty. Somehow, you derived "coup" from all of that.

And what happened in Crimea was not organic or natural. Russian forces came in and seized government buildings, airports, harbors and other civil installations. They then hastily scheduled the infamous referendum afterwards. Regardless if one believes there was sufficient public sentiment to support the process or not, it didn't just happen. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.

[zeemike]

55. A democratic government requires a vote to establish a new government.

That is a fact...and they could have had one but chose not to.
Crimea did have one...and that too is a fact.

But it is all spin all the time...and there is no democracy in it...just as we supported overthrow of democratically elected governments all over Latin America we support this too...because Democracy is now being redefined as something else.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

56. The governmental system in Ukraine remained intact. All that happened was the president left.

New presidential elections were immediately scheduled, and an interim was chosen to hold office until those elections could be held. And they were held, and a new president was democratically elected. I'm not sure how you are missing all of this.

There was a vote in Crimea, yes, although with no legitimate international monitoring and controversial in its results. But the vote itself was hastily forced via Russian military intervention, so how exactly is that more democratic than what happened in Ukraine?

[NuclearDem]

14. Putin didn't want to invade Crimea, guys.

It was all NATO and Nuland.

[Adrahil]

60. obviously!

We MADE him do it, dontcha know.

[Adrahil]

58. Oh for fuck's sake....

Yeah, KGB agent PUTIN is just reacting to mean ole Nuland. How fucking gullible (or trollish) can you get!?

Unbelievable.

[7962]

10. Putin has admitted that he planned to take Crimea long before the uprising

So to blame Nuland for something that was already planned before what SHE supposedly implemented happened is silly

[newthinking]

22. Silly... You are referring to the documentary where Putin's expressed a desire to work *toward*

reunification - this was all well after the coup and after Crimean's were already up in arms. And given the fact that Crimeans had expressed their desire clearly time after time to be separate from Ukraine and close to Russia it would have been quite logical to consider that during the constitutional crisis that was on the table.

Sure he encouraged it when everything came down, because he knew that the people there always wanted it and the Crimean Parliment was already asking for Russia's help. And the alternative was US interference that seemed to be willing to topple governments around Russia.

Anyone who actually goes to the trouble to learn history of the region cannot deny it: There has been a long struggle for independence and struggle against Ukraine who kept trying to disinfranchise ethnic Russians (turned off Russian language TV many times, tried to remove Russian language from the region, etc.

The media acts like this was all a new thing....

It wasn't even the first referendum. In 1991 94% of Crimea voted for independence. Yet each time Ukraine stepped in and stomped on the will of the people there.


Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Republic_of_Crimea


Chronology of the many many events and chronic struggles:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/469f38ec2.html

[7962]

31. Excuses. We also heard Putin had no interest in anything BUT Crimea. That was another lie.

Do you really think he's finished when he sees how little resistance the world gives him? They're already painting his pictures all over the walls just like Dear Leader.
He's FAR from satisfied.

[newthinking]

40. That's conspiracy thinking

Although it is a social phenomenon thank to the msm whipping up page views on fear.

[7962]

43. No its not. We heard constantly that Putin wouldnt interfere in E Ukraine.

Those people were WRONG, as many here told them.
But as I say to others who excuse his actions, he's not finished. He's proven it already.

[Cha]

41. Facts don't matter to the "cookie" distraction, putin pusher brigrade.. poor putin.. this is all

he's got.

[Renew Deal]

3. There is something pre-WW2 German about their behavior.

[7962]

13. Good point. Hitler also knew no one would stand up to him. nt

[MBS]

16. I recently visited the Holocaust Museum

and I was also left with an overwhelming feeling of parallels to Germany in the 1930's
This is a dangerous situation.

[Purveyor]

17. Eastern Europe, Here Comes The Cavalry: U.S. Army Sending Armored Convoy 1,100 Miles Through Europe

(CNN)Eastern Europe, here comes the cavalry.

The U.S. Army says it will soon be sending armored Stryker vehicles on a 1,100-mile convoy through six European countries to show solidarity to allies in the wake of recent Russian actions in the Ukraine and Crimea that have Eastern Europe on edge.

The move was first reported Thursday in the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. U.S. Army Europe posted the Stripes story on its website on Friday.

The convoy is "a highly visible demonstration of U.S, commitment to its NATO allies and demonstrating NATO's ability to move military forces freely across allied borders in close cooperation," U.S. Army Europe spokesman Lt. Col. Craig Childs, said in a statement, according to the Stripes report.

The troops and vehicles involved will be moving from training exercises conducted as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve in Estonia, Lithuania and Poland, the report said. They'll move through Latvia and the Czech Republic as they make their way to Vilseck, Germany, about a 40 miles drive from the Czech border.

more...

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/13/world/army-convoy-through-europe/

[davidpdx]

18. Cue the bullshit NATO map

[7962]

32. HA!

[elias49]

19. Huh. Who needs cialis?

And you don't need a prescription for a war-on.

[hrmjustin]

26. Putin is a dangerous man.

[samsingh]

27. kick

[Old and In the Way]

28. so who is gonna stop him?

Let him retake these territoritorires (that is the easy)....then try to govern them (that is the hard part). Nationalists never learn this lesson. Eating is easier than digesting. Let Putin try not to choke on his teptemporal conquests.

[geek tragedy]

33. Russia stomped all over the Baltics in the past with no difficulties.

They were able to crush any resistance.

Only the threat of a very bloody nose is keeping them out this time.

[Telcontar]

45. Governing is only hard if you have feelings

Amoral psycopaths have no trouble

[Comrade Grumpy]

64. Everything is Putin's fault. All of it. I love simple black and white thinking.

It's so much easier.

Go, team!