Putler&Ozero sends troops and missiles into Libya in bid to enforce stranglehold on the West

Litwin said:

bla bla "possible future base in Libya equates"... build it we will bomb it to dust , dont worry

Click to expand...

Westphalian said:

Chagos - still waiting for you to explain how a single possible future base in Libya equates to a US style global military empire?

Click to expand...

Westphalian said:

Do ever realise the idiotic nonsense you type?

Since when would a single possible base in Egypt equate to a global military empire equivalent to that of the US?

Click to expand...

Litwin said:

"Russia" is moving troops and missiles into Libya in a bid to enforce a new stranglehold on the West, British prime minister Theresa May has been warned. Intelligence chiefs have told Mrs May that Vladimir Putin wants to make the wartorn North African country “his new Syria”. And seizing control of the …"

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

Bollocks! ....................~

.....................Get your facts straight before Bleating In A Blog ... !

Click to expand...

........................Russia’s involvement in Libya goes significantly beyond ushering General Haftar into a stateroom on the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov to confer with Russia’s defense minister in Moscow over a secure telephone line.

It includes previously unreported instances of attempted weapons-for-oil deals, attempted bribery and efforts to influence top government defense appointments, as well as printing money and stamping coinage for the Haftar-allied government. American and British intelligence officials told The Times that Russia, aided by the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, had also provided a range of weapons to General Haftar.

In the last year, Russia has quietly but steadily entrenched its influence, sending military advisers and intelligence officers to the country’s east, and providing General Haftar’s troops with spare parts, repairs and medical care, according to American and other Western intelligence officials.

Click to expand...

Chagos said:

Try to keep up with your own claims, eh!

Reading your own post (#22) may possibly help.

Beyond which your hypocrisy as such requires no further outlining, screaming blue murder over NATO troops in the Baltics on one hand but finding it perfectly okay for the Kremlin to establish itself militarily in N. Africa (if that is what it will attempt by the end of the day).

Click to expand...

Westphalian said:

That's a totally facile analogy.

If Russia deployed troops to Canada and Mexico then you'd have a point. But of course it isn't, and you don't. Even making that comment rather better illustrates your own blind hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Westphalian said:

That's a totally facile analogy.

If Russia deployed troops to Canada and Mexico then you'd have a point. But of course it isn't, and you don't. Even making that comment rather better illustrates your own blind hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Chagos said:

That's about as idiotic an analogy as if I propagated that Russian troops are on Europe's doorstep and should thus be deployed to behind the Urals.

Fortunately I'm not as much at odds with the concepts of logic as you.

Click to expand...

Westphalian said:

Let me try to make it simple for you.


The US deploys its forces at Russia's border in several European states, mostly through rotation.

Russia does not deploy its forces at the US border, even if it deployed forces in Libya.


I can supply a map if that's helpful.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley said:

NATO troops are stationed in NATO countries, which constitutes Europe.

Click to expand...

Westphalian said:

The deployment of US forces on Russia's border is a whole different level of threat to Russia compared to the possible establishment of a Russian naval base in Libya via a vis threat to the US (or any NATO state for that matter).


Attenpts to obfuscate and make the two analogous are puerile.

Click to expand...

Chagos said:

Nice try but one of your usual fails. The threat that NATO forces present is to Kremlin ambitions of grabbing any NATO state, and be that in partial land grab only. That is precisely why they are there and NATO states that happen to border Russia are neither going to move house nor are they going to allow Russia to expand its border into them.

Tough!

It remains to be seen how NATO will view Kremlin expansion further West into the Med, should the Kremlin pursue such ambitions.

Possibly not all that favorably since that would put Russian forces practically on Western Europe's doorstep, seen from NATO's pov analogous to your previous example of Canada and/or Mexico.

With puerile obfuscations being your province BTW, as you continuously demonstrate.

Click to expand...

Westphalian said:

Not much point in discussing further since you seem to have a genuine belief that Russia wants to invade Europe, at least partially. And you must be right because so many in western agitprop spew out the same story. I mean, we need land ......... yes, Russia has too many people and not enough land.

Click to expand...

Litwin said:

"Not much point in discussing further since you seem to have a genuine belief that Russia wants to invade Europe" your Mongolian hordes have done it already MANY TIMES . Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia , Ukraine, etc.

"United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted on March 27, 2014 by the sixty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea and entitled "Territorial integrity of Ukraine". The non-binding resolution, which was supported by 100 United Nations member states, affirmed the General Assembly's commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and underscored the invalidity of the 2014 Crimean referendum. ...

The resolution was introduced by Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine.[1] The adoption of the resolution was preceded by the unsuccessful attempts of the United Nations Security Council, which convened seven sessions to address the Crimean crisis, only to face a Russian veto[2] of draft resolution S/2014/189,[3] sponsored by 42 countries.

The UN General Assembly also passed the related Resolution 71/205 in December 2016, entitled "Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)".[4]"

Click to expand...

Chagos said:

Don't pretend to be such an idiot, it's not even an open secret (cuz it's no secret at all) that the Kremlin's most favoured wet dream is to regain control over not only the Baltics but all past Warsaw Pact states as well, simply so their having joined NATO can be reversed and NATO thus pushed back to past boundaries. Preferably with same states once again serving as the buffer that was lost.

The rest of your rant is of such (usual) lying tripe that I won't consider it any further except to say that I already stated the absurdity of ANYone's demand that calls for Russian troops to retreat beyond the Urals.

And finally, if anyone should be paid their money back, it's Savushkina Street and you should be the payer.

Click to expand...

beerftw said:

I am not sure putin wants all the warsaw countries back, he probably hopes for some, but it looks like he is trying to rebuild the soviet glory elsewhere, like through the sco which serves a similar purpose to the warsaw pact, or through other nations not controlled by nato

Click to expand...

Chagos said:

Can't be sure of anything, just working on plausibility. But if Putin sees a chance of pushing NATO back where it borders on Russia, he'll take it. Anyone in his shoes would.

Regarding the SCO, any ambitions the Kremlin might have of achieving the same power of dominance over states it has aligned itself with in the manner it did with the Warsaw Pact, will by the very nature of the setup be thwarted by China. With the latter having IMO all the makings of being the senior partner if it should choose to shun the position of "equal".

I have no idea how the Kazahks, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks and Tajiks by now view their often troubled history with Russia, but assume that affording it any kind of dominance in the alliance is something they'd be pretty leery of.

Click to expand...

beerftw said:

China will stick with the sco so long as the west is a threat to them, if for some reason the west collapsed china wouuld invade russia as their threat would dissapear.

Click to expand...

For the rest of the countries despite being former soviet countries all of them have very good relations with russia, infact many are still favorable towards russia and the soviet union.

Click to expand...

Chagos said:

This!! I am admittedly not too acquainted with these "Central Asians" but would guess that they'd except dominance from neither of the two big players.

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley said:

The various governments are on good terms, the issue of people however is something else. Most Russians view the Central Asian peoples as a national pollutant and harass these people constantly. They are viewed as economic threats because they will work for less than the typical Russian worker. The Kremlin uses these peoples for its grandiose state building projects such as the Sochi Olympics, the 2018 World Cup, and the Crimea Bridge. NGO's such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charge the Russian oligarchs behind these building projects with human trafficking, never intending to pay these unfortunates. Dozens die in construction accidents and most are not fully paid for their labors. They are then harassed by the police and street thugs. You can always find Central Asian migrant workers on the Third Class cars of the Trans-Siberian railroad, stopping off at different Russian cities looking for menial work.

Click to expand...

Westphalian said:

As always, you exaggerate wildly.

But the model you describe is exactly that which is employed in the EU. The UK imports Poles to clean their offices, pick fruit, and clear up human waste in hospitals and old people's homes. You only need to listen to the Brexit debate to hear all this admitted by Remain people. 'Who will do the jobs UK people don't want to do?' they ask constantly. In the US you have Mexicans to do the same thing.

In Russia we also have the same model, mostly Central Asians doing menial jobs as you say. Yes, the police do carry out more checks on them because of the terror threat. But guess what ........ try being a Muslim in the EU .... same harassment, same fears.

Your problem RV is that you seem to hate Russia, and Russians as a necessary consequence, with an all consuming passion.

Click to expand...