欧盟领袖呼吁对俄罗斯“侵略”采取行动（BBC）——大战已近？

SuperKedah

鳥克蘭現任政府人員, 根本就是一群新納綷分子基地!
說謊像吃飯喝水....!
=========================================
早前烏克蘭官方指控烏東人民軍濫殺平民事件,
就曾被國際人權觀察組織打臉!
=========================================




=============================

很想不通的是, 波蘭曾飽受納綷的侵略, 而這波蘭總理:
"...波蘭總理圖斯克週一以75年前爆發的第二次世界大戰為借鏡
....西盤半島戰役是二戰納粹德國入侵波蘭的第一場戰役。
1939年9月1日，納粹德國戰艦“石勒蘇益格．
荷爾斯泰因”號首先開火..."

現烏克蘭政府眾多成員就是舊納綷分子的借屍還魂 - 新納綷分子....!
他怎麼還去幫助這些人? 我實在有點錯亂了....!

vongolia

gliew_16 发表于 3-9-2014 11:23 AM
对你来说，除了美国，每个都是纸老虎。。。哈哈，整天在那边叫谁谁谁开战，你自己又不去?世界都是在讲利益 ...

美国才不会干这种丧心病狂的事。
除了俄罗斯整天用核武威胁其他国家！

vongolia

SuperKedah 发表于 3-9-2014 12:20 PM
鳥克蘭現任政府人員, 根本就是一群新納綷分子基地!
說謊像吃飯喝水....!
============================== ...

俄罗斯就真的说谎像吃飯喝水
最经典的是前一天说不会侵略克里米亚，明天就侵略了
然后还跑去删改Su25 的飞行高度。
你觉得乱是因为你不愿意接受事实，你的心已经有立场觉得俄罗斯是对的，俄罗斯不会讲谎话。
这样多欧盟国家，难道你以为他们没有自己的情报机关，只是一味听美国讲？
德国这样先进和曾经和俄罗斯很亲的国家，难道他们不懂俄罗斯有没有派军队进入乌克兰？

vongolia

SuperKedah 发表于 3-9-2014 09:48 AM
"你放心，未来会有更多证据证明俄罗斯有参与战役。
天下人皆知俄罗斯的所做所为，只有一些人故意装作不知 ...

已经给了你很多证据，但你有心刁难不接受而已。
卫星图显示俄罗斯军队大批进入乌克兰， 你不接受。
乌克兰俘虏了10个俄罗斯伞兵， 你不接受。 乌军进入俄罗斯是为了躲避亲俄武装的攻击，这是已经报导过的，你却拿来比。。。
给你图显示大量只有俄罗斯才有的武器，你也不接受，说只是军援轻型武器，好笑了，如果能够军援轻型武器，军援重型武器又有何困难？
你要求的是穿着俄军衣服，驾着俄军标志车的图，这些根本就是不可能的事，俄罗斯有心隐瞒，难道你认为他会大摇大摆穿着俄军标志进入乌克兰？
我还有一些目击者证实俄军进入乌克兰的报道，估计你也是不接受的了。
欧盟国不是傻瓜，他们的情报机关自然有能力可以证明俄罗斯有没有军援亲俄武装。
连德国都开始对俄罗斯失去信任，可见俄罗斯的所做所为已经是明眼人都知道。

vongolia

希望乌克兰尽快加入北约，然后北约就可以派兵保护他了。
新冷战时代已经开始了，俄罗斯最终将为他的侵略行为付出代价。

专挑脑洞

vongolia 发表于 3-9-2014 12:39 PM
俄罗斯就真的说谎像吃飯喝水
最经典的是前一天说不会侵略克里米亚，明天就侵略了
然后 ...

这么讨厌中国，厌恶俄罗斯，干嘛还搞个邪恶中国的女明星李冰冰做头像，看着违和感忒重了！换了吧！换个正义美国明星头像不是更好！呵呵！诚心建议！

vongolia

专挑脑洞 发表于 3-9-2014 01:08 PM
这么讨厌中国，厌恶俄罗斯，干嘛还搞个邪恶中国的女明星李冰冰做头像，看着违和感忒重了！换了吧！换个正 ...

我几时讨厌中国了？ 难道中国做得不对不能批评？
我讨厌的是俄罗斯和ISIS !!

hong5113

vongolia 发表于 3-9-2014 12:54 PM
希望乌克兰尽快加入北约，然后北约就可以派兵保护他了。
新冷战时代已经开始了，俄罗斯最终将为他的侵略行 ...

新冷战你的主子搞不起的...等下两头不到岸换来美国解体...

SuperKedah

vongolia 发表于 3-9-2014 12:39 PM
俄罗斯就真的说谎像吃飯喝水
最经典的是前一天说不会侵略克里米亚，明天就侵略了
然后 ...

你知道嗎, 烏克蘭塔台與馬航MH17的通話錄音直到今天仍未呈
交給調查組織, 因為它已被烏政府例為高度保密!
俄羅斯已多次要求烏克蘭交出來...! 這錄音將是告訴大家
1)為何馬航偏離航道
2)為何馬航的飛行高度調整問題
3)塔台與戰機及馬航之間的通話等





============================
要真相嗎? 為何基輔不願釋出這個ATR存底 ???
============================

烏克蘭政府由一群新納綷分子把持,
誰才是謊言專家? 不是很清楚了嗎!

============================
"这样多欧盟国家，难道你以为他们没有自己的情报机关，
只是一味听美国讲？"
那你覺得呢, 歐盟領導層被美國情報機關監聽多年,
這些歐盟情報機關知道嗎?
如不是有人爆料, 美國還不知要幹多少這種事!

當然你不會在乎, 美國在你心目中是正義的化身, 是神的國度....!

StockSniper

很多白痴还在讨论谁是正义有理的一方，我只能说这些人适合当别人棋子的虾兵，死在前线以为光荣。

斗争向来是胜者为王，败者为寇，输了再多道理也没用，吞下去的大饼是不会吐出来还给输家的。什么鬼道理是自欺欺人，到了赌场输钱却硬掰庄家店大欺客，赌场骗赌客的钱，那个这些傻鸟还去赌场干嘛？一个字，“贪”，为了风险利益。

战争就是一场赌局，说得再有道理也没用，吹嘘自己有多强壮也没用，一旦输了，你就是贼。国民党当年的美式军备和资金远超共产党，结果输得一败涂地，被赶到了台湾岛。输家就是贼，说什么台湾国民党才是正统，那都是多余，各国都务实的认同中共为中国合法政权，台湾为其领土，而非一个国家。台湾朋友别骂我，我并不亲共产党，我只是以国共为历史题材。

二战，如果战胜方是轴心国，那么如今的联军就是世界的公敌贼寇。

战争没有正义可言，能打耐打，最终取得胜利的一方就是正义和道理。别人出拳你出嘴皮子，最终结果就是满嘴牙包倒地不起，成为别人眼中的笑柄输家。

StockSniper

大家都不必多说了，关键时刻在9月12日，北约和俄罗斯已经确认此日期前的和谈结果决定是和或是战。乌克兰总统已经做为代理人替北约放狠话，9月12日如果没有看到俄方的退却，北约就会放狗咬人。

专挑脑洞

vongolia 发表于 3-9-2014 01:12 PM
我几时讨厌中国了？ 难道中国做得不对不能批评？
我讨厌的是俄罗斯和ISIS !!

     中国做得不对吗？中国要参与制裁俄罗斯才对吗？
     退一万步讲就算是现在中国想抱美国大腿都不行，美国还不是照样遏制中国！不讲前苏联，看看欧债危急中美国对欧元的狙击，80年代收割日本的广场协议，意识形态一样的盟友还如此！没有苏联的情形下，你以为中国这个非盟友能紧抱美国大腿！
     就算美国再正义，那么你看看美国插手的利比亚、埃及、伊拉克、阿富汗是否在美国干涉下走向和平、民主、富强了！
     送你一句罗兰夫人的名言：     自由啊，多少罪恶假汝之名而行！

vongolia

专挑脑洞 发表于 3-9-2014 06:20 PM
中国做得不对吗？中国要参与制裁俄罗斯才对吗？
     退一万步讲就算是现在中国想抱美国大腿都不行 ...

你不参与制裁，至少可以不要帮忙俄罗斯吗？ 乌克兰好歹也曾帮助过中国提升他们的武器水准。

vongolia

乌克兰快快加入北约就可得到北约的保护。
北约的大量炮弹火箭足以把整个亲俄叛军的基地夷为平地。
不需要与亲俄叛军打巷战，使用铁桶阵，在大量炮弹火箭空袭的帮助下，一步一步逼近亲俄叛军的基地就可灭掉他们了。

不知廉恥

vongolia 发表于 3-9-2014 07:08 PM
乌克兰快快加入北约就可得到北约的保护。
北约的大量炮弹火箭足以把整个亲俄叛军的基地夷为平地。
不需要 ...

現代是戦乱时期，北约是不能收新成員的，烏东地区独立只是时间的问题，任谁都阻拦不了。。。。

专挑脑洞

vongolia 发表于 3-9-2014 06:39 PM
你不参与制裁，至少可以不要帮忙俄罗斯吗？ 乌克兰好歹也曾帮助过中国提升他们的武器水准。

        乌克兰是有有助于过中国武器的研发，这我承认！但这种合作市互利的啊！以前乌克兰前政府没有完全倒向西方，中乌是可以合作啊！但是现乌克兰是欧美扶持，通过暴力抗争上台的啊！他的立场已经完全站在欧美那边，不再中立了！中国凭什么要再支持他们！等他们中立再说吧！不用他站到俄罗斯那边，至少不要完全的站在欧美一边吧！
        另外，你能不能说明一下中国在什么方面正在帮助俄罗斯，是不是断绝与俄罗斯的贸易的做法才是不帮助俄罗斯？那么欧盟还有好多国家没有切断与俄罗斯的贸易往来，如果欧美盟友们能够全部不与俄罗斯贸易往来，特别是能源贸易，再来要求中国这个非盟友断绝与俄罗斯的贸易联系不迟吧！应该要美国现要求他的盟友们欧、日等小弟先做到这个，你们才有资格再来要求中国吧。
       这个世界，国家利益高于一切，美国就是最好的榜样！

vongolia

不知廉恥 发表于 3-9-2014 09:56 PM
現代是戦乱时期，北约是不能收新成員的，烏东地区独立只是时间的问题，任谁都阻拦不了。。。。

你一定是没看新闻

烏克蘭大力推動加入北約 尋求軍事協防 北約表歡迎

烏克蘭當局週五表示，俄國現在已經正式參與東烏克蘭戰爭，當局將會向北約會員國成員尋求必要協助，並宣布將努力加入北約組織；然而短期內烏克蘭加入北約的可能性很低。烏克蘭總理在本週五一場會議上，指出將透過立法程序，與北約建立更密切的關係。
隨著衝突急速加劇，烏克蘭官員表示民間呼籲加入北約的聲浪越來越大，烏克蘭需要北約出手協防。

北約秘書長對於烏克蘭做法表示歡迎，並譴責俄國非法干預東烏克蘭情勢。

北約秘書長週五在布魯塞爾發言指出，俄軍在烏克蘭境內活動公然侵害烏克蘭國家主權，嚴重危害領土完整。儘管俄國當局持續否認所有指控，然而事實證明，目前上仟名俄軍正在烏克蘭境內作戰對抗烏軍，這些都是非法入侵的行為。
北約秘書長補充，俄國已經嚴重危害到烏克蘭國家穩定。
儘管北約對烏克蘭情勢變化感到擔憂，但目前北約國家並沒有打算透過軍事干預的手段保護烏克蘭，北約並沒有責任義務保護非會員國。

建快速部隊2日可抵衝突點‧北約戰備計劃防俄入侵
2014-09-02 17:19

（比利時‧布魯塞爾/莫斯科2日訊）烏克蘭危機持續升級！因應俄羅斯隨時可能全面進攻烏克蘭，北約將組建一支數千人的快速反應部隊保護東歐成員國。北約著手制定備戰行動計劃，俄羅斯也不是省油的燈。克里姆林宮安全顧問警告，北約在東歐擴大駐軍，莫斯科也將檢討軍事策略。

克里姆林宮安全理事會副秘書長波普說：“北約成員國的軍事設施越來越靠近我們的邊界，這對俄羅斯聯邦構成了威脅。”

俄指北約加劇緊繃

他指，北約將在本週峰會準備宣佈的新計劃，正是美國及北約領袖企圖繼續加劇與俄羅斯關係緊繃的證據。

北約峰會定於週四、五在英國威爾斯舉行，北約秘書長拉斯穆森週一在新聞發佈會上表示，國際正面對多個不同的危機，從俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭，到南方（指中東）的不穩定局勢，極端主義盛行，這些危機以不同程度影響國際安全。

他指出，峰會將確保北約已做好準備，並確保盟國遭受攻擊時，有能力且可迅速回應。為此，北約將制訂快速行動計劃，使北約能“更準確、更快捷、更靈活地”應變各種安全挑戰。

北約不會主動出兵

不過，拉斯穆森強調，北約不會主動出兵。

這項行動計劃可能包括4千多名部隊，由28個成員國輪流組建，最快兩日可到衝突地點，在需要時提供海、空與特種部隊支援。拉斯穆森表示，這意味著北約在東歐的角色將更為吃重。

拉斯穆森說，作為戰備行動方案的一部份，軍事裝備和供給將在東部成員國預先部署，以便快速反應部隊迅速得以調遣。

同時，北約還將提昇情報和預警系統，更新防禦計劃，加強訓練和演習等。

不過，拉斯穆森也強調，這並不意味北約將主動攻擊，但為了協防盟國，北約必須做好準備。

新的措施將在本周於威爾士舉行的北約峰會上獲得通過。

他指出，多年來北約一直致力於和俄羅斯建立良好關係，但俄羅斯卻片面違反1997年的協議，迫使北約必須做出回應。

北約與俄羅斯在1997年簽訂協議，雙方承諾不會在東歐部署軍隊或武器裝備。

北約歡迎烏克蘭加入

至於烏克蘭有意加入北約，拉斯穆森則表示，烏克蘭即將舉行國會改選，相信烏克蘭人民會做出是否加入北約的決定。只要烏克蘭有意願加入，北約十分歡迎。

不知廉恥

vongolia 发表于 3-9-2014 10:29 PM
你一定是没看新闻

时间会证明一切，看新闻要学会分析和判断，不要笨笨照单全收，懂吗？

SuperKedah

vongolia 发表于 3-9-2014 12:51 PM
已经给了你很多证据，但你有心刁难不接受而已。
卫星图显示俄罗斯军队大批进入乌克兰， 你不接受。
乌克 ...

“已经给了你很多证据，但你有心刁难不接受而已。
卫星图显示俄罗斯军队大批进入乌克兰， 你不接受。”

這種証據誰能接受? 我為何要刁難不接受,
我只要求一個合理有足夠的証據而已, 這就是刁難嗎?

和我一樣極度質疑北約衛星圖想法的人, 也不少,
美國知名智庫VIPS就在今天向德國Angela Merkel進呈一份公開備忘錄
希望在NATO在Wales的高峰會議時重新思考有關烏克蘭與俄羅斯危機及對應行動!
Germany’s Merkel Needs To Ask Tough Questions at NATO Summit
(原文公開信放在最後)



VIPS 的七位美國資深軍事, 外交與情報專家(已退役與退休):
    1)William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA;
    co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
    2)David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
    3)Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
    4)Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
    5)Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
    6)Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
    7)Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)


(只簡易點出重點意譯, 非翻譯, 詞不達意之處, 請見諒)
"the evidence produced by NATO from the Ukrainian-Russian border is on par with the “same dubious, politically ‘fixed’ kind used 12 years ago to ‘justify’ the US-led attack on Iraq.”"
北約出示的烏克蘭-俄羅斯邊界的証據與當年美國為了攻打伊拉克所出示的証據是同一水平

"We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then;
we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now,”
我們沒看到伊拉克擁有巨大殺傷力武器有可靠的的證據,
我們也一樣沒看到任何可靠的俄羅斯入侵的證據

“Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on August 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine,”Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on February 5, 2003 that, likewise, proved nothing.
一圖可勝千言亦可以欺騙你, 我們擁有相當豐富的經驗在作多種衛星與情報系統中進行資訊收集與分析.
目前所見, 也以足夠說, 北約在8月28日所展示的衛星圖, 只提供非常薄弱證據來指責俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭.
很不幸的是, 這和當年Colin Powell 2003年2月5日在聯合國所展示的圖片何其相似,
那就是, 根本甚麼東西都沒証明.

==============================================================
我想你不會說, 這些專家一樣有心刁難, 不願接受吧?
==============================================================


原信全文如下:
Germany’s Merkel Needs To Ask Tough Questions at NATO Summit

MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO

We the undersigned are longtime veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on September 4-5.

You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian "invasion" of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the "intelligence" seems to be of the same dubious, politically "fixed" kind used 12 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicions of charges made by the US State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

President Barack Obama tried yesterday to cool the rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent activity in the Ukraine, as "a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not really a shift."

Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One year ago, hawkish State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on "intelligence" that was dubious, at best.

Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.

Experience With Untruth

Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered record for credibility. It appears to us that Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by Washington. This was abundantly clear on the day before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as Danish Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know."

Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on August 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on February 5, 2003 that, likewise, proved nothing.

That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts were "increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence" and told him flatly, "Powell’s presentation does not come close" to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to "widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic. Although President Vladimir Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can "shock and awe." In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need to think this through very carefully.

If the photos that NATO and the US have released represent the best available "proof" of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.

We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a February 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the US embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, US Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.

Lavrov warned pointedly of "fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene." Burns gave his cable the unusual title, "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES," and sent it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two months later, at their summit in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that "Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO."

Just yesterday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested, the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become prime minister after the February 22 coup d’etat in Kiev. "Yats is the guy," said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is the same conversation in which Nuland said, "Fuck the EU."

Timing of the Russian "Invasion"

The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few weeks ago was that Ukrainian forces had the upper hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed as a mop-up operation. But that picture of the offensive originated almost solely from official government sources in Kiev. There were very few reports coming from the ground in southeastern Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about the reliability of the government’s portrayal.

According to the "press service of the President of Ukraine" on August 18, Poroshenko called for a "regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in the operation of power in the East of the country. … Today we need to do the rearrangement of forces that will defend our territory and continued army offensives," said Poroshenko, adding, "we need to consider a new military operation in the new circumstances."

If the "new circumstances" meant successful advances by Ukrainian government forces, why would it be necessary to "regroup," to "rearrange" the forces? At about this time, sources on the ground began to report a string of successful attacks by the anti-coup federalists against government forces. According to these sources, it was the government army that was starting to take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor leadership.

Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be found in the "Russian invasion." That is precisely when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that "the Russians are coming." (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)

No Invasion – But Plenty Other Russian Support

The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.

At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.

This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the ragtag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

    William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
    David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
    Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
    Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
    Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
    Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
    Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)

vongolia

SuperKedah 发表于 4-9-2014 01:23 AM
“已经给了你很多证据，但你有心刁难不接受而已。
卫星图显示俄罗斯军队大批进入乌克兰， 你不接受。”
...

如果俄罗斯没有军队在乌克兰里面，我相信他们不会介意北约派兵协助乌克兰消灭亲俄叛军吧？