LOL, yeah, attitude like mine. LOL...first our nations are not at war with each other. Two, my nation and the nations of the West are not menacing our neighbors or Mother Russia for that matter. We are not showing off our military. We are not pounding our chests. We are not invading and annexing our neighbors. We are not threatening Mother Russia militarily. We are insisting Mother Russia and more specifically Mother Putin obey long held international law and norms and to the degree that Mother Putin ignores international law, the West will impose sanctions on Mother Putin and Russia. I generally don't expect any warmth from insanely maniacal people. Many Russians as demonstrated by you are very paranoid people. Stalin's paranoia lives on. Putin has been caught in a number of open lies. Normally, international leaders are a little more subtle in their lies. The only ones gullible enough to believe him are folks like you. Putin is either insane or really divorced from reality which means he is insane. He is doing the exact same thing Hitler did some 80 years ago. The West isn't willing to repeat the mistakes that led to WWII. Maybe Putin just needs to read a good book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People". It's more effective than guns or throwing people in jail. But I don't think Putin is that kind of guy. His pathology is in control now and it is leading Russia into a very bad place, just like Hitler led the German people to a very bad place many decades ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People Here is some reality for you, the West isn't interested in Russia. Russia is largely an insignificant country. Were it not for its nukes, it would be completely insignificant. And if Putin thinks he can win a nuclear or conventional war with the West, he is really crazy. The fact is Russia isn't well no matter how you look at it, economically, politically, etc. People are leaving Mother Russian in droves. Russian women are advertising for Western men. Things are not good in Mother Russia. I recently looked at population projections for Mother Russia, they are not good. Russia is increasingly becoming irrelevant. And Putin's stunts will just exacerbate Mother Russia's demise. What happens if Putin hosts an economic conference and no one came? Later this month, Putin hosts the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. It's Putin's version of Davos, but not as well attended. St. Petersburg, is more of a PR event and a ego stroking event for Putin. The only reason a Western businessman would want to attend is to get a business deal. This year virtually all the Western attendees have canceled their attendance because of what Putin has done and continues to do. Putin appears to be a mad man, an insanely mad man. Thus far, Putin is not telling anyone of the cancellations. It will be interesting to see how St Petersburg works out for him this year. My guess is he will find some imposters and lie about them and gullible Russians will eat it up. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/world/la-fg-russia-emigration-20111115 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/moscow-tap-chinese-funds-boost-russian-economy-1448011 Russia will get his money from China as the state "Moscow could prevent the Chinese from investing in precious metals, diamond mining and in high-technology projects". Meaning they (China)will get their cheap oil and that's all they really wanted. I wonder how eventually the books will turn out. The news from Russia and Ukraine is odd at the least Now... I wonder who will win the Eurovision song festival Ukraine will probably win with symphathy votes but I'm intrested who will vote for Russia and who Russia will vote for it's perhaps innocent enough to be revealing
But the US has been menacing Russia and the Ukraine was the last straw. "From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” warned George Kennan, the renowned diplomat and Russia-watcher, as NATO began expanding eastward. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely, and it will affect their policies.” http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...sn-zero-sum/Df9VSHeJFpKUz3tRKDjUXJ/story.html We cannot pretend that NATO expansion would not be seen as a threat. The US is a fan of international law when that supports what it's trying to do, but when its actions would be barred, it thumbs its nose at international law. For example extrajudicial execution. Philip Alston, the United Nations special representative on extrajudicial executions put out a 29 page report for the UN Human Rights Council where he says drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan "violate the relevant rules of international law" and that the international community should demand accountability. Detainee torture or as you say in the US "enhanced interrogation" like water-boarding is violation of international law. How about the invasion of Grenada back in the day? Richard Bernstein of the NYTimes reported back in '83 that the UN Security Council approved a resolution ''deeply deploring'' the United States-led invasion of Grenada as a ''flagrant violation of international law.'' The US of course vetoed the resolution. So the US are hypocrites when it comes to international law and turn it into a joke when they flout it on the one hand and then call upon it when it suits their needs. Before the elected Ukrainian leader fled the country for Russia and before Crimea voted themselves out of the Ukraine Sen. McCain went to Kiev and spoke to the protestors saying “We are here to support your just cause: the sovereign right to determine [Ukraine’s] own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe.” Why was he there? Why was an American official flagging the flames in another country encouraging the people to over-throw their government? Whether the leader is a twat or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether the US interference brought on Russian reaction. What about Ambassador Nuland's leaked telephone conversation regarding the Ukraine? Listen to her plotting who should be the head of government in the Ukraine. The BBC were good enough to provide a transcript http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 They add "this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan." So please try and cleanse your mind of US propaganda or "we're the good guys" and "they're the bad guys" as its truly pathetic how easily you lot drink the cool aid without a moment's thought.
Is this bad, was this against those nations will? As they are not part of Russia does Russia has the right to determine their political alliances (low blow [but still fair]: as they had a former relation and history with the USSR why do you think they chose to move away from Russia?) seems abouth right but nobody really wants this because of the underlying nuclear doom. Also your link doesn't work for some reason I think it's a paywall. So the US are hypocrites when it comes to international Sometimes they do sometimes thet don't odd you bring in something from 1983 when the CIA has a less then reputable history on many more acounts. But can Russia claim to be better? The Obvious example would be WWII where they not so much liberated the east from the Nazi's as occupied it. Later because they already owned those countries it where gulags and political assasinations. Counting corpses to see who's the bigger monster only reveals both sides have a less then clear reputation. The mayor problem in Ukrain had Always laid in it's corruption for the commen men I do believe this is more inportant than games between the east and the west. Theirs been blatant corruption, theft and political persecution. (low blow [but still fair]: Who do you believe is more capabel to solving those problems take in account that Russias help only caused debt View attachment 7087 (link) From that transcript the importaznt lines are:"The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals". A large country was destabilized. Do you find a odd the US was taking a intrest knowing the outcome do you believe they where the only ones? At least they never planned to tear it up in pieces. The West unlike Putin has never openly lied abouth the ukrainian situation. Putin is a running joke on this part from troops in Crimea to rigged elections (not having international observers is enough for me here) to preventing the militants to deal with the west themself (negotiations have to go trough Russia) To troop placements etc.
And the US uses CNN. So what? "Is this bad, was this against those nations will?" Was it so bad that Crimea decided against Kiev? Was it against their will? A referendum is hardly an invasion and occupation. Russians are the largest ethnic group in Crimea. According to Wiki Russia first annexed Crimea in 1783. In 1921 the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was created. This republic was dissolved in 1945, and the Crimea became a province first of the Russian SSR (1945-1954) and then the Ukrainian SSR (1954-1991). Since 1991 it has had the status of an Autonomous Republic within Ukraine until its annexation by the Russian Federation in the 2014 Crimean Crisis. Looks like Crimean self-determination to me but anyway I tried both of those links and they both work. You can look them up as "US a full partner in Ukraine debacle" By Stephen Kinzer , MARCH 03, 2014, Boston Globe. The other is BBC News titled "Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call" Feb. 7, 2014. "So the US are hypocrites when it comes to international law." Yes. "But can Russia claim to be better?" But that's just the point they never claim to. Its always the US who boast of the importance of international law as they ignore it willy-nilly whenever it suits them. Pointing their fingers like some frustrated schoolrmarm when they cannot completely control a situation. They played up the Ukraine situation and then cried foul when it didn't pan out the way they would have liked. "(Russia) not so much liberated the east from the Nazi's as occupied it." Yeah and the US just goes about illegally bombing the shit out of countries like Lao & Cambodia for example or sticking their fat noses where it doesn't belong like in Vietnam. I mean if we're going to count the angels on a pin head we could be here all day. The US are not angels, they just think they are. How many corpses do you think the US has racked up? So the Ukraine is corrupt, so Russia is corrupt. I also think Washington is corrupt but that's not the point. My point is that the US deliberately tried to push a certain outcome inside the Ukraine and then cried foul when Russia decided to push back. At least Russia can say Crimea is on its doorstep and they can also say they have a historical, cultural not to mention direct political interest in what happens. Russia also says its working towards a peaceful solution. So what? I'm not claiming that either the US or Russia are clamoring for a war. I'm saying that Russia reacted to a real and not an imagined threat of NATO expansion and US interference. The importance of the transcript is having the US ambassador speaking in terms of what Washington was pushing in the Ukraine. So much for "self-determination". A large country was destabilized because of US interference and arrogant assumption that Russia wouldn't react. Well they were wrong. The best they can now do is shut up and mind their business before they make matters worse. And why do I recommend the US just shut up and back away from the Ukranian outcome? Todays news declares "Pro-Russia separatists announce 89 percent of voters in Donetsk favoured self-rule, in referendum rejected by Kiev...Although the voting in the two regions with a combined population of 6.5 million appeared mostly peaceful, armed men identified as members of the Ukrainian national guard opened fire on a crowd outside the town hall in Krasnoarmeisk, and an official with the region's insurgents said people were killed. The Associated Press reported that the death toll was unclear. The attack in Krasnoarmeisk, about 30km from the regional capital, Donetsk, came hours after armed men, one of whom said they were from the national guard, put a stop to the voting and took control of town hall. The results of the two referendums could hasten the breakup of the country and worsen what is already the gravest crisis between the West and Russia since the end of the Cold War. Over the past few weeks, the Ukrainian government and the West have accused Russia of trying to destabilise the country or create a pretext for another invasion. Russia - which annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula just days after voters there approved secession in a March referendum - has rejected the accusations." http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europ...ory-east-ukraine-poll-201451122732984177.html What was all that about the right to self-determination? Its a messy business indeed.
This may come as a shock to you but things that result of armed people running around with guns isn't really self determination. Also trying to imply that the only reason ukraine might want to join NATO is cause NATO is pushing it is crap. If you look at western ukraine where the ethnic Ukrainians dominate tend to have fairly positive views toward NATO. Also while the us hands are certainly not clean and we are the biggest hypocrites where international law is concerned doesn't mean Russia is innocent and everything that's happening I ukraine is on the up and up. Let's be perfectly clear here those Russians in the ukraine that your defending if they had there way ukraine wouldn't be an independent state it be part of Russia . We had a russian poster in the other Crimean thread actually deny the existence of the Ukrainian ethnicity. That's the mentality behind these people in eastern ukraine. And to be perfectly honest Russia and Putin would have found cause to be worried about ukraine becoming a threat with or with out NATO. Ukraine has been doing its level best since indepedence to establish closer relationships with it's more western neighbors. And for the us threatening Russia is crap how many nukes do we currently have aimed at Russian and russian allies civilian centers ready to be launched? 0 how many does Russia have aim at American and American allues civilian centers? Not sure but I know for a fact it's more than zero.
You mean the armed people with guns who took over Kiev to oust their democratically elected leader? Or the armed National Guard who opened fire at a crowd ready to vote on annexation? Or maybe you mean the armed people who took over government building because they wanted a referendum? Oh wait they would be like those armed gunmen who were trying to oust the government in Kiev. If you haven't noticed the issue of NATO's popularity in the Ukraine was split. It was split between those who wanted closer ties to the West and those who wanted to keep close ties to Russia. Also you may not have noticed that the only places that are rushing towards referendum are not in the West but in the East where they are mostly Russian. These little details help clarify the issue.
This is the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement topics range from: Justice, freedom, security, trade, trade related matters, economics, Anti-fraud etc no mention of NATO yust some things to make it easier for Ukraine to trade with the EU making them less depended on it's mayor trading partners and increasing it's economy. But I won't spoil what the security means in the hope you will actually read the whole thing. the malaysian plane update channel what abouth it? Was it so bad that Crimea decided against Kiev? Was it against their will? A referendum is hardly an invasion and occupation. A referendum without international observers is suspicious 25 000 russian troops and Ukraine pulling back it's military would suggest a invasion and occupation (what's your defenition). America has less to do with all of this than you think. Stalin killed abouth 20 million people, he also starved a couple of million and forcible moved millions a couple of exampes are the Crimean Tatars that where split over Uzbekistan . For relevance Then you have Kalingrad or Königsberg where the total population had been removed. Further example are... all of them all the former soviet states. How can the US tip that? It's the EU who tried to push a certain agenda I've allready posted it. You must realise the situation in Ukraine wasn't that good many of it's infrastructure is outdated and it was kept aflowed by Russian "help" (cheap gas) but yust offering cheap gas and no investments is yust a slower way to accumulate debt and be dependant on Russia. The situation as it was unsustainable (Russia allready had closed off the gas volve a couple of times). The EU bill looked like a possible way out it reduced Russian influence by opening it's markets to europe so it could easier sell stuff to the EU and open it's markets for foreign investment (wich Ukraine desperately needed)... It was worth fighting for considering the alternative. They sure did A large country was destabilized because lack of investments, corruption and lack of competitiveness on the open market. Russias help only caused debts and occasional gasdisputes. In short it was broke when we got there we tried (to let Ukraine) fix it (the Association Agreement would let Ukraine help solve it's own problem the EU would help but not force the situation as it should be) but then Russia intervened. The best they can now do is shut up and mind their business before they make matters worse Oh there you're both wrong and right they can do so much worse and they will. Actually it's been recounted by none other then Santa himself who determined no party won and that it will be a cold winter. Both have abouth have the same credibility I think. Theirs many examples of countries who want to split up, you have scotland (see more from that in september) to start but you also have catalonia (spain) and the IRA (ireland) and many more but it's a intersting sample pool. Donetsk doesn't qualify for the cheer amount of misinformation their desire for a Swiss model goverment that they do not understand they also seem to have forgotten to work out the details on how they would self govern how taxing would work and how wages would be paid.And how the national debt will be split (I still think with 2 million out of 40 million Crimea should own 5% of the state debt) This is yust a mess. Well especialy if your indebted no you can't yust walk away. Further on if a significant portion of your population is against it 15% tatars you can not overlook that. THen theirs their own credibility Do you really present the majority if you say that 90% agree with you does that mean anything (in the least that 90% agrees with you). This list is far from complete but it sort of steers why a Obvious answer can be false
you mean the ones with legiatmate complaints against the government. the same one the government sent snipers against? not the ukrainian militaries finest moment admitedly but you do realize the purpose of a countries military is to ensure territorial integerity? the armed gun men in kiev were the governments men against the protestors for the most part. ie the snipers against the protestors. people disappearing of the streets. I'm sorry your highly inconsistent and delicate sensibilities were hurt. but as much as you want to defend poor innocent russia and attack the US the basic facts don't support that. You decreeing US military action but saying referendums done whille russian troops are in the territory. this is just like your cognative disconnect on palestinian and Israel. you havce vastly different standards not based in facts bout on how you feel about the sides. you be alot more credible if you had anything resembling consistentcy. If you haven't noticed the issue of NATO's popularity in the Ukraine was split. It was split between those who wanted closer ties to the West and those who wanted to keep close ties to Russia. Also you may not have noticed that the only places that are rushing towards referendum are not in the West but in the East where they are mostly Russian. These little details help clarify the issue.[/QUOTE] I know its split. if you'll read my post you'll note its split according to ethnic lines. ie the more russsians in the area the greater precentage view nato as a threat. I know thats in the east in russia. and there doing it with russian backing. Do you even read the posts your responding to. your telling things I clearly already know as if your making a point your not.
again with NATO, Ukraine is not a part of NATO, they have been working together since 1994. And have been in a intensified dialogue since 2005. The last time anyone voted was in 2010 and they decided their relation with NATO was well defined and that their was no question of Ukraine joining NATO. Similar Euromaidan has no official pro NATO program and the Yatsenyuk Government (the current goverment) states that they also have no intention to join NATO. (PS theirs a good change Georgia will get it's Membership Action Plan this year basicly the promise of yes you can join NATO... Russia will love that) What am I missing? (Whilst Obvious possible that they would one day join NATO Finland is a prime example that this isn't necesairly true and considering the large portion of Russians living in it I would believe something similar would happen then again Russias pestering could acltually drive it towards NATO)
You are missing the point. Half of Ukraine supported a trade agreement with Europe and the other wanted to keep their trade agreement with Russia. Fine. Hardly pressing reasons for a revolution but never mind, its a separate issue from NATO expansion. NATO expansion came into play the moment the trade agreement stopped being a local national issue. The moment you had American senators traveling to the Ukraine to speak to protestors on the ground over a disputed trade agreement. Why did a US representative go to Kiev to speak to the protestors on a national issue that was actually dividing the country? We all know Yanukovych was Russia's guy. In March 8 US senators went to Kiev to speak to the interim government. Why? But I'm digressing. The US leveled themselves on the side of the opposition, not Europe taking central stage but the US. The moment the United States weighed in on the situation in Kiev is the moment Russia took the cue to counter that. And why not? Its not in the US national interest what happens in Kiev but it is for Russia. Oxford professor emetirius, Archie Brown spoke at Chatham House Royal Institute for International Affairs on NATO expansion and the post-soviet period and said "A more visionary leadership in the Western world at the end of he Cold War would have created , with Russia, a new European security structure which would probably have consigned NATO as well as the Warsaw Pact to the history books. Instead the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet Union has made many Russians, not just Putin, feel that the West is engaging in a new Cold War directed against them." Now they are no more paranoid than the US concerning Russia's support of Cuba's revolution. Now why is that so difficult to understand? The US and Europe decided to side of the protestors who supported a strong relationship with Europe ignoring those in the Ukraine who didn't approve of such a trade deal. So what did they expect to happen? What did they think Russia would do? Take a look at this article The Kremlin is very unhappy about the EU’s bid to pull Ukraine into its economic orbit through the Association Agreement that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych failed to sign in November. But what really gives Moscow the willies is Nato’s unrelenting march eastwards over the last two decades. In a statement released on April 14, Nato poured oil on that smouldering fire by saying explicitly it never promised not to move the alliance up to Russia’s borders. The aggressive tone of the statement will only serve to be yet another red flag waved in Moscow’s face. Russian President Vladimir Putin specifically highlighted Nato’s expansion as Russia’s biggest beef with the West in his historic speech on March 18, when he announced the annexation of Crimea. The Kremlin has also been unsettled by the security clauses in the EU’s Associate Agreement that look like starting the process of making Ukraine’s military materiel compatible with Nato’s. “The political provisions of the association deal pave the way for further entrenchment of Ukraine into the foreign policy and military orbit of the EU and the West in general,” a Russian foreign ministry official told RIA Novosti a few days ago. Nato’s line on expansion is reasonable: the alliance will let in anyone that wants to join and for obvious reasons a lot of the small states that were part of the Soviet bloc signed up. However, the alliance was (and is) specifically created to counter Russia’s military might, so from Moscow any expansion looks threatening. Nato has done nothing to allay those fears. Several European leaders, realising how touchy Moscow would be to more talk of expansion, have tried to play down any suggestion that Nato could extend into Ukraine. German Foreign Minister Fran k-Walter Steinmeier said explicitly on April 6 after a meeting with the alliance’s top brass: “Nato membership for Ukraine is not on the cards.” And even Ukrainians of all stripes have tradtionally not seemed that keen about membership; according to Gallup, as recently as last summer more Ukrainians were considered Nato a threat (29%) to their country than as protection (17%), while even more Ukrainians were likely to view it as neither (44%). However, the supreme commander of Nato in Europe, US Air Force General Philip Breedlove, doesn’t seem to have got the memo. A few days earlier Breedlove made a statement that Nato troops, including those from the US, could be deployed to Eastern Europe in an effort to, “shore up defences in allied countries that share a border with Russia” – although he avoided naming Ukraine specifically. Other countries that border Russia to the east include Belarus, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, of which the last three are also Nato members. From t he Russian perspective, Breedlove’s comments will make Nato look like it is a tool of US foreign policy, rather than an alliance with Europe. In this context, Nato on April 14 released a statement entitled, “Russia’s accusations – setting the record straight,” which contradicts Russia’s narrative on the whole vexed issue of Nato expansion. “Russian officials claim that US and German officials promised in 1990 that Nato would not expand into Eastern and Central Europe, build military infrastructure near Russia’s borders or permanently deploy troops there. No such pledge was made, and no evidence to back up Russia’s claims has ever been produced,” the statement says. Putin first raised the issue of what Russia was promised during his speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, where he explicitly said that Nato had promised not to expand to Russia’s borders. The key meeting at this time was the negotiations between Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in 1989 that enabled the reunification of Germany. However, the content of what was said at that meeting has never been released. Putin seems to be saying that Kohl made Gorbachev a verbal promise not to expand, though nothing was put down on paper. Hardening stance The mere title of the Nato statement highlights the hardening of the alliance’s stance on Russia’s military operations on the Ukrainian border. Its aggressive tone will not go down well in Moscow. Putin complained in his March 18 speech that Russia was continuously presented with a fait accompli by the West and told, “This does not concern you,” when it complained. Nato’s statement drove that point home again when explaining why Russia had no right to object to Nato’s proposed missile defence shield in Europe: “Nato has not ignored Russia’s concerns [to the shield]. On the contrary, the Alliance has consistently sought cooperation with Russia on missile defence. At the Lisbon Summit of 2010, Nato Heads of State and Government, ‘decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect all Nato European populations, territory and forces, and invited Russia to cooperate with us’.” To Moscow, this statement will be taken as more evidence of the West’s fait accompli policy towards Russia; “cooperate” doesn’t seem to give Moscow the option to “object” to the shield, as it most vehemently does. The increasingly tough talk bodes ill for a diplomatic solution to the current standoff between Russia and the US (and to a lesser extent a reluctant, but unsettled, Europe) over Ukraine. Brandishing military power will not intimidate the Kremlin, but unfortunately the war of words will make the lingering Cold War fears of renewed Russian aggression in Europe a self-fulfilling prophesy. It will also justify the continued existence of Nato, instead of a new European Security Agreement the Russians have called for, something that would hav e helped prevent the current tense situation. Business New Europe MOSCOW BLOG – bne.eu – Ben Aris in Moscow – April 15, 2014 If I am pulling the discussion of NATO from out of my ass then I am in good company. What I object to is a discussion that oversimplifies and frames the Ukraine into an issue of "russian aggression" and the West as defenders of freedom as its only an interesting premise if its looked at in isolation from everything else. Russia didn't have to press Crimea in a referendum. Why? Because Crimea was once part of Russia. Most Crimeans identify as Russian. Crimeans speak primarily Russian, they are culturally primarily Russian and they don't feel an overwhelming connection to Kiev. And why should they? Kiev was going to ban the use of the Russian language at one point before the US dissuaded them claiming it was too "heavy handed". Its like looking at Yugoslavia as a political whole without looking at all the historically cultural and ethnic differences there were in every region. Crimea is of strategic interest to Russia so its also a strategic interest to NATO and the West. Crimea is a jutting peninsula that extends from southern Ukraine’s mainland into the Black Sea. A narrow spit reaches Russia on its east side, providing Russia a causeway to its major warm water seaport on the Black Sea. Crimea has significant strategic importance to Russia’s security both militarily and economically. Its commercial value easily compares to its military counterpart as Crimea provides an intermodal hub for Russian commerce in that region. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is home ported there along with 15,000 Russian troops in a massive Russian naval and air force installation. http://www.usmilitary.com/30969/why-crimea/ You're boys in the military seem to understand Russian impulses better than the average citizens since the article goes on to surmise "That brings us to ask – just what should the US do? The short answer is nothing. We should recognize that what Russia is doing is little different than the US invasion of Panama or Granada. Our justification for invading those two sovereign nations was to protect US citizens and interests. Russia’s Putin is using the same justification...The longer answer is this. In view of Crimea’s desire to rejoin mother Russia, we should make it clear to Russia that while we understand their historically strategic interest in Crimea, a Russian invasion of the whole of Ukraine is the trigger point. That is where the line is drawn because that would jeopardize Poland (now a NATO member) and provide unquestionable legal justification for NATO military action. Of course, president Obama has drawn lines before only to back down each and every time. Secondly, NATO has no stomach for war with Russia no matter how limited it might be. That means Ukraine might become a sacrificial lamb if for nothing more than to keep the peace in Europe. Only NATO knows if that is an acceptable price to pay and they must already have the answer." So am I wrong to call the US hypocrites in regards to Russia? I don't think so and I'm certainly not alone. Just look up what President Fernandez of Argentina has to say on the subject. Am I crazy for focusing on NATO expansion to explain Russian strategic behaviour? No its being spoken about as the PRIMARY reason for the problems we are seeing between Russia and the West and the only reason why the Ukraine is of any interest to anyone. As for Stalin's death count is enormous because it includes death by starvation not jus the purges. In Vietnam four to six million Vietnamese died due to the war. 50 to 150 thousand in Cambodia. Some 350,000 in Lao. I don't even want to get into all the many military interventions in foreign lands and their death count. At least Stalin had the decency to keep his murders in his own back yard. You guys are just like a mad gunman spraying death willy nilly. I say you both come out about even if we have to take the whole of both histories into account. But that's besides the point.
There is a difference between a perceived threat and a real threat. Our mental hospitals have boat loads of people who perceive threats. Are we going to live our lives fearing the fear of others? Your reasoning gets a little crazy. And where is Alston’s report? The US is not engaged in nor has it ever engaged in “extrajudicial” executions. What it has done is engage “enemy combatants”. And what the US did in Grenada was to stop a bloody revolution and restored a constitutional government. It didn’t annex the country. NATO is not a US run organization. It is a treaty organization of 28 countries. Each country has a vote. And new members are only accepted with a majority vote. So your “blame the US for everything” has some major holes. And the bit about the UN Security Council approving a resolution condemning the US for the Grenada invasion is just left wing whacko fantasy. It never happened. Nothing can get through the UN Security Council without US approval. The US, along with a few other countries like Russia have the power to veto in the UN Security Council. So for your claim to be true, the US would have to condemn itself. It never happened. And none of this has anything to do with Putin and his repeated invasions and annexations. The US has never menaced Russia. It has always sought friendship with Russia. But the US can only do so much. Friendship is a two way street. It’s kind of tough being a friend to a paranoid megalomaniac. McCain spoke to the protestors in Kiev which was his right. But he doesn’t speak for or represent the US government. He spoke for himself. And the US does support the right of self-determination for all people. And the Crimean’s didn’t exactly vote them out of the Ukraine. They were taken by force of arms by Putin. He was there, because that is why senators and representative do. They travel the world on fact finding missions. But they don’t speak for the US government. That role is reserved for President Obama and those he designates to represent him. It’s in our constitution. And then we have this thing in our Constitution about freedom of speech. Unlike Mother Russia our people – Americans- are free to say what they want, when they want. An “alleged” conversation is hardly convincing. And you are misrepresenting the text. “Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". Your quote, your reference, that isn’t exactly nefarious. I don’t see anything nefarious in working with both sides to effect a peaceful solution. Yeah, the US wanted a peaceful outcome. Boy wouldn’t Doctor Evil be proud. LOL Before you give out advice, you should take a long and serious look at yourself. You remind me of all the Jonestown people who drank the Kool-Aid all the while believing the rest of the world were the real Kool-Aid drinkers. The US didn’t invade, occupy and annex any part of the Ukraine as your beloved Mother Russia has done. The US has no troops in the Ukraine as Russia does. The US doesn’t have a massive army anywhere near the Ukraine or sitting on Russian borders like Mother Russia. You are running amuck again with your confirmation biases.
I know its split. if you'll read my post you'll note its split according to ethnic lines. ie the more russsians in the area the greater precentage view nato as a threat. I know thats in the east in russia. and there doing it with russian backing. Do you even read the posts your responding to. your telling things I clearly already know as if your making a point your not.[/QUOTE] Legitimate claims or not. Do you think the US would allow protestors to demand the ousting of an elected government? Aren't you the lot who shot up some kids protesting at Kent State? Maybe we should just retroactively depose the government on that account. Didn't you get the memo that the cops were reacting to sniper shots from the protestors? Would you have expected any different reaction in the US? If you haven't noticed NATO's popularity wasn't a part of the debate in the Ukraine. The trade agreement was the debate that created the split. I think I'll just discuss things with Orcot from now on since he seems to have at least a better grasp of what I'm discussing. True. Referendum are being had in the East because the Russian populations are in the East. Funny thing about referendums is that they're so damn democratic. Just ask the Swiss. They don't do anything without one.
You obviously haven’t been paying attention to US current affairs. You don’t have to look to far to find people who do not recognize the authority of the US government. Republicans are always trying to oust Democrats from government (e.g. Clinton impeachment). LOL, yeah real referendums are so damn democratic. But that isn't what we have seen in Crimea or the referendum in Eastern Ukraine. Those referendums were not subject to international monitoring and conducted on armed threat. What we saw in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine were fake referendums where the outcomes were rigged and known by all parties way before referendums were conducted. Mother Russia roughed up and kicked out independent observers and reporters and refused international observers. When you need to conduct referendums in secret and under armed threat, they are not so very damn democratic.
On this we dissagree from the disbandment from the USSR in 1991 Ukraine had certain problems that caused economic problems (Books can be writen off what happened wrong but it's mainly coruption and lack of investments) Russia sort off tried to "help" by delivering cheap gas it didn't work gas was cut of from Ukraine (and Europe as it was a transit country for the first time in 2006 (and the EU as Ukraine is a transit country) This is a national embarrassment both for Russia as the supplier and Ukraine as a transit country to this day nobody knows who's really at fault and who blackmailed who but considering how often it happenend and that their are no flow meters at Ukraine's entry and exit points Russia didn't really tried hard to proof it innocence. This situation happened again afther 2006 and would have happened again Ukraines debt was increasing the situation wasn't stable and was bound the deteriorate and explode. SOmething needed to be done and the Russian help wasn't working. This was a pressing reason for a revolution and it did needed to happen. Sorry I skipped a bid but why was the US there at march 8 The Russian military entered the territory of Chonhar village in Henichesk Raion of Kherson Oblast and blocked the second entrance to Crimea. The situation escaladed and Russia sort of officialy invaded Ukraine A transit country threatening the economy from Europe was being taken over Putin had allready made his treats against every country that had a Russian population (Poland, Eesti, Latvia Litouania... And I believe Bulgaria but that might be unrelated or he threatened it twice I don't remember)... THis is in the US intrest Russia was invited in the eastern partnership (basicly the western warshow pact without the baltic our lovely Lavlov Ridiculed the pact and said it was completly useless and assured us that all it's members felt the same he would also liked to join it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Russia itself also has a history of working together with NATO altough it's restrained. This would still not be a bad Idea one of the biggest problems of Russias economy (the same can be said abouth Norway) is that it's completly depended abouth oil export and it's economy would collapse without it joining the eastern partnership would have promoted other parts of the economy that would havve diversitied Russians export and that's Always a good thing but I digress. They didn't expect the invasion Russia doesn't have the right. Also I beleive Ukraine really needed that deal in either case something needed to change or the economy would collapse sooner or later they also where tired of the corruption, again Europe is the better bet in opening borders to let investments flow in and deal with corruption. They did promise that but nothing was ever written down on paper, Russia on it's part did sign a document that said it would respect Ukraines borders in return Russia would get the 1080 nukes Ukraine got with the collapse of the USSR but also 19 (more then half) of USSR's Tupolev Tu-160 bombers yust to give a axample that it was more then nukes that the RUssians got. Also NATO only said that afther Putin threatenend the former sovie states and they did need to respond to it. Not Putin's decision also making ukraines military material compatibel with NATO sounds very difficult for practical reasons but could be in the frame of investments that increases Ukraines potential market share in a market where they are at home at aftherall cheap labor making adequate components relative nearby would be a boon to their economy. Again NATO and the EU aren't the same in trade the more partners you have the better building arms for NATO wouldn't stop them from producings arms for Russia these are sepperate issues and Russia has to ask themself why Ukraine would turn itself against Russia the moment it's independed from Russia A foreign policy of wich you suspect that every partner will turn against you the moment they are able to do so are signals of paranoid behaviour or knowing you yust have a bad foreign policy. NATO spens abouth 60% of the worlds defense budget totalling $1.02 trillion VS Russias 90 billion (this does not include Japan this does not include Australie)
I like the idea of the shield not that I thin it works or will ever proof to work, but it somewhat centralized the European armies and if Europe ever will have a unified army these centralization projects are a important step toward it then again we can Always count on the Israelie and palestines to fight each other say what you will abouth the conflict but them sending out rockets and the other side sending interceptor rockets will provide interesting data. And who knows maybe one day we will develop the technology to protect us from incoming missiles it would be fun knowing missiles could never reach us more fun then a nuclear second strike. I doubt Ukraine would ever join the NATO and if that really was the issue we would here more abouth Georgia I believe what Russia feared the most was loosing it's harbor in sevastopol. OR be blackmailed into activities for it. That happenens when you threaten those countries. How could they not respond to that. That last bid abouth the permanent deployment did make it on a document tough I think the americans are in breach in either Rumania or Turkye abouth a radar station that couldn't be permanently manned but is. The rest are yust words they mean very little I'm sorry
Right, so innocent Ukrainians must be slashed, burnt and rioted off their lands, in order to teach those nasty Turks and Romanians a lesson about violating alleged vague verbal promises from 25 years ago regarding what they do on their own soil.
