Thread: Ukraine crisis

What’s your thoughts to this Ukraine crisis as it appears to escalate by the day?

For Russian perspective interests, was Putin right or wrong to move into Crimea? There didn’t seem to be any imminent threat to its citizens living there, or was there? There’s international concern Putin will order his army into the east side of Ukraine, which can only add more tension to the crisis.

I’m currently at a loss to Putin’s long term strategy of Ukraine. Does he want to annex Crimea, or temporarily protect it? I found his subtle manoeuvre of sending troops (with no insignias) into the region a bit creepy. However, from what I understand the majority of the population in Crimea welcome the Russian army occupation? But saying that, Crimea is sovereign to Ukraine, and if the residents of Crimea wished to be independent of Ukraine, or be a part of Russia, then surly that should be their choice by a peaceful referendum? That goes for the Russian majority speaking east side of Ukraine, whom I understand never supported the uprising to begin with?

On a side note, I wish Russia wasn’t always seemingly at diplomatic odds with the west and the US all the time. It can be a right pain in the ass!

Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine


The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.

That editorial seems somewhat less than reliable.
Statements like:

The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU,"

make me doubt the honesty and accuracy of the whole article.
The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU," - See more at: The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine

The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU," - See more at: The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine

So you find the Mainstream Media Blatant Propaganda reliable???? Wow. Ok.

I doubt if anybody would seriously expect Russia to give up access to the Baltic without a fight. Nobody should expect Russia to give up access to the Black Sea and use of Sevastapol as a naval base without a fight either.
It would be like telling USA to give up their naval bases in Cuba and Hawaii.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

So you find the Mainstream Media Blatant Propaganda reliable???? Wow. Ok.

Can you quote where I said that?

And can you support the wild accusations in the editorial you linked rather than make up what I think?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

So you find the Mainstream Media Blatant Propaganda reliable???? Wow. Ok.

So you take the same simplistic attitude to the world as that good ole boy, George Bush? (If you're not with us you're against us.)

I don't think the US should do anything beyond diplomatic courses, maybe sanctions, but I'm sure we've already gone beyond that with more clandestine stuff. I'm also not sure the US can do anything there. I'm glad there's a Democratic admin in power now because, from the sound of the GOP chicken-hawks, a GOP admin would probably be threatening military action.

From the little I've read, the Ukraine seems to be split fairly evenly between those who favor the EU/West and those that favor Russia.

(A chicken-hawk is one who never served in the military but loves to send our troops to war. The GOP is the main repository but the Demos have their fair share.)

Remember what happened in Georgia.

I cant do the homework for everyone and go interview State Department officials and CIA agents in the fields:
"tell us in your own words about your secret destabilizing mission, our audience wants to hear all about it"




BTW, imo "Fuck the EU" is the LEAST relevant comment in the conversation about who various US Officials want to be in power in the Ukraine.

So you take the same simplistic attitude to the world as that good ole boy, George Bush? (If you're not with us you're against us.)

Until I get a version from people that question the Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine commentary without forwarding a shred of comment about WHAT their own views are, I have to assume temporarily, that the doubts about a US involvement in the Ukraine are in line with the MOST prevalent propagated narrative which are those spread in the Mainstream Media, and have to minimize the likelihood that the view is something completely different like lets say "the Wizard of OZ is behind it" or what ever, its quite reasonable to assume as an initial premise that the views are those of the MSM. If its different by all means lets hear it.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

I don't think the US should do anything beyond diplomatic courses, maybe sanctions, but I'm sure we've already gone beyond that with more clandestine stuff. I'm also not sure the US can do anything there.

I agree. It's a crappy situation, but there is little the US can actually do about it. Can't do anything with teeth through UN security counsel because Russia has a veto and doing anything militarily would involve putting at least one carrier task force in the Black Sea and at great risk with very limited force projection capabilities. Think we're going to watch this one from the sidelines.

The Ukraine is in a financial crisis as it has been before. It seems that many countries are never going to be able to get themselves in economic balance due to many factors including greed and mismanagement. The Ukraine needed a bailout again and no one was wanting to throw good money after bad it seems so the Ukraine turned to the only other country that would give it money, Russia. That said is when other countries said they would help but it was to late for Russia already helped them with money. It is rather strange that no one else would give them money until Russia did and then the fireworks started. I believe that the Ukraine shouldn't have been helped because they made their own economic problems not any other country.

Russia shouldn't have given the Ukraine anything but since they wanted to become closer to the Ukraine Russia did what it thought was the best thing it could do. Russia is throwing money away IMO because those in charge of the Ukraine are greedy and corrupted so that money will only be wasted but let Russia get a better foothold into the Ukraine.

One weird part of this crisis is Russia sending troops in without insignia. Are they ashamed of what they're doing? Is it a tactical thing? Very strange . . . .

Can't this world go for a few years without a war? Some days I really don't like people at all. Maybe we deserve to bomb ourselves back to the stone age.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine


The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.

Sometimes you confuse a fulcrum with the object mass. This does no one a service.

I don’t like these latest events...

Apparently Russia has given the Ukrainian forces held up in Crimea a deadline to surrender before 3 am GMT tomorrow or face a real assault!

BBC News - LIVE: Ukraine crisis: Grip tightens

Are Russians really going to start killing Ukrainians?

Originally Posted by PumaMan

One weird part of this crisis is Russia sending troops in without insignia. Are they ashamed of what they're doing? Is it a tactical thing? Very strange . . . .

Can't this world go for a few years without a war? Some days I really don't like people at all. Maybe we deserve to bomb ourselves back to the stone age.

I am getting to the point where I wish the powers that be would just go ahead and start WWIII because I am tired of living my life under the threat of it.
Launch all the nukes and purge the Earth. Let whatever species manage to crawl out from under the rubble start again.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

I am getting to the point where I wish the powers that be would just go ahead and start WWIII because I am tired of living my life under the threat of it.
Launch all the nukes and purge the Earth. Let whatever species manage to crawl out from under the rubble start again.

I hear ya.

Biological warfare would be best -- something that just kills humans -- because the other species on this planet haven't done anything to deserve annihilation.

Originally Posted by pineapples

I don’t like these latest events...

Apparently Russia has given the Ukrainian forces held up in Crimea a deadline to surrender before 3 am GMT tomorrow or face a real assault!

BBC News - LIVE: Ukraine crisis: Grip tightens

Are Russians really going to start killing Ukrainians?

So far it has been bloodless. I doubt they would kill civilians as that is really asking for western interference, although I wouldn't put it past some Russians to take it into their own hands...

Next door to my office a class is in progress. Sitting next to each other in the class are a Ukrainian and a Russian. They have no issues. Governments, or elements within governments, and extremists present more of a problem. Putin is an example of the former, Ice Wendigo, in his own small way, is an example of the latter.

Sometimes you confuse a fulcrum with the object mass. This does no one a service.

I have no idea what that means (or how it contributes to the discussion)


And for everyone, if you have new information please add it as addendum to the feeble pseudo-ad-hominem/focus-on-the-messenger snippets and pot-shots you are taking.

There are many ethnic Russians in crimea and many bases for their black sea fleet, so Russian involvement there should come as no surprise, nor merit fear mongering hyperbolic vitriol from the western departments of state nor mass media.

that being said:

"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

comes to mind
(feel free to swap out "Russia" for Putin)

Originally Posted by sculptor

There are many ethnic Russians in crimea and many bases for their black sea fleet, so Russian involvement there should come as no surprise, nor merit fear mongering hyperbolic vitriol from the western departments of state nor mass media.

that being said:

"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

comes to mind
(feel free to swap out "Russia" for Putin)

Indeed. Pointing at the Russians and calling them aggressors seems to ignore the nature of realpolitik. It's not in the interests of Russia (or even many ethnic Russians who live in the Ukraine) economically or politically, the situation is a bad one but this is unfortunately the nature of economics in general, Ukraine cannot be self-sufficient and cannot afford to have Russia as an enemy (and why are the west so persistent about this, bread and oil prices are going to skyrocket if it fails, although they may decrease if the Ukraine joins the EU... may be being a little cynical).

Governments, or elements within governments, and extremists present more of a problem. Putin is an example of the former, Ice Wendigo, in his own small way, is an example of the latter.

Now I am part of the problem and an "Extremist" because I DENOUNCE coup d'etats orchestrated by Foudation arms of the State Department that are virtually discussed in leaked phone conversations? I wont say this utter ad hominem shite (oops) but I disagree with your assessment.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Governments, or elements within governments, and extremists present more of a problem. Putin is an example of the former, Ice Wendigo, in his own small way, is an example of the latter.

Now I am part of the problem and an "Extremist" because I DENOUNCE coup d'etats orchestrated by Foudation arms of the State Department that are virtually discussed in leaked phone conversations? I wont say this utter ad hominem shite (oops) but I disagree with your assessment.

To play the Devil's advocate, isn't that a little irrelevant to the context of the situation? What difference does the origins of the revolution make? Assuming what you say is true, the CIA facilitated a successful revolution - they themselves did not make it successful, the Ukrainians did. Given that the country has a long history of divided loyalties I don't think you can pin this onto America - granted the Putin witch-hunt is a little absurd too.

Putin's administration is solely looking out for Russian interests, but they arguably do have some justifications for the "intervention" as well. The new Ukrainian government is illegitimate, heavily contested, and the territories the Russian forces have occupied have a majority that self-identify as Russian. That, however, doesn't make the "intervention" any more excusable than America's imperialistic endeavours.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Putin's administration is solely looking out for Russian interests, but they arguably do have some justifications for the "intervention" as well. The new Ukrainian government is illegitimate, heavily contested, and the territories the Russian forces have occupied have a majority that self-identify as Russian. That, however, doesn't make the "intervention" any more excusable than America's imperialistic endeavours.

Thanks. I had to laugh yesterday when I saw John Kerry complaining about what Putin had done, using the same language that could have been used about the US with its two wars in Iraq and and one war in Afghanistan: watching out for US interests.

"That, however, doesn't make the "intervention" any more excusable than America's imperialistic endeavours."

imo theres a significant difference between the various imperialist wars wantonly waged by the us in countries on the other side of the planet and the cuban missile crisis. (imo the us is playing thermo nuclear russian roulette and and putting the lives of everyone on the roulette table, i dont like it, at least wait until theres an autonomous mars colony.)

Originally Posted by icewendigo

imo theres a significant difference between the various imperialist wars wantonly waged by the us in countries on the other side of the planet and the cuban missile crisis.

Cuban Missile Crisis? Care to clarify what you're getting at? Are you comparing the CIA's involvement in Ukraine to the Soviets wanting to set-up missiles batteries in Cuba or something?

This is about Russia wanting to keep its warm water port, influence in Ukrainian politics, and Putin's desire for a Post-Soviet union between formerly communist countries. This is exactly like America's imperialist actions half-way across the world.

yes i am comparing the situation to the cuban missile crisis. From russias perspective its not halfway across the world its right next door the way cuba was right next door from the us perspective.

Originally Posted by stander-j

This is about Russia wanting to keep its warm water port, influence in Ukrainian politics, and Putin's desire for a Post-Soviet union between formerly communist countries. This is exactly like America's imperialist actions half-way across the world.

Except that to the Russians it is not half way around the world.


Edit: Looks like Ice was posting as I was typing.

Next door to my office a class is in progress. Sitting next to each other in the class are a Ukrainian and a Russian. They have no issues.

Yup. My husband was teaching in an English as a second language school for newly arrived refugees and some children of diplomats, quite a mix. This was at the time of the Balkan conflicts. All the kids from the various ethnic backgrounds helped each other out with learning English because they understood the other languages and sometimes spoke them.

Mr was casually supervising a lunchtime soccer game when a couple of these 14 year old kids suddenly realised something. If they'd stayed in the places they came from, they might have been shooting at each other instead of on the same team in a soccer game.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

yes i am comparing the situation to the cuban missile crisis. From russias perspective its not halfway across the world its right next door the way cuba was right next door from the us perspective.

Are you really arguing that setting up nuclear missile batteries off the coast of a nation is the similar to secretly assisting protesters attain a connection with the EU - which is what a large portion of the population wanted in the first place? Do Ukrainian protesters threaten the lives of hundreds of millions of Russians? Doesn't that seem like a bit of a stretch? It merely threatens Russian Imperialist interests.

For Dan:

That's true, but doesn't change Russia's motivations. My point is just that this is an imperialist maneuver on Russia's part, it's nothing like the Cuban Missile Crisis. If anything Russia is acting like the Americans at the Bay of Pigs.

Originally Posted by stander-j

For Dan:

That's true, but doesn't change Russia's motivations. My point is just that this is an imperialist maneuver on Russia's part, it's nothing like the Cuban Missile Crisis. If anything Russia is acting like the Americans at the Bay of Pigs.

Bay of Pigs might not be as apt of a comparison as defending Gaunatanamo Bay or Panama would be.

The missile threat is a consideration in this too. One of the things Nato wanted to do in Georgia was set up medium range missile systems capable of hitting targets inside Russia. A NATO controlled Ukraine would likely be expected to serve as a missile base too.

Anyhow, throughout history Russia has faced invasions and threats of invasions through the Ukraine. Russia has also been forced to defend the Crimea from every other world power too. England fought for the control of Crimea during the Crimean war, Nazi Germany invaded the Ukraine after gaining control of Crimea in WWII. Hapsburgs, Ottomans, Venitians, Mongols, Huns.... The history is long.
Defence of the Crimea and of access to the Ukraine is not mere imperialism, it is a direct defence of the security of Russia herself.

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by stander-j

For Dan:That's true, but doesn't change Russia's motivations. My point is just that this is an imperialist maneuver on Russia's part, it's nothing like the Cuban Missile Crisis. If anything Russia is acting like the Americans at the Bay of Pigs.

Bay of Pigs might not be as apt of a comparison as defending Gaunatanamo Bay or Panama would be.The missile threat is a consideration in this too. One of the things Nato wanted to do in Georgia was set up medium range missile systems capable of hitting targets inside Russia. A NATO controlled Ukraine would likely be expected to serve as a missile base.

Russia already shares borders with four NATO member states, what would make Ukraine a better site for nuclear armaments than any of them, let alone the current armaments in Turkey?

The Ukraine is much closer to Moscow than any of the other places.

My point is just that this is an imperialist maneuver on Russia's part, it's nothing like the Cuban Missile Crisis. If anything Russia is acting like the Americans at the Bay of Pigs.

I'd have thought the Russians are behaving like Russians have always behaved since before the WWI revolution.

Catherine the Great was no slouch in acquiring and defending territories which then became, once and forever, Russian. (According to the Russians anyway.) That was a long time before an upstart country from the New World like the USA began flexing its imperial or colonial or world power muscles.

Originally Posted by adelady

Catherine the Great was no slouch in acquiring and defending territories which then became, once and forever, Russian. (According to the Russians anyway.)

Catherine the Great was Prussian before she became, once and forever, Russian. (According to the Russians anyway.)

I tend to look at European royalty as a privileged group that worked or married or negotiated their way into the best kingdoms/empires they could get, regardless of birthplace.

(A bit like modern CEOs and COOs moving in and out of business and government and finance and consultancy and think tanks nowadays. Once "in" they may move around, but they really have to make a terrible mess to get themselves excluded from the privileged group entirely.)

Originally Posted by icewendigo

And for everyone, if you have new information please add it as addendum to the feeble pseudo-ad-hominem/focus-on-the-messenger snippets and pot-shots you are taking.

If you are going to talk crap you must expect potshots.
If you are so wedded to your "the world is run by evil organisations" agenda that you cannot look at things objectively then you must expect potshots.
If you are going to muddy the waters by gross misinterpretation of reality, and thereby worsen that reality, you must expect potshots.
If you are going to claim the moral high ground while adopting sophomore arguments you must expect potshots.

Attacking the nonsense you post, when you post nonsense, is not focusing on the messenger, but on the message.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Sometimes you confuse a fulcrum with the object mass. This does no one a service.

I have no idea what that means (or how it contributes to the discussion)

You claim the events in Ukraine have been orchestrated by the West. All the West has done is to place a spin upon these independent events which they are seeking to leverage to the advantage of Western ethos and, arguably, to the benefit of Ukrainians. You confuse creating a situation with reacting to a situation.

It's relevant to the discussion because by demonstrating your error it invalidates all your arguments.

I just want to take the opportunity to point out that this was predicted by Sarah Palin in 2008. Also, Mitt Romney correctly identified Russia as a geopolitical foe, while Obama made the following sophomoric comment:

The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because … the cold war’s been over for 20 years…

independent events, because, you say so? because the state department says so? the media says so?Operation Ajax is an historical precedent of a coup Orchestrated (created) by the cia/mi6 presented by the media exactly as the situation in Ukraine all official information lead the naives along with everyone else to think they were *independent* events. You could not have known and would be saying that us being behind it was crap etc while being totally wrong.

The one thing your worldview tends to overlook is that governments are generally incompetent.

Originally Posted by John Galt

The one thing your worldview tends to overlook is that governments are generally incompetent.

A person who had worked in the diplomacy industry once told me the assumption that there is anybody anywhere who knows what is actually going on might be the biggest mistake conspiracy theorists make.
Add to that the Blowback Principle and politics seems to be little more than chaos with marching band theme music.

edit: Blowback:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

The Incompetence of governments has not prevented the US from developing the Atom Bomb in secrecy with thousands of people working directly and indirectly for it, has not prevented a number of covert operations for which the public had no clue and for which the media kept silent such Operation Ajax and other overthrows and coup d'etats, the coup against Chavez did not work out but the US (elements) have tried (storming a bank with guns and brigand hoods attempting to rob that bank and failing to grab the money, doesnt mean you are innocent because you failed), incompetence is not sufficient to disregard all covert operations as being non existent. Unlike a typical science observation where the molecules or planets are not ACTIVELY concealing data and benefiting from tacit censorship, I find it best to approach covert activity like a mystery where you pick up clues and analyse them to flesh out your estimation as to the probability of covert operation being in play.

"assumption that there is anybody anywhere who knows what is actually going on"

This statement is too general, I agree people dont know everything, even those who know about classified information dont know everything about everything. However, If you analyse "operation Northwood" you will find that a covert operation as proposed by the joint chiefs of staff are designed to fool not the overwhelming majority of the government/military but the near-totality of the government. If you have read it, go back to the national archives and I suggest to read it with this in mind, if the operation were to have been executed who would have known. Virtually no one, including many witnesses that could in all honesty describe what they heard or saw (without knowing that what they witnessed was staged).

I do agree there is incompetence, that not everything is known, heck the military "experts" in WW1 were saying cavalry and bayonet charges were the way to go (when the environment was different). I know all of that. This does not mean that covert operation are not attempted nor that they automatically fail. Many failed covert operations have failed to accomplish their objective WHILE STILL BEING UNKNOWN to the general public and not being covered in the media.

You can think all this is crap, there no such thing as a covert operation, the US has never organised and implemented a coup d'etat, ok fine, give yourself a few years and do your own research.

KIEV, Ukraine — In a demonstration of support for Ukraine’s fledgling government, Secretary of State John Kerry arrived here on Tuesday with an offer of $1 billion in American loan guarantees and pledges of technical assistance, a senior State Department official said on Tuesday.

Here we go again , more money being wasted on a corrupt government. Why is it that countries that have little or no money, like America, can find money to spend overseas when that money belongs in America? Russia as well doesn't have that great of an economy for it too has invested, once again, in building up its military. Governments that can't balance their books shouldn't be given any help and then the people there aill vote in others who just might straighten things out, hopefully.

As for sending in troops well that of course in an invasion of a sovereign nation and an obvious act of war.

Ukraine’s fledgling government*

(*Undemocratically fascist mob instated and US approved/selected puppet, unelected government.)

"Governments that can't balance their books"

The US and many other countries don't have balanced books, Id say (if we set aside the US-sponsored-coup-d'etat upon which there is no agreement and talk about other aspects) that governments that cant balance their books should not give money to other governments that also cant balance their books. (I also have to set aside the elephant in the room, which is the current debt-based fractional reserve internationalized banking monetary system, and pretend the overwhelming colossal factor is non existent and talk about grants/get-deeper-in-debt-aid as if all was peachy )

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Ukraine’s fledgling government*

(*Undemocratically fascist mob instated and US approved/selected puppet, unelected government.)

"Governments that can't balance their books"

The US and many other countries don't have balanced books, Id say (if we set aside the US-sponsored-coup-d'etat upon which there is no agreement and talk about other aspects) that governments that cant balance their books should not give money to other governments that also cant balance their books. (I also have to set aside the elephant in the room, which is the current debt-based fractional reserve internationalized banking monetary system, and pretend the overwhelming colossal factor is non existent and talk about grants/get-deeper-in-debt-aid as if all was peachy )

America, unlike many other countries like the Ukraine, can print more and more money to keep the rich more rich.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I just want to take the opportunity to point out that this was predicted by Sarah Palin in 2008. Also, Mitt Romney correctly identified Russia as a geopolitical foe, while Obama made the following sophomoric comment:

The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because … the cold war’s been over for 20 years…

Oh yes, Sarah palin that bastion of political thought and foresight

Is it worth noting that Hitler once used Putin's same rationale to annex part of Czechoslovakia? Is history just going to repeat itself? Because the first event (the Munich Agreement),which seems to me to be a frightening parallel of this one, led to the collapse of Czechoslovakia and was a prelude to a world war.

Yes, the parallel can be made, if you take the western media narrative at face value.

(The Nazi meme can work both ways, cant it? What if the Nazis/Fascists are the new unelected brown-shirt fascist mob instated Fascist government in the wake of depression-ish economic desperation that is a fertile ground for Fascism in a Fascist way? )

Russia offered a deal that included cheaper gas, thats why the elected government of the Ukraine accepted this over the flailing skinning alive austerity deal (with price hikes on gas to boot) the west ad in store. And just as a coincidence thats when the protest exploded, great coincidence. The Fairy tale narrative people swallow like orange flavoured Kool Aid doesnt even make sense, it is unreasonable to think Russia having offered a deal had an Hitlerian plan to invade Ukraine all along and that it is planning to invade any country in a world wide tour. The worst in all this is that the US IS invading countries on the other side of the planet that pose NO threat whatsoever being totally the opposite of a staging platform for war against the US, while Russia (which should not use military means) is at least invading a region taken over by hostile warmongering forces in a region that could pose a direct threat to Russia. Its not a pot calling the kettle black, its a super duper pitch black pot calling a grey kettle black.

Its an Orwellian double think achievement beyond imagination that people from a country with military occupation forces across the world, occupying and bombing left and right on a weekly basis, point to another country for invading! Yeah, look at them, dont look all around the world at what we do, look there! Sanctions! For pete's sake the US/UK and usual suspects should be on the receiving end of economic sanctions on a yearly basis for the past several decades. Orwellian. (and thats not even counting the most probable likelihood that the warmongering US has staged/supported/created the coup d'etat in the first place)

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I just want to take the opportunity to point out that this was predicted by Sarah Palin in 2008. Also, Mitt Romney correctly identified Russia as a geopolitical foe

It doesn't take a genius to state that Russia will be problematic on the world theater. I guess next she'll show her mastery of world political thought and state that China will be a geopolitical foe.

"It doesn't take a genius to state that Russia will be problematic on the world theater. I guess next she'll show her mastery of world political thought and state that China will be a geopolitical foe."

I thought the Swiss were the ones to watch out for...

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"It doesn't take a genius to state that Russia will be problematic on the world theater. I guess next she'll show her mastery of world political thought and state that China will be a geopolitical foe."

I thought the Swiss were the ones to watch out for...

Well, Sarah Palin thinks that France is somewhere south of Florida. So, no telling where she thinks Switzerland is.

I find it mind-boggling that people listen to her, much less elect her to executive offices.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I just want to take the opportunity to point out that this was predicted by Sarah Palin in 2008. Also, Mitt Romney correctly identified Russia as a geopolitical foe

It doesn't take a genius to state that Russia will be problematic on the world theater. I guess next she'll show her mastery of world political thought and state that China will be a geopolitical foe.

LOL
you got to admit that is still pretty profound for someone when the obvious constantly escapes them.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

you got to admit that is still pretty profound for someone when the obvious constantly escapes them.

Maybe, especially when you know that she didn't read that anywhere.

You know the Repubs have to have some kind of global enemy. They got to have somewhere to go and blow things up. BTW, I'm not much of a fan of the Dems either. Dems are clueless and Repubs are a-holes. Nice choice: bad or worse. Our two-part system really blows chunks.

Originally Posted by pineapples

What’s your thoughts to this Ukraine crisis as it appears to escalate by the day?

For Russian perspective interests, was Putin right or wrong to move into Crimea? There didn’t seem to be any imminent threat to its citizens living there, or was there? There’s international concern Putin will order his army into the east side of Ukraine, which can only add more tension to the crisis.

I’m currently at a loss to Putin’s long term strategy of Ukraine. Does he want to annex Crimea, or temporarily protect it? I found his subtle manoeuvre of sending troops (with no insignias) into the region a bit creepy. However, from what I understand the majority of the population in Crimea welcome the Russian army occupation? But saying that, Crimea is sovereign to Ukraine, and if the residents of Crimea wished to be independent of Ukraine, or be a part of Russia, then surly that should be their choice by a peaceful referendum? That goes for the Russian majority speaking east side of Ukraine, whom I understand never supported the uprising to begin with?

He probably wants to annex Crimea. It's been a point of contention between Ukraine and Russia ever since the USSR split up. The only reason it was ever part of Ukraine is because it simply got arbitrarily reassigned from being part of Russia to being part of Ukraine under Brehnev (who coincidentally was born in Ukraine.) So Ukraine didn't own it prior to the USSR.

It's valuable for its resorts. Russia also keeps military bases there, which it has been paying rent to Ukraine for (so the invasion was pretty easy to achieve.)

Crimea is considered an autonomous region also, with its own government. And apparently it has been talking about seceding if the government gets changed by all these protests.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine


The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.

If you ask the average Ukrainian whether they want to join the EU, most will say yes. If a decision was made not to join, then it was entirely against the wishes of the people of Ukraine.

Most Ukrainians resent Russia and have no desire - none at all - to stay under Russia's influence. That's why there was this spectacle in congress last year, at the mere proposal of making Russian an official language in Ukraine - instead of only Ukrainian.

Raw Video: Fight Erupts in Ukrainian Parliament - YouTube

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Yes, the parallel can be made, if you take the western media narrative at face value.

(The Nazi meme can work both ways, cant it? What if the Nazis/Fascists are the new unelected brown-shirt fascist mob instated Fascist government in the wake of depression-ish economic desperation that is a fertile ground for Fascism in a Fascist way? )

Russia offered a deal that included cheaper gas, thats why the elected government of the Ukraine accepted this over the flailing skinning alive austerity deal (with price hikes on gas to boot) the west ad in store.

That deal follows several years of badly hiked up gas prices. It's a concession, not a new special (and certainly not generous) offer.

Russia and others routinely have had to loan Ukraine money in order to afford the natural gas they buy from Russia. They have no choice but to buy it, or else people will die in their winters.

And just as a coincidence thats when the protest exploded, great coincidence. The Fairy tale narrative people swallow like orange flavoured Kool Aid doesnt even make sense, it is unreasonable to think Russia having offered a deal had an Hitlerian plan to invade Ukraine all along and that it is planning to invade any country in a world wide tour. The worst in all this is that the US IS invading countries on the other side of the planet that pose NO threat whatsoever being totally the opposite of a staging platform for war against the US, while Russia (which should not use military means) is at least invading a region taken over by hostile warmongering forces in a region that could pose a direct threat to Russia. Its not a pot calling the kettle black, its a super duper pitch black pot calling a grey kettle black.

Crimea is not in any danger. In this case there can be no question that Russia's action is a blatant land grab.

If Crimea wanted to secede from Ukraine they would almost certainly be allowed to do so freely with no conflict. They would almost certainly choose not to make themselves part of Russia, but rather just stay autonomous.

This is an affluent place by the standards of the region. Ukrainians go to Crimea on vacation when they've saved enough money to have fun.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I just want to take the opportunity to point out that this was predicted by Sarah Palin in 2008. Also, Mitt Romney correctly identified Russia as a geopolitical foe

It doesn't take a genius to state that Russia will be problematic on the world theater. I guess next she'll show her mastery of world political thought and state that China will be a geopolitical foe.

Oh, really? Then why did Foreign Policy magazine say it was "an extremely far fetched scenario"? And why did Obama childishly mock Romney for saying so?

Well, Sarah Palin thinks that France is somewhere south of Florida.

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Oh, really?

Please forgive me. I didn't realize that Sarah Palin is the greatest geopolitical mind of this, or any other, century. My mistake. Maybe I can get caught up if I see her on Fox TV. Or maybe I can find some papers that she has written on world politics. I need to climb out of this hole of ignorance that I have fallen. I'm so ashamed.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Oh, really?

Please forgive me. I didn't realize that Sarah Palin is the greatest geopolitical mind of this, or any other, century. My mistake. Maybe I can get caught up if I see her on Fox TV. Or maybe I can find some papers that she has written on world politics. I need to climb out of this hole of ignorance that I have fallen. I'm so ashamed.

I notice you didn't address any of my questions. I think there are some heads exploding. Sarah was right. But she couldn't have been right. But she was right. But, but ... blammo.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Oh, really?

Please forgive me. I didn't realize that Sarah Palin is the greatest geopolitical mind of this, or any other, century. My mistake. Maybe I can get caught up if I see her on Fox TV. Or maybe I can find some papers that she has written on world politics. I need to climb out of this hole of ignorance that I have fallen. I'm so ashamed.

I notice you didn't address any of my questions. I think there are some heads exploding. Sarah was right. But she couldn't have been right. But she was right. But, but ... blammo.

The fact that she was "right" about something making heads explode should be a clue for you. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. which is still once more than Palin has been her whole life.
Stop celebrating.

BTW Harold, what does Sarah Palin, a great geopolitical mind and strategist, suggest that the US do with the Ukraine situation?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

I notice you didn't address any of my questions. I think there are some heads exploding. Sarah was right. But she couldn't have been right. But she was right. But, but ... blammo.

Because I respect you as an intelligent person with a different set of ideologies than me, I'm going to pretend that you never mentioned Sarah Palin. Instead, I'm substituting "Santa Claus" and a delightful anecdote about presents.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

BTW Harold, what does Sarah Palin, a great geopolitical mind and strategist, suggest that the US do with the Ukraine situation?

Watch and learn.
Gov. Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity discuss Ukraine 3-3-2014

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Because I respect you as an intelligent person with a different set of ideologies than me, I'm going to pretend that you never mentioned Sarah Palin. Instead, I'm substituting "Santa Claus" and a delightful anecdote about presents.

Blammo.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Watch and learn.
Gov. Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity discuss Ukraine 3-3-2014

I promise to try to watch it. I have to find a bucket first, for vomit. Maybe if I don't look -- just listen -- it won't be so painful. Ughh, Hannity and Palin on the same screen. I'll try . . . .

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Blammo.

My dog barks at EVERYONE. One of them was bound to have a criminal record. My dog is still dumber than a bag of hammers.

Blammo.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

My dog . . .

It's funny you mention a dog. Palin being right sort of reminded me of a saying about a dog, a part of its anatomy, and sun shine.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Blammo.

My dog barks at EVERYONE. One of them was bound to have a criminal record. My dog is still dumber than a bag of hammers.

Blammo.

You guys forgot the other talking point. She read it off a teleprompter. Better get on Democratic Underground or watch MSNBC for the latest talking points.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by PumaMan

BTW Harold, what does Sarah Palin, a great geopolitical mind and strategist, suggest that the US do with the Ukraine situation?

Watch and learn.
Gov. Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity discuss Ukraine 3-3-2014

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Because I respect you as an intelligent person with a different set of ideologies than me, I'm going to pretend that you never mentioned Sarah Palin. Instead, I'm substituting "Santa Claus" and a delightful anecdote about presents.

Blammo.

Where's the rest of what Sarah Palin was saying in the snippet from 2008? The longest video I can find is only about 30 seconds long, and actually cuts out the context of what she was saying.

Sarah Palin in 2008 - Obama Presidency would Embolden Putin to Invade Ukraine - YouTube

This right here isn't enough to determine what exactly she was saying, other than Russia might one day invade Ukraine. What I would really like to know is what her other "crisis scenarios" were. I wonder how many of those were fairly accurate. Honestly I don't think Palin's "prediction" is a testament to her political savvy... I think its a testament to the fact that she made several guesses, and got lucky on one of them.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Honestly I don't think Palin's "prediction" is a testament to her political savvy... I think its a testament to the fact that she made several guesses, and got lucky on one of them.

I'd wager she was fed that info -- I doubt it was any sort of original analysis.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by stander-j

Honestly I don't think Palin's "prediction" is a testament to her political savvy... I think its a testament to the fact that she made several guesses, and got lucky on one of them.

I'd wager she was fed that info -- I doubt it was any sort of original analysis.

If she was in some way involved in developing the prediction, there is absolutely no way she came up with it on her own. In my opinion, the passive voice she was using in the beginning of the clip I linked clearly indicates she is talking about somebody else's work.

Edit: But I still think it's totally a lucky guess. I would never present five "crisis scenarios" if I was convinced that one of them was actually going to happen, but I would definitely mention five if I thought one of them might happen.

I heard the Palin quote, out of context, and over the years ive become quite cautious about stuff presented out of context.

"I'd wager she was fed that info -- I doubt it was any sort of original analysis."
100% in agreement

Palin who?

Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs during the International Business Conference at Ukraine in Washington - National Press Club - December13, 2013

“Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. ”

This is the same Victoria Nuland that was in Maidan Square Kiev cheering the protesters on with donuts on Dec 11 2013.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.

That editorial seems somewhat less than reliable.
Statements like:

The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU,"

make me doubt the honesty and accuracy of the whole article.
The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU," - See more at: The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine

The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU," - See more at: The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine

Seriously, is there any article that we can trust explicitly? There are so many things happening at the same time that we have no choice but to believe what we are being told.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Blammo.

My dog barks at EVERYONE. One of them was bound to have a criminal record. My dog is still dumber than a bag of hammers.

Blammo.

Clever dog.

Seriously, is there any article that we can trust explicitly? There are so many things happening at the same time that we have no choice but to believe what we are being told.

No choice? We can choose who we trust more than others who are less trustworthy.

When it comes to international news stories, I'd take Al Jazeera ahead of any others. Because we're in the time zone we are, one of our tv channels here shows half an hour each of France International, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle's The Journal followed by the PBS Newshour in succession. These are in the middle of the afternoon because they're late evening shows where they originate. We can also watch BBC and listen to the BBC World Service on radio at various times throughout the day. What I find is that Al Jazeera is much less likely to run a cookie cutter version of the same stories that the others all seem to get from the same sources. Their reporters are all different of course, but Al Jazeera seems to have a bit more editorial independence. And their interviewers and interviewing style on contentious topics - not the news service itself - seem to be a lot more willing to take on the obfuscators.

Originally Posted by adelady

When it comes to international news stories, I'd take Al Jazeera ahead of any others.. . . We can also watch BBC

Thank you! I've been watching Al Jazeera news almost exclusively lately. Sometimes BBC news. I also watch various news feeds on LinkTV. I do so because it is true "world" news and not skewed towards the US viewpoint.

I have to admit she was right. It's sometimes hard to admit that a person like Sara Palin isn't always wrong about everything, because she's so pompous about it when she isn't.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

I heard the Palin quote, out of context, and over the years ive become quite cautious about stuff presented out of context.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"I'd wager she was fed that info -- I doubt it was any sort of original analysis."
100% in agreement

Yeah. That is almost certain. However it's not such a bad thing for an idiot to have smart people backing them up, so long as they listen to those smart people when they should.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine
The protests in the western Ukraine are organized by the CIA, the US State Department and by Washington- and EU-financed Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that work in conjunction with the CIA and State Department. The purpose of the protests is to overturn the decision by the independent government of Ukraine not to join the EU.

That editorial seems somewhat less than reliable.
Statements like:

The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU,"

make me doubt the honesty and accuracy of the whole article.
The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU," - See more at: The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine

The response of the neoconservative, Victoria Nuland, appointed Assistant Secretary of State by the duplicitous Obama, was "fuck the EU," - See more at: The Daily Bell - Washington Orchestrated Protests Are Destabilizing Ukraine

Seriously, is there any article that we can trust explicitly? There are so many things happening at the same time that we have no choice but to believe what we are being told.

At least when they use the classic cliches you can tell what the political viewpoint is.


I think the call was real since Nuland was apologising to the EU members for her comments after it was released
BBC News - Victoria Nuland gaffe: Angela Merkel condemns EU insult

Victoria Nuland has apologised after she referred disparagingly to the EU's role during a conversation said to be with the US ambassador to Ukraine.


A recording of the exchange was posted online, with the US hinting at Russia's involvement in bugging and leaking it.


In Kiev, Ms Nuland - an assistant secretary of state - said she would not make a public statement on the matter.


She described the leak as "pretty impressive tradecraft. [The] audio quality was very good".


The state department said she had apologised in private to EU officials.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by stander-j

For Dan:That's true, but doesn't change Russia's motivations. My point is just that this is an imperialist maneuver on Russia's part, it's nothing like the Cuban Missile Crisis. If anything Russia is acting like the Americans at the Bay of Pigs.

Bay of Pigs might not be as apt of a comparison as defending Gaunatanamo Bay or Panama would be.The missile threat is a consideration in this too. One of the things Nato wanted to do in Georgia was set up medium range missile systems capable of hitting targets inside Russia. A NATO controlled Ukraine would likely be expected to serve as a missile base.

Russia already shares borders with four NATO member states, what would make Ukraine a better site for nuclear armaments than any of them, let alone the current armaments in Turkey?

Crimea's bigger role for Russia's military position is that it's the best place they can stage their navy from in that region of the world.


I may have to retract what I said earlier about the people of Crimea not wanting to join with Russia. According to this article, there appears to be quite a lot of public support in the region in favor of the transition.

An eerie mood on the ground in Crimea - CNN.com


A lot of Russian speaking people live there who don't know Ukrainian. It is frustrating for Russian speakers sometimes, because the government of Ukrain refuses to acknowledge Russian as a valid language. I knew a person in Luhansk (near the eastern border) who said when she went to watch movies at the theater she couldn't understand what was being said because the movies could only be shown in Ukrainian - even though hardly anyone in her community knows it.


Also, it looks like there won't be any actual fighting. The Ukrainian forces in the region are starting to surrender.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/wo...ref=world&_r=0

For any who don't already know, this is Crimea:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=crime...&ved=0CKQBELYD

It's a peninsula on the Black Sea that is so extreme a peninsula that it is almost an island.

Invasion of Crimea is not the same thing as invasion of Ukraine as a whole. Crimea is an autonomous region that has been considering seceding because they don't fully approve of the changes that will happen in government if the present revolution is successful. Russia is taking initiative (perhaps more than they ought to) and acting on that.

It's kind of like if Texas were to secede from the USA and join some other nation, and so that other nation sends troops in advance to get the American troops out out of Texas so they can leave unchallenged.

al jezzira might be less worse in some instances and the BBC at least its quality propoaganda, but all major media networks (and some pseudo alternative news) are propaganda, you cannot trust any of them to provide a complete picture nor to be exempt from forwarding false/misleading information even when what is presented is true (but nonetheless misleads because of a lack of context or partial information where the missing part would prove the actual situation is not what we are lead to beleive but the opposite). Sorry but there is no silver bullet, being reasonably informed about an issue often requires some reasearch and cross referencing multiple sources while looking for clues (because each source of propaganda often caters to a specific audience and sometimes leaves clues that another audience can pickup). You also need to learn from covert/non-disclosed events from the past that were not present in the media of the time but are now available in historical, declassified or archived documents, this will provide patterns of types of events that are occuring while not being covered by any media during and years after the events.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by stander-j

Originally Posted by dan hunter

Originally Posted by stander-j

For Dan:That's true, but doesn't change Russia's motivations. My point is just that this is an imperialist maneuver on Russia's part, it's nothing like the Cuban Missile Crisis. If anything Russia is acting like the Americans at the Bay of Pigs.

Bay of Pigs might not be as apt of a comparison as defending Gaunatanamo Bay or Panama would be.The missile threat is a consideration in this too. One of the things Nato wanted to do in Georgia was set up medium range missile systems capable of hitting targets inside Russia. A NATO controlled Ukraine would likely be expected to serve as a missile base.

Russia already shares borders with four NATO member states, what would make Ukraine a better site for nuclear armaments than any of them, let alone the current armaments in Turkey?

Crimea's bigger role for Russia's military position is that it's the best place they can stage their navy from in that region of the world.


I may have to retract what I said earlier about the people of Crimea not wanting to join with Russia. According to this article, there appears to be quite a lot of public support in the region in favor of the transition.

An eerie mood on the ground in Crimea - CNN.com


A lot of Russian speaking people live there who don't know Ukrainian. It is frustrating for Russian speakers sometimes, because the government of Ukrain refuses to acknowledge Russian as a valid language. I knew a person in Luhansk (near the eastern border) who said when she went to watch movies at the theater she couldn't understand what was being said because the movies could only be shown in Ukrainian - even though hardly anyone in her community knows it.


Also, it looks like there won't be any actual fighting. The Ukrainian forces in the region are starting to surrender.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/wo...ref=world&_r=0

Yeah I agree the port is definitely one of their interests. When it gets down to mediation, I bet one of the proposals on the table will be a more autonomous, maybe even sovereign, Crimea and Russia getting to keep its port forever. I also think this is partially about Ukrainian alignment with the EU compromising Putin's aspirations for the Eurasian Union, and Putin wanting to maintain influence in Ukrainian politics. We'll see how this plays out, but right now I'm thinking Putin is going to get whatever it is he wants.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

al jezzira might be less worse in some instances and the BBC at least its quality propoaganda, but all major media networks (and some pseudo alternative news) are propaganda, you cannot trust any of them to provide a complete picture nor to be exempt from forwarding false/misleading information even when what is presented is true (but nonetheless misleads because of a lack of context or partial information where the missing part would prove the actual situation is not what we are lead to beleive but the opposite). Sorry but there is no silver bullet, being reasonably informed about an issue often requires some reasearch and cross referencing multiple sources while looking for clues (because each source of propaganda often caters to a specific audience and sometimes leaves clues that another audience can pickup). You also need to learn from covert/non-disclosed events from the past that were not present in the media of the time but are now available in historical, declassified or archived documents, this will provide patterns of types of events that are occuring while not being covered by any media during and years after the events.

That's why I am chiming in so much on this topic. I'm trying to make sure and mostly share stuff I had already learned prior to the crisis (and therefore prior to the media needing to spin it.)

What I was saying before the about the lowering of natural gas prices by Russia not really being a huge concession comes from already having learned about Ukraine's problems with buying natural gas from Russia years ago when I was taking a class on energy infrastructure at college. That goes all the way back to when Yulia Tymoshenko was prime minister. It's a famous case in energy economics. Russia jacked up its natural gas prices and when Ukraine refused to pay that price they cut them off to force them back to the table - and Ukraine ended up having to take out a loan just to afford that year's supply. The price has been borderline to out and out extortion since then, and one of Ukraine's biggest financial hurdles.

As for Crimea being a resort location, that comes from a friend in the region who used to email me all excited whenever they would get the chance to take a vacation there. I think losing Crimea will hurt morale for lots of Ukrainians, because with Russia in charge it might get harder to visit and enjoy the beaches.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Watch and learn.
Gov. Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity discuss Ukraine 3-3-2014

I promise to try to watch it. I have to find a bucket first, for vomit. Maybe if I don't look -- just listen -- it won't be so painful. Ughh, Hannity and Palin on the same screen. I'll try . . . .

you're a better person than I. I'd just take ipecac rather than submit myself to psychological torture to just for a gallons of vomit.
Funny thing about Palin and hannity... Palin actually has more education than hannity. crazy, huh? you'd think they'd have 3rd grade between them but no, Palin has a degree, granted it's in journalism, but still she made it. She obviously wasn't a great student since she's unable to spot yellow journalism and continues to engage in it but... you know... she made it.

Russia test-launches ‘advanced’ intercontinental ballistic missile

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/04/russia-test-fires-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-report-says/


The missile
RT-2UTTKh Topol-M - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Blammo.

My dog barks at EVERYONE. One of them was bound to have a criminal record. My dog is still dumber than a bag of hammers.

Blammo.

You guys forgot the other talking point. She read it off a teleprompter. Better get on Democratic Underground or watch MSNBC for the latest talking points.

Since we're capable of our own thoughts, this isn't really necessary. It really just is the fox nation, AM radion and the republicans that follow marching orders... like good little children
And one more thing, even if the left did that, at least they would be following scholars and people of education unlike the uneducated tools over on the right, Even the dumbest of stupid are smart enough to copy off the smart kids... which puts the fox viewership well below the dumbest of stupid.
way to set the bar even lower.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

you're a better person than I.

No. I haven't watched it yet. And I don't think it would make me a better person -- more willing to endure real pain, maybe it makes me dumber.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

you're a better person than I.

No. I haven't watched it yet. And I don't think it would make me a better person -- more willing to endure real pain, maybe it makes me dumber.

LOL
I was thinking more along the lines of self sacrifice. taking one for the team.

Let me see if America sends troops into Vietnam to help that country Russia then sent weapons to the North Vietnamese so they could "protect"themselves. So now that Russia has sent troops into the Ukraine why doesn't America send in weapons and troops to help them? Again I say that Russia declared war on the Ukraine when it sent in armed troops and yet as yet nothing but idle chatter has been going on.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Let me see if America sends troops into Vietnam to help that country Russia then sent weapons to the North Vietnamese so they could "protect"themselves. So now that Russia has sent troops into the Ukraine why doesn't America send in weapons and troops to help them? Again I say that Russia declared war on the Ukraine when it sent in armed troops and yet as yet nothing but idle chatter has been going on.

The problem is though, more guns more problems, more troops more problems.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Let me see if America sends troops into Vietnam to help that country Russia then sent weapons to the North Vietnamese so they could "protect"themselves. So now that Russia has sent troops into the Ukraine why doesn't America send in weapons and troops to help them? Again I say that Russia declared war on the Ukraine when it sent in armed troops and yet as yet nothing but idle chatter has been going on.

In the first place, Ukraine already has guns.

In the second place, it is not at all clear that the autonomous region of Crimea wants Ukraine to defend it from this assault.

It's really a very murky matter. Russia has not deposed the government of Crimea. Instead what has happened is Crimea's parliament basically voted to appoint a president of its own and then to secede. Some of the Ukrainian troops are not just surrendering. They're defecting to the new Crimean nation. When this is over, its entirely possible that Crimea will not become a part of Russia at all, but just be its own country.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/world/europe/crimea-ukraine-russia.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0


Putin's position is:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/world/...ssia-tensions/

Originally Posted by Vladimir Putin

Should Russian troops intervene, Putin said, "It will be legitimate and correspond to international law because we have a direct request from a legitimate president and it corresponds to our interests in protecting people who are close to us."

President Askyonov is the name of Crimea's president, and his statements on the matter can be found in the first link above.

There is another issue, I just found mentioned that actually Russia is in direct violation of treaty.

Explainer: The Budapest Memorandum And Its Relevance To Crimea


According to the Budapest Memorandum, in return for Ukraine's decision to unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons, Russia promised to respect its sovereign territory. That's a pretty big deal. There are few things lower than violating a promise given in return for a nation giving up its nuclear ability.

I think the USA's best response is pretty obvious then. If Russia won't honor the terms of the agreement that lead to Ukraine signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, then Ukraine should be entitled to have nukes again. The USA would be within its rights to give Ukraine nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by stander-j

Where's the rest of what Sarah Palin was saying in the snippet from 2008? The longest video I can find is only about 30 seconds long, and actually cuts out the context of what she was saying.

Here's one that has all the crisis scenarios. 1. Proposing to meet with the regime in Tehran that wants to wipe Israel off the map. 2. Sending military into Pakistan without the approval of Pakistani government. 3. Cutting off funding for troops in Iraq, could mean our troops would have to go back to Iraq. 5. Joe Biden's next speaking engagement.
Remember In 2008 When The MSM Ripped Sarah Palin For Saying The Russians Might Invade Ukraine? - Citizens News

the way in which the us jumped in support of the unelected (us orchestrated colour revolution) coup detat government is telling.

And the Budapest memorendum was violated by the US when it funded and orchestrated the coup d etat.

One thing we should all bear in mind. We are inclined to remind people that the Russia of today is not the USSR of old. We should also be mindful that there are more than a few Russians who would dearly like it if the old USSR were to re-emerge and take a "leading role" in the world at large. Putin is one such Russian. He happens to be very powerful.

Originally Posted by kojax

There is another issue, I just found mentioned that actually Russia is in direct violation of treaty.

Explainer: The Budapest Memorandum And Its Relevance To Crimea


According to the Budapest Memorandum, in return for Ukraine's decision to unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons, Russia promised to respect its sovereign territory. That's a pretty big deal. There are few things lower than violating a promise given in return for a nation giving up its nuclear ability.

I think the USA's best response is pretty obvious then. If Russia won't honor the terms of the agreement that lead to Ukraine signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, then Ukraine should be entitled to have nukes again. The USA would be within its rights to give Ukraine nuclear weapons.

It was not a treaty and all it really said was Russia would not send troops in to disarm the Ukraine if they gave Russia her nukes back.
Radio Fee Europe is the US government's official propaganda outlet.

Wikipedia

Founded as a propaganda news source in 1949 by the National Committee for a Free Europe, RFE/RL received funds from theCentral Intelligence Agency until 1972.^[5][6] During the earliest years of Radio Free Europe's existence, the CIA and the U.S.Department of State issued broad policy directives, and a system evolved where broadcast policy was determined through negotiation between the CIA, the U.S. State Department, and RFE staff.^[7]

Originally Posted by icewendigo

the way in which the us jumped in support of the unelected (us orchestrated colour revolution) coup detat government is telling.

And the Budapest memorendum was violated by the US when it funded and orchestrated the coup d etat.

I didn't think you were all that keen on elections. I was under the impression the result was only a true reflection of the will of the people when it suited your political agenda.
Do you believe the protests in Venezuela are organised by the CIA or is it just possible that many, living in that country, have genuine grievances?
Lastly, given the bloody history of the Soviets, during the 20th century, with regard to the Ukraine and the Crimean Tatars I am amazed that anyone, apart from some ethnic Russians, would want Putin's Russia controlling any part of that country.

"I didn't think you were all that keen on elections. I was under the impression the result was only a true reflection of the will of the people when it suited your political agenda."

If I understand you claim correctly, this is wrong (and gratuitous). I will start with the following caveat, a car might be great on the road, but if you need to cross a lake the car is no longer suited because the environment is different.
In theory/an ideal world, I favor as a model, autonomous local direct democracies with open and participatory functions that would form distributed networks of cooperation while minimizing hierarchy(coercion structures), money(corruption, concentration of power), secrecy/control of information(manufacturing consent, obscuration of unethical activity and pertinent facts). Diversity is an important aspect hence smaller political units to reflect local preferences. A Ice cream shop with 31 buckets of vanila flavour ice cream might not meet the preferences of as many people as a store with 31 different flavours, so a pan-continental political unit does not represent the will and preferences of people for similar reasons. I might not share the values of most people in Saudi Arabia but believe these preferences should exist and should/would change, over time on their own, like western values have changed since the middle ages, and in some respects our societies values have changed quite a bit in the past century (less so for conservative/insular sub-cultures).


My criticism of elections are that they are NOT democratic ENOUGH, Im more in favor of democracy than most people on this forum (with the democracy is two wolves and a sheep meme), but coup d'etats and invasions are even less so. Elections in our current system are not very democratic because of a number of factors, people's opinions are shapped by media disproportionately influenced by a few(both as to what is covered and what is not covered) and you need to be educated and informed to make decisions while secrecy and control of information (non transparency) are offical policies of government and organisations, hierarchic organisations are not controlled by the public and are not even democratic(nor open and transparent) themselves, and concentration of money grants even further influence and opens the gates for corruption both official(lobying, campaign finance) and behind the scene in addition to the ubiquitous conflicts of interests it generates(but the later most people dont grasp and I cant sucessfully explain it).


As undemocratic(or insufficiently democratic) as typical elections are, elections in a country targeted for destabilisation and regime change through color revolution and Operation Ajax variants or orchestrated civil war, thats an entire other story, now the undemocratic nature is not even an outcome of systemic factors but the subversion/secrecy/misinformation/propaganda/corruption is planned like a military operation, its not in the same ball park at all.

"Do you believe the protests in Venezuela are organised by the CIA or is it just possible that many, living in that country, have genuine grievances?"

Most protests are not organized by the CIA, since the CIA/State Dept/etc focus their destabilization efforts in key countries targeted by the US foreign policy such as Venezuella, Iran, etc. Since you point to protests in a region that is a target of US destabilization, its quite possible they are organized or influenced by CIA proxy agents, since the 2002 failed coup attempt was a US operation with all the usual trappings. As to whether I beleive they actually are, the answer is I dont know, I cannot form an opinon about covert operations one way(there is) or another(there isnt) based on summary information, I would need to analyze information from various sources to form an opinion, since I have not, I dont know. If I had to take a uninformed guess I would estimate rough odds at about 80% that US proxy agents are involved in one fashion or another, but that is a rough esitmate, not a grounded opinion.

Also, it is NOT because some people have legitimate grievances that a destabilization operation is not going on. Also Note that, In some cases the grievances can be intensified through economic warfare and false flag assassinations/sabotage and various measures, and highlighted/inflamed by propaganda/media attention/PsyOps/astroturf-staged-viral videos, etc, but this doesnt need to be the case. Were there Royalists and Islamists that were angry at the secular elected government of Iran in the 50s, sure, but the CIA nonetheless organized assassinations and terrorist killings designed to frame the government and fool the population and dupes that would then be lead by operative organizers pipers to march in the streets, so its not because there's grievances (genuine and unaltered, or exacerbated, or fabricated, or a mix of each) that it means there is no coup and no destabilization operation in the works.

"Lastly, given the bloody history of the Soviets, during the 20th century, with regard to the Ukraine and the Crimean Tatars I am amazed that anyone, apart from some ethnic Russians, would want Putin's Russia controlling any part of that country."

Ill skip the historical fact that Russians have not marched in London or Paris yet have been invaded by military of France, Britain and Germany, and go to this caveat:
Ukraine is not a country without geopolitical significance and is not a country in South America, the implications of having a Banana Republic controlled by US puppet regime has little incidence in the risks of degeneration into a major war or Thermo Nuclear war, where as a fascist/puppet-war-by-proxy regime in the UKraine just might, not because its my opinion and regardless of my preferences or what I whish things be with a rainbow of harmony, my opinion is irrelevant, the opinion of the Russians military is relevant. Do I want Russia's Putin in the Ukraine, nope. They werent there (except historical bases in Crimea) before the US provoked coup d'etat, that indeed was a less-worse situation.

US Secretary of State John Kerry meets Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in the first talks between Washington and Moscow since the start of the Ukraine crisis - follow live updates

Ukraine crisis: US and Russia hold talks - live - Telegraph

My current opinion at the moment is that Russian soldiers moving into Crimea was nothing but a knee jerk reaction from Putin after losing influence in Kiev so quickly. It’s created nothing short of unnecessary tension in the region with little regard for the unpredictable consequences that could still unfold.

I’m also thinking Putin doesn’t intend to move his army into the east of Ukraine, as that will trigger not only international sanctions/embargos, but more importantly, start a short border war that could become increasingly unpopular with the Russian public. Could even breed cross border terrorism for the long term.

Ukraine is far too culturally tied up with Russia too, so I don’t think he could put much spin on a just war when Russian citizens start getting killed in the cross fire. Also, if Ukrainians can topple their president, what’s to stop unrest spreading to Russia? It wouldn’t be the first time the Russian public have gotten cheesed off with their powers that be.

Anyway, let’s hope it all “de-escalates” a word I keep hearing on the news today!

Russia has treaties with Ukraine which allow almost 3 times the military presence in Crimea than is now ongoing.'
(I watched the Russian ambasador's speach to the U.N. yestereve)

The thing seems a tempest in a teapot, and all the mindless sabre rattling of western nations ain't gonna help.
The USA has pledged $1 billion to help Ukraine's economy. Russia has alreade invested more than 8 times as much, and estimates that another 35-38 billion will be needed.
Maybe their goal is to have the E.U. spend money to help Ukraine become solvent?