Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[DennisN]

Since the video is authentic , I will post it here one more time so that other folks can have their share of fair information and hear the opinions of high ranking EU and Estonia people about the case.

And I remind folks about my post 216 about this thing. According to the Daily Telegraphs correspondent Damien McElroy, Olga Bogomolets has denied she had said anything about any "sniper conspiracy theory" to Mr Paet:

"Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10677370/Ukraine-Russia-crisis-live.html (about 1/3 down on that page at 15.17)

 

[Crazymechanic]

I'm afraid we will not know who the snipers were for a pretty long time.this is not the typical robbery thing , this is so much more on such a higher level.

Many famous high level shootings and crimes are still unsolved and as time passes they will probably be left so for the rest of eternity.

 

[Czcibor]

@Crazymechanic
I think that if we already discuss as it was politely called "non-mainstream political theories", why should we only narrow ourselves to only those that could hypothetically put Russia in better light? Shouldn't we also take into account those that would adversely influence Russian image? I mean in Poland we used to have president named Lech Kaczyński who was ardently anti-Russian. He provided diplomatic support for Georgia during their war with Russia. He died in air crash on Russia soil, in plane produced by Russians while visiting mass graves of Polish officers murdered by Stalin. After all those almost 4 years Russians were rather uncooperative in sharing data during their investigation and still did not give us the remnants of plane for our own investigation. Could you guess which theories circulate in my country, especially among the more nationalistic part of the society?

The official version is an accident. May I use here arguments in your style, implying that we would never know the truth who was responsible, however, with hint that there is one suspect?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

According to CNN International; Frigate USS Taylor is now in the Black Sea, and guided missile destroyer USS Truxtun is on its way through the Bosphorus (Istanbul Strait)...

USS Taylor (4,200 t / 138 m)

USS Truxtun (9,200 t / 160 m)

 

[nsaspook]

According to CNN International; Frigate USS Taylor is now in the Black Sea, and guided missile destroyer USS Truxtun is on its way through the Bosphorus (Istanbul Strait)...

All true but nothing what wasn't scheduled long ago to keep a presence in the area.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=79498

While in the Black Sea, the ship will conduct a port visit and routine, previously planned exercises with allies and partners in the region. Truxtun's operations in the Black Sea were scheduled well in advance of her departure from the United States.

I'm sure she will be conducting extensive ELINT and other activities with Taylor and Whitney on the current events.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=78959

BLACK SEA (NNS) -- The U.S. 6th Fleet flag ship USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20), with 300 Sailors and Military Sealift Command civil service mariners onboard, arrived in the Black Sea Feb. 4 to conduct scheduled maritime security operations. USS Taylor (FFG 50) will arrive in the Black Sea Feb. 5.

 

[mheslep]

...
...the fact that George W. Bush did absolutely nothing when Putin invaded Georgia in 2008, ...

When Russia invaded Georgia in the summer of 2008, incurring over a thousand Georgian casualties, the US made many repeated statements and actions emphasizing that Georgia was a sovereign state whose territory must be respected, that Georgia was not simply another Russian appendage, to include:

• Statement by the US UN Ambassador in the UN security council.

  "This is completely unacceptable and crosses a line," ..."The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone,"..."We must condemn Russia's military assault on the sovereign state of Georgia ... including the targeting of civilians and the campaign of terror against the Georgian population,"

• With Russia-US talks ongoing about missile defense to be installed in Poland, Gates said:

  “If Russia does not step back from its aggressive posture and actions in Georgia, the U.S.-Russian relationship could be adversely affected for years to come.”

• President gave multiple Rose Garden speeches strongly condemning the Russia invasion, also alluding to EU allies objections.
• Relief supplies were flown into Georgia via several US Navy and Airforce cargo plane flights.
• A small team of Pentagon officials went to Georgia during the invasion, was on the ground.
• "Cancelled outright" or withdrew from "several [cooperative US-Russia] military exercises that were to have included Russian forces."
• A US destroyer (USS McFaul) and three other US ships were dispatched to the Black Sea and docked or anchored off the port of Batumi, delivering tons of supplies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/world/europe/15policy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/10/un.georgia/
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=39317

 

[Naty1]

Peter Glover, Breitbart, 7 March 2014

"The reason [for Russia’s military intervention] is part of the Kremlin's long-term and officially stated (if you bother to look for it) great game: energy imperialism. That is, recovering Russia's global superpower status via the the chief weapon at its disposal: its oil and energy clout... The blueprint for all this was formally laid down in May 2009, when a Kremlin security document, approved and published by the Russian Security Council, explicitly sanctioned the use of military force in pursuit of the goal of returning Russia to "energy superpower" status..."

 

[Dotini]

What Bush did or didn't do in '08 means nothing. It was all empty gestures and wind, which were canceled when Hillary pushed her reset button.

Now, Kerry and Lavrov, Obama and Putin, have spent hours and hours on end negotiating. They seem agreeable except on one key point - the legitimacy of the revolutionary government in Kiev. So far, so good; except the clock is ticking on the Crimean referendum.

 

[mheslep]

What Bush did or didn't do in '08 means nothing. It was all empty gestures and wind, which were canceled when Hillary pushed her reset button.

US diplomacy/aid means nothing, or just diplomacy under Bush means nothing? In Georgia, or in Ukraine, or nowhere? What is the basis for that statement? Consider what Georgian leaders have said on the subject of US diplomacy.

 

[Dotini]

US diplomacy/aid means nothing, or just diplomacy under Bush means nothing? In Georgia, or in Ukraine, or nowhere? What is the basis for that statement? Consider what Georgian leaders have said on the subject of US diplomacy.

US diplomacy vis a vis Georgia was contained in a small box.
http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/iht093008.html

 

[Crazymechanic]

@Czcibor yes I know about the Tupolev that crashed in Russia , that was a polish government plane and it crashed while landing in Russia in kinda thick fog etc.
Ofcourse the first thing that came into my mind when I heard it was "KGB"
So many high ranking people who are enemies of the Kremlin on one plane.Also the plane was landed in a lonely military airfield and many other interesting facts.
But because of any lack of info that would point towards it , I would decline to speculate on such events.

And about the snipers , I never said I do believe there are some great conspiracies under them , I just laid down the cards and said who would most likely benefit from such actions and to whom those actions would be bad or unwanted.
Russia doesn't want to start the blooshed , it's not in their interssts , they just want to take their part and go through all of this with as little dead bodies as possible because tat would paint them in an even worse light in the internation media.

I mean it's like when you drive drunk and you get stopped by the police , now your already in trouble , what would you rather do? Try to communicate your way out of this somehow or with the smallest possible punishment or would you rather start to insult and beat the police officer then steal his car and then run over some pedestrians?

But just as I said , we will never know for sure.Even if someone kinda " helped" the plane to land the way it did , we will probably never know his name.

Even though I always am kinda skeptical to such accusitions but ofcourse one has to think baout all the possibillities and then judging by the evidence at hand choose the most plausible outcome.

 

[Crazymechanic]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


read this article , I must say when i saw it first I couldn't believe my eyes, never expected to see such an opinion on CNN.
Maybe their not that bad after all.

 

[Astronuc]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/putin-western-hypocrosy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


read this article , I must say when i saw it first I couldn't believe my eyes, never expected to see such an opinion on CNN.
Maybe their not that bad after all.

Yes, but from the Editor's note: "Simon Tisdall is assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the Observer and served as White House corespondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his."

There are some important differences between the Crimean situation and the campaigns of US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan - primarily, Russia appears ready to annex Crimea, whereas the US did not annex all or parts of Iraq or Afghanistan. Ukraine is not a threat to Russia, whereas elements of Iraq and Afghanistan were threatening the security of the US and other nations.

 

[voko]

Ukraine is not a threat to Russia

The Russian assumption is that the current Ukrainian regime will be inherently pro-Western and anti-Russian, quite possibly making Ukraine a Nato member. That is a serious threat (or so it is perceived in Moscow) to Russia's Black Sea fleet even if it fully relocates to Novorossiysk. The changing balance of power will undoubtedly affect Russia's politics in the nearby Caucasus region.

whereas elements of Iraq and Afghanistan were threatening the security of the US and other nations.

Of the US? In what way?

 

[DennisN]

The Russian assumption is that the current Ukrainian regime will be inherently pro-Western and anti-Russian, quite possibly making Ukraine a Nato member. That is a serious threat (or so it is perceived in Moscow) to Russia's Black Sea fleet even if it fully relocates to Novorossiysk. The changing balance of power will undoubtedly affect Russia's politics in the nearby Caucasus region.

And a political/economical "threat" too, I think;

Russia has been planning for the so-called Eurasian Union by 2015

and

Ukraine seeking observer status in Eurasian Economic Union - Yanukovych (Interfax Ukraine, 19 December 2013).

And my guess is Russia would very much like to have an Ukraine in the Eurasian Union in the future, rather than in the EU.

 

[mheslep]

NATO is an observably a defensive organization. That is, we know, the Kremlin knows, and everybody knows the Kremlin knows, that NATO does not offensively take over and fly its flag over other countries. For example, the now defunct missile installation project for Poland about which Russia gnashed its teeth was an ABM project, i.e. missile defense. The project never contained any notion of an offensive missile installation that might attack Russia.

NATO is only a threat to Russia in that NATO would obstruct Russian attempts to annex/invade/terrorize/subvert NATO member nations.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

When Russia invaded Georgia in the summer of 2008, incurring over a thousand Georgian casualties, the US made many repeated statements and actions emphasizing that Georgia was a sovereign state whose territory must be respected, that Georgia was not simply another Russian appendage, to include:

Maybe some misunderstanding, my point is that Sarah Palin (and the rightwing) is trying to blame Obama (besides bad weather) for what's happening in Ukraine, with maybe FOX/Palin making the "smartest" move of them all, by claiming that Obama was responsible for what happened 2008 in Georgia – by doing nothing. Besides this 'little' lie; Sarah Palin also "knew" way back in 2008 that Obama's "grandiose failure" in Georgia would lead to the 2014 Ukraine crisis.

Most folks know that GWB did less about Georgia than Obama has already done regarding Ukraine, where GWB's position basically was:

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."​

This makes the FOX/Palin claim just another "grandiose joke".

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Stephen Cohen on CNN GPS:

"We are two steps away from a Cuban missile crisis and three steps from war with Russia"​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03j9URLL3ns
http://www.youtube.com/embed/03j9URLL3ns

Well, if Russians only get this kind of information (the light version):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsX9OkSCNng
http://www.youtube.com/embed/zsX9OkSCNng

And this is to be solved by martial arts experts (with Russian oil in the hair):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl8rgWUgmR8
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nl8rgWUgmR8

Murphy's Law may still hold...

 

[SteamKing]

AFAIK, Sarah Palin didn't invade the Ukraine, and she didn't cause the government there to fall.

If you read mheslep's post #253, you will see that a number of things were done by the Bush Administration to signal its disagreement with Putin's actions in Georgia, including taking the rare step to send naval ships deep into the Black Sea to deliver supplies.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

AFAIK, Sarah Palin didn't invade the Ukraine, and she didn't cause the government there to fall.

Are you sure? She can see Russia from her house... [note: this is a joke]

If you read mheslep's post #253, you will see that a number of things were done by the Bush Administration to signal its disagreement with Putin's actions in Georgia, including taking the rare step to send naval ships deep into the Black Sea to deliver supplies.

Looks like we are talking past each other, this is the "logic":

• According to FOX/Palin, nothing was done about the 2008 Georgia crisis.
• According to FOX/Palin, the man responsible for this was Obama.
• We all know that GWB was President at the moment.
• Therefore the "nothingness" FOX/Palin is talking about falls back on GWB.

Do you get it??

Personally, I think Putin lives in an isolated bubble of "Yes Men" and super-hyped nationalism, and what has been done or not in the past will probably have very little influence on the decisions taken in this kind of 'atmosphere'. Perhaps...

 

[jim hardy]

It's admittedly "cool" in some circles to hammer Palin and Fox but it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[mheslep]

In the Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances treaty of 1994 the US and the UK pledged to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" so that Ukraine might rid itself of nuclear weapons. Given the light US response to the Russian incursion thus far, and the lack of popular support shown by "140310075746" in the US, it may be that the US should consider withdrawing from a treaty that carries far larger commitments: NATO. Article 5 is the signature part of NATO, stating "an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all". Thus a theoretical invasion of Poland or Finland obligates the US and others to war. NATO members visibly have relied on this agreement for decades.

If the US is, in fact, unlikely to make good on Article 5, should it not withdraw from the treaty now, thereby informing the like of Poland and Lithuanian that they need rely on themselves rather than depending on a possible fiction?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

If the US is, in fact, unlikely to make good on Article 5, should it not withdraw from the treaty now, thereby informing the like of Poland and Lithuanian that they need rely on themselves rather than depending on a possible fiction?

Yes, signed agreements are what they are... personally I think this can't be solved by military force, in any direction, without the risk of blowing the heads of us all in the end...

If Putin does not wake up from his little "La Belle au bois dormant" and realize that both Stalin and Communism is dead, the only way to get this in right direction is by stock markets and finance. The Russian export is approx 550 USD Billion and EU accounts for 53%.

Angela Merkel and EU just have to call Putin and tell him that the sweet days are over; we are going to find new and nicer friends to play with, and of course the Istanbul Strait and Øresund has to be closed until Putin behaves like the nice boy he really is (to ship oil meanwhile, he can drill a hole in the Murmansk ice).

I'm absolutely convinced that he will come crawling to "Mamma Merkel" for consolation and new business plans within a few days. Merkel and EU only have to show that they are serious about this (which Moscow & Putin don't believe at the moment).

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Viktor Yanukovych's luxury mansion Mezhyhirya (with "Gold Toilets" etc) is estimated to have cost more than $75 million U.S. dollars.

When Yanukovych fled the country, he didn't want anyone to get "the full excessive picture", so he dumped some 200 folders of documents in a lake behind the former residence. Sadly, the stubborn documents refused to sink and have been fished out and dried (with help from the presidential sauna).

The whole thing, 9504 documents, is now available on line at YanukovychLeaks.org, and among the papers are receipts for payment of $115,000 for a shooting range and $2.3m for a tea room.

Yanukovych will (probably) throw a great tea party for whole of Ukraine once he gets back...?

This man is a genius!

 

[SteamKing]

In the Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances treaty of 1994 the US and the UK pledged to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" so that Ukraine might rid itself of nuclear weapons. Given the light US response to the Russian incursion thus far, and the lack of popular support shown by "140310075746" in the US, it may be that the US should consider withdrawing from a treaty that carries far larger commitments: NATO. Article 5 is the signature part of NATO, stating "an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all". Thus a theoretical invasion of Poland or Finland obligates the US and others to war. NATO members visibly have relied on this agreement for decades.

If the US is, in fact, unlikely to make good on Article 5, should it not withdraw from the treaty now, thereby informing the like of Poland and Lithuanian that they need rely on themselves rather than depending on a possible fiction?

The Budapest Memorandums are not a 'treaty' between the U.S. or anyone else. In order for a treaty to have the force of law in the U.S., it must be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Memorandums are statements given to assure the Ukraine government that, among other things, the integrity of its borders would be protected in return for the Ukraine giving up the considerable nuclear weapons arsenal left within it after the USSR dissolved.

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

Starting with the Clinton administration and continuing into the Bush administration, it was felt that drafting a formal treaty with the Ukraine would not be worthwhile, since such a treaty would be unlikely to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The U.S., the U.K., and the Russian Federation agreed to the guarantee of the security of the Ukraine, but as a practical and political matter, there is little possibility of the U.S. and the U.K. intervening with military forces to stop Russia.

The memorandums were drafted before Putin came to power. After Putin came to power, he knew that both the Ukraine and Georgia had petitioned NATO for membership, or a least for a process to be considered for membership, which was deferred by a vote of NATO members in 2008. If the Ukraine or Georgia were admitted to NATO, either could claim Article 5 protection in case of attack. Since neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are NATO members, the Article 5 talk is moot.

IMO, this is one reason Putin moved against Georgia in 2008, not long after the NATO meetings that year: it was a rather obvious signal to the west that Putin would not tolerate having former Soviet republics become NATO members.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Budapest Memorandums are not a 'treaty' between the U.S. or anyone else. In order for a treaty to have the force of law in the U.S., it must be ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Memorandums are statements given to assure the Ukraine government that, among other things, the integrity of its borders would be protected in return for the Ukraine giving up the considerable nuclear weapons arsenal left within it after the USSR dissolved.

Someone needs to inform Iran!

()

 

[mheslep]

The Budapest Memorandums are not a 'treaty' between the U.S. or anyone else.

Thanks, you're right; that agreement was not a treaty in the legal sense you fairly describe.

The Memorandums are statements given to assure the Ukraine government that, among other things, the integrity of its borders would be protected in return for the Ukraine giving up the considerable nuclear weapons arsenal left within it after the USSR dissolved.

Right, and so far that assurance has been a fiction. If that assurance had not been given the Ukraine might still have hundreds of nuclear weapons.

...The U.S., the U.K., and the Russian Federation agreed to the guarantee of the security of the Ukraine,

Yes, so established.

... but as a practical and political matter, there is little possibility of the U.S. and the U.K. intervening with military forces to stop Russia.

There are numerous other actions besides a military attack that might thwart Russia*; furthermore I doubt military action would resolve anything in the best interest of Ukraine at this point. Russia is a state-actor; unlike non-state actors (terrorists), Russia has an economy and borders. It is sensitive to economic and border action.

The memorandums were drafted before Putin came to power. After Putin came to power, he knew that both the Ukraine and Georgia had petitioned NATO for membership, or a least for a process to be considered for membership, which was deferred by a vote of NATO members in 2008. If the Ukraine or Georgia were admitted to NATO, either could claim Article 5 protection in case of attack. Since neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are NATO members, the Article 5 talk is moot.

Yes Ukraine is not in NATO and that misses the point. Ukraine has called for action in regards to the assurance in the Memorandum. The failure to receive sufficient support, and general lack of interest by the US public, calls into question whether the A5 obligation would be met should NATO members be threatened by Russia, or whether for "practical and political" reasons A5 will also be ignored should the time come. I suspect the Poles, the Baltic states, and the Hungarians do not currently see discussions about A5 obligations to/for them as moot.

...it was a rather obvious signal to the west that Putin would not tolerate

So I agree that a "signal" from a powerful country should be taken into account for security planning. But it stops there. The world has seen many signals from thugs but such should have no bearing on the rights of peoples living near the Russian border.

...having former Soviet republics become NATO members.

Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania are all NATO members and former Soviet republics.

*
Former Georgia President Saakashvili

If Russia keeps up the heat on Crimea, Mr. Saakashvili says, then the West should hit the Putin circle with sanctions. "It would be the same" reaction as in Ukraine. "The last time I was in Miami, it was full of rich Russians. If you tell them you can no longer come here and you have to freeze in Moscow, then they will turn on Putin." Western governments have "much more leverage than they realize. They just need to apply it."

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Budapest Memorandums are not a 'treaty' between the U.S. or anyone else.

Right, and so far that assurance has been a fiction. If that assurance had not been given the Ukraine might still have hundreds of nuclear weapons.

The last thing any sane person on this globe wants is U.S. to engage in a military conflict with Russia. That would be the end of everything. Having that said; I must ask you guys what you think about this tricky situation.

Yes, the "paper" signed in 1994 does not stipulate any legal commitments regarding 'support' in a case of crisis, but it does obligate the signees to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine", which Russia has now broken, and in this case "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments".

Now, in 1991 Ukraine inherited the third-largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world from the Soviet Union, i.e. they had lot of "toys" like this:

They gave it all up for the Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances (and we can be pretty sure Putin would not have done what he did if these "toys" were still located in Ukraine).

If UK and U.S. in current situation says – "Hehe, tough luck sonny, this piece of paper is useless, it means nothing, it's fiction!" – how is UK and U.S. ever going to convince any other country to give up their nuclear weapons, or plans to get nuclear weapons, if they now see Ukraine in this situation, 'abandoned' by the signees?

Will there be anyone (like Iran) repeating Ukraine's mistake? Not likely huh?

It looks like UK and U.S. (and the rest of the civilized world) has to do everything they can – except military force – to help Ukraine, without hesitating...

There are numerous other actions besides a military attack that might thwart Russia*;

If Russia keeps up the heat on Crimea, Mr. Saakashvili says, then the West should hit the Putin circle with sanctions. "It would be the same" reaction as in Ukraine. "The last time I was in Miami, it was full of rich Russians. If you tell them you can no longer come here and you have to freeze in Moscow, then they will turn on Putin." Western governments have "much more leverage than they realize. They just need to apply it."

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Crazymechanic]

Toys or no toys , let's be honest here , all Russia needs and wants from Ukraine is either a pro Russian or neutral government.As long as Ukraine is neutral , I think Kremlin is fine.

I just can't understand some of the arguments put foward here , do you really think Putin is simple stupid or dreaming of Stalin? he amy have his preferances but he is not dumb , he wouldn't put his amry into Ukraine just for a few oil and gas deals , there is great western influence in Ukraine and some of the poeple in power are also not the nicest folks around , but somehow that skips the western media.

I'm not saying I agree with military intervention from either side but I'm also putting quite clearly that if everyone or someone thinks Ukraine has now gotten much much better leaders than the previous ones , well all I can say is " think twice" .
Also I can bet my whole money that Putin knows damn well what his doing and the possible sanctions and outcomes or his gains versus his drawbacks from this scenario have also been long before calculated.

I think poeple are taking this too easy and simplistic.They just think a little " Napoleon" wants to conquer some new territory , while getting new or maybe I should say old terrotorries back is a gain , it;'s definitely not the main one.
This whole thing sadly but true is not about what the people of Ukriane want it's about the US versus Russia influence war.Somewhere in the middle of all that are the real dreams and hopes of the middle class Ukrainian.

 

[lisab]

Toys or no toys , let's be honest here , all Russia needs and wants from Ukraine is either a pro Russian or neutral government.As long as Ukraine is neutral , I think Kremlin is fine.

I just can't understand some of the arguments put foward here , do you really think Putin is simple stupid or dreaming of Stalin? he amy have his preferances but he is not dumb , he wouldn't put his amry into Ukraine just for a few oil and gas deals , there is great western influence in Ukraine and some of the poeple in power are also not the nicest folks around , but somehow that skips the western media.

I'm not saying I agree with military intervention from either side but I'm also putting quite clearly that if everyone or someone thinks Ukraine has now gotten much much better leaders than the previous ones , well all I can say is " think twice" .
Also I can bet my whole money that Putin knows damn well what his doing and the possible sanctions and outcomes or his gains versus his drawbacks from this scenario have also been long before calculated.

I think poeple are taking this too easy and simplistic.They just think a little " Napoleon" wants to conquer some new territory , while getting new or maybe I should say old terrotorries back is a gain , it;'s definitely not the main one.
This whole thing sadly but true is not about what the people of Ukriane want it's about the US versus Russia influence war.Somewhere in the middle of all that are the real dreams and hopes of the middle class Ukrainian.

Good points. But I would suggest this is more EU vs Russia issue, than US vs Russia.

The world view that puts the CIA behind every blade of grass in the world, controlling how people think and what they do...it's a bit sophomoric, not to mention unrealistic, IMO. (Note - I'm NOT saying your post is like this -- but I've seen this world view in some people.)

 

[OmCheeto]

zip!

As I said before, my Rooski friend will say no more until after this is all over.

But every day, I tell him, after 5 minutes of listening to him; "Holy dermo, you need to write a book!"

 

[Crazymechanic]

Yes lisab there are definitely poeple who overestimate the role of the CIA and then there are poeple who deny their actions even those whoe are openly documented into the CIA's factbook, and then there are those who think the CIA is just another name for a hockey club...

Being a crackpot definitely isn't healthy but being wise means understanding the real influence of agendas and agencies around the world , being wise is the ability to distinguish between total fiction and madmans dreams and the reality which more or less is still influenced by people and agendas which are everything except democratic in their understanding and inner workings.

This is probably the biggest problem , also the reason why so many poeple get ridiculed and laughed at , everyone knows someone is doing something and something is not right but then there are a bunch of folks who just go on and say that " hey , Putin made a bomb , Osama took that bomb and gave it to Bush and Bush blew up the world trade center so that Silverstein could have 7 billion from insurance " (pun intended)

But just because many or some of them get totally nuts on this matter doesn't mean their assertion that CIA or other organizations and intelligence agencies haven't tried or carried out foreign affairs that include government overthrowns via secretly trained rebels , is not true , it is.

We just have to look closely and then we can tell fact from fiction.

There is a saying that the only thing the devil really wants is for everyone to think his not real, now we can't prove this about the devil but many people use this method to keep themselves operational and under the radar.Also this has been a part of Russian and soviet propoganda for many decades.The very storytelling that if someone went missing for anti communist actions , nothing bad could have probably happened to him , rather than being somewhere in a secret prison he just went missing into the local forest with his dog.

 

[Czcibor]

Toys or no toys , let's be honest here , all Russia needs and wants from Ukraine is either a pro Russian or neutral government.As long as Ukraine is neutral , I think Kremlin is fine.

Maybe. Or maybe after vassalizing Ukraine it would look for next targets. If West does nothing why should he stop?

I just can't understand some of the arguments put foward here , do you really think Putin is simple stupid or dreaming of Stalin?

I wouldn't express it so brutally but:
-it seems that he just effectively sacrificed influences in Ukraine to annex Crimean peninsula instead (which looks like a serious error)
-Stalin would be a bit too strong, but good old fashion XIXth century imperialist - yes

Tusk (Polish prime minister) tries to build a coalition to make natural gas purchase a part of common EU policy. If he succeed instead of dealing weak single states, Russia would have to negotiate gas prices with the EU. That could be interesting. (and if it works I think that calling Putin "stupid" would be fully justifiable)

I'm not saying I agree with military intervention from either side but I'm also putting quite clearly that if everyone or someone thinks Ukraine has now gotten much much better leaders than the previous ones , well all I can say is " think twice" .

What makes you think so? Do you think that they would too order to shoot to protesters?

Also I can bet my whole money that Putin knows damn well what his doing and the possible sanctions and outcomes or his gains versus his drawbacks from this scenario have also been long before calculated.
I think poeple are taking this too easy and simplistic.They just think a little " Napoleon" wants to conquer some new territory , while getting new or maybe I should say old terrotorries back is a gain , it;'s definitely not the main one.

Maybe or maybe not. The invasion could have been a reaction on unexpected downfall of Yanukovych. I wouldn't be surprised if his calculation were indeed different - fear. Fear that if Ukrainians can overthrow a corrupted despot, the same thing can happen next time in Russia. So fighting it (even if from international policy it does not look profitable) would be the only way.

This whole thing sadly but true is not about what the people of Ukriane want it's about the US versus Russia influence war.Somewhere in the middle of all that are the real dreams and hopes of the middle class Ukrainian.

Their dream is becoming country like those they see in the west (low corruption, functioning democracy, open borders, affluence), which effectively means joining the EU.

 

[Crazymechanic]

I must say Czcibor that you stand on a perfektionists position.

What makes you think so? Do you think that they would too order to shoot to protesters?

Yes I do think they would if necessary or use other means better or more suitable for that particular case.
There is an old but simple rule which takes into account human psychology.It goes something like this " Those who are in power have done , are doing and will do everything possible to keep that power in their hands as long as possible and with various different means at their disposal"

The only thing that changes are the methods used by different governments which differ because the mentality of the poeple living in different parts around the world also differs.But the basic need or rush towards control , influence and power is the same around the world , want proof? Look at history.

In the past 100 or more years US hasn't seen any serious uprising or protest against the government except the uprising of black poeple back in 1960's and some others, definitely not one like in Ukraine or elsewere, but ask yourself the question , what would the orders be to the US secret service and security organizations and agencies if there would happen a sudden large scale mass protest against the White house with americans , atleast some radical groups from various parts of the US together vandalizing and storming the streets of Washington DC? What do you honestly think , what would say Obama do?
Would he just hand out free healtcare to eac of the protesters , give them money and resign himself and his whole staff and then go fishing in Canada? Or would he rather...

 

[Czcibor]

I must say Czcibor that you stand on a perfektionists position.

You are presumably the first person in my life who said so. Thanks :D
Perfectionist? Or maybe saw Russian mending a few times too many in my country and would prefer to choose to defend Ukrainian freedom instead of risking to have soon to fight for my own country? Or maybe in geopolitical game there is simply risk of loosing all credibility if giving up without all fight?

It was not a rhetoric question: if West do nothing, why Putin should not try occupying next country soon?

Yes I do think they would if necessary or use other means better or more suitable for that particular case.
There is an old but simple rule which takes into account human psychology.It goes something like this " Those who are in power have done , are doing and will do everything possible to keep that power in their hands as long as possible and with various different means at their disposal"

The only thing that changes are the methods used by different governments which differ because the mentality of the poeple living in different parts around the world also differs.But the basic need or rush towards control , influence and power is the same around the world , want proof? Look at history.

In the past 100 or more years US hasn't seen any serious uprising or protest against the government except the uprising of black poeple back in 1960's and some others, definitely not one like in Ukraine or elsewere, but ask yourself the question , what would the orders be to the US secret service and security organizations and agencies if there would happen a sudden large scale mass protest against the White house with americans , atleast some radical groups from various parts of the US together vandalizing and storming the streets of Washington DC? What do you honestly think , what would say Obama do?
Would he just hand out free healtcare to eac of the protesters , give them money and resign himself and his whole staff and then go fishing in Canada? Or would he rather...

Honestly? What orders would be given after masses become aware of such rampant corruption and abuses of power?
-Quickly pack baggages
-Load some civilian looking helicopter
-Pray that military units during rebelling would be somewhat disorganized what would prevent them from intercepting that helicopter