United States: Russia directly involved in battles in Ukraine

[1776]

shitstain....when did NATO attack the USSR/Russia????

Please tell nutjob....

hmmm, so the EU grants tariff relief to help Ukraine export to the EU, while at the same time delaying Ukranian consumers cheaper access to EU imports, which will keep them buying inferior and more expensive Russian stuff. And the loss of exports to Ukraine was one of Russia's reasons for unhappiness.

EU delays entry into force of free trade pact with Ukraine - Yahoo News

In a nutshell, imo that's always been one central basis for the conflict. Yes, Putin regrets Russia's loss of Ukraine as a puppet state, but even more so the loss of the portions of what are now eastern Ukraine, but which were at one time Russian, until the Soviets coupled them to Ukraine. But, more centrally Putin's Russia does not operate with a free flow of capital, and championed by Thatcher and Reagan. It's economy cannot compete with the west in terms of efficient production, and Russia is left with its petro products and tying them to also accepting defective Russian commerce.

Let's also not forget that Putin doesn't want to be surrounded by NATO.

Yes, "surrounded" was hyperbole. But there's no doubt Putin sees Nato as a threat, but the question is why. He's not insane. Nato has no interest in a war with Russia, or to take any Russian territory. There's no reason to think that Putin is not believing himself when he says the greatest calamity of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin invaded Georgia and Moldova prior to the Ukraine. It's nonsensical to argue that Putin's involvement in the Ukraine is because he perceives Nato as some military threat.

Further, it would require thinking he is unbalanced to reason that he seeks former satellite territories as a buffer against another conventional attack on Russia, as Napoleon and Hitler mounted.

Some suggest that Putin's real goal is to be president for life, and that may be, but imo it under estimates his legitimate concern for his country. And it is the trade pact. It's not Nato. What Putin can't have is former soviet satellites right on his border having the economic progress of places like Poland, the Czech Rep and Slovokia. Putin runs Russia as his personal bank. There are oligarchs who survive at his will. There's no way that kind of economy can compete with a freely capitalist economy. Having that right on his border would do two things: first, there's no way inferior Russian goods will compete in an import market, and second it's not in his personal interest of surviving for Russians to decide they'd like that kind of economy too. But, even that may be underestimating his real patriotic concerns. It may be that he really does not think Russia can be anymore than a UK or France economically.

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

 

[1776]

You read uneducated pontificating blowhards like yourself, while I read what is really going on inside the war zone and Crimea....

hmmm, so the EU grants tariff relief to help Ukraine export to the EU, while at the same time delaying Ukranian consumers cheaper access to EU imports, which will keep them buying inferior and more expensive Russian stuff. And the loss of exports to Ukraine was one of Russia's reasons for unhappiness.

EU delays entry into force of free trade pact with Ukraine - Yahoo News

In a nutshell, imo that's always been one central basis for the conflict. Yes, Putin regrets Russia's loss of Ukraine as a puppet state, but even more so the loss of the portions of what are now eastern Ukraine, but which were at one time Russian, until the Soviets coupled them to Ukraine. But, more centrally Putin's Russia does not operate with a free flow of capital, and championed by Thatcher and Reagan. It's economy cannot compete with the west in terms of efficient production, and Russia is left with its petro products and tying them to also accepting defective Russian commerce.

Let's also not forget that Putin doesn't want to be surrounded by NATO.

Yes, "surrounded" was hyperbole. But there's no doubt Putin sees Nato as a threat, but the question is why. He's not insane. Nato has no interest in a war with Russia, or to take any Russian territory. There's no reason to think that Putin is not believing himself when he says the greatest calamity of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin invaded Georgia and Moldova prior to the Ukraine. It's nonsensical to argue that Putin's involvement in the Ukraine is because he perceives Nato as some military threat.

Further, it would require thinking he is unbalanced to reason that he seeks former satellite territories as a buffer against another conventional attack on Russia, as Napoleon and Hitler mounted.

Some suggest that Putin's real goal is to be president for life, and that may be, but imo it under estimates his legitimate concern for his country. And it is the trade pact. It's not Nato. What Putin can't have is former soviet satellites right on his border having the economic progress of places like Poland, the Czech Rep and Slovokia. Putin runs Russia as his personal bank. There are oligarchs who survive at his will. There's no way that kind of economy can compete with a freely capitalist economy. Having that right on his border would do two things: first, there's no way inferior Russian goods will compete in an import market, and second it's not in his personal interest of surviving for Russians to decide they'd like that kind of economy too. But, even that may be underestimating his real patriotic concerns. It may be that he really does not think Russia can be anymore than a UK or France economically.

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

Lots of speculation that can't be backed up along with big doses of generic Russian propaganda.

And what am I supposed to make of the complete absence of specifics with your claims?

Regardless, this essay is quite good on the subject.
John J. Mearsheimer How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis Foreign Affairs

 

[Stratford57]

And what am I supposed to make of the complete absence of specifics with your claims?

Regardless, this essay is quite good on the subject.
John J. Mearsheimer How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis Foreign Affairs

Kevin, there are certain sort of people who would never hear you no matter what kind of arguments you present. Hopeless cases...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And what am I supposed to make of the complete absence of specifics with your claims?

Regardless, this essay is quite good on the subject.
John J. Mearsheimer How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis Foreign Affairs

Kevin, there are certain sort of people who would never hear you no matter what kind of arguments you present. Hopeless cases...

Yes, boring people.

 

[B. Kidd]

And what am I supposed to make of the complete absence of specifics with your claims?

Regardless, this essay is quite good on the subject.
John J. Mearsheimer How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis Foreign Affairs

Kevin, there are certain sort of people who would never hear you no matter what kind of arguments you present. Hopeless cases...

Yes, boring people.

You guys are too polite. They are, in reality, 'Cold War-Whores'.

 

[Camp]

And what am I supposed to make of the complete absence of specifics with your claims?

Regardless, this essay is quite good on the subject.
John J. Mearsheimer How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis Foreign Affairs

Kevin, there are certain sort of people who would never hear you no matter what kind of arguments you present. Hopeless cases...

Yes, boring people.

You guys are too polite. They are, in reality, 'Cold War-Whores'.

Right, so without any intellectual means of promoting the Putin agenda, just go ahead and resort to name calling. But some of us fought that Cold War and some of us have interest in Ukraine. You know, like family and friends.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And what am I supposed to make of the complete absence of specifics with your claims?

Regardless, this essay is quite good on the subject.
John J. Mearsheimer How the West Caused the Ukraine Crisis Foreign Affairs

Kevin, there are certain sort of people who would never hear you no matter what kind of arguments you present. Hopeless cases...

Yes, boring people.

You guys are too polite. They are, in reality, 'Cold War-Whores'.

Right, so without any intellectual means of promoting the Putin agenda, just go ahead and resort to name calling. But some of us fought that Cold War and some of us have interest in Ukraine. You know, like family and friends.

Right, so calling me a propagandist without adding anything to the actual discussion is the height of intellectualism. Nailed it.

 

[Camp]

hmmm, so the EU grants tariff relief to help Ukraine export to the EU, while at the same time delaying Ukranian consumers cheaper access to EU imports, which will keep them buying inferior and more expensive Russian stuff. And the loss of exports to Ukraine was one of Russia's reasons for unhappiness.

EU delays entry into force of free trade pact with Ukraine - Yahoo News

In a nutshell, imo that's always been one central basis for the conflict. Yes, Putin regrets Russia's loss of Ukraine as a puppet state, but even more so the loss of the portions of what are now eastern Ukraine, but which were at one time Russian, until the Soviets coupled them to Ukraine. But, more centrally Putin's Russia does not operate with a free flow of capital, and championed by Thatcher and Reagan. It's economy cannot compete with the west in terms of efficient production, and Russia is left with its petro products and tying them to also accepting defective Russian commerce.

Let's also not forget that Putin doesn't want to be surrounded by NATO.

Yes, "surrounded" was hyperbole. But there's no doubt Putin sees Nato as a threat, but the question is why. He's not insane. Nato has no interest in a war with Russia, or to take any Russian territory. There's no reason to think that Putin is not believing himself when he says the greatest calamity of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin invaded Georgia and Moldova prior to the Ukraine. It's nonsensical to argue that Putin's involvement in the Ukraine is because he perceives Nato as some military threat.

Further, it would require thinking he is unbalanced to reason that he seeks former satellite territories as a buffer against another conventional attack on Russia, as Napoleon and Hitler mounted.

Some suggest that Putin's real goal is to be president for life, and that may be, but imo it under estimates his legitimate concern for his country. And it is the trade pact. It's not Nato. What Putin can't have is former soviet satellites right on his border having the economic progress of places like Poland, the Czech Rep and Slovokia. Putin runs Russia as his personal bank. There are oligarchs who survive at his will. There's no way that kind of economy can compete with a freely capitalist economy. Having that right on his border would do two things: first, there's no way inferior Russian goods will compete in an import market, and second it's not in his personal interest of surviving for Russians to decide they'd like that kind of economy too. But, even that may be underestimating his real patriotic concerns. It may be that he really does not think Russia can be anymore than a UK or France economically.

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

You are promoting the idea that the US and EU helped to overthrow the government when in fact what the US and EU did was react to a situation created by Ukraine citizens. The Russians have promoted the idea that their actions are related to NATO expansion, but that occurred over a decade ago without this kind of reaction from Russia. You are speculating with "what if's" to shape an analysis and conclusions based on speculations and ignoring actual facts.
There is no justification for Russia to use it's military to annex the portions of Ukraine it wants. If you want to ignore the fact that the portion they want is the industrial heartland of Ukraine that produces a huge portion of Russia's military hardware and brings in billions of dollars in exports, you are free to do so. But those are not speculations, those are facts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

hmmm, so the EU grants tariff relief to help Ukraine export to the EU, while at the same time delaying Ukranian consumers cheaper access to EU imports, which will keep them buying inferior and more expensive Russian stuff. And the loss of exports to Ukraine was one of Russia's reasons for unhappiness.

EU delays entry into force of free trade pact with Ukraine - Yahoo News

In a nutshell, imo that's always been one central basis for the conflict. Yes, Putin regrets Russia's loss of Ukraine as a puppet state, but even more so the loss of the portions of what are now eastern Ukraine, but which were at one time Russian, until the Soviets coupled them to Ukraine. But, more centrally Putin's Russia does not operate with a free flow of capital, and championed by Thatcher and Reagan. It's economy cannot compete with the west in terms of efficient production, and Russia is left with its petro products and tying them to also accepting defective Russian commerce.

Let's also not forget that Putin doesn't want to be surrounded by NATO.

Yes, "surrounded" was hyperbole. But there's no doubt Putin sees Nato as a threat, but the question is why. He's not insane. Nato has no interest in a war with Russia, or to take any Russian territory. There's no reason to think that Putin is not believing himself when he says the greatest calamity of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin invaded Georgia and Moldova prior to the Ukraine. It's nonsensical to argue that Putin's involvement in the Ukraine is because he perceives Nato as some military threat.

Further, it would require thinking he is unbalanced to reason that he seeks former satellite territories as a buffer against another conventional attack on Russia, as Napoleon and Hitler mounted.

Some suggest that Putin's real goal is to be president for life, and that may be, but imo it under estimates his legitimate concern for his country. And it is the trade pact. It's not Nato. What Putin can't have is former soviet satellites right on his border having the economic progress of places like Poland, the Czech Rep and Slovokia. Putin runs Russia as his personal bank. There are oligarchs who survive at his will. There's no way that kind of economy can compete with a freely capitalist economy. Having that right on his border would do two things: first, there's no way inferior Russian goods will compete in an import market, and second it's not in his personal interest of surviving for Russians to decide they'd like that kind of economy too. But, even that may be underestimating his real patriotic concerns. It may be that he really does not think Russia can be anymore than a UK or France economically.

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

You are promoting the idea that the US and EU helped to overthrow the government when in fact what the US and EU did was react to a situation created by Ukraine citizens. The Russians have promoted the idea that their actions are related to NATO expansion, but that occurred over a decade ago without this kind of reaction from Russia. You are speculating with "what if's" to shape an analysis and conclusions based on speculations and ignoring actual facts.
There is no justification for Russia to use it's military to annex the portions of Ukraine it wants. If you want to ignore the fact that the portion they want is the industrial heartland of Ukraine that produces a huge portion of Russia's military hardware and brings in billions of dollars in exports, you are free to do so. But those are not speculations, those are facts.

They didn't simply react, they aided one group in overthrowing the Ukrainian government, and I suppose we're simply supposed to ignore the fact that in doing so they helped themselves by helping to install a government with more pro-western sympathies. Pretending they're a disinterested third party is nonsense. As for Russia, nobody is trying to portray them as disinterested. I've clearly stated on many occasions that the Ukrainian government that was overthrown was a Russian puppet, and nobody denies that Putin has many interests in the Ukraine. My point has only ever been that trying to portray Putin as some kind of imperialist while completely ignoring the role the west played in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, an imperialist move, and in deliberately provoking Putin by doing so is ridiculous. As for why NATO expansion is different this time, it's because it's right on Putin's doorstep and because it's been building to this.

 

[Camp]

hmmm, so the EU grants tariff relief to help Ukraine export to the EU, while at the same time delaying Ukranian consumers cheaper access to EU imports, which will keep them buying inferior and more expensive Russian stuff. And the loss of exports to Ukraine was one of Russia's reasons for unhappiness.

EU delays entry into force of free trade pact with Ukraine - Yahoo News

In a nutshell, imo that's always been one central basis for the conflict. Yes, Putin regrets Russia's loss of Ukraine as a puppet state, but even more so the loss of the portions of what are now eastern Ukraine, but which were at one time Russian, until the Soviets coupled them to Ukraine. But, more centrally Putin's Russia does not operate with a free flow of capital, and championed by Thatcher and Reagan. It's economy cannot compete with the west in terms of efficient production, and Russia is left with its petro products and tying them to also accepting defective Russian commerce.

Let's also not forget that Putin doesn't want to be surrounded by NATO.

Yes, "surrounded" was hyperbole. But there's no doubt Putin sees Nato as a threat, but the question is why. He's not insane. Nato has no interest in a war with Russia, or to take any Russian territory. There's no reason to think that Putin is not believing himself when he says the greatest calamity of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin invaded Georgia and Moldova prior to the Ukraine. It's nonsensical to argue that Putin's involvement in the Ukraine is because he perceives Nato as some military threat.

Further, it would require thinking he is unbalanced to reason that he seeks former satellite territories as a buffer against another conventional attack on Russia, as Napoleon and Hitler mounted.

Some suggest that Putin's real goal is to be president for life, and that may be, but imo it under estimates his legitimate concern for his country. And it is the trade pact. It's not Nato. What Putin can't have is former soviet satellites right on his border having the economic progress of places like Poland, the Czech Rep and Slovokia. Putin runs Russia as his personal bank. There are oligarchs who survive at his will. There's no way that kind of economy can compete with a freely capitalist economy. Having that right on his border would do two things: first, there's no way inferior Russian goods will compete in an import market, and second it's not in his personal interest of surviving for Russians to decide they'd like that kind of economy too. But, even that may be underestimating his real patriotic concerns. It may be that he really does not think Russia can be anymore than a UK or France economically.

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

You are promoting the idea that the US and EU helped to overthrow the government when in fact what the US and EU did was react to a situation created by Ukraine citizens. The Russians have promoted the idea that their actions are related to NATO expansion, but that occurred over a decade ago without this kind of reaction from Russia. You are speculating with "what if's" to shape an analysis and conclusions based on speculations and ignoring actual facts.
There is no justification for Russia to use it's military to annex the portions of Ukraine it wants. If you want to ignore the fact that the portion they want is the industrial heartland of Ukraine that produces a huge portion of Russia's military hardware and brings in billions of dollars in exports, you are free to do so. But those are not speculations, those are facts.

They didn't simply react, they aided one group in overthrowing the Ukrainian government, and I suppose we're simply supposed to ignore the fact that in doing so they helped themselves by helping to install a government with more pro-western sympathies. Pretending they're a disinterested third party is nonsense. As for Russia, nobody is trying to portray them as disinterested. I've clearly stated on many occasions that the Ukrainian government that was overthrown was a Russian puppet, and nobody denies that Putin has many interests in the Ukraine. My point has only ever been that trying to portray Putin as some kind of imperialist while completely ignoring the role the west played in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, an imperialist move, and in deliberately provoking Putin by doing so is ridiculous. As for why NATO expansion is different this time, it's because it's right on Putin's doorstep and because it's been building to this.

Your views seem balanced and well thought out. I do not however think you have a true or accurate grasp of the feelings of the Ukrainian people in regards to the replacement of the government in Kyiv and how they feel today. There was no way they would accept dumping the EU for the Russian deal. Some wanted to go EU all the way and some wanted to see a balance of combining agreements with both, but few wanted to go RU all the way. Even today, annexation to Russia is not desired by anyone other than the extremist along the border with Russia.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let's also not forget that Putin doesn't want to be surrounded by NATO.

Yes, "surrounded" was hyperbole. But there's no doubt Putin sees Nato as a threat, but the question is why. He's not insane. Nato has no interest in a war with Russia, or to take any Russian territory. There's no reason to think that Putin is not believing himself when he says the greatest calamity of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin invaded Georgia and Moldova prior to the Ukraine. It's nonsensical to argue that Putin's involvement in the Ukraine is because he perceives Nato as some military threat.

Further, it would require thinking he is unbalanced to reason that he seeks former satellite territories as a buffer against another conventional attack on Russia, as Napoleon and Hitler mounted.

Some suggest that Putin's real goal is to be president for life, and that may be, but imo it under estimates his legitimate concern for his country. And it is the trade pact. It's not Nato. What Putin can't have is former soviet satellites right on his border having the economic progress of places like Poland, the Czech Rep and Slovokia. Putin runs Russia as his personal bank. There are oligarchs who survive at his will. There's no way that kind of economy can compete with a freely capitalist economy. Having that right on his border would do two things: first, there's no way inferior Russian goods will compete in an import market, and second it's not in his personal interest of surviving for Russians to decide they'd like that kind of economy too. But, even that may be underestimating his real patriotic concerns. It may be that he really does not think Russia can be anymore than a UK or France economically.

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

You are promoting the idea that the US and EU helped to overthrow the government when in fact what the US and EU did was react to a situation created by Ukraine citizens. The Russians have promoted the idea that their actions are related to NATO expansion, but that occurred over a decade ago without this kind of reaction from Russia. You are speculating with "what if's" to shape an analysis and conclusions based on speculations and ignoring actual facts.
There is no justification for Russia to use it's military to annex the portions of Ukraine it wants. If you want to ignore the fact that the portion they want is the industrial heartland of Ukraine that produces a huge portion of Russia's military hardware and brings in billions of dollars in exports, you are free to do so. But those are not speculations, those are facts.

They didn't simply react, they aided one group in overthrowing the Ukrainian government, and I suppose we're simply supposed to ignore the fact that in doing so they helped themselves by helping to install a government with more pro-western sympathies. Pretending they're a disinterested third party is nonsense. As for Russia, nobody is trying to portray them as disinterested. I've clearly stated on many occasions that the Ukrainian government that was overthrown was a Russian puppet, and nobody denies that Putin has many interests in the Ukraine. My point has only ever been that trying to portray Putin as some kind of imperialist while completely ignoring the role the west played in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, an imperialist move, and in deliberately provoking Putin by doing so is ridiculous. As for why NATO expansion is different this time, it's because it's right on Putin's doorstep and because it's been building to this.

Your views seem balanced and well thought out. I do not however think you have a true or accurate grasp of the feelings of the Ukrainian people in regards to the replacement of the government in Kyiv and how they feel today. There was no way they would accept dumping the EU for the Russian deal. Some wanted to go EU all the way and some wanted to see a balance of combining agreements with both, but few wanted to go RU all the way. Even today, annexation to Russia is not desired by anyone other than the extremist along the border with Russia.

According to who?

 

[Camp]

Yes, "surrounded" was hyperbole. But there's no doubt Putin sees Nato as a threat, but the question is why. He's not insane. Nato has no interest in a war with Russia, or to take any Russian territory. There's no reason to think that Putin is not believing himself when he says the greatest calamity of the 20th century was the breakup of the Soviet Union. Putin invaded Georgia and Moldova prior to the Ukraine. It's nonsensical to argue that Putin's involvement in the Ukraine is because he perceives Nato as some military threat.

Further, it would require thinking he is unbalanced to reason that he seeks former satellite territories as a buffer against another conventional attack on Russia, as Napoleon and Hitler mounted.

Some suggest that Putin's real goal is to be president for life, and that may be, but imo it under estimates his legitimate concern for his country. And it is the trade pact. It's not Nato. What Putin can't have is former soviet satellites right on his border having the economic progress of places like Poland, the Czech Rep and Slovokia. Putin runs Russia as his personal bank. There are oligarchs who survive at his will. There's no way that kind of economy can compete with a freely capitalist economy. Having that right on his border would do two things: first, there's no way inferior Russian goods will compete in an import market, and second it's not in his personal interest of surviving for Russians to decide they'd like that kind of economy too. But, even that may be underestimating his real patriotic concerns. It may be that he really does not think Russia can be anymore than a UK or France economically.

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

You are promoting the idea that the US and EU helped to overthrow the government when in fact what the US and EU did was react to a situation created by Ukraine citizens. The Russians have promoted the idea that their actions are related to NATO expansion, but that occurred over a decade ago without this kind of reaction from Russia. You are speculating with "what if's" to shape an analysis and conclusions based on speculations and ignoring actual facts.
There is no justification for Russia to use it's military to annex the portions of Ukraine it wants. If you want to ignore the fact that the portion they want is the industrial heartland of Ukraine that produces a huge portion of Russia's military hardware and brings in billions of dollars in exports, you are free to do so. But those are not speculations, those are facts.

They didn't simply react, they aided one group in overthrowing the Ukrainian government, and I suppose we're simply supposed to ignore the fact that in doing so they helped themselves by helping to install a government with more pro-western sympathies. Pretending they're a disinterested third party is nonsense. As for Russia, nobody is trying to portray them as disinterested. I've clearly stated on many occasions that the Ukrainian government that was overthrown was a Russian puppet, and nobody denies that Putin has many interests in the Ukraine. My point has only ever been that trying to portray Putin as some kind of imperialist while completely ignoring the role the west played in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, an imperialist move, and in deliberately provoking Putin by doing so is ridiculous. As for why NATO expansion is different this time, it's because it's right on Putin's doorstep and because it's been building to this.

Your views seem balanced and well thought out. I do not however think you have a true or accurate grasp of the feelings of the Ukrainian people in regards to the replacement of the government in Kyiv and how they feel today. There was no way they would accept dumping the EU for the Russian deal. Some wanted to go EU all the way and some wanted to see a balance of combining agreements with both, but few wanted to go RU all the way. Even today, annexation to Russia is not desired by anyone other than the extremist along the border with Russia.

According to who?

What part of my comment do you question?

 

[Decus]

Back in 2005 Putin expressed his feelings for end of the USSR:

"“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory."

Soviet collapse a tragedy Putin says - World news NBC News

Three years later he invaded Georgia. He has now invaded Ukraine and most recently he has threatened Kazakhstan.

NATO is a minor annoyance for Putin and nothing more. What Putin wants is to reestablish the influence Russia enjoyed under the old system.

Putin is a KGB alumni that longs for the good old days. You can try to put lipstick on this pig, but he's still a pig.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

You are promoting the idea that the US and EU helped to overthrow the government when in fact what the US and EU did was react to a situation created by Ukraine citizens. The Russians have promoted the idea that their actions are related to NATO expansion, but that occurred over a decade ago without this kind of reaction from Russia. You are speculating with "what if's" to shape an analysis and conclusions based on speculations and ignoring actual facts.
There is no justification for Russia to use it's military to annex the portions of Ukraine it wants. If you want to ignore the fact that the portion they want is the industrial heartland of Ukraine that produces a huge portion of Russia's military hardware and brings in billions of dollars in exports, you are free to do so. But those are not speculations, those are facts.

They didn't simply react, they aided one group in overthrowing the Ukrainian government, and I suppose we're simply supposed to ignore the fact that in doing so they helped themselves by helping to install a government with more pro-western sympathies. Pretending they're a disinterested third party is nonsense. As for Russia, nobody is trying to portray them as disinterested. I've clearly stated on many occasions that the Ukrainian government that was overthrown was a Russian puppet, and nobody denies that Putin has many interests in the Ukraine. My point has only ever been that trying to portray Putin as some kind of imperialist while completely ignoring the role the west played in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, an imperialist move, and in deliberately provoking Putin by doing so is ridiculous. As for why NATO expansion is different this time, it's because it's right on Putin's doorstep and because it's been building to this.

Your views seem balanced and well thought out. I do not however think you have a true or accurate grasp of the feelings of the Ukrainian people in regards to the replacement of the government in Kyiv and how they feel today. There was no way they would accept dumping the EU for the Russian deal. Some wanted to go EU all the way and some wanted to see a balance of combining agreements with both, but few wanted to go RU all the way. Even today, annexation to Russia is not desired by anyone other than the extremist along the border with Russia.

According to who?

What part of my comment do you question?

That nobody would prefer closer ties with Russia than with the EU, that a minority want to be a part of Russia rather than the Ukraine, etc... It seems to me there was a fairly conclusive vote that took place in Crimea on the subject that said the opposite. You can say it was a sham vote, which it may have been, but I'm not inclined to take the word of the U.S. or E.U. on the subject anymore than I am to take Russia's word. So unless an actual disinterested party has done some sort of conclusive polling I can't see how any of your claims regarding what the people want are anything more than your speculations.

 

[Camp]

You are promoting the idea that the US and EU helped to overthrow the government when in fact what the US and EU did was react to a situation created by Ukraine citizens. The Russians have promoted the idea that their actions are related to NATO expansion, but that occurred over a decade ago without this kind of reaction from Russia. You are speculating with "what if's" to shape an analysis and conclusions based on speculations and ignoring actual facts.
There is no justification for Russia to use it's military to annex the portions of Ukraine it wants. If you want to ignore the fact that the portion they want is the industrial heartland of Ukraine that produces a huge portion of Russia's military hardware and brings in billions of dollars in exports, you are free to do so. But those are not speculations, those are facts.

They didn't simply react, they aided one group in overthrowing the Ukrainian government, and I suppose we're simply supposed to ignore the fact that in doing so they helped themselves by helping to install a government with more pro-western sympathies. Pretending they're a disinterested third party is nonsense. As for Russia, nobody is trying to portray them as disinterested. I've clearly stated on many occasions that the Ukrainian government that was overthrown was a Russian puppet, and nobody denies that Putin has many interests in the Ukraine. My point has only ever been that trying to portray Putin as some kind of imperialist while completely ignoring the role the west played in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, an imperialist move, and in deliberately provoking Putin by doing so is ridiculous. As for why NATO expansion is different this time, it's because it's right on Putin's doorstep and because it's been building to this.

Your views seem balanced and well thought out. I do not however think you have a true or accurate grasp of the feelings of the Ukrainian people in regards to the replacement of the government in Kyiv and how they feel today. There was no way they would accept dumping the EU for the Russian deal. Some wanted to go EU all the way and some wanted to see a balance of combining agreements with both, but few wanted to go RU all the way. Even today, annexation to Russia is not desired by anyone other than the extremist along the border with Russia.

According to who?

What part of my comment do you question?

That nobody would prefer closer ties with Russia than with the EU, that a minority want to be a part of Russia rather than the Ukraine, etc... It seems to me there was a fairly conclusive vote that took place in Crimea on the subject that said the opposite. You can say it was a sham vote, which it may have been, but I'm not inclined to take the word of the U.S. or E.U. on the subject anymore than I am to take Russia's word. So unless an actual disinterested party has done some sort of conclusive polling I can't see how any of your claims regarding what the people want are anything more than your speculations.

Crimea is not the same as all the eastern Oblast of Ukraine. The vote in Crimea has never been recognized as a legitimate election. The ballots didn't even give a clear choice. It was in fact a sham election.
I do not know a single Russian speaking Ukrainian that wanted or wants to be annexed to Ru. Not one.

 

[bendog]

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.[/QUOTE]

That's absurd Kevin. Nato is hardly neocon. WTF would anyone want with Russia. They have carbon energy and a third world economy. It's a basket case. And that's the point. Putin simply cannot afford to have tiger economies on his doorstep.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They didn't simply react, they aided one group in overthrowing the Ukrainian government, and I suppose we're simply supposed to ignore the fact that in doing so they helped themselves by helping to install a government with more pro-western sympathies. Pretending they're a disinterested third party is nonsense. As for Russia, nobody is trying to portray them as disinterested. I've clearly stated on many occasions that the Ukrainian government that was overthrown was a Russian puppet, and nobody denies that Putin has many interests in the Ukraine. My point has only ever been that trying to portray Putin as some kind of imperialist while completely ignoring the role the west played in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, an imperialist move, and in deliberately provoking Putin by doing so is ridiculous. As for why NATO expansion is different this time, it's because it's right on Putin's doorstep and because it's been building to this.

Your views seem balanced and well thought out. I do not however think you have a true or accurate grasp of the feelings of the Ukrainian people in regards to the replacement of the government in Kyiv and how they feel today. There was no way they would accept dumping the EU for the Russian deal. Some wanted to go EU all the way and some wanted to see a balance of combining agreements with both, but few wanted to go RU all the way. Even today, annexation to Russia is not desired by anyone other than the extremist along the border with Russia.

According to who?

What part of my comment do you question?

That nobody would prefer closer ties with Russia than with the EU, that a minority want to be a part of Russia rather than the Ukraine, etc... It seems to me there was a fairly conclusive vote that took place in Crimea on the subject that said the opposite. You can say it was a sham vote, which it may have been, but I'm not inclined to take the word of the U.S. or E.U. on the subject anymore than I am to take Russia's word. So unless an actual disinterested party has done some sort of conclusive polling I can't see how any of your claims regarding what the people want are anything more than your speculations.

Crimea is not the same as all the eastern Oblast of Ukraine. The vote in Crimea has never been recognized as a legitimate election. The ballots didn't even give a clear choice. It was in fact a sham election.
I do not know a single Russian speaking Ukrainian that wanted or wants to be annexed to Ru. Not one.

No, it's not, but I'm still not seeing any independent polling backing up your claim. You can say the vote hasn't been recognized, but it hasn't been recognized by who? The west. Not a disinterested party in this situation, so not a reliable source. That would be like me saying that Russia says it was a legitimate vote as if it were a legitimate argument. So you don't know any, that's nice anecdotal evidence but hardly compelling.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why wouldn't Putin see NATO as a military threat? Here you have an organization that is chock full of governments that are ready, willing, and able to depose governments that they dislike for little or imagined offenses. Given the rhetoric towards Putin from the U.S. government I'd say it'd be perfectly reasonable for Putin to be wary of having NATO on his doorstep, the same way the U.S. would be if Russia setup a military alliance with Mexico. It's a perfectly rational fear.

You also have to keep in mind that the U.S. and E.U. just helped overthrow Putin's puppet-government in the Ukraine. Now you could point out that Putin has no right to a puppet-government in the Ukraine, which is true, but how would the U.S. react if Putin overthrew their puppet-government in Iraq, for example? With hostility, the same way Putin reacted when it was done to him.

The simple fact is that the U.S. and E.U. deliberately decided to provoke Putin knowing what his response would be.

That's absurd Kevin. Nato is hardly neocon. WTF would anyone want with Russia. They have carbon energy and a third world economy. It's a basket case. And that's the point. Putin simply cannot afford to have tiger economies on his doorstep.[/QUOTE]
What would anybody want with Iraq? It was even worse off than Russia is now, but that didn't stop the U.S. and others from overthrowing Saddam. Why would the U.S. want Putin out of power in Russia and replaced with a more compliant government? The question answers itself.

 

[Stratford57]

I do not know a single Russian speaking Ukrainian that wanted or wants to be annexed to Ru. Not one.

About 70 to 80% of SE Ukraine can't wait to "be annexed" by Russia, FYI. And it's more than 15 million people. I am so sick and tired from discussions about Ukraine by people who see its situations with the eyes of Western or Ukrainian media (they are singing the same song and misinforming their listeners). And besides half a country does NOT want any association with EU. Last year the people wanted to have a referendum about it, but it was never allowed (probably the results were too obvious).

 

[Camp]

You are promoting the idea that the US and EU helped to overthrow the government when in fact what the US and EU did was react to a situation created by Ukraine citizens. The Russians have promoted the idea that their actions are related to NATO expansion, but that occurred over a decade ago without this kind of reaction from Russia. You are speculating with "what if's" to shape an analysis and conclusions based on speculations and ignoring actual facts.
There is no justification for Russia to use it's military to annex the portions of Ukraine it wants. If you want to ignore the fact that the portion they want is the industrial heartland of Ukraine that produces a huge portion of Russia's military hardware and brings in billions of dollars in exports, you are free to do so. But those are not speculations, those are facts.

They didn't simply react, they aided one group in overthrowing the Ukrainian government, and I suppose we're simply supposed to ignore the fact that in doing so they helped themselves by helping to install a government with more pro-western sympathies. Pretending they're a disinterested third party is nonsense. As for Russia, nobody is trying to portray them as disinterested. I've clearly stated on many occasions that the Ukrainian government that was overthrown was a Russian puppet, and nobody denies that Putin has many interests in the Ukraine. My point has only ever been that trying to portray Putin as some kind of imperialist while completely ignoring the role the west played in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government, an imperialist move, and in deliberately provoking Putin by doing so is ridiculous. As for why NATO expansion is different this time, it's because it's right on Putin's doorstep and because it's been building to this.

Your views seem balanced and well thought out. I do not however think you have a true or accurate grasp of the feelings of the Ukrainian people in regards to the replacement of the government in Kyiv and how they feel today. There was no way they would accept dumping the EU for the Russian deal. Some wanted to go EU all the way and some wanted to see a balance of combining agreements with both, but few wanted to go RU all the way. Even today, annexation to Russia is not desired by anyone other than the extremist along the border with Russia.

According to who?

What part of my comment do you question?

That nobody would prefer closer ties with Russia than with the EU, that a minority want to be a part of Russia rather than the Ukraine, etc... It seems to me there was a fairly conclusive vote that took place in Crimea on the subject that said the opposite. You can say it was a sham vote, which it may have been, but I'm not inclined to take the word of the U.S. or E.U. on the subject anymore than I am to take Russia's word. So unless an actual disinterested party has done some sort of conclusive polling I can't see how any of your claims regarding what the people want are anything more than your speculations.

un.org/News/Press/docs/2014/ga11493.doc.htm

bbc.com/news/world-europe-26776416