World Politics

[Von Mises]

And now something completley different.

- Russian propaganda has started to push new line: western-ukrainians are not actually slavic people, but celts and jews.

- For instance, lets start rename and reinvent things. Russians have always learned that old state, what formed in 9th century around Kiev is called "Киевская Русь" (Kievan Rus). New doctrine is to rename this historical state as "Древнерусское государство" (Old-Russia state). Clear message to ukrainians, it is not and never have been your land.

- THough it may seem schizophrenic to call ukrainians nazis in one sentence and and jews in another sentence, it is actually perfectly normal for Kremilin orwellian doublespeak world view.

- Like it was perefectly normal for Putin to deny Russian military involvment in Crimea and decorate Russain military for their operations in Crimea. Both events can be find in Kremlins official webpages, so if these Kremlin webpages are not controlled by CIA (note to python) or are not controled by richest 200 families (note to Foxxy, then it is real Putin.

- Crimeas new boss Sergey Aksonov (Putin named as fovernor two days ago) said that Obama´s place is in Moscow zoo in cage with monkeys. Also, if you read Aksonov twitter, he frequently calls his opponents fags.

- Aksonov also praised Russian national-bloshevik partys meeting in Moscow, where nat-bols were demanding land from Latvia https://twitter.com/SergAksenov/status/456053750571237376

- National-bolshevik is Rusian political group, whos official flag looks like this. What does it remind?

- One of the founders of nat-bols was Alexander Dugin. 20 years ago Dugin was obscure figure, but now he is Putin´s favourite thinker. He serves as advisor for Sergey Naryshkin - Naryshkin is speaker of Russian parliament, Putin´s close ally.

- Here is Naryshkin meeting with Le Pen in Moscow. No wonder that merry bunch from Le Pen to Griffin are all closely in Putin´s camp.
http://imrussia.org/images/stories/Russia_and_the_World/Far-Right_Friends/lepen-naryshkin.jpg

- Another Putin´s ally Vladimir Zhirinovsky called that Russia, Poland and Romania can divide Ukraine. Zhironovskys plan is simple: we take as much as we want and if anything left, Poland and Romania can take leftovers. Well, reminds Hitler-Stalin 1939 pact to divide eastern Europe.

- Another Duma member praised few days ago Hitler for anchluss...


Roadmap is forming.

 

[hrotha]

You mix many good points with others that are, quite frankly, silly, and that undermines your post (for example, the National-Bolshevik flag; also, I think Aksonov's account was a fake). I'd suggest trimming it down, because some of the factual information there is really important, and it'd be a shame if people would dismish it straight away because of the fluff.

Also, do you have any links on the Kievan Rus' thing? I find it hard to believe.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I'm wondering what the US foreign policy goal is by getting Brennan (CIA chief flew to Kyiv 24 hours before this military action!) to incite a civil war. Ukraine is a vital transit point between Europe and Asia, and as Zbigniew Brzinski has stated, policy is to control such strategic assets and prevent their use by rising powers (Russia fits that today). But having the CIA start a civil war does not achieve that.

Why? Quick history review: Russia's defense against conquest relies on a defense in depth. If an invading army starts in Georgia or in Poland, it's a very short push to Moscow. In world war 2, Russia expended 8 million soldiers to prevent that from happening and they still almost failed. Ukraine is much more than a foreign policy asset of the US... If NATO is positioned in Ukraine, north of the Dneister then it is only a couple hundred kilometers away from Moscow and Russia has no possible chance of survival from an invading army.

Therefore, the end result of CIA's coup and civil war will be an invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Any other action would be insane from Russia's point of view. First, ethnic Russians would be slaughtered in a civil war. Secondly, there would be an insurgency funded by the US within a half day's drive and/or a week's march from Moscow. Russia would simply have no choice but to put a third of their infantry into Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

The US government knows this, so how does this benefit them? Sure they get propaganda to demonize Putin, but Russian invasion ultimately stabilizes Eastern Ukraine and puts it firmly into Russian hands. The Kievan Rus would become part of Russia again.

Unless... the US is willing to go to war over this strategic asset. And that would be insane. Likely leading to the use of tactical nukes in Europe, shortly followed by ICBM's landing in Seattle.

John Swanson

 

[rhubroma]

I'm wondering what the US foreign policy goal is by getting Brennan (CIA chief flew to Kyiv 24 hours before this military action!) to incite a civil war. Ukraine is a vital transit point between Europe and Asia, and as Zbigniew Brzinski has stated, policy is to control such strategic assets and prevent their use by rising powers (Russia fits that today). But having the CIA start a civil war does not achieve that.

Why? Quick history review: Russia's defense against conquest relies on a defense in depth. If an invading army starts in Georgia or in Poland, it's a very short push to Moscow. In world war 2, Russia expended 8 million soldiers to prevent that from happening and they still almost failed. Ukraine is much more than a foreign policy asset of the US... If NATO is positioned in Ukraine, north of the Dneister then it is only a couple hundred kilometers away from Moscow and Russia has no possible chance of survival from an invading army.

Therefore, the end result of CIA's coup and civil war will be an invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Any other action would be insane from Russia's point of view. First, ethnic Russians would be slaughtered in a civil war. Secondly, there would be an insurgency funded by the US within a half day's drive and/or a week's march from Moscow. Russia would simply have no choice but to put a third of their infantry into Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

The US government knows this, so how does this benefit them? Sure they get propaganda to demonize Putin, but Russian invasion ultimately stabilizes Eastern Ukraine and puts it firmly into Russian hands. The Kievan Rus would become part of Russia again.

Unless... the US is willing to go to war over this strategic asset. And that would be insane. Likely leading to the use of tactical nukes in Europe, shortly followed by ICBM's landing in Seattle.

John Swanson

Valid questions. Between Blutto's article and your post my thought is that when the financial apparatus needs its pound of flesh, the recourse to getting it is more tenacious and desperate than a crack addict.

 

[python]

I'm wondering what the US foreign policy goal is by getting Brennan (CIA chief flew to Kyiv 24 hours before this military action!) to incite a civil war. Ukraine is a vital transit point between Europe and Asia, and as Zbigniew Brzinski has stated, policy is to control such strategic assets and prevent their use by rising powers (Russia fits that today). But having the CIA start a civil war does not achieve that.

Why? Quick history review: Russia's defense against conquest relies on a defense in depth. If an invading army starts in Georgia or in Poland, it's a very short push to Moscow. In world war 2, Russia expended 8 million soldiers to prevent that from happening and they still almost failed. Ukraine is much more than a foreign policy asset of the US... If NATO is positioned in Ukraine, north of the Dneister then it is only a couple hundred kilometers away from Moscow and Russia has no possible chance of survival from an invading army.

Therefore, the end result of CIA's coup and civil war will be an invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Any other action would be insane from Russia's point of view. First, ethnic Russians would be slaughtered in a civil war. Secondly, there would be an insurgency funded by the US within a half day's drive and/or a week's march from Moscow. Russia would simply have no choice but to put a third of their infantry into Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

The US government knows this, so how does this benefit them? Sure they get propaganda to demonize Putin, but Russian invasion ultimately stabilizes Eastern Ukraine and puts it firmly into Russian hands. The Kievan Rus would become part of Russia again.

Unless... the US is willing to go to war over this strategic asset. And that would be insane. Likely leading to the use of tactical nukes in Europe, shortly followed by ICBM's landing in Seattle.

John Swanson

good post, john. but every single point you made has been discussed here to death...i have come a conclusion long ago - almost regardless of who is the president in the us - when they consider themselves superior by right (freeer, more democratic and more such nonesense...), their foreign policy is bound to be arrogant.


add to the mix the real strengths of america - a huge military force and the enormous economic-financial sway, and you get the prevailing political reality.

a situation where the best brains of the nation are elsewhere but its foreign office.

 

[hrotha]

The US government knows this, so how does this benefit them?

After getting to this idea by analyzing the data, wouldn't you say it just points towards the US not being the ones who are instigating a civil war?

For all the talk about US imperialism, the only country here that has moved troops onto another one is Russia.

 

[ToreBear]

Since this thread is over 1000 pages long, and you guys seem to have a clear picture: for an (offline) discussion I'm having with someone, I am looking for a reliable source/news article that gives a clear picture on how the US funded the putch. Would be grateful if you could give me one. Thanks.

To save you some time. There is none. These are theories that have been supported and disseminated from Russian sources attempting to destabilize Ukraine, as well as those inclined to believe America is behind everything.

If you want some factual information, read the UN report released on april. 15.:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47584&Cr=Ukraine&Cr1=

Ukraine: UN rights office urges halt to propaganda, incitement to hatred

The next report should be issued by the Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU), around 15 May and will examine in greater depth the situation in eastern Ukraine.

Read the full article in the link.

The Russians have called this report biased. This is usually what the Israelis say about UN reports as well, so I'll just assume that it is neutral and the Russians and Israelis don't like reports affecting their interests being Neutral.

As for the idea of this being a Facist putch: Ill paste this from the reports page 6:

16. On 21 February, President Yanukovych and opposition leaders signed a compromise agreement setting out elections by the end of the year and a return to the 2004 Constitution. On the same day, the Ukrainian Parliament reinstated the 2004 Constitution. After President Yanukovych’s departure from Kyiv, on 22 February, the Parliament decided that he had “withdrawn from performing constitutional authorities” and decided to hold presidential elections on 25 May1. In the meantime, Parliament elected Mr Oleksandr Turchynov as Speaker and thus acting President of Ukraine. A new Government was formed on 26 February.

footnote:
After long discussions mediated by EU foreign representatives, President Yanukovych stated on 21 February that he had reached a deal with the opposition which would “settle the crisis”. On 22 February 2014, 328 of 447 members of the Ukrainian parliament (MPs) voted to "remove Viktor Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine" on the grounds that he was unable to fulfill his duties] and to hold early presidential elections on 25 May. The vote came an hour after Mr. Yanukovych stated in a televised address that he would not resign. He subsequently declared himself as "the legitimate head of the Ukrainian state elected through a free vote by Ukrainian citizens. However, later that day he fled the capital for Kharkiv, then travelled to Crimea, and eventually to southern Russia.

Basicly the agreement on reinstating the 2004 constitution was reached on 21/2. The legally elected and representative parliament reinstated the 2004 constitution.

The next day Yanukovych left Kiev, I think without carrying out his duty to sign the reinstated constitution which he had previously agreed to.

Hence the parliament voted to remove him from office, and appoint the next in line to the job of acting president.

In my country this process of removing the head of government would happen through a vote of no confidence.

So calling this a putch is rather silly.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

After getting to this idea by analyzing the data, wouldn't you say it just points towards the US not being the ones who are instigating a civil war?

For all the talk about US imperialism, the only country here that has moved troops onto another one is Russia.

Then what did their $5 billion in meddling buy them? And what was Brennan doing in Kyiv mere hours before this military action started?

My guess is that US strategy at this point is to start a civil war and basically put another Afghanistan on Russia's doorstep. Something that will be protracted and will sap Russia of strength, resources, and morale - preventing the rise of a regional power. In that case, expect untold billions of dollars worth of western armaments to flood the Ukraine.

Very, very risky as it could quickly escalate to a regional (Turkey, Georgia et al) and then world war.

John Swanson

 

[ToreBear]

I'm wondering what the US foreign policy goal is by getting Brennan (CIA chief flew to Kyiv 24 hours before this military action!) to incite a civil war. Ukraine is a vital transit point between Europe and Asia, and as Zbigniew Brzinski has stated, policy is to control such strategic assets and prevent their use by rising powers (Russia fits that today). But having the CIA start a civil war does not achieve that.

Why? Quick history review: Russia's defense against conquest relies on a defense in depth. If an invading army starts in Georgia or in Poland, it's a very short push to Moscow. In world war 2, Russia expended 8 million soldiers to prevent that from happening and they still almost failed. Ukraine is much more than a foreign policy asset of the US... If NATO is positioned in Ukraine, north of the Dneister then it is only a couple hundred kilometers away from Moscow and Russia has no possible chance of survival from an invading army.

Therefore, the end result of CIA's coup and civil war will be an invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Any other action would be insane from Russia's point of view. First, ethnic Russians would be slaughtered in a civil war. Secondly, there would be an insurgency funded by the US within a half day's drive and/or a week's march from Moscow. Russia would simply have no choice but to put a third of their infantry into Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

The US government knows this, so how does this benefit them? Sure they get propaganda to demonize Putin, but Russian invasion ultimately stabilizes Eastern Ukraine and puts it firmly into Russian hands. The Kievan Rus would become part of Russia again.

Unless... the US is willing to go to war over this strategic asset. And that would be insane. Likely leading to the use of tactical nukes in Europe, shortly followed by ICBM's landing in Seattle.

John Swanson

It is in fact quite normal that the CIA chief visits foreign countries. Usually it's just a footnote in the paper, but the Russian media have attached huge significance to it.

If you notice on the ground, there is no sign of any violent hard handed clamp down. They are in fact behaving very measured and careful.

 

[ToreBear]

Then what did their $5 billion in meddling buy them? And what was Brennan doing in Kyiv mere hours before this military action started?

My guess is that US strategy at this point is to start a civil war and basically put another Afghanistan on Russia's doorstep. Something that will be protracted and will sap Russia of strength, resources, and morale - preventing the rise of a regional power. In that case, expect untold billions of dollars worth of western armaments to flood the Ukraine.

Very, very risky as it could quickly escalate to a regional (Turkey, Georgia et al) and then world war.

John Swanson

Psst. The ones who usually want a Civil war(or the perception of one) are the Russians. That is so they can send in "Peace keepers" to "keep the peace". They don't want the UN involved because then they would have to be real peace keepers. This has been standard Policy since the 1990s. What it does is freeze the situation on the ground, and allow Russia to veto any issues within the country. See Moldova for an example. Or perhaps Armenia etc.

 

[python]

Then what did their $5 billion in meddling buy them? And what was Brennan doing in Kyiv mere hours before this military action started?

dont be silly the 5 us bills was for a recipy of american tasting ukrainian borshch. the cia head visited to taste the borshch..

we'll find out soon if the russian borshch for obama tasted any better.

back to mcdonalds type brilliancy in the american foreign office

 

[python]

john, so you know, the sudden defender of ukraine is a fanboy from another thread that has pushed in the faces one discredited argument - his compatriots in one winter sport dont and could not have doped. keep in mind the fanboy metality.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Ah cool, so you do indeed have a reliable source for this $5 million?

 

[hrotha]

Ah cool, so you do indeed have a reliable source for this $5 million?

IIRC that was the money the US had invested in Ukrainian NGOs since its independence.

 

[python]

how many times the newland's own reference in her own voice she never denied, the ref to the 5 billion needs to be posted so that you listen it once

 

[rhubroma]

After getting to this idea by analyzing the data, wouldn't you say it just points towards the US not being the ones who are instigating a civil war?

For all the talk about US imperialism, the only country here that has moved troops onto another one is Russia.

We've been down this road before, Hothra, US imperialism doesn't have to rely upon overt means of conquest. In fact it is often less about (though by no means exclusively) sending in troops than about arming, less about spreading democracy, then about "regime change," less about free-market liberalism, than about controlling markets, or else at least determining where such control should not reside. And it doesn't need to land grab, when it can simply conquer under the aegis of "market growth" and "economic expansion."

A civil war in the Ukraine is risky business, but it does provide the US with a perfect opportunity for partisan support to contain Russian power in the region a là Afghanistan.

As disagreeable as Putin is to me, Russia has been left with no alternative but to prevent a territory so vital to its own economic and strategic interests from becoming absorbed within the NATO order.

On the other hand what other choice has the uber indebted, finance addicted US economy had but to create another indebted region to its Wall Street lending banks? What other choice does the US superpower have but to prevent a Eurasian alliance from which the long tentacles of its financial and military apparatus are excluded? What other choice does the US have but to prevent the nodal point of that alliance form coming under the control of Moscow in Ukraine. What other choice is there, ultimately, but preventing Western decline, as the axis of hegemony ineluctably shifts from the West to Central and Far Asia?

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

IIRC that was the money the US had invested in Ukrainian NGOs since its independence.

Indeed, but I want to convince a friend of mine of this in a discussion we're having, but I can't find a source for this anywhere.

how many times the newland's own reference in her own voice she never denied, the ref to the 5 billion needs to be posted so that you listen it once

I guess I must be just too stupid to understand this sentence...

 

[ToreBear]

We've been down this road before, Hothra, US imperialism doesn't have to rely upon overt means of conquest. In fact it is often less about (though by no means exclusively) sending in troops than about arming, less about spreading democracy, then about "regime change," less about free-market liberalism, than about controlling markets, or else at least determining where such control should not reside. And it doesn't need to land grab, when it can simply conquer under the aegis of "market growth" and "economic expansion."

A civil war in the Ukraine is risky business, but it does provide the US with a perfect opportunity for partisan support to contain Russian power in the region a là Afghanistan.

As disagreeable as Putin is to me, Russia has been left with no alternative but to prevent a territory so vital to its own economic and strategic interests from becoming absorbed within the NATO order.

On the other hand what other choice has the uber indebted, finance addicted US economy had but to create another indebted region to its Wall Street lending banks? What other choice does the US superpower have but to prevent a Eurasian alliance from which the long tentacles of its financial and military apparatus are excluded? What other choice does the US have but to prevent the nodal point of that alliance form coming under the control of Moscow in Ukraine. What other choice is there, ultimately, but preventing Western decline, as the axis of hegemony ineluctably shifts from the West to Central and Far Asia?

As a citizen of a country neighboring Russia I resent the idea that Russia has some special right to determine our choices. They do not. If they don't want for example Ukraine to join NATO(which is not on the cards at this time), perhaps they should assure Ukraine they will respect it's sovereignty.

Annexing Crimea probably did the opposite.

There are many countries that would not want the Ukraine to be forced into a Eurasian alliance. I think all of Russias neighbours to the west for example. Russia is seen as a threat to their security, and the more citizens it contains the bigger the threat.

As someone of the left wing persuasion of the political spectrum, I understand the skepticism towards the US, but I think it has to be within reason.

As for wanting a civil war, where do you think those refugees from this civil war would end up? They would probably go west and into the EU. How can it be in the US interest to create a future burden for it's allies?

Italy is as I understand it not all that pleased with all the boat refugees arriving on it's shores.

 

[rhubroma]

As a citizen of a country neighboring Russia I resent the idea that Russia has some special right to determine our choices. They do not. If they don't want for example Ukraine to join NATO(which is not on the cards at this time), perhaps they should assure Ukraine they will respect it's sovereignty.

Annexing Crimea probably did the opposite.

There are many countries that would not want the Ukraine to be forced into a Eurasian alliance. I think all of Russias neighbours to the west for example. Russia is seen as a threat to their security, and the more citizens it contains the bigger the threat.

As someone of the left wing persuasion of the political spectrum, I understand the skepticism towards the US, but I think it has to be within reason.

As for wanting a civil war, where do you think those refugees from this civil war would end up? They would probably go west and into the EU. How can it be in the US interest to create a future burden for it's allies?

Italy is as I understand it not all that pleased with all the boat refugees arriving on it's shores.

In fact I thought I was being reasoned in that objectively one can't deny the Russian ties to the Crimea in particular, and as far as it's immediate energy interests go, Ukraine in general. While at the same time I recognized that the US has its interests to maintain its global hegemony, for which a stenghtening of Russia's position and the entire Eurasian zone is contrary to them.

Where did I go wrong?

At the same time I don't deny that there are those in the region who frown upon the idea of a Ukraine within the Eurasian alliance, rather than NATO, the EU or the West in general. However, as far as I can tell, the voices in favor aren't being heard this side of the former Iron Curtain.

And here is where the US voice and interests eclipse, in an very undemocratic fashion, what has been spoken though muted. If the US expects Putin to behave more democratically, then at least the voices in opposition to its officially undisclosed interests should be allowed to be heard through Washington's filters.

As far as the US and its allies go, frankly I don't think it gives a damn about refugees in Europe since it has been pushing the EU to open up to Ukraine for the reasons already stated way up thread.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

...

Valid questions. Between Blutto's article and your post my thought is that when the financial apparatus needs its pound of flesh, the recourse to getting it is more tenacious and desperate than a crack addict.

Or, IOW, there is no doubt the crazy USA imperialists would risk a ICBM war. What an irony that the black messias, the peace noble prize winner, the man whom 50.000 morons in Berlin cheered for before he was elected (I guess even germans never learn. The last time they cheered en masse for a messias was the day my grandma was young), will be responsible...
They tried it before, only some down to earth diplomats prevented the di.ckheads from doing it.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Psst. The ones who usually want a Civil war(or the perception of one) are the Russians. That is so they can send in "Peace keepers" to "keep the peace". They don't want the UN involved because then they would have to be real peace keepers. This has been standard Policy since the 1990s. What it does is freeze the situation on the ground, and allow Russia to veto any issues within the country. See Moldova for an example. Or perhaps Armenia etc.

You are one of a kind. Twisting reality by 180 degrees. It was the US that implemented the shock and awe doctrine under Jelzin (Russia is slowly recovering, thus certainly not on an expensive imperialistic path to search for new free markets like the US imperialists do; they just defend themselves), it was the US who tried it now twice to overtake the Ukraine, it was/is the US that captures countless countries in the name of their so-called freedom & democracy.
WTF, where have you been, it is all discussed lengthly here with sources from "both sides of the fence".

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

We've been down this road before, Hothra, US imperialism doesn't have to rely upon overt means of conquest. In fact it is often less about (though by no means exclusively) sending in troops than about arming, less about spreading democracy, then about "regime change," less about free-market liberalism, than about controlling markets, or else at least determining where such control should not reside. And it doesn't need to land grab, when it can simply conquer under the aegis of "market growth" and "economic expansion."

A civil war in the Ukraine is risky business, but it does provide the US with a perfect opportunity for partisan support to contain Russian power in the region a là Afghanistan.

As disagreeable as Putin is to me, Russia has been left with no alternative but to prevent a territory so vital to its own economic and strategic interests from becoming absorbed within the NATO order.

On the other hand what other choice has the uber indebted, finance addicted US economy had but to create another indebted region to its Wall Street lending banks? What other choice does the US superpower have but to prevent a Eurasian alliance from which the long tentacles of its financial and military apparatus are excluded? What other choice does the US have but to prevent the nodal point of that alliance form coming under the control of Moscow in Ukraine. What other choice is there, ultimately, but preventing Western decline, as the axis of hegemony ineluctably shifts from the West to Central and Far Asia?

Great summary of the true reasons, which we discussed here endlessly. I applaud for your patience to repeat the important things, so that the newbies with their absurd posts get an idea what is really going on...

 

[ToreBear]

In fact I thought I was being reasoned in that objectively one can't deny the Russian ties to the Crimea in particular, and as far as it's immediate energy interests go, Ukraine in general. While at the same time I recognized that the US has its interests to maintain its global hegemony, for which a stenghtening of Russia's position and the entire Eurasian zone is contrary to them.

Where did I go wrong?

At the same time I don't deny that there are those in the region who frown upon the idea of a Ukraine within the Eurasian alliance, rather than NATO, the EU or the West in general. However, as far as I can tell, the voices in favor aren't being heard this side of the former Iron Curtain.

And here is where the US voice and interests eclipse, in an very undemocratic fashion, what has been spoken though muted. If the US expects Putin to behave more democratically, then at least the voices in opposition to its officially undisclosed interests should be allowed to be heard through Washington's filters.

As far as the US and its allies go, frankly I don't think it gives a damn about refugees in Europe since it has been pushing the EU to open up to Ukraine for the reasons already stated way up thread.

You are as far as I can see arguing that Ukraine should be left to the Russian sphere of influence, and that "the west" had no business there. This is something I feel strongly against. I think Ukraine should be allowed to choose it's own path.

As for this talk of imperialism. I don't think its conductive to understand this situation in regards to US imperialism. As for hegemony, Ukraine is not part of this hegemony. It is in this situation Russia which is the imperialist.

Instead of focusing on isms and zero sum games to explain US policies I think viewing each case as an individual case is much better.

 

[ToreBear]

You are one of a kind. Twisting reality by 180 degrees. It was the US that implemented the shock and awe doctrine under Jelzin (Russia is slowly recovering, thus certainly not on an expensive imperialistic path to search for new free markets like the US imperialists do; they just defend themselves), it was the US who tried it now twice to overtake the Ukraine, it was/is the US that captures countless countries in the name of their so-called freedom & democracy.
WTF, where have you been, it is all discussed lengthly here with sources from "both sides of the fence".

Shoch and awe under Jeltsin. What?

Russia recovering. From what?

How are the Russians defending themselves by invading Crimea?
Why are 40 000 soldiers in full combat readiness on the Russian side of the Ukrainian border?

How has the US tried to overtake Ukraine?

Do you view the Orange revolution as some American plot? Does the people of Ukraine not have free will, so that they are so easily manipulated by the US?

Did the US shoot over a hundred people, abduct and torture people up until february 22?

How is the US capturing countries? Is Norway occupied? Germany? what?

The discussion here has turned into something that in my view is not based in reality, but of a fictional reality.

If I didn't jump into correct things before, it might be that I took time to study the situation.

I suspect we have a very different understanding of how the world works. So I think it would be easier to understand the assumptions you make.

Perhaps the first two points which you seem to assume is something generally known and accepted might be a good place to start?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

OMG!!

As a citizen of a country neighboring Russia I resent the idea that Russia has some special right to determine our choices. They do not. If they don't want for example Ukraine to join NATO(which is not on the cards at this time), perhaps they should assure Ukraine they will respect it's sovereignty.

They did respect Ukraine all the time, while the western imperialists had their evil plans growing:
It was quiet until the EU pressured Ukraine to sign the arrangemnt with the EU. Then the putsch started. Plus, quietly behind the curtains, the US financed Ukraine putschists since long ago (havn´t the correct date on hand now). So long that they tried it twice now.

Annexing Crimea probably did the opposite.

"Great" job by "our" MSM. Your brain has been washed successful:
No matter how often it´s repeated in the press; this was not an annexation. It was referendum by the people (other than the putsch in Kiev).

There are many countries that would not want the Ukraine to be forced into a Eurasian alliance. I think all of Russias neighbours to the west for example. Russia is seen as a threat to their security, and the more citizens it contains the bigger the threat.

No one is forced....
A force is when EU taxpayers have to pay for the expansion of non elected EU burecrats who work in the name of big business solely.
Of course it´s a threat to them (the EU/US) if Russia deals with their people. IMHO, that´s their phucking right!
No one has to fear Russia. They are not the ones wanting to implement ICBM defense systems next to their doorsteps to get indefeasible

As someone of the left wing persuasion of the political spectrum, I understand the skepticism towards the US, but I think it has to be within reason.

A pseudo leftie, maybe...
Reasons are explained, linked and elucidated endlessly, here and elsewhere. What you need more?

As for wanting a civil war, where do you think those refugees from this civil war would end up? They would probably go west and into the EU. How can it be in the US interest to create a future burden for it's allies?

You know what? The US and EU don´t phucking care, as long markets expand. No matter how big the costs... They depend on the german taxpayers. They always did it, they always will. But one day it will be enough, and all those gangsters in the EU are send to hell (not by me; hope when the time comes I can watch from a beach TV with a Pinacolada in one hand, and a beauty in the other). Germans can live a long time with pressure, but when it explodes, it does in a big big bang....

Italy is as I understand it not all that pleased with all the boat refugees arriving on it's shores.

No single hard working person in europe is happy to pay the bills for those who started the fires in Bruxles, Washington and Berlin...
But as I said the politic puppets don´t care.