Disaster for Ukraine. Rebels route Ukrainian forces at Donetsk

[dystopian]

Perhaps a pre-emptive strike before Ukraine fell into the clutches of the EU? Putin cannot have a EU country on his doorstep it's as simple as that.

Unacceptable. It doesn't matter what he "can" or "cannot" have; it is unjustified and a blatant violation of international law. It's as simple as that.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Do you think you are gaining any credibility by not addressing what was duly documented while labeling it as "bullshit"? Why do you not provide counter documentation (rather than your mere opinions) to justify your labeling?

No, I am just tired of bullshit certain individuals are constantly spewing.

Your reply certainly does not provide an explanation as to how you evaluated Dystopian's argumentation supported by the documentation he provided , as "bullshit". Your reply being an illustration of circular thinking.

 

[4321lynx]

Perhaps a pre-emptive strike before Ukraine fell into the clutches of the EU? Putin cannot have a EU country on his doorstep it's as simple as that.

Unacceptable. It doesn't matter what he "can" or "cannot" have; it is unjustified and a blatant violation of international law. It's as simple as that.

Agreed. Kind of like the US and NATO (or some of them, not many) invading Iraq on made-up reasons.

The whole of this thread is generating more heat than light at the moment.
There is too much value attached to the materialistic reasons and effects for what happened to the Soviets and their "satellites" which in effect were slave countries to the Soviets/Russia, and not enough attention is paid to the psychological and historical reasons . Believe me, as one who was born and bred in one of those countries, they were willing if necessary to suffer any kind of materialistic loss if it meant getting rid of the hated Russians, Tsarist, Communist or Democratic (as Russia briefly was in February to November 1917) and the hated Communists of any nationality. The reasons for that are historical and I will not go into them here. Suffice it to say that the "Baltics", Poland and Hungary had a history of being subjugated by military force to the Russians, unlike Rumania, Bulgaria and Serbia who were liberated or made safe from savage Turkish rule by the same Russian military force.

All that said, once Yeltsyn and Putin admitted to all Russian sins and mistakes, and those East European countries were free, and Russia was on the way to being democratic, more or less, the US ,and NATO obediently following the US lead, continued to treat Russia as the enemy, right up to the present. In its turn the mere possibility of Ukraine joining the EU and later becoming a member of NATO, however unlikely that possibility was, was psychologically unacceptable to Putin and the vast majority of Russians.

Imperial Russia fought for 150 years to capture South Russia and the Crimea from the Turks and defended the Crimea, or tried to, from British, French and Turkish forces in the Criimean War, and the Russia of the Communist Soviet Empire defended and then recaptured the Crimea from the Germans (these days labelled as "the Nazis") in WW II. And the thought of Sebestopol in NATO hands and NATO and American troops so close to Stalingrad of WW II fame, now renamed as Volgograd,however unlikely or distant that possibility, was simply psychologically/historically unacceptable and, for Russia, worth any risk of conflict or opprobrium in the international field, and any economical sacrifice, to prevent that happening. And there we are.

Had the US/NATO policy and attitude been different from 1990 onwards, the whole story might have been different. But those are "might have beens" and hot air is wasted air.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Unacceptable. It doesn't matter what he "can" or "cannot" have; it is unjustified and a blatant violation of international law. It's as simple as that.

Agreed. Kind of like the US and NATO (or some of them, not many) invading Iraq on made-up reasons.

The whole of this thread is generating more heat than light at the moment.
There is too much value attached to the materialistic reasons and effects for what happened to the Soviets and their "satellites" which in effect were slave countries to the Soviets/Russia, and not enough attention is paid to the psychological and historical reasons . Believe me, as one who was born and bred in one of those countries, they were willing if necessary to suffer any kind of materialistic loss if it meant getting rid of the hated Russians, Tsarist, Communist or Democratic (as Russia briefly was in February to November 1917) and the hated Communists of any nationality. The reasons for that are historical and I will not go into them here. Suffice it to say that the "Baltics", Poland and Hungary had a history of being subjugated by military force to the Russians, unlike Rumania, Bulgaria and Serbia who were liberated or made safe from savage Turkish rule by the same Russian military force.

All that said, once Yeltsyn and Putin admitted to all Russian sins and mistakes, and those East European countries were free, and Russia was on the way to being democratic, more or less, the US ,and NATO obediently following the US lead, continued to treat Russia as the enemy, right up to the present. In its turn the mere possibility of Ukraine joining the EU and later becoming a member of NATO, however unlikely that possibility was, was psychologically unacceptable to Putin and the vast majority of Russians.

Imperial Russia fought for 150 years to capture South Russia and the Crimea from the Turks and defended the Crimea, or tried to, from British, French and Turkish forces in the Criimean War, and the Russia of the Communist Soviet Empire defended and then recaptured the Crimea from the Germans (these days labelled as "the Nazis") in WW II. And the thought of Sebestopol in NATO hands and NATO and American troops so close to Stalingrad of WW II fame, now renamed as Volgograd,however unlikely or distant that possibility, was simply psychologically/historically unacceptable and, for Russia, worth any risk of conflict or opprobrium in the international field, and any economical sacrifice, to prevent that happening. And there we are.

Had the US/NATO policy and attitude been different from 1990 onwards, the whole story might have been different. But those are "might have beens" and hot air is wasted air.

IOW, since the US and Nato have flawed histories, the people of eastern Europe don't have the right to be sovereign?

 

[4321lynx]

Agreed. Kind of like the US and NATO (or some of them, not many) invading Iraq on made-up reasons.

The whole of this thread is generating more heat than light at the moment.
There is too much value attached to the materialistic reasons and effects for what happened to the Soviets and their "satellites" which in effect were slave countries to the Soviets/Russia, and not enough attention is paid to the psychological and historical reasons . Believe me, as one who was born and bred in one of those countries, they were willing if necessary to suffer any kind of materialistic loss if it meant getting rid of the hated Russians, Tsarist, Communist or Democratic (as Russia briefly was in February to November 1917) and the hated Communists of any nationality. The reasons for that are historical and I will not go into them here. Suffice it to say that the "Baltics", Poland and Hungary had a history of being subjugated by military force to the Russians, unlike Rumania, Bulgaria and Serbia who were liberated or made safe from savage Turkish rule by the same Russian military force.

All that said, once Yeltsyn and Putin admitted to all Russian sins and mistakes, and those East European countries were free, and Russia was on the way to being democratic, more or less, the US ,and NATO obediently following the US lead, continued to treat Russia as the enemy, right up to the present. In its turn the mere possibility of Ukraine joining the EU and later becoming a member of NATO, however unlikely that possibility was, was psychologically unacceptable to Putin and the vast majority of Russians.

Imperial Russia fought for 150 years to capture South Russia and the Crimea from the Turks and defended the Crimea, or tried to, from British, French and Turkish forces in the Criimean War, and the Russia of the Communist Soviet Empire defended and then recaptured the Crimea from the Germans (these days labelled as "the Nazis") in WW II. And the thought of Sebestopol in NATO hands and NATO and American troops so close to Stalingrad of WW II fame, now renamed as Volgograd,however unlikely or distant that possibility, was simply psychologically/historically unacceptable and, for Russia, worth any risk of conflict or opprobrium in the international field, and any economical sacrifice, to prevent that happening. And there we are.

Had the US/NATO policy and attitude been different from 1990 onwards, the whole story might have been different. But those are "might have beens" and hot air is wasted air.

IOW, since the US and Nato have flawed histories, the people of eastern Europe don't have the right to be sovereign?

JEEZUSSS H CHRIST!!! Talk about mis-reading, or misunderstanding.! Anybody else got that impression from what is written above? If so I'll take the trouble to explain what I was getting at.

 

[dystopian]

IOW, since the US and Nato have flawed histories, the people of eastern Europe don't have the right to be sovereign?

JEEZUSSS H CHRIST!!! Talk about mis-reading, or misunderstanding.! Anybody else got that impression from what is written above? If so I'll take the trouble to explain what I was getting at.

Yes, actually, that is the impression I got too. Your entire post seems to say "What Russia's doing is okay, because... history."

Incidentally, the claim you made in said post about NATO continuing to treat Russia as the enemy once the Soviet Union fell is false; in fact, NATO and the west in general were increasingly treating Russia as a partner. First through the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, then strengthened through other means, such as Russia joining the partnership for peace programme, signing mutual road maps for NATO-Russia cooperation, and the NATO-Russia council set up in 2002. Prominent politicians from NATO countries even went so far as to suggest Russia could join NATO; the Polish foreign minister stated this in 2009, repeated by German prominents.

It wasn't until Russia invaded Georgia that this relationship started to break down, but even then NATO didn't start treating them as an enemy; joint military exercises were held in 2011; something NATO obviously wouldn't do with a country considered an enemy.

 

[4321lynx]

You make some good points. Maybe all that was just window dressing and wishful thinking, as long as NATO, I mean the USA was getting its way. I mean Georgia was after all in the category of "a far away people of whom we know nothing", rather like Czechoslovakia in 1938.

OK

In the first paragraph I point out that Russia is not alone, the USA also breaks all rules when it thinks that to its advantage. (remember my opinion ? "Might is Right."
You might almost say, Might MAKES Right. Kind of like Arbeit mach frei on the gates of you know where.

In the second paragraph I tried to show the very good reasons why some E European people hate Russians whilst those in the SE are more kindly disposed. Those I mentioned in the SE also share the same Orthodox faith with the Russians.

I made everything in my third paragraph conditional on

once Yeltsyn and Putin admitted to all Russian sins and mistakes, and those East European countries were free,

What I failed to point out was that the moves of Ukrainian politicians were made by those politicians from West Ukraine who fault de mieux worship the memory of "patriots" like Bandera and his followers, undoubted Ukrainian patriots as much as Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels were undoubted German patriots, and lacking only in possibilities of that gang. What's more the Estonians, so good and so peace-loving are putting up monuments to their heroes -- members of two divisions of Estonian SS troops who fought against the Russians at the side of their German SS comrades in arms. And the feelings and records in Lithuania and Latvia are very similar, their anti Russian feelings based on good reasons, but that being no excuse for their conduct in WW IIPoland and Hungary are antiRussian with good reasons too, but carry that to an almost psychotic extent. All this in those far away countries of whom most posters here know little and care less may seem to them poor reasons for Russia's reacting violently to the self-willed actions of the USA which seized the situation in the Ukraine to gain an advantage. But just think of the reaction if Cuba and Mexico declared an unlikely wish to join Russia's economic region and asked Russia for help in combating the demand-driven USA and EU trade in drugs, and maybe, just maybe, you will begin to understand the local feelings in Russia. And IMHO the USA policymakers should have thought of that, even if posters here cannot be expected to.

In my 4th paragraph I tried to show what the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine mean to Russia, whether the West likes that or not.

Whatever the actions of NATO in exercises with Russia, it is undeniable that the USA in its dealings has continued to seek to weaken Russia and its influence in every way short of war. The same applies to its attitude to China and its attitude to the Muslim world in its unqualified support of Israel in its present form and with its policies.

 

[barbos]

Not according to Eurocrats, they directly said to Yanukovich - No Custom Union if you are in EU.
Russia was vague but in the end they said the same - Russia can't allow that.
Regardless of the rules, it was determined that close economic ties will be severed and it will cost Russia $100bil per year.
Basically Ukraine has some manufacturing which was crucial to Russia and was not easily replaceable.
Also EU would no doubt have tried to force Russian business out of Ukraine

Ukraine is not and has never been a member of the EEC customs union.

I did not say the were, They were talking about it.

Ukraine did have some free trade agreements with the customs union, but I am not aware if any of those existing agreements would have been incompatible with the EU partnership.

AS for EU forcing businesses who deal with Russia out of Ukraine, that's laughable. They would have neither the power nor any reason to do so. If Ukraine were a member of European free trade area, Ukraine's profitable exports to Russia would be a net benefit for EU.

Maybe is not EU currently, however they do try to if not force but to limit Gazprom in EU.
But what about US? Do you think this crap in Ukraine and the fact that US now has a shitload of cheap gas just happened to coincide in time? Or "secret" visit CIA director took and ukrainians starting to call rebels "terrorists"?
When Obama says "Good, sanctions will make weak Russian economy even weaker" really? it is a good thing?

 

[barbos]

Bullcrap, it is and was all about money. You show typical for westerner ignorance and susceptibility of your own propaganda and revisionist history. Soviet Union dissolved because it was in bad economic shape not because all these republics were fed up with being client states (which they were not) Every single republic thought that they would be better off (economically) being independent. Most turned out to be wrong. Only Baltic states managed to be relatively OK. The rest including Russia turned out worse. Only when oil prices went up Russia and other oil producing states got better. Ukraine had no oil. Life in Soviet Union was nothing like your propaganda was picturing at the time.

If the former Soviet states were running away from the union as soon as they had a chance, that just shows they had no loyalty or ties there whatsoever, which is exactly my point. Only thing keeping these countries in SU was military force and without it they would have left a long time ago... it'snot as if the Soviet economy just started tanking in late eighties, it was in deep trouble even before that.

What about Czechoslovakia? apply your logic to them. Apply your logic to Scotland too.
You repeat US propaganda history. Soviet Union was nothing like that.
I lived there at the time. Dissolution of SU was pretty peaceful for the most part, the only exclusion is Lithuania which was not really necessary if you ask me. Crap started later when some republics got separatists of their own and tried to crash them.
Economy was crap before that too, but not that crap, and without Gorbachev it would have lasted longer but he understood that it can't last much longer but was incapable to do what was necessary, he tried a number of half measures and nothing worked.
I the end partial freedom of speech resulted in republics getting nationalistic ideas, not much but enough to try one last thing - dissolve.
It were not these dissidents all that crap, they have always been irrelevant. Nice story but irrelevant.
It's economy, stupid!
Ukraine specifically thought that they were producing more than they get in return within SU, well maybe, hard to tell now.

 

[laughing dog]

This must be some sort of rhetorical device because there have been plenty of conflicts around the world without US involvement.

More wisdom from the nitpicking corridor. Of course, there will be wars sometime.

The point is that you make claims that are laughable. There is no need to makes such claims to make whatever point you are trying to make. When someone engages in such rhetoric, it makes their entire position or argument more than just suspect.

But the current round of bloodshed is almost entirely due to US meddling. The only exception would be Israel's attacks on Gaza.

How do you figure bloodshed in sub-saharan Africa is due to almost entirely to US meddling?

 

[Ford]

You repeat US propaganda history. Soviet Union was nothing like that.

you realize how stereotypical that sounds, right?


"Soviet Union was great place, US propaganda and rock and roll music make it look bad. Putin make Soviet Russia great again! Very nice!"

 

[barbos]

You repeat US propaganda history. Soviet Union was nothing like that.

you realize how stereotypical that sounds, right?


"Soviet Union was great place, US propaganda and rock and roll music make it look bad. Putin make Soviet Russia great again! Very nice!"

Soviet Union was not great place, but it was not what you think either.
Putin did not make Soviet Russia great again. But US sure works on making it worse.

 

[Ford]

But US sure works on making it worse.

Here's a crazy idea...maybe Soviet Russia could stand on it's own for once, instead of blaming all their problems on "the West."

 

[barbos]

But US sure works on making it worse.

Here's a crazy idea...maybe Soviet Russia could stand on it's own for once, instead of blaming all their problems on "the West."

First there is no Soviet Russia and second Russia have never blamed their own problem on the West.
And third, go and search for WMD in Iraq.

 

[Ford]

Here's a crazy idea...maybe Soviet Russia could stand on it's own for once, instead of blaming all their problems on "the West."

First there is no Soviet Russia and second Russia have never blamed their own problem on the West.
And third, go and search for WMD in Iraq.

In Russia, problem economic arise? No problem! Invade Ukraine...problem solved!

 

[thief of fire]

In Russia, problem economic arise? No problem! Invade Ukraine...problem solved!

Wasn't everything Russia did in the Ukraine a response to the coup? Had the coup not happened Russia would not have done anything I don't think.
This whole fiasco has been and for the Russian economy. The best thing for the Russian economy would be if they could sell their gas to Europe, but now that looks jeopardized.

 

[Ford]

In Russia, problem economic arise? No problem! Invade Ukraine...problem solved!

Wasn't everything Russia did in the Ukraine a response to the coup?

All kidding aside I don't think that for a second.


Putin is an old Soviet guy. The Soviets spent the better part of the 20th Century trying to create a buffer zone between themselves and Europe. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with Germany storming towards Moscow a couple times.

All the rhetoric about "greater Russia" is one thing, but I think that at some level Putin wants a bit of real estate between himself and NATO.


Ukraine is merely in the way.

 

[barbos]

Wasn't everything Russia did in the Ukraine a response to the coup?

All kidding aside I don't think that for a second.


Putin is an old Soviet guy. The Soviets spent the better part of the 20th Century trying to create a buffer zone between themselves and Europe. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with Germany storming towards Moscow a couple times.

All the rhetoric about "greater Russia" is one thing, but I think that at some level Putin wants a bit of real estate between himself and NATO.


Ukraine is merely in the way.

you realize how stereotypical that sounds, right?

 

[Ford]

All kidding aside I don't think that for a second.


Putin is an old Soviet guy. The Soviets spent the better part of the 20th Century trying to create a buffer zone between themselves and Europe. If I remember correctly, it had something to do with Germany storming towards Moscow a couple times.

All the rhetoric about "greater Russia" is one thing, but I think that at some level Putin wants a bit of real estate between himself and NATO.


Ukraine is merely in the way.

you realize how stereotypical that sounds, right?

You are of course free to disabuse me of the notion that Putin is just conquering Ukraine because he wants the best for their citizens.

 

[barbos]

you realize how stereotypical that sounds, right?

You are of course free to disabuse me of the notion that Putin is just conquering Ukraine because he wants the best for their citizens.

So the answer is NO you don't. OK