Ukrainian Conflict

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Eh, no. Like the 1953 Iran coup d'e tat. It has both the CIA and MI6's involvement. The CIA not always if ever working alone.

But also does not negate the fact that they are known by fact for starting coup, regional conflict, and flip in national foreign policy. Which is Ukraine situation right now


And did you look at the involvement of CIA around the globe for the last century? How many of them are "huge threat" to the US?

So basically the reason is "they do it, because they always do it"? I don't buy that.

And did you not even once think of the possibility... that is was actually the Ukrainans themselves that forced the old government out? No waaaaay! Something like that must be totally impossible, right? In eastern Europe "hatred against russia" exists even outside the cold war, believe it or not. The only reason it does not seem so appearant is the fact that the current "rebels" are nothing more than descendants of Russian immigrants.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

So basically the reason is "they do it, because they always do it"? I don't buy that.

And did you not even once think of the possibility... that is was actually the Ukrainans themselves that forced the old government out? No waaaaay! Something like that must be totally impossible, right? In eastern Europe "hatred against russia" exists even outside the cold war, believe it or not. The only reason it does not seem so appearant is the fact that the current "rebels" are nothing more than descendants of Russian immigrants.

Yeah easy to say than done.

Like find an Al-qaeda on an exploded plane and does not suspect that he did it. Or an Hamas sergent next to a rocket site, and assumed he just took it out to dry

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Yeah easy to say than done.

Like find an Al-qaeda on an exploded plane and assume that he did not do it.

They already had help from Klitschko fans all over the world. There is no way they could have not succeeded

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by yononaka

Then why bring Cuba into it (in that way)?

Because Canada and Mexico would have been a bad example?

Originally Posted by yononaka

And you apparently equate political maneuvering with military aggression in your judgement.

If both are equally irresponsible, then yes.

Originally Posted by yononaka

But at least it's good that you allow Ukraine some room for its own decisions that aren't predicated on someone else's meddling.

Its good that I do not bite the bait yes.

Originally Posted by yononaka

Yes, if the premise is to equate political maneuvering with military intervention (declared or not) and annexation of parts of another country then for sure they "are all acting more or less equally irresponsibly here", I agree.

Well, its good that we agree

[yononaka]

You know, Jinto, instead of acting as though I haven't said anything useful and have simply been baiting you, you might want to better explain the logic of how even after the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent fomenting of (and, for all intents and purposes, active participation in) an armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine by Russia you can still claim equivalency with the actions of the US or the EU and any of its member states in terms of irresponsibility and putting civilian lives at risk. The US and the EU really don't have to be "heroes" (as you claim they're being treated) to come out looking pretty good compared to Russia at this point. In this particular conflict, at least.

As for your other baiting complaint, it's just that even though you say you leave Ukraine (and other Eastern European states before it) their own choice in with whom to hang out, if that choice happens to lean towards the West, it suddenly becomes about the US or the EU shaking things up and upsetting Russia's rightful claims in the area and what these countries themselves want suddenly ceases to matter. This may not be what you actually think, but it's certainly the impression I've gotten from you - and if you noticed, this was the main sticking point that prompted me to enter this discussion in the first place. Especially if you're well versed in Eastern Europe (I take that from you pointing out that some others are not), I just don't see how you'd arrive at a conclusion that the US/NATO/EU are at fault every time some country tries to distance themselves from Russia.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by yononaka

You know, Jinto, instead of acting as though I haven't said anything useful and have simply been baiting you, you might want to better explain the logic of how even after the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent fomenting of (and, for all intents and purposes, active participation in) an armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine by Russia you can still claim equivalency with the actions of the US or the EU and any of its member states in terms of irresponsibility and putting civilian lives at risk. The US and the EU really don't have to be "heroes" (as you claim they're being treated) to come out looking pretty good compared to Russia at this point. In this particular conflict, at least.

Well, for Russia Crimea is a vital strategic interest. They were just waiting for a chance to annex it. I mean the blue print for such incidents was established with the separation of the Kosovo from Serbia at the end of the Yugoslavian civil war. What makes Kosovo so special is, that the people living in a UN recognized state can actually decide to declare independence from the state under certain circumstances (e.g. racial or political tensions).
Russia which backing Serbia here, always defended the sovereignity of the UN recognized state Serbia + Kosovo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...tion_of_Kosovo

Lets just say, Russia learned something in the process... (something that leads to most of their irresponsible actions)

Now, lets go back in time when the iron curtain fell. The then USSR accepted the ending of the warsaw pact under the condition that there would be no expansion of NATO into the east. Did they have any means to enforce these conditions? Not at the time.

Hence, the NATO members were more then willing to accept many new NATO members in the east. Its not a big secret, that those nations wished to join the NATO.

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

notice the 4th, 5th and 6th enlargement. What is important to point out here, is that after 2004 NATO enlargement was basically stopped into the east. After 2008 (Kosovo's declaration of independance from Serbia) NATO enlargement took only place in countries that were basically encircled by NATO already.

A subsequent effort which was spearheaded by the US to extend NATO by including Georgia... failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO-Georgia_relations

Now, the date 2008 (Kosovo's declaration of independance from Serbia) marks the starting of unrests in Georgia. I mean this is no coincidence, especially if you know what Medvedev stated:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

On 21 November 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev while addressing soldiers in Vladikavkaz near the Georgian border stated that the 2008 invasion had prevented any further NATO enlargement into the former Soviet sphere.

From this point on, it should have been clear to anyone, that Russia wont allow anymore NATO enlargement into the former Soviet sphere.

Lets jump forward in time to the events in the Ukraine, when Yanukovich the pro-russia President and his cronies took over office. At the time the EU was brokering a treaty with the Ukraine, the relationships with Russia always were on shaky grounds, so the deal could have had a realistic chance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine...tion_Agreement

It contained a backdoor though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_...Defence_Policy

This could have been used as a softener to prepare a NATO membership with Ukraine. Now Russia was also aware of this and hence offert a treaty themselves:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs...tan_and_Russia

To further increase the pressure on the Ukraine Russia's customs simply stopped ukrainian goods into Russia.

Additionally the EU made one thing clear, Ukraine cannot sign both treaties. And that is the most irresponsible move of the EU in all this in my oppinion. Because this is basically like Russia and the EU each pointing with a gun towards Ukraine. This created a situation, were every decission the Ukraine takes, would cause severe internal tensions. The tensions (Maidan):

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

..led to the complete destabilization of the Ukraine. At this point however, the EU/Germany tried to "fix" things (but in my oppinion this act was much too late, many people had died - and for the German foreign policies the whole Euromaidan was opportunistically met with a stance of let things happen - the irresponsible act that I would credit to Germany).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...tion-bloodshed

Still the late fix could have worked... with US support. But this move for de-escalation was too soft according to the US (its like they smelled a chance to f*ck it up and used it - that would be the US' most irresponsible act in this)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg

Now, I honestly do not care who looks less bad in all this. Because all those who were involved had a chance, not only to forsee what Russia is going to do (after lessons learned from Georgia) but also could have prevented the current Ukrainian conflict. But neither side had the morale to actually act responsibly. All sides were guided by their own interests, which makes them basically equally responsible from a morale point of view. And yes, this assessment based on morale is my personal opinion which is not up to debate.

Originally Posted by yononaka

As for your other baiting complaint, it's just that even though you say you leave Ukraine (and other Eastern European states before it) their own choice in with whom to hang out, if that choice happens to lean towards the West, it suddenly becomes about the US or the EU shaking things up and upsetting Russia's rightful claims in the area and what these countries themselves want suddenly ceases to matter. This may not be what you actually think, but it's certainly the impression I've gotten from you - and if you noticed, this was the main sticking point that prompted me to enter this discussion in the first place. Especially if you're well versed in Eastern Europe (I take that from you pointing out that some others are not), I just don't see how you'd arrive at a conclusion that the US/NATO/EU are at fault every time some country tries to distance themselves from Russia.

Choice should not always be provided with a sledge-hammer. This is simply unneccessary. Russia is a nuclear power, nobody will mess with them on a military level, especially not that close in their backyard.
So it was obvious that the only party at serious risk in all this was Ukraine. And yet that did not stop any party from letting things escalate. The "independent" Ukraine existed under russian influence for over two decades.
Which leads to a another irresponsibilty of the western powers - they virtually helped Russia annex Crimea and divide Ukraine.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Eh, no. Like the 1953 Iran coup d'e tat. It has both the CIA and MI6's involvement. The CIA not always if ever working alone.

But also does not negate the fact that they are known by fact for starting coup, regional conflict, and flip in national foreign policy. Which is Ukraine situation right now

Your utter disregard for the self-determination of the Ukrainian people, in order to fit the narrative of the evil American conspiracy, is tragic.

When the original heroes of the Maidan -- who stood up against tyranny with nary a whisper of goodwill from the concerned and cautious Western powers, and now you people are all happily calling it a Western coup (fuck that, by the way) -- rose up, before they were radicalized by governmental violence, it was a spontaneous uprising that blindsided everyone. That's the whole issue with popular uprisings. You can't control if far right forces will then join hands with the democrats. You can't control who'd win a revolution. The Americans' preferred strategy is always, always pragmatic coup d'etats by "trustworthy" strongmen. The springs of nations do not bow easily to, well, nations.

Just like the Arab Spring.

What? That's also an American conspiracy?

Maybe Sisi's Reaction is an American conspiracy (more like cowardly American tacit support), but you think Obama would open the floodgates for the (short-lived) rise of the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Americans are not gods. They don't control the world. They can't control the hearts of people so easily. They weren't responsible for Ukrainian economic desperation. They did not make the Maidan happen. Those scumfucks in the NSA can only really gather data, not change an entire people's mind behind Russia's back despite Ukraine being in the Russian sphere of influence according to Jinto and therefore should be left to Russian mercy.

Stop blaming them. They can't do shit. They don't have a fleet in the Black Sea, you know. When you blame them so eagerly you always conveniently excuse the actions of the Russians, who are very much the aggressors here.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Stop blaming them. They can't do shit. They don't have a fleet in the Black Sea, you know. When you blame them so eagerly you always conveniently excuse the actions of the Russians, who are very much the aggressors here.

You Yanks are liars. Dirty capitalists want to steal the people's gas and oil!

[Ithekro]

That was also almost four months ago. There has probabaly been a number of rotations since then if the 21 day limit is to be maintainted under treaty.

I wonder what replaced the French ship? The two American ships would seem to be there to both protect it and provide Turkey with its ballistic missile defense screen. If it is a NATO rotation, would there be other warships from German, Britain, or France moving in, does it have to be American due to the technology?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Just like the Arab Spring.

What? That's also an American conspiracy?

Maybe Sisi's Reaction is an American conspiracy (more like cowardly American tacit support), but you think Obama would open the floodgates for the (short-lived) rise of the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Americans are not gods. They don't control the world. They can't control the hearts of people so easily. They weren't responsible for Ukrainian economic desperation. They did not make the Maidan happen. Those scumfucks in the NSA can only really gather data, not change an entire people's mind behind Russia's back despite Ukraine being in the Russian sphere of influence according to Jinto and therefore should be left to Russian mercy.

Stop blaming them. They can't do shit. They don't have a fleet in the Black Sea, you know. When you blame them so eagerly you always conveniently excuse the actions of the Russians, who are very much the aggressors here.

I can't get your stand over the discussion here. So can you just confirm this for me:

You don't believe that the US has the capacity to stage coups d'état/ "regime change"/ population movement? Or you believed that they had the capacity to do it, but did not do it this time?

Because the way you put it, it sounded like the former for me.


Honestly it's not a conspiracy if it was proven again and again and again that the US and the CIA has been involvement in foreign coups d'état or "regime change/destabilization" as they put it. I means even just go to wikipedia and read the brief US involvement on foreign regime change actions, what do you see? Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Gautemalan (1954), Indonesia (1958) Tibet (1959), Cuba (1959, 61), Congo (1960), Iraq (1960), Dominican (1961), Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), Ghana (1966), Chile (1970) and we haven't even get to the 70s yet

Military or political support. Checked. Assassin. Checked. False flag operations and false propaganda. Checked and checked. Public relation campaign. Checked. Government destabilization campaign. Checked. Infrastructure sabotaging. Checked. Coups d'état. Checked many times. And that does not even include when they provided intelligence or personnel to foreign governments to crush oppositions.

The CIA have done it so many times that they probably can correct conspiracy theories so it can actually be done.

[yononaka]

Thanks for the writeup, Jinto. Providing the links was not necessary for me, but I'm not opposed to you as an expert educating the forumers on these topics. In fact I'm quite impressed with your powers of analytical foresight. At the time when so many of Russia's own top political analysts were caught completely by surprise by their country's actions in Crimea (some pretty much thought Putin had gone mad), you knew this was going to happen. Even "the nightingale of Kremlin" Alexander Prokhanov only dreamt of it, but you knew. If you could have reached Angela Merkel in time, we could have a Jinto-Lavrov deal in place right now, guaranteeing Ukraine's place in the Russian World and everyone would still be happy. Pro-Russian President Yanukovych would never have had to deal with those terrible Europeans at gunpoint, completely against his own will and the interests of his country. Damn that petty thief turned politician for not throwing himself at the feet of Russia before it was too late, we could have a Belarus-type deal in place and the people all over of Ukraine wouldn't mind, no Maidans or anything. At the very least, he could have signed deals to associate with both the EU and Russia's new block, because that's how these things usually work.

Not to forget: this assessment is my personal opinion which is not up to debate.

Look, I apologize for this tirade, but it's the best I can do right now. I really shouldn't have deleted the part of my previous message about no more talking about Cubas or Kosovos, because I'm quite allergic to the whole "looke what THEY did, that was TERRIBLE, we'll never forgive them for that!... oh, right, let's do the same thing ourselves under even more questionable circumstances, what a great idea! We are not responsible, THEY made us do it!" type of excuse-making. Trust me, I've spent a lot of time over the years arguing against making a boogeyman out of Russia (not here, obviously), but the shit they're pulling these days goes well beyond my ability to overlook. So, again, I'm impressed that you can do that, and still claim the moral high ground.

[Ithekro]

The CIA have done it so many times that they probably can correct conspiracy theories so it can actually be done.

But does the situation stack up in Ukraine for it being anything other than internal politics this time around? Does it stack up to anything other than Russian invading Crimea without much resistance? Does any of that even have a hint of needed any sort of CIA push?

Why would it even be needed? At this point it seems more like the Russians are attempting to bring Ukraine, which has been trying to drift away from the old Soviet days since the 1990s, back into their fold. Away from Europe, which was been trying to swing Eastern Europe and the older western soviet republics into their fold for almost two decades.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I can't get your stand over the discussion here. So can you just confirm this for me:

You don't believe that the US has the capacity to stage coups d'état/ "regime change"/ population movement? Or you believed that they had the capacity to do it, but did not do it this time?

Because the way you put it, it sounded like the former for me.

Honestly it's not a conspiracy if it was proven again and again and again that the US and the CIA has been involvement in foreign coups d'état or "regime change/destabilization" as they put it. I means even just go to wikipedia and read the brief US involvement on foreign regime change actions, what do you see? Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Gautemalan (1954), Indonesia (1958) Tibet (1959), Cuba (1959, 61), Congo (1960), Iraq (1960), Dominican (1961), Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), Ghana (1966), Chile (1970) and we haven't even get to the 70s yet

Military or political support. Checked. Assassin. Checked. False flag operations and false propaganda. Checked and checked. Public relation campaign. Checked. Government destabilization campaign. Checked. Infrastructure sabotaging. Checked. Coups d'état. Checked many times. And that does not even include when they provided intelligence or personnel to foreign governments to crush oppositions.

The CIA have done it so many times that they probably can correct conspiracy theories so it can actually be done.

Nobody's saying the US hasn't supported or carried out regime changes. Hell, most dominant world powers (and regional powers) in modern history have been, and are continuing to do so. I mean, for crying out loud, what did you think the Cold War was?

The problem is with your Hollywood-esque take on it, seemingly giving some sort of infallible super-spy/MIB capability to the CIA. Really, even the list you have included plenty of instances of foreign policy moves that have both covert AND overt components.

Real life is not like the movies, there are different levels of involvement, they're not all some sort of sprawling conspiracy, and they fail quite often. Yanking Yanokovych? FFS, they can't even get Maliki to step down.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Nobody's saying the US hasn't supported or carried out regime changes. Hell, most dominant world powers (and regional powers) in modern history have been, and are continuing to do so. I mean, for crying out loud, what did you think the Cold War was?

The problem is with your Hollywood-esque take on it, seemingly giving some sort of infallible super-spy/MIB capability to the CIA. Really, even the list you have included plenty of instances of foreign policy moves that have both covert AND overt components.

Real life is not like the movies, there are different levels of involvement, they're not all some sort of sprawling conspiracy, and they fail quite often. Yanking Yanokovych? FFS, they can't even get Maliki to step down.

It's all on how you looked at things. I means even looking inside the US and how the media can manipulate and portray Obama into an illegal Muslism socialists. Then it 's also not difficult to control public relation to undermine a foreign government, highlight it flaws and conceal its achievement and raise discontentment toward the regime

And if you believe in economical hitman, then super-spy/MIB... etc or CIA role on overthrowing Yanokovych is just child play really.


Of course i don't have solid proof on CIA involvement in Ukraine. But I also don't have evidences of Russian providing weapons to the rebel either , despite we probably can safely take the later as face value. The CIA showed that they have done it before, and has capability to do it again, so why should we eliminate their role in this event.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

It's all on how you looked at things. I means even looking inside the US and how the media can manipulate and portray Obama into an illegal Muslism socialists. Then it 's also not difficult to control public relation to undermine a foreign government, highlight it flaws and conceal its achievement and raise discontentment toward the regime

There's a big difference between far right media portrayal and what mainstream acceptance is. Those media outlets are simply pandering to their bases, whom frankly were usually the ones to come up with the extreme views to begin with. The right-leaning medias didn't "manipulate" anyone into thinking Obama is an illegal Muslim socialists - their viewers already think that way.

And frankly, I doubt people in Ukraine cares much about what US medias says about them, especially since what was said was practically nothing, until after the unrest had already begun. Nobody knew nor particularly cared about what was going on in Ukraine until then.

Of course i don't have solid proof on CIA involvement in Ukraine. But I also don't have evidences of Russian providing weapons to the rebel either , despite we probably can safely take the later as face value. The CIA showed that they have done it before, and has capability to do it again, so why should we eliminate their role in this event.

Forget about solid proof, you don't have flimsy proof either

What you're not doing here is consider the totality of the circumstances. The west-leaning faction in Ukraine is neither new, nor their goal of joining the EU a secret, the same goes for the political struggle between the pro-west and pro-Russia faction. Why would the US expend resources to push for a confrontation that was already inevitable, where the US frankly stands to gain... well, nothing? At a time where the US was hoping for Russian cooperation on other more pressing issues?

On the other hand, there are plenty of direct and indirect evidence of Russian involvement with the rebels, first in Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine. Nevermind the whole "There is no Russian troops in Crimea - I mean, of course there was Russian troops in Crimea!" reversal, there's also that hilarious bit with the Russian soldier posting his selfies that got geo-tagged in easter Ukraine - what was he doing? Taking a vacation with his personal armored vehicle in Donetsk?

TBH, If capability and prior record are your only qualifiers, any country with a halfway competent foreign intelligence service could be involved

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by yononaka

Thanks for the writeup, Jinto. Providing the links was not necessary for me, but I'm not opposed to you as an expert educating the forumers on these topics. In fact I'm quite impressed with your powers of analytical foresight. At the time when so many of Russia's own top political analysts were caught completely by surprise by their country's actions in Crimea (some pretty much thought Putin had gone mad), you knew this was going to happen. Even "the nightingale of Kremlin" Alexander Prokhanov only dreamt of it, but you knew. If you could have reached Angela Merkel in time, we could have a Jinto-Lavrov deal in place right now, guaranteeing Ukraine's place in the Russian World and everyone would still be happy. Pro-Russian President Yanukovych would never have had to deal with those terrible Europeans at gunpoint, completely against his own will and the interests of his country. Damn that petty thief turned politician for not throwing himself at the feet of Russia before it was too late, we could have a Belarus-type deal in place and the people all over of Ukraine wouldn't mind, no Maidans or anything. At the very least, he could have signed deals to associate with both the EU and Russia's new block, because that's how these things usually work.

Is your implication, that I am the only one who can assess conflict potential meant to show your disbelieve in the capabilities of political caders, secret agencies, propaganda machines (just for the "Oh that came sooo unexpected" - moments).

Or is this just plain polemics because you want to belittle me?

Originally Posted by yononaka

Not to forget: this assessment is my personal opinion which is not up to debate.

Thats good because I do not think you can add anything substantial to your claims.

Originally Posted by yononaka

Look, I apologize for this tirade, but it's the best I can do right now.

In that case, maybe its better if I do not reply to your posts here. Who knows what else you have to apologize for if this keeps going.

Originally Posted by yononaka

I really shouldn't have deleted the part of my previous message about no more talking about Cubas or Kosovos, because I'm quite allergic to the whole "looke what THEY did, that was TERRIBLE, we'll never forgive them for that!...

That might earn you a drama award, but wont convince me. I merely stated a chain of events and "coincidental" happenings. Kosovo is important, because its a UN precedent. With this precedent Russia can basically annex all regions in neighbouring states, that have predominentally russian leaning/speaking enclaves. Its just a matter of getting these political or enthnical unrests started and they can say: Same thing as Kosovo, those people have the right to declare independence or join Russia.

Originally Posted by yononaka

oh, right, let's do the same thing ourselves under even more questionable circumstances, what a great idea! We are not responsible, THEY made us do it!" type of excuse-making. Trust me, I've spent a lot of time over the years arguing against making a boogeyman out of Russia (not here, obviously), but the shit they're pulling these days goes well beyond my ability to overlook. So, again, I'm impressed that you can do that, and still claim the moral high ground.

But I didnt say that. Actually I see them as main agressors. Let me use a metaphor: You can blame the rabid dog as much as you want, but when you deliberately anger it, the consequent biting that follows is the result of an irresponsible act on your part.

[yononaka]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Is your implication, that I am the only one who can assess conflict potential meant to show your disbelieve in the capabilities of political caders, secret agencies, propaganda machines (just for the "Oh that came sooo unexpected" - moments).

Or is this just plain polemics because you want to belittle me?

Yes, that is exactly the case.

I disbelieve that the US/EU fully foresaw that Russia was going to annex Crimea and start a shadow invasion in Eastern Ukraine and still deliberately pushed for it to happen. (But I fully believe that you foresaw it as opposed to 20/20 hindsight. )

Thats good because I do not think you can add anything substantial to your claims.

Indeed, it's hard to add anything substantial to claims like: Ukraine associating with both the EU and Russia's new block was not exactly feasible, so it was quite natural for the EU to say it was a no-go. You could have at least made a reasonable suggestion of joining with neither...

In that case, maybe its better if I do not reply to your posts here. Who knows what else you have to apologize for if this keeps going.

That is completely up to you. I have no problem apologizing in advance when I know the other party isn't going to like what I have to say, but I still want to say it.

That might earn you a drama award, but wont convince me. I merely stated a chain of events and "coincidental" happenings. Kosovo is important, because its a UN precedent. With this precedent Russia can basically annex all regions in neighbouring states, that have predominentally russian leaning/speaking enclaves. Its just a matter of getting these political or enthnical unrests started and they can say: Same thing as Kosovo, those people have the right to declare independence or join Russia.

As far as I can tell, no one has annexed Kosovo thus far. I'm also having trouble recalling in which countries have Russian-speakers had military campaigns launched at them in the recent past. If you know of any, by all means, I'm all for the Russians there breaking off. In fact, I'm pretty much all for them breaking off for no reason other than their wish to do so, as long as it really is their own wish and not a Russian spec-op.

But I didnt say that. Actually I see them as main agressors. Let me use a metaphor: You can blame the rabid dog as much as you want, but when you deliberately anger it, the consequent biting that follows is the result of an irresponsible act on your part.

It would have actually been quite helpful if you'd just come out and just said that (the main aggressor part [come to think of it, who are the secondary aggressors?]) in the first place. Let me also use a metaphor: if you see that someone is tied up to a rabid dog, the responsible thing to do would be to attempt to untie them (or at least help them untie themselves if they're trying to do it).

I can actually add to your list of things that the US/EU have done that were irresponsible (albeit not sure if by your standards as well). Supporting Georgia's Western turn wasn't irresponsible per se, but letting Russia off scot free after their "peace-keeping operation" was indeed completely irresponsible and paved the way for Crimea. Why not do something like that when you fully expect the West to frown for a bit and then continue business as usual.

[AnimeFan188]

On Russia's border with Ukraine, fighters and military gear move freely:

"In Russia's southwestern Rostov region bordering Ukraine, a military-style training camp, a
broken down border fence and tracks consistent with armored personnel carriers or tanks add
to a body of evidence of Russian involvement in Ukraine's war."

See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0GD09320140813


================================================== ========


Inside Russia’s Disinformation Campaign:

"The Kremlin, which has waged a massive disinformation campaign aimed at legitimizing Russia’s
annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, has employed so-called
“troll armies” to invade online territories armed with pro-Moscow rhetoric."

See:

http://www.defenseone.com/technology.../?oref=d-river


================================================== ========


Ukrainian Soldiers Build An Improvised Armored Truck A-Team Style:

"It's probably not the best sign when the non-rebel forces are resorting to building their own
improvised armored personnel carriers out of an old Ural truck, some steel plates and a
hodgepodge of surplus weapons.

Nonetheless, you have to give these guys credit for trying to protect themselves as apparently
Ukraine does not have enough armored vehicles."

See:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ukr...k-a-1619942859

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by kyp275

There's a big difference between far right media portrayal and what mainstream acceptance is. Those media outlets are simply pandering to their bases, whom frankly were usually the ones to come up with the extreme views to begin with. The right-leaning medias didn't "manipulate" anyone into thinking Obama is an illegal Muslim socialists - their viewers already think that way.

And frankly, I doubt people in Ukraine cares much about what US medias says about them, especially since what was said was practically nothing, until after the unrest had already begun. Nobody knew nor particularly cared about what was going on in Ukraine until then.

I don't mean the US media. The Ukraine media itself.

If a media source reported wrongly or continuously biased for example, you won't be able to attract as much audiences to grow in the first place. But when you have a funding from outside to keep expanding(either government, organisation or corporation), eventually it will spread out and reach a much wider audiences. An example? Russian Today. No matter how much you hate it, it will still attract a much higher English speaking audiences than if it was an independent news cable. I means check their site, and you found the US has as many as 65% visitors to that site comparing to the Russian (12.5% versus 20%), means they have 4 times as much visitors from overseas comparing to local. That is a really significant number

Originally Posted by kyp275

What you're not doing here is consider the totality of the circumstances. The west-leaning faction in Ukraine is neither new, nor their goal of joining the EU a secret, the same goes for the political struggle between the pro-west and pro-Russia faction. Why would the US expend resources to push for a confrontation that was already inevitable, where the US frankly stands to gain... well, nothing? At a time where the US was hoping for Russian cooperation on other more pressing issues?

I don't think there is any need to dispute about the Russian role on the separatists.

On the bold above? Because it may not be inevitable and it may not happen if they do not have that support. There is worse government out there than the Ukraine past one, and they still stayed on powers for decades and decades. It's not inevitable for people to raise up and coup. In fact more often than not (if not most of the time) a coup in one of the developing countries was actually influenced by one of world (semi-)superpower, whether it was US, Russia, or one of the EU country

[Der Langrisser]

Under artillery fire, Ukraine rebels switch their leaders

Looks like the rats are abandoning the ship.

Kiev says forces shelled Russian armour inside Ukraine

Things gets better and better... *sarcasm*